[Dataman]

If that's not a classic definition of evolution, then what is?

microevolution vs.
macroevolution

The creationist has no problem with microevolution which is variation and adaptation. For example, 2000 years ago there were far fewer varieties of dog. Though there are many new varieties today, they are still dogs. They existed in the genetic material of their ancestors 2k years ago. No new genetic info was added.

Macroevolution would allow for a plant to become a mammal. Of course this sort of thing does not happen. It has never been observed. It only happens in textbooks and computer animation.

[Quick1]

So you're saying 1+1+...+1 could never sum to 1,000? Macroevolution is simply the sum of many small mutations (or microevolutions).

Macroevolution would allow for a plant to become a mammal.

What? Why would a plant become a mammal? If a plant became a mammal, it would in fact disprove evolution, because there is no *need* for a plant to become a mammal.

[Aric2000]

Macroevolution would allow for a plant to become a mammal.

Yep, totally clueless about what evolution actually says.

This misrepresentation tells it all.

Macroevolution would allow for a small ratlike mammal, over milliions of years to evolve into Homo Sapiens and other MAMMALS.

Any other misrepresentations that you wish to state, that I can tear to pieces again?

If you would actually learn something, maybe this could be a debate.

No wonder you don't agree with evolution, you don't UNDERSTAND it.