Replies

"One speaks of "natural selection," as if nature were an actual, intelligent entity capable of such a feat, while the other acknolwedges an intelligent creator."

Again, your ignorance of the theory of evolution is exposed here. Natural selection doesn't assume any intelligence in the process. It is based on the random process of genetic changes through natural mutations. The ones that are of benefit, or at least not harmful, tend to persist in future generations. The harmful mutations tend not to persist.

Again, you can argue more effectively if you will take the time to understand the theory you're arguing against.

Natural selection doesn't assume any intelligence in the process. It is based on the random process of genetic changes through natural mutations.

Once again, if I'm walking through the woods and come across a book laying on the ground, is it more reasonable to assume that an intelligent being created a book full of information or that the book naturally came into being after "random" genetic mutations over millions and millions of years.

The basis of life is information, it's what seperates the inanimate (i.e. rocks) from the animate (i.e all life). Life moves and does so with a purpose as is explicit within its fundamental molecular structure, DNA. DNA is the building block of life and contains all the necessary information for an organism's continued existence and replication. The claim that the proteins necessary for life naturally came together in the beginning in the exact proper order with the needed information and data from which life could reproduce by mere random acts is statistically absurd. You might as well believe a book possessing the information on how to build a house came together by "natural" mutations too.