PM>You surely make some poor strawman arguments. arguments.
Welcome back Pim!
A "strawman argument" is defined by Geisler as "to draw a false picture of
the opposing argument":
"Straw man. Another way to stack the deck against the opposition is to
draw a false picture of the opposing argument. Then it is easy to say, "This
should be rejected because this (exaggerated and distorted) picture of it is
wrong." The name of the fallacy comes from the idea that if you set up a
straw man, he is easier to knock down than a real man. And that is exactly
the way this fallacy works: set 'em up and knock 'em down. It is argument
by caricature. It avoids dealing with the real issues by changing the
opposition's views." (Geisler N.L. & Brooks R.M, "Come, Let Us Reason:
An Introduction to Logical Thinking," 1990, p101)>>
I am glad to see others describe your above argument so well. "A caricature' avoiding to dealing with the real issues.
Stephen: <<I have supported my argument from three leading Science dictionaries. These dictionaries are used extensively in schools in Australia (and I presume other parts of the world) and the defintion of "evolution" in them would presumably be the ones the students would be taught.>>
Why not adhere to how scientists use the term rather than rely on secondary sources that suit your argument ?
StephenL <<How does that consitute drawing "a false picture of the opposing argument"?>>
Because you focus on a caricature and you avoid dealing with how evolution is really defined in science.
PM>Perhaps you should try to focus on arguments that are not based
>upon a careful selection of 'science dictionaries'
Stephen: <<I did not make a "careful selection of 'science dictionaries'". They are the
*leading* Science dictionaries available in bookstores in Australia (and I
presume other parts of the world) that I had on my bookshelves. I simply
turned to their definitions of "evolution" and scanned them in.>>
And concluded from them that they were therefor representative of the scientific thinking on the issues of evolution ?
PM>and more on what 'naturalists' really say and believe ?
Stephen: <<And how pray tell am I supposed to find out what "'naturalists' really say and believe"? Send out a questionnaire to all of them?>>
It would beat drawing a caricture of them would you not agree ?
Stephen: <<If these definitions of "evolution" do not reflect what "naturalist
really...believe", then why is that definition substantially the same in all
three Science dictionaries?>>
Why do I keep finding the same old refuted creationist arguments all over the web ? Does this prove that creationism is inherently dishonest ?
See why such arguments do not really work all that well ?