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

On Jun 14, 4:05 pm, Stile4aly <stile4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 14, 11:03 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





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"?

Noone suggests that there is only one definition of evolution.

Several other Darwinists upthread have most certainly claimed that
there is only one.

What
is being suggested is that the definition that is most applicable is
the change in gene frequency over time.

Nobody has said or implied that, of course, you could prove me wrong
and paste the quotes that "suggest" what you are now suggesting

Darwin himself defined
evolution as descent with modification, which is what we're
discussing.

Negative. We are discussing a contention that the genetic definition
of evolution to be the only correct definition. Dana Tweedy, Steven
J., ***, Greg G. and Rolf have claimed that the genetic meaning is
the only one.

I, on the other hand, have already said that any definition of
evolution MUST include Darwin, I am glad to see that you agree.

The natural consequence of descent with modification is
speciation, which is what is frustrating you.


I am aware of no frustration. It appears this comment is an
aberration.



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.

Well then, in that case I don't believe in microevolution either, if
you define microevolution as miniature invisible gnomes that get drunk
and fight resulting in some people's eyes to be blue instead of brown.


I simply define evolution the way Darwin defined it, and when I
disprove his definition to not be true, but false, based on many
facts, everything built on the foundation of Darwin goes tumbling down
with it. The bigger the are the harder they fall certainly applies
here.



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.

There's nothing to see, Ray. You've already told us that you intend
to attack your own personal definition of evolution which you haven't
shared with us. Tell us what your arcane definition is and we can see
if there is some correlation between your ideas and the ideas accepted
by the scientific community. If your ideas are meaningless, then so
will your paper be.

<snip>- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Darwin defined evolution and he claimed to have discovered how it
occurs. His definition based on his alleged discovery that species are
mutable is simply false. Once this foundation is uprooted everything
built on top falls, including, of course, all modern Darwinian
biology.

Ray


.