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

[SteveII]

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 see this is the sad thing Steve II, your profile says you are "looking for reasonable dialog" (I think you mean dialogue unless that's an American spelling)  but people following this thread will notice that you clearly haven't read my post or watched the video that I took the trouble to attach which gives an accessible overview of the evidence for evolution by natural selection. Or you can go to talkorigins.org for a more comprehensive breakdown of the evidence for common ancestry.

But you have also missed the broader point I said which is that whether or not the theory of evolution is true has no baring on whether Creationism or Intelligent design are true. Both of those theories would have to meet their own burden of proof for anyone to be justified in believing them. As it happens, both theories are actually contradicted by whole categories of evidence. It's like we're making a puzzle and we don't know what the picture is, but we've put together about 95 out of 100 pieces. Now, there are still a couple of gaps but if we look at it we can see that all the pieces we have put together go to make a clear, beautiful picture of a tree, to the point where it would be ridiculous to find out that it's actually a magic lamp because the pieces we already have make such a clear picture, and every new piece we find fits in with the tree, and there aren't any that don't fit in. What you're saying is that you want ignore the clear picture that the pieces are making, and to smush the pieces together where they don't fit to force them into the rough, approximate shape of the magic lamp, because that's what your magic book says.

I actually did watch about 80% of the video before I had to leave this morning. Nothing new. Your posts are also full of barely surface information and repeated statements that evolution is true with no attempt to write an accurate description of the state of evolution (even from a pro-evolution standpoint). You don't bother to define what evolution is or which part is "proven to be true". When I ask a direct question, I never get a direct answer (I don't think ever). Look at the thread above. I asked pointedly what were the "observable facts" you clearly said exist. If I dig down enough in your puzzle metaphor, you admit to a couple of gaps. Based on the backpedaling, I am assuming you don't know what those gaps might even be or how they might affect your claim: "it's true because it's based on observed facts and many types of evidence". I think you were under the assumption that all you had to do was assert the truth of evolution (in all of it's meanings) and the was enough. 

BTW, "dialog" is an American spelling which you could have very easily looked up.