Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re-Theory of Evolution
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 28 of 60 (456605)
02-19-2008 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Minnemooseus
02-18-2008 9:21 PM


Re: A different tack
I, however, see no reason the default meaning of "Theory of Evolution" must be that of biological evolution.
Maybe you don't but every damn scientist in the world, in the biological sciences or otherwise, takes this meaning - and if the public at large don't, then it is the fault of poor popular science, creationists, and you it seems...
Just walk into an astronomy/astrophysics department and ask what courses they offer on evolution, or the theory of evolution. They will politely direct you to the biological sciences department with a slight rolling of their eyes. Then you mention, but surely stars evolve? And they will roll their eyes still further and reply, oh, so you want a course on "stellar evolution"... lecture hall B, 10am.
Repeat this with the geology departemnt, with equivalent results.
Why are you trying to confuse this VERY simple, TRIVIAL matter???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-18-2008 9:21 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024