Stump the Christian?

[Esquilax]

I am not shifting a goalpost by suggesting it was in the wrong place to start with. There is a different between reasonably assuming a premise to be true and reasonably assuming a premise to be true and mock all others who don't see it the same way.

Look, when "not seeing it the same way" uniformly involves huge, sweeping misconceptions about extremely basic concepts involved with a premise, then that is worth mockery. If you can't even be bothered to understand the thing you disagree with, then you are being ignorant.

Everything about evolution is reasonable. I said 10 pages ago that evolution should be taught. The conversation went sideways when I mentioned distinguishing between fact and theory. Word choice aside, when evolution is taught in public schools, it is not couched in phrases like "probabilistic" "as far was we can tell". It is taught as 100% incontrovertible fact.

You know what? I'm a product of public school education, I have had literally no other formal scientific education beyond high school classes, and I understand that science is probabilistic and evidence based, subject to change. That was taught to me. In fact, that was taught as a basic tenet of science, that must be applied to one's understanding of every other specific subject we studied, before we got into specific units.

For all your bluster about how things are taught in science classrooms, that shit sure as hell didn't pass me by. Maybe you need to start giving both teachers and students more credit than you are; not everyone is as forgetful as you are.

As far as special pleading, you are naive to think that the level of proof needed to get an adherent to jettison a religious belief is not higher than "as far was we can tell".

The special pleading is inherent in that statement: you demand a standard of proof higher than "all the available evidence suggests," for things you don't already believe in, yet you'll accept your religion based on "we have no evidence at all, but just faith it, please!"