"Evolution"- The chameleon.

[samaus12345]

Which defintion of evolution?

Political 'evolution'?

Geographical 'evolution'?

"Evolution" of law? AHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

"Evolution" of health care practices??????

Ohhhh, maybe you were referring to 'cultural' 'evolution'?

Genesis 1: 1-2 KJV

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


How many people do you think are going to HELL because of one word? EVOF*(&*^*&LUTION

 

[Philis]

Hi Jinx,

I was interested in trying to get involved in some more sciency discussion for the sake of learning more about it. (I know nothing of science type issues.)

I clicked on your thread and I have to admit, I have no idea what you are trying to say? Why did you post pics of different types of evolution?

One thing I do know is that "evolution" simply means "change", so I'm not sure what change in all the different areas you mentioned has to do with anything. Could you clarify what you are getting at? Or what you are asking?

 

[samaus12345]

The lay public hears the word 'evolution' on the 6 o clock news and pictures an ape morphing into man. The word means, as witnessed above, essentially ANYTHING. Even in living things, if there is deterioration of some kind (like Khaos theory posted a literature where they where saying there had been 'shrinkage' of some kind) it is still considered 'evolution'. Charles Darwins origin of species is where to start, because one should ,when reading it, realise it is not exactly reality, and the vague-ness of terms he uses....well....And then one will be able to approach the topic more objectively, because they understand its primary foundation (hahahahaha) is...well....foundation-less.

These guys defend genesis from athiests like Dawkins and theists.

Creation - Creation Ministries International

 

[Philis]

The lay public hears the word 'evolution' on the 6 o clock news and pictures an ape morphing into man. The word means, as witnessed above, essentially ANYTHING. Even in living things, if there is deterioration of some kind (like Khaos theory posted a literature where they where saying there had been 'shrinkage' of some kind) it is still considered 'evolution'. Charles Darwins origin of species is where to start, because one should ,when reading it, realise it is not exactly reality, and the vague-ness of terms he uses....well....And then one will be able to approach the topic more objectively, because they understand its primary foundation (hahahahaha) is...well....foundation-less.

These guys defend genesis from athiests like Dawkins and theists.

Creation - Creation Ministries International

So what you're saying is that the word "evolution" has a broader meaning than when applied only to biology? Again, what's your point? (I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just seriously don't get what you are getting at.)

 

[mark kennedy]

I won't quote your OP but the concept being called 'evolution' is transcendent. Danial Dennet called it universal acid that eats through everything which is an apt description of Darwinism. It's called 'metaphysics' , the substantive element that transcends all reality. Not only do the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians transcend all life and all of time and space going back to the Big Bang, it transcends every intellectual, scientific and religious ideology it encounters.

Here's how it works, if they are the same it's an homology argument, they are so much alike they must have a common ancestor. If there is a big difference with regards to an historical transition then it's attributed to natural selection. If you don't make the naturalistic assumptions needed for this to work you are assumed to be ignorant of science.

That's all there is, there ain't no more.

So what you're saying is that the word "evolution" has a broader meaning than when applied only to biology? Again, what's your point? (I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just seriously don't get what you are getting at.)

There are two definitions of evolution, one is scientific and the other philosophical. Evolutionists will admit to only one.

 

[Philis]

There are two definitions of evolution, one is scientific and the other philosophical. Evolutionists will admit to only one.

I don't really get the first part of your post either lol. But I'm more curious about this last part. What is it exactly that evolutionists don't admit?

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't really get the first part of your post either lol. But I'm more curious about this last part. What is it exactly that evolutionists don't admit?

The philosophical definition, generally passed off as scientific, sometimes as religion.

 

[Philis]

The philosophical definition, generally passed off as scientific, sometimes as religion.

I'm sorry for asking you to spell some of this out for me. I haven't discussed these things to the degree that many of you seem to have.

What is the philosophical definition? I tried googleing it but nothing useful turned up.

Are you saying that the philosophical definition is what they won't admit to? If so, what do you mean that it is sometimes passed off as scientific? It seems that if someone wasn't admitting to something they wouldn't be trying to use it in a scientific or religious way because that seems to be a form of admitting it , unless of course I'm completely misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

 

[samaus12345]

The topic MUST be shrouded in smoke and mirrors or people ( i dont think) would believe such bs, hence the necessity of multiple definitions etc

 

[sfs]

The topic MUST be shrouded in smoke and mirrors or people ( i dont think) would believe such bs, hence the necessity of multiple definitions etc

Words often have different meanings -- no deception needed. Generally, all you need is the context to tell what meaning is intended. Within biology, "evolution" only means one thing, or rather, a complex of related things that are all studied together. That's all that biologists mean by the term. What difference does the name make, anyway? It's the factual claims that biologists make about the world that upset some people, not the label they put on those claims.

Humans are descended from apes. That's what people don't like, whether you call it "evolution" or not.

 

[samaus12345]

'Evolution' depends on people reading what you just wrote and believing it.

 

[sfs]

'Evolution' depends on people reading what you just wrote and believing it.

I don't know what you mean by your statement. To a scientist, believing biological evolution means recognizing and accepting the many lines of evidence for it.

 

[samaus12345]

Mate there isnt any and infinite evidence against it read creation.com

 

[sfs]

Mate there isnt any and infinite evidence against it read creation.com

I've looked at it. I saw no real evidence against evolution, and no attempt to address the mountains of evidence that exist for it. You really should try reading some actual science, rather than creationist websites.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry for asking you to spell some of this out for me. I haven't discussed these things to the degree that many of you seem to have.

What is the philosophical definition? I tried googleing it but nothing useful turned up.

In spite of the empirical evidence that supports the fact that the process occurs, it is Mark's belief that natural selection is a philosophical, not a scientific, concept.

Darwin, of course, was theorizing when he proposed that nature "selected" individuals better suited to their environment than others in the population.

But many experiments and field observations since then have confirmed the reality of natural selection in the process of changing the typical characteristics of a species.

If you would like to read up on it, a good book on the topic for a lay reader is The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner which describes the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on the island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos as well as that of several other scientists.

 

[pgp_protector]

I've looked at it. I saw no real evidence against evolution, and no attempt to address the mountains of evidence that exist for it. You really should try reading some actual science, rather than creationist websites.

But that doesn't agree with the POV they want to have !!!

 

[samaus12345]

sfs

Jonathan Sarfati writes excellent books showing the evolution side, showing the science, then showing the creation side

Creation Ministries (Australia)

Glaudys selection is N O T H I N G. Evolutionists assign it GOD like abilities

 

[Philis]

The topic MUST be shrouded in smoke and mirrors or people ( i dont think) would believe such bs, hence the necessity of multiple definitions etc

I still don't understand what your point with this "multiple definitions" thing is. Do you find that people often confuse the evolution of our laws with biological evolution?

 

[samaus12345]

I mean the word can be correctly used in the context of "evolution is a scientific fact" depending on which definition of the 'e' word is meant. Like if i had one particular word i said all the time that had multiple meanings, my friends would have to stop me after each sentence and say "which definition of (whatever word it is) did you mean?". One of the definitions of the 'e' words is that we share a common ancestor with a prokaryotic cell ~3.5billion years ago

A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities based upon similarities and differences in their physical and/or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gluadys]

I mean the word can be correctly used in the context of "evolution is a scientific fact" depending on which definition of the 'e' word is meant. Like if i had one particular word i said all the time that had multiple meanings, my friends would have to stop me after each sentence and say "which definition of (whatever word it is) did you mean?". One of the definitions of the 'e' words is that we share a common ancestor with a prokaryotic cell ~3.5billion years ago

A phylogenetic tree or evolutionary tree is a branching diagram or "tree" showing the inferred evolutionary relationships among various biological species or other entities based upon similarities and differences in their physical and/or genetic characteristics. The taxa joined together in the tree are implied to have descended from a common ancestor.

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I still don't see the point. How often have you heard anyone refer to e.g. "the evolution of modern American music" or "the evolution of a capitalist economy" as "a scientific fact"?

For that matter, how often have you heard anyone refer to stellar evolution as "a scientific fact" even though it is?

I don't hear that phrase being used except in reference to biological evolution. So why would there be any confusion as to which definition of evolution is being discussed?