Re: Proof of God's existence? Why not evolution?

"Mark Earnest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> in reply to...
> 
> > >> > How about God made everything, but used natural selection as his
> > >> > tool?
> > >>
> > >> Ok, but why would god require natural selection?
> > >
> > > Just as we like to use tools to make things with, so does God.
> > > Consider natural selection his artbrush.
> >
> > But why couldn't god just create all things at once.
> 
> He did, but he stretched out the seven day creation into a continual
> creation over billions of years.  This is possible because God does not
> exist in time.


I can't comprehend this at all (existing outside of time).  Could you
elaborate a little?  Does that mean God has no memories of past events
(even perfect memory)?  Does God not experience something like "a
moment ago" or the predicted location of a falling object 10 seconds
in the future?


<snip>

> >
> > That said, your only support for your belief is your inability to
> > comprehend how we have evolved.
> >
> > I will admit that even a single cell is incredibly complex, let alone a
> > human.
> >
> > But humanities inability to understand or explain certain phenomenon has
>  no
> > relevance on reality.
> 
> Yes it does.  If man can not explain it, it is likely a function of the
> infinite, i.e. God.


I'm afraid this is not a very solid argument.  Turn the clock back
5000 years and see if this rule applies consistently and reliably. 
For example, does it apply (5000 years ago) to weather phenomena, the
cause of disease, the conception (birth) of human beings, the success
or failure of crops, the cause and nature of comets, etc.

Further, I'm not sure that there is any aspect of reality that can be
shown to be impossible to explain by future generations of humans. 
Just because we can't explain something today doesn't mean we'll never
be able explain it.  Do you know of a case where that's not true?


<snip>

> >
> > Again your entire basis is your inability to comprehend the power of
> > evolution.
> >
> > We can't define reality, we can only study it. All objective study and
> > reasoning points to evolution rather then spontaneous creation.
> >
> > Do you even realize that you are using ignorance as support for god?
> 
> No, I have seen what I am talking about.  I have encountered God and
> conversed with him, and do so daily, learning from him and about him every
> day of my life.  That is the opposite of ignorance about God.


This is actually a far more convincing argument for the existence of
God than any analysis of the nature and origin of life.  Knowing for
sure that God exists makes the issue of how he created life a rather
trivial endeavor.  Who cares how he did it?

But I'm curious about the details of these conversations with God. 
Not what is said, but how.  Rather than ask a lot of specific
questions, I think they can be summed up into one question:  Is there
any part of these conversations that is scientifically observable?  It
would be so incredibly significant if the answer is 'yes'.

If the answer is 'no', then can you please help me understand what you
mean by "converse".  Every time I converse with someone, I can hear
them or see them or see their written words and trust that there's a
human on the other end...or something.  You know, something tangible. 
Does "converse with God" mean the same thing?  If not, why use the
word "converse"?