Abiogenesis is part of the "General Theory of Evolution." I have a right to include it. It may not be included in biological evolution, but that does not matter as Abiogenesis is clearly part of the General Theory of Evolution.
Mutation-Selection I find ridiculous because scientists expect upward and onward progress from random mutations that are generally negative. Of the ones that are beneficial, few increase information. Given the extreme amount of information present in today's species, we should be able to see information steadily increasing all the time.
Punctuated Equilibrium is I believe an indication of the lack of evidence for mutation-selection to work. It seems like a desperate attempt to explain the theory. It is also a theory BASED on lack of evidence, which I doubt you would find scientific.
However, I do not want to get into discussion on these topics. This is merely a side note.
"Nice straw man, but I never said that the majority of Creation Scientists hold no credentials. I said the majority of creationists don't. Which is surely true."
You can say that all day, but it has nothing to do with the Creation Theory. I should not be drug down because some stupid 9-year-old asked a question like "why are apes still aroung then?" The stupidity of these comments is only indicative of that individual.
"Who said anything about defining a group? I made a simple point; that the majority of creationists have no scientific knowledge, qualifications or training. That, surely, is simply obvious fact."
Fine. But you should realize that this does NOTHING to discredit the Creation model.
"Actually, it's EXACTLY what you said. I quote: "...evolution is not very plausible, which is an opinion that is held by many intelligent Creation scientists and even some evolutionists." Of course, you also said "Many evolutionists admit that their own field is devoid of evidence for evolution", which I would love to see supported, because I believe it to be nonsense."
Sorry for being misleading there. That is not what I meant. It IS true that some scientists are doubtful of their area, which I will show you with a few quotes later.
It is unfair for you to ask Creationists to answer your ridiculous question with only two answers:
1. I'm a dumbass
2. I'm a REAL dumbass
Surely your question is meant only to amuse yourself so you can think we are all ignorant. I provided you a third possibility
3. I'm a reasonably intelligent human being
but you didn't seem to like my third possibility. Perhaps it's because it shows that Creationists can be objective and intelligent. But this simply cannot be in your mind, so you will continue to babble on with posts claiming us ignorant, yet your posts are totally devoid of facts. Your debating style up to this point has been nothing but insult, but I think insulting Creationists prove your flaws and not ours.