Facts are not slurs. The deficiency in learning ability is a fact demonstrated quite clearly on this thread. Any creationist who has the mental capacity is free to demonstrate that capacity by stating a good and true case for evolution, prior to arguing against it. The inability to state your opponent's position will cost you the debate every time.
It is not sufficient to present a charactiture of a position. In a debate you must argue against your opponent's best case.
The best case for evolution is not found in out of contest quotes. Nor is it found in 100 year old textbooks. Nor is it found in the speculative writings of science popularizers. Nor in Time Magazine, nor even in national Geographic. It isn't even found here on these threads.
Rather it is found in 200 years of painstaking research by tens of thousands of biologists and geologists, and their cumulative publications. If you have a case to present, it will need to be sufficient to overthrow nearly all of physics, chemistry, geology biology, and astronomy -- or it will at least have to present a mathematically self-consistent alternative to all those sciences. You really can't single out evolution as the bad guy without taking on all of science.
Nicely said! :-)
And that is utterly absurd and without foundation. Evolution is not science. It has been related as science in a guilt by association method; but, it is not science. And you can't offer a best case of "cumulative proof" when you don't have anything to point to as a proof to begin with. The only thing you have is opinion attached to evidences which cannot confirm evolution. What is observeable is as useful as what is not observeable in proving evolution a lie, and that is it's core reliance on what you call speciation - speciation isn't happening in the manner you describe it nor is there evolution being witnessed today. In at least the last 3000 years, no one has ever witnessed a chimp giving birth to a human being or anything similar. Argument sunk.. period. That sort of change has to be falsifiable. You can't do that with dead bones and no witness to the event. Not possible.
The preponderance, though not all, of the scientific evidence points to an old universe and to the existence of macroevolution. However, both the creation science and intelligent science camps have pointed out deficiencies in evolutionary theory that the evolutionist camp has not successfully refuted. However, the conservative Christian position is not necessarily based on what camp has better evidence. Conservative Christianity works from the presupposition that the statements in the Bible are true, when understood in their historical and grammatical context and authorial intent. Based on that assumption, evangelicals and fundamentalists must reject the presumption that mainstream science adheres to: that the physical universe is all that was, is, and ever will be.
The ultimate issue is not what the fossil record, astronomy, DNA, half-lives of elements, etc., may or may not indicate. The issue is which worldview is correct: the conservative Christian one, the naturalistic one, a position that synthesizes the two positions, or another one entirely.