Unless they're happily using the fallacy of equivocation, the people attacking evolution on the crevo threads are talking about biological evolution as explained first by Darwin. Of course, a lot of creationists ARE equivocating when they attack "evolution" with such questions as:
- "Where did all the stuff in the Big Bang come from?" [Huh? Did Darwin write or even know anything at all about the Big Bang?]
- "How did all those sea shells get up on the tops of mountains?" [Ignores rather than attacks plate tectonics. Irrelevant to evolution.]
- "What about Halton Arp?" [An astronomer who has made some crackpot claims regarding quasars. WHAT about him has anything to do with evolution?]
- "What about live shellfish dated to thousands of years old with carbon 14?" [A wildly misdirected attack on the age of the Earth which does not address evolution directly at all.]
People who "love science," they "just have a problem accepting
evolution" turn out to have problems with cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and nuclear chemistry, not to mention at long last biology.
This "you don't know the meaning of evolution" baloney gets old.
You guys not knowing what a theory you claim to be wrong EVEN SAYS gets old.
>>People who "love science," they "just have a problem accepting evolution" turn out to have problems with cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and nuclear chemistry, not to mention at long last biology.<<
I discuss this with people quite a bit. I have yet to meet a person who fits the description you give.
>>You guys not knowing what a theory you claim to be wrong EVEN SAYS gets old.<<
I have noticed that few people on either side of this discussion (on internet discussion sites, anyway) know what "it" says. The problem is that "evolution" is like Interstate 90. It is a different animal depending on where you are and what you are discussing.
Like I said, the corvette has evolved...