[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.

[orionblamblam]

> Unlike the case of me throwing the rock, we cannot see the cause, but only the effect.

Incorrect. The causes of evolution are apparent. Mutations are observed, as are natural selection pressures. These are adequate to explain the causes of evolution.

> You cannot believe that God randomnly creates things

Ah. So you put limits on God, then. "I know what God cannot do."

[tjwmason]

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.

If that is how you are defining creationism and evolution then I am a creationist definitely. However, I think it perfectly possible that God used a series of mutations to move from simple creatures to more complex ones, and finally to the human body (which He infused with a soul).

Allow me to provide an analogy which may prove pertinent. I presume that you believe that every single human being is a creation of God; furthermore I presume that you acknowledge that humans are the natural by-product of the fusion of male and females gametes. God can and does use natural processes in His on-going work of creation. You and I are both examples of that in our immediate existences; it is also perfectly possible that you and I (as part of the human race) are examples of it in his greater creation of humanity.