Old Earth Creationsm vs. Theistic Evolution

Thank you for your reply, Pro. I shall categorize your contentions by type and then rebut them.DefinitionsSeveral of my opponent's definitions are incorrect.For example, my opponent claimed that all Old Earth Creationists (who I shall refer to as OECs from this point forward) believe the Bible to be "the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God." Because the OEC position is not contingent upon this, I doubt that it is true.Pro also has inaccurate definitions for organic evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I am assuming that his source for these definitions was "Dr." Kent Hovind, as these are the same definitions that Hovind presents in his seminars. Organic evolution is not a separate process from micro- or macro-evolution, nor is it the origin of life (or "abiogenesis" as Hovind likes to claim). If my opponent denies organic evolution then he is also denying micro-evolution. Below are some proper definitions of the term.Def. 1: the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms(1)Def. 2: the slow and gradual process by which living organisms have changed from the simplest unicellular form to the most complex multi-cellular forms that are existing today(2)Def. 3: Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations.(3)As to the way he defines micro- and macro-evolution, this is an old and stubborn creationist fallacy. It is worth quoting TalkOrigins at length to refute it.Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution...Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.(4)TheologyConsidering that the definition of theistic evolution I presented was not evolution manipulated by "the Judeo-Christian God" but evolution manipulated by "a deity," theistic evolution is within the domain of deists and theists of all stripes. Using the Bible as an argument against it, therefore, has zero weight. Also, theistic evolution does not require that Adam and Eve not be a literal couple who lived at some point in history.ScienceContrary to Pro's claim that micro-evolution involves only lateral or downward changes in complexity, new genes can be formed by such things as gene fusion and gene duplication, among other processes.(5)My opponent's claim that no transitional fossils or forms exist shows a lack of knowledge of what those terms actually mean. A transitional form will not have a hippo's head and a horse's body. Rather, all creatures are transitional forms--slightly advanced forms of their ancestors. As I pointed out in R2, the animals of a region tend to have similar characteristics to the fossilized creatures found in that region. Many transitional fossils also exist. In fact, they number in the thousands.(6) A few examples include Tiktaalik, Ventastega, Vorona, Dorudon and Aetiocetus.(7) A good overview of the transitional fossils that have been discovered can be found at http://www.transitionalfossils.com....As for why we don't see even more of these fossils, this is no source of embarrassment for scientists. Not only is fossilization a very rare process, but fossils stand a good chance of being destroyed by erosion before they are ever found.(8) Add on to this that we probably have not discovered even the majority of fossils on the planet and the problem of the "missing" fossils ceases to be a problem.Pro's arguments concerning the statistical plausibility of the process evolution are unfounded. as theistic evolutionists believe that God either set up the system or intervened in the process from time to time. The involvement of a supreme intelligence in the process nullifies any arguments of the "It couldn't just happen!" variety.Sources1.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2.http://www.tutorvista.com...3.http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...4. http://www.talkorigins.org...5.http://www.nature.com...6.http://www.evolutionfaq.com...7. http://www.transitionalfossils.com...8. http://phylointelligence.com...