Purely from an outsider's perspective -- a bird's eye view if you will -- I see a great deal of debators failing to maintain a proper debate simply due to a lack of equal definitions. I can argue saying evolution is true, for example, using one definition, and then you can argue saying it's not using an altogether different definition (or vice versa). This doesn't really lead anywhere and I know each and every one of us as posters do want to see some headway made, even if this is an endless debate. Points should be made with which individual posters are held accountable to. If you say X is X and in a later post argue something which contradicts with your own definition of X (saying that it is something closer to Y or Z), then it's clear you're not holding to truthful or even honest debating standards. Integrity is paramount if we are to move forward even an inch.

That being said, I'd like to take an extract from a post by LindaLou and see this given a specific defining term -- or a response saying that there is no specific defining term. Either way, it's impossible to debate any of this without definitions. So...

LindaLou wrote:


Since some of the creationist posters here have alleged that the various hominid species do not exist or are merely old ape bones or old modern human bones, it would help for us to see how this conclusion is drawn and based on what evidence. I'm certain the scientists of the world would be eager to see you show them the error of their ways, especially since -- as anyone making such an audacious claim would have to be -- you've established this belief with extensive research and study of no less effort than what the scientists have put in themselves (i.e., years and years worth of meticulous digging, sorting and analyzing).