The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

Only if you offer an explanation as to how the cell came into being or explain how given it is eternal time was created. No foundation, no proof. No beginning no ending.

You are wrong in just about every way possible: first of all, evolution describes, solely, genetic change over successive generations. This is a confirmed, demonstrable fact; organisms change over time. We don't require an explanation of the origins of life, nor "eternal time," for that to be true and confirmed, because evolution doesn't rely upon those things. It only relies upon genes in populations changing over generations; god could have created that first cell, and the universe, and everything else, but evolution still occurs.

The contention you've made is roughly the same as if you denied gravity because we don't have an explanation for the beginning of the universe; it's a total non-sequitur.

The only way to prove someone existed is through a witness testimony and faith on the part of the hearer. If you won't accept this as proof it can't be proven to you. Still doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that you don't believe they did.

Um... no. Have you heard of anthropology and history, before?

No one is arguing that the creation account is a comprehensive explanation of origins. You stated you don't believe it because it doesn't explain the how. I said the how isn't the justification of truth. How comprehensive the explanation is, is irrelevant.

It's relevant to me: as it stands, the explanation doesn't sound like the kind of thing an all knowing creator would give, it sounds like the bare bones assessment a bunch of bronze age tribes would give if they had no idea what's actually happening.

That's reproduction. So you propose that my looking different from my grandfather is scientific proof that millions of years ago humans evolved from apes?

Yes: evolution describes variation in genes over successive generations. That you look different from your grandfather is down to the fact that you aren't a precise clone of him; his genes changed en route to becoming you. We can trace back that lineage through genetics and cladistics back to our apelike ancestors. Just look at human chromosome two, as it's the smoking gun in this case; this is a chromosome that humans have that is the result of two fused ape chromosomes and this is simply confirmed.

What you're essentially saying here is that change in genes occur, but that those little changes can never accumulate to the point that they would seem like big changes, and that's just absurd.

These are examples of adaptation and adaptation is not proof of changes of species (kinds). Variation within a species yes, proof that millions of years ago apes became men no.

I warned you about using the term kind, as kind still has no scientific definition. I'm not going to entertain any contention you make using that word.

So, you acknowledge that species change over time: can you detail the mechanism that would cause those small changes to stay within species lines and not cross them? Or are you just making things up?

When you say apes evolved into men, how could this have happened apart from the reproductive process?

Very slowly! Example: if you breed an animal, let's say a dog, for certain traits, and you could live for millions of years to see it happen, generation for generation. Over time, you'll never see one dog give birth to anything other than a dog, but progressively, that line of dogs begins to develop stronger hind legs, and a spinal setup more conducive to standing on two legs. Keep going, and eventually those dogs have developed the ability to stand on two legs for periods of time. Keep going, and now they're bred to be fully bipedal, with all the requisite physiological properties that would need.

Would you say that, at the end of the process, this bipedal canine with a radically different body shape, spinal column and so on, is the same dog as the one you started with, millions of years ago?

It's impossible for nothing to create something. It is possible for something to be eternal and thus not created.

Bare assertions aren't arguments.

You reject the evidence. Doesn't mean it's not there.

Bare assertions aren't evidence, and an old book claiming god was there at the beginning of the universe isn't a standard of evidence you should be accepting because then you'd be bound to accept the same claim as it's made in all religions.

If your word was not a contradiction to His word I would be happy to question you about it.

Ah, so it's special pleading and a presupposition that what you already believe i right. Gotcha.

If you claim empirical science as your standard for proof and abiogenesis does not fit within that standard, that is not an argument from ignorance, it means it's time for a new theory. I can certainly imagine how it (abiogenesis) could be possible, but that's faith and I already have that.

We have empirical scientific data that shows that abiogenesis is possible. Have you not bothered researching this before you decided it was wrong?

I have now given you three such examples.

You gave me analogies made in passing in other science sources, not papers about the things you claim are real.

And if you used that book in your graduate level Astronomy class I would be concerned.
So you propose that the term "stellar evolution" in a graduate level science course is using a non-scientific definition of the word evolution?

Yes, actually; you understand that these things are constructed using a language, right? And that occasionally such language will not contain the appropriate purely scientific word necessary?

Biological evolution relies upon the organic material produced by the chemicals produced by stellar evolution. So unless another theory of cellular origin is proposed, biological evolution cannot be divorced from chemical and stellar evolution, nor can it be proved without it.

Sorry, you're just wrong here: you could be exactly right that your god created all matter, and the chemicals on the earth, even life itself, and that wouldn't change the fact that biological evolution, genetic change over time, still occurs.