Creation vs Evolution

[Kev]

this seems to a matter of verbage....to me the progress and advancement that you speak of equal evolving as a species. Are you so dogmatic in your beliefs that you can't say that man as a species evolves without contradicting your personal belief that he didn't evolve from another species? Haven't you been espousing that "we" should open our minds and not just take science at face value? You've already stated that prehistoric man and present humans have some basic differences. You make good points bilbo and you obviously have done your homework, but you seem to be contradicting yourself at times and using a little circular reasoning.

Ok let me clarify this.

Technological advancement and an increase in human learning is NOT evolution.

Evolution is the belief that one organism can undergo transformation within its DNA that adds to new information being added to the DNA and then the organism becoming a new species.

Look man you don't get to pick the definition to suit your argument....You've told people to read your posts earlier in the thread well Id tell you to do the same of me. I openly stated that I wasn't refering to genetic changes over time nor defending a monkey to man evolutionary chain. I was only stating that to say man hasn't evolved as a species over time is ignoring history. I don't really see you arguing the details with me just verbage. Whats wrong Bilbo will you lose you creationist union card if you so much as concede that man has evolved as a species just not genetically?

I think we are disagreeing over our definition of evolution here rather than over whether man has improved or not over time.

Let me quote from a dictionary the full definitions of evoltuion...


ev·o·lu·tion (ĕv'ə-lū'shən, ē'və-) pronunciation
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

[Latin ēvolūtiō, ēvolūtiōn-, from ēvolūtus, past participle of ēvolvere,


Looking a the definitions you are referring to definiton 2,

The process of developing, gradual development,

wheras I am talking about defintion 3

Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

So in answer to your question yes I completely agree with you regarding man's evolution according to definiton 2 but I am talking about evidence for and against definition 3 which is something entirely different.

Hope that makes sense. The arguments for man's evolution according to definition 2 cannot be used as evidence for evolution according to definiton 3 and vice versa, they are concerned with two seperate things.

To illustrate consider the evolution of the motor car. It is obviously clear that as mankind's knowledge and experience has improved in relation to the motor car so we have been able to produce better and more advanced cars.

This is evolution according to definiton 2.

However it is not evolution according to definiton 3. The cars did not actually evolve from each other, rather they were each independent seperate acts of creation that can be arranged to form an evolutionary chart beginning with earliest cars and progressing to more advanced types.

The evolutionary chart is merely a chart however and does not suggest that these cars evolved from each other, they were actually independent acts of creation as I said above.

So it's not evidence for evolution according to definiton 3.

Hope that makes sense, have a

There is no need for us to get aggressive with each other we are just having an interesting dialouge and exchange of ideas.