"The hard fact IS there are ... religious textbooks that started, as scientific facts, but have been altered quiet ridiculously, by sciences inclusive proof of either evolution, or linguistics."

Leaving aside your wanton cruelty to the humble comma, name one :-)

Inconclusive proof, btw, is better than none at all, which is the sum total of every 'proof' creationists ever have to offer. Ironic that their main criticism of the scientific origin of the universe is that something can't come from nothing yet their own 'proof' of their own beliefs, um, produces something out of nothing. But I digress. Incomplete evidence does not automatically carry the suggestion that because it is incomplete it is worthless. However, as this is another argument to ignorance that is all the time I am spending on such non points. Some of us prefer our ice cream without the flake.

I would venture that in the cases of religious texts it is the other way round, they have been forced to adapt their teachings due to science dragging them kicking and screaming out of the dark ages and showing them how childishly simplistic their attempts are to explain a complex world. For as many fundie types that reject science, reason, IQ and sanity there are as many religious groups who embrace it and don't feel it conflicts - another reason why your argument doesn't even need blowing out of the water btw, it never even got its toes wet.

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing 'does not!'

Yeah OK. Thanks kids, now go and tidy your room :-)
"All governments suffer a recurring problem - power attracts pathological personalities. It is not power that corrupts, but that power is a magnet to the corruptible" - Dune, Missionaria Protectiva.