: Sometimes I wonder if all the people who try to refute evolution have even read The Origin of Species. This particular piece illustrates clearly the dismal understanding most people have of evolution, I can hardly even understand what it is you are trying to say. Of course evolution is not random, just like any other physical process anywhere. But how is this in any way evidence for a creator, and not simply indicative of a natural physical and logical process inherent to existence, that modern physics may one day explain quantitatively? It seems you are imposing your personal beleifs and spiritualism onto nature. This is not science or logic or intellectualism. It is the opposite of all those. : I believe in nothing, and I don't know the exact answer as to why nature exists, but in all probablilty, looking at history and how our understanding of nature, and of God, has changed, we are here probably because of some physical process that we can understand, not some super-natural event that requires faith and a personal spiritualism to comprehend. : Read the book, it'll do ya some good.

bzrd here: You are saying mutations don't occur at random? Are you aware there is not a single known mutation that has been observed to ADD information to the genome? If there are no mutations that add information, then how does evolution work?

• Re: evidence for God - Joe_Postma/">Joe Postma - September 10, 1999 - 00:26 UTC
  • Re: evidence for God - bzrd - September 10, 1999 - 13:33 UTC
    • Re: evidence for God - Joe_Postma/">Joe Postma - September 10, 1999 - 18:36 UTC
      • Re: evidence for God - bzrd - September 11, 1999 - 13:07 UTC