If you experience ridicule after comments like that one, it is because you don't have a basic understanding of the theory you seek to question the legitimacy of. Evolution is not likely to be something you will ever see "at work" yourself because it takes far more than a single human life-span for it to work. It's like saying "I'd like to see planetary formation at work, myself." It is a pointlessly impossible and uninformed request.
What exactly is a basic understanding, here? Iirc, evolutionists are still quarreling amongst themselves. If the experienced are quarreling, what does that say about us repeaters? I merely ask for examples of evolution supposedly at work. If no examples can be given, then it makes me wonder.
Why do you seem to think that an explanation for the beginning of life would be needed in order to maintain rationality. Just because an explanation exists does not mean it is a rational one. In fact, irrational explanations are quite common.
You seem to use "maintain rationality" in a careless way, since what exactly is rationality and how does one maintain it according to whom? That brain candy aside, Thus why I ponder the "rational" explanations of evolution.
When the actual answer to the question is unknown, the most rational response is "I don't know".
Hence my purpose to bring people to the great "I don't know." We don't know as much as we think we do, for certain.
I have two issues with this question.
One: You are asking a loaded question. The word "create" requires a will in order to occur. To rephrase the question so that it is not loaded, you can ask something like "if God did not create life, how did life come to exist?"
Two: The second issue I have with the question is it's lack of relevance. A lack of alternative theories to explain a phenomenon doesn't lend credibility to a false explanation, nor does an abundance of alternative explanations remove credibility from a true explanation. The question you ask is a pointless one because even if the answer is "I don't know" It won't make the God explanation any more true or false, nor will it make it any more or less rational.
The Big Bang has been considered the beginning of life. Thus why I used the word "create." Semantics aside, I ask questions for the sole purpose of understanding.
This kind of question is also commonly used to set up an argument from incredulity fallacy as well
The best thing about having a belief system where one does not have a creation necessity (i.e. one does not have to believe that there must be a creator for all things) is that one does not have to fall prey to the circular logic inherent in the question of "what created the creator". The answer given to that question is invariably "The creator has always existed", which is circular when one has the starting premise of "everything that exists must be created".
When someone doesn't have that premise, though, it is possible to say "it has always existed" without falling prey to circular logic. I believe that ecofarm gave a perfect example of this kind of theory earlier in this thread (although it may have been a different one). Life on earth may have come from somewhere else, but life in the universe might have been here for as long as the universe has been here. Just because a lot of one group may believe a certain thing doesn't mean that the group demands it.
The most rational answer to the origin of life question is "I don't know. I don't even know if it actually has an origin, in truth. Who knows how life on Earth got here. We do know that it's diversity on Earth can be explained by evolution, though."
Interesting. At least you seem to not be binded and blinded by a belief. You say "I don't know" which, in my eyes, is the correct response because we truly don't know and any deviance from that is mere assumption.
What's wrong with that?
