Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[ohreally]

What makes you think you know better than the consensus of mainstream scientists? 

I'm just telling you what they say - who are you to say that they are wrong and you are right? Because to be honest mate, until you show me your Nobel prize for demonstrating that one of the most comprehensively confirmed scientific theories in history was wrong, I'm not really interested in your opinion on the subject. Don't get me wrong, you have a right to your own opinion - but you don't have a right to your own facts, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go read a science book! Do some research! And by the way, I completely agree with the statement from Dawkins you just quoted. People who are mistaken need to be corrected if they try to share their incorrect views with others, and people who try to peddle pseudoscientific bullshit need to be publically exposed and shamed.

Did my point go over your head or are you just ignoring it because you have no answer? See bold above. I'll try again: 

1. You admit to gaps in our knowledge/understanding of evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) 
2. Gaps in knowledge = facts not known = not full understanding of how the complete theory works. 
3. If you still believe evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) is true, it is a belief because you have bridged the gaps with something other than knowledge. You even used the word "consensus" which means a common belief. You don't need consensus for facts. For example, decent with modification is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Don't need consensus, don't need them to sign a statement, don't need to take a poll. 

Perhaps you think the gaps (irreducible complexity, biological networks, "tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree, fossil record/intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient, etc.) are trivial. Then it would be you that would need to do some reading.

-"tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree  - What exactly do you mean by that?  How is that a gap?

[The Grand Nudger]

For a man that isn't willing to defend ID or creationism, your list of "gaps" tows the line of their propaganda rather suspiciously.

[Veritas_Vincit]

What makes you think you know better than the consensus of mainstream scientists? 

I'm just telling you what they say - who are you to say that they are wrong and you are right? Because to be honest mate, until you show me your Nobel prize for demonstrating that one of the most comprehensively confirmed scientific theories in history was wrong, I'm not really interested in your opinion on the subject. Don't get me wrong, you have a right to your own opinion - but you don't have a right to your own facts, and you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Go read a science book! Do some research! And by the way, I completely agree with the statement from Dawkins you just quoted. People who are mistaken need to be corrected if they try to share their incorrect views with others, and people who try to peddle pseudoscientific bullshit need to be publically exposed and shamed.

Did my point go over your head or are you just ignoring it because you have no answer? See bold above. I'll try again: 

1. You admit to gaps in our knowledge/understanding of evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) 
2. Gaps in knowledge = facts not known = not full understanding of how the complete theory works. 
3. If you still believe evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) is true, it is a belief because you have bridged the gaps with something other than knowledge. You even used the word "consensus" which means a common belief. You don't need consensus for facts. For example, decent with modification is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Don't need consensus, don't need them to sign a statement, don't need to take a poll. 

Perhaps you think the gaps (irreducible complexity, biological networks, "tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree, fossil record/intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient, etc.) are trivial. Then it would be you that would need to do some reading.

Again, back to the puzzle analogy just because there are a couple of pieces missing doesn't mean that the rest of the puzzle is completely wrong - HOWEVER what gaps are you talking about? When I say gaps I mean that there are probably lots of species that we haven't yet found fossils for, which you would expect considering how rare the circumstances required for fossils to form are - arguably it's amazing we have any at all. But these gaps do not call the theory into question, at all! It's not like there are fossils of Rabbits in Triassic period rock! 

When I say I believe evolution I mean that I believe that I believe the facts as reported by scientists and their interpretations as currently being the best explanation for complex life on Earth. I believe the science is true because it has been DEMONSTRATED to be true. 

And for the fourth time you have dodged my point, so since I've addressed yours, let's see if you have an answer:

How does the validity of Evolution matter in any way to your Christian world view? What evidence do you have to back up your idea that God did it?

[SteveII]

Did my point go over your head or are you just ignoring it because you have no answer? See bold above. I'll try again: 

1. You admit to gaps in our knowledge/understanding of evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) 
2. Gaps in knowledge = facts not known = not full understanding of how the complete theory works. 
3. If you still believe evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) is true, it is a belief because you have bridged the gaps with something other than knowledge. You even used the word "consensus" which means a common belief. You don't need consensus for facts. For example, decent with modification is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Don't need consensus, don't need them to sign a statement, don't need to take a poll. 

Perhaps you think the gaps (irreducible complexity, biological networks, "tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree, fossil record/intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient, etc.) are trivial. Then it would be you that would need to do some reading.

-"tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree  - What exactly do you mean by that?  How is that a gap?

There is no tree anymore thanks to genetic studies. Different genes tell contradictory evolutionary stories. "Webs" or "networks" of relationships are now hypothesized. Interesting stuff. It illustrates that an idea (the tree) that was believed to be true since Darwin drew it is even still believed to be the case today on a popular level, but really is/has been tossed out in favor of other theories by scientist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your objection to current evolutionary theory, is that a classification system that predated current evolutionary theory, and has been roundly discredited -by- current evolutionary theory....is a weakness of current evolutionary theory, a "gap".........?

[ohreally]

-"tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree  - What exactly do you mean by that?  How is that a gap?

There is no tree anymore thanks to genetic studies. Different genes tell contradictory evolutionary stories. "Webs" or "networks" of relationships are now hypothesized. Interesting stuff. It illustrates that an idea (the tree) that was believed to be true since Darwin drew it is even still believed to be the case today on a popular level, but really is/has been tossed out in favor of other theories by scientist.

And how is that a gap?

[SteveII]

Did my point go over your head or are you just ignoring it because you have no answer? See bold above. I'll try again: 

1. You admit to gaps in our knowledge/understanding of evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) 
2. Gaps in knowledge = facts not known = not full understanding of how the complete theory works. 
3. If you still believe evolution (in the all-encompassing sense of the word) is true, it is a belief because you have bridged the gaps with something other than knowledge. You even used the word "consensus" which means a common belief. You don't need consensus for facts. For example, decent with modification is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. Don't need consensus, don't need them to sign a statement, don't need to take a poll. 

Perhaps you think the gaps (irreducible complexity, biological networks, "tree of life" doesn't appear to be a tree, fossil record/intermediate forms, convergent genetic evolution, junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient, etc.) are trivial. Then it would be you that would need to do some reading.

Again, back to the puzzle analogy just because there are a couple of pieces missing doesn't mean that the rest of the puzzle is completely wrong - HOWEVER what gaps are you talking about? When I say gaps I mean that there are probably lots of species that we haven't yet found fossils for, which you would expect considering how rare the circumstances required for fossils to form are - arguably it's amazing we have any at all. But these gaps do not call the theory into question, at all! It's not like there are fossils of Rabbits in Triassic period rock! 

When I say I believe evolution I mean that I believe that I believe the facts as reported by scientists and their interpretations as currently being the best explanation for complex life on Earth. I believe the science is true because it has been DEMONSTRATED to be true. 

And for the fourth time you have dodged my point, so since I've addressed yours, let's see if you have an answer:

How does the validity of Evolution matter in any way to your Christian world view? What evidence do you have to back up your idea that God did it?

Wow. I am not talking about a missing bunny rabbit fossil. Here are some of the gaps in knowledge within the general theory of evolution (which I listed in multiple posts):

1. irreducible complexity, 
2. biological networks, 
3. "tree of life" tossed out. Now perhaps a "web" or "network" 
4. fossil record/intermediate forms, 
5. convergent genetic evolution, 
6. junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, 
7. natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient

Notice the bold above. I believe the facts too. I believe the demonstrated science to be true as well. However, you go beyond this and believe the entire theory from end to end in spite of the gaps in knowledge. So you don't "know" the entire theory is true. No one does. You simply share a belief with most scientist that the entire theory is true. 

Regarding your question, the validity of evolution does not impact Christianity all that much. Your second question: that God did what exactly? Create life? I do believe that. How? I don't know, I was not there.

[Expired]

Again, back to the puzzle analogy just because there are a couple of pieces missing doesn't mean that the rest of the puzzle is completely wrong - HOWEVER what gaps are you talking about? When I say gaps I mean that there are probably lots of species that we haven't yet found fossils for, which you would expect considering how rare the circumstances required for fossils to form are - arguably it's amazing we have any at all. But these gaps do not call the theory into question, at all! It's not like there are fossils of Rabbits in Triassic period rock! 

When I say I believe evolution I mean that I believe that I believe the facts as reported by scientists and their interpretations as currently being the best explanation for complex life on Earth. I believe the science is true because it has been DEMONSTRATED to be true. 

And for the fourth time you have dodged my point, so since I've addressed yours, let's see if you have an answer:

How does the validity of Evolution matter in any way to your Christian world view? What evidence do you have to back up your idea that God did it?

Hahahahahahahhahahahahaha Ffs man
Wow. I am not talking about a missing bunny rabbit fossil. Here are some of the gaps in knowledge within the general theory of evolution (which I listed in multiple posts):

1. irreducible complexity, 
2. biological networks, 
3. "tree of life" tossed out. Now perhaps a "web" or "network" 
4. fossil record/intermediate forms, 
5. convergent genetic evolution, 
6. junk DNA perhaps not junk after all, 
7. natural selection not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient

Notice the bold above. I believe the facts too. I believe the demonstrated science to be true as well. However, you go beyond this and believe the entire theory from end to end in spite of the gaps. So you don't "know" the entire theory is true. No one does. You simply share a belief with most scientist that the entire theory is true. 

Regarding your question, the validity of evolution does not impact Christianity all that much. Your second question: that God did what exactly? Create life? I do believe that. How? I don't know, I was not there.

[SteveII]

There is no tree anymore thanks to genetic studies. Different genes tell contradictory evolutionary stories. "Webs" or "networks" of relationships are now hypothesized. Interesting stuff. It illustrates that an idea (the tree) that was believed to be true since Darwin drew it is even still believed to be the case today on a popular level, but really is/has been tossed out in favor of other theories by scientist.

And how is that a gap?

It's a gap in knowledge, in understanding of how it works. That is my whole point. You can't simply say vague things like "evolution is fact". You have to be more specific.

[Veritas_Vincit]

It's like a game of chess, religion is playing science, and science has taken all of religion's pieces and now you're just moving your king around and you're just moving it three squares left, four squares right, and science is like "Hey - that's not a move!" It's childish. YOU HAVE LOST.