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

[ohreally]

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Which claims?

Bearing in mind that a claim by a scientist does not equal a 'claim made by evolution'. The central claim of evolution is that speciation is due to natural selection acting on hereditary variations between organisms. Some zoologist thinking the scarlet toe nibbler being more closely related to the blooming onion gorger than to the soft-bellied seersucker and turning out to be wrong would not be an example of a problem with the theory of evolution.

[Mister Agenda]

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?

All the archeology in the region for the last century. The Israelis in particular looked very hard for evidence of the Exodus. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence within a bounded region, particularly a small region like the Sinai. Evidence of other nomadic encampments by much smaller groups have been found, but nothing to indicate hundreds of thousands of people (conservatively, 2 million based on the Biblical account) and their animals ever walked across the Sinai desert once, let alone wandered around it for 40 years. There's no record of the Israelites or the events supposedly surrounding their departure in Egyptian records. Many of the places mentioned in Exodus did not exist at the same time as each other. The archaeological consensus is that as a people, the Israelites were never in Egypt. The story is a legend made in the 7th century BCE.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

The gaps in our knowledge are particularly NOT on the subject of the mechanism of evolution. Here's what would make evolution 'not a fact': descent with modification not resulting in new species.

When we say evolution is a fact, and by we I mean anyone you've talked to on this forum who has said it is a fact, we are talking about it being a fact that species evolve. When we say gravity is a fact, we are not claiming that the theory of gravity, end-to-end, is perfect. We're claiming that the thing the theory is supposed to be an explanation for is actually a real thing. When we say it's a fact that germs cause diseases, it does not mean that there is no such thing as a disease not caused by germs or that the germ theory of disease is perfect, end-to-end. The only person interpreting 'evolution is a fact' as 'there's nothing about evolution left to learn' is you.

What a waste of time if that's all you've been on about all along. You accept evolution, welcome to the club, even though it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit it.

[Mister Agenda]

[Mister Agenda]

Okay thanks. I'm afraid I can't understand that at all though.

The science is extremely clear that we did evolve from another species. Where are you getting this information to the contrary? Do you have sources? Peer reviewed scientific papers, I would hope.

Again, what is the alternative? We were created fully formed?

Evolution requires no direction either, so that's incompatible.

I'll leave you alone after this. I appreciate you trying, but I have no idea what you think happened.

Even though it doesn't require direction, it isn't necessarily so that there was no direction involved. Humans can direct evolution, for instance.

[GoHalos1993]

Because they want to dominate everyone

[dom.donald]

[SteveII]

[Whateverist]

Haven't been keeping up on the thread but here's an idea: perhaps the religious never will admit you've won an argument because, in their mind, they can't be wrong? You know, god on your side and all that. Check mate atheists.