Oh have you researched the evolutionist movement much?
If twenty five years counts as "much", then yes, I have.
It always comes down to that.
No, it does not "always" come down to that. Please try to reign in your penchant for overgeneralization.
Redefining scientific as meaning only those facts that support/do not undermine evolution.
Nonsense. Feel free to provide an example which you think exhibits this, and let's see just how fair and accurate your grasp is of these discussions.
Like I said, we cut to the chase.
No, you keep cutting to one thing *you* think is More Important than any other. That doesn't make it "the chase", especially when people explain to you why they think it's less relevant to other topics than you apparently believe.
All these 'missing link' discussions are moot if you cannot explain where the stuff came from by natural means.
Ahem. A moment ago you faulted people for allegedly "Redefining scientific as meaning only those facts that support/do not undermine evolution". And yet, aren't you now setting up your *own* litmus test for what shall be considered moot or not? How is that any different than the accusation you just made?
It comes down to a choice - the stuff is preexistent and impersonal, which leaves you with the question of how life and intellect and morality arose from it (since spontaneous generation has been disproven... or are we to suggest that we need to reexamine that theory?).
No, spontaneous generation doesn't need to be reexamined, but you're trying to apply it improperly. Spontaneous generation was *only* the old notion that complex life could spring forth in a matter of hours or days out of non-living material (i.e., people used to believe that mice sprang fully formed out of rotting grain, flies from dead meat, etc.) That was indeed disproven. But that in no way applies to the question of whether simple chemical replicators can arise from non-replicating chemicals given enough time and material, or whether things like thought or morality can arise through progressive changes.
OR there is a transcendent power which brought it into existence.
False dichotomy -- there are many other options (and variations on the two you mention). Some more plausible than others, granted, but it's an error to declare that there are only two possibilities, and that they are exactly as you describe them.
Once you have decided for one or the other, you will by faith (be you creationist or evolutionist) fit everything to support that one presupposition.
I'll let you speak for the creationists, but no, evolutionists are quite open to evidence and arguments which challenge their current views.
They're not, however, so open that they'll swallow just anything. If you've had a hard time changing their minds, perhaps its the quality of your material and not their intransigence.
The thing is, the creationist's puzzle pieces fit much better and leave less room for faith than do the evos.
So they believe.
Yet they insist the opposite.
Yes, and for good reason. Perhaps I can claim some perspective on this, since I've been on both sides. I started life as a creationist, but over time my beliefs changed because, quite frankly, the "puzzle pieces fit much better" from an evolutionary standpoint.
If you have a few minutes, please read this post from the talk.origins newsgroup. It describes the situation rather well.
How can there be any meeting of minds when one party insists black is white and white is black?
Good question. Perhaps a good start would be to listen with respect to each other, instead of, oh, making multiple posts of sarcastic broadsides, for example.
Oh ok. 99 percent of the time it comes down to that. I must say that I did talk to a very nice atheist about six years ago online that actually persevered with me. He eventually admitted his decision to call himsef atheist was an emotional one, in response to something stupid a priest said.
I consider him one of the few. I also had a friend in high school with whom I had long discussions on origins. She had come to the conclusion on her own that there had to be a God but didn't know what he was like. She certainly didn't want to believe in the kind of God represented to her by her wacky legalistic parents...(both of which were highly educated, her mother had her PhD in Chemistry). I have lost touch with her since.
But there seem to be few who are really as openminded as they want to think they are.
When you get familiar with *individuals,* perhaps you won't jump into a flame war which may or may not be sincere.
You are familiar are you not with the concerted crusades which have gone on against certain creationists here, which ends up getting them banned for simply doing what you recommend I do?