too intelligent to actually be intelligent?

There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.

CF+Nator writes:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"if a red dragon fought a mind flayer sorcerer, who would win?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------If it is an ancient red dragon, my money's on her.

Would'nt even have to be ancient: red dragon's Will save is through the roof.

crashfrog writes:I don't really see a disagreement about "what constitutes evidence." I see you persistently dodging the question of evidence by asserting "I have all this evidence but I'm not going to share it with you because you wouldn't believe me." It's getting a little transparent.

See -- nothing up my sleeve.

have grown away from a selfish way of
thinking and tried to learn to put others before myself.
I have reasons to be a giver and to be honest. I have
reasons to not waist my life getting drunk and using drugs.
I have reasons to live a loving and moral life.

My point is this:
What do you win if you are right? Might as well live with all
the gusto and self-indulgence you can cause when its over-
its over.

PUTTING YOUR FAITH IN DARWIN: Either you die and thats it-
or when you die you get thrown into the lake of fire.
I fail to see a long term up side.
This is why I say "either way you lose."

crashfrog writes:If we know that all of those things have simpler explanations than "a divine deity", then what's reasonable about ascribing those things to God?

There remains though a basic disagreement about what constitutes evidence, let alone how to interpret it.

Because there is something rather than nothing.
Because of the complexity of all life.
Because of the complexity of our world and the universe.
Because I have consciousness.
Because I have self awareness.
Because we have a moral code.
Because love exists.
Etc.

Parasomnium writes:First of all, to me your evidence seems like nothing more than a list expressing your personal incredulity - no disrespect intended. It doesn't really explain anything. The evidence I would like to see should be able to explain the how of things. Random mutation and natural selection provide just that: a mechanism. And this mechanism is corroborated by many different kinds of evidence, from such diverse scientific disciplines as molecular genetics, to comparative anatomy and morphology, to biogeography, all of which provide insight into how evolution works. It all fits together.

Parasomnium writes:Your evidence, on the other hand, amounts to little more than: "There is something rather than nothing, therefore God must exist", or "All life is complex, therefore God must exist". What if God was someone who likes things simple? Surely, the complexity of life would then be an argument against him, wouldn't it? Shouldn't we know more about God from a different source before we pronounce him the cause of all this complexity?

Parasomnium writes:Second, your evidence is not necessarily evidence of God. It could be that there is something rather than nothing because of a natural law that we don't know about. It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things. Or it could be that life is complex because random mutation and natural selection are guaranteed to create ever more complex structures.

Parasomnium writes:How is anything you mentioned evidence for your God, and not someone else's?

Parasomnium writes:It could be that life is complex because it was created by a race of alien pranksters, just because they like complicated things.

Francis Collins writes:Francis Collins writes:
There are many subtle variations of theistic evolution, but a typical version rest upon the following premises:1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the Moral Law.This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us.

Raised on a small farm in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, Francis Sellers Collins was home-schooled by his mother until the sixth grade. Throughout most of his high school and college years, the aspiring chemist had little interest in what he then considered the "messy" field of biology. What he refers to as his "formative education" was received at the University of Virginia, where he earned a B.S. in Chemistry in 1970. He went on to attain a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University in 1974. While at Yale, however, a course in biochemistry sparked his interest in the molecules that hold the blueprint for life: DNA and RNA. Collins recognized that a revolution was on the horizon in molecular biology and genetics. After consulting with his old mentor from the University of Virginia, Carl Trindle, he changed fields and enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, earning there an M.D. in 1977.From 1978 to 1981, Collins served a residency and chief residency in internal medicine at North Carolina Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill. He then returned to Yale, where he was named a Fellow in Human Genetics at the medical school from 1981 to 1984. During that time, he developed innovative methods of crossing large stretches of DNA to identify disease genes.After joining the University of Michigan in 1984 in a position that would eventually lead to a Professorship of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics, Collins heightened his reputation as a relentless gene hunter. That gene-hunting approach, which he named "positional cloning," has developed into a powerful component of modern molecular genetics.

crashfrog writes: You should know that Collins's views have been rebutted by a number of other thinkers.

Contemporary biologists and geologists who are Christians and evolutionary creationists includeKenneth R. Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, author of Finding Darwin's God (Cliff Street Books, 1999), in which he states his belief in God and argues that "evolution is the key to understanding God." Dr. Miller has also called himself "an orthodox Catholic and an orthodox Darwinist" (the 2001 PBS special "Evolution").
Derek Burke, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Warwick
R. J. Berry, Professor of Genetics at University College London
evangelical Christian and geologist Keith B. Miller (no relation to Kenneth) of Kansas State University, who compiled an anthology Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Eerdmans, 2003)
biologist Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph's College, University of Alberta, Canada who has co-authored with evolution critic Phillip E. Johnson Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999)
biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma Nazarene University, author of Coming to Peace with Science
biologist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief
paleontologist Robert T. Bakker
microbiologist Richard G. Colling of Olivet Nazarene University, author of Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with Creator
paleobiologist Prof. Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, well known for his groundbreaking work on the Burgess Shale fossils and the Cambrian explosion, and author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe