The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[orangebox21]

Sorry for the delay in my response time.

Again, unless you can detail a mechanism by which those small genetic changes would suddenly stop happening before they became noticeably physiologically different

Natural selection is not a creative process. It can only choose from the existing material. No new material can be created through the process of natural selection. 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.

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.

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

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

Reference please.

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.

10-4.

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.

Attack the person. 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'.

[quote= Answers in Genesis statement of faith ] "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?
Well, leaving aside the quote from AiG I gave above, which pretty much invalidates everything they say from the get go,

Fallacy of appeal to motive, or an appeal to genetics. Their motives are irrelevant to the validity of their scientific findings. I don't presume AIG to be non-biased in that they (and I) stand upon the authority of the scriptures. I also don't presume an atheist scientist to be non-biased because he/she presupposes no God. Both look at the same evidence but through their personal motives, which again is irrelevant to the validity of the scientific findings.

Secondly you're faced with an issue of internal consistency. If you disregard findings soley based upon a personal bias, you have created your own personal bias and must reject your own findings. You've become self-refuting.

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?
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 new genetic information is created through mutation. It (new genetic material) would be required for evolution.

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.

I wrote:

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 can still be a gradual change as you say but there will still be a clear dividing line within one specific generation.

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.

A: The universe is the only known closed system.
B: The laws present (if there are any) in a non-temporal exterior must operate independently and is irrelevant to a termporal universe. By definition, a closed system is not operated on by anything outside said system. It's closed.