Looking for your best argument for evolution/against creation.

Give your best run at a 5-minute intro to evolution

In addition to naturalistic evolution, you should include a description of naturalistic abiogenesis (non-life to life) in your movie script.

If you need general info on evolution, try a simple web search on "introduction to evolution" - the first link should do well for you: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

Give your best run [...] against creationism.

Creationism requires a cognitive creator. The best argument against creationism is the complete and abject failure of proponents to meet the burden of proof of this claimed creator to a level of significance where (1) the evidence presented is credible above the level of an appeal to emotion (i.e., Religious Faith) and/or argument from ignorance, (2) the evidence (involving supernatural claims/assertions/elements) is capable of demonstratively falsifying/negating/voiding a wholly naturalistic/physicalistic mechanism, and (3) any evidence/argument is free from logical fallacies, and which can be shown to actually be linkable to this reality.

Asking for a refutation of creationism is a fallacy of reverse burden of proof, especially when no argument (other than the name) is given. If you wish for an argument against creationism, then first meet the burden of proof for the following claims inherent, both implicitly and explicitly, in many creationist narratives:

  • A creator exists. This could be an entity more knowledgeable then current humans with the knowledge/technology to produce life from non-life (but still not a "God") to a multi-omni multi-universe creating intervening uncaused God(s) - your pick.
  • Life was created with cognitive purpose (the "Why?" of abiogenesis). Given that the burden of proof is met for "A creator exists," any claimed creation of life from non-life requires a cognitive purpose specific to intentional and cognitive abiogenesis (else it would be a naturalistic function) - the burden of proof for this claim must include identification of the cognitive purpose of life from the point of view of the creator, else life from non-life may be an unwanted/undesired/"don't care" side-effect from the actual purpose of the Creator.
  • A creator is necessary/required as a wholly naturalistic/physicalistic mechanism is incapable of life from non-life. To meet the burden of proof for this claim, the argument/evidence must provide credible proof that a wholly naturalistic/physicalistic mechanism is not possible - an improbable claim is insufficient to support that "God/Creator is necessary/required for abiogenesis."
  • Evolution, or the rather broad and unfinished Theory of Evolution, fails in all cases to provide a wholly naturalistic/physicalistic set of mechanisms, as a "How?" explanation against the millions of pieces of physical information collected in support of evolutionary process(es) and species change, to span the post-abiogenesis event(s) to the current species present upon the planet Earth thereby requiring/necessitating either direct creation of the various species or controlling the change of species.
/r/DebateAnAtheist Thread