<< Exp, it's unfortunate that rather than responding to my previous email wherein it was proved that in light of the facts, faith in evolution is absurd; you chose instead to scoff at the fact that this thread is still here. >>
Sorry, petrek, I missed this post earlier. Regardless, I know your game too well now to fall into that trap again. In short, I have ignored your posts ever since you first began to ignore mine. Let's review the "creationist" argument to date:
-- Creationists began this thread by arguing against "evolution" as defined by dictionaries and encyclopedias, entirely useless sources when it comes to scientific terms. Other posters have since provided a more natural definition (i.e. based on changes in allelic frequencies within a population).
-- Creationists held that evolution is not factual, because it is a theory and not a law, revealing a gross misunderstanding of the scientific terms "hypothesis", "theory", and "law". The relationship between those three terms was then clarified for you.
-- Creationists insisted that the Theory of Evolution concerns also the origin of life itself, rather than just the origin of the species. This (common) misconception was also rectified when you were introduced to the concept of abiogenesis.
-- Creationists believed that Gould's PE has replaced "evolution", by which I assume they mean phyletic gradualism, and that PE is a saltational theory. Yet again you were corrected on both counts.
-- Creationists argued that there was no evidence whatsoever for speciation. When I provided links to the TalkOrigins index of speciation events with research papers cited therein you chose to ignore them. Later, when I called you out to respond you insisted that you would be back later to refute this evidence. I am still waiting for that rebuttal.
-- I then provided a widely-accepted definition of the word "species" (the BSC) and one specific example of a speciation event (Reish's polychaetes) under that definition, so that anyone who was genuinely interested in learning more about evolution would not have to wade through mountains of research papers at random to find relevant data. This evidence was also promptly ignored by anti-evolution poster(s) here.
-- Some creationists have now resorted to arguing that it is impossible to really know anything, a pathetic premise that clearly illustrates how precarious their position has become. That is akin to me saying "This shirt is blue," and receiving the creationist retorts "Well, can we actually KNOW that?" or "What IS 'blue', really??" Thank God that that sort of complacent, nonconstructive attitude is in the minority here, or we would undoubtedly still be languishing in the Stone Age right now.
-- Some creationists now argue that we have not observed the creation of "dogs from cats", whatever that is supposed to mean. Apparently now that your earlier position--that not even the creation of slightly different species (e.g. "fly from fly") has been observed--has been discredited you have resorted to the argument that the new species formed in such instances are "not different enough" for you. According to you "fly from fly" is not real speciation (despite the fact that there are many recognized species of flies, including some so similar that only an expert can identify them), but "cat from dog" (a meaningless example anyway since they are not of the same lineage) would be. Ironically, the fact that we have not observed the divergent development of two so morphologically different species actually supports our current understanding of evolution, as we would not expect such a process to have occurred in the short time that humans (and scientists in particular) have been around to witness and catalog it.
For whatever reason, you have chosen to continuously (and ineffectually) attack the theory of evolution, no matter how overwhelming the evidence arrayed against you. The extent of your desperation is clear by the very term you use for other posters: "evolutionists". What does that label even mean? Do you call someone who accepts the Newton's Law of Gravity a "gravitationist"? Am I a "precipitationist" because I recognize that it is snowing outside?? If I missed something here then by all means correct me, petrek, but from what I can see this debate is--and probably always was--pointless. All pretense of legitimate interest in the other side's viewpoint has vanished. The record of this thread speaks for itself: Creationists are backpedaling like hell and abandoning their positions as usual, all the while regurgitating the same tired arguments as before, complete with bible quotations, strawmen, slippery slopes and more. And I and like-minded posters have, in turn, become weary of regurgitating the same evidence time and time again.
As for you specifically, petrek, I must have missed your post that "proved that...faith in evolution is absurd." Of course, I did notice that you are still trying to intertwine the science of evolution with religious terms ("faith in evolution"). Get this straight: EVOLUTION != RELIGION. As most of your brethren have realized (including the Pope himself), it is very possible to reconcile the Theory of Evolution with Christianity. Either way, I see no reason to address whatever it was you had to say until I have first received a satisfactory response to my post containing evidence of speciation. How ironic that the very accusations of dodginess you fling at me apply most notably to yourself.