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

[Mister Agenda]

For an atheist, evolution is all or nothing. The problem is "evolution" can have multiple meanings that you can use at will to make sentences like "Evolution isn't true because it disproves creationism, it's true because is based on observed facts and many types of evidence"

What observed facts prove the mechanism that went from single cell to complex systems? 

What observed facts prove that all life evolved from a common ancestor?

Don't spout theories, you said there were observable facts that prove evolution.

You can be a real shit about telling us 'what things are for an atheist'. I'd think more highly of you if you didn't think you had us all figured out. What meaning do you think evolution has in the sentence you quoted? You're accusing Veritas of equivocation, show your work.  I don't see it. To me, it seems plain that by 'evolution' he means 'biological evolution, natural selection among variations in living organisms that leads to speciation'. What are you claiming he meant by it?

1. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...vered.html 

2. Not that common descent is necessary to the theory, since life could have originated more than once giving us multiple lines of descent, and it wouldn't affect the principles of the theory a whit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o...on_descent 

But you would have known all that already if you cared to know. Not  wanting to know is much, much worse than being ignorant.