Yet the whole of evolution is predicated on an alleged moment billions of years ago when living matter first existed. The assumptions narrow the actual event down, and make a very detailed and specific assumption about what happened.
The bolded part is simply a lie. What Dave is looking for is some handle by which to accuse evilutionists of being atheists. Or more to the point, some feature of the theory of evolution that requires atheism.
This is simple dishonesty. I will openly admit that many facts from physics and geology contradict the most literal possible interpretation of Genesis, but then so do widely accepted notions such as the motion of the earth.
It is a disservice to religion to force everyone into warring camps based on whether they believe the earth moves or doesn't move, or whether the earth is 6000 or 4.5 billion years old, or whether evolution explains biological diversity, or whether all feline species descended from a pair of ur-cats that Noah took on the Ark (as per Ken Ham).
I know. He has set himself up as the final authority on every point even what others mean and how words are defined.
It is a disservice to religion to force everyone into warring camps based on whether they believe the earth moves or doesn't move, or whether the earth is 6000 or 4.5 billion years old, or whether evolution explains biological diversity, or whether all feline species descended from a pair of ur-cats that Noah took on the Ark (as per Ken Ham).
It serves ego pretty well though. Ego will use anything to preserve itself from a perceived threat even the subversion of religion. Actually that is a rather common one. Usurping science on its behalf is a little newer. Trying to wrap oneself in both of them is another wrinkle. Assuming the authority to speak for everyone is nothing new but it's a bit more audacious. Especially when you haven't successfully convinced anyone else of your perfection.