Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
And it's just as non-sensical to assert that creation means: "an opposition to evolution".

No one asserted that. The assertion is that "creationism" implies an opposition to evolution.

Well why would you need to assert that when you've already got your hands full stomping your feet with creationism? LOL!

If you don't think it should, I'd take it up with the self-described creationists. If they continue to describe their anti-evolution position as "creationism," I'll continue to use the word that way too.

Well, I've got no doubts you'll do what you want to do, including ignoring the fact that many more creationists are on record willing to hear both sides, while next to no one on your side is remotely capable of tolerating such arrangements.

The last sentence of this one is what I've read most often here on FR. Is there some reason you think "evos" don't agree on it?

evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.

Agreeing isn't so much the point as for every evo, there's a new and continually "evolving" definition. And where's the part about origins, earth age, etc.; as evos are virtually always ascribing to creationists when braying about YEC and so forth? Not to mention how many times have evos actually described adaptation when "defining" evolution?

303 posted on 06/16/2009 1:55:59 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies ]


To: tpanther
for every evo, there's a new and continually "evolving" definition.

Oh really? I've read the definition I gave dozens of times here, from dozens of "evos." What are some of the other definitions you've read?

And where's the part about origins, earth age, etc.

You know those aren't part of evolution, so why would you expect them to be part of the definition?

Not to mention how many times have evos actually described adaptation when "defining" evolution?

Adaptation is certainly part of evolution. But the distinction between "adaptation" and "evolution" is an artificial one set up by creationists to give them another line of attack.

307 posted on 06/16/2009 3:49:59 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson