Question for Evolutionist

[Thanda]

...eh. I've already stated why I don't think its relevant. Its not a term really meant to define layman.

According to you. I am using the dictionary definition.

 

[Midnight Rain]

According to you. I am using the dictionary definition.

Ah the good old dictionary definition. It provides all the meaning and understanding one ever needs int he world. Why did we have thesauruses again? Either way I'm not saying your wrong. Are you a string theorist as well? Or a Quantum fluctuation particalist?

 

[Quintessence]

A story of relevance to this thread:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151013-how-interbreeding-shaped-us

 

[outhouse]

. And in most of those beliefs and religions there is the understanding that the earth was created.

That is known as mythology.

 

[Thanda]

That is known as mythology.

The point being?

 

[outhouse]

Why don't we have today a remnant of some of the earlier human types (after our divergence from other apes)?

We do in our DNA.

Reality is we slowly absorbed their heritage, with interbreeding, and outright outcompeted their resources.

Many lived within a few thousand years of modern times. Many did not have the intellect to survive KT events. Nor ice ages.

Many reasons answer your dynamic question

 

[outhouse]

The point being?

The difference between those who believe mythology over reality, is education and or willful ignorance.

Evolution is fact, it is part of nature, just because many people choose to live the mythology does not change the fact of evolution.

Many people refuse these facts, and it is sad with so much education at humanities fingertips.

 

[Thanda]

The difference between those who believe mythology over reality, is education and or willful ignorance.

Evolution is fact, it is part of nature, just because many people choose to live the mythology does not change the fact of evolution.

Many people refuse these facts, and it is sad with so much education at humanities fingertips.

What does that have to do with the definition of evolutionists and creationists?

 

[outhouse]

What does that have to do with the definition of evolutionists and creationists?

There is no such thing as a evolutionist. It makes as much sense as calling people gravitationist.


Creationist are called such because it is an unsupported position.

 

[Thanda]

There is no such thing as a evolutionist. It makes as much sense as calling people gravitationist.


Creationist are called such because it is an unsupported position.

Please tell the people who write dictionaries.

 

[outhouse]

Please tell the people who write dictionaries.

Some of those are theist defining by their own bias.

Does not mean it makes sense. It is not used in any credible academic setting. And its use today is confined to those who refuse education and knowledge.

 

[Thanda]

Some of those are theist defining by their own bias.

Does not mean it makes sense. It is not used in any credible academic setting. And its use today is confined to those who refuse education and knowledge.

Perhaps, though you have no proof it is only theists. As for it not being used in academic settings is meaningless. The world is made up of far more people than than academia. We can't stop people from communicating with each other just because they haven't learned from academia.

Words and their definitions belong to human beings, not academia.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps, though you have no proof it is only theists

Non sequitur.

I do not need proof that people believe in gravity either.

 

[Skwim]

There is no such thing as a evolutionist. It makes as much sense as calling people gravitationist.


Creationist are called such because it is an unsupported position.

Dictionary. com
evolutionist
[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]

noun
1.a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
​

Random House Webster's College Dictionary p.457
evo·lu·tion·ist

1. a person who believes in or supports the principles of evolution in biology.
[1855-60]
​

Oxford Dictionaries
NAmE /ˌevəˈluːʃnɪst/

noun
A person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
​

The Free Dictionary
evolutionist
(ˌiːvəˈluːʃənɪst)

n
(Biology) a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species

​

Wiktionary

Noun
evolutionist ‎(plural evolutionists)
A proponent or supporter of evolutionism

(evolution +‎ -ism

Noun
evolutionism ‎(usually uncountable, plural evolutionisms)

1. (countable) Any of several theories that explain the evolution of systems or organisms.
2. (uncountable) The advocacy of Darwinian evolution by natural selection (Darwinism).

Vocabulary. com
Definitions of evolutionist

1
n a person who believes in organic evolution
​

Merriam Webster Dictionary

evo·lu·tion·ist \-sh(ə-)nist\ noun or adjective​

 

[Thanda]

Dictionary. com
evolutionist
[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]

noun
1.a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
​

Random House Webster's College Dictionary p.457
evo·lu·tion·ist

1. a person who believes in or supports the principles of evolution in biology.
[1855-60]
​

Oxford Dictionaries
NAmE /ˌevəˈluːʃnɪst/

noun
A person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
​

The Free Dictionary
evolutionist
(ˌiːvəˈluːʃənɪst)

n
(Biology) a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species

​

Wiktionary

Noun
evolutionist ‎(plural evolutionists)
A proponent or supporter of evolutionism

(evolution +‎ -ism

Noun
evolutionism ‎(usually uncountable, plural evolutionisms)

1. (countable) Any of several theories that explain the evolution of systems or organisms.
2. (uncountable) The advocacy of Darwinian evolution by natural selection (Darwinism).

Vocabulary. com
Definitions of evolutionist

1
n a person who believes in organic evolution
​

Merriam Webster Dictionary

evo·lu·tion·ist \-sh(ə-)nist\ noun or adjective​

Thank you Skwim. But it is vain telling this to outhouse - he'll tell you credible academics (his two favourite terms) don't accept these definitions.

 

[Skwim]

Thank you Skwim. But it is vain telling this to outhouse - he'll tell you credible academics (his two favourite terms) don't accept these definitions.

Then it would be his responsibility to show his evidence if he expects to be believed.

 

[sayak83]

True. And remember there are many other countries beside America in the world with all manner of beliefs and religions. And in most of those beliefs and religions there is the understanding that the earth was created. So you may be right that, from a scientific perspective, the terms evolutionist and creationist (for both must stand or fall together) have become archaic. But to the rest of the world (that is the billions of people who are not scientists) there is still the very real division between evolutionists and creationist. And I dare say that in this all encompassing demographic, it is the evolutionists who are in the minority.

So as I said, this distinction will stick around for a while yet, until all people are brought to understand things as most scientists do.

This is mistaken. All Buddhists, 80% of Hindus and most Daoists and Confucians (that would be most of East Asia) accepts evolution as it has no effect on their theology. Christianity overall is 60% in favor of evolution (liberal Protestants and Catholics against conservative evangelicals and charismatics). That, along with the billion nones would make the tally of people who believe in evolution far over the half the population of the world. Only Islam and Conservative Christianity and Judaism have any theological problems with evolution, the rest are fine.

 

[Thanda]

This is mistaken. All Buddhists, 80% of Hindus and most Daoists and Confucians (that would be most of East Asia) accepts evolution as it has no effect on their theology. Christianity overall is 60% in favor of evolution (liberal Protestants and Catholics against conservative evangelicals and charismatics). That, along with the billion nones would make the tally of people who believe in evolution far over the half the population of the world. Only Islam and Conservative Christianity and Judaism have any theological problems with evolution, the rest are fine.

Not having theological problems with evolution and believing in evolution are two very different things. It is a natural concept for many people to believe humans beings were made humans beings. It is unnatural to the mind to believe that humans were once some other animal. So until a person's actually taught evolution they usually remain believing humans were created as humans.

 

[fantome profane]

Not having theological problems with evolution and believing in evolution are two very different things. It is a natural concept for many people to believe humans beings were made humans beings. It is unnatural to the mind to believe that humans were once some other animal. So until a person's actually taught evolution they usually remain believing humans were created as humans.

And most people would remain believing the sun goes around the earth until a person is actually taught otherwise. But if they believe that their religion conflicts with the idea that the earth goes around the sun then they might resist that idea even to the point of absurdity.

 

[sayak83]

Not having theological problems with evolution and believing in evolution are two very different things. It is a natural concept for many people to believe humans beings were made humans beings. It is unnatural to the mind to believe that humans were once some other animal. So until a person's actually taught evolution they usually remain believing humans were created as humans.

My poll numbers are correct though (77% accept evolutionary theory both in China and India among those who have heard of the theory). Obviously people will believe that the sun circles the earth unless they are taught otherwise. All religious Hindus and Buddhists believe that they had been animals and plants (and demons and gods) in their previous lives, and Hindus in addition consider apes and monkey as elder kin of humans (they are called forest-men). These religions (as wells as Daoism) emphasize connectivity rather than distinction between humans and other life forms and hence evolutionary theory is more of a confirmation rather than a challenge.