I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Shushersbedamned]

Then perhaps you should learn the scientific method so that you can see how ideas are tested.

If an idea could be testd it would no longer be an idea

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Not at all. But if that is your definition then the theory of evolution is proven.

The world is more complicated than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If an idea could be testd it would no longer be an idea

That is not true. Where did you get that idea from? It would still be an idea. it would just be a confirmed idea. If an idea is tested and refuted it is no longer an idea.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

That is not true. Where did you get that idea from? It would still be an idea. it would just be a confirmed idea. If an idea is tested and refuted it is no longer an idea.

An idea never cases to exist after the start. But it can transform.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The world is more complicated than that.

I was going by your definition. You said that proof and evidence are one and the same thing. There clearly is evidence for evolution.

Science is an evidence based field. So they have a clear definition of what qualifies as evidence. Wikipedia has a very good definition on scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

There is more, but that is it in a nutshell.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An idea never cases to exist after the start. But it can transform.

Not really. If a person thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 that idea can be shown to be wrong with a simple number line. You may get a new idea to take its place, but that hardly means that the first idea was transformed.

 

[exchemist]

The difference - though theoretically existent - is not that clear. They can mostly be used interchangeably, and in this case arguing about it is waste of time.

On the contrary, it can be critical. A great many bogus creationists arguments hinge on failing to make this distinction.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I was going by your definition. You said that proof and evidence are one and the same thing. There clearly is evidence for evolution.

Science is an evidence based field. So they have a clear definition of what qualifies as evidence. Wikipedia has a very good definition on scientific evidence:

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. "

There is more, but that is it in a nutshell.

I did never say they are one and the same thing.

I am not interested in the evolution.

Evidence is worthless to me.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Not really. If a person thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 that idea can be shown to be wrong with a simple number line. You may get a new idea to take its place, but that hardly means that the first idea was transformed.

That's not an idea but a mere misconception

 

[Shushersbedamned]

On the contrary, it can be critical. A great many bogus creationists arguments hinge on failing to make this distinction.

But here is not necessary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not an idea but a mere misconception

It appears that you are using your own definition for terms. What do you mean by the word "idea"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did never say they are one and the same thing.

Really? You appear to have a very short memory:

"Proof - evidence - evidence - proof. Same **** different name."

I am not interested in the evolution.

Evidence is worthless to me.

Yes, for those that deny reality evidence is worthless.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

It appears that you are using your own definition for terms. What do you mean by the word "idea"?

Something like this

An opinion, conviction, or principle: A plan, scheme, or method.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Really? You appear to have a very short memory:

"Proof - evidence - evidence - proof. Same **** different name"

That is a mere expression.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Yes, for those that deny reality evidence is worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is a mere expression.

No, it isn't. It was you saying that proof and evidence are one and the same.

You do know what an expression is right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Something like this

So you had to go with a secondary definition. When you quote something the proper action is always to link your source. Like this:

Webster's II New College Dictionary

 

[Jose Fly]

I know what I have stated.

We all do....it's right there for everyone to see.

1. The most common general interpretation of "kind" is breeding population.

And as I showed (via link, personal explanation, and copy-n-paste), the evolution of new breeding populations is an observed and documented fact.

However you pressed me for a firm fixed idea of what "kind" means.
2. So I went to the bible to give you the exact biblical passages in question.

You have me confused with someone else.

What exactly is your complaint here?

No complaints. You've been given exactly what you challenged us to provide, and in the exact manner you requested. What you do with that information is up to you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all do....it's right there for everyone to see.


And as I showed (both via link and copy-n-paste), the evolution of new breeding populations is an observed and documented fact.


You have me confused with someone else.


No complaints. You've been given exactly what you challenged us to provide, and in the exact manner you requested. What you do with that information is up to you.

Thanks for mentioning kinds. I don't know who said it, it could have been me, but @1robin has still not defined "kinds". He merely gave some examples without a definition. To have a working definition of "kinds' one would be able to tell whether two groups of animals are the same "kind" or not.

Usually the definition amounts to the same as "species" and as your articles have shown we have directly observed evolution on that level.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

So you had to go with a secondary definition. When you quote something the proper action is always to link your source. Like this:

Webster's II New College Dictionary

You asked how I define it.