Your a better than average intelligent person, right?
You make this complaint above: “The only dispute I have is with the claim that the natural mechanisms we observe are inadequate for producing the biodiversity we see today. I think you are misinterpreting this to mean that God is not involved.”
Mr. T, There ain’t no other way to interpret the claim. You are arguing to a Christian that Evolution doesn’t need God.
Why would you think this is a good idea?
No I am not. You are arguing that if something occurs through natural processes that God is not involved. I am making no such argument. I have no evidence on way or another if God is involved, and being the product of nature does not exclude the possibility that God is involved.
Is that clear enough?
Absolutely not. Take a look at the label on your profile:
Anyone reading your supposed clarifications that nature is sufficient for Evolution to work is going to make the logical conclusion: you are opposing God-as-Designer because you are an Atheist.
I can’t even believe you are disputing this … Please stop. You are starting to get me more riled than I am normally - - moment to moment!
I am not opposing God-as-Designer, I just don’t believe in it. Surely you can understand the difference between the two. Surely you don’t have such a black-and-white view of the world where everyone who doesn’t believe exactly as you do is against you.
Right… Mr. T. Got that.
I can smell it a mile away …
@gbrooks9, I’m pretty sure @T_aquaticus isn’t the problem here. He seems correct when he says:
What I think you are enthusiastic about is clearer articulation of what common ground could be and how we can work towards it. One point, to be clear, is this…
Atheists are neither analogous to cannibals nor are they useless in this conversation. Many of the atheists here are working hard for peace alongside us too. They can be part of helping find common ground.
Atheists are far more tasty than theists.
only when roasted properly. 
The secret is our diet of babies.
I’m not reading it that way. As I see it, @T_aquaticus is allowing that God could be using nature for design, and he is allowing that it could be God’s participation that makes nature what it is.
I’m puzzled as to why you are picking a fight with @T_aquaticus .
You call it picking a fight. I call it “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”. He is quite vigorous in his postings… and so I find that I bump into his posts more than others on the usual topic that he favors: arguing with Creationists about whether or not Evolution could work without God’s specific efforts to design creation.
Any answer other than explicit agreement (or ranging to the not very distant "mumbling of the words ‘I’m okay with that’) is the wrong answer from the viewpoint of this Christian blog site.
What is the point of such criteria? To REDUCE THE BICKERING over non-essential issues.
I make no mention of how God fits into natural processes. What I do point out is that we don’t see any evidence of God acting in violation of those processes.
And amazingly… Creationists interpret your silence on God in the discussion as you EVADING the topic of God.
No more so than you avoid the topic of Thor and the origin of lightning.
@T_Aquaticus , you write: “No more so than you avoid the topic of Thor and the origin of lightning.”
That is about as ridiculous a response as any you ever sent my way. If I intentionally participated in a discussion forum on ancient Scandinavian mythology and was so bold as to consistently refuse to make comments about the people’s perspective on Thor and lightning, I would submit myself to suffer death by means of “Blood Eagle”:
https://pageii.weebly.com/criminal-punishments-of-the-vikings.html
Could you describe how lightning is produced and describe God’s role in the process?
You ask me to describe how lighting is produced? Assuming you are fluent in English and understood my earlier postings, there are two ways for God to make lightning: the miraculous way, and the not-so-miraculously way. I have no insight into how God makes lightning in the miraculous way. As for the alternative method, I recommend a review of this nice wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning
Is that pretty much what you expected me to write?
That’s how I would describe the production of lightning as well. It is the same approach I take to describing the origin of species. So why is it ok for you to describe the origin of things using natural processes, but for me it is problematic?
What the … ?
Do you think I’m 10 years old? Did I not provide BOTH methods for God’s involvement in lightning? Are you incapable of translating any sentence that has God in it?
I specifically INVOKED God’s role in both scenarios (the miraculous and the not-so-miraculous). So why aren’t you able to do that too? - - - Oh, that’s right! - - because you don’t believe in God … and you are perfectly happy to argue over that belief - - right in the middle of a DMZ where we should NOT be arguing about the existence of God…
Frankly, Mr. T, you should be the one raising your hand and imploring @swamidass to create a Sound-Proof-Argument-Room … so that you have a completely free hand. Because if you don’t encourage the creation of this “thing”, that I am trying to arrange as a benefit to you and yours … someday, someone is just going to call a stop to the bickering, plain and simple. And I won’t be too interested in blocking such a change…
here is what you said before:
That wiki page says nothing about God’s role in lightning production, and you weren’t able to show how God is involved in the miraculous method, or even an example of miraculously created lightning. Using your own logic, this must mean that lightning doesn’t need God.