Evolution is a scientific theory not a fallacy

"First of all, calling evolution the scientific theory and saying that I am con to it is saying that I am against science." To be clear, con is against evolution being a scientific theory, not that there is no such thing as a scientific theory or science. "I am against evolution because I do not believe that science proves the universe to be billions of years old but rather only a few thousand, namely 6000 as far as I can tell." Note the theory of evolution as defined in the above does not imply the age of the universe, the current evolutionary synthesis, descent with modification even holds if the universe was created 6000 years ago with a number of unique kinds in fully developed complex forms. Note the well known bacterial experiments of Lenski, which while only taking place over 20 years, readily demonstrate and support the theory of evolution as defined in the above[1]. Of course if it was true that the earth was only 6000 years old it would contradict universal common descent (there is a unique anscestor to all life on earth), which is derived from the theory of evolution when applied to the current understanding of the age of the earth. Universal common descent (UCD) is well established in the literature, with the most recent modeling article by Theobald providing new evidence as well as an excellent review article on the history and evidence for UCD. [2] "There are several different types of evolution: elemental, the evolution of elements; stellar, the evolution of the stars; planetary, the evolution of the plantes; macro-evolution, the evoluion of species from one to another; and micro-evolution, the modification inside a species. The only observed evolution is the last, changes within a species. This happens all the time, but all the others are believed to be true. We have never observed a star or planet form; we have never seen elements change above iron, event though there are many elements above it; and we have never seen any animal inside a species become an animal outside that species." Note the above definition of evolution was very clearly biological, additional debates can be held concerning the other uses of the term popularized by Hovind a popular creationist apologist. Specific to this debate the claim "we have never seen any animal inside a species become an animal outside that species" is false. In fact it is so well known to be false and the evidence so strong against it that even Hovind has stopped using this as an argument. The most well documented list of speciation is given on talk.origins [3]. This collection and commentary on speciation events notes hundreds of peer reviewed articles which report speciation again and again for the last 100 years. Again, over a hundred years of papers all supporting the theory of evolution as defined in the above. "Never has anyone experimented with any form of this except in modificaiton inside a kind." In order to contest this, it would need to be defined as to the nature of a kind in a way of course which can be demonstrated and falsified as if one animal is the same kind as another. [1] Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab [http://www.newscientist.com...] [2] Theobald, Douglas L. (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.". Nature 465 (7295): 219–222 [3] http://www.talkorigins.org...