Darwin on the Right: Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

Scientific American ^ | October 2006 issue | Michael Shermer

[VadeRetro]

As to this question:

Has the DEFINITION of evolution changed that dramtically since Darwin?

... the answer is "No." Darwin didn't write about the origins of life or of the universe. He wrote about the diversification of life from common ancestry. That is to say, your alleged quote doesn't jive with what Darwin wrote. That's not terribly surprising, is it?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

John Adams also wrote:
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

[VadeRetro]

Think I will bail now. At my age, though, it's time for bed, not beer.

[Dimensio]

- Hmmmm? YOU OR an accepted source of universal knowledge? Hmmm, which should I believe? I choose the ENCYCLOPEDIA AND DICTIONARY.

As has been demonstrated, you have both fabricated elements of the encyclopaedia definition and you have fundamentally misrepresented it. The World Book Encyclopaedia does not claim that the formation of the universe is a part of the theory of evolution. It has also been shown that you have fabricated elements of the dictionary definition.

[King Prout]

vaya con dios, hermano.
manana.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

My comment on the platypus was not an argument either for or against evolution. It was an argument to say God has, at times, a strange sense of humor, whether He designed the platypus directly, set in motion a universe where the platypus could occur, or some level of involvement between.

But then, when I imagine a physical body for God -- not that I think He has one -- I tend to imagine Groucho Marx, rather than the traditional white-bearded fellow.

[King Prout]

actually, you took the two least applicable and combined 'em, while ignoring the ONE definithion (#5) specified as dealing with the origin of the species.

that is *demonstrable fact* not a matter of faith or belief.

keep digging.
you'll manage to dig the grave of all creationism at the rate you're going.

[Dimensio]

Darwin never wrote regarding the formation of the universe, and as such it is not honest for you to suggest that his theory addresses that subject.

[King Prout]

and, no - the Oxford American dictionary which I cited has no more or less of a definition of evolution than what I transcribed.

the OED is probably much more elaborate, but I don't have an OED handy - and didn't claim to.

[VadeRetro]

Dobrij vyecher'. (Same thing as "Guten Abend!")

[Dimensio]

You and your link say Hovind "lied" because he says The Bible is INFALLIBLE AND INERRANT.

You are again wrong. Hovind is not lying because he claims that the Bible is infallable and inerrant. Hovind is lying because he makes claims about the theory of evolution that are demonstratably false.

It means you DISAGREE, and in this case are WRONG.

Please demonstrate that I am wrong. Please reference five alleged lies from the website that I referenced and explain how they are not actually lies. Your false representation of the content of the website does not show that Hovind is honest.

[King Prout]

- It is NOT "textual misrepresentation", and your parroting that false claim does not make it so.

sure it is. here, I'll show you by applying your very own Bowdlerization technique to your very own post:

- It is NOT "textual misrepresentation", and your parroting that false claim does not make it so.
which becomes in final Warriorized form:
- It is "textual misrepresentation", and your parroting that claim does make it so.

so how does it feel to have your own words misrepresented?

Now do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - and that includes science texts and dictionaries.

good night

[King Prout]

spasebo