This from one who has a whole thread, and at least 3 unsmall sections of other threads dedicated to redefining 'evolution'. Not that I'd say evolutionism has anything other than an antithetical relationship with biology, now, but some try to paint quite another picture.

Anything on the internet, on TV, in books, uh, pretty much anywhere, can be made up to look like this or that. (Anyone who's even moderately familiar with conspiracies knows this quite well.)

That's where verification comes into play. The factual content in many of the videos Russ has posted can be verified to a high degree of confidence without too much trouble.

If you want confirmation, that'd be new evidence. Testing against old evidence is circular. Of course "theories" which fail against even pre-existing evidence are invalid. If only more folks had understood this in Darwin's day, a lot of waste could have been avoided.

Yes, you argue the creationist case fairly strongly, Bugs. If evolutionism could explain the planets, moons, and sun, the video would never have been made. But it cannot, and that excellent video does a good job of making it clear.

But your argument is somewhat flawed. If every theory is required to explain all evidence, we're in trouble. I don't think any theory can cut it. There are a lot of unexplained phenomena.

Now in the given context, you could have been trying to establish an impossible standard for creation science, or you could have simply meant "all relevant evidence". In the latter case you have no argument, so my interpretation leans somewhat against this. Indeed, rather than presenting even the most vague, rambling, pseudo-argument; you chose to change the subject rather abruptly.Has nothing to do with anything under discussion. Nothing whatsoever.

I suggest a less abrupt change of direction next time. This was just too obvious and awkward. Try to consider the kind of example you're setting for your follower.