You have had many answers.
That they aren't the ones you want to hear is your problem, not ours.
Let me elaborate:
You begin by announcing that "evolution is stupid", and proceed to define evolution in a way that nobody who understands it ever would.
You have a deep misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is.
This is the reason the answers you get don't satisfy you.
But the simple reality is that the problem lies with you.
You need to educate yourself about the subject your are argunig against.
Because at the moment, your whole argument is the equivalent of "Gravity is stupid because it doesn't explain magentism!"
The definitions you have gleaned from Hovind are fundamentally wrong.
And startign from such a point will only result in your continual protests that nobody has answered your queries.
Well, we have answered you. We've told you time and again that you don't understand evolution or cosmology, that what you are arguing against is not what the theories actually say. The trouble is, you keep asking question that make no sense. They make no sense, because they are based on an egregious misunderstanding of the theories.
But instead of learning something, you dance in glee and say "Look! See! I told you those stoopid evolutionist atheists are dumb! They can't answer a simple question!".
You are appallingly misinformed about the subjects you are trying to discuss. Instead of protesting that we haven't given you the answers you want, and asking nonsense questions, why don't you try learning somethnig.
Take some advice that's been repeated here often enough:
Forget "Dr" Kent Hovind. The man is an imbecile. He lies and distorts habitually, and the information you are parroting from him has no basis in reality. He does not talk about evolution. He speaks about some ******** idea he came up based on his own pathetic (and willful) ignorance of the subject.
This.
I was an anthropology student. We studied evolution extensively. I have taken several classes specifically on the subject of evolution. I've read all of Darwin's books, and a huge number of books on the theory of evolution.
I have never, not once, been told that cosmology had anything what so ever to do with evolution. I know next to NOTHING about cosmology save what I've learned from "Scientific American" episodes, Dana Sobel's "Planets," and Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything." Cosmology and evolution are completely, utterly different fields of study. They are not the same. I don't even know how to address a person who starts off the argument by saying that cosmology is part of evolutionary study. I don't know how to argue against this, because the entire question starts from a false premise.
If this is the kind of argument Hovind uses in debates, then it's not surprising he appears to "mop the floor with people." If I were to engage in debate, I would have the expectation that the person would even know what we were debating.
It would be like going to a debate about, say, the merits of offshore drilling after the BP oil spill, and the opening argument is, "How can you possibly justify off shore drilling after catastrophies like Chernoble?"
The biggest problem I have found with people who deny evolution is that they have never actually studied arguments FOR evolution. Most people (like the OP) who don't "believe" in evolution cannot even properly define it. They just listen to people like Ray Comfort or Hovind who TELLS them what evolution is, and then their "debunking" seems solid because they are debating things no one has ever claimed to be true in the first place.
I have time and time again pressed people who deny evolution to please, just read ONE book on the subject by someone who is not a creationist. Read Coyne's wonderful, "Why Evolution is True." I have never, ever had someone agree to do this.
And the whole "evolution is a religion" argument is just ridiculous. Evolutionary science is based on observations about the physical world and allows scientists to make accurate predictions. For instance, Neil Shubin stated that a transitional species between fish and amphibians would be found in a certain kind of environment, and would be at a certain point in the fossil record (the time between the emergence of fish and the emergence of amphibians). Low and behold, Tiktaalik, a transitional species that is half fish, half amphibian, was found in the exact kind of environment he said it would, and fell into the fossil record timeline where he said it would.
Also, religion is based on principles that are sacred. Scientific training, ESPECIALLY when it comes to evolution, comes with the premise, "Question everything. Nothing is sacred." In fact, something can only be accepted as a scientific theory if it can be disproved given conflicting evidence. So, for instance, evolutionary theory as it exists would be disproved if we were to suddenly find evidence in the fossil record that there were mammals before there were troglodytes. The very fact that scientific theory is only accepted
if it could possibly be disproven makes it utterly different that religion. For something to be "sacred" requires faith. Faith is not reliant on proof or evidence. Therefor, something believed due to faith alone could not be disproven... i.e. there is no way to prove God/reincarnation/etc does not exist. The fact that evolution COULD be disproven if the evidence presented itself makes it, by default, not a product of faith.
