*OFFICIAL Bamabake - blackumbrella SMACKDOWN THREAD*

[blackumbrella]

This is rediculous. I am not making the claim that metaphors and so forth are not used in the bible. I am simply pointing out that evolution cannot be reconciled via the bible.

you contradict yourself. the only way evolution conflicts with biblical mythology is if it is read as literal. all one has to do to reconcile the two is to read the scientifically asinine parts of the bible as figurative--you yourself admit figurative language is a biblical device.

also, why do you so stubbornly cling to this burden of proof nonsense? what 'proof' did the bible have over earlier mythologies?

 

[Bama_Dawg]

I submit that science isn't exclusively fact. Faith is also required in science. If I am recording data from an electronic instrument that I calibrated ten minutes ago, I must have faith that a software glitch didn't just skew all my numbers. If I have a colleague validate my observations on a different instrument, I must have faith that the same software glitch doesn't occur on his instrument and skew his numbers in exactly the same manner. One might state that the probabilities are infinitesimally small for that occurrence, but faith affects that .0000001% the same that it does the other 99.9999999%. You can quantify the amount of faith required to accept a given outcome, but the "fact" is that even the tiniest amount of faith is still faith. There is really nothing that anyone can state unequivocally is 100% fact.

You seem to be committing the all-or-nothing fallacy. Because science is .0000001% "faith", you suggest, it is no more scientifically sound than a belief system (i.e. religion) that relies on, say, 50% faith. That doesn't wash with me. Let me ask you this: when you design a circuit, do you design one that will work 99.9999999% of the time? Or do you say, "Heck, it's all a matter of faith anyhow," and design one that works 50% of the time? I trust the former.

 

[bamabake]

you contradict yourself. the only way evolution conflicts with biblical mythology is if it is read as literal. all one has to do to reconcile the two is to read the scientifically asinine parts of the bible as figurative--you yourself admit figurative language is a biblical device.

also, why do you so stubbornly cling to this burden of proof nonsense? what 'proof' did the bible have over earlier mythologies?

Ill entertain you. If one has common sense one has no problem differenting a parable or metaphor from actual history. I have made several points as to what should easily be interpreted as history as it relates to Genesis but as usual the were ignored. In your case it is irrelavent because you see the bible as just another book of text not Gods written Word. So to argue the issues with you is a waste of time.
The burden of proof ( which was asked of you in the last two threads, surprise, you dont remember) relate to the fact that evolution is a newer theory than creation. In the entire debate no logical evidence has been given that cannot be either laughed at ( ie your funny assumtive monkey to man charts) or explained via creationism. You better hurry too. Time isnt on your side. Your theory is getting older by the day.

 

[blackumbrella]

Ill entertain you. If one has common sense one has no problem differenting a parable or metaphor from actual history.

if all it takes is common sense, then why is there so much disagreement about? sure, my insights and your inanities represent opposite poles, but i'll wager there are plenty of christians on tf who see parts of the bible as figurative, parts as literal, but disagree with one another and with you about which are which.

The burden of proof ( which was asked of you in the last two threads, surprise, you dont remember) relate to the fact that evolution is a newer theory than creation. In the entire debate no logical evidence has been given that cannot be either laughed at ( ie your funny assumtive monkey to man charts) or explained via creationism. You better hurry too. Time isnt on your side. Your theory is getting older by the day.

here's what i said to you:
"why do you so stubbornly cling to this burden of proof nonsense? what 'proof' did the bible have over earlier mythologies?"

what that means is: if burden of proof is something applicable to this debate, a honestly hilarious notion, then it was applicable in the early days of christianity as well. you have no way out of this problem. if you see the new testament as valid proof, then you can't deny the validity of something like the book of mormon either. it's stupid.

 

[bamabake]

if all it takes is common sense, then why is there so much disagreement about? sure, my insights and your inanities represent opposite poles, but i'll wager there are plenty of christians on tf who see parts of the bible as figurative, parts as literal, but disagree with one another and with you about which are which.



here's what i said to you:
"why do you so stubbornly cling to this burden of proof nonsense? what 'proof' did the bible have over earlier mythologies?"

what that means is: if burden of proof is something applicable to this debate, a honestly hilarious notion, then it was applicable in the early days of christianity as well. you have no way out of this problem. if you see the new testament as valid proof, then you can't deny the validity of something like the book of mormon either. it's stupid.

if all it takes is common sense, then why is there so much disagreement about? sure, my insights and your inanities represent opposite poles, but i'll wager there are plenty of christians on tf who see parts of the bible as figurative, parts as literal, but disagree with one another and with you about which are which.

Nad this is my onle reason for even talking about it. Because to me it is important for Christains to see Gods Word as it is. If Genesis isnt true, then the Ark and the flood are next, Jonah is next.. where is the line drawn? God wouldnt provide nonsense for His Word, which the bible says is useful for instruction etc.



what that means is: if burden of proof is something applicable to this debate, a honestly hilarious notion, then it was applicable in the early days of christianity as well. you have no way out of this problem. if you see the new testament as valid proof, then you can't deny the validity of something like the book of mormon either. it's stupid.[/QUOTE]


Well as usual you dodged. However I will continue to entertain, although my desire to even come to this forum latley has waned.
I certainly can deny the validity of the book of mormon and the whole religion.
But in order not to hurt anyones feelings that might be one I will repsond in, probably the only PM you will ever get from me.

 

[blackumbrella]

Nad this is my onle reason for even talking about it. Because to me it is important for Christains to see Gods Word as it is. If Genesis isnt true, then the Ark and the flood are next, Jonah is next.. where is the line drawn? God wouldnt provide nonsense for His Word, which the bible says is useful for instruction etc.

i agree with what 666 and others have said here for awhile. just bc it's figurative doesn't mean it's nonsense. are you saying that the parsts of the bible you admit to be figurative are nonsense?

Well as usual you dodged. However I will continue to entertain, although my desire to even come to this forum latley has waned.
I certainly can deny the validity of the book of mormon and the whole religion.
But in order not to hurt anyones feelings that might be one I will repsond in, probably the only PM you will ever get from me.

again, that's not the point. obviouslt for mormons it's 'proof' enough. for muslims and jews your new testament is in the same boat. again, i have to question your faith if you insist religion is a matter of 'proof' at all. it's about faith. sure there is uncertainty in science, and hence faith. but science actively tests its beliefs and is willing and able to abandon them if evidence demands it. religion, at least the way you understand it, works the other way around, abandoning evidence as the beliefs demand it. if god came down to earth, started doing tricks to prove himself, then explained how he'd made the earth 10,000 years ago and tricked everyone into thinking it was older, scientists would be able to weigh this new information and change their minds. on the other hand, if aliens came down and said they made up these supernatural stories and gave them to humans as a science project and showed video of them staging the ascension into heaven and all that jazz, would you change your beliefs? there's the difference and the reason your beliefs aren't scientific.

 

[bamabake]

i agree with what 666 and others have said here for awhile. just bc it's figurative doesn't mean it's nonsense. are you saying that the parsts of the bible you admit to be figurative are nonsense?



again, that's not the point. obviouslt for mormons it's 'proof' enough. for muslims and jews your new testament is in the same boat. again, i have to question your faith if you insist religion is a matter of 'proof' at all. it's about faith. sure there is uncertainty in science, and hence faith. but science actively tests its beliefs and is willing and able to abandon them if evidence demands it. religion, at least the way you understand it, works the other way around, abandoning evidence as the beliefs demand it. if god came down to earth, started doing tricks to prove himself, then explained how he'd made the earth 10,000 years ago and tricked everyone into thinking it was older, scientists would be able to weigh this new information and change their minds. on the other hand, if aliens came down and said they made up these supernatural stories and gave them to humans as a science project and showed video of them staging the ascension into heaven and all that jazz, would you change your beliefs? there's the difference and the reason your beliefs aren't scientific.

Science makes as many assumtions. Kilvols pointed out the assumtions made over the years about the fossil record. It was as sound as facts can be and you didnt even acknologe the post, you just started rambling. Answer this one question ( again), and dont be lame by asking where did God come from. Answer it using the scientific method you are so proud of...
If there was a big bang, a small incredibly dense amount of matter that was the nucleus of the ENDLESS expanse of BILLIONS of galaxies we see and was the source of what we see around us today... where did that small incredibly dense matter come from? Why did it need to exist? If there was nothing why did there need to be something and what caused nothing to become something? There has to be a purpose. YOu know, cause and effect. Enlighten us all.

 

[blackumbrella]

Science makes as many assumtions. Kilvols pointed out the assumtions made over the years about the fossil record. It was as sound as facts can be and you didnt even acknologe the post, you just started rambling. Answer this one question ( again), and dont be lame by asking where did God come from. Answer it using the scientific method you are so proud of...
If there was a big bang, a small incredibly dense amount of matter that was the nucleus of the ENDLESS expanse of BILLIONS of galaxies we see and was the source of what we see around us today... where did that small incredibly dense matter come from? Why did it need to exist? If there was nothing why did there need to be something and what caused nothing to become something? There has to be a purpose. YOu know, cause and effect. Enlighten us all.

why don't you respond to the thought experiment in my previous post? if the alien example is too corny for you, answer this: is there ANYTHING that could ever possibly happen to make you not believe in god, in your literal interpretaion of the bible? i'll cut and paste the question at the end of this post too so it doesn't slip your mind. so, my answers to your query: sure science makes assumptions. sure the things we know less about, like the early moments of the universe, require bigger assumptions than the things we know tons about, like biology, anthropology, geology, etc. the point, once again, is not whether or not assumptions are being made, it's the nature of those assumptions. scientists can admit, when sufficient evidence demands it, that their assumptions were wrong, or more accurately, are no longer best supported by the evidence. with me so far? this takes us back to the nature of your theological assumptions. so, again: is there ANYTHING, ANY amount of evidence to the contrary that could ever possibly make you not believe in god, in your literal interpretaion of the bible?

 

[Crimson_Star]

Science makes as many assumtions. Kilvols pointed out the assumtions made over the years about the fossil record. It was as sound as facts can be and you didnt even acknologe the post, you just started rambling. Answer this one question ( again), and dont be lame by asking where did God come from. Answer it using the scientific method you are so proud of...
If there was a big bang, a small incredibly dense amount of matter that was the nucleus of the ENDLESS expanse of BILLIONS of galaxies we see and was the source of what we see around us today... where did that small incredibly dense matter come from? Why did it need to exist? If there was nothing why did there need to be something and what caused nothing to become something? There has to be a purpose. YOu know, cause and effect. Enlighten us all.

Science does not have, at this time (although with a question like that, it probably never will), the ability to answer the question you posed. There have been hypothesises about it. One that always made sense to me, but looks less likely given new evidence, is that the universe, thanks to gravitational forces, eventually collapses back in on itself creating another "small icredibly dense amount of matter that was the nucleus of the ENDLESS expanse of BILLIONS of galaxies we see and was the source of what we see around us today" which then created another big bang, etc. Like the circle of life, but with the universe. In that instance, one could assume that the universe has just always been there. I know that's a big idea for any person to wrap their head around, that something didn't just come from anywhere, that it just always has been, but honestly, to me, it's not really different than believing that God has just always been (yes, I realize that you said not to do that, but if you're going to toss out impossible questions like this, you can't restrict yourself from taking them back).

Anyway, I kind of rambled, the point was, as of right now, while there are several hypothesises about the creation of the universe, since the event itself is not observable, testable or ortherwise capable of being quantified or measured, there can be no working theory about it (side note: there's a general misunderstanding here, from both sides, about the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. They are not the same). Someday, we may be able to figure that out, but I doubt it. Ultimately, the question of where everything came from, I believe, will be a question for religion and philosophy.

So, this was all kind of a long way of saying that the answer a real scientist would give you is, "I don't know". Now that answer, contrary to what you believe, does not destroy the whole foundation of science. It's just a question that science can't answer right now. At some point, every part of scientific knowledge that exists today was something that science couldn't explain. Somebody had to come along and make the observations and do the experiments. Science never claimed to have the answer to every question (although it often does come off as arrogant and "know-it-all"), and many scientists believe that we will never be able to answer every question. But that doesn't mean science is wrong.

 

[bamabake]

Science does not have, at this time (although with a question like that, it probably never will), the ability to answer the question you posed. There have been hypothesises about it. One that always made sense to me, but looks less likely given new evidence, is that the universe, thanks to gravitational forces, eventually collapses back in on itself creating another "small icredibly dense amount of matter that was the nucleus of the ENDLESS expanse of BILLIONS of galaxies we see and was the source of what we see around us today" which then created another big bang, etc. Like the circle of life, but with the universe. In that instance, one could assume that the universe has just always been there. I know that's a big idea for any person to wrap their head around, that something didn't just come from anywhere, that it just always has been, but honestly, to me, it's not really different than believing that God has just always been (yes, I realize that you said not to do that, but if you're going to toss out impossible questions like this, you can't restrict yourself from taking them back).

Anyway, I kind of rambled, the point was, as of right now, while there are several hypothesises about the creation of the universe, since the event itself is not observable, testable or ortherwise capable of being quantified or measured, there can be no working theory about it (side note: there's a general misunderstanding here, from both sides, about the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. They are not the same). Someday, we may be able to figure that out, but I doubt it. Ultimately, the question of where everything came from, I believe, will be a question for religion and philosophy.

So, this was all kind of a long way of saying that the answer a real scientist would give you is, "I don't know". Now that answer, contrary to what you believe, does not destroy the whole foundation of science. It's just a question that science can't answer right now. At some point, every part of scientific knowledge that exists today was something that science couldn't explain. Somebody had to come along and make the observations and do the experiments. Science never claimed to have the answer to every question (although it often does come off as arrogant and "know-it-all"), and many scientists believe that we will never be able to answer every question. But that doesn't mean science is wrong.

Thanks for your thughts. Nice to see someone new.

Anyway, I kind of rambled, the point was, as of right now, while there are several hypothesises about the creation of the universe, since the event itself is not observable, testable or ortherwise capable of being quantified or measured, there can be no working theory about it (side note: there's a general misunderstanding here, from both sides, about the difference between an hypothesis and a theory.


This is a point that the creation side made in a past thread. It is a good point. Therefore one can say that it is in the interpretation of the evidence we do have that determines ones opinion on the subject. In fact the case can be easily made that faith is required to believe in evolution every bit if not more than God.


cheers

 

[blackumbrella]

the case can be easily made that faith is required to believe in evolution every bit if not more than God.

on the face, this is of course moronic, but let's try to see how it might make some sense. firstly, 'god' has maybe more definitions, is understood in more ways, than any other word or concept. if god=something/s beyond our understanding that affect/s our lives, then sure, it doesn't take much faith to believe in that. further, if faith=strategy/ies for dealing with uncertainty, then, in this very general sense, it could be said that a scientific worldview requires more faith than a religious one insofar as, with science, faith manages uncertainty, but NEVER translates into certainty, while with certain religious worldviews, one only needs enough faith to get them to that point of certainty, to accept the religious tenets as absolutely true. when you use science in pushing your apologetics, when you stress the importance of 'burden of proof' and how little 'faith' are involved in accepting ideas, whether you know it or not, you're advocating a scientific rahter than a religious perspective. and yet the ideas you endorse as factual are largely supernatural and thus fundamentaly unscientific. i wonder how you've managed to live your life without figuring this out.

 

[Crimson_Star]

This is a point that the creation side made in a past thread. It is a good point. Therefore one can say that it is in the interpretation of the evidence we do have that determines ones opinion on the subject. In fact the case can be easily made that faith is required to believe in evolution every bit if not more than God.


cheers

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. I was talking about the lack of understanding with regards to the origins of the universe. That has nothing to do with evolution. They're not even in the same field of science (Physics vs. Biology, which is about as far apart on the scientific spectrum as you can get). Let's put this notion to rest right now, evolution does NOT try to answer the following questions; how did life originate? where did the universe come from? how was the universe formed? Using any of those questions to debunk evolution is flat out wrong. The question that the theory of evolution answers is; where did life, as we observe it today, come from? Through mountains of evidence, the theory of evolution has worked back from life today all the way back to early single cell organisms. It doesn't go further back than that. It starts with the single cell and works up to... well, us. It doesn't try to answer where that first cell came from. Any scientist or proponent of science that claims that it does is wrong.

If you want to say it takes faith to say that God didn't create the universe when we have no evidence to suggest otherwise, then I'll agree. If you want to say that it takes faith to believe in evolution when there is ample evidence supporting it, then I won't agree.

EDIT: And thanks for the welcome, by the way.

 

[blackumbrella]

science in america

***seemed more like a new thread so i reposted as such--'science in america'


i saw a figure the other day that indicated 45% of americans believe god created the universe in its present form 10,000 years ago. obviously, if you're one of the 45%, you're not so disturbed by this statistic as i am, but here're some other stats for perspective. times

American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

as if our president suggesting intelligent design be taught as science wasn't enough, these numbers, if anywhere close to accurate, constitute a gut-check about what's going on in our science classrooms.

 

[NYBamaFan]

I refuse to believe this information. I know of noone over the age of 6 that believes that the Sun rotates around the Earth.

Lately, people who advocate the teaching of evolution have been citing Dr. Miller's ideas on what factors are correlated with adherence to creationism and rejection of Darwinian theories. In general, he says, these fundamentalist views are most common among people who are not well educated and who "work in jobs that are evaporating fast with competition around the world."

Hmmm, sounds like a typical liberal. Question the education and/or intelligence of the faithful - call them "fundamentalists" rather than accept that it is their faith in God that they trust, not man...

 

[bamabake]

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. I was talking about the lack of understanding with regards to the origins of the universe. That has nothing to do with evolution. They're not even in the same field of science (Physics vs. Biology, which is about as far apart on the scientific spectrum as you can get). Let's put this notion to rest right now, evolution does NOT try to answer the following questions; how did life originate? where did the universe come from? how was the universe formed? Using any of those questions to debunk evolution is flat out wrong. The question that the theory of evolution answers is; where did life, as we observe it today, come from? Through mountains of evidence, the theory of evolution has worked back from life today all the way back to early single cell organisms. It doesn't go further back than that. It starts with the single cell and works up to... well, us. It doesn't try to answer where that first cell came from. Any scientist or proponent of science that claims that it does is wrong.

If you want to say it takes faith to say that God didn't create the universe when we have no evidence to suggest otherwise, then I'll agree. If you want to say that it takes faith to believe in evolution when there is ample evidence supporting it, then I won't agree.

EDIT: And thanks for the welcome, by the way.

What does the scientific term Biogeniesis or maybe it is Bio-Genesis mean?

 

[Crimson_Star]

What does the scientific term Biogeniesis or maybe it is Bio-Genesis mean?

Biogenesis

More or less, Biogenesis is the concept that life comes from life. Conversely, Abiogenesis is the concept of life coming from non-life. As it stands, Biogenesis has been the only observed method of creating life. Although, again, I will say, that the theory of evolution, as of right now, does not include how the first single-celled organism got there, it merely deals with what happened to it once it was there. Many scientists assume Abiogenesis, some kind of spontanious generation, occured that created the first cells. Scientists have been trying to produce life from non-life, but so far have not been succesful (although they have created viruses which is more than halfway there). Since scientists haven't created life in this manner yet, nor observed it in nature, the theory of evolution can't include anything about the origin of that first cell. It is a scientific theory and as such, it can't contain anything that is not observable, testable, or in some way quantified or measured. Scientists can hypothesize about it plenty, but there is no standing scientific theory on the origin of life. I will say that many scientists, teachers and proponents of science mistakenly say/teach/imply that Abiogenesis is the progenitor of evolution. That is an error on their part, and it should be clarified to say that Abiogenesis is the "assumed" progenitor of evolution in their eyes.

Now, just because Abiogenesis has never been observed, does not mean it can't occur. To quote the old adage, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But to be perfectly honest, I've relly got no qualms with believing that a supernatural power (in my case God) gave some primordial pool the spark it needed to produce life from non-life, which set the giant (and observable) wheel of evolution in motion.

 

[bamabake]

Biogenesis

More or less, Biogenesis is the concept that life comes from life. Conversely, Abiogenesis is the concept of life coming from non-life. As it stands, Biogenesis has been the only observed method of creating life. Although, again, I will say, that the theory of evolution, as of right now, does not include how the first single-celled organism got there, it merely deals with what happened to it once it was there. Many scientists assume Abiogenesis, some kind of spontanious generation, occured that created the first cells. Scientists have been trying to produce life from non-life, but so far have not been succesful (although they have created viruses which is more than halfway there). Since scientists haven't created life in this manner yet, nor observed it in nature, the theory of evolution can't include anything about the origin of that first cell. It is a scientific theory and as such, it can't contain anything that is not observable, testable, or in some way quantified or measured. Scientists can hypothesize about it plenty, but there is no standing scientific theory on the origin of life. I will say that many scientists, teachers and proponents of science mistakenly say/teach/imply that Abiogenesis is the progenitor of evolution. That is an error on their part, and it should be clarified to say that Abiogenesis is the "assumed" progenitor of evolution in their eyes.

Now, just because Abiogenesis has never been observed, does not mean it can't occur. To quote the old adage, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But to be perfectly honest, I've relly got no qualms with believing that a supernatural power (in my case God) gave some primordial pool the spark it needed to produce life from non-life, which set the giant (and observable) wheel of evolution in motion.

Thanks and welcome. Well I have two primary issues. One is that the bible doesnt teach that God gave some goo a spark. If He had He would have said so. Why wouldnt He?
Second, the theory is a poor one on many levels and those have been exahsted
on previous threads, at the DNA level, the fossil record etc. All that we observe
is based on interpretation of the observable evidence. I can make the case that God is responsible for every case evolution can make.
Where is proof that one species evolved into another? Name one, show me. It doesnt exist. Interpretations of observable facts are made. For example the evolution crowd likes the pictures we were brainwashed with as kids, you know the ones, where it shows neaderthal " man" and the other "men" to modern "man". Since there is no proof that these creatures ever evolved I can make a better case that they are just extint ape like creatures, unique to themselves. It is a huge leap of faith to conclude one evolved into another. There is no proof. If one clings to evolution however as the only possible explaination then one HAS to cling doggedly to an assuption. There is no where else to go for them.

 

[jthomas666]

Thanks and welcome. Well I have two primary issues. One is that the bible doesnt teach that God gave some goo a spark.

goo-spark; clay-breath of life

It's not that big a leap.

If He had He would have said so. Why wouldnt He?

Reading some of your responses is kind of like listening to 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall . . . the last two or three verses.

Where is proof that one species evolved into another? Name one, show me. It doesnt exist.

Of course it doesn't exist. If there were proof, it wouldn't be a theory.

 

[Crimson_Star]

Where is proof that one species evolved into another? Name one, show me. It doesnt exist.

BAM! And I just found that surfing the web for a few minutes.

Point is, there are plenty of species that have evolved into another, there are numerous studies about many of them. There are the guppies in South America that changed color and size (dramtically) depending on what predators were presentin their pools. There are the moths in England that went from majority light-colored to majority dark when pollution darkened their natural habitat. There's a species of fish that has two COMPLETELY different types of males, some are large and bulky and move very slowly, the others are very small and extremely quick. The large fish court a mate in a more traditional manner, and the small fish are just so fast that they swim in between a large male and a female about to mate and do their business (sort of a fish rape I suppose). That's an evolutionary battle right there. Plain and simple there are species that we have observed that have evolved into something else or are in the state of evolving.

And I'm sorry to JThomas, who I find myself agreeing with alot (no surprise), but the reason evolution is a theory and will, with almost 100% certainty, always be a theory, isn't because we don't have evidence of species to species evolution but it is because we have not observed and tested every single step of evolution that has ever occured. Without that, it can't become scientific fact. Is there still a whole lot more to learn and discover about evolution? Sure, there's plenty. There are a large number of missing links out there, there is still a huge knowledge gap when it comes to the workings of DNA and generics as it relates to evolution. Hoestly, I doubt science will ever figure out evolution in its entirety, but that doesn't mean that the huge amounts of evidence don't point that way right now.

Let's see, now we argue about the definition of a species, am I right?

 

[bamabake]

BAM! And I just found that surfing the web for a few minutes.

Point is, there are plenty of species that have evolved into another, there are numerous studies about many of them. There are the guppies in South America that changed color and size (dramtically) depending on what predators were presentin their pools. There are the moths in England that went from majority light-colored to majority dark when pollution darkened their natural habitat. There's a species of fish that has two COMPLETELY different types of males, some are large and bulky and move very slowly, the others are very small and extremely quick. The large fish court a mate in a more traditional manner, and the small fish are just so fast that they swim in between a large male and a female about to mate and do their business (sort of a fish rape I suppose). That's an evolutionary battle right there. Plain and simple there are species that we have observed that have evolved into something else or are in the state of evolving.

And I'm sorry to JThomas, who I find myself agreeing with alot (no surprise), but the reason evolution is a theory and will, with almost 100% certainty, always be a theory, isn't because we don't have evidence of species to species evolution but it is because we have not observed and tested every single step of evolution that has ever occured. Without that, it can't become scientific fact. Is there still a whole lot more to learn and discover about evolution? Sure, there's plenty. There are a large number of missing links out there, there is still a huge knowledge gap when it comes to the workings of DNA and generics as it relates to evolution. Hoestly, I doubt science will ever figure out evolution in its entirety, but that doesn't mean that the huge amounts of evidence don't point that way right now.

Let's see, now we argue about the definition of a species, am I right?

And I'm sorry to JThomas, who I find myself agreeing with alot (no surprise), but the reason evolution is a theory and will, with almost 100% certainty, always be a theory, isn't because we don't have evidence of species to species evolution but it is because we have not observed and tested every single step of evolution that has ever occured. Without that, it can't become scientific fact.

No, it is because there is NO evidence of ANY evolution. Your examples fall short. See the former thread. 25 to 30 pages back.