Thanks for the random welcomes through the debate haha.

"it appears to me that by your standard no amount of evidence would ever be enough."

Not all situations "have" enough evidence to be sure. When we have trials to determine if someone was guilty, the jury can't know for certain if the defendent is guilty unless they personally witnessed it, but they make a judgement based on their assumptions, because there's nothing wrong with making assumptions, like you said about your driving example, daily life would be pretty rough if we didn't make assumptions - we'd never amount to anything. I'll assume that gravity will still be in effect tomorow as I go about, but in reality, we don't know if gravity will truly stay in effect, but it'd be overkill to always plan everything in case it stopped. I have no problems with making assumptions... and the same for theroies, as it helps in many ways, but even scientists will admit that theories aren't facts, and only arrogant scientists will declare that the theory of evolution is a proven fact.

There's definite evolution, that's for sure, but the entirety of the "Theory of Evolution" is NOT just about evolution, there are a lot of assumptions in it, and when taken as a whole, there's no room for other factors not thought about, such as God, or even quantum physics!. We are ALL made of of the matter that's affected by these physics, so you can't say that it doesn't factor in. It's on a smaller scale, but that just means that it's even more at the base of how everything is affected, including DNA,Genes, and all matter, and energy. Somebody could say that as they discover other factors it would be added in the theory, but see, that's why I'm saying it's not a fact, because if it was, it wouldn't need to be changed.

And again, it's not a bad thing that the Theory of Evolution is like that, but I can't accept the statement that it's proven or is a fact. I think it's obvious that we evolve on a small scale, through variants and natural selection, and we see it happening, so that much is proven to a certain degree.

"The evidence for evolution is so massively strong it's unreasonable IMO to not conclude that it or a mechanism extremely similar is occurring."

I somewhat agree. I think it's obvious that a similar mechanism is occurring... only to a certain degree! it hasn't been proven beyond the fact that there is change over time, and there's always things that we haven't thought about. There's probably a lot more at play (in my opinion), though I don't know what. Considering the probabilities of many claims, I'd say there's most likely something more that hasn't been factored in for those claims to be even probable (like life coming from non-life, though I know it's not part of the Theory of Evolution, but it's usually seens as part of it).

There's nothing wrong with not fully understanding. We do understand more and more, afterall.

"Can you give me an example of another way such disparity of life could be reached?"

Well. This is just an example; Let's say there was just a natural force that was present in the universe, not unlike gravity, that just constantly affects everything. Undetectable itself, this force's effects could include a sort of natural process that pushes matter towards higher degrees of life, and so this would factor in on top of natural selection and make it more probable that life could emerge from non-life and that evolution has amounted to what we see today. Where would this force come from you say? Well I say, where does gravity come from? and just, where does the way the universe works come from, that other forces and energy come from? It's just the way it is, isn't it?

I wonder if that example is too close to ID though. But the way I see it there doesn't need to be intelligence for things to be influenced towards evolution. And I think it's especially illogical that there'd be some kind of "being" that would have always existed, that's just weird, as well as thinking that it'd be just changes over time. But who knows.

Sure, I have no problem with evolution. I have a problem with people making "factual" observations that are misguided or wrong about Christianity. There is no doubt that evolution has happened. I just believe that it was set into motion by a being beyond our comprehension.

The creation of life can be explained by science.  All you need for life is organic molecules, energy (sun), and a solvent (water).  Organic molecules are quite common in the universe, in fact there is a nebula cloud in space that is made up of billions of gallons of alcohol.  And it doesnt take much for RNA (which is just a nucleotide) to form naturally.

What science doesnt answer (atleast in the foreseeable future) is what caused the Big Bang and what, if anything, happened before the Big Bang.  You could claim that God had something to do with it, but thats wishful thinking.

If the creation of life was so easy, why can't we do it? I wouldn't refer to it as wishful thinking, I would call it faith. I am by no means a "Bible Thumper", and I honestly don't feel that Christianity should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. However, it stands to reason in my opinion that we as humans cannot possibly understand something as beyond our comprehension as God would be.

If the creation of life was so easy, why can't we do it? I wouldn't refer to it as wishful thinking, I would call it faith. I am by no means a "Bible Thumper", and I honestly don't feel that Christianity should be taught alongside evolution in public schools. However, it stands to reason in my opinion that we as humans cannot possibly understand something as beyond our comprehension as God would be.

Understaning and being able to do something with it is completely different.  We understand how gravity works, but we aren't able to shut it off or send the moon careening out of Earth's orbit.

What do you mean by 'why dont we create life?'  Do you mean why dont we re-invent Earth life, which isnt much of a stretch since we've mapped entire genmes of many species and understand what goes into every molecule of a cell, or do you mean why haven't we created a new form of life not related to pre-existing life?  In a sense we are trying to create 'new life,' but instead of blood and flesh it consists of electricity and metal.  Would you consider a machine that was able to build a replicate of itself or had more intelligence than an insect life?

If something is beyond our comprehension, and assuming those with religion are right and God had something to do with the Big Bang and creation of this universe, should we even concern ourselves with such things?  Ants dont concern themselves with the complexities of man, and man doesnt care what the ants think of him.  I have a hard time seeing the relationship between a superior being and man as being any different.

Which is what makes religion the perfect device with which to control people. It's designed to provide answers to the unanswerable, which cannot be contrevened. The Pink Unicorn, orbiting teapot, and flying spaghetti monster are just as logical.