Macro-evoluton is valid

That was Kent Hovind’s straw-man which he popularised 16 years ago in that infamous 2001 talk, and that is still a straw-man in 2017. You keep attributing this comment to Kent Hovind, so I looked up some of his discussions and listened in. Hovind said we came from a rock they had a part to play in the creation of the 'primordial soup. ' Hovind made no strawman, he simply took what someone said to him and emphasized a single part. I'm honestly not too sure why you've argued about a stupid quip like this for so long, yet refuse to acknowledge my questioning about the origin of evolution. . https://youtu.be...Note: In this debate Kent said we came from soup and a rock. In other debates he only uses the word rock, with all the surrounding details remaining consistent. Argument 1Evolution deals with the diversification of life, abiogenesis deals with the origins of life. What exactly is evolution diversicating? This is probably one of the biggest qualms against evolution, yet my opponent simply refuses to make any sort of response. For Evolution to be valid, it must at the very least have something to exist. We are discussing the Theory of Evolution as a whole here, and the origin of this evolution is just as valid as the product. My opponent then goes on to say my indication that abiogenesis is unwarrented. Life of any kind coming from nonlife has simply never been observed. I've made this point, and this entire debate it has gone unchallenged. The original quote I brought up discussed spontaneous generation, but this was only the entryway to the point I made above. Repeatly I stressed this, and my opponent simply refuses to answer. This could possibly be because he has no answer. Argument 2You, yourself, stated the following:Under normal conditions, E. Coli cannot ingest citrate. When oxygen is present, E. Coli cannot ingest citrate. This is exactly what I said. .. .E. coli already had the ability to transport and metabolize citrate, but the bacteria typically cannot do so in oxic conditionsHow can you pretend like I just made this up? You agreed with me here. This information was already present, simply supressed. I'm simply confounded by my opponents blatant contradiction here. No-one who knows a damn thing about evolutionary theory users the sloppy language that you are using. I'm not a scientist. I will use whatever words I deem fit to describe the phenomenon I'm trying to describe. With the exception of a few slight grammatical slip-ups, there is absolutely no reason this should be an issue. I find the terms 'downhill' and 'uphill' to provide a good mental picture of the absurdedy of progressive evolution. Once again, I do not like nit-picking over the choice of wordsReally? I mean you've only spent more time discussing my word choices than the points I was making. Despite any word choices, my points were clearly understandable. The very premise of mutations is that these occur via copulation and the mixing of genes causes offspring to have different genes to the parents. If I put all of these elements into my analogy, it would no longer be an analogy. At this point, it would be a hypothetical scenario. Please explain why I need to include sex (copulation) into my analogy in order to make my point? My analogy was addressing the point of information. The loss of an arm is a loss of information. This is as clear as it could possibly be. Again, you're spending more time critiquing my analogies and wording than the points I've made. In regard to Argument 2, my opponent has provided no evidence that brand new, or novel, information can arise by mutation. He seems to have agreed with me that in his example the new effect already existed but was simply supressed by enviorment. After this, my opponent brought up no other example, and spent his time debating semantics. Argument 3 book nouna written or printed work consisting of pages glued or sewn together along one side and bound in covers. This is indeed a book. Again, why are you debating semantics? And yes, you are correct. I don't think you'd be able to find it in a local library. Universities and Colleges will carry it though. As for your second source, that was your fault for acting as if the entirety of that journal supported you. I didn't. I made a point enclosed by brackets, {2} and I put my entry in the corresponding citation. I don't recall ever saying the entire journal supported my point of view. For instance, when I brought up Ian Juby, I said quite specifically that even someone as inept as he is. .. but even someone as inept as Wazooloo can get something as basic as this rightThis is the quote my opponent is referring to. I did not take Wazooloo to refer to Ian Juby. I suppose one could count that as my mistake. But since my opponent is so keen on talking semantics, I could also make the point to complain about how poor his wording was here, using a term other than the subjects name which isn't known to everyone to refer to someone. In regard to Argument 3, my opponent didn't really bring up anything else about the fossil record. We discussed some of the different supposed connections to man, but my orginal points about the missing links in almost every species were never addressed. My points about the trunk not existing, among some other arguments, were simply never discussed. The subject was changed to Lucy. The majority of my points about Lucy, however, were ignored to attack some sourcing, grammar, and semantics. The vast majority of my qualms against Lucy were never addressed. Therefore, as far as I can tell, my opponent did not adequately respond to my arguments here. Argument Against KindsI care deeply for scientific accuracy. Science isn't God though. So if I'm going to look at something from the perspective of God, I need to use his terms to make sense of what he said. Outside of the discussion of origins I am happy to use modern taxonomy. The problem, however, is we don't even know that modern science is 100% accurate. We can only make theories based on the best of our abilities. I used 'Kind' to refer to beings which God created separated. Modern science does not have a 'created separately by God' category. Argument Against Polystrate FossilsI do separate my religious beliefs from my science. In fact it's science that led me to God to begin with. I have absolutely no issue doing just what my opponent claims I could never dream of doing. He must then explain how I came to faith by means of science. If science preceded my faith, then my faith cannot guide science. There are some scenarios in which perspective is everything. We have the same evidence, and sometimes that evidence is in favor of both theories. Because it fits in with both theories, it's up to the observer to draw his own conclusions. This is where I allow my religious leanings to guide my science. Science doesn't contradict religion. One thing I would like to note on Andrew Snelling, is his reference listing is 50 items long. Many of these refer to other journals and scientists. His sourcing is much more valid than that of my opponents, who commented relentlessly on how professional his sourcing was. My opponent then said "I don't even have to refute the points made. .. [In the article]" I think this comment alone disqualifies everything my opponent has said on the matter. You can spew your opinions on the material, but your say so without proof, or referencing a single comment of his, means nothing. ConclusionIn this debate, I'm a tad disappointed. The first three arguments I made were meant to be quick jabs followed up by several other arguments. My opponent, however, insisted on spending this debate arguing semantics. Unfortunately, the 8,000 character limit really diminished the quality of this debate, as I feel neither debater could adequately present his points with such constraints.