Supernatural information supplier

Could the age old dilemma of mutation be solved via a supernatural agency?" An error in replication or other alteration of the nucleotide base sequence creating a change in the sequence of base pairs on a DNA molecule "I was thinking that, apparently - there are derogatory mutations, and apparently - new traits are counted for by explanation of mutation mechanism. But there have been complaints by creationists, that mutation isn't a good enough explanation for evolution to happen.It is quite possible, that mutations themselves - aren't enough to answer for distinct and diverse morphological change. However - are accumulations of mutations a sufficient explanation?The creos have said that no new information can ever be added - and even scientists admitt this. But isn't mutation a change - rather than an addage?Nevertheless - I was thinking that God can add information - as we Theists obviously believe that God was the first to put the information in there. Your thoughts please.

No evos confuse mutation with natural selection. NS acts on random mutation. Loudmouth's post explained that accumulation of mutations would do the job. I'm not saying mutation is impossible for the second mechanism, I'm thinking that very big explosive changes could have God's fingers on them.The ToE itself - will be enough for someone who doesn't believe in an intelligent designer. I do. So, I don't "fill gaps" when my position is Theist. Naturally I think God is behind things, I don't use him as an excuse. *Sheesh*.Thanks Pink and L, I suppose we are ourselves "different" from our parents. I was thinking that no "new information" would be needed, just "changed" information. Ho hum.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-16-2004 05:52 PM

Jar, I think you mis-understand what I mean by this. If God intended us, as I obviously believe, then if he used evolution to form us from the dust; His intentions of major change, could be found in this way. Essentially, he could effect critter change by intervening when necessary.When you think about it, this second mutation mechanism, is an addage of evolution "by means of natural selection". But if science cannot find anything else - and it turns out mutation is insufficient, then that's exactly what one would expect to find if God had his finger on it - that is, unexplainable un-evidenced yet true circumstances. First of all - I don't believe we are a poor design, and I advise you not bother with giving me the jive - I've heard it all before from Shraff. I believe - man is designed, yes, but that evolution is a possible way God "formed" us - or it looks like the way he did it.If God is omniscient, he would see the outcome of all random and natural processes, in effect - his design - through certain events, would snowball into his intended conclusion.

Sharks like Megaladon haven't changed much Jar. God wouldn't have to wait. If he knew our names since before creation, and; " A day unto the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day ".This dino period might take a while, but so did the universe - 14 billion years. So the dinos were just the tip of the iceburg. Turns out God's too big to not have a big glorious existence. "The heavens are of old". The nature of the most excellent beasts is shown in the book of Job, and how God obviously delights in them.So now we can see that time doesn't effect God, him being outside of it.Furthermore - from cell to human takes time and mutations in your view?? I think the design even evolution shows is amazing. I don't think chance alone can make systems. I think this evolution system - if found wanting in the mutational department - might indicate an unexplainable un-evidenced yet true occurence. It would seem extremely bizarre, and IMO - could not be answered scientificaly or naturally.

I doubt that. If new traits are beneficial to the species, how is that destroying? I suppose I don't exist according to you.I mean, we're talking about big changes over a vast amount of time, if it's accumulative mutations. I mean, only populations evolve - so there is no destroying of individuals, in that - any present "alive" organism is "fit enough" to survive as it already is here. That goes for any living thing - at any time.As I understand it - populations dwindle, and then cease to produce.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 10:51 AM

Though you think this would make God more powerful, you still hold on to the fact that everything must be accounted for via natural means, so that you can disbelieve in God.

There are no moral problems though Mr H, Even if nature is indifferent, God's purpose for animals is limited. As you can see, he made what he cares about most, to be able to survive the easiest.We've been here before - in that, indifferent nature doesn't make God indifferent. The nature of designed organisms, may be lethal to other organisms. This doesn't bother God - nor did sacrifices on his behalf. It only makes moral problems for the kid who thinks fluffy bears should live - even if they would rip her head off.

We know you ain't buying it. But that doesn't mean it isn't true.The fact is, that natural aspects alone, are not sufficient concerning information. God had to have put the information there to start with. God created the universe ex nihilo. Everything formed, including man, is all mentioned in the bible. The only organism arguing over a creator are creators themselves. Only system-makers recognise system makers. Only information-arrangers understand information arrangement. Matter having information? Erm..what for? It all comes back to unavoidable purpose and intent - which you're unable to refute.People just aren't stupid enough to think that there is no God, and that humans have all the answers through accumulative knowledge, or that naturalistic means explains the universe. The creation is from nothing. Life is fashioned from the earth. You can explain B but not A, unless you yourself invoke some silly multiple universe theory.

Percy, Put them all together - they are fashioned by nature formed - but there actual origin was caused by God, ex nihilo. You claim to believe in God so you must agree. If you believe in God - then the cause of ALL these things, far back enough in time - was God. These natural phenomenons have a natural origin in that they are naturally explained, but the universe containing and causing these things, was caused by God. So in essence, all these things have a supernatural origin. Who's he? Oh - science. What - you believe men have all the answers. *Oh*!.........you think science has the last word? *Ah* - now I get it.

Hambre - read what I said again.I said people aren't stupid enough - I refer to the majority of the world - who do believe in something beyond the natural. You see, they would be stupid to dismiss God. So, they aren't stupid enough to do that, for many reasons, including that of naturalistic explanation for everything. This doesn't make you stupid - it makes them not stupid. *Tee hee hee*So people who by majority - believe, would be stupid to then not believe, and ignore all the things that testify to God. That's all I meant.It might have looked like I was implying unbelievers are then stupid - but I referred to the majority of people - not unbelievers. I should have been clearer.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 05:24 PM

Look at this in another context; People(believers) just aren't stupid that they would think that there is no God.This is, that they themselves aren't stupid - not that an unbeliever is.If they were to hear naturalistic explanations after walking with God, and noticing things attributable to him, and then conclude there is no God, after answered prayers etc.. then I think they would not be too clever.This is what I meant concerning this topic - but I should have made this clear, I thought people would then realize what I meant through what I was saying in that post, and my others - that surely to dismiss everything as answered by science completely - is arrogant aswell.

Percy, this is a bit inductive though. That big list of preconceptions of what was once thought of as divine, is like me saying that I thought all socks were blue - but I've only ever found white ones - so there is no blue socks. I still put my stock in blue socks. Basically, my point was - that all these phenomenon can be formed naturally - but their eventual origin is still God.You say you believe , yet you place most emphasis on science and disregarding supernatural belief - or saying it has a poor track record. I don't get that.

Percy, in another thread - you attribute God as a concept of human thought. Are you sure you believe? Well, strictly speaking - I wasn't talking science or faith - I was talking logic.If we say that God makes lightning - and find out it's of the natural, and so forth with the rest of your list, - we only find white socks, when we thought we'd find blue. But does that mean there is no blue? You see - man and his science are like a policeman searching around at night with a torch, - his view is limited, he's looking for a criminal, but he only finds pavement with his torch.I think you'll agree as your previous posts indicated, - that man has limited knowledge. Accumulated facts and theories so far, might not say God is there, but no evidence doesn't evidence no God. But you make out they are first and foremost, natural in origin, making out it's like, 15 nil to science against God. As long as you know it's an optical illusion - cos God made all of those things possible. Well, I don't know. Maybe we are similar in a way - only I've never heard you defend God at all. If you want the atheists to claim the universe according to their own knowledge - fair enough.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-17-2004 08:18 PM

Firstly, are tapeworms made for humans? That's your priori asumption, that if there is a bad thing - then God must have made that thing to attack us.Yet we've been here before Hambre - many times. You know my answer. Christ casts out such things, therefore - would a kingom divided against itself cast out itself?To understand these things, you're going to have to - eventually, read some scripture - even if it makes you want to puke.

I haven't said God wasn't their origin. I'm saying those bad things will have purposes - like my carbon dioxide does, and a trees oxygen. The circle of life mean necessary nasties happen in nature - they're still not intended for us by God though, they are part of the system.