[Dimensio]

. The WHOLE CONTEXT says exactly what I said it says.

You claimed that the book contains
""Scientists generally describe the FORMATION of THE UNIVERSE as having occurred through evolution. The idea (MYTH) that living things developed fromNONliving MATTER and changed/evoled THROUGH THE AGES."

The words "myth", "NONliving" and "matter" do not occur in the entry. You have clearly fabricated those elements of the entry. Moreover, the encyclopaedia defines the theory of evolution as "The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed through the ages to produce millions of species..." The word "universe" does not appear in that definition. You are wrong when you claim that the theory of evolution addresses the origin of the universe. Darwin never wrote on the formation of the universe, and it is dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

I don't want to reprint ENTIRE DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLPEDIAS..

That is apparent. It is clear that you would rather fabricate claims instead.

I quote the relevant and pertinent parts that deal with the topic at ahnd.

The excerpt that you quoted, with the elements that you fabricated, was speaking of the word "evolution" in general, not the "theory of evolution". The encyclopaedia correctly defines the theory of evolution as explaining the diversification of life, but does not include any statements on the formation of the universe.

[RightWingNilla]

You have clearly fabricated those elements of the entry.

This is an eggregious miscarriagement of textitude!