The part I bolded pretty much answers my questions.

I'm sorry you cannot see the correlation between a) someone redefining evolution and b) understanding some of the most rudimentary logical fallacies - though I realize you're quite likely to Google search alternative definitions to every word I'm using here and thereby try to say I'm not making sense by using definition number 2 rather than the number 1 or 3. Who exactly is wasting who's time again?

The debating tactics here typically involve shoving atheist views down the throats of evolutionists and saying, 'Look, evolution is wrong', when this isn't evolution in the first place. Interestingly, of all the evolutionist posters here thus far I can only think of one that argued in favor of atheism and even he was not a true blue, 100% bona fide atheist (more of a self-admitted agnostic, I'd say). This begs the question, who exactly are you arguing against. Something tells me I don't want to know the answer.

I humbly await your condescension and arrogance forthwith and hitherto, I shall absent myself anon and by and by retire in the interim. Adieu.