Aslan it seems you have quite limited knowledge of evolutionary process’s . I could try to explain them to you but you have also displayed your unwillingness to entertain any idea that isn’t centred around your religious belief. So is it really worth the bother?
You said “I note that noone has yet explained how self-replicating organisms first evolved.” Guess what the reasons I have not tried to answer this question is very simply we simply don’t know. We don’t have a time machine and the actual evidence of how it actually happened is probably long destroyed. The best scientist can do in this area is demonstrate how it might happen. That said it has little to do with the validity of evolution. 350 words prevents me from going into detail her so I’ll give you a couple of links.
Evolution http://tccsa.tc/articles/evolutionist_view_max.html
Creation http://www.creationists.org/

By having a good look around these sites you will easily see which group is evidence based and which is not. I think the people who are attracted to creationist ideas are motivated by the search for “why” rather then the how. Creationist are not able to cope with the idea that there is not any why at all.
I’ll ask Aslan this what evidence for evolution would he consider conclusive proof.

Whoops my evolution links fell off.

try these

http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/hnta.html
as well as any Uni site you care to look at.

Neohuman asked for some evidence to back up my claim that there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that the oldest religions were all monotheistic.

A good overview is at http://custance.org/old/evol/2ch1/2ch1.html

Then there are books such as Don Richardson's, "Eternity in Their Hearts" or Wilhelm Schmidt's, "The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories".

And no. I don't believe that what "that crossover ‘psychic’ guy" says is reliable evidence for the afterlife. However the fact that the apostles accepted death or exile rather than deny Jesus' resurrection is good evidence that the resurrection did occur and hence that there is an afterlife.

To David Boaz who asks for forgiveness, I can only say that I do not judge, so you do not need my forgiveness.

Perhaps you judge others and then patronisingly forgive them? Perhaps you believe that your conscience is superior to mine because of your self-serving belief that you have found the 'truth'?

Re the abortion issue, this is not a forum for that so all I can say is, I’m perfectly willing to give you, and your loving couple, any fertilised egg I don’t want, but I’ll not create a life and then give it away.

You do know that abortion is very seldom a choice of convenience and that by making them illegal you will not prevent women finding ways to prevent producing a life that their conscience tells them would ruin other lives.

To pretend that abortions are simply for the mother's convenience is to ignore the pain and desperation that leads women to deny themselves the bliss that comes from a new baby. It belittles women and is not a Christian thing to do.

I thought only God can judge and forgive? Do you need to ask yourself more often ‘what would Jesus do’?

Having read most of the discussion here, it's as i dreaded it would be, a gigantic boxing ring with all sorts of bods slugging it out on every available inch of floor space, and very little in the way of expert technique on display. Well, as long as you're all enjoying yourselves...
A couple of general points to note. The Christians or the generally religious are very fond of saying that belief in evolution (and indeed in science generally) is based on faith - 'a fairy tale for grown ups'. I presume this is because faith plays such a large part in their lives that they see it everywhere, and that what scientists would describe as evidence plays such a small part in their lives that they see it nowhere. Most of what they say can be safely ignored, as science continues to develop and refine theories that are proving ever more effective and fruitful, and providing an increasingly comprehensive and integrated understanding of the cosmos, regardless of the snipings of the faithful.
It's only natural that science should try to understand and explain religion from a neurophysiological perspective, but i think psychological explanations should have pride of place here. I personally think the persistence of religion has much to do with fear of and a desire to transcend death, and an egoistic desire to see ourselves as necessary rather than contingent beings. We create gods so that they will in turn bestow 'god-hood' upon us - eternal life and all that. I also suspect human religion will always prevail over human reason, for the human ego is more powerful than the laws of physics.

For Aslan Pt1
>Glad you agree that Warren hasn't thought about the moral implications.

Didn’t say he hasn’t, it is just that he hasn’t raised it in the article. What is your stance John?

>You are right that atheists/materialists don't go around doing what they want. They are of course being inconsistent. So why is that? Answer: Because their materialist worldview is unliveable. It leads to absurdity.

Ever heard of the Socrates: Euthyphro not even as clear cut for you as you would think even with a deity.

BTW I confess that I’m a ethical relativist and do in fact think morality is mostly a matter of opinion and linked more to desires in a social contract situation than to some objective meta-ethical standard. Having said that those of us who don’t believe in a divine moral law giver have enough mental capacity to evaluate what is harmful, combined with a desire not to cause harm and think this is enough to give a general guide on what not to do in a social environment. So there is no inconsistency rather I would say given the tract record of your ‘God’ we are in fact morally superior to it. Many of the things it has done would have a member of our society in gaol for life