Here is the crux of the issue. No evolutionist denies or ignores the value of abiogenesis as the first step of the macroevolution process.
I deny it. It
is, however, an important step in the history of biology.
Only when creationists refer to the two issues simultaneously do evos sanctimoniously claim they just don't get it.
No. When creationists say that since there is little evidence about how life originated this proved the theory of evolution wrong, they need to be corrected since the theory of evolution is an explanation for how life evolves.
When creationists say that without evidence of abiogenesis, the whole of natural history must be false, they should be corrected since not knowing what happened fifty years ago does not mean we don't know what happened yesterday.
Well we do get it, and very clearly. You believe that life magically appeared spontaneously around 3.5 billion years ago in that pool of primordial ooze...
I don't believe in magic. I believe that life began to live on earth billions of years ago. There are a number of possible explanations as to how this happened which others have elucidated. Given the track record for 'mundane physical and chemical processes' for being the answer to mankind's difficult questions about seemingly awe-inspiring phenomenon, I'm inclined to place my bets there.
What we creationists are waiting for is evidence that one actual species/type of animal has ever evolved into another species/type of animal. That's the crux of your belief system after all, so produce evidence of it if you can and put this issue to bed once and for all.
I'm not sure what a species/type of animal is. I should also point out that it isn't just animals that have evolved! Evidence that all life is related has been presented. Evidence that populations change over time has been presented. This isn't the thread to go into the evidence, but feel free to find or start a thread on the subject. Might I suggest
this, as a possible starting point?
Only disingenuous propagandists would then attempt to separate these two processes of abio and evo when everyone knows that the second process could never exist without the first having occurred according to their own theory.
I guess there are tens upon tens of thousands of scientists engaging in disenguous propaganda then. Thank the Lord that the stalwart creationists are here to correct them! No, not really. The processes are different, the second process could exist without a natural origin of life. *poof* the first life appears via magic or god or time travelling scientists or...then *mutate/selection* it evolves.
Someone needs to hold your feet to the fire of honest definitions and expose the dishonesty your pseudo science represents when held up to the light of day in these debates.
By all means try. I've been posting here over four years now - feel free to examine my posts for evidence of dishonesty and pseudoscience. How life got here, and what happens to it when it is here are seperate questions. It is amazing how often creationists like to conflate the two and insist that if the origin of life was not natural that proves that it cannot evolve. It's like saying that if it can be proven that aliens created the solar system that proves that planets can't orbit the sun. It's a massive non-sequitur. Of course, if you have anything more substansive than throwing around claims of 'propaganda' and 'dishonesty' I'm always willing to hear it.