In the blog on several of the posts an individual calling himself Daryl offered up several comments which eventually seemed more appropriate here than on the blog.

I mean to take no action so as to represent Daryl here and I certainly do not speak for him in any fashion. However in an effort to hopefully keep the blog on target, or at least show Pedro a level of basic respect, I am starting this thread in hopes of addressing Daryl's concerns here, if he chooses to participate.

Some of the comments which I believe he takes to be core are following (again with no attempt being made to slant this, or even represent Daryl at all other than to merely post his own words).

-----------
First off I am a Christian and open-minded.

So, let me ask you, what would you consider proof? I mean, obviously the beauty, splendor, vastness, and amazing way everything is connected in such an orderly way doesn’t do it for you. So, what would. If God himself stepped before you, slapped you across the face and said “Be still and know that I am God” would you believe then or, after he left would you say “well, that could have been God but it could have also been just another person, another type of normal being that I haven’t seen yet, or maybe I just imagined it?”

What would God be like if It did exist? What senses would you have to use to see It? If you only heard or felt but did not see God would you believe?

Also, what do you think about the existence of aliens? Yes, no, maybe, possible, probable? How does your answer to that question actually work with your beliefs about God?

So, you always ask what we consider to be evidence. I’m asking you what would YOU consider to be evidence?

Does God have to have a physical body in order to exist? If so, do our thoughts or the wind really exist? If not, what evidence would help you to believe in a non-physical God?

That said, there is as much evidence for His existence and personal teachings are there are for many of the great people throughout history that you would probably have no trouble believing existed and did what is said of them.

The point is that we must always remain aware of our perceptive abilities and limitations - especially as they apply to logic, scientific experiments, and understanding the spoken/written words of another.

But, I follow the teachings of Christ, not of the church. I simply think they don’t understand what is being talked about when the word God is thrown around. But, I do believe Jesus understood it very well.

The issue of perception with soundness, validity, etc.. is exactly where one finds soundness, validity, etc. Unless, of course, one happens to be right.

Perception? If I mistake the tone and meaning of your statements who is right? What if you mistake mine? What if you and 1,000 others mistake mine? Who is right? Did I say what I meant or what you heard?

That doesn’t appear to follow a natural law, show complete randomness and doesn’t in some way lend itself to belief in creationism/ID.

I wouldn’t say that the Bible says the Earth is only 6,000 years old though I’m sure someone that has a different understanding of the Book might think that.

As for the questions concerning feathers, wings, bones, eyes, etc… They were not meant to prove the existence of God. They were meant to call evolution, not as a fact of evolving, but as to the basis for all existence into question. Why would these features evolve?

The randomness bit, again, not trying to prove the existence of God. But, again, no answers to my questions have been put forward.