[Voice in your head]

"Are you trying to say that this is not what a majority of evolution proponents conclude?"

Regarding everything that followed the question above, in your post, I have no idea what you are responding to. In regards to your question: I am not trying to make any statement. I am just asking for you to support your statement from post #1064. I will try once more. You wrote: "This relates to this thread because we believe that Darwin's theory was the final straw that enabled intelligent people to 'logically' reject the concept of God."

I notice that your statement said, "...we believe that..." so maybe there was just a gut feeling or other arbitrary basis for the statement. If the basis of the statement was not something arbitrary, then can you qualify your statement by formulating an argument whereby an intelligent person could "logically" reject the concept of God? I got the impression that you may have been attempting to answer this, in the first paragraph of your response. However, if a professor who "believed herself to be intelligent" were to deduce that "random mutations and genetic changes over time" were the "mechanism that has brought life to its present state" that would not be a logical means of rejecting the concept of God - unless you and I have a fundamental disagreement regarding what the "concept of God" is.

[bondserv]

I agree it is totally illogical. As you have so adeptly pointed out my struggle. I cannot do what you ask. And yet many scientists argue for evolutions ability to explain origins of life. We should protest our children going to these illogical Universities.

I am so glad we agree. Maybe if we ignore the scientists, as you are suggesting, then they will be forced to consider all avenues of possibility and publish these ideas in their journals.

By the way what is your "concept of God"?