@Evidence ;"So if I debunk one definition of "Evolution", you'll provide another, right?"

 Well, first of all, we are not debating about evolution anymore. Remember? You already admitted that evolution happens. What we are debating about is speciation. 

 Secondly, I did not change the definition of speciation. I first provided you a simpler version of the definition. But when you objected to it - I am still very surprised you chose to take that path - I provided a more elaborate and scientific definition. You are just trying to strawman my arguments.


"I ask again, show me one YouTube video of one specific species turning into another species? We waited 2.5 billion years, surely there should be at least a million changing/mutating or giving birth to another species, right?"
 This line clearly shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Speciation does not happen after just one generation. Creatures cannot give birth to another species (maybe, theoretically, they can but it is so small of a possibility that we can ignore it), that is not how it works. You cannot watch a video on Youtube that records speciation because it is not a short process. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/


 You claim that there should be clues of evolution everywhere, and there are clues of it everywhere. The reason you are not able to see them is because you do not know what to look for. What you need to understand is that creatures do not have an objective to evolve into this one thing. A micro organism does not have an objective to evolve into a fish, this is why you do not get that "half fish, half bacteria" kind of species you crave to see so much. I would suggest you that you learn what evolution is before trying to refute it.

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution

 

@Sand

@Erfisflat "He has a PHD in spectrophometry, and has help me to understand the physics of light."

 Considering the fact that you do not even know how the size of a light source affects the way that shadows are cast and the fact that you did not know magnification is only possible through the refraction of light, he was either a bad teacher or you were a terrible listener. 

@Erfisflat Okay, let me slow down a little bit. I think this is too complicated for you.
1- The sun has to be couple thousand miles away on a flat earth. I have already proved this and you did not object to this part at the start of our conversation.
2- If the sun was that high, it would change size as the day progresses. This is a fact unless you want to reinvent perspective.
3- Therefore there needs to be a dome that refracts the light to make the sun stay the same size throughout the day. The dome is not actually necesarry, there just needs to be some part of the sky higher than our planes go that refract the light in a certain manner. 
4- But if the light is refracted to make the sun look like it does not change size, the shadow experiment will give different results. Based on the fact that the light will come with a different angle. You cannot object to this part as it is common sense that if you refract light, the light will move in a different direction.

 Where is the problem?

@Erfisflat I will not let you change the subject. Explain how this invisible dome refracts light from all directions in exactly the same angle: Perpendicular to the earth.