At 11:24 PM -0600 12/31/05, jim guinee wrote:
It just seems that I am to accept one incredible coincidence
after another to go from no universe to very complex one,
and more than that, the incredible circumstances that all
had to occur in order for intelligent life to be on earth.
That does not prove God did it.
But it sure seems evolutionists are making a lot more
dubious assumptions than religionists are.
I don't see how this follows.
What makes the circumstances that produced the evolution of life on
Earth 'not creditable'?
An intelligent being who got the ball rolling seems to my
simple mind much more logical than there was nothing
that caused that ball to exist but yet IT DOES and
moreover the ball keeps getting more and more
sophisticated by a long string of "miracles"
The problem is the next logical step:
Where did that 'intelligent being' come from;
what created the creator?
Lacking an answer to this question, "it's turtles all the way down".
You're deferring the question, not answering it.
And again, evolutionary theories do not deal with primal causes.
If you want to posit something that caused natural laws to be the way
they are, most evolutionary biologists (although not Dawkins) would
have no problem with it.
All they say is that once the evolutionary process started it obeyed
(and still obeys: just look at the evolution of Creationism ;-)
certain natural laws.
--
The best argument against Intelligent Design is that fact that people
believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Dept Minnesota State University *
* 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 *
* http://www.mnsu.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html *
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
