Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.

I never understood why creationists like to make such a distinction between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution.Let's look at other things that have evolved through time. Have you ever seen a society macroevolve? Have you any evidence at all that a society macroevolved from sword fighting in the battlefield to fighter jets?Have you ever seen a language evolve into other languages? Can you connect all the dots, every little change that happened to ancient latin that resulted in modern day spanish?Your attempts at desperately trying to draw distinctions between macro and micro evolution is like drawing distinctions between different expressions in latin in different regions and it's eventual evolution into the modern day romance languages.Edit.Did you miss my thread about the power of accumulation?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Then give us the definition of these words and we'll go from there. Are you seriously this dense or you're lying for jesus here?The analogy wasn't about who created what. It was about lots of small changes that accumulated into large changes over time.Do you or do you not agree that the romance languages started out as Latin? Do you or do you not agree that it took thousands of years through very small accumulated changes in those languages in different regions to result in the romance languages today? Do you or do you not agree that we don't have documentation of all the small changes that took place between Latin and modern day Spanish? Do you or do you not agree that no controlled experiment has ever been performed to "prove" that a language can indeed change by thousands of years of small accumulated changes to become another completely different language?The analogy is about your objection that we have never seen macroevolution happen. I'm simply using your objection to show that we don't have to see or prove in the lab of something that will logically happen from things that we can already prove. Small changes can and do happen from one generation to the next in biological populations just like small changes can and do happen in the spoken language of a population. Through time (lots and lots of time), these small changes accumulate that result in a population with completely different genetic make up just like through lots of time small changes accumulate in a language that result in a completely different language in a population? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Because the militant atheists use those words in a completely different context than what creationists use them for. Simply repeating the word in a sentence does not make it a quotation in context.

There is no first hand account of Latin evolving into Spanish and other modern day romance languages. None. A language has never been directly observed to evolve into a completely different language.Based on your logic, every criminal activity should be dismissed from the courtroom if there are no first hand accounts and that they were not directly observed. Never mind all the finger prints. Never mind all the motives. Never mind all the forensic evidence.Actually, there is no first hand account of the 6 day creation of the universe either. And it has never been observed to happen. Ever. It can not be reproduced. At all.I see you've fallen back to defending a ridiculous position.