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

[Mister Agenda]

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.

LOL. Fine. You won. You have set out to prove why you are superior and theist are ignorant. Of course you don't have any idea how to defend what it is you believe, but since you are confident you are on the right side...you win! Congrats.

Since hundred of millions, if not billions of theists accept biological evolution as a fact, your poor showing as a follower of the ID sub-branch of Creationism (which has never been able to propose an unsolvable instance of 'irreducible complexity') hardly demonstrates that theists are ignorant.

[RoadRunner79]

[Mister Agenda]

How?  Inheritance, that we -do- know. How did we get it wrong with our previous assessments?  Is that the question you mean to ask?  Perhaps some examples would shed light on that?

I have no idea what he means by half the things he touts as examples of flaws with evolution. It sounds like that parody of a Trump speech:

1. America!
2. Freedom!
3. Apple Pie!
4. America!

[Mister Agenda]

[Mister Agenda]

Excellent, got your red marker handy?  Tell me which parts of the biblical narrative didn't happen?

Unlike evolutionist and atheist, I don't just remove the data that doesn't fit my model, I change the model.

Sigh. The Bible isn't the data, it's the model. For instance, it's unreasonable to believe the Exodus occurred as written, the archaeological evidence is firmly against it (the data). It is a story from the Babylonian Captivity, likely a sort of a 'God beat Pharaoh for us and gave us a homeland, he'll get us out of this' tale.

[Mister Agenda]

[RoadRunner79]

[RoadRunner79]

Unlike evolutionist and atheist, I don't just remove the data that doesn't fit my model, I change the model.

Sigh. The Bible isn't the data, it's the model. For instance, it's unreasonable to believe the Exodus occurred as written, the archaeological evidence is firmly against it (the data). It is a story from the Babylonian Captivity, likely a sort of a 'God beat Pharaoh for us and gave us a homeland, he'll get us out of this' tale.

What evidence is firmly against it?

[robvalue]

I would be very interested to hear what our resident Christians' actual models are.

What happened, and how is evolution involved, if at all?

Anyone prepared to share?

Seriously.

Some people are creationists, and literally think people were created pretty much as they are now.

Some accept evolution, but maintain some sort of belief that God was involved somewhere.

Yet some seem to suggest they are neither creationists, nor accept evolution, but they don't say what they do believe. Would this mean they are actually undecided as to what happened? Don't feel like sharing? Why the secrecy?

I'm not accusing anyone in particular here. This is a trend I've noticed where people are aware creationism is too embarrassing to present, yet the theory of evolution too damning to the narrative. So what exactly is going on? Do such people actually have a model in mind? Did we evolve from something or not? If so, what, and how? If not, how did we get here?

[SteveII]