Thank you for elucidating my point which is actually clear as crystal but for some mysterious reason seems not to be understood by Deputy and Burn.
Strictly speaking, this is not correct, examples are too obvious to bother innumerating.
Elucidate away. If you are trying to suggest that in nature the fit do not survive at the sacrifice of the not so fit, you will find yourself quickly at odds with facts, but I am listening.
Also, you are attaching moral agency to amoral nonagents. You might was well call a dislodged stone that brains a snow leopard below amoral, violent, and sociopathic.
Once again, you have missed, perhaps deliberately to see the point that I am making. I am at a loss as to how to put it any clearer. Let me try yet again.
Romans 1:20 suggests that every person on this planet should be able to learn enough about God from his creation to either be judged worthy of life or death based on this notion.
You state that what we learn is about God's 'nature' and his 'eternal Godship'. Despite your attempts are fleshing out the meaning of this word and phrase by quoting its original Greek term, you barely cam cose to understanding what my point was.
So again I asked, is it possible to see God's personality in his 'creation'. Deputy eventually agreed that it was, which FINALLy bought us back to my original point.
What does the deceit, violence and amoral actions of creatures on this planet, from the microbe to the whale, which have to kill other creatures in order to themselves cling to life, tell YOU about God the Creator?