Thanks for your quick response on my long section on Evidences for Evolution, or perhaps more like lack of evidence. I apologize for the sarcastic tone concerning what one has to believe to be an evolutionist and my use of Strobel's summary to point out what I perceive to be hypocrisy on your part. Although you claim to be objective and open minded, you explained earlier that you have a presupposition against supernaturalism and for naturalism and that this requires you to use a much higher criteria bar for the Bible than for other things such as evolution. My point, and the one I made earlier, was that we should use the same height criteria bar for all philosophies or beliefs. My point was, that you are straining at a gnat to find problems with the Bible, yet completely buying into evolution and the items on Strobel's list which are almost impossible to believe especially in the context of empirical science.
Nothing produces something:
This is an area where one's worldview will dictate one's position. I can't produce any great arguments explaining the cause of the existence of an eternal transcendent God. Evolutionists resort to multiple universes or as you pointed out an eternal universe that created the Big Bang. I believe these are desperate attempts to salvage a non-supernatural explanation that violate Ockham's razor.
Non-life produces life:
You gave no evidence. Even with human input it hasn't been done. A mechanism can't even be proposed.
Randomness produces fine-tuning:
You claim that this is a straw man argument because natural selection is not random. I agree that natural selection is not in itself random, but natural selection can only operate on random mutations which are random. This still makes the process random and thus it is not a straw man argument.
Chaos produces information:
Do you have any specific information that chaos can produce the incredible information required for life? You didn't present any? Do you have any empirical examples?
Unconsciousness produces consciousness:
Your example using a fetus going from unconsciousness to consciousness is interesting. However, as Theists we believe that God created life and reproduction to have all the attributes of the parents. Consequently, that formation of consciousness is attributed to God, not just from deat matter.
You state that "Evolutionary consciousness developed gradually." Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
Non-reason produces reason:
You present no scientific evidence.
Evidence for Biological Evolution Introduction:
Most of the books I have read on evolution have not been written by creationists. However, most have been Intelligent Design proponents. I believe you are aware that one doesn't need to seek out evolutionary information or read books by evolutionists to become fully aware of the latest thinking in the field. It is virtually impossible to avoid being indoctrinated in evolutionary doctrine. However, to learn what scientists are saying that are skeptical of evolution, one needs to actively look for and find information to investigate. I have presented many examples where evolutionists who desperately want to believe in evolution have admitted that evolution is a religion with no real empirical facts to support it. Yet you give these people with your basic worldview no credibility and you do not accept their testimony. Rather than taking Colin Patterson's comments as more credible because he had nothing to gain by going against his fellow evolutionists, you turn that around by making the point that he is still an evolutionist. If he would have been converted to a creationist, you would have said that, "He is not credible because he is a creationist."
[Replies to omitted part of the discussion not included. Contact me if you are interested - Bob K.]