[gallo]

Quote by: doittoit Every time I see a thread on evolution it deisolves [sic] into supporters of evolution claiming supior [sic] knowledge without argument of the facts and/our a purposeful intermixing of the terms evolution and spcieation [sic].

Wow! That's not a very clear statement of anything. I'll work from what I infer you said. I think that it is probably your misunderstanding that leads you to believe that anyone knowledgeable about evolutionary biology would intermix the terms "evolution" and "speciation" without knowing what they were saying. In fact, speciation is always evolution while evolution may not be speciation. In my experience, discussions of evolution dissolve into discussions about speciation, or "organism morphing" as another on this board claims, is because creationists lead the discussion there. Very few creationists are educated enough to understand that speciation, or "new complete creatures" as the uneducated say it, are not necessary.

Most christians don't deny evolution, they deny speciation in a closed sexual system and use the term "evolution" as short hand.

That almost made sense. What's a "closed sexual system?" How is that relevant? Is that some sort of interswitching of jargon? Is your clumsy phrasing your way of talking about reproductive isolation?

While most psuedo-scientest will talk about evolution in the exact same manor and knowing interswitch jargon when it suits their argument.

So you admit that you are being pseudo-scientific in your discussion. After all, you are misrepresenting evolutionary theory by "interswitching" your jargon for anything that resembles real scientific discussion.

Sepciation [sic] is far from imperical [sic].

But it has been observed.

There has been very little research on the subject.

I suspect that you haven't been paying attention. Your statement is silly in the extreme.

The research that has been done is suspect and inconclusive (i'll add why later), but often used by evolution supporters out of ignorance and desire to protect their paradigm.

Forgive my if I doubt that you will add anything meaningful later. Sadly, there is no research to support your position. Creationism is nothing more than superstition based on mythology.

As well, the very few fossile [sic] records used to identify spciation [sic] is very conjectural and the absent [sic] of such records is suspicious.

I suspect that we are seeing your ignorance here. Or, it is the typical creationist position that it can't be true because your Bible tells you different.