Evolution is more credible than Creationism revisited after 2 yrs

Your response to my argument fails to address any of my points and instead quotes the dictionary (which is completely pointless as I said nothing about the dictionary definition at all, nearly your understanding (or lack thereof) of evolution), and a few websites, which prove nothing. "This clearly shows Darwin AS the father of Evolution! Notice- the part that states DEVELOPED the theory of Evolution. Darwin himself penned The Origins of Life." You remind us all that Darwin is the father of evolution, something which I'm sure most people already know, and tell us what his book was titled, but you seem to miss the point here. We are not discussing Darwin, but the theory which he came up with, which itself has nothing to do with the origin of life. The title is more fitting as "The Origins of Life [as we know it}." His book title does not support your argument in any way. "That Science was incapable of creating an organism capable of producing Living offspring which is intoduced into the KNOWN populace of Living creatures ON EARTH, is the death nell of evolution. It simply didn't happen." This statement shows you to be scientifically illiterate and is a subtle personal incredulity fallacy. You very clearly don't understand the theory of evolution. At all. Whether scientists can create a creature in a lab or not, that has no bearing on the reality of evolution. Evolution is the extremely gradual change of a species, with microevolution being within a species and macroevolution being outside of a species. However, a basic level of research will tell you that these are essentially the same thing, and I will respond to your next 2 'paragraphs' together. I would like to see the evidence that you talk about here, because all the evidence and fossil records prove that species have macro evolved, and as a result of microevolution and gradual changes to the genome over multiple generations can no longer breed their previous species. I would like to use a modern example of macro evolution. The rabbit. More specifically, Alaska rabbits and Florida rabbits. These two breeds of rabbit have been bread by humans, and the genome has changed to the extent that they cannot breed with one another. This means that they are different species. (To clear up any confusion, species - a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.) The fact that they are different species is proof that macro evolution has occurred. As a side note, what you mentioned as adaption is essentially microevolution, where a group of animals change to suit their environment. "IF your going to CLAIM the dictionary and Darwin Himself is WRONG on what EVOLUTION IS ... that is a bold statement." This statement truly confuses me, as not once did I say that Darwin or the dictionary were wrong. I merely said that you lack understanding, which, from your response, has become increasingly clear. "This is what you CLAIM is Evolution and it is Clear it is NOT! You attempt to steal the defintion of Adaption and place it in the definition of EVOLUTION." Whether this is true or not, it has no bearing on whether evolution is true or not. I would also like to point out now your aggressive word choice and tone, using the capital letters for no apparent reason and the verb "steal," makes you come across as aggressive, not to mention the further ad hominem that appears throughout the debate. "Science couldn't create ANYTHING that HAS CRAWLED out of soup, mud or OOZE ... EVER!." ... and? "YOU CAN'T SHOW Life beginning at all. So we EVOLVED FROM NOTHING, and continue to evolve from that same nothing? is just to stupid to even consider AS an argument." Regardless of however life began, evolution happened. If you were scientifically literate enough to look at the evidence or do enough research to become even a tiny bit educated on the Theory of Evolution, you would know this. I would like to point out, however, that you have completely disregarded what I said about the Primordial Soup Theory, which is very likely to be true, as I alluded to in my first argument. "Try a Little harder BUD! at the very least DON'T TRY Telling us the Dictionnary and Darwin is WRONG on WHAT evolution IS according to this or that wacko." I didn't. "Did you hit your head?" No but thanks for the concern nontheless.