Purpose, I just blew my mind thinking about these 2 Questions

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I appreciate the compliment, you were doing pretty well yourself. It's good to have some Australian representation in the PG and hopefulyl the DH in the future.

Gee thanks by the way, can I add you onto my friends list?

I'm uncertain about it to be honest. I don't accept it as scientific fact, but rather as a very plausible theory.

Okay, cool I just wanted to know your stance on the issue.

I think also that there are certain avenues of refutation that evolutionists haven't really considered such as the evidence of spiritual phenomena and the intelligent design of humans which alluded to in this debate.

Yeah, well the thing is, spiritual evidence doesn't really have that much to do with evolution... It's probably a by-product of something else, but I don't think we can say too much on this issue at the moment- there isn't much information on this.

And when I say 'considered', I mean actually inquire into at depth, not just discard all supernatural claims as mental dellusion.

Well, most scientists regard Intelligent Design as a bit wrong. They take the view that it is an argument from ignorance and don't really bother with it. Spiritual evidence is very hard to scientifically analyse, because it's very subjective and science is all about being objective. So they don't really meld very well.

What I don't like is how evolutionists argue it's scientific fact, which while I understand that's the belief in the scientific community, I feel there are still plausible arguments both for and against it that need to be considered.

Well, personally I have to disagree with you there... But anyway, I'm all okay with that. The Theory of Evolution is always changing, (evolving you might say!) to make itself better, this is the case with science in general. Most of the arguments about evolution are about how it happens, and not whether. So those arguments against it tend to be about the current theory of evolution and how they should change it to something better.

I actually have a few questions (not arguments) about evolution-

1. The theory is everything evolved from the singulairty of course, so the environment evolved to the state it is now. What's the evidence for the environment evolving? I don't mean changing environments, I actually mean physical objects such as rocks etc. evolve, things that show non-living objects came from matter as well.

Well, non-living (aside from viruses, memes and prions) objects don't evolve via natural selection, because they can't really reproduce. They change according to various other theories. Geology, cosmology, astrophysics etc. Most of this we have actually seen; stars die, rocks, weathering of rocks etc. The rest of this is theorised, by generally accepted and supported theories

2. How did ecosystems evolve?

I honestly don't know this one at this stage, and I think it is being debated in the scientific community. Possibly research ecosystem selection. It could be worthwhile, at this point I'm not sure, maybe you could try and research the Gaia hypothesis. These seem to offer insight into how ecosystems evolve.

3. How did sexual reproduction evolve? And if asexual was already in existence, why did sexual reproduction evolve?

Oh this is an interesting one, I'm don't actually know, but I can direct you to a video on youtube that will give you a hypothesis of what may have occurred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk&feature=channel_page

3. How did living organisms evolve from an environment of all non-living objects?

Abiogenesis! You can try and research that, and I'll direct you to another video (by the same guy) on the subject, it should clear things up. This is a video that is fairly atheistic, so I'll warn you about it, but it seems to explain the concept beautifully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

4. How did organisms survive before ecosystems, and their own personal adaptions weren't fully evolved to adapt to their environment?

The above video should help. Basically I think that the early earth environment was filled with the building-blocks of DNA, RNA, proteins etc. The early life forms just ate those until they evolved to eat each other, synthesise their own building blocks, convert ones from the natural world and other things that would sustain single cells. Remember this is probably a massive over-simplification of the thing, people can books on this sort of thing.

Again, these points aren't an attempt to prove evolution wrong, I just want to further my knowledge of it.

Yeah, I'm really happy for you to do that, it's great to see people trying to learn more about science, rather than just discarding it and pretending it's wrong.

In fact the youtube channel that hosts these videos has much more to offer, and most of it is very good, so check that out.