Macro-evoluton is valid

Introduction I have constantly shown how abiogenesis is irrelevant. Evolution deals with the diversification of life, abiogenesis deals with the origins of life. These are unrelated to each other. If evolution was disproven, it would not have any effect on abiogenesis and vice versa. You stuffing your fingers in your ears and ignoring everything I tell you, is not a valid refutation.If you say that we believe we came from rocks, the direct implication of that is to say that we think life arose from rocks. 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. Argument 1 I believe I have given sufficient reasons as to why Con’s conflation of abiogenesis with spontaneous generation and acting as if spontaneous generation is somehow an indication that abiogenesis could not happen, is unwarranted.Argument 2 No it doesn’t answer it. You repeating your own made up assertion does not make it true. Every 500 generations of each population of E.Coli were frozen and there was no evidence of this potentiating mutation in the frozen samples of E.Coli. There was no evidence of this potentiating mutation in the ancestral cells. None whatsoever. No matter how much you assert this is the case, it does not make it true.Your sloppy wording is the reason for misunderstanding. No-one who knows a damn thing about evolutionary theory users the sloppy language that you are using. We do not say that a species can evolve downhill or that a species can evolve horizontally, nor that a species can evolve uphill. These are completely vacuous words. Once again, I do not like nit-picking over the choice of words, but your extremely sloppy use of the English language and the way you use these terms, forces me to come down on you like a tonne of bricks.If you are to make an analogy, you need to make sure that said analogy is analogous. In other words, your analogy still needs the core elements of what is being explained (in this case mutations), for it to be a competent analogy. 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 your analogy doesn’t have any element of this in it, then your analogy fails. Argument 3 Your first source is not a book, it’s a journal; however, this is archived on Nature and I cannot access it to double-check it. You won’t be able to get this in your local library. You can access the journal if you’re in university, but you cannot access it if you’re not affiliated with an academic institution.As for your second source, that was your fault for acting as if the entirety of that journal supported you. Nothing you said in relation to this source, implied that you disagreed with it. You can use sources you don’t agree with as an example. For instance, when I brought up Ian Juby, I said quite specifically that even someone as inept as he is, could get thee correct naming of your so called “polystrate fossils,” right. The implication there is that I hold the man in utter contempt, so when you quote further about Ian Juby’s foolishness about the Noachian flood, that is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making. On the other hand, when you bring up the scientific journal you did, you acted as if that journal supports the stances you hold. No further context, no nothing. You shot yourself in the foot here. Argument Against kinds I think Con’s statement on this, speaks for itself really. He doesn’t care for accuracy when discussing science. Con only cares about being as nebulous as possible because it suits his arguments. Even if that means lagging behind the scientific consensus by centuries, Con sees absolutely no problem with it. No further statement is necessary, I’ve already made my position clear.Argument against “polystrate fossils.” I’ve actually already given a secular source for these claims – that was J.W Dawson’s Acadian Geology which was published 140 years ago. I even gave you the relevant pages you would need to look up when I made statements about why these lycopods are found the way that they are. And you want to know why this is a secular source? J.W Dawson was a religious man, but in his scientific works, he separated his religious beliefs from the scientific works he undertook – which makes that secular. He believed that there was no contradiction when it came to science and his religious beliefs, but when it came to the science, J.W Dawson was able to do something you could not even dream of doing. And that is separating personal religious beliefs from scientific enquiry.Your right. Even Wikipedia is a better source than the rebarbative tripe you’re using as “sources.” Andrew Snelling’s “journal” was comedic to read (more on that later). However, the same cannot be said of my sources I have been relying on. I’ve used one lay example which discusses coal formation and I used Ian Juby as an example to show that even a creationist could get something as basic as the naming convention of your sop called “polystrate trees,” right. But the rest of my sources have been credible, peer-reviewed journals.Furthermore, Ian Juby’s incompetent articles on his website website is not a journal. I never said nor implied that Ian Juby’s silliness are even in the same playing field of a scientific journal. Finally, I would like to touch on Con citing Andrew Snelling’s quote on quote “journal.” I put that in quotations, because what Con has cited is not a credible, scientific journal. It’s merely the pseudo-intellectual ramblings of a creationist. This has not undergone peer-review and it most certainly is not a journal. Let’s draw up a comparison shall we? Con has referenced a credible, peer-reviewed journal [1]. And now let’s compare that to Andrew Snelling’s garbage [2].It doesn’t take a genius to see the difference in complexity and academic rigour in between these two works. Andrew Snelling has written a poorly worded essay which can be grasped by most 15 year olds.Andrew’s article lacks complexity, and if the basic nature of this article wasn’t bad enough, Snelling seriously talks about the biblical frame-work and a Noachian flood in a work that is supposed to be about geology. I don’t even have to refute the points made in this poorly written drivel; all I have to do is point out that Snelling’s nonsensical ramblings are purely made from an ideological perspective. This is not science Conclusion Judging by Con’s previous debates, I was expecting something a little bit better than… Whatever this is supposed to be. All throughout this debate, Con has made erroneous conflations, he has shown himself to be decades (and even in certain cases centuries), behind the scientific consensus, he has misrepresented the findings of scientific journals and refuses to acknowledge the findings of scientific journals I have brought up (especially the journal going over Lenski’s E.Coli experiment)To exacerbate the issue, when Con is told just how far he is behind the scientific consensus, Con doesn’t appear to care. Instead Con actually insists on referring to the Bible for scientific discussions (i.e biological taxonomy), despite there being nearly 300 years of scientific advancement in this area. I could go on but I think the point is made. I thank Con for investing time into this debate, though I personally was expecting a much better performance from Con. [1] https://www.detectingdesign.com... [2] http://creation.com...