Who Owns the Standard Definition of Evolution

Quotable scene (though forgive me if it's from a different movie):

quote:

---

Groucho is a professor giving a lecture when he notices a student, Harpo, asleep because he had spent all night partying:

​

Groucho: "Young man, don't know that you can't burn the candle at both ends?"
Harpo reaches into his coat and pulls out a candle that's lit on both ends.
Groucho does a double-take: "Somebody get his diet!"

---

One of the problems with doing a comedy movie is that they lack an audience to tell them what isn't funny. The Marx Brothers solved that problem by including the next movie's material in their vaudeville act and so were able to eliminate or change what didn't work and fine-tune the timing and delivery of what did, resulting in classic hilarity.The centerfold of a Summer 1973 issue of the West German satirical magazine, Pardon, was of the Marx Brothers (Groucho, Chico, Harpo, and Karl) saying (translated): "Why Marxism is so popular".All I have left of Pardon is that centerfold (printed black on red, hence not copiable) and a "best of" collection book which includes a cartoon:

quote:

---

Man with a huge nose cries up to the heavens asking God why he had given him such a huge nose.
God appears from behind a cloud sporting a huge schnoz himself, the same huge schnoz as the man's: "Because I created you in my own image."

---

Another cartoon shows Christian missionaries laughing at those stupid natives bowing and worshipping their idol while on the other side of the frame their fellow missionaries are doing the exact same thing with their own idol, Jesus on a cross.

In the creationists, we have seen the worst of the worst of deceivers.But you are at least presenting us with some semblance of sincerity, despite your continued refusal to tell us just what the actual fuck you mean by your perpetually undefined yet most highly significant terms like, evolutionist, evolutionism, etc.Do you not understand the term, dog whistle? You create an undefined term which is designed to elicit a visceral response from your followers against those undefined/misdefined terms .For example, a woman who quite literally wrote the book -- or at the very least a book on "WOKE", yet in a TV interview was completely unable to even begin to define what "WOKE" is supposed to be. The very only single thing she got right in that interview was that it would become viral.What is an "evolutionist"? Nobody knows, since you refuse to define it.What is "evolutionISM"? Nobody knows, since you refuse to define it.And yet you continue to use those very terms THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO EVER DEFINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You hypocritically clutch at your pearls over our direct language, but the fact still remains that you still refuse to answer our most basic question:
What the ACTUAL FUCK are you talking about??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Seriously, what the ACTUAL FUCK does it take to get your attention in order to get an actual answer from you?

You're holding back.Most creationists, especially the professionals (eg, Drs D.Gish and H. Morris of the ICR (the very creators of creation science), Mr Kent Hovind), apply the adjective, "atheist", to "evolutionists". What say you? Are "evolutionists" also atheists by creationist definition?If all you need to do to be an "evolutionist" is to accept evolution, then does that make the many theists, including Christians, "atheists"? After all, Dr. Henry Morris in "defining" their "atheistic Evolution Model" stated outright that it includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern".Actually, in the "Two Model Approach" (TMA) which forms the fundamental basis of "scientific creationism" (AKA creationism) the "Creation Model" is nothing other than young-earth creationism (the "Creation Model" is never revealed in public except when creationists go even more stupid as in Arkansas Act 590 of 1981, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act," where the creationists included their definition of the "Creation Model" which exposed that law as having purely religious purposes -- creationists quickly removed that definition in its sister law in Louisiana). The TMA's "Evolution Model" is then everything else, "including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern", including most Christian teachings (remember that fundie YECs are a definite minority among Christians). So then most Christians are "atheists"?Yeah, you're trying to hand-wave your way out. We need a more complete definition and discussion about "evolutionists".Same with "evolutionism" which is obviously far more extensive than you are trying to hide. Note also that it suffers the same "atheistic" problems as "evolutionist", besides being a gross misrepresentation which has deceived you about evolution and other sciences.I need to leave for class now. 
PSYou seem to believe that evolution somehow conflicts with Creation. Again, WHY? And HOW?You seem to believe that you must choose between evolution and God. Again, WHY? And HOW?You are not making any sense! That is why we have to keep asking you to explain WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!And if you want to claim that there are problems for, with, and because of evolution, THEN PLEASE TELL US WHAT THEY ARE!  Explanation:

Part of creationist "basic created kinds" nonsense is to identify species as being in the same "basic created kind" depending on whether they can form hybrids. Doesn't matter what kind of hybrid -- fertile, infertile (eg, mules), or limited-fertililty (eg, ligers) -- ; if they can form a hybrid then they're of the same kind.Yesterday, I just learned about human-hamster hybrids, AKA humsters:

quote:

---

A humster is a hybrid cell line made from a zona-free hamster oocyte fertilized with human sperm. It always consists of single cells, and cannot form a multi-cellular being. Humsters are usually destroyed before they divide into two cells; if isolated and left alone to divide, they would still be unviable.

​

Humsters are routinely created mainly for two reasons:

​

• To avoid legal issues with working with pure human embryonic stem cell lines.
• To assess the viability of human sperm for in vitro fertilization

​

Somatic cell hybrids between humans and hamsters or mice have been used for the mapping of various traits since at least the 1970s.

---

So then, according to creationists, does that make us members of the "basic created hamster kind"? Or of the larger "basic rodent kind"?