My characterization of the theories of abiogenesis and macro evolution as based on weak, circumsantial evidence, thus regulating them to the realm of metaphysics is entirely accurate and a proper usage of those terms. Posting a couple of videos which you feel substantiates both theories, even if they did substantiate them, does not prove I used the terms incorrectly. At best it would mean I was mistaken about the sufficiency of the evidence. In any case, clearly you feel I am mistaken, so rather than rebut other peoples videos, I am interested to hear what you personally feel substantiates those theories.


>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
So.. these statements show you have no comprehension of the words you strung together.
"Investigating" articles published on "Christian Science" Monitor or reviewing Kurt Cameron's Banana Atheist Nightmare video does not count as research.
>> ^shinyblurry:
However, what spurred me to change my mind.. ..was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence,

A "weak" inductive argument is one which has little evidence to support its claim.
Hence, the more evidence.. the stronger the argument. I'll let AronRa take over from here
>> ^shinyblurry:
and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics..

Again, your ignorance is showing man.
The term "Metaphysics" is the study of existence and relies on Ontology, the study of entities that exist or don't exist.
Not only is abiogenesis possible.. there's more evidence to prove the existence of abiogenesis than there is to prove Adam Eve or Yahweh exist(ed).
That is to say. Yahweh & Adam are purely metaphysical. Abiogenesis is not.