The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Bad Writer]

Natural selection is not a creative process. It can only choose from the existing material.

Source?

No new material can be created through the process of natural selection.

Source?

New material is required for a change in species. Therefore Natural selection is the mechanism by which a species will stay within its own species.

Circular reasoning and still no source. "Natural selection keeps things specified because of natural selection." You take so much time out of your day to reply to the posts on this thread, and yet you spend zero time researching that which you are arguing for. Why are you so lax in your burden of proof?

We both have the same evidence but draw different conclusions affected by our own assumptions and presuppositions.

Parroting the staff of the Creation Musuem won't win you any brownie points, especially here on this forum.

Our "assumptions" are based on natural laws that we suspect are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It is reasonable for us to assume these things. Your assumptions, however, are indeed flawed, for they are based on the idea that natural laws can and have bent to the will of the supernatural in order to trick us into thinking that the earth is older than it really is as a huge ploy into choosing faith over reason. How is this god of yours not the equivalent of a Frat Boy playing a prank on the other college-goers?

You do understand we've seen new species evolve in a lab, right? Like, actually watched it happen?

Reference please.

You fail to bring any of your sources or evidence to the table here, and yet you beg for evidence and references when an argument presents itself that might lend credence to our claims?

I'll give you one. Just one. It's probably all you can handle right now with that busy schedule of yours.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Oh, did I say "one"? I meant one link to 29 Evidences of a species evolving into another.

I'm waiting for a relevant argument against the initial premise that "knowing the how of some truth is not a validation of said truth." You disagreed but have not provided a relevant statement of defense. No disrespect intended by using the word 'relevant'.

Just stating that it's not relevant does not make it irrelevant. You're going to have to do better than that.