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

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Of course you are.

Arguing against one point of view does not imply a support another particular view. We have more then two choices in life.

Granted its easy to infer that as an atheist I would not accept a theistical view to be taught in schools or to anyone as fact. There is no evidence for the argument of creationism.

However if people want to believe in such I would not argue against that.

However, other then an overal holostic view, their are many different theories and many of them are quite probable.

If we were to assign each theory a probablity how much would you deign to grant creationism and how did you arrive at such?

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fact of evolution does not disprove an interventionist God. Preternatural intervention is unfalsifiable.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Of course you are.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Arguing against one point of view does not imply ...

That was clarifying.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

This is exactly right, but you are missing the point. I don’t think Jay was attempting to express this idea in a “scientific manner”. Scientifically, it is not on the table (it is not on the science table). But the point is that saying that something cannot be proven scientifically is not the same thing as saying it is false. You (and I) may choose to reject the idea based on a lack of evidence (“on the failure to find God’s fingerprints”), but that does not prove the absence of intervention.

It may seen to some that I am requiring people to prove the negative. I am not, this would be unfair. All I am asking for is acknowledgment that (at least in this case) the negative cannot be proved.

Ahh... I agree with you completely. Something does not need any proof to be true if - it is true.

However I would add, simply because someone claims something exists does not mean it does exist.

Somewhere we have to draw a line between open mindedness and skeptism. If this is framed as a spirtual discussion of theory and personal beliefs as implied we can make any assumptions you would like for the purposes of discussion.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

The fact of evolution does not disprove an interventionist God. Preternatural intervention is unfalsifiable.

Is it then nonsense?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Is it then nonsense?

What is the question?

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

You are only aware of the results of the mutations.

No, scientists have looked at the actual mutations.

You put a title on it called random chance because it seems to fit many other results from other processes.

No, it's because it appears to be random.

Then, without knowing why random chance occurs, you infer that it could not have happened by God's hand because random chance inherently isn't authored by God.

I'm saying that "random chance" is the opposite of something real affecting the outcome. It is exactly the same as nothingness. If your God = random chance, then what good is He? He looks exactly like a God that doesn't exist. What a coincidence. I mean, if you want to believe in and worship a creature that does not cause reality to deviate from random, which is the precise definition of something that does not exist, go for it, but talk about a situation that cries out for Mr. Occam's razor blade, how does it add anything to the story? If it's the same as random chance, why not just call it that?

It seems to me that no process (ie design, randomness, etc) more or less indicates God. If you think that one must be authored by God and the other is not, why do you think that? What evidence is there to support that?

You're alleging that things being completely random, with no discernable effect, is the same as God determining their outcome? That the effect of God is nothing whatsoever? That's about the opposite of omnipotent, isn't it? Kind of nonipotent? What would be the point of a God who does not affect reality in any way?

[kmkemp]

There's Auto, missing the point again. =(