Well..although evolution SHOULD be treated as a theory..SHOULD be tested, and SHOULD be questioned etc...it is not treated as such even within the scientific community. There is a difference between a theory and a law...and we have both.
Definition:
1) My site: Macroevolution ? The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
Microevolution ? The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.
I must also point out this about Creationism or Evolution even being a theory:
The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.
The postulate must be observable.
The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.
Another good quote: "As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five!"
So..evolution isn't even a theory as in all three of those must be true before it is even a theory..and no one has observed macroevolution (which is what we are discussing).
There are also many types of evolution...and we are discussing MACRO..which would be species change etc. Your definition sounds more like microevolution to me...expecially with this definition at hand:
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.
These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift. (Wikipedia).
Sounds an awful lot like your definition of evolution in general..which is wrong...and isn't even what we are discussing. We are discussing this:
Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, over long periods of time, that leads to speciation, in contrast to microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population (Wikipedia)
Now..you can see the difference. How macroevolution is NOT micro..though you are using micro as the definition.
What is funny is that I am using YOUR source for that info..not mine. I am also using scientific facts determined by the same community you support.
Read the area of the paper on genetics and tell me what you think? It doesn't what source we look at on either side...everyone will be untrustworthy.
My paper is sourced..and it does not take things out of context. I think anyone who reads it would think it was very fair and valuable. Now..I haven't taken any classes on evolution..and as I said I USED to have full faith in it...but that has been shaken. So...I am not someone who comes in on one side of the argument the whole time. Also..I have just used everything you gave me to show you that you are using the wrong definition to refute me. The other funny thing is that the article that is supposedly so untrustworthy says that evolutionists will do exactly that.
Why exactly should I be so ready to look at the other side again when everything that I am reading..and looking at seems to be happening as such?
Don't get me wrong..I don't think the idea of evolution is dumb...and I haven't even said that it didn't happen. My whole point here is that it shouldn't be so readily accepted as if it were fact...or as if it were supported enough to even be such? Why is there such a push behind evolution? Because it rules out a God I think....and if you take a look at the lower portion of the site you can see what that can lead to. I am not blaming evolution..but I am saying "Idea's have consequences" and the ones from this are not beneficial to humanity. The more readily we accpet them..the more dangerous it becomes.
I simply want SOMEONE who is agianst me to admit that evolution could be wrong..
But..I have to say too..that I might not post on this thread anymore. Just..because I am getting tired of typing so much..and at the moment I am losing interest..but..I might come back and such later. I just don't feel like reading a lot etc.
~Kiva