Stump the Christian?

[abaris]

It seems, however, crucial that evolution be true to attack Christianity. 

For attacking bible literalists geology is more than sufficient. No need for evolution for that kind of effort.

[Cato]

It seems, however, crucial that evolution be true to attack Christianity. 

The truth of evolution just means that our species did not come into being as depicted in Genesis. The problem for Christians that rely on a literal interpretation of The Bible is that there was no Adam and Eve; therefore, no original sin and no reason for the salvation that the crucifixion of Christ is supposed to provide.

[abaris]

that there was no Adam and Eve; therefore, no original sin and no reason for the salvation that the crucifixion of Christ is supposed to provide.

And nevermind the additional absurdity the trinity introduces into that tale. Not even Kafka or Ionesco could have dreamed up such a ludicrous tale.

[SteveII]

Sure, evolution happens. Does it go all the way back to 1 organism? No one knows...and therefore is a theory.

See, this is exactly what I mean: you do not know what evolution is. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of biological life, taking into account the genetic mutations that occur at every stage of replication; common ancestry is an inference made due to numerous observations of how our genes work, and how genetics and phylogeny recapitulate in every case. Does all life descend from a common ancestor? Yes, as far as we can tell, since all of the evidence points to this. We may not know for certain, but on the balance of probability, all of what we currently know points to this.

And here it the crux of the matter. "All we know points to this". Someone could argue that the information contained in the "all" is insufficient to come to the massive extrapolated conclusions that it does. I DO NOT want to argue evolution and this study and that. The more honest of you keep admitting it is not a certainty. Until it move much further down the path of certainly (how far, I realize, is subjective) your basis for mocking people who doubt it's extrapolated conclusions seems unfounded.

[FatAndFaithless]

I DO NOT want to argue evolution and this study and that.

You're claiming that it's unsubstantiated. You're arguing evolution.

The more honest of you keep admitting it is not a certainty.

I don't recall anyone here stating anything as an absolute truth, because you continue to fail to realize that science doesn't deal in certanties on anything.

Until it move much further down the path of certainly (how far, I realize, is subjective) your basis for mocking people who doubt it's extrapolated conclusions seems unfounded.

It's the equivalent of questioning the existence of gravity or magnetism. It's a ridiculous line of thinking that deserves ridicule by definition.

[Esquilax]

And here it the crux of the matter. "All we know points to this". Someone could argue that the information contained in the "all" is insufficient to come to the massive extrapolated conclusions that it does

No, you're right: we should ignore all of the evidence and go with something that has no evidence at all, because if we don't have perfect certainty then an idea is exactly equal to every other idea, no matter the level of evidence behind it.

. I DO NOT want to argue evolution and this study and that. The more honest of you keep admitting it is not a certainty.

So, your religion is so not anti-science, that it also hasn't prevented you from understanding that all of science is probabilistic, and doesn't give certainty on any issue, I assume? Which would rather make your assertion that the current models are insufficient without certainty completely inappropriate and useless...

It's almost enough to make me question why you'd make those irrelevant assertions at all, given that your religion hasn't stopped you from understanding basic tenets of the scientific method!

Until it move much further down the path of certainly (how far, I realize, is subjective) your basis for mocking people who doubt it's extrapolated conclusions seems unfounded.

Yeah, sorry, but I'm not going to sit here and countenance your blatant goalpost shifting in order for you to prevent acceptance of common ancestry from ever being reasonable. It's dishonest in the extreme, it shows that you have no understanding of science or probabilistic reasoning, and it demonstrates a profoundly unrealistic approach to epistemology, and the blatant special pleading involved in your dismissal of things with huge amounts of evidence based on a lack of certainty, while simultaneously accepting things with no evidence at all (your religion) because you want to.

Top to bottom, your desperate scrabbling to lower modern biology to the level of your religion is absurd.

[SteveII]

It's the equivalent of questioning the existence of gravity or magnetism.  It's a ridiculous line of thinking that deserves ridicule by definition.

No, not really. Those things can be observed, measured and tested over and over. Evolution is an extrapolation of a tiny sliver of the observed.

[Britney blue]

How can I corner, of course with my words, Christians and make them feel they have no choice but admit to rethinking their position or part of their positions when it comes to the bible or their god? I usually go fishing online at conservative news sites like Breitbart News Network. I'll click on a story or headline, look down at the comments and either look for key words that Christians use or post a stimulating comment, which they would of course feel the need to correct me or defend their so called faith. Is there any tools or creative weapons of reason and logic that I can use to stump them?

This sounds like fun, what kind of trickery do you use now?

I use none, and I did say "creative weapons of reason and logic", Christianity in the bible seem to violate logic and morality, and I am very interested in why Christians don't understand this.

[FatAndFaithless]

It's the equivalent of questioning the existence of gravity or magnetism.  It's a ridiculous line of thinking that deserves ridicule by definition.

No, not really. Those things can be observed, measured and tested over and over. Evolution is an extrapolation of a tiny sliver of the observed.

You really have absolutely no understanding of evolution.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's the equivalent of questioning the existence of gravity or magnetism.  It's a ridiculous line of thinking that deserves ridicule by definition.

No, not really. Those things can be observed, measured and tested over and over. Evolution is an extrapolation of a tiny sliver of the observed.

A correction. Evolution is a fact and the ToE is the method to which we try and explain the fact (and do a good job of it too). It's as established as magnetism and gravity, and believing it to be false with no real evidenced reason why doesn't stop it being factual.