When dealing with a circular argument you must first establish the premise, this one goes to natural revelation. There are things that are self-evident, including God's divine attributes and eternal nature:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)
The only way to deal with this kind of aimless logic is to demand definitions. If you notice evolutionists don't like to define things, on rare occasions I can get them to agree on an actual definition to 'evolution' but you have to drag it out of them. When you can make words mean whatever you want its all too easy to run the conversation in circles. When you put the Scriptures out there it reminds them that they already know God's nature is eternal, it's called primary source and unmoved mover. They have no real argument for that one.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Grace and peace,
Mark[/Q
The traditional or classical Christian model or picture of God as he is in his won nature does in fact describe god as the Unmoved Mover. God is said to be void of body, parts,passions, compassion, wholly immutable. However, this picture of God comes largely from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Hellenic philosophy enshrined the immune and the immutable, hence, Aristotle's definition of God as the Unmoved Mover, which the early church baptized Christian. It very much conflicts with Scripture, because the latter provides a highly anthropomorphic image of God as one who can experience deep emotion and can change, as we fine in about 100 passages, such as Gen. 6:6, Hosea 11:9. In recent years, especially the end of WW2, many theologians, including myself, have been critical of this classical model of God, as it presents a largely insensitive, unresponsive God. If nothing can make any real difference in God, then saint or sinner, it is all the same to God, who remains blissfully indifferent. Hence, there is now a neo-classical model of God, in which God is viewed as a synthesis of both consistency and change, analogous to any truly living personality.
Also, I don't know where you get this idea that scientists won't give you a clear definition of evolution. I just wonder how much science you have actually read, as well as theology, for that matter.