Ah, well, you see, if people don't ever see the evidence for biological evolution, then they can continue to pretend that there is no evidence for biological evolution. So when there's a thread that poses a dangerous likelihood that the actual merits of the theory might be discussed, the easiest way to keep the evidence from being seen is to hijack the thread with worthless and irrelevant semantic arguments.
This is my working theory, anyway, and so far I see no evidence that would cause me to revise it..
Now you are getting silly. You are wrong to assume evolution means only biological evolution on this planet (especially if the word evolution is grouped with the term cosmology). There is no way to talk yourself out of this one – on this ONE ISSUE you were wrong. Many theories of cosmology have the word evolution in their mission statement (I provided evidence to support this) so let's stop beating the dead horse.
“evolution as cosmology” incorporates fish-to-man evolution but is not limit to the one form of evolution. (NOTE: cosmological theories are theories to explain the universe in totality – biological falls in the category “universe in totality”
When someone tells you to "Xerox" a report, do you sit and stare blankly because you have no idea what they mean because your office uses Canon Copiers? Should we have a study to determine how many people use the term, "Copier" instead of the more accepted and universally understood, "Xerox?"
First, Xerox is both the name of a company and the shorted version of the word “xerography” which is the process used in photocopiers.
When trying to understand the meaning of words – it is best to start at the dictionary (lets not pull a Clinton – words have meaning)
xerox - A trademark used for a photocopying process or machine employing xerography. This trademark often occurs in print in lowercase as a verb and noun: “Letters you send should be xeroxed after you sign them” (Progressive Architecture). “He has four or five sheets of foolscap, xeroxes, I see, of court documents” (Scott Turow).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
It seems you do not fully understand the meaning of the word xerox.
Lets look at the dictionary meaning for evolution.
evolution 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. 2. a. The process of developing. B.Gradual development.
The biology definition is number 3.
Also, back in my post #208 (one of my first to you) I did state that your use of "cosmology" must be some sort of strange caveat that only you understand. 400 posts later, i've been proven right. So far, you are alone on your intellectually devoid island in your understanding of the world.
Cosmology is the study of the universe in totality including but not limited to the origin. Nobody has presented a single piece of evidence to disprove this statement.
Cosmology The science of the world or universe; or a treatise relating to the structure and parts of the system of creation, the elements of bodies, the modifications of material things, the laws of motion, and the order and course of nature.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
I guess that puts Webster’s and all other dictionaries and science textbooks on my “intellectually devoid island”
Hint: you are making a fool out of yourself again – your attempts to pull victory from the jaws of defeat are just making you look silly.
I am no fool. I've "admitted you are correct" in the context of your singular reasoning.
“singular reasoning” = making an understandable point.
If some hippie on an acid trip tell me the clock is melting, how can I tell him otherwise?
If somebody tells you the meaning of the words evolution and cosmology and then shows you supporting evidence (dictionaries, science books)– you would have to be on acid to continue claiming those meanings are wrong.
I am glad you asked that question - the game of "gotcha" turns debates into meaningless rambling - let's get back on topic.
My point:
First I will start with disclaimers - I am not referring to biological evolution – that should be taught in school since much of it is scientifically verifiable. I do not think creationism should be taught in the context of biology.
My point is: in the context of cosmology (theories of the universe in totality) evolution as cosmology is no more scientifically provable than religion as cosmology (in the context of cosmology next biology) therefore all theories of cosmology (evolution based and religion based) should be presented in school so students can think it out for themselves rather than schools telling them what to think. (This is not a big issue since the study of cosmology does not dominate school science programs - this stuff falls better in the realm of philosophy)
I think this is rather humorous. I used the words cosmology and “evolution as cosmology” so people would not confuse my statements and think I was referring to biological evolution – instead even with these giant in-yo-face delimiters people still jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to biological evolution. This mindset is what I refer to when I use the term “orthodox Darwinists” (rigid reactionary followers of strict Darwinist evolution)