You keep telling us that "evolution is a fact"; only the "mechanism" is still in question. That is utter sophistry & you know it; evolution IS the mechanism.
There are two questions routinely confused by creos. One is whether there is evidence for the descent of all life on Earth from some common ancestry. The answer, a resounding "Yes," is irrefutable by now. You'll never make a dent in the situation. It is accepted and the preponderance of evidence for it is absolutely crushing.
The other question, really an infinite sequence of questions, is "What are the details of mechanism and history?" Generally, the mechanism is Darwin's "variation and natural selection." There are still questions about the role of neutral drift, whether all variation is random all the time, etc. The specific and detailed history of just how it happened on Earth is getting increasingly filled in as well but there will probably always remain gaps in the geological record.
Since some parts of this will never be fleshed out, creationists have an opportunity to pretend that any squabbling about any part of question two just sent the answer to question one crashing to the ground. This does not fool too many non-creationists but it works on all the creation/ID types every time.
Question at issue: How (BY WHAT MECHANISM) did it come to be?
Your analysis about the origin of the universe would seem to be rather off-topic and lacking in intellectual rigor in any event. In fact, your post just sort of dissolves in foaming at the mouth creationist strawman-burning from there.
young earth wasted bandwidth placemarker.
[Why you're complaining to me about your conversation with Junior is not clear, but I'll bite.]
How you for 12 hours missed the immediately-pinged-to-you/posted- directly-below-my post correction is not clear either.
.............
[There are two questions routinely confused by creos.]
More "Bill Nye the Science Guy" baby talk. Now watch the Bait-&-Switch.
.............
[One is whether there is evidence for the descent of all life on Earth from some common ancestry. The answer, a resounding "Yes," is irrefutable by now. You'll never make a dent in the situation. It is accepted and the preponderance of evidence for it is absolutely crushing.]
So who's trying to refute it? By "descent of all life from some common ancestry" you SURELY mean that all dogs are descended from one original pair of doggy ancestors, all humans from one original pair of humans, etc.? (Please don't tell me that 400 kazillion fruitflies died in vain?)
...............
[The other question, really an infinite sequence of questions]
With an infinite sequence of ever-more-imaginative ("Aliens sprinkled DNA") answers.
..............
[The specific and detailed history of just how it happened on Earth is getting increasingly filled in...]
Yes; by creationists/ID'ers
................
[...but there will probably always remain gaps in the geological record.]
The notion of "gaps in the geological record" was created out of the whole cloth by evolutionists to explain the sublimely total absence of macroevolutionary evidence in the geologic record. Your problem is that there are now too many fossils, not too few.
...............
[Your analysis about the origin of the universe would seem to be rather off-topic..]
Read: "Caught like a mouse in a trap".
...............
[and lacking in intellectual rigor in any event.]
Read: "I much prefer intellectually rigorous hair-splitting dissection of what constitutes a 'peer review' than being forced into admitting what I really believe about origins."
...............
[In fact, your post just sort of dissolves in foaming at the mouth creationist strawman-burning from there.]
WHAT? Now you've hurt me. You mean about the Scientific Revolution trodding the heels of the Protestant Reformation? Was that a little too MUCH intellectual rigor?