Creationism (con) vs Evolution (pro)

The Fossil record Pro states, "The main point of the fossil record's sorting is that we don't find a fossil of a life form existing in the wrong geological era." That"s the problem. Pro ignores all the out-of-place fossils that I cited. His model is fluid and can not be falsified. The problem he cites with the Flood has no basis in facts. He states that we should expect such and such but do not find such. This is obviously a prediction he tries to falsify. "Con also ignores my example of an ancestor of a Cambrian creature. Furthermore my entire rebuttal to the Cambrian Explosion is just about ignored." I did not ignore it. I dismissed it with more evidence. It appears my citing anything is irrelevant as Pro does not seem to check it out at all. He pulls all my arguments from the facts on which they are based and claims that the facts that he cite have been ignored. Pro then reverses his stand on fossils, saying they are not part of evolution. Why would he even start with it? Pro claims that I use the fallacy of composition. However, his (2) is evidently false. Darwin does not merely "talk" about fossilization. They are an integral part of his book. He makes predictions about fossilization in tandem with his other predictions. Thus the fallacy is not. Pro evidently does not understand the use of the term, "Slowly over time", in geology. Pro claims that his "predictions" were based off creationists teachings. Well, his logic is a non sequitur. He then goes on to claim that his arguments about the Cambrian explosion is equivalent to wanting a conduct point against me. He wants me to cite a pro-evolution source that says there is no evolutionary ancestors. Why would I? The basic evolutionary claim is that "simple" suddenly exploded into the "complex" Cambrian. Pro provides no logical reasoning for which to accept this. In fact, this is a non sequitur. Chromosome fusion: There are predictions that do not go into print. The source I cited, Bergman et al., states the prediction, not clearly, admittedly, but it still is stated. With sources. Yes, Meyers had a very short article, and a very short attack. FULLY HALF the article was ad hominem. Bergman"s expectation was the same as others before genome sequencing. As shown by the sources in the cited article. The car analogy deals with physical interactions not associated with divergence. The supposed split between chimp and humans is not a primarily physical event, but rather biological, thus Meyers analogy is unrealistic and sidetracks from the main issue. ERVs Pro admits the evidence I presented, but the goes on to dismiss these in favour of his preconceived ideas of ERVs. I showed quite clearly that supposed ERVs are essential for transcription. That, he does not accept and does not respond to. His entire claim to ERVs collapses when he acknowledges the truthfulness of my arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org... WP wants verifiability, not truth. creation.com All CMI articles other than feedback are peer-reviewed. Pro makes claims contrary to facts. Thus he should have a conduct point demerited. "Further reading": Further reading into blogs and WP. Verifiable, maybe, but truthful? Not necessarily. Conclusion. Conduct Point: Con. Pro makes predictions for creationists. This he admits when he states that the argument is based off creationist writings. He makes no citation to any direct claims by creationist of this type. Furthermore, he accuses me falsely of making his arguments a strawman but refuse to cite the creationist. Sources: Con. Pro uses WP and science blogs, while Con uses a peer-reviewed creationist website. Arguments: Tie Neither was the more convincing in Con"s opinion. This was really a back and forth with no substantial discussion. Grammar: Con Pro makes basic grammatical and spelling mistakes.