[orionblamblam]

> How does that imply natural forces?

Because if you observe and inspect, you can work out the mechanisms involved.

> And what in the world is a "natural force," except that which we have no explanation for its occurance?

A question and its answer in one sentence. If we can explain it, it's natural.

> Explain to me how an occuring event in nature is its own self-sufficient explanation for occuring?

Explain to me how it is *not*.

[mike182d]

Explain to me how it is *not*.

Let's suppose I throw a rock 50 mph at a can.

You can measure the speed of the rock, the velocity of my arm, the amount of energy exerted by the various muscles involved in the process...yada, yada, yada, but none of that is sufficient in explaining why the ball was thrown as opposed to not being thrown in the first place because I, as an agent, am responsible. Furthermore, suppose I was behind a bush and no one could see me, but you could still see the rock being thrown. Would it be sufficient to say it was merely a product of "fast-rock" force that moves at 50 mph? Absolutely not because the effect of an action is not its own cause. I threw the ball, not some mysterious "force" of 50 mph.

The mistake evolution makes is that it notices an effect, namely the transformation of organisms into other organisms. Unlike the case of me throwing the rock, we cannot see the cause, but only the effect. It wasn't a human or an animal that caused it, so it must be "nature." Nature is not an entity or a thing but a cumulative sum of all that we witness that is not caused by us or other animals and we make this completely absurd conclusion that what is really nothing more than a consistently perceived effect is its own self-sufficient cause in no need of explanation.

Evolution posits its truth in perceived randomness.

Creationists posits its truth in God.

You cannot believe that God randomnly creates things and that is why the two are inconsistent.