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.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

It's a good idea to read up on a topic before attempting to speak authoritatively on it:

"Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Otherwise, one runs the risk of making profoundly ignorant statements, and ruining their credibility.

[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.

[fr0d0]

The Bible is the claim

Oopsfail!

[SteelCurtain]

Esquilax that link had way too many words. No chance he actually reads it.

[Mystical]

Someone needs taught a lesson Esqui


Cue lesson in 3...2....1....

[Esquilax]

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.

Hey dude? Mutations. Mutations add the new material. It's well documented that this happens, and since I told you this in my last post, I'm left to conclude that you're just lying with this bunch of bare assertions now.

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

I don't have a presupposition, sir. A presupposition is a judgement you make in advance, that's what you are doing for your ideological reasons. I am free to accept the evidence for what it is, because I recognize that your false dichotomy about origins is incorrect; your god could still be out there, but evolution is still true.

Reference please.

Here you go. You may have to scroll down some, though this link does painstakingly explain what a species is before it goes into the examples, so you'll have no excuse if you do choose to misrepresent what goes on, here. Specifically, you might find the references in part 5.3 and on interesting, given that it specifically references animal speciation events without recourse to hybridizing them. Your goose has simply been cooked on this one.

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'.

The question is "how was the universe formed?" Answering "god," is a surface level answer that doesn't tell us how, that's the problem.

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.

The issue is that AiG literally will not put science on their site if it conflicts with their worldview, and so any science they do host is ideologically biased from the beginning. Given the widespread acceptance of evolution among the scientific community, it's safe to say from the outset that anything said by an evolution-denial website that won't post anything that disagrees with them is incorrect science.

Leaving aside all that, when I posted a link to human chromosome 2 in the first place, that was the mainstream, accepted scientific research on the subject. Your link shows that one guy- who works for the institute of creation research, which is not an accredited scientific organization by the way- disagrees; whoop-de-doo. I don't care what one guy with a religious agenda thinks, I care what the science supports. Clearly, for some strange reason, all the other trained scientists have come to a different conclusion to the one guy whose paycheck is dependent on denying things that conflict with young earth ideas. I wonder why that is?

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.

No, there is no presupposition of no god, I explained why that is in my last post, so I guess this is just another lie, or you didn't read what I said. Again, evolution being true says nothing about the existence of the christian god. Now drop this dishonest bullshit, okay?

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.

Except that I have no bias, bar that I reject junk science based on bad motives. And that's not a bias, in that it's justified by logic; biases are baseless, informed rejection of stupidity is not. Quit with the sophistry, it's making you look bad.

No new genetic information is created through mutation. It (new genetic material) would be required for evolution.

Do you think just asserting that means anything?

Incidentally, here's that claim of yours being debunked. This website has been around for ages, so you've made a claim that was already proven wrong. Bad form, shows you didn't bother researching anything before you made up your mind. That's a presupposition.

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

No, there won't, any more than you can look on a color spectrum and pick out the precise point one color becomes another. The example change we're discussing would be a series of small changes to the spinal and limb arrangement of the organism over time, eventually allowing them to walk on two legs slightly, then a little more, and a little more, and so on.

For evidence of this, I need only point to you yourself: humans have been walking upright for the entirety of our species' life, but did you know we still have a spinal column and nerves therein more suited to a hunched forward, quadrupedal movement pattern? It's true! The small changes that led up to our evolving bipedal motion still haven't finished happening yet.

A: The universe is the only known closed system.

Bare assertion, dismissed as such.

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.

You haven't demonstrated that it's a closed system, you just asserted it. Unproven premise, invalid conclusion. Dismissed.

[Bad Writer]

The Bible is the claim

Oopsfail!

You're welcome to tell us why it's not a claim. Or are you just looking for a few high fives from a couple of theists for a snide comment you think is halfway clever on an atheist forum?

[fr0d0]

You're welcome to tell us why it's not a claim. Or are you just looking for a few high fives from a couple of theists for a snide comment you think is halfway clever on an atheist forum?

Is the bible filed under the science section in your library?

[Esquilax]

Is the bible filed under the science section in your library?

If you're happy admitting that the bible is not a claim, then I'm happy to declare that the christian belief cannot be rationally justified, and we can go on our way.

Though I'll be thoroughly disappointed at the sophistry you need to employ in order to skip out on having conversations about your faith.