Do you need me to post these questions in another forum?  Will you answer them there?  I can copy and paste these into a different forum for you...

Why do men have nipples?  Why do humans have tailbones and appendices?  Why are female orgasms hardly correlated with sexual intercourse?  Why are there oftentimes complications with the female pelvis during birth? Why are 99.9% of the species in the fossil record now extinct?  Why would God have such a fascination with beatles (I believe there are 250,000-350,000 unique species)?  Why are completely arbitrary sequences of nucleotides in the genetic code conserved in nearly all species, but with slight variations?

Theories in science work through models, which can be modified by interpretation of new evidence, etc.  Evolutionary theory is a model that can explain all the evidence we see without any contradictions.  ID and creationism simply cannot.  It sounds like you are claiming to not accept ID and creationism, either?  Convenient.  Can you at least concede that ID and creationism cannot satisfactorily explain these?  And by satisfactorily, I mean by not using the fallback answer I provided in an earlier post. 

Did you honestly attempt to make a counterpoint out of the fact that I said 99.8 instead of 98.5?  Your article strongly supports the idea of evolution, and does NOT support the idea of creationism or ID.

As far as the word games with science.  I agree that science is usually repeatable.  In fact, I contend that evolutionary theory IS repeatable.  The problem only arises when you say that "microevolution is different from macroevolution, and macroevolution can't be repeated!"  But macroevolution is simply a whole lot of microevolution happening over the course of a very long time to a group that is relatively isolated reproductively.  Evolution IS repeatable.  It's done all the time.  Macroevolution, by it's very nature, can't be done in a simple experiment because of the time scale on which it takes place.  There are many scientific processes of this nature, but no one disputes whether or not they are science.  Look at the movement of the tectonic plates.  Long ago there was Pangea (abundant evidence for this), and at the rate of the growth of your fingernails, they started separating.  Now South America and Africa are far away.  We can study the rate at which the plates move, and we can find plenty of evidence that they were together long ago.  We both acknowledge that the movement occurs, and that the result is oceans of space between two land masses.  We both know this probably happened because we can see plenty of fossil evidence for it and because we can fit South America and Africa together like puzzle pieces.  But we can't exactly prove that this actually happened, because we don't have a video tape of it.  There's also evidence that the magnetic poles actually move around and switch at times.  We couldn't do an experiment to prove this unless we had literally tens of thousands of years at our disposal.  This is still science, however.  And it is repeatable on a "micro" scale, but it is left to our common sense what will happen on the "macro" scale.  To argue against macroevolution through its irrepeatability is a copout.  By nature it's impossible without massive time-scale experiment.  That doesn't mean it's not science, though, and I hope you can agree. 

You say:
"Expanding your definition of 'science' so as to make historical assertions like "George Patton... etc" and like "Once upon a time, in a land far, far, away, man began to think and think rationally" does not remove the difference.  It just papers over them."

But evolution does not only explain, it also predicts... we both know this.

You say:
"Well, convergent evolution would be begging the question, wouldn't it?"

Do you know what convergent evolution is?  It's a pretty sound argument against ID and creationism as far as I'm concerned.  Why would God create completely independent, unique forms of wings in animals that operate in the same environments, e.g. birds and bats?  Evolution explains this through sufficiency and the fact that it has the capability to provide multiple, different solution to the same problem.

You say:
"Dude.  Would you look at yourself?  Don't you understand that in a creationist pov there are NOT intermediate species in the sense you put forth here."

Way to totally avoid the question.  Maybe if I word it differently for you.  There are dozens of fossilized organisms that are human-like.  They were clearly bipedal animals, and their brain cavity size (and therefore probably brain size) increase as you move from deeper sites in the fossil record to more shallow sites.  And different species are sometimes found in the same geographical locations!  Don't ID and creationism have to say that God made all of these species separately, and it just so happened that they all went extinct, in order of increasing brain size, until only humans were left?  I hope you can see why that's ridiculous.  What would be the point in creating them in the first place.  I understand that you contend that you can't prove evolution by disproving ID and creationism, but can you at least concede that evolution provides a logical answer here, while creationism and ID struggle? 

You say:
"See how you beg the question?  You are not showing how or that orgasms are adaptive, you are assuming they are 'adaptive' and justifying it by intuition!
That's SCIENCE?"

I assumed it was obvious why orgasms are adaptive for men.  I'm sorry.  Here it is: if survival and reproduction are the goals of organisms in an evolutionary system, then the coupling of ejaculation with pleasure would encourage males to reproduce, etc.  Are you asking for some kind of fossil evidence of how the orgasm became pleasurable?  This is impossible.  We have bones, not brains.  What would you expect to see if evolution HAD occurred?  Well, exactly what you do see.

You say:
"You have no concrete evidence to show me.  Indeed, you have argued it would be unreasoanble to expect that evidence.  However, you personally can see how it 'could have' 'probably' happened.  That is enough for you, but it is an argument from credulity.  I need not be as credulous as you."

This is not an argument from credulity.  This is honest interpretation of the facts.  Are fossils and DNA analyses not "concrete" enough for you?  And the fact that the results from DNA analyses and fossil analyses, studied independently, almost always converge on the same evolutionary relationships? 

You say, again:
"If the primary engine for evolution is selecting on survivability and reproduction, it follows that every aspect of the biological creature will be selected on those principles.  That would include our mind.  But it then follows that the very most we could reliably say about our minds is that they have been minimally configured for reproduction and survival.  You do not need rationality to achieve these.  Trees reproduce and survive but are not rational.  However, we are using our rationality to deduce that our rationality is minimally configured for reproduction and survival.  Therefore, evolution produces in principle- regardless of how much 'evidence' you would like to marshal for its 'probability'- a scenario that undermines the very means used to detect it.  Our rationality detects a process that in principle calls into question our rationality itself."

I understand.  The point is that intelligence, or rationality, WAS needed to survive.  Humans aren't that fast or strong, and they aren't amazingly impressive climbers or swimmers, either.  The argument would clearly be that we outcompeted our competitors in whatever our niche was by outsmarting them.  ASSUMING EVOLUTION IS TRUE, I hope you don't dispute that evidence for this is found in the increasing brain cavity sizes in our ancestors.  And no, other organisms, like trees, found different solutions to the problem of survival.  Just because we're rational doesn't mean that rationality is necessary for survival, it only means that it was sufficient.  I'll address the epistemological part of your argument later.

"But 99.99% of the living species on our planet get by without 'rational thought.'  They get by on principles geared towards selection in terms of survivability and reproduction, which do not require rationality.  There is no reason to think that we are not like that tree I described above.  It is conceivable that there will come yet another species after us with even greater rationality and in their eyes we will be like the tree."

Again, to repeat myself: No, rationality was not required.  It was merely a sufficient solution to the problem of survival.  Do you see why evolution merely selects for sufficiency, and not necessity?  And I hope we wouldn't look like trees.  Trees don't have nervous systems and don't move about, make their own tools, etc.!  You're point is well-taken, though.  Yes, conceivably a more intelligent species could evolve.  It just so happens that we're the most intelligent species, and that's why we can sit around and discuss stuff like this.  Other species have extensive thought processes, as well.  You should read some about squids, chimps, and dolphins (maybe you already have!).  They are capable of solving quite complex problems, and chimps have a nice understanding of fairness, as well.  The ability to make simple causal connections formed the basis for the development of rationality.  We perceive ourselves as being rational because the extent of our ability to make causal connections is great, much greater than any other species, and we have been able to use them to manipulate our environment into the world we see today (if only we were more rational we would see we are destroying earth...).  I understand your issue.  You're concerned that hey, if evolution is true, then it created our rationality, and how do we know that rationality produced in this imperfect system can be trusted?  I contend that it can be trusted.  It was created to make judgments about a natural world operating by the contant, natural laws of the universe.  We make causal connections based on these laws.  Of course, our rationality isn't infallible, as Dawkins pointed out.  But it is sufficient.  If I release a ball, I expect it to fall.  We can both trust in this prediction, and that's what I was trying to get at.  Yes, I concede that humans are capable of being irrational, as Dawkins said.  But my point was that in general, our rationality provides a sound basis from which to make decisions and predictions about our world. 

I wish you weren't so nit-picky with words.  You've misspelled and missused plenty.  I ignore it.  You avoid larger points by attacking smaller ones.  I laughed also when I read "rational laws of nature" this morning.  Understand it was about 3:30 am and I was thinking about rationality.  I apologize.  I meant "constant."  But please, you can rid your responses of the lol's.  I laugh plenty, too, but I don't find it necessary to include these instances in my responses. 

What I was trying to say is that clearly an ability to make causal connections in some sort of natural environment governed by constant laws would prove adaptive.  If I'm standing by a cliff and I look up to see an object grow larger and larger by the millisecond, it would be wise to decide to move.  I'm not arguing that this is how we survived.  But again, if you're asking for fossils of rationality, that's impossible.  Our opposable thumbs allowed us to make tools (which chimps also do, by the way), and we can both predict that intelligence would be selected for when coupled with tool use, right?  And once the ball is rolling, it is certainly feasible that humans could have provided their own engine of selection by warring other tribes.  In fact, there is discussion of evidence that something like this took place between homosapiens and neandertals.  I would agree that our rationality couldn't be trusted if we were placed in a universe run by a completely different set of laws.  But as long as we live in this one, we will be able to arrive at logical conclusions that explain things.  It is only when we can't provide rational, logical explanations that we turn to the supernatural.  But life on earth is certainly within the realm in which we can make rational judgments and decisions.  Science isn't arguing, although some individuals may be, that evolution has instilled in us an ability to understand everything.  Our intelligence is limited.  But human rationality allows us to interpret evidence, form conclusions, and make predictions to an extent greater than any of our ancestors or cousins.  I understand that there can be ways of understanding things that we might not possess.  But we're on earth, and our rationality has been sufficient to survive thus far.  Suppose this:  Evolution happened.  Maybe your conclusions against evolution are a product of the "imperfect rationality" for which you seem to say evolution must instill in us.  After all, who's judging that your rationality is so trustworthy?  You?  Hmm....

Jedi mind tricks?  No.  It sounded like you were asking me to judge the outcome of a very complex situation.  Put ten people in a room and say if one isn't alive in the morning you will kill them all.  Who will win?  It's an incredibly complex analysis and can't be done before morning... ID and creationism DO present a greater complexity, as Dawkins says.  By answering the question "How did all this complexity of life get here?" with "From a super-being!" inherently requires that this super-being is more complex than the complex life observed.  Complexity IS introduced.  I'm not saying that this line of reasoning disproves ID or creationism, but it demands a further explanation.  I am not explaining ANY system through a more complex system, as ID and creationism do.  I am simply acknowledging that a system is already too complex for me to predict, in my lifetime, its outcome.  I am not shifting anything...

I do own literature by Wells and Dembski, by the way.

I guess my overall problem with your argument is that IF evolution did happen, what would you expect to see?  Delving into the philosophy of knowledge is a scary decision, and will inevitably lead to the conclusion that we can't really "know" anything for certain.  To try to disprove evolution on these grounds is weak.  What if Satan made you, and tweaked your rationality to conclude that evolution is wrong and that Christianity must be right?  And what if he wrote the Bible through people, and rewards the infidels with eternal paradise?  We can't know that this isn't true, but we can both probably agree that to believe this would be ridiculous.  To me, your epistemological argument sounds equally ridiculous. 

I've enjoyed the heated discussion, hopefully I will be able to find time to keep responding, but the posts are growing increasingly longer.  I guess what I really want to know is:

If evolution was true, do you honestly think that it would be incapable of producing beings with thought processes as complex as ours?  If you don't, then I don't think I can persuade you.  There is literature on this subject though, and it spells out pretty clearly how very basic nervous systems would evolve and grow increasingly complex from there.  I don't find any problem with evolution's ability to produce complex brains.

Finally, as for things like the female orgasm and male nipple, I still haven't received any sort of explanation from a creationist, ID, or any other view.  Are you conceding that there are no logically satisfactory explanations?  The mechanism behind the development of the male nipple is not disputed, but the female orgasm is.  I gave you the most plausible evolutionary explanation, and if you'd like to read more about it, see "The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution" by Loyd.

 

heh heh   

This is a more fruitful conversation than many I've had but still plenty frustrating.  BTW, its not 'heated' at all on my end.  I'm going to chalk up some of it to my own failures to communicate, but I wonder if I'm being fair to myself if I do.  How else could you get this from what I've said:

1. I trust my rationality.
2. If evolution happened, it would have had to produce this trust in my rationality.
3. I cannot think of any way that evolution could have produced this trust in my own rationality.
4. Evolution didn't happen.

This is a rather silly argument.  I'm glad it isn't mine.    I wonder if you see the irony in #3.  Presumably, you are basically invoking Dawkins 'argument from incredulity' claim and supposing that from "I can't personally believe" I conclude 'evolution didn't happen."  That's an absurd piece of logic, don't you think?  But is not your demand for an explanation about men's nipples and women's orgasms the same structure?  "I cannot think of any way that ID or creationism could have produced those elements," "therefore, they didn't happen." 

That does seem to be your argument.   If evolution can have things that it cannot yet explain adequately but can still stand as an explanatory model surely fairness would suggest that creationism and ID could have things that do the same thing.  Mind you, I'm not in the slightest saying that they can't in this case.   This is a just a good example of the double standards that pop up practically every where in such discussions where evolution is given the widest latitudes but the creation MODEL and ID have to prove themselves above and beyond standards never in the slightest demanded of evolution.

I suppose I should have just ignored this irony, because it wasn't the point.  To the point.

My statement of your #3 to actually reflect my argument would be stated, "I do not believe that evolution can in principle even possibly account for the rationality of my rationality."

Honestly, I think your hang up here is that it just mystifies you that an intelligent and informed person could reject macroevolutionary theory and this is causing you to not grasp my argument.  I have already put it in propositional form:

1.  My existence is undeniable to myself.
2.  My existence is contingent.
3.  There had to be something that was non-contingent.
4.  I cannot deny my own rationality.

A.  My rationality was undeniable, but it needed to be accounted for.
B.  My existence was undeniable, but it needed to be accounted for.
C.  My contingency was undeniable, but it needed to be accounted for.
D.  That there was a non-contingent reality follows from the strength of A as being reliable in making deductions from B and C.

Let's see if we can sort this out for you.  Please react to this section of my OP:

A strict materialistic approach was rejected.  If my brain is nothing more than a particular combination of atoms, then it cannot be known, in principle, if my reasoning and memories and experiences were legitimately gained over time and musing, or rather created in an instant in that particular combination.

If you are familiar with Norton's 'Ghost' program it illustrates this situation nicely.  Norton's Ghost program takes a snapshot of your hard drive and makes a back up copy of the whole darn thing.  Even though your hard drive is the result of 'reasoning and memories and experiences legitimately gained over time' you can capture the final state of those processes to an 'image.'  Then, you can copy that image to another hard drive, and it will be exactly like the other hard drive.

If your brain is like that hard drive, and you are strictly a particular arrangement of atoms just like a hard drive is just a particular arrangement of 1's and 0's, then you as a hard drive can never RELIABLY KNOW whether you are the snapshot or the experienced hard drive.

A strict materialism reduces us to solipsism, I realized.  If materialism is true, then I cannot say that I know it with any real certainty.  Saying materialism is true is the same as saying that my particular atoms are in a state to say that materialism is true.  In theory, those atoms could have me saying ANYTHING is true.  Knowledge is dead in a strict materialism.

Finally, I'm very interested to hear just who your 'deepest thinkers on this very subject are' who do not 'contend with' evolutionary theory.  Care to provide some examples?  Please tell me you aren't thinking of Dennett or the Churchlands.

You're killing me.

I trust that you are right now composing a reaction to the material in quotes after I say, "Let's see if we can sort this out for you.  Please react to this section of my OP:"  ????

No offense Z-man, but its a little obnoxious to complain that you can't 'make sense of this noisy mess' immediately after I say "Let's see if we can sort this out for you" and provide you with some material where the implication is obviously that I think you might begin to understand the matter better if you stick with me some.

So, I would like to try to explain this to you, but it will go a lot easier if you don't devote 150 words to how you can't figure it out and flat out refuse to respond to something specifically geared at the attempt to help you figure it out.  I already know you don't understand it.

"I think we both know that this is a silly attempt at disproving evolutionary theory."

See.  Little box.  Caricature.  You haven't the faintest notion about what I believe, but you think you do.  No, its not a 'silly attempt at disproving evolutionary theory."  The title is "Why I rejected Evolution while I was still an atheist."  Is it your position that I am not permitted to think for myself?  Is something true only because it is in a professional journal?  I said right in the OP:

This thread is auto-biographical.  I am not intended to specifically argue for my position so much as I am trying to explain it.  It is my position.  I came about it on my own.  I had many arguments about 12 years ago as I was hashing it through with all sorts of people, but my point here is not to argue it.  Obviously, I still believe it to be true, or else I wouldn't believe it.  That means that it is something that in another context I would be glad to argue- just not hear.

You can call me a liar, if you like.  Its a wonderful debate technique, even if its a logical fallacy.  But the truth will remain that I have been operating in just that spirit- of explanation of MY position and how I came to it- from beginning to end, as should be pretty obvious to the casual reader.   

You have clearly taken another step down Dawkins's road and argue "It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

You admit that I'm intelligent.  It seems that I'm not ignorant.  Your choices are dwindling.   

I'm sorry, I tried to stick with you.  To react to your OP, I don't understand how your analogy of copied hard drives applies to materialism, and how materialism must lead to solipsism.  Are you saying that if there was an exact copy of me made right now, neither of us would be able to know who the original was?  How does this disprove evolution?  Assume materialism IS true.  How do you know that it hasn't arranged the atoms in your brain into a state that say that it's false?  Or into a state to make each of your premises in the 8-point argument?  And as for the 8-point argument, what is your non-contingent reality, and why does that prove that evolution is untrue?  Why can't the non-contingent reality be something like a "first cause" and your rationality explained through evolution?  I don't see at all how these arguments have anything to do with evolution, or how they disprove any sort of materialistic view.  I'm sure there have been deeper thinkers than you in the field of philosophy who have tackled any problems you might find with materialism.  Or are you convinced that you are the deepest thinker on this subject?  Again, why don't you publish your "proof"?  Wouldn't it spread the word much faster than this forum?  If this proof gave way, would you be open again to accepting evolution?

Ok.  So, having dispensed with the ridiculous argument from authority and veiled ad hominem, let's stick to this statement here...

Assuming that materialism is true, you pose the question, "How do you know that it hasn't arranged the atoms in your brain into a state that say that it's false?"

My OP is specifically approaching the issue from the point of view of epistemology.  For example your question there is very nearly reflecting what I said in the OP,

If materialism is true, then I cannot say that I know it with any real certainty.  Saying materialism is true is the same as saying that my particular atoms are in a state to say that materialism is true.  In theory, those atoms could have me saying ANYTHING is true.  Knowledge is dead in a strict materialism.

Clearly, when I say "Saying materialism is true is the same as saying that my particular atoms are in a state to say that materialism is true." that is an exact corrolary to your suggestion, "How do you know that it hasn't arranged the atoms in your brain into a state that say that it's false?"

How is this not solipsism and the death of reliable knowledge?  In principle, under this scenario (assuming materialism is true), it may be a simple matter of configuration that I reject materialism.  Programmed, you might say.  Likewise, you may simply be representing a configuration that accepts materialism.  You might say, "That may be the case, but I can directly reason my way to my view, and I see that happening in my own head" but since we are assuming materialism is true I need only point out that this experience may just again be a manifestation of your configuration.  In other words, you perceive that you are acting rationally- and I do as well- but under a materialistic POV our rationality may be an illusion.

Or it might not be.  The problem is we have no mechanism IN PRINCIPLE for knowing which.

Let's return to the computer hard drive.  A hard drive is essentially a physical mechanism designed to store configurations of 1's and 0's, on's and off's.   There is no metaknowledge encoded in these 1's and 0's.  Because of this, we can 'ghost' a HD onto another HD and have an exact duplicate, and we can do this ad nauseum.   Now, I am not making the point that we would not know which is the original.  I'm making the point that any given HD could not know, in principle, whether or not the history stored as a configuration on it is a legitimate history.

HD's are encoded with information like install date, temporary folders, files saying when they were created, etc, all sorts of various things that accumulate over time.   After 5 years, a HD has all sorts of weird stuff going on in it.

Now let's pretend you are that HD, and you are assuming that materialism is true- that there is nothing more than the physical arrangement of your 1's and 0's.  A problem immediately surfaces- since this is the case, it could very well be that you are just a ghosted copy.  I'm not speaking to a question of originality, but rather to the sense of temporal progression of things- it may seem like you have experienced a long history, but in truth you could have been burned with even that sense, with the full feeling of having 5 years of experience... in a period of a minute.  And you could not, not in principle, know whether or not your history is real or burned.

Now, in the materialistic view- especially the ardent reductionist models- our brains and our minds are no more than physical arrangements.  Sure, we don't think they reduce to 1's and 0's, but the number of atomic components and arrangments are finite.  There are only so many elements on the periodic scale.  In principle, it should be conceivable to take any given brain, quantify it precisely at the atomic level, and 'burn' that brain onto another brain.

We'll take the brain of Dawkins and run Norton Ghost on it (ie, take an exact snapshot), and then burn it onto another brain, and this brain will now possess the full memory and knowledge and passions etc as our first Dawkins.  Now we put  both brains in a room and prohibit them from accessing external information that could help them and we ask them both "which one of you is the real brain of Dawkins?"

As both brains have the entire history and memories, etc, both will be convinced that they are the real Dawkins.  If we haven't labeled the two brains, we won't be able to tell, either!

Now, in the materialistic framework, we are nothing more than elaborate HD's.  Unfortunately, unlike the two brains of Dawkins in the room, we are in a closed system, the universe.  The two brains could interact with people outside of the room and perhaps find out which one had the real experiences and which only had the cloned ones, but this is not a possibility for us... assuming materialism is true.

Thus, given materialism, I cannot say whether or not I am rational or merely possess the appearance of rationality.  Nor can I be certain that my lifetime's experiences were legitimately gained over a life time... and not imprinted in an instant in the Big Bang, or some other singularity of physics, or whatever.

In conclusion, if I want to be in a position where I have solid grounds for believing that my beliefs, life experiences, rationality, self-consciousness, etc, are legitimately gained, I need a worldview and model that will produce such a result.

This is driving us to an examination of two assumptions, but as I have now written so much already, I'm going to pause.

"That's exactly what I said when I asked: "Are you saying that if there was an exact copy of me made right now, neither of us would be able to know who the original was?"  Exactly the same thing.
And you replied: "Heh, no.""

I'm sorry that was unclear, but I think the context ought to have helped.  I'm not talking about originality but temporality.  Not, which brain is the real one, but which brain had the real experience of the passing of time.

"And also, the universe is an isolated system, not a closed one..."

That's an interesting nitpick, don't you think.  Rather than being a nitpick, I think its a legitimate point.  If it is not in fact closed that makes a difference.  Do you have any empirically verifiable reason for thinking it is not closed and is 'isolated' ?

"so if we could both stop being nit-picky now, it would make this conversation more productive."

I think you ought to just lighten up.  Look at the medium we're working in here.  It has its limitations.  Miscues are going to happen.

"Explain why in going from the original to the replicant you believe that rationality has been lost."

First of all, I'm not ready to speak to the perspective 'brains have been constructed, through evolution' which at this point expressly begs the question.  The reason why you are missing the point here is because what is being sifted out is not rationality, per se, but our certainty in regards to our rationality.  A computer HD contains information that seems 'rational' enough, or so it appears to us and itself, but then given its reductionist makeup, the HD can associate no measure of certainty to its perception.

"Atoms don't randomly configure to make you believe certain truths."

You think its a point in favor of evolution (even though I'm not talking about evolution right now, but materialism) that this isn't random.  But it would be better for materialism if it were 'random.'  For example, if we could introduce quantum indeterminacy, we could be less concerned that were weren't simply operating in a strictly deterministic universe.  Determinism certainly is the death of epistemology.  Whether or not materialism can incorporate such indeterminacy into the question of consciousness while remaining materialism, reductionism in particular, is an important question.   I submit the book, "The Mind and the Brain" by Schwartz as a provocative presentation on the matter.

"So your rejection of evolution/materialism"

Is there some particular reason why you cannot help but group the two?  Are they identical to you?  If not, bear with me as we stay on materialism for now.

"All you've done, as far as I'm concerned, is said, "Hey, assume materialism is true.  If we made an exact copy of the materials in your body, then neither one of you would know who the original was!"  I don't think anyone would disagree with you there.  That's obvious."

That's funny, because if I had a penny for every time an atheist had disagreed with me on that I'd have a least a dime.

You are still focusing on the question of 'originality' and not 'temporality.'  Please re-think my position from that vantage point and get back to me.

"Sure, you could have spontaneously assembled in a singularity, but the odds of that are 1 over 1 followed by more zeroes than there are electrons in the universe."

Hold that thought.

"Are you arguing that it's possible that everything was just spontaneously generated moments ago.  Or if it was, how would we know?"

Sure.  How would you know?

"The deeper into your rabbit hole I go, the more sad I become."

If you're annoyed by what you perceive to be my nit-picking, I'm annoyed at your color commentary.   It adds nothing to the conversation, but if we are going to begin exchanging how we feel about things let me know, because I'm sure you will be very happy to hear precisely what it is you are communicating when you make such comments.  Let me know;  I'm not known for beating around the bush. 

"Maybe I'm giving up on you, but I feel like whenever I ask you a question you don't answer, and instead just wait for me to respond to each of your points."

I'm trying to move carefully through the OP in an attempt to pinpoint where you no longer understand.

"If your argument really made sense, then you should be able to go through it, very simply, point by point, and disprove evolution."

Well, there were several people who posted that understood the argument just fine.  Maybe the defect is not with the argument.

"The reason why I have been linking evolution and materialism is that, in your OP, it seemed very much like your rejection of evolution was grounded in your rejection of materialism."

Right, which is why first I'm investing some time discussing materialism with you.  But you keep jumping to 'evolution'.... "I don't see how this disproves evolution etc etc" over and over again.  But you still don't understand my argument as it relates to materialism.

"And how would your ten pennies turn into a dime?  Spontaneous tranformation?"

Baddabingbaddaboom.     

"This very well may be my last post, as I think there are better ways for me to spend my time."

I too am concerned about the use of my time.

"I'm sorry if I've disappointed you in abandoning at least this thread."

Well, it would be a shame, because we are making progress, even if you don't see it yet.  As for disappointing, it would not disappoint me...  I would submit to you, however, that when you say, " If your argument really made sense, then you should be able to go through it, very simply, point by point, and disprove evolution."  And then object when I begin to go through it, very simply, point by point, and then bail on me, it makes it difficult for me to be willing to subject myself to other topics, like this one, for example...

"Could you turn your attention to the creationism/ID thread, where I'm more eager to hear your response?"

When one steps into a topic of significant depth, it should be an expectation that the resolutions- if there are any- will also require significant examination.  Or, simply put, ask a hard question, expect a hard answer.  Truth is rarely simple enough to fit on a teaspoon.

Now, in hopes of pushing the topic along, let's return to this comment of yours...

"However, this doesn't prove materialism or evolution wrong."

But this is not my contention.  See the OP.  Example,

"How could I be confident that when I thought I knew something, I really did know it?"

and

"If materialism is true, then I cannot say that I know it with any real certainty."

In other words, my contention is not and never was that 'materialism or evolution is wrong' but rather that if they were right, my belief and assertion that they were right (or wrong) were not meaningful... not reliable... could not be associated with any degree of certainty.  More precisely, if materialism is true, my assertion or assessment that it is true is untrustworthy.

The atheist's standard solution to this problem was also alluded to in the OP,

"I was again faced with people (that I argued with online) who told me that we were just supposed to assume our rationality as a given fact but there was no point in accounting for it."

But in order to make this assumption, it is a prerequisite that our reason is rational, but this particular presupposition actually calls into question that prerequisite.  If we're going to make an assumption- and it seems we need to- then it can't be one that also cuts off the limb you're standing on.

If you now have a better idea what I'm trying to do and think you follow me this far and wish to continue on, feel free to comment or prompt me to continue.... simply, point by point.

Ok, try this:

Is it agreed and understood that the following argument is valid:

A.  We have no choice but to regard our rationality as rational because even in examining our rationality we are using our rationality.

B.  Taking our rationality as a given is a must.

C.  If a later investigation resulted in rejecting the rationality of our rationality, we would be in a position where we used our rationality to nullify our rationality,

ie, cutting off the limb we were standing on, therefore

D.  to preserve the integrity of our reason, the conclusion reached by investigation in C would have to be rejected in principle, no matter how plausible on other grounds, because it undermined the very processes we used to reach that conclusion on those grounds.

Agree?  Understand?

That is basically what I was arguing in those two paragraphs.  Now let me point out another assertion I was making in those two paragraphs.  I took aim at people who said we should 'just assume it' but then not 'account for it.'   But any proper worldview is a theory of everything, and therefore will account for even the assumptions.   Simply:  our theory of everything will not undermine the assumptions we used to generate said theory.

Ok, simpler yet.

"You have to use your logical faculties to evaluate your own logical faculties"

Yay or Nay?