[Dimensio]

He uses the creationist versions of improve, good, etc. etc.

That's not quite how I see it. I see nothing with his definition of 'good' and 'improve' that contradicts contemporary usage amongst those who accept evolution.

[AndrewC]

That's not quite how I see it. I see nothing with his definition of 'good' and 'improve' that contradicts contemporary usage amongst those who accept evolution.

Well then you missed Stultis defense of evolution on another thread. He denied what Darwin states here "Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being;" when he stated this "Well, of course, evolution isn't about improving creatures."

[Ichneumon]

You're just inviting more red (font) herrings, like the one he's already done about Stultis, which of course has nothing to do with how Darwin or any later evolutionary science has defined their terms (or not). If he has a disagreement with Stultis, let him take it up with Stultis.

If you keep conversing with this poster, he'll just drag you off in 19 different directions to keep you running without ever actually getting anywhere.

[AndrewC]

Well, I guess I mind melded to you so you would answer my reply to Doctor S so that I could pull you in 19 different directions. I'm pretty potent, huh?? LOL ;^)