Satan Disproves Christianity

[John V]

Truth is, you've already been shown a few in this thread; you claim that willingness to take injury for a belief is evidence for it, and you've been shown suicide bombers from other religions, just off the top of my head.

And I addressed that. Mohamed, the claimant, made out well in his life, especially compared to Jesus or Paul. I also went on to show other differentiators, such as claimed miracles and apparent myth-building. Repeating an already-refuted point doesn't make it any better.

Precisely what I said; the evidence we find in genetics and the fossil record uniformly supports evolutionary theory. Everything fits into the correct stratographic layer pretty much where it should, so much so that scientists can and have made predictions based on this and found transitional fossils in exactly the layer they thought they would.

And these are often overturned by later fossil finds. How do those first claims then uniformly support evolutionary theory.

Our genetic evidence is entirely concordant with evolution, including our ability to map the lineage of a number of species,

What do you mean by entirely concordant? Different analyses of the same group based on different genes can give different lineages, which may not match those previously made based on morphology.

Clarified. I really would be interested in examining any counter-evidence you think you might have, by the way. That wasn't combative sarcasm or anything.

Sure. Tiktaalik was crowed as a fulfilled prediction such as you mention. Researchers determined that a fish showing signs of being a precursor to tetrapods should be found at a certain age and environment, and they found it there. Later, footprints from a fully-formed tetrapod were found, in a different envrinment, and dating ten million years older than tiktaalik.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...08623.html
Excerpt: "Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."

Even if I did go to including common descent (something I'm in no way obligated to do, incidentally) how would any of those definitions exclude artificial selection as a mechanism?

Unless you're proposing theistic evolution, there was no one to perform artificial selection for 99.999something% of evolution. Plus, as noted, your own source doesn't include artificial selection on its mechanisms of evolution page. Here's another list that doesn't include it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms

Actually, dog breeding raises questions for evolution. I.e., why did wolves carry so much unused variation potential in their genomes?

Hmm, that really is an interesting question. A bit of cursory research shows a concept called neoteny, plus a comparable phenomenon occurring in artificially selected silver foxes. I'll keep looking into it, but this is exactly the reason I like talking about this subject. [/quote]
Then check out this blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/natura...ngineering
This is by one of a number of evolutionists who are saying that the modern synthesis doesn't explain what we see in nature.

You'd rather debate definitions again, a sure sign that you've lost a grip on your position.

No, it's a sure sign that you're using incorrect definitions.

But I'd rather debate the issue, and I'm rather interested in why you think this: evolution concerns changes in organisms over generations. Why do you think human selection of breeding partners somehow invalidates that process?

I don't necessarily think that. With the broad definition, it doesn't. Adding in common descent, I've already answered above.

Not "what dictionaries can you find that might support you," but "why do you think this is so?"

What happens if you take humans out of the process and let various breeds interbreed?