(sorry this was posted under the wrong name -- should be NosyNed)
I guess you'll get back to evidence later. That is, you'll comment on the errors in what Milton has to say.
You can't seem to decide what you believe or at least I can't figure it out from your posts. Perhaps you can clarify it?
First, what "evolution" is it you are arguing with? The fact that it occured over a 3 to 4 billion year period or the explanation of the mechanisms for
how it happened?
You write, " might He not have worked through the natural laws and mechanisms He Himself set up ?" Yes !!! Of course, this is what we are saying that these natural laws and mechanisms that you brilliant scientists have discovered were designed and created by God.
Ok, if this is what you accept then you are operating at the level of the majority of theists who accept the findings of science. God is the ultimate physicist I guess.
But then you toss in:
Things do not mutate by random chance - improvement by chance is not random or by chance it is God programmed or directed. This is what infuriates God, that Scientist credits a dunce called Random Chance instead of Him.
This is full of confusion. First, "improvement" is relative to the needs in a particular environmental context. The random mutations and recombinations produce change but that is not the whole of the ToE at all. You can't really do a good job of critising what you keep demonstrating you don't understand.
Next, it has been demonstarted that the mutations are random. So you can argue all you want but you will have to offer evidence to the contrary.
Then you are also suggesting that God is in direct control of the minute details which now requires some explanation of the how this is accomplished. (note, once again, if you invoke miracluous mechanisms you have stepped outside the bounds of creation science and are into the area covered by religion).
To use scientific data as a proof and a basis to deny the existence of God is a leap of bias originating from one of their starting assumptions. Do all scientists do this ? Irrelevant, the issue and subject is the ones who do and the ones who do are the evolutionists of neo-Darwinism - this is why the "theory" exists - as an alternative explanation for the origin of life because the creationist account is deemed "irrational".
In this quote are you saying that all biologists are atheists? It seems to imply that?
It is a rare individual scientist who attempts to use the process of science to prove the non-existance of God. I can't see it being a productive thing to do and not likely to be successful. It is you who seems bent on doing that. You seem to insist that if evolutionary theory is correct (and maybe even if evolution has actually happened) then God is disproved in some way. That is NOT what the biologists are trying to do. Some just want to know how things have and are happening and don't care much about God at all, others want to know how God has chosen to allow the life on earth to unfold. Neither group is talking about the existance of God. You keep asserting otherwise without any support for it. I don't believe in a God but I don't think that biology has anything to do with the existance or non-existance of God. All I knew about "evolution" when I was 10 and under was that there were really cool beasts called dinosaurs once. I didn't believe in God then and it never occured to me to connect dinosaurs and God in anyway at all.
[This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-13-2003]
™ Version 4.2
