Quote
Well it is clear that you are not talking about the same thing that evolutionary biologists talk about when they use the word "evolution" -- so you must be talking about something else. Either a strawman of your own making or one you have adopted without skepticism from questionable sources. It is one of the common failings of creationists -- they think they know what it means, but what they learned came from false sources and not from the science itself. Using terms with different meanings in the same argument is called equivocation, and it is one of the reasons I dislike using the term "evolution" -- you have to wade throught the muck of mythology that creationists have made. Monkey to man, goo to you, rock to human, these all are false strawmen representations that have nothing to do with real evolution, and they are devoid of any real meaning in science. Science uses terms for certain purposes, and (curiously) people outside that science don't get to redefine them, they just show ignorance of the scientific usage when they apply other meanings or tack things on that aren't included in the scientific terminology.

Fortunately, RAZD, there are people out there who don't require finding refuge behind complex language or terminology like the evolutionist and can quite easily break down their language tricks, which doesn't seem to leave a lot leftover for the evolutionist. Once you start getting down to raw facts and evidence, there seems to be lacking! In a sense, you have created your own strawman.

Putting fancy terms, or making it sound much more complex, so as to fool people that it must have taken place because it "sounds impressive" doesn't make up for lack of substance. If any kind of evolution has occured, even if the creationist making fun of the evolution process is offensive to you (or inaccurate), then why do we not observe it? And why when we observe the fossils are there no clear indications that any such process has taken place, other than size differences or variations within kinds? which the creationist already acknowledges, as does the bible.

See, for me? I don't see an issue with size or variation, because we see this, it happens. Creation also has no issue with this RAZD, so why would you think that Creation is a bogus belief? Just because we believe in outside intelligent purpose/intent....you know it takes outside intelligence to design anything, or even mess around with existing design/genetics in a lab, takes outside intelligence to achieve....how is it you find it unbelieveable that the same model should not be applied to our universe and origins? When it can be applied almost everywhere else without exception?

Quote
And I am sure that Dr Latimer would be happy to tell you about the significant differences between this fish and the fossil one. The fact that you can not see them does not make them magically disappear.

For differences to be significant, there should be a reflection of those differences. And we do not see this. The fact that you cannot see them does not make them magically "appear" either. Size difference is not evolution RAZD. Do you know what happens to fish in certain environments? Their growth rate depends on where they are. Ask anybody who owns fish and see what happens to goldfish in the right environment and the right size of fish pond! You must also take into account the differences in environment of the planet itself, rather than a fish pond. This is not simple becoming complex by the way. A smaller goldfish that may not be as healthy and impressive as another living in a much better environment has nothing to do with one of them being less or more evolved. Both already have the existing genetic information there. Does evolution not teach that new information is added???? Please correct me if I'm wrong. And if I am wrong, then where did evolution arise from? Where did this all arise from if simplicity did not in fact become complexity as evolution has pointed out?

Quote
ps - evolution is not a religion because it is willing to be wrong. That makes it fundamentally different from belief in something infallible.

True, because evolution has no fundamental truth to it. It must continue to change and evolve it's theories to gain new ways to explain itself out of difficult situations and can do so readily. In a sense, it's without morals or cares and can go in any direction at all. Whereas the bible doesn't require one to do this. It's either accepted as God's word or disgarded. There are those that do try and play with the existing word of God, but the word itself does not change. It's a bit like scientists playing with already existing information in a lab. Another irony really! The information is already completely present, but you can't stop someone with playing with it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> And trying to turn it into what they want it to be.