[ndt]

"No, the point was that you can't simply re-define a supernatural God as being bound by a re-defined 'natural'."

Science is the study of the natural world.

Nature is the universe, with all its phenomena.

If God interacts with the universe, that is an example of a phenomena and hence part of the natural world.

There are many many things that used to be chalked up to "magic" that are now firmly established in science.

So I reiterate, if God exists and interacts with the natural world then he and his interactions are parts of the natural world. Sure we would need to retool our laws of nature, but that is how science works when presented with new information.

"As the extreme credulity of the evolutionists continues to astound me."

credulity = "willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility."

Strange that you would call me credulous since you are the one arguing for the existence of something that is "outside the natural world" and hence incapable of producing evidence.

Projection seems to be a common weakness among the superstitious.

[GourmetDan]

"credulity = "willingness to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullibility."

"Strange that you would call me credulous since you are the one arguing for the existence of something that is "outside the natural world" and hence incapable of producing evidence."

Not incapable at all. The existence of the universe and life itself cannot be attributed to natural laws and are evidence for a supernatural God.

The credulity comes from believing that such things 'just happened'.