Macro-evoluton is valid

You are confusing something. Abiogenesis =/= evolution. If you are going to propose evolution you also need to explain where it came from. One can't just say 'this theory makes sense' without also explaining how that theory could possibly relate to reality.find me a credible scientific journal which states that we come from rocks.https://www.livescience.com...https://www.livescience.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...We are supposed to be discussing evolution, not abiogenesis.So we're not also discussing the origin of evolution? I feel as though the origin of something is just as important as the thing itself. I don't think the origin can be justified, and that's a huge reason by evolution as a theory is invalid.Argument 1The Law of Biogenesis was simply a building block for my argument. We know that life does not rise spontaneously, and there is no evidence that it rises in any form. Is it therefore ridiculous to say that the Law of Biogenesis could be expanded to encompass all nonlife? Until evidence can be presented that any kind of life can come from nonlife, I find no reason to assume it could. This is a big problem for the evolutionist, who wants to justify our existence by naturalistic means.Argument 2It is important to note that E. coli already had the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditions as it does not produce an appropriate transporter in this type of environment (among many other required factors). The genetic changes here are indeed complex, but the key event here involved the replication of a genomic region that regulates a citrate transporter.Lenski’s experiment demonstrates that the vast majority of fitness benefits are actually due to the disruption, degradation, or loss of genetic information. A possible exception to this tendency is the evolution of citrate utilization in aerobic conditions; however, no novel information was gained in this instance as this ability was the result of previously existing information being rearranged and used in a different way. Next you say I never even talked about neutral mutations."Microevolution explains how a species can evolve horizontally or downhill, no new information or a loss of information, but it does not explain how it can evolve uphill. (with new information.)"As you can see, this is simply untrue. As I've already admitted, when I addressed downhill mutations that also included these neutral mutations as well. So even if I never really did address neutral mutations it would only be because of a grammatical mistake.Having my arm cut off works as an analogy, because it represents me losing information, or losing a part of me, and as a result gaining an advantage in a specific scenario.You are still 20 years out of date in the most generous scenario.If I've heard an argument I've heard an argument. It doesn't matter if it's been proven wrong or not. I feel as though evolution has been proven wrong, yet here I am discussing it here with you today. Even if you think something is proven wrong that doesn't mean people don't believe it and it also doesn't mean you're correct. I was covering extra ground, which should be encouraged.Argument 3Many of the examples I've provided were in textbooks for years and years after their dismisal as evolutionary evidence. My point is that many of the alleged Ape-Men have been continuously proven wrong yet still taught. I believe Lucy is no exception. I provided my evidence that Lucy was a hoax in my argument.In regard to Lucy I gave you several quotes from different leading scientists and their findings. If the scientific community wants to push an agenda like evolution it's hard to find factual evolution from them. That is why you must refer to individuals who are experts in the field for information. The people I quoted are evolutionists, who would like nothing more than to prove me wrong, but they also don't have a relentless agenda and refuse to lie in light of the evidence they see.The quotes I gave also aren't allotted to 'a single scientist.' They were actually from a half dozen scientists, many of whom have written entire books on the topic of Lucy. (Some of which I have read.)In regard to the human fossils, both of my citations are from books. Also, I wouldn't expect to find much information on it from a secularist, as it kind of flies in the face of everything they teach. It's not a very well known concept so to bring it to light would only hurt their agenda.Argument Against 'Kinds'I use God's method of classification, not mans. Why would I expect a book written about 3500 years ago to use the same classification system modern men use? For reference, a Kind is generally at the Family level, but not always. Argument Against 'Polystrate Fossils'My opponenet is simply incorrect here. Polystrate Fossil is the correct term, as we find trees crossing over different fossil layers. We find this to have occured in places such as the Grand Canyon, which isn't too swampy last I checked. My opponent also ignored my reference to upside down trees which have been deposited into multiple layers.Since this argument got brought up, we should also talk about animals. Several animals have been found in multiple layers; Many examples of this can be found.Andrew A. Snelling, “The Whale Fossil in Diatomite, Lompoc, California,” Technical Journal 9 no. 2 (1995): 244–258.Evolutionists tell us all kinds of areas take millions of years to form such as Grand Canyon. The problem is these Polystrate Fossils are found in a lot of places. While they are found in swamps, they're also found nearly everywhere else: Various states, Mountain Ranges, different Biomes, Enviorments etc. The places these Fossils are found is quite diverse honestly, and 'Swamp Flood' does not sufficiently answer.