Hy Sylas - I spotted u lurking here first because of my Columbo brilliance.
Welcome back.
Some points that I agreed with;
link writes:
Actually, evolutionists are often not consistent with their own rules against invoking an intelligent designer. For example, when archaeologists find an arrowhead, they can tell it must have been designed, even though they haven’t seen the designer. And the whole basis of the SETI program is that a signal from outer space carrying specific information must have an intelligent source. Yet the materialistic bias of many evolutionists means that they reject an intelligent source for the literally encyclopedic information carried in every living cell.
You see, to us - the universe makes us just as certain that we see a designer like these scientists do.
link writes:
But theistic evolution teaches that God used struggle for survival and death, the ‘last enemy’ (1 Cor. 15:26) as His means of achieving a ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31) creation.12 Biblical creationists find this objectionable.
Because survival of the fittest - and men dying, is not the reason for biblical death. I might consider animal natural death and some form of animal evolution where the bible indicates it, but not critters taring eachother up before the fall.
link writes:
A God who ‘created’ by evolution is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from no God at all.
This is surely true. It's like an even ground almost. "Hey Bob - let me have evolution so I can have no God and you have evolution so you can". While this seems fair - we shouldn't feed any persons doubt in God, because we will be causing them to sin - i.e. Feeding their delusion that they are not accountable to God for their actions on earth, by accepting and reinforcing the belief that random chance is just as possible as an intelligent designer, because of Ocams razor.
I don't think people like yourself have a religious bias though - and in this thread, no creationist had asserted this.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2004 08:06 PM