When the term refers to the
scientific theory of biological evolution, yes.
You do understand that words can be used in multiple contexts and don't necessarily have to refer to the same thing, yes?
For example, when I say that Brad Pitt is a "star", I'm not talking about a giant ball of nuclear infernus somewhere in deep space.
When physicists talk about "The Great Bombardment", they aren't talking about when the allied forces bombed Dresden or when Hitler bombed London during the second world war. Instead, they talk about a period of early earth where the planet was "bombarded" by asteroids / left over debry of the early solar system.
Yea, yea.... I've already explained in a previous post how your warped "logic" results in big bang cosmology somehow being part of biology.
Defense of what ? The facts stand as stated. Abiogenesis is an unknown process, a mystery, those that believe in it do so by faith.
All of the alleged evidence, is evidence of what ? Not abiogenesis, but rather very distant from life processes that may or may not have occurred on the young earth. How do they work as part of a comprehensive theory of abiogenesis, the process, no one knows.
Of course words can mean different things depending upon application. Duh, that was the whole point.
People use terms like chemical evolution, geologic evolution, etc. Regardless of what they are talking about, evolution is the description.
Does it not seem logical that evolution, standing alone, could include these other processes ? You know that this is not the case, I know it isn´t the case, but there are many whose knowledge is shallow, who make these connections, why not just be clear ? If I state that my career was in the law, and someone asks me about the law applying to divorce, I have to say I worked in criminal law. It is just easier to say that initially.
I must say, you seem to imply you are an authority an some of these issues, and if you ¨explain¨ something to me, I am to take your explanation as fact. I don´t. As far as I can tell you aren't an authority by some of the mistakes you have made. I am not an authority, and I make some mistakes, that is just then nature of the beast.
You and I mostly have opinions. You opine on the vast body of evidence for abiogenesis, I counter that there is not that vast body. One frequent poster here described her abiogenesis faith as superior because of all the evidence available, I asked her to post some, she never responded.
So we can continue to beat this dead horse as long as you choose.
It's called english.
I'm sorry, but I really have trouble believing that you actually are this oblivious when it comes to use of words in the english language. If you can't infer from context when the word is used to refer to the biological theory and when it is used in some other context, then you really shouldn't be part of this conversation.
And everyone does. So do you. You're just trolling.
No. It's actually a rather reasonable expectation from someone who seems to have a good enough grasp of the english language.
More trolling. Like arguing semantics on steroids while misapplying contextual inference seemingly on purpose.
It's a rather pathetic "defense" that you are putting up here.