[b]"OK, well that would be the issue at hand. AKA Evolutionary theory."
That, right there, is one of the biggest problems Creationist have with Evolutionist. The theory "evolves" to fit whatever you want it to. [/b]
I fail to see how the theory of evolution has changed since its inception.
Quote:
What is the definition of Evolution?!?!?!
(1) "A continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world."
Has this been proven or observed? NO!! Then why is is considered fact?!?
OR this definition?
(2) "Evolution is simply the character of the population changing through successive generations."
Um, look at those two definitions carefully. They seem very close to identical...
Quote:
A lot of people on here want to use these definitions interchangeably, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Definition (2) was taken out of a biology book. Now, I don't think it could be stated any more simplistic/generalized than that. This definition actually fits "microevolution" or "Adaptation" very well. Creationist have no problems with it, as long it is changes within a species!
Im confused. That leads to speciation, which is what you are arguing against, isn't it?
Quote:
[b]"Check out the underpinnings of all modern science, aka the "scientific method". Repeatability, Repeatability, Repeatability."
Ok, I apologize for misreading your statement. I took this as you saying that evolution passes the scientific method. If this is not the case, then forgive me. [/b]
Forgiven, but not for taking my statement out of context.
Quote:
[b]"The fact that evolution is supported by all the evidence, fossil or otherwise, and has continued to be supported by new finds without modification of the theory..."
Depends on your definition! Fossils or otherwise does not support definition (1). It does support def. (2), in the sense of "microevolution" or "adaptation".[/b]
I keep trying to tell you, its one and the same! What, do you think baldness is just something that has always been there? Its a GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION!!! Yet do you think people with a genetic trait for baldness are a different species? NO! Its inter species genetic drift!! If a bunch of people with that genetic trait were isolated and put on a island, allowed to interbreed for, say, 1000 years or so, YOU WOULD HAVE NOTHING BUT BALD FOLKS... you may not even have young adults with ANY HAIR AT ALL! Long enough, say, 100,000 years, and you might not be able to breed with these folks at all... which would mean they are a new species... Do you see what I am saying? The "two definitions" are the same thing! Just a varying degree!
Quote:
This thread was created to legitimately discuss Evolutionist's points against Creationist's points.
There is no "legitimate" discussion of creationism versus evolution. That has been hashed out over the last 150 years, and evolution is the winner.
Having satisfied honor, thats all that I'm going to say...
Im confused. That leads to speciation, which is what you are arguing against, isn't it? 
