Creationism (con) vs Evolution (pro)

The fossil record. The argument about good sorting is actually bogus. Dinosaurs are regularly found above the K/T (Now K/Pg, the dinosaurs were found in the Paleocene region, . http://creation.com..., and so the boundary was shifted, violating a defintion for a formation) boundary. After much research, Karl Werner said, "We found fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today [within dinosaur fossil layers] including: arthropods (insects, crustaceans etc. ), shellfish, echinoderms (starfish, crinoids, brittle stars, etc. ), corals, sponges, and segmented worms (earthworms, marine worms). "The vertebrates"animals with backbones such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals"show this same pattern. " In fact, 432 mammal species have been found in spite of "good sorting. " . http://creation.com... Even modern birds are found, showing clearly that evolution has not occurred. . http://www.youtube.com... Pro"s arguments about having a wall-to-wall of fossils is a strawman. I have shown quite clearly that such is not the prediction any creationists has made. He is trying to falsify a non-existent prediction. I take fault with Pro"s statement, "Many, if not all Cambrian organisms appear different, and more primitive than their later relatives. " This is simply not true. . http://creation.com... My mistake in not linking to the jellyfish. . http://www.nytimes.com...; geology. gsapubs. org/content/30/2/147. full. pdf (Ripple marks show clearly that the sediment was not laid down slowly over time) Pro states, "This isn't a prediction of evolution itself. " Well, then Darwin certainly made no evolutionary predictions. "No organism wholly soft can be preserved" Darwin, C. , The Origin of Species, first published 1859, quote taken from p. 422 of the 6th edition, 1872 (reprinted 1902) "Scientists don't claim that fossils have take a long time to form. Thus this is just a red herring. " . http://www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com... I also note Pro"s liberal alleged discovery of my use of the fallacy of "Red Herring. " I have shown him to be false. He uses the allegations to sidetrack from the main issue. Once again, Pro makes claims for creationists and then proceed to debunk them. I will not respond to the strawman about fossilization until he clearly cites a creationist source that promotes such a thing. Otherwise he has to remove it from this debate. I appeal for a conduct point against him. Chromosome fusion. Pro asks the seemingly innocent question, "Why would human chromosome 2 have virtually the same genetic layout as is found in the two chimp chromosomes? " Firstly, it is chimp chromosome 2, and the evolutionary story goes that chimps and humans are from the same clade. Hence, we would expect to find similarities because of the supposed split. Pro gives the irrational argument that the telomere and centromere has nonfunctional regions that were removed. Now he commits an argument to silence. The fact is that there is no "remnants. " He goes on a hand-waving attack against my arguments by completely ignoring them. So does PZ Meyers. Meyers state, "What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed. " I went to the link. No reference. Mostly ad hominem by Meyers. He further states that Bergman et al. expects an intact telomere. He knows, however, as do Bergman, that that portion is degenerate. So he proceeds to ignore evolutionary predictions made in the past, and cite data from the present that contradicts the predictions, and goes on to say that Bergman is unrealistic. Bergman et al. simply were refuting a prediction. Meyers ignored that, and goes on an ad hominem against Bergman. He proceeds to cite the totally unrealistic analogy of a car crash. That was a total Red Herring. Pro now goes on to ignore the evidence I presented about ERV, presenting a case amounting to an argument to silence. He pleads specially to "very new research," implying that what we already know can be disregarded in the light of as yet unrevealed supposed evidence for his case. I will urge both Pro and potential voters to re-read my statements, which I will repeat. "For example, they control mice embryological development, promoter-sequences are derived from them. They initiate transcription. In fact, ERVs aid transcription in over one fifth of the genome. " These transcription do not deal with diseases at all. Pro ignores these. Instead, he claims that they are evidences for evolution. He states that it is the result of "salvaging. " Pro states, "Complete ERVs are recombined, mutated, and methylated into junk. When they regain some semblance of functionality, they cause disease! " Notice the bad logic within the argument. First, complete ERVs become junk. Then, they gain back some functionality, causing disease. This is first of all an argument to silence, as there is no reference to which I can check it out. Secondly, disease such as HIV is caused by observable infection, not by some unknown ERV that has been incorporated into the genome. Pro states: "My view on God is irrelevant evolution. As there are many who believe in both God and evolution" Which view causes cognitive dissonance. Conclusion: I find fault first of all with Pro"s use of wikipedia (WP) as a credible source alongside blogs. Both are not credible as neither is peer-reviewed and Wp even has a non-credible source policy. I find fault with Pro"s use of sources that has no references which would enable me to further my own research into the matter. I cannot simply rely on his assertions. I find fault with Pro"s making up claims for creationists. In effect, he uses straw man. At least twice, too. I find fault with Pro raising a blog and quoting ad hominem portions from that blog, sidetracking from the evidence submitted. I find fault with Pro"s bad grammar and spelling.