Macroevolution: Its all around us...

There are two many divergent topics included in your request.
They don't fit under any one topic here and would take a long time to cover all of them.I suggest that you pick one or two that you like most and think are the strongest points made and find the threads which are most appropriate. You might also try searching or googling this site to find discussion on the topics. It is almost guarenteed that they have been discussed several times already.If there is not obvious fit then you might want to propose a new topic.

You were explicitly asked to pick one yourself. When your suspension is over you may do so. There is no reason for others to waste their time when you have yet to show that you will put any effort in.You have been told it is bogus. If you think otherwise you may, when you are able to post, give your reasons for supporting it.In fact, the reasons for each of it's points being considered bogus have ALL (I am pretty darn sure) already been discussed several times at this site. We have a search capability and google with an advanced search restricted to works very well.

You managed to cram two errors into one sentence. Errors which have been corrected for you more than once.I suggest that you are wasting your time and the time of others if you are unable to learn something when it is told to you.You can take a 24 hour break and use the time to actually read some of what is posted.

We never delete posts so the continuity of the thread is apparent.What you did with the duplicate post is the usual way to handle it.

You were suspended because you made a statement that indicates that you are not in the slightest interested in actually learning anything. This is a waste of everyone's time and eventually produces frustration on the part of those attempting to debate with you.This was the statement: Do you need to have the errors pointed out to you? Why not ask him to back this up then? (It's possible I agree with you but I'd have to see the arguments first.) You level of understanding is not so great that you should be too quick to dismiss any ideas presented to you. I agree with the earlier post by AP that the single common ancestor is separtate. That isn't the major issue. It is you confusion about abiogensis and randomness that is. You will have to spell this out more specifically. Which statements?