Christians, what is your VERY BEST arguments for the existence of God?

[Darwinian]

No, they didn't just tell me evolution was true, they showed me evolution is true, they demonstrated that evolution is true and with this knowledge, I found out for myself that evolution is true.

[rjh4 is back]

No, they didn't just tell me evolution was true, they showed me evolution is true, they demonstrated that evolution is true and with this knowledge, I found out for myself that evolution is true.

Sounds kind of circular to me. Begin by assuming evolution (common descent) is true, interpret all evidence based on that assumption, and conclude that the evidence demonstrates that evolution (common descent) is true.

[Darwinian]

But that's the point. No-one started by assuming anything, that's what theists do, not scientists.

[Purple Rabbit]

Please show me your alternative with the same rigour you demand here from Darwinian.

I say you cannot. You cannot because the theistic creation version has no predictive power whatsoever, no explanatory power whatsoever and no descriptive capacities whatsoever. Apart from that it is riddled with illogic, contradiction and inconsistencies. Creation is nothing but a shallow critique on evolution. There is no model, no verifable fact, no basis to it, just your blind belief and fabulation.

[rjh4 is back]

But that's the point. No-one started by assuming anything, that's what theists do, not scientists.

Even scientists make assumptions, Darwinian. One cannot interpret or give meaning to any fact or evidence without making some assumptions. To conclude that evolution (common descent) is true the way it is generally presented, one must at the very least assume a single first life form from which every other life form descended (this excludes the possibility of more than one initial life form). This is an assumption that has no evidence to support it as far as I know. One must take this by faith. Without this assumption, evolution (common descent) as it is generally presented is false (if all life forms descended from two or more initial life forms, then all life forms would not share a common anscestor).

---

Please show me your alternative with the same rigour you demand here from Darwinian.

I assume your comments were directed at me. In response...I demanded nothing from Darwinian. I merely made an observation from my point of view. I have been accused of making circular arguments here and I was merely pointing out that Darwinian's arguments appeared circular.

[Tiberius]

The veracity of common descent doesn't depend on their being a single instance of life emerging. Common descent still works, evolution still works, etc with more than one starting point. The only difference would be that some species wouldn't be related to each other. This doesn't stop them being related to *some* other species, nor does it stop evolution from being true.

The only assumption needed for science is that of materialism, we've been through this before. Evolution doesn't need an assumption of some single starting point, since it has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity of life, i.e. what happens to life if you let it live and reproduce. None of this (mutation, natural selection, etc) depends on an assumption about some starting point. Even if God did come along and magic a load of animals into existence at the dawn of time, what has happened to those animals since then is still confirmed by evolution. Life adapts, it evolves, it changes. Nothing stops that.

[rjh4 is back]

The veracity of common descent doesn't depend on their being a single instance of life emerging. Common descent still works, evolution still works, etc with more than one starting point. The only difference would be that some species wouldn't be related to each other. This doesn't stop them being related to *some* other species, nor does it stop evolution from being true.

The only assumption needed for science is that of materialism, we've been through this before. Evolution doesn't need an assumption of some single starting point, since it has nothing to do with the origin of life. Evolution explains the diversity of life, i.e. what happens to life if you let it live and reproduce. None of this (mutation, natural selection, etc) depends on an assumption about some starting point. Even if God did come along and magic a load of animals into existence at the dawn of time, what has happened to those animals since then is still confirmed by evolution. Life adapts, it evolves, it changes. Nothing stops that.

If that is all that is meant by evolution...then I wholeheartedly agree (in which case, I could be considered both a creationist and an evolutionist).

But I do not think many evolutionary scientists would agree with you. If one took your view, there would not be much debate between evolutionists and creationists. Creationists think that there were many different initial life forms created by God and would agree that the life forms that we see today descended from those initial life forms. I wonder what would happen if someone tried to explain evolution in a schoolbook such that it covered the situation where there were multiple initial life forms. Would the governments/courts allow this? I wonder what would happen if a scientist tried to publish a paper in a scientific journal using such a broad definition of evolution. Would it pass peer review? It would sure eliminate much of the conflict. But I think evolutionary scientists would balk at such a teaching since evolution as it is taught in schools is "common descent", meaning ALL life forms have a common anscestor.

Would you support teaching evolution in that manner in schools (including the possibility of multiple initial life forms)?

[Tiberius]

If that is all that is meant by evolution...then I wholeheartedly agree (in which case, I could be considered both a creationist and an evolutionist).

You misunderstand me. What I said was that even if God had created the first life forms, it has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution isn't concerned with how life got here, only how life has diversified. What the evidence does show, is that all life is related to a single ancestor. Whether this ancestor was the first life, or whether there were lots of other life forms that simply died out, and this was the only to survive, is unknown.

But I do not think many evolutionary scientists would agree with you. If one took your view, there would not be much debate between evolutionists and creationists. Creationists think that there were many different initial life forms created by God and would agree that the life forms that we see today descended from those initial life forms.

My position was a hypothetical, nothing more. It didn't say God created anything, nor did it say that there were more than one first life form. If God created the single cell as the first life form, then what we see in the animal kingdom today is everything that evolved from that point. If God created lots of different types of life, then all those died out, leaving one which survived and evolved.

It is highly likely from the evidence at hand that only one life form emerged, and this evolved into every organism we see today.

I wonder what would happen if someone tried to explain evolution in a schoolbook such that it covered the situation where there were multiple initial life forms. Would the governments/courts allow this?

Yes. It's a valid theory, as long as they mentioned the conclusions we can draw form this (i.e. that all life today is related to only one common ancestor, not to several. As I said, whether there was only one or multiple life forms is unknown. The evidence points to one, but it is possible others existed and died out.

I wonder what would happen if a scientist tried to publish a paper in a scientific journal using such a broad definition of evolution. Would it pass peer review?

What broad definition? That organisms adapt, change, evolve? That isn't a broad definition...that's a simplistic definition. I doubt a scientist would put it in those terms to begin with.

It would sure eliminate much of the conflict. But I think evolutionary scientists would balk at such a teaching since evolution as it is taught in schools is "common descent", meaning ALL life forms have a common anscestor.

What is taught it what the evidence shows, that all life has a single common ancestor. As I said before, the only way in which there could be multiple common ancestors would be if that ancestor died out very early on, taking all of its descendants with it.

Would you support teaching evolution in that manner in schools?

That wouldn't be teaching evolution, but rather abiogenesis. The creation of life has nothing to do with the diversity of life. You can hypothesise upon abiogenesis producing multiple organisms, but the theory of evolution as it stands only supports one common descendant. The evidence simply doesn't show any others.

[Minimalist]

I wonder what would happen if someone tried to explain evolution in a schoolbook such that it covered the situation where there were multiple initial life forms.

More to the point, where is the evidence that all of these multiple life forms came to exist 6,000 years ago in the Middle East?


Creationists always work on the dubious assumption that all they have to do is sit back and poke imagined holes in the Theory of Evolution and then, like magic, their particular superstition will be "proved" by default. Yet, even if there were no evidence to sustain Evolution there is still no evidence to support creationism. This, I fear, those fools will never quite grasp.

[Watson]

When and where did this turn into Creationism? I didn't bring up Creationism, rjh4 didn't bring up Creationism, I don't see any logical reason for it to be involved in this discussion at all! Simply put, it seems like you want to fall back on something you know how to argue against, and have preprogramed responses to. Not really an intellectual excercise of challenge, if I do say so myself...anyway!

No, they didn't just tell me evolution was true, they showed me evolution is true, they demonstrated that evolution is true and with this knowledge, I found out for myself that evolution is true.

Whoa, whoa! You went out on an expedition of your own with a crew and a ship and research technologies and foun dout evolution was true? You are one dedicated dude!

Since I'm being sarcastic and I doubt you did anything of the sort, I'd like this demonstration of evolution, please.

Adrian, extremely insightful posts, by the way. I find evolution fascinating and you put it in very good terms.

EDIT: My mistake, Creationism did get thrown intothe ring here. Whoops!