Originally posted by Only-now
2) Notice that you are using one site in particular as well.
Yes, but I don't link that site and assume everything it has to say is correct just because I like what it has to say. You'll notice that every TalkOrigins article has citations at the end of it. I check the credibility of those citations before assuming what the site has to say is correct. Your site made numerous claims without even bothering to cite sources at all in many instances.

3) This site is reputable...and it was actually updated in 2006 as it states on the page. It does list examples from 2002/2003 so it isn't that old. Also..you cannot rule out statements and facts or quotes from before because that doesn't make them any less true. If you want to "play" that way then...then lets not include any of your fossils or any pro-evolution statements...not even Darwin coming up with it since that was "long ago".
How do you know it's reputable? Being recently updated doesn't make something credible...it just makes it recently updated. You say you're not a Creationist, yet you know this site is arguing from a Creationist perspective. Why do you trust whomever wrote this site to have a better understanding of evolution than actual scientists? And my point about the old quotations was that if someone claims something is lacking evidence, and then several years later, that missing evidence is found, do you just ignore the new evidence because at one point in time someone was quoted as saying it is lacking?

4) When it was showing the variety of evolutions...it was not stating that they are all part of the evolutionary theory we are discussing. He is a creationist..I am not...so those other forms of cosmic and steller evolution also come into question for him..that is why they are listed. Those however WOULD be supported by biological evolutionists...and thus that is why he included them. They are not however the topic of THIS discussion.
He was not just listing them because he wanted to argue against them. He specifically said those were the things evolutionists supposedly mean when they use the term "evolution." He was claiming evolutionists consider those a part of evolutionary theory, and my point was that anyone who actually understands evolution knows that they are not. Either he is unclear on the theory or unclear about the views of his opposition.

5) If you were really so informed about this subject..and really were so interested in it..you would be looking at both sides yourself. The truth I have seen however is that you are not interested in any ideas that could be against what you believe to be true. So..you aren't interested in the origins of life..only in proving what you THINK is fact..to be fact. I support this claim also by the snotty attitude I am recieving from you, which is very apparent in your posts. I don't think I have displayed this..and I didn't start talking about this with the intent to get sarcastic etc. I am sure it can happen..I apologize if it did. I just wanted to point some of this out while I do some research and then post either my own speech...of the links. Though..the areas I am reading in are VERY VERY long...so I doubt there would be time to read it all.
Did you read the post where I said I have researched multiple sides of the argument? I did read that site you sent me, despite my doubts about its credibility. Heck, I've even done extensive reading at AnswersInGenesis.org. If I were really so narrow-minded, why would I bother to do that? I have read the information multiple sides of the argument have presented and I have come to my conclusions based on how well-supported the claims being made are. I have found the scientific community's views on evolution to be the most well-supported, backed by the most evidence.

Ironically, it sounds like you're describing yourself here. I keep providing reasons this site is not reputable. I've pointed out a number of the false claims it makes and misunderstandings it presents. I've provided you with multiple reputable sources, including the dictionary and an encyclopedia entry, which support my claims. But you keep steadfastedly sticking by this single website, despite the fact that it contradicts the views of the entire scientific community and the plentiful observable and testable evidence out there. And you also accuse me of being more concerned with proving that I'm right and being snotty...when a post ago, you're the one saying "I hope no one is ignorant and takes this as me losing this debate."

I don't think I was being "snotty" at all. Do feel free to tell me where I was doing so. I am always open to reading things that might contradict with my views. If I feel they seem well-supported and factual, I won't immediately dismiss them. I'll look into them, and maybe even change my views if they are well-supported enough. My dismissing the site you provided has nothing to do with me being single-minded, it has everything to do with the site not supporting its own claims.

Finally just to give one bit of info..I have looked all over google..and I find strong evidence to support the claim that it is very rare that beneficial changes come from mutations..and that there is almost ALWAYS a loss of information. This requires more research..but I can say that your blatant claim that that statement is wrong...is wrong itself. Not to mention, beneficial and positive do not mean the same things.
Can you provide me with actual sources? Reputable sources? Because I can look all over Google and find dozens of webpages claiming vampires and unicorns are real. The sources I provided on mutations give citations to actual scientific studies.

I also find that you seem to use only specific sources as well. I mean..when I look up things, only talk-origins and that gate site come up to support you...though when I look elsewhere I see mentionings of how those supported ideas are not valid etc. What I am saying is that you seem to just use that site and never question its information. It seems as if the questioning of this is new to you...though there are MANY sites on the net that are reputable in which people argue various aspects of these "theories" with great knowledge of both sides. You seem to have overlooked this however..in that you have not even stated that there is a possibilty that evolution is flawed.
I used several other sites as well actually. I use TalkOrigins mostly because of all the sites I've come across on the subject, it is the most well-organized. It's easy to find information and it provides quick and clear answers, as well as credible citations, usually to actual scientific journals, articles, and studies. Give me a claim and I can cross-check it with other sites as well. The key here is to make sure your sources are reputable. You don't have to have any qualifications to post something on the internet. You need to check where the site is getting its information and make sure it is from qualified sources. I do that. The sites I provide you even have the sources right there on the page for you to check out yourself. Have you done that on the many sites you say refute the claims I've been making?

Questioning of evolution is most certainly not new to me. This is certainly not the first time I've debated the subject. I don't mean to come off as rude here, but the majority of the arguments you're giving me are actually some of the simpler and more common ones I've seen. I've come up against far more challenging arguments to debate against. I don't say this to belittle you, just to point out that I'm not scrambling at straws here because for the first time ever, someone is challenging evolution and my claims about it. This is nothing new to me.

I never said evolution had no flaws. Not once did I say that. I said I believe it to be the best-supported explanation out there for how life developed to the state it's currently in. I said the fact that it happens is a fact. I said that the claims that site is making to refute it are full of holes and do not discredit the theory. But I never once said it's a flawless perfected theory. I imagine there are certainly many more things we have to figure out about it and I imagine we may have gotten some things wrong. I just don't forsee the entire theory itself being tossed out/proven wrong because there's enough evidence supporting it that it must have happened in a rather similar fashion to the way we currently view it.