Re: Bible, Evolution, TEism: Ray v. the Mob

On Jun 14, 7:06 am, *** C <foo.dic...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ray Martinez wrote in talk.origins

On Jun 13, 2:23 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Yes, in case you have not heard I have changed my position. My
research into evolutionary claims/evidence has shown that
microevolution has not occurred.

How do you explain all the laboratory and field studies that show that
it has?

Question presupposes only one correct definition of evolution.

Well, yes. There really is only one correct definition of evolution.

What is the source for your claim that "there really is ***only one***
correct definition of evolution"?

I would like you to support this claim. Please show me ANY scholar who
has said that "evolution has only ONE CORRECT definition"?

You do not get to redefine it.

Yes I do, and I already have. It's in my paper.

Here is a hint, if you invent some
strange definition of evolution, and then proceed to shoot it down,
you have only disproven your definition, not the real theory of
evolution. In other words, a strawman.


We shall see.

Then you obviously have not examined the evidence. You are just
making an assumption based on your own ignorance.

In other words, evolution in your mind cannot ever be falsified.

So, you are saying that there is too much evidence to falsify the
real theory of evolution?

--
*** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin

Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@xxxxxxxxxxx

***: you and the Mob are advocating the geneticist reductionist
conclusionary definition of evolution. It is NOT the exclusive
definition of evolution. "A change in gene frequencies" is a temporal
mode and in the context of the entire evolutionary research programme
said meaning ignores and excludes facts of variation, inherited
traits, fossils, heirarchies and observations based on inference. Why
would evolutionists sacrifice these traditional lines of data for "a
change in gene frequencies"?

I am not arguing against the accepted genetic definition, I am arguing
against the claim that it represents the "one and only valid
definition of evolution."

None of the other persons who have replied in this matter have shown
any knowledge in this area outside of the Laurence Moran "Talk Origins
Archive" definition of evolution. I have no desire or inclination to
be anyones teacher. My point is: the ignorance of the average Talk
Origins Usenet evolutionist is appalling if they think there is only
one definition of evolution. Based on previous brazen dismissal of
evidence said belief really means that no matter what is evidenced or
referenced it will be ignored.

While you are exempted from the above criticism because we have never
really had any exchanges, common sense alone tells a person that the
word evolution has more than one valid meaning. I really expect you to
acknowledge this fact. If not then the above criticism applies to you
as well.

Ray


.