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]

-and the op is willingly vindicated yet again, with very little prodding required.

You didn't really say anything, and yet declare victory.... that has been my experience regarding the OP. 

But as Steve has been saying, the evidence doesn't show a nice neat little tree, that you may think. 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/see...30831.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/see...31061.html

[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]

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?

For those that want to know more about this subject, they should read about it from a scientist and not the interpretation of a non-scientist (me). 

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

So are you claiming that if there are limits to what can be determined concerning evolutionary history through the protein record, evolution is probably false?

[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]

-and the op is willingly vindicated yet again, with very little prodding required.

You didn't really say anything, and yet declare victory.... that has been my experience regarding the OP. 

But as Steve has been saying, the evidence doesn't show a nice neat little tree, that you may think. 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/see...30831.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/see...31061.html

So how does not being able to resolve evolutionary history to a 'nice, neat little tree' falsify evolution again?

[RoadRunner79]

You didn't really say anything, and yet declare victory.... that has been my experience regarding the OP. 

But as Steve has been saying, the evidence doesn't show a nice neat little tree, that you may think. 

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/01/see...30831.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/see...31061.html

So how does not being able to resolve evolutionary history to a 'nice, neat little tree' falsify evolution again?

I don't think that it does.   But it does question some of the claims, when you look at all the evidence.

[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]

For those that want to know more about this subject, they should read about it from a scientist and not the interpretation of a non-scientist (me). 

Antonis Rokas , Sean B Carroll
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/art...io.0040352

So are you claiming that if there are limits to what can be determined concerning evolutionary history through the protein record, evolution is probably false?

There seems to be some confusion about the point I am making. I am not trying to disprove evolution.

I'm am claiming that if there are gaps in our knowledge (especially in the subject of the mechanism of evolution), one has to be more careful about using 'evolution' and 'fact' in the same sentence (as you did above regarding billions of theists). It simply is not true that biological evolution (defined as the end-to-end theory) is a fact because how can we say that if there are gaps in our knowledge? These gaps in our knowledge are not simply missing dinosaur puppy fossils, these gaps have to do with mechanisms and systems and relationships--extremely necessary components to the theory. It is more accurate to say "parts of the theory of evolution are fact", "decent with modification is a fact", "natural selection is a fact", etc.