So I am having an exchange with a Christian:
Me: "The study findings...solidify the case for the preservation of cells and possibly DNA in ancient remains." - the bones are still millions of years old, you're just making a false assumption saying it's impossible for organic materials to survive for millions of years."“The data thus far seem to support the theory that these structures can be preserved over time,” Schweitzer says. “Hopefully these findings will give us greater insight into the processes of evolutionary change.”"
So what are the thoughts on my reply!?
I suppose that a case could be made that evolution is a religion if it is a belief blindly held by uneducated, ignorant people. But for those who have actually studied, experimented, and tested the theory empirically, it is NOT religion, it is solid, unimpeachable SCIENCE. Evolution HAPPENED. It has ALWAYS happened. It IS happening now. It always WILL happen. It MUST happen. It cannot NOT happen. Life and evolution are inextricably linked as a single process. If and when evolution comes to and end, so, too, will all life. Life IS evolution.
There have been a few cases where they thought they found connections in the chain. All of them so far have turned out to be either a mixture of different species bones put together or a known creature which was deformed or disabled. You can hardly call that science.
Your reply seems fine, but this person is talking out their ass a bit too much to really correct. By 'correct' I don't mean that he needs to accept evolution, but rather that his claims are not correct. This may be overly judgmental, but when someone clings to such marginal claims without a) providing sources, or b) acknowledging numerous of examples to the contrary, you have to wonder if they sincerely oppose evolutionary theory, or if they are just looking for any convenient excuse not to have to deal with it.
But I will note that there is at least one famous case of a 'mixture of bones': the Piltdown Man hoax. Why do creationists think this proves a point? Do you know what debunked Piltdown Man? God? Prayer? The Bible? No, of course not. It was rational skepticism and scientific investigation. Why does this person cling to science when they think it scores a point for their view, yet feels free to dismiss science willy-nilly when it contradicts their views? If it was a matter of pointing out internal inconsistencies that would be one thing, but frankly this just seems like bias.