"Donal" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
Are you actually claiming that God must exist because evolution isn't
possible.
That's pretty lame.

What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created!


And while you might have made an interesting claim that humans couldn't
evolve
in the rather narrow time period they seem to have, you're claiming that the
full age of the Earth is not sufficient. Its pretty clear that there's been
plenty of time. Mammals have had roughly 100,000,000 generations to evolve.
That's a real long time - we've only had a 100 generations since Biblical
times.
And mammals have only been around for the last few percent of the timeline.

I find it odd that some people try to use "science" to prove the existence
of
God.

Why?

Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith.

Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite
different.


How?


Arguing for the
existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the
possibility
that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist.

True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be
able to provide a stronger argument.

In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the
possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an
absolute act of faith.



If
you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is
justified.

I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think
that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God?

You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong.
You're simply asserting your faith.


I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put
forward that suggests that God must exist.


I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence as
a way to bolster your faith?