<< I have actually read quite a bit of information on both evolution and creationism >>
I am sure you have. But what I do not believe you have read is information on evolution from evolutionary biologists. I believe you have gotten your "information" from creationists. This is why I asked you to answer those simple questions -- which I see you have ignored.
If you would answer those questions, then I will be able to see whether or not you do understand what you are even talking about. So far -- your responses have not given me any confidence that you do. Attempting to give me "holes in the theory" makes little sense at this point, if you don't even understand the theory in the first place.
I will explain again that one is not really ready to argue against something he knows little or nothing about. And one is not really ready to refute something until he gives evidence that he can characterize that "something" in such a way that an honest supporter of that "something" would agree that it is an accurate characterization.
For example -- let's say you are "pro-life" -- in the sense that you believe abortion to be morally wrong. Now -- if I wanted to argue against your pro-life position, and I start out by castigating pro-lifers as having absolutely no interest in women's rights and no interest in the welfare of children after they are born -- you would rightly conclude that I had not done my homework concerning pro-lifers. You would realize that I was doing nothing but beating up a straw man of my own creation. You would know that I was either ignorant or dishonest about pro-lifers.
In the same way -- if you want to show the "holes" in the theory of evolution -- you have to demonstrate that you understand the theory in the first place -- or you are in danger of doing nothing more than beating up a straw man of your own making. Those simple questions I asked you are not trick questions, nor are they designed to be "stumpers." They are the obvious first questions to ask of someone who proposes to demonstrate "holes" in the theory.
If your answers do show that you really do understand the theory, and can characterize it accurately -- then you are ready to set about demonstrating the "holes" in it from a position of knowledge. OTOH -- if you show that you really do not understand it and are not characterizing it accurately -- then that shows you are either unable or unwilling to do so.
Inability to do so would be evidence of ignorance. Fortunately -- ignorance can be cured. Unwillingness to do so would be evidence of a serious lack of honesty and fairness. Such a problem is much more difficult to cure, and it would be an indication to me that I have been wasting my time with you.
So -- how about it? Why not answer the questions? What have you got to lose?
Why do I need to answer all of your questions to show that I understand the theory of evolution. I have a basic understanding of it. As you cited, assuming wrong things about prolifers is dishonest but one has only to see the donations and help they provide for unwed moms to know the truth. You don't have to know all about there religion, history, etc. In the same way I don't have to know all the varoius details of evolution to know the falsity of it. I am a product of the public school system and learned all about it starting in the 7th grade. and let me say that it was very much presented as a fact which is very dishonest. Although I do think the teachers believed it themselves.
So my basic understanding of the TOE is that life began in a simple form and over hundreds of millions of years evolved into higher life forms adapting to the various conditions on earth in order to survive and thrive. We supposedely came from this evolution of life forms evolving from apes into various different sub-human types finally making it to humans.
One of the huge wholes in the theory is the total lack of true transitional life forms that should be in the fossil record. There are no fossils showing one life form transitioning into another with various partially formed limbs, nubs, etc. The transitionals that are purported to be such are fully formed life forms. This is the reality that many scientists who once believed the theory now do not. And they are all not particularly religious. If the transitionals were clearly proven, this debate would have been over a while ago. And even Darwin said that his theory would fall apart if the transitionals were not found. I just wonder if you can be objective enough to see this?