25 Apr 13
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe original language was created by God to communicate with man and allow man to communicate with each other. At a certain point God confused this language to form many languages to disperse man over the face of the earth. From that point man began changing and creating new words within his own understanding of his spoken language and including words from the other languages as the need arose.
Words do not have 'true meanings'. English was invented not discovered. You've been reading too many fairy tales.
So I understand that words in a language are assigned meanings and those meanings can be changed over time by mutual agreement of those speaking that language. So what I mean by the "true meaning of a word" is the origimal and normally accepted meaning of the word within the context of what is being spoken about. Of course, I do understand, as time elapses, the word itself or the meanings that was originally assigned to the word may become obsolete and a new meaning may emerge as the accepted meaning.
So I believe the true meaning of evolution is the meaning given by the evolutionists, when it was used to describe Darwin's theory of the descent of all living things, including man, from one common ancestor tha arose out of a primordial soup. And that is basicly the true meaning of the slightly changed spelling of "evilution" with the addition of the meaning that it is also evil and a deception of the Devil.
25 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are mistaken. In fact I bet you can't find a single dictionary that agrees with you.
So I believe the true meaning of evolution is the meaning given by the evolutionists, when it was used to describe Darwin's theory of the descent of all living things, including man, from one common ancestor tha arose out of a primordial soup. And that is basicly the true meaning of the slightly changed spelling of "evilution" with the addition of the meaning that it is also evil and a deception of the Devil.
As for Wikipedia it uses the definition I gave:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
26 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere is a little better explanation of what is now the defintion of evolution and the problem I have is when later in the video it goes too far and adds the suggestion that "all forms of biological life came from a common ancestor because of natural selection and goes on to suggest your thanksgiving diner includes the turkey and the pumpkin as members of your family.
You are mistaken. In fact I bet you can't find a single dictionary that agrees with you.
As for Wikipedia it uses the definition I gave:
"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI see you were unable to come up with a dictionary that supports your claim. So your claim that your definition "is the origimal and normally accepted meaning of the word within the context of what is being spoken about" is false.
Here is a little better explanation of what is now the defintion of evolution
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, apparently the definition has been changed to make it somewhat unclear as to what is really meant. However, when you look at the video you see how it is presented to include the common ancestor of all living things idea and the statement that a turkey and a pumpkin are part of the family of man. I am sure you would admit that is a ridiculous statement to make, but that would fit in to the original definition of evilution that I had heard before.
I see you were unable to come up with a dictionary that supports your claim. So your claim that your definition "is the origimal and normally accepted meaning of the word within the context of what is being spoken about" is false.
27 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are free to present a historical reference that supports your claim. But I suspect you know that you are wrong and that the definition has not been changed.
Well, apparently the definition has been changed to make it somewhat unclear as to what is really meant.
28 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe following is a definition from the New Webster's Dictionary 1991, 1992 that agrees with what I have been used to seeing and more in agreement with what I believe is the theory of evolution.
You are free to present a historical reference that supports your claim. But I suspect you know that you are wrong and that the definition has not been changed.
evolution - gradual unfolding or growth; development; evolving; the scientific theory according to which the higher forms of life have gradually developed from simple and rudimentary forms;...
The following links to a website for the National Center for Science Education, which indicates that there has been different definitions for evolution and gives one from the Merriam-Webster On-line dictionary from June 19, 1999.
http://ncse.com/rncse/21/1-2/defining-evolution
The new definition is deceptive in that it no longer seems to support the idea that modern man evolved from some ape, like a gorilla or chimpanzee. If that is true, then that would eliminate one objection I have with evolution.
The TalkOrigins Archive quotes the following definition which it disagrees with:
For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
The following article from Wikipedia seems to suport what I have said about the meaning of evolution:
Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago...These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population...The proposal that one type of animal could descend from an animal of another type goes back to some of the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_evolution
28 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI see your confusion now. You don't realize the difference between the word 'evolution' and the theory by that name 'the Theory of Evolution'.
The following is a definition from the New Webster's Dictionary 1991, 1992 that agrees with what I have been used to seeing and more in agreement with what I believe is the theory of evolution.
As an analogy think of gravity, the force that pulls you to the earths surface or keeps the earth orbiting the sun, and compare that with Newtons Law of universal gravitation. They are not the same thing. One is the actual force, the other is a theory about how it works and how to calculate its effects. Note that Einstein had his own theory of gravitation (general relativity).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
The word evolution is as I defined it and its meaning has never been changed.
The Theory of Evolution was initially developed by Darwin and has been developed since and is the theory of how life forms evolve over time.
I have to note here that neither evolution nor the Theory of Evolution can correctly be dismissed out of hand as you try to do, because 'evolution' is true by definition, and the Theory of Evolution is so wide and covers so much ground that it include much of what you believe to be true (such as what you term 'adaptation' etc).
29 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have no problem with agreeing with the adaptation and breeding portion that they call "Microevolution" or we creationists call "variations" on the small scale within species and kinds. It is when the conclusion jumps to what they call "macroevolution" on the large scale, when they say one kind (type) of animal has changed or "evolved" into a different kind (type) of animal that the conflict with the Genesis account of God's creation comes into play. There is absolutely no proof for this "macroevolution" and all informed scientists know it.
I see your confusion now. You don't realize the difference between the word 'evolution' and the theory by that name 'the Theory of Evolution'.
As an analogy think of gravity, the force that pulls you to the earths surface or keeps the earth orbiting the sun, and compare that with Newtons Law of universal gravitation. They are not the same thing. One is t t include much of what you believe to be true (such as what you term 'adaptation' etc).
When most people say "evolution" is true, they do not distinguish between micro and macro. Therefore, the definition has become deceptive. The devil's work, I would say.
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, the devils work was when he convinced you that the definition changed at some point and fooled you into being terrified of a word.
When most people say "evolution" is true, they do not distinguish between micro and macro. Therefore, the definition has become deceptive. The devil's work, I would say.
Very few people would normally say 'evolution is true'. More often they will say 'the Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence', or as I have often told you 'evolution takes place by definition'.
The problem is you are so scared that the Theory of Evolution is a threat to your belief system that you refuse to even think about it. The end result being that you talk a whole lot of nonsense.
30 Apr 13
Only you and your creationist young Earth buddies think its ridiculous that turkeys and pumpkins all come from a common ancestor. I can assure you in the real world, there is no such problem.
We came from a single colony of bacteria that evolved into all that we see today.
We have fossil evidence of all this, going back to bacterial colony fossils over 2 billion years old when there were no vertebrates or plants or insects or any other advanced life forms. At first there was only the simplest kind of life and it all branched from there.
Whether you chose to believe it or not, the evidence is right there in the fossils we dig up.
The real world is fine with that. It is only you one in a million yahoo's that cannot accept reality.
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo you are wrong. Most people that believe in evolution say evolution is a fact. That would include both microevolution and and macroevolution for they make no distinction and they also claim they descended from some ape like creature that you see drawings of that have gradually lost much of their body hair and changed their features until they look like so-called cave men that pull their women by their hair behind them as they search for food or something.
No, the devils work was when he convinced you that the definition changed at some point and fooled you into being terrified of a word.
Very few people would normally say 'evolution is true'. More often they will say 'the Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence', or as I have often told you 'evolution takes place by definition'.
The problem is y ...[text shortened]... refuse to even think about it. The end result being that you talk a whole lot of nonsense.
30 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThe claim is not that each variation within a kind came from a common ancestor, but that that all the different kinds came from a common ancestor. So bacterias coming from a common ancestor of another original bacteria is not the same as the pumpkin coming from that orignal bacteria common ancestor or that the turkey came from that orignal bacteria common ancestor or that humans came from that original bacteria common ancestor. Do you see what I mean?
Only you and your creationist young Earth buddies think its ridiculous that turkeys and pumpkins all come from a common ancestor. I can assure you in the real world, there is no such problem.
We came from a single colony of bacteria that evolved into all that we see today.
We have fossil evidence of all this, going back to bacterial colony fossils o ...[text shortened]... al world is fine with that. It is only you one in a million yahoo's that cannot accept reality.
There is no fossil evidence that shows that any bacteria changed to anything but a different variety of bacteria and certainly not all the way to mankind. That is why evolutionary scientists have been searching for and faking missing links to the fossil records to try to fill in the gaps because they refuse to accept the Creator in the Holy Bible as the God of the gaps.
30 Apr 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHey, just keep hanging on to your dream, which is what it is. Just remember, human sciences are in their infancy, we are up to maybe an 8 year old level in understanding of the universe so have fun dissing an 8 year old. In another 100 years science will be more like a 12 year old and you won't have so much to stand on by then. Of course you and 99% of all young Earthers will be long dead and there are fewer and fewer of you relics that get converted each year so eventually all your objections will fade into the bad dream it is.
The claim is not that each variation within a kind came from a common ancestor, but that that all the different kinds came from a common ancestor. So bacterias coming from a common ancestor of another original bacteria is not the same as the pumpkin coming from that orignal bacteria common ancestor or that the turkey came from that orignal bacteria common a ...[text shortened]... in the gaps because they refuse to accept the Creator in the Holy Bible as the God of the gaps.