Replies

Ok, I'll admit, there has never been a study to determine what percentage of humans think of "biological evolution" when the term "evolution" is used. So my figure of 99.9% was, indeed, "made up." A study of this type has never been undertaken, perhaps, because everyone (save for you) already knows the outcome.

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'm tired of your nonsense. Here's the original article. Remind me (and many others) again what your point is. The issue at hand is that priest/professor at ND said that Creationism is unique (pretty much) to the US. He made no mention of the cosmos. No one has. No one discussing biological evolution ever has.

You have. Why?

Notre Dame priest: Creationism debate unique to U.S.
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle ^ | 2003-05-11 | Walt Williams

Posted on 05/11/2003 7:38 PM EDT by Junior

Despite movements across the nation to teach creationism in public schools, a science historian said Monday that Christians haven't always used a literal interpretation of the Bible to explain the world's origins.

"For them, the Bible is mostly to teach a religious lesson," said Ernan McMullin of the earliest Christian scholars.

McMullin spoke to a crowd of about 60 people at Montana State University on "Evolution as a Christian theme."

McMullin, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and a Catholic priest, is recognized one of the world's leading science historians and philosophers, according to MSU.

He has written about Galileo, Issac Newton, the concept of matter and, of course, evolution.

It's a subject has been hotly debated ever since Charles Darwin first published "On the Origins of Species" in 1859.

Christian fundamentalists have long pushed the nation's public schools to teach creationism as an alternative, which in its strictest form claims that the world was created in six days, as stated in the Bible's Old Testament Book of Genesis.

But McMullin said creationism largely is an American phenomenon. Other countries simply don't have major creationist movements, leading him to ask: "What makes it in the U.S. ... such an issue (over) evolution and Christian belief?"

The answer probably lies in the nation's history, with the settlement by religious groups, he said. Also, public education and religion are more intertwined here than other countries.

McMullin discussed how Christians have tried to explain their origins over the past 2,000 years, using several examples to show that many viewed Genesis as more of a religious lesson than an exact record of what happened.

It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th Century that Genesis started to be taken literally. Then theologians started using nature - and its many complexities - as proof of creation.

Charles Darwin spoiled that through his theory of natural selection, and the battle lines have been drawn ever since.

"It replaced an older view that had sounded like a strong argument for the existence of God," McMullin said.

For my sanities sake, will you please stop?

Your continued stupidity is getting old.

We were discussing BIOLOGICAL evolution.

YOU were discussing COSMOLOGICAL evolution.

2 DIFFERENT animals.

Now that we have the definitions STRAIGHT, will you please move on?

We will continue to DISCUSS BIOLOGICAL evolution, NOT Cosmological evolution. OK?

Evolution, the term came about from Darwins theory, the word was then used for other theories, such as COSMOLOGICAL evolution. We discuss the FIRST, not the second.

Have you figured it out yet? Or do I need to mail it to you.

Please stop, you were WRONG, by trying to discuss a TOTALLY different theory then we were discussing.

Admit it and move on, this is getting ridiculous.