The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

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.

I think the confusion is over the definition which is what I'm driving at. While I don't like the term in this situation, if you define evolution as variation within a species then I agree evolution occurs. (my contention is that this definition proposes that changes in eye color are considered evolution, is this really evolution?) If you define evolution as variation within a species directly resulting in a new species (ape to man) then no that is not demonstrable fact. Because then you're using changes in eye color (for example) as proof that a single cell organism over millions of years evolved into a human.

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.

As noted above. The question is about origin. If you claimed that all matter came into being through gravity then yes you would need to explain where gravity came from.

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?

Anthropology and history are testimonies and you believe the accounts. There's no way to prove the accounts were documented in truth. One could always argue "people lie" or "witness testimony is unreliable", etc. You have to trust (have faith) in man's collective authority.

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.

Sure, it may be relevant to you, but it's irrelevant to the argument.

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.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ome-fusion

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.

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?

"Any real evolution (macroevolution) requires an expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is supposed to move from simple beginnings to ever more varied and complex forms (“molecules to man” or “fish to philosopher”). Suppose there are islands where varieties of flies that used to trade genes no longer interbreed. Is this evidence of evolution? No, exactly the opposite. Each variety resulting from reproductive isolation has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability to explore new environments with new trait combinations or to meet changes in its own environment. The long-term result? Extinction would be much more likely than evolution." (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ecies-kind)

So I would say the mechanism that causes small changes to stay within the species is natural selection.

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?

No I would not. But your response proves my point. As soon as the canine started walking on 2 legs it would no longer be considered of the canine species and at that specific generation you would see a canine giving birth to a non-canine.

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.

The law of conservation of matter is not a bare assertion. It's scientific law.

When did God say to you that he created anything?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

And how do you know he's not lying?

God cannot deny Himself. How can you know He is lying?

I don't rely on magic or experience or voices in my head. That would be crazy. I rely on a book which collects a bunch of borrowed myths, which I know is accurate because it says it is.

I'll need a little more than assertion and negative bias that the Bible is a bunch of borrowed myths. Which parts are myths and where are they borrowed from?