What would be the resume for evidence of a creator?

Is life only about what one can test with scientific instruments? If it is is it reasonable to believe that because I cannot see your mind you dont have a mind? So when when we look at the the world it shows the fingerprints of the creator. Did the four Presidents heads on Mt.Rushmore just appear on that mountain? It takes a mind to create living systems.What would be the resume for evidence of a creator?

Unsupported assertion.

I listened to that one Drum.Your preacher says "Micheal Denton, an evolutionist ..."Please prove that M Denton is, in fact, an evolutionist. I suspect you have been lied to.Please elaborate on the "mind" analogy. You do note that I can ask you questions. If you answer in reasonable ways I may infer a mind at work. This is physical evidence for a "mind".Edited to add:
Warning! If you use that mp3 file as a source for your arguments you are going to get ripped to little, tiny, quivering pieces. Cut your loses and duck.ToE supplies a way for complex living things to arise without intelligent direction. Therefore your assertion that it "takes a mind to create living systems" isn't true if ToE is true. Prove your assertion.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-12-2003]

Michael Denton IS an evolutionist now.True, he did wrote an antievolutionary book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis), but then he wrote another book, Nature's Destiny, in which he accepted the evidence for evolution and then say that it was a proof of Creation. He's an example of someone who had pondered over the evidence and changed his mind. Unlike some unrepentant creationists.Michael Behe is also an evolutionist

quote:

---

Michael Denton IS an evolutionist now.

---

Thank you I was a bit harsh on Drum's source. However, it seems to me that it is, at best, very misleading to "forget" that Denton has changed his mind. What do you think Drum?

That is his choice. I would just ask him one thing.What value do you believe you are to God?

quote:

---

That is his choice.

---

That's not the question Drum. The question is: What do you think of your site that it would forget a relevent point like the guy they are quoting wasn't an "evolutionist" when he made the statements.

NosyNed,Thats why I said it is his choice. To choose in the beginning were the particles rather than in the beginning God...

At the time Denton made that statement he rejected evolution, and so that website is misleading because it implies the statement was made by someone who accepted the theory of evolution.You're being asked why you're placing any credibility in a site that makes such misleading statements.--Percy

Maybe that teaching was before Denton became a evolutionist.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here, you'll have to try again.I don't know what it is about this simple point that you're missing, so let me spell it out in more detail:

1. Denton, a Creationist and anti-evolutionist, writes a book called Evolution: a theory in crisis.
   ​
2. Denton later changes his mind and though still a Creationist decides that he accepts evolution.
   ​
3. Website quotes Denton from his anti-evolution days and calls him an evolutionist without bothering to note that he was an anti-evolutionist when he made the statement.

Clear enough? And the question being posed to you is what do you think of a website that would purposefully make such a misleading presentation of information?--Percy

Actually when you look at what is on other sites this little oversight is comparitively minor. There are lots of worse ones. And this probably belongs in Review of Creationist Web sites anyhow.

To further clarify your point #2: I know I've quoted Denton on this board before, but for reference for those who haven't seen it, I again present my absolute favorite ex-creationist quote, from "Nature's Destiny":

quote:

---

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies. (page xvii-xviii).

---

Denton has not only gone from rejecting the ToE outright, but gone on to accepting the ToE in toto AND accepting abiogenesis to boot!Hope this clarifies Drum's question concerning Denton.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-22-2003]

God is a progressive person, dont you know that.
He didnt make everything in the same time.

sorry to reply twice.Was a mistake[This message has been edited by Newborn, 07-15-2003]