6.3 MP digital prints compared to 35mm prints at 5x7?

Does the quality (i.e clarity) of a 6.3MP Digital camera file compare to that of a say an ISO 200 35mm print when printed 4x6 or 5x7? I am thinking of purchasing a FUJIFILM S6500. This camera is 6.3 MP with RAW capability.

As far as clarity or resolution goes, neither will be a problem at 4/6, 5x7, or even up to 8x10. Both film and digital will be fine for these as a capture medium. Although I know from personal experience an 8x10 print shot on film from an old $35 minolta slr prints MUCH better than anything I ever get from my 6mp digital. Not only is the lens considerably better (sharper), but the dynamic range of the film is also better, particularly if you shoot in jpeg mode (raw conversion is better, but still doesn't match modern film).
So the 6500 will get you great prints at 4x6 and 5x7, even in jpeg mode, particularly if you are photographing scenes with less contrast (like most), and are willing to play with the camera saturation/contrast defaults to see what you like. For those "gotta be perfect" moments, raw will give you better control of white balance, exposure, sharpening, etc. for editing later.
Modern digital cameras (4mp and over) have finally hit the point where they are as good for most situations as very pricey 35mm equipment from 20 years ago. And for prints smaller than 8x10, it's almost impossible to tell the difference.
Good lighting and technique is much more important than equipment. As it always was and always will be, the key to getting good pictures is the person behind the camera.

My 6.3Mp camera gives good results full size on A4 photo paper( ~11x8 ) so 6x4 or 7x5 shouldn't be a problem.

At 5x7 you are not really pushing either the digital camera or the 35 mm camera, so there shouldn't be much difference for the resolution per say, but different cameras will give you different color reproduction, and that will be more of what you will see a difference in. I would guess unless you are a very picky professional the S6500 will give you pictures you like.

As a general rule of thumb you only need about 2 - 3 MP for a 8x10. Having more leaves room for cropping the image and such though.

A few years ago a bought a Fuji Finepix 2800. I had done a lot of photography using film but my old camera broke so decided to bight the bullet and go digital. The little Fuji I bought was so easy to use and gave absolutely brilliant photos even though it was only 2M pixels.

Last year I moved up to the Fuji S9500, with 12M pixels! This camera has a lot more features and I suppose I could earn my living with it if I wanted to. However, I have to say that when printing out on 7" x 5" paper I really can't see the difference in the little 2800 and the S9500. It is only when you start to digitally zoom in on pictures that you appreciate having more pixels.

I can wholeheartedly recommend Fuji cameras for their quality and ease of use but having said all this, all 'digi' cameras these days over 拢100 are very good - generally speaking. Just find one that you are comfortable holding and make sure it comes with a good memory card. A set of re-chargeable batteries is a good idea too.

I would say so

No problem. You can do over 400 pixels per inch with 6 MP on a 5x7. Most photogrpahic prints are about the same as 200-300 dpi at best. You won't print at any better than 300 dpi anyhow.

now think a little further out time wise. Will any of the photos you take be of any importance 20 to 30 years down the line to family or anyone? Should the prints you make be damaged and all that is left are the negatives or digital files will the family that follows you be able to access their history? We know from history negatives even stored poorly are lasting in excess of 100 years. We also know from history digital media is changing so fast the probability of finding the hardware which uses our soon to be outdated media is slim to none.

A 35mm camera will not give the quality image of an 8x10 view camera but is that quality always what is needed in every situation? Certainly not. Polaroid never was worth a cuss from a quality standpoint but it was instant and in some cases filled a need ;passport photos (not going to look but so good anyway doesnt matter what you do) it is important to match the camera to the job. If the job is to record your family history digital could prove a mistake unless something changes.
True film has made massive changes over the years still the first negative produced can still be printed today if you find it.

Yes no problem at 6.3MP you can get bigger prints done with no quality loss.