As posted by RAZD, in reply to one of your posts SoSick:

Quote

[/b]Cognitive dissonance[/b] is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs.
In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs.
:
:
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it. (my emphasis added)

This is what is now occurring on this thread. Instead of a discussion of the facts that have been presented here by RAZD, focusing on the definition of evolution, there is now off-topic banter, and again a complete lack of factual information of any kind.

In that post, RAZD also discussed one of Russ' favourite statements, which defines what Russ himself does when discussing creationism:

Quote
When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well. (my emphasis added)

The distraction and character assassination occuring here are more attempts to get away from the facts, which are these: plenty have been presented in evidence of evolution, and zero in evidence of creationism. Can we get back to the opening post please: are we OK with RAZD's definitions of evolution or does anyone have any objections to them? He is having a similar conversation with other creationists on another website and this is what I was referring to: it has moved on to "part two," a discussion of the theory of evolution. Have a look, and you are welcome to join in:

Evolution and the Big Lie