So you're now making rules for the Almighty? Saying what tools He can choose to use or not use for His purposes? I find it simultaneously amusing and yet preposterous that you and your ilk purport to piety.
Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
To the creationists, it is beyond the scope of their imagination that God could possibly have allowed natural selection to take place. That a mechanism so powerful, so beautiful and yet so simple exists just might testify to the existence of God seems beyond them. Open your eyes, look at the world around you, look critically, study science and there you will see the works of God.
“To the creationists, it is beyond the scope of their imagination that God could possibly have allowed natural selection to take place. That a mechanism so powerful, so beautiful and yet so simple exists just might testify to the existence of God seems beyond them. Open your eyes, look at the world around you, look critically, study science and there you will see the works of God.”
What a great paragraph. You said so easily, what I have struggled to put into words for a long time. Thank you.
You might want to do a little research before embarrassing yourself by making comments about things you obviously don’t understand (such as the Bible/science).
==Jeremiah 32:27: Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
If you honestly believe that nothing is too hard for God, then why won’t you take Him at his WORD! He saw fit to inform us that he created the plants and animals fully formed and fully functional. Are you calling God a liar?
==That a mechanism (natural selection) so powerful, so beautiful and yet so simple exists just might testify to the existence of God seems beyond them.
Creation scientists have no problem with natural selection/survival of the fittest in terms of explaining variation within the limits of the created “kinds”. What they have a problem with is the Church of Darwin’s religious claims that natural selection accounts for the ORIGIN of species (every species, starting with the pre-biotic soup, then simple cells, simple organisms, and so on down the line right DOWN to modern man). Even evolutionists admit that the testimony of the fossil evidence is decidedly against such claims. Take for instance the stunning admission of Stephan Jay Gould (a Darwinist in good standing who tried to make the Theory of Evolution fit the fossil record with his theory of Punctuated Equilibrium...and failed miserably). He nevertheless admits the following, and yet still managed to cling to his Darwinist faith because the alternative would simply be too “incredible”:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May