The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

To oversimplify: evolution is from the beginning until now. It can be broken down into three main segments: stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and biological evolution. Stellar evolution has to do with the origin of matter namely the big bang model. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has to do with said matter through chemical processes becoming life. Biological evolution has to do with the life created through chemical evolution becoming what we observe today. While the specific processes have been different throughout time the result is that something has become something else over billions of years and the something it has become is of greater complexity than when it began, hence evolution. Something evolved.

So, you made all that up. Literally, you invented every word of that, and I challenge you to find a single mainstream, peer reviewed scientific paper, report or textbook that even refers to stellar evolution as a necessary component of evolution as a whole, or even mentions it as a part of evolution.

But let's assume that you're right, for just a second: would you not therefore have to agree that the "biological evolution" component of evolution could be true independent of the other two, and has been scientifically verified to occur, regardless of the status of the others?

Someone's death is proof of existence. You can't be dead if you haven't existed.

Wow, I guess I have to be completely blunt, then: where's your proof that these people died?

You've just made a statement arguing the "how" is justified by the "how" and I agree with that statement. The original statement was that the account (the what) is not justified by understanding "how".

My contention is that you can't call something a comprehensive explanation of a thing- in this case origins- if it only speaks to the most shallow possible details of it.

There is only one who has died for the forgiveness of sins and in Him I believe. He who is no longer dead but has been resurrected.

Question begging and mindless platitudes aren't an answer.

It is evidence. I agree not proof of truth. Faith is the belief of things not seen, the assurance of things hoped for. So faith isn't built upon sight (I'm speaking metaphorically here). Much like evolutionists have faith that over the course of millions of years animals changed kinds even though they don't see it today.

Actually, we do see it today, in the fossil record, genetics, cladistics, and even in motion, on occasion. Have you ever seen, say, dog breeds? Met your grandfather? You look different from him, yeah? That's evolution.

Here's a list of live, observed instances of evolution. And since "kind" has no definition beyond what's convenient for creationist morons, and is not an accepted scientific term, you can fuck right off with ever using it again in a discussion on evolution, okay?

Someone still observed the DNA at the crime scene (probably the Detective and the Forensic analyst). It's true you don't need to be at the crime scene but you do observe the DNA once in the courtroom and you couple that with the testimony of the people who did observe it when and where it was.

And biologists observe the evidence they use before they examine it. What was your point?

Empirical science requires that to prove something it must be observed ("were you there"). If you claim something has been scientifically proven than you must show that it is observable and repeatable. Your frustration is not with me but with the requirements of empirical science.

No, my frustration is with you, because even under your (incorrect) definition of empirical science, you're still wrong. Do a google search for "silver fox experiment," or "flavobacteria," sometime. Evolution has been observed, motherfucker. It's a done deal.

Now, all I have to do is wait for you to tell me that what I've provided you isn't one animal giving birth to another animal, so that we can all have confirmation of just how little you actually know about evolution, and can safely ignore you.

Or, you can take that as a warning, and actually research before you decide something is wrong. Your choice.

My faith is not justified by empirical science. The account of creation can't currently be proven by empirical science because it isn't observable or repeatable. Furthermore, nothing can't create something, but God can create something from nothing (breaks the law of conservation of matter). I take God at His word because while I wasn't there at creation He was.

This is, literally, the stupidest thing I've ever read. No wonder, since you clearly got it from Hovind or Ken Ham, or one of his breathtakingly braindead ilk.

So, first of all, you can't prove nothing can't create something in all possible variations, and even if you could, you still believe nothing created god, so premise invalid there. And if you say he's eternal, same deal, so whatever.

Second, you can't prove god exists, so there's no evidence he even claimed to have been there at the beginning of the universe, but even if you could prove he exists, he could be lying. You're likely to say god can't lie, to which I respond that he might have been lying when he claimed that, so premise invalid there.

Thirdly, I am now claiming, right here, that I was there at the beginning of creation and I didn't see god. Are you willing to take my word on that? No? What a fucking surprise.

Special pleading, premise invalid. Next.

Please write me the post number where I wrote this.

It's the basis of your initial argument: you presented a problem with abiogenesis, as though your inability to see around it means it can't have happened. If that wasn't what you meant, then you would have had no reason to post that problem with abiogenesis as proof of creation in the first place.

Think carefully: your god doesn't like lying, apparently.