The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Esquilax]

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?)

Of course a change in eye color is evolution, as evolution just means genetic change over time; that change can be- in fact, is most often- very small, but those little drips and drabs of physiological change build up, as we observe them doing in human beings. It's a slow drift, but this is the way old species become new species.

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.

Phew, I'm glad you just said that's not a demonstrable fact, I was worried you were actually going to try demonstrating it.

Again, unless you can detail a mechanism by which those small genetic changes would suddenly stop happening before they became noticeably physiologically different, then I'm going to pay attention to the vast wealth of cladistic, fossil, genetic and observable experimental data that says that new species do evolve that way. You do understand we've seen new species evolve in a lab, right? Like, actually watched it happen?

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.

So you're questioning abiogenesis, and yet talking about evolution. That's the problem. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, then let's do it; we've got experimental data that points toward that conclusion, but I'm not as attached to that theory as to evolution, since it's not so... immediately demonstrable as evolution is.

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.

Yeah, in some respects. The difference is corroboration and the nature of the claims, Box: the other claims of history have a much larger wealth of cross-corroboration than biblical claims, and the claims themselves are less... magical. And the magical claims we do find, we disregard; nobody takes all of the omens and such in old Roman texts seriously, for example. And yet you're asking for a special case exemption for the bible, a historical text that makes far more fantastical claims, that are far less supported.

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

So keep on running from the point, that's fine. It speaks volumes about the level of information you're capable of bringing to bear on it.

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

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

I never get tired of reminding you idiots that this is also on the AiG website. Does that seem like a non biased source that wouldn't disregard actual science, to you?

"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."

Well, leaving aside the quote from AiG I gave above, which pretty much invalidates everything they say from the get go, organisms don't just "trade genes," you silly person. Have you heard of a thing called "mutation?" You know, the process by which spontaneous changes to genes occur? The... the driving force of evolution, even in micro-evolution?

You really, really shit the bed on this one.

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

Natural selection selects out harmful traits, and selects for beneficial ones. Those traits, given rise by mutation, do not encounter the problem that your idiot creation frauds claim they do.

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.

Except that there wouldn't be a specific, obvious generation where that occurs, since all the changes are small and flow into one another when looked at on the evolutionary time scale. It's a gradual change, not a series of sudden jerks forward.

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

Yes, and it only applies if you can demonstrate that A: the universe is a closed system not affected by the outside and B: that laws present inside a temporal universe remain true in a non-temporal exterior. If you can't demonstrate B, then your entire claim here is a fallacy of composition.