There's plenty more to Darwinism, and everyone knows this. To carry on so is neither cute nor funny at this point. Darwin wrote more than one or two silly sentences. He wrote silly books full of nonsense, in which he explained all the things one needs to imagine if one is to buy his story.

Can't I? Why not? You linked to a copy of one of his books yourself. So what makes you think anyone's ignorant enough to take your word that Darwinism consists of nothing more than your diluted version?

"Little different"? A relative term, I suppose. And a red herring. What you've presented in this thread and in the one you started for the purpose of offering version after version is neither Darwinism nor Neodarwinism. It's your own attempt to follow the example of the priests at talkdeceptions like Dr. Theobald. It's just a con game to present hollow jibberish and confuse the unsuspecting.

Now if you can defend any form of Darwinism, why do you need to disguise it?

Actually, he spent a great deal more time attempting to rewrite history. Had he studied it, he might have easily learned how mistaken his atheist pals were.

Oh? Have you evidence of any such prediction? Genetics is quite contrary to what Darwin proposed. Genetics says you get what you inherit - that's it. You may inherit things from your great grandfather, or even further back, but whatever you have is what one of your ancestors had.

Now you equivocate again. You use "descent with modification" as a substitute title for Darwinian evolution, knowing full well it's not a substitute for the content of the mythology. You think that's clever? Well in that case, explain his "theory of the preservation of favored races". That'll make 3 "theories" if you want to count things that way.
How about for instance that's chapter 15. That means there were 14 chapters leading up to it. And that's not his only book on evolutionism either.

You were so thrilled to find the select phrase you sought, you seemed to have overlooked something rather important. Perhaps I can help with a little bold text
It is absolutely essential, according to Darwin, that life undergo perpetual struggle. He said so time after time, and complained in letters that people weren't getting the point, in spite of his efforts to make this clear.

Pay close attention. He says "this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions"... Without constant struggle (and by this he means death of all but the "most fit") Darwin himself contends evolution won't happen.

For all your adoration, you continually overlook what he actually said. He also claimed "parent groups" would be driven to extinction by more "highly evolved" replacements, as I pointed out not so long ago. But no evolutionist cares. You're too busy assuming evolution has happened to look at it even half as critically as Darwin did. ...And you dare to speak of cognitive dissonance? Ha!

Now do any of your watered-down versions mention this struggle? Please direct me to the post in which you even acknowledge this issue indirectly. It does not exist, as my memory informs me.

Yes, it has been called that. It has been called other things too, as I mentioned. But titles aren't contents. If you want to discuss Darwin's idea, that's fine. If you want to define it, you need to define all of it - not just name it. Same for the modern versions.

That's a later idea & you know it. But it's what evolutionists teach, so it's fair game. You think you get to choose what we can pay attention to, and what we must miss. This is not how discussions proceed.

We recognize there are different sects among evolutionists. It would have been fair to claim you don't buy the "rocks-to-man" scenario. But to claim it does not exist is false. It exists in more than one form. There's even a group claiming crystals were the basis for bringing about life. Crystals are rocks, are they not?

I'll say it again, since you choose to respond selectively.

I'm not aware of any evidence that says any such thing. If such evidence existed, it should have been presented. All you give is misinterpretations of evidence; the evidence itself can only reflect reality. When properly interpreted, evidence supports the history we read in the bible.

But the "change" we see is not consistent with your claims. This has been your problem for weeks now. Do we need to cut & paste whole pages from other threads?

Oh? So evidence consists of evolutionists' conclusions now? That's not how the word is properly used in English. Indeed, it's a pretty fundamental part of reasoning, no matter what language one speaks. Assumptions, evidence, and conclusions are things one needs to keep in their respective categories.

If this were a fresh discussion, I would take it as a sign of weakness that you present conclusions as evidence. But this discussion's more toward the stale end of the spectrum, so it's looking more like frustration. Does it not trouble you in the least that none of the evolutionists here are able to present actual evidence & make an honest argument based thereupon?

Does it not trouble you further that so many of your own "experts" acknowledge the lack of evidence and other critical weaknesses in the doctrines you seek to spread?

There is no scientific use of the term. That's like saying there's a scientific use of the term leprechaun!

So what term shall we non-believers use when discussing your god?

Huh? Since when is 'evolution' used in biology as anything other than a term to indicate submission to / membership in the cult? It has no bearing on any of the actual science involved.

You stray from the point. If you don't permit creationists to employ the name of your god, you need to provide a term for us to use when we discuss your god. Or we shall have no practical discussion at all.

Oh, we're supposed to find it ourselves. You're just here to distract us, eh?

Now I know it took about 3 - 5 years for the X Club to get their political monopoly in gear; but that's what, 1865 at the latest? That's quite a while evolutionists have had abundant financial backing & other resources with which to search for evidence. They too, expected it to be easily discovered; but so far nobody's found anything. Small wonder you'd send me off on a wild goose chase.

Now that's just a plain misrepresentation. I did not ignore the different sizes of coelacanths. You ignored the fact that they're fish! You said it was like comparing a 6' man to an 18' man. I even emailed the address you suggested, to see what was behind Glen Morton's other claim. You could have done the emailing yourself, and I don't doubt you would have if you thought it was worth wasting time; but you knew it wasn't.

Now I'm thinking I won't go looking for your evidence. If it were plentiful and easily found, somebody somewhere would be able to find it. It's particularly unreasonable to expect me to find this evidence while you claim I don't know what evolution is. From the looks of your definitions, you'd have a good many people unsure of what it is. I'm just supposed to trust you, eh? How could I begin to trust anyone who's afraid to be honest about the religion they're pushing?

But before your next lecture, you might want to make up your own mind as to what you think evolution is all about. On a sibling thread, you sayBut this is bogus. Who would claim it impossible for you to imagine an explanation for anything? That's no test of the premise. We all know you can look at anything and claim it evolved - big deal!

When I say there's a lot more to Darwinism & evolutionism than your summary, you say "The fact is that you can't produce any such "rest" of the theory proposed by Darwin". But it looks like your opinion varies considerably.Care to answer your own question? What purpose do you think is served?

And you give no indication that you'll ever find a formulation that suits you. Here's yet another RAZD evolution "theory".

Anyone care for more?There's no indication that you ever intend to stop talking about your "real definition", or your quest to find it.

Oh! Did I say "it"?Will you ever find your answer? It's like Goldielocks: one's too short, one's too long, one's too... whatever
In this one, you actually seem to appreciate your Goldilockshood
By now I'm hoping you can understand a few things. If you can't figure out what the core beliefs of your religion consist of, that's your problem - not ours. Until you do figure this out, don't come telling me a bunch of nonsense like you've got one little phrase that sums it up sufficiently & try to play like anyone who doesn't fall down & worship your prose is ignorant or suffering from some disorder.

So long as you fail to acknowledge what you're trying to promote, you'll never achieve your goal. Evolutionism is a system of replacing valid history with imagined events. Its purpose it to account for origins in a manner which excludes God. As a replacement for recorded history, evolutionism has a considerable burden of proof; and any attempt to dodge this issue or obfuscate will prove unsatisfactory to you, yourself. If you want to shed this obsession, you need to try a different approach.