Instead of pointing to some book and claiming the evidence is there, why not list your evidence here?
the reason is simple, the information is out there, The information, evidence is overwhelming, i have spent countless hours debating the creationist mindset, and their is a common thread that runs thru them all. To accept the evidence means they have to accept that they have spent their collective lives being fooled. Some like myself are willing to accept that i was fooled for a number of years becasue i didn't take the time and read mis-guide and factually incorrect information on the subject. So I have little time for people who come on the board and copy/paste the latest in along line of creationist BS claiming this is the answer.
The reason i pointed to this book, is that the argument i see here, are the same tired old lines being rolled out that been answered hundred of times, but whereas science yearn to be proved wrong... and we all know how that can be done, for a creationist to accept he is wrong means dropping the one thing that anchors their life. And also the realization ,that they arn't special.
When debating weather God exists, one first has to define God, if anyone wishes to try and prove a 'Christian God' then good luck, if we are talking about a Prime mover that you wish to label a NON personal God, then we have a starting point.
But serious if anything as 'claims evidence' for a Person God ' has been listed here, then the claim do not even deserve an answer, as they clearly do not understand the leaps involved to get to a personal God.
So if anyone wants to define out God , and do this correctly, then examine what eveidence would point to this then fine, until then poting to a book, that actually gives the answers they are need, is a time saver.
I would debate anyone, and have debated from Evangelicals to Pastors & Decons (that was fun) and as long as long as they will define what God they are on about then thats a starting block