Originally Posted by Fellowship
Ok so I thought I would ask a few questions:
Kickaha is right that you're basically playing the game of pretending that knocking evolution down (and not doing it very effectively) leaves "God did it!" as a better answer than "I don't know," which it doesn't. But I will respond to some of your questions anyway...
First off the big one.. For those of you all who deny a creator and believe in "evolution" Did all of creation progress and evolve from one singular "common ancestor"?
Should I take it from the way you phrased this that you think that to believe in evolution one must deny the existence of God, or is it that you only want to hear responses from atheist evolutionists at the moment?
If you believe yes then please identify the name of this original life form.
I'll answer this and the above with an analogy from current events: Police in Britain right now are looking for a serial killer responsible for the deaths of a number of prostitutes. They currently have no idea who this would be, but the evidence they've seen leads them to believe that these killings are all linked and most likely the work of one person.
They could be wrong (or only mostly right -- for instance, someone other than the main culprit might take this as an opportunity to kill someone, hoping to divert blame), but for now it makes the most sense to proceed with a single killer as the leading theory.
Are they automatically wrong to suspect a single killer simply because they don't know his identity yet?
A single common ancestor for life is simply the most economical explanation to explain the available data. Identifying that common ancestor would be wonderful, but it's far from necessary. Do you honestly think you're posing such a "stumper" here that evolutionists should hang their heads in shame for not providing you with an answer?
2nd: Please explain the process of the conversion of non-living matter into the "living" original ancestor which spawned all life that we see today.
What does this have to do with evolution of species? Why would "God did it!" be a better answer here than "I don't know", should the relevant science be lacking? Why are you apparently coming from the angle that knowing how something happened (say the specific weapon used in a murder) is a necessary part of knowing that something did happen (dead body found amidst signs of violence)?
3rdly: Please explain how you are certain that all life originated from a "common ancestor" For the sake of saying that we believe in evolution how can we be sure that there may not have been 2 original lineages or perhapse 3 or perhapse 100, or 99,000?
Was there just one common ancestor or untold thousands and how do you know????
How do you know that, when you came home last night and found everything exactly the way you remembered leaving it that someone didn't break into your house, steal everything, and replace all of it with exact duplicates?
There's just so much in common between living organisms that a common ancestry is the simplest explanation for what we see. Yes, you could also say those similarities are due to having a common "designer", but unless that explanation truly provides more explanatory power than invoking a new entity (Occam's razor: entities should not be needlessly multiplied), it's better science to invoke a tentatively explained or unknown natural process (the natural world already being an established entity in the problem at hand), and simply say "I don't know" beyond that.
Besides, your Creator would have to have a very perverse sense of humor and some weird desire to trick scientists into believing evolution happened, because, for some strange reason, the "designed" morphological and genetic patterns we find fit horribly with the concept of deliberate design and wonderfully with the explanation of common ancestry with mutations along the way.
It's pretty clear, even if you don't rate the odds as low as creationists are prone to do, that it's going to take a lot of trial and error chemistry in the pre-biotic world for the first proto-life to emerge, and that, just like it's terribly unlikely for 20,000 people to pick the same winning number in a lottery, it's terribly unlikely for multiple potential ancestors of modern life to arise all at once, especially all at once and using very similar biochemistry. Once some single simple form of life was able to establish itself, it would quickly dominate the organic resources from which other forms of life might emerge.
Everything I've just said is very speculative, of course, but that's not such a big problem as you'd probably like to make it out to be. I'll return to a murder mystery analogy: You have evidence that points you to a particular suspect. You don't know exactly how he might have killed your victim, you might be missing many big pieces of the whole picture, but everything that you do know fits a pattern that points to this one suspect. All you need to know is that it's plausible for your suspect to have committed the crime -- and speculating about possible ways he could have done it, even if you can't prove any one of them -- is part of the logical process of establishing probable guilt.
If you can't imagine a single way for your prime suspect to have committed the crime, your case against him is in big trouble. If you can imagine some
way, even if your imagined scenario is wrong, that's certainly good enough, if the rest of your evidence is solid, to proceed with arrest, trial, and likely a fair conviction, even if you never figure out some of the particulars.
What is your basis and how do you prove it?
The next question is where is the map of this evolution?
What was bermuda grass before it was bermuda grass?
What was a Lucy before she was Lucy?
What was a butterfly before it was a butterfly?
I'll can come back to some of these questions later if you wish, if you aren't yet seeing the problem with your questions themselves, and the implied concept that you're asking questions that require definitive answers in order for evolution to be considered well supported.
If you can not answer and support with a reasonable basis even one of my questions then I would suggest to you that you take inventory of your beliefs before you come on here and talk down to Believers of a creator who created all of creation.
The whole problem is that you think your particular questions are more important and salient than they really are, and that you aren't coming to terms with the fact that "God did it!", even if evolutionary theory falls completely apart, is a non-explanatory explanation which gains nothing in scientific value from any alleged scientific failings of a competing idea.