AevnsGrandpa:
Last time I posted this thread was only at 192 pages!
I just read back a few pages and noted a few things I would like to bring up.
First, someone stated something about dogs and wolves being able to breed and alluded this to something having to do with evolution. I would like to point out that wolves are still dog kind.
Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote there, as you obviously missed the point. The point there was the evolution can occur without the formation of a new species. Evolution lead to the difference between dogs and wolves, but they are still the same species.
As for the rest of it - you should have read back a little farther, as we covered the "kind" issue about a week back. "Kind" is useless as a scientific criteria as it is too subjective, and too prone to redefinition, to be useful for any sort of comparison.
In the previous example humans/chimps and horses/donkeys were used as examples - with someone claiming the first were not of the same kind, while the second were of the same kind. However, the genetic, structural, biochemical and immunological similarity between chimps and humans is far, far greater then the similarity between horses and donkeys. So that persons definition of "kind" clearly represents a personal opinion, rather than an objectively definable criteria. If donkeys and horses qualify as "kind", then by quantifiable standards (i.e. scientific standards), humans and chimps are also of the same "kind".
AevnsGrandpa:
What some may say is evolution is nothing of the kind (no pun intended) There is a huge amount of "horizontal" variability with in the different species (kinds) which gives us everything from wolves to poodles, but they are still just dogs.
Do you even know what evolution is defined as? It is simply, and succinctly, the change in the genetics of a population over time. Nothing more, nothing less. And those changes have been observed time and time again.
Don't forget - scientific theories are just our explanations of the FACTS which we observe. That life (and its genetics) change over time is an absolute, undeniable FACT. Each and every FACT we have recorded agrees with evolution, and no other theory which explains these FACTS has been proposed, either here, or in the wider world. You have to either provide a better explanation of those FACTS, or show those FACTS to be false, to disprove evolution. Not one creationist, in the past 300-odd pages (or for that matter, in the last 150-odd years), has done either.
AevnsGrandpa:
I just attend a very well done conference on this subject and per quotes from leading evolutionary scientists there has yet to be found any intermediary fossils found in the fossil record.
And who is this scientist? What research have they done in the field of evolution? On what topic? Where are their studies published? I think we all know the answer to this - none.
After all, any "leading evolutionary scientist", or for that matter, anyone who's ever walked into a museum, knows that claim is a load of horse huey. Literally thousands of transitional fossils are known, and recorded in both the scientific and layman's literature.
AevnsGrandpa:
Thus we have no vertical change, one species to another,
Wrong, again. There are over 2000 speciation events recorded within the scientific literature. Your claim that the formation of new species has not been observed is out of date - by 101 years. That's right, the first speciation event was observed in 1905. You may even have the product of that event in your garden - the evening primrose is the product of that speciation event.
AevnsGrandpa:
but lots of horizontal change due to adaptability and natural selection (which is not evolution).
Actually, it is evolution. Creationists like to redefine what evolution is for some reason. But rather then demonstrating what evolution is, all they demonstrate is their ignorance of evolutionary theory, and for that matter, science in general.
I'll repeat it again, as hopefully repetition will drive the point home - evolution is the
change in a populations genetic makeup over time.
Here's a few other definitions, from reputable sources:
"change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift" - dictionary.com
"A progressive distancing between the genotype and the phenotype in a line of descent." - Stedmans medial dictionary
"he way in which living things change and develop over millions of years, or a gradual process of change and development" - Cambridge dictionary
Evolution is a scientific theory. You can redefine it all you want, and claim that
your definition is true or false. But at the end of the day evolution is what the
scientific definition says it is - too be blunt about it, your personal opinion of what evolution is means nothing.
AevnsGrandpa:
Since neither Creation or Evolution can truly be scientifically proven (if you question this you don't know the definition of science)
That you make this statement shows that you do not understand science. Before you get all excited I should point out that I am a scientist. I do medical research for a living. I publish scientific papers, in scientific journals. I
teach science to university students. I have lived in the world of science for over a decade - science puts food on my table, pays the rent, and even buys my SCUBA gear. And I can say, without reservation, that evolution is scientific in nature, a valid scientific theory, and while we're on the topic, one of the strongest scientific theories from the point of view of supporting evidence.
Bryan
... 
