On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

How can we then claim that evolution is more likely/reasonable than a theistic alternative?

At issue is whether or not this constitutes a false counterposition ...

[painted wolf]

Ah, I think I may get what you are driving at.

While we may know the mechanism that drives mutation, natural selection and so on... we can never 'prove' that "God" has/hasn't got an invisible finger nudging molecules around.

One can justify 'faith' in either conclusion.

Naturally I could be way off base.

wa:do

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

While we may know the mechanism that drives mutation, natural selection and so on... we can never 'prove' that "God" has/hasn't got an invisible finger nudging molecules around.

Or continents.

[kai]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Or continents.

ah i think i had a moment of clarity, there is no reason why the whole process could not have been kickstarted, or even nudged along in certain places. interesting idea.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by painted wolf

While we may know the mechanism that drives mutation, natural selection and so on... we can never 'prove' that "God" has/hasn't got an invisible finger nudging molecules around.

Just as we can never 'prove' that my car isn't really being pulled by an invisible magical liopleurodon.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by camanintx

Just as we can never 'prove' that my car isn't really being pulled by an invisible magical liopleurodon.

Answer the question posed in the opening post or pollute elsewhere ...

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Answer the question posed in the opening post or pollute elsewhere ...

You must not have understood my point because it does relate to the opening post.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by camanintx

You must not have understood my point because it does relate to the opening post.

No, I completely agree that it was irrelevant. Now, yet again, answer the question posed in the opening post or pollute elsewhere.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

No, I completely agree that it was irrelevant. Now, yet again, answer the question posed in the opening post or pollute elsewhere.

Here, let me make it easier for you.

While we may not be able to 'prove' what caused the advent of bipedalism, there are perfectly reasonable natural causes that can adequately explain it without having to posit some imaginary magical being, just as the internal combustion engine adequately explains why my car moves without positing an invisible magical liopleurodon.