Science verifies the creation of the universe and earth.  Evidence for special creation is everywhere around us from microscopic elements to unfathomable recesses of the universe, the Creator God speaks to us through the things He has made.  Checkout for these scientific evidences in the link below.

http://www.icr.org/science/

Checkout the attempts by evolutionist scientists;

- to create life in a laboratory;

- the building blocks of life which is an insurmountable problem for evolution;

- The second law of Thermodynamics;

- Information and complexity, and much more in the link below.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Origin-of-Life-The,4805,229.aspx/campaignID=13136/cSess=200806111025401675

Why do you think science is capable of proving the existence of god?

huxley:

Why do you think science is capable of proving the existence of god?

For the reasons and evidences given in the weblinks supplied and even more.  Try to educate yourself by going through the weblink provided if you are a dilligent, earnest seeker of the truth.

http://www.icr.org/science/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Origin-of-Life-The,4805,229.aspx/campaignID=13136/cSess=200806111025401675

OLAADEGBU:

For the reasons and evidences given in the weblinks supplied and even more. Try to educate yourself by going through the weblink provided if you are a dilligent, earnest seeker of the truth.

I have gone thru some of the articles on the link and remain unconvinced that science capable to proving the existence of god. I wonder why you are convinced.

huxley:

I have gone through some of the articles on the link and remain unconvinced that science capable to proving the existence of god. I wonder why you are convinced.

Exactly what i was trying to tell OLAADEGBU about the links he keeps posting, as i said in an earlier thread, they are weak and lack compulsive evidence for someone who doesn't beleive in the Bible. It is only a christian that who would accept the scripture as evidence. so if you are trying to prove God's existence to a non believer you must be able to substantiate the biblical eveidence with real life situation that the un -believer can indentify with.
PS: OLAADEGBU I agree with your position on the unrefutable fact of the existence of God, it is Just that the evidences you are quoting is weak and of no relevance to a non believer whom i beleive are your target audience on this thread. You need to brush up a bit. Personally i won't even bother to try an prove God's existence the evidence is too overwhelming, only a fool would say there is no GOD>

huxley:

I have gone through some of the articles on the link and remain unconvinced that science capable to proving the existence of god. I wonder why you are convinced.

If you have "gone through" some of the articles on the link why don't you bring up whatever evidence that you are not convinced of or rather disprove it?

Shalom.

Jagoon:

Exactly what i was trying to tell OLAADEGBU about the links he keeps posting, as i said in an earlier thread, they are weak and lack compulsive evidence for someone who doesn't beleive in the Bible. It is only a christian that who would accept the scripture as evidence. so if you are trying to prove God's existence to a non believer you must be able to substantiate the biblical eveidence with real life situation that the un -believer can indentify with.
PS: OLAADEGBU I agree with your position on the unrefutable fact of the existence of God, it is Just that the evidences you are quoting is weak and of no relevance to a non believer whom i beleive are your target audience on this thread. You need to brush up a bit. Personally i won't even bother to try an prove God's existence the evidence is too overwhelming, only a fool would say there is no GOD>

I understand your position but I still don't think you understand my point.  In this thread which is the scientific evidence that demands a God I can hardly find a single verse of the scripture in the articles provided, unless you are reading another thread such as evidence from the scriptures. http://www.icr.org/scripture/

This thread that  has articles on The Physical Sciences giving evidences that the earth and universe was created for life, and when you click More It leads you into a more detailed explanation of the evidence that demands a God.  The same goes for The Earth Sciences and The Life Sciences http://www.icr.org/science/

I am convinced that if a person is an dilligent and sincere seeker of the truth such a person will come to the conclusion that there must be a God somewhere.  As to knowing who God is would be a different ball game altogether. 

Truth is not a concept that you can attain but a Person, you can only obtain it by asking that Person for it.  It cannot be attained by working for it.

Shalom.

The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated down through history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held their beliefs due to a ‘wish fulfillment’ factor that produced what Freud considered to be their unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is yes it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. And where to begin is with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s being with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking then he must ‘be.’ In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an Illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When you study philosophy, you learn that there are things called ‘analytically false’ statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as ‘spontaneous generation’—something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” This being the case, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up the crossroads we have now come to this way:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists.

Notice that you must go back to an eternal ‘something.’ The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door they can choose. But the question now is: where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or Mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900’s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to this way: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal ‘something’ exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented: “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

But the next question we must tackle is this: If an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (incredibly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—‘no god’ which is that ‘atheist’ means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure they have not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectual honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support their position, but they cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom they convince of their position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist and that such a place is an awfully long time to be wrong. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God" (John 1:12-13).
www.Gotquestions.org

The Origin of the Universe tells us that there has to be a Creator God.

There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from.  By way of the elimination process let us find out the possibility that is plausibe.

[list]
[li]1). the universe created itself;[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]2). the universe has always existed, and [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]3). the universe was created.[/li]
[/list]

1. The universe created itself: 

Can something create itself?  Can nothing create something?  The answer to these is an absolute No.  We all know that something cannot create itself and nothing can't create something.  From Latin we have the phrase "ex nihilo, nihil fit" meaning "from nothing, nothing comes."  It also violates the law of cause and effect, that says for every effect there must be a cause.  The effect can't be greater than the cause and nothing cannot be greater than something.  Therefore, based on the laws of science and logic, the universe couldn't have created itself.  This leaves us with options 2 and 3.

2. The univese has always existed: 

Lets go to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that basically teaches that "the whole universe is losing usable energy for doing usable work."  This means that the usable energy in this universe is wearing down.  The universe as a whole is losing energy.  In other words, molecules as a whole are slowing down.

Therefore, if this universe was eternal we will be in what is called a "virtual heat death."  This means that there will be virtually no molecular movement.  Everything would have lost its available heat energy for doing work.  Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, it must have had a beginning.  The theory that the universe has always existed or is eternal has to be false based on the law of science and logic, another speculation gone with the air.  This leaves us with only one possiblility based on science. Which is:

3. The universe was created: 

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

OLAADEGBU:

3. The universe was created:

"In the Beginning God created the [b]heaven and the earth."[/b] -- Genesis 1:1

Olaadegbu are you really sure that your god created this universe? I thought heaven is where your god resides.

Did your god not talk about creating a solar system where the sun revolves around the earth?

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

How true is this olaadegbu? This cosmological feat only takes place in the universe created by your imaginary god not our universe or solar system in which we live in.

Rev 6:13 I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,
Rev 6:13 and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.
Rev 6:14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
Rev 6:15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains.
Rev 6:16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!
Rev 6:17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

Is this really true olaadegbu? Stars falling into the earth ? This goes to show that the heavens and the earth talked about in the bible is not the univese we know because in the universe we know the stars can never fall into the earth because the stars are much much more larger than our earth. When eactly will people begn to talk to stones and rocks? Is it in this earth that we live in or the one your god created according to the bible? .

OLAADEGBU:

Science verifies the creation of the universe and earth. Evidence for special creation is everywhere around us from microscopic elements to unfathomable recesses of the universe, the Creator God speaks to us through the things He has made. Checkout for these scientific evidences in the link below.

http://www.icr.org/science/

are you talking about the "god partical" therory?

OLAADEGBU:

Checkout the attempts by evolutionist scientists;

alot of scientist and people worldover believe in both god ad evolution. that they work in tandum

OLAADEGBU:

For the reasons and evidences given in the weblinks supplied and even more. Try to educate yourself by going through the weblink provided if you are a dilligent, earnest seeker of the truth.

http://www.icr.org/science/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Origin-of-Life-The,4805,229.aspx/campaignID=13136/cSess=200806111025401675

you pick two devout christian websites and call it proof? then i guess since i have two websites that state we should all eat our own shit to inorder to be healthy i guess that iea is also true.

http://www.poopreport.com/Doctor/Knowledgebase/eating.html
http://inebriatedpress./2007/10/11/the-importance-of-eating-shit/

bindex:

Olaadegbu are you really sure that your god created this universe? I thought heaven is where your god resides.

If you've got an alternative possibility of the origin of the universe then put it forward, and if you object to the argument I made then let us see your objections if you have any.

bindex:

Did your god not talk about creating a solar system where the sun revolves around the earth?

This thread is dedicated to the scientific evidence that demands that there has to be a Creator God. If you've got anything tangible to discus then let us know but if not go and start another thread that deals with your concerns.

bindex:

How true is this olaadegbu? This cosmological feat only takes place in the universe created by your imaginary god not our universe or solar system in which we live in.

How does this relate with the topic at hand. You guys are really time wasters. There are other threads that deal with your concerns, find them and post there instead of diverting attention here.

bindex:

Is this really true olaadegbu? Stars falling into the earth ? This goes to show that the heavens and the earth talked about in the bible is not the univese we know because in the universe we know the stars can never fall into the earth because the stars are much much more larger than our earth. When eactly will people begn to talk to stones and rocks? Is it in this earth that we live in or the one your god created according to the bible? .

I have hardly quoted any Bible verse except to confirm the conclusion of the fact that the universe was Created. Like I said before, if you need Bible expository studies go to the Christian e-fellowship section and educate yourself.

OLAADEGBU:

If you've got an alternative possibility of the origin of the universe then put it forward,

The time you people begin to use the word I don't know that is when you will begin to have some credibility.

and if you object to the argument I made then let us see your objections if you have any.

Let's have a look at some of what you said.

OLAADEGBU:

The Origin of the Universe tells us that there has to be a Creator God.

No body KNOWS for sure if the universe has a beggining or not. The astronomers in the past used to think that the universe was eternal, current astronomy says it began from a singularity(that knowledge might likely change in the future). That truth is that scientist do not know that for sure, there are various theories and hypothesis out there but no body really knows, we have to leave that to our grand children and great grand children to find out, for now we don't know.

Can something create itself?  Can nothing create something?  The answer to these is an absolute No.  We all know that something cannot create itself and nothing can't create something.  From Latin we have the phrase "ex nihilo, nihil fit" meaning "from nothing, nothing comes."  It also violates the law of cause and effect, that says for every effect there must be a cause.  The effect can't be greater than the cause and nothing cannot be greater than something.  Therefore, based on the laws of science and logic, the universe couldn't have created itself.  This leaves us with options 2 and 3.

The universe is not a human society and has no reason to behave like one. We haven't been out there so we know very very little about the universe, the univese can be part of some thing bigger than what we currently think it is, it could even be a multiverse not a universe we just don't know. But with the little knowledge we have about the universe we know that stars are formed on their own, old stars explode new ones are created with planets in some cases on their own when ever there is a super nova. The universe has no reason to behave like the human society. You have not demonstrated that something can not come from nothing outside this planet you only made a claim base on our knowledge of what goes on in this planet alone. Life building blocks have been found on comets  (in other parts of the universe) recently.

2. The univese has always existed: 

Lets go to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that basically teaches that "the whole universe is losing usable energy for doing usable work."  This means that the usable energy in this universe is wearing down.  The universe as a whole is losing energy.  In other words, molecules as a whole are slowing down.

Therefore, if this universe was eternal we will be in what is called a "virtual heat death." 

Does the bible not say your own god got tired after losing energy doing the work of creating the heaven and the earth?

hello pls let us have some hot chat on yahoo , my mail is delboyomokunle122@yahoo.com

Ecclesiastes 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Another proof that your bible is wrong, The sun do not rises and the sun do not sets, it is the planet earth who rotate and the sun only appear to rise or set. Your bible got it wrong as usual.

Horus:

Another proof that your bible is wrong, The sun do not rises and the sun do not sets, it is the planet earth who rotate and the sun only appear to rise or set. Your bible got it wrong as usual.

Tell that to your English dictionaries that use the phrase "sunrise and sunset" and accuse them that they got it wrong.

OLAADEGBU:

Science verifies the creation of the universe and earth.

Science does no such thing.

OLAADEGBU:

Evidence for special creation is everywhere around us from microscopic elements to unfathomable recesses of the universe, the Creator God speaks to us through the things He has made.  Checkout for these scientific evidences in the link below.

http://www.icr.org/science/

The evidence on that site is not presented scientifically and the conclusions in some cases do not follow logically.
Though some of the images are visually pleasing.
I wonder why religious people try to rope science into their faith. I hope you understand that if your religion were true, you would not need faith.

OLAADEGBU:

The Origin of the Universe tells us that there has to be a Creator God.

There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from.  By way of the elimination process let us find out the possibility that is plausibe.

[list]
[li]1). the universe created itself;[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]2). the universe has always existed, and [/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]3). the universe was created.[/li]
[/list]

1. The universe created itself: 

Can something create itself?  Can nothing create something?  The answer to these is an absolute No.  We all know that something cannot create itself and nothing can't create something.  From Latin we have the phrase "ex nihilo, nihil fit" meaning "from nothing, nothing comes."  It also violates the law of cause and effect, that says for every effect there must be a cause.  The effect can't be greater than the cause and nothing cannot be greater than something.  Therefore, based on the laws of science and logic, the universe couldn't have created itself.  This leaves us with options 2 and 3.

2. The univese has always existed: 

Lets go to the 2nd law of thermodynamics that basically teaches that "the whole universe is losing usable energy for doing usable work."  This means that the usable energy in this universe is wearing down.  The universe as a whole is losing energy.  In other words, molecules as a whole are slowing down.

Therefore, if this universe was eternal we will be in what is called a "virtual heat death."  This means that there will be virtually no molecular movement.  Everything would have lost its available heat energy for doing work.  Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, it must have had a beginning.  The theory that the universe has always existed or is eternal has to be false based on the law of science and logic, another speculation gone with the air.  This leaves us with only one possiblility based on science.  Which is:

3. The universe was created: 

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth." -- Genesis 1:1

Your quote from the bible is poor evidence. It's no better than

An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Here's a possibility you've not considered.

The universe arose from purely natural processes that humans are yet to fully comprehend.

We know that amazing objects and events occur all the time that are simply due to natural processes. The universe may simply be one of them.

thehomer:

Science does no such thing.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse -- Romans 1:18-20

You can see that from the very time of creation, men should have seen the evidence of God’s existence and His work in the marvelous universe He had created, for "God hath shewed it unto them" (Romans 1:19). "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork" (Psalm 19:1).  Since these things should have been seen and understood by men from the very time of the creation of the world, it is clear that the latter did not take place billions of years before men appeared on earth, as evolutionists and progressive creationists have alleged.  Men and women have been in the world ever since its very beginning, and all should have recognised the reality of God, even before God gave His written revelation.  Those of you who apply uniformitarian reasoning and natural processes to deduce a multi-billion year age for the world are only merely seeking a means to avoid the overwhelming evidence of the special creation of all things at the very beginning, and are "without excuse."

thehomer:

The evidence on that site is not presented scientifically and the conclusions in some cases do not follow logically.
Though some of the images are visually pleasing.
I wonder why religious people try to rope science into their faith. I hope you understand that if your religion were true, you would not need faith.

Here is more from that site when it explains the eternal Power of God which created the universe.   "It is God’s eternal power which is evidenced in the cosmos, the power which created it, not just the power which sustains it once it has been created.  The remarkable significance of this fact is illuminated by the modern discovery of the two most basic and universal laws of science, known technically as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  More popularly, they can be understood, respectively, as the law of conservation in the quantity of all things God created, and the law of deterioration in the quality (or organized complexity) of all things God created.  The first law reflects the completion of creation in the past (Genesis 2:1-3), so that nothing is now being either created or annihilated; creation is being conserved. The second law reflects the subsequent curse on creation because of sin (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:20-22), so that everything now has a strong tendency to die—that is, to disintegrate back to the “dust” (the basic elements) which God had created in the beginning and from which He had made all the complex systems in the cosmos.  Thus, the completed and sustained, yet deteriorating, cosmos testifies powerfully to God’s eternal power.  Since nothing is now being created, the universe could not have created itself by the “natural” processes which now function in it.  Yet, since it is now disintegrating and dying, it must have been created at some finite time in the past; otherwise, if it were infinitely old, it would already be dead and completely disintegrated.  If it must have been created, yet could not have been created by the temporal power contained in its existing processes, it must have been created by the eternal power of a transcendent Creator. The creation, therefore, eloquently testifies to the eternal power of its Creator. The only adequate Cause (by the scientific law of cause-and-effect) to produce an infinite, unending, power-filled, intelligible universe containing living creatures must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, living, personal God."

thehomer:

Your quote from the bible is poor evidence. It's no better than

An invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Here's a possibility you've not considered.

The universe arose from purely natural processes that humans are yet to fully comprehend.

We know that amazing objects and events occur all the time that are simply due to natural processes. The universe may simply be one of them.

The quotes from the Bible gives you truth which is based on the solid rock, but here you are basing your arguments on assumptions, presumptions and speculations that holds no water.

OLAADEGBU:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse -- Romans 1:18-20

Bible quotations still do not make your points any better.

OLAADEGBU:

You can see that from the very time of creation, men should have seen the evidence of God’s existence and His work in the marvelous universe He had created, for "God hath shewed it unto them" (Romans 1:19). "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork" (Psalm 19:1).  Since these things should have been seen and understood by men from the very time of the creation of the world, it is clear that the latter did not take place billions of years before men appeared on earth, as evolutionists and progressive creationists have alleged.  Men and women have been in the world ever since its very beginning, and all should have recognised the reality of God, even before God gave His written revelation.  Those of you who apply uniformitarian reasoning and natural processes to deduce a multi-billion year age for the world are only merely seeking a means to avoid the overwhelming evidence of the special creation of all things at the very beginning, and are "without excuse."

Did you get the information that the earth is billions of years old from the bible?
Also, humans have not been on earth for billions of years.
What is "uniformitarian reasoning"? Natural processes do to the best of our current knowledge explain what we see.

OLAADEGBU:

Here is more from that site when it explains the eternal Power of God which created the universe.   "It is God’s eternal power which is evidenced in the cosmos, the power which created it, not just the power which sustains it once it has been created.  The remarkable significance of this fact is illuminated by the modern discovery of the two most basic and universal laws of science, known technically as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  More popularly, they can be understood, respectively, as the law of conservation in the quantity of all things God created, and the law of deterioration in the quality (or organized complexity) of all things God created.  The first law reflects the completion of creation in the past (Genesis 2:1-3), so that nothing is now being either created or annihilated; creation is being conserved.

Science does not arrive at the conclusion you've made. Also, you do not seem to understand this law properly because part of your conclusion is wrong. Matter is constantly being formed and destroyed.

OLAADEGBU:

The second law reflects the subsequent curse on creation because of sin (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:20-22), so that everything now has a strong tendency to die—that is, to disintegrate back to the “dust” (the basic elements) which God had created in the beginning and from which He had made all the complex systems in the cosmos.  Thus, the completed and sustained, yet deteriorating, cosmos testifies powerfully to God’s eternal power.

You now seem to imply that the second law of thermodynamics only came into play either some six thousand odd years ago or some few billions of years ago. Science does not show this. Why should structures that God completed and sustains be deteriorating? Can he not hold his "creations" so they never decay? If anything, the second law is against your God's abilities.

OLAADEGBU:

Since nothing is now being created, the universe could not have created itself by the “natural” processes which now function in it.  Yet, since it is now disintegrating and dying, it must have been created at some finite time in the past; otherwise, if it were infinitely old, it would already be dead and completely disintegrated.  If it must have been created, yet could not have been created by the temporal power contained in its existing processes, it must have been created by the eternal power of a transcendent Creator.

If the universe is now dying, this means it should have been living at some point in time. So when was it living? Or do you wish to explain further what you mean?

OLAADEGBU:

The creation, therefore, eloquently testifies to the eternal power of its Creator. The only adequate Cause (by the scientific law of cause-and-effect) to produce an infinite, unending, power-filled, intelligible universe containing living creatures must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, living, personal God.

The universe does not have any of the properties you ascribe to it except containing living creatures. Your God being eternal and living, omnipotent, omniscient and personal at the same time is just logically incoherent.

OLAADEGBU:

The quotes from the Bible gives you truth which is based on the solid rock, but here you are basing your arguments on assumptions, presumptions and speculations that holds no water.

Biblical "truths" have been demonstrated to be false several times.

Please point out the assumptions and presumptions I've made that are worse that the ones you've made.

thehomer:

Bible quotations still do not make your points any better.

If you open your eyes you will see that the scriptures describes your case precisely. Your case is like a man who drives a car but believes that no one was behind its design and make. He believes that it might have come about by an explosion in a scrap yard.

thehomer:

Did you get the information that the earth is billions of years old from the bible?
Also, humans have not been on earth for billions of years.
What is "uniformitarian reasoning"? Natural processes do to the best of our current knowledge explain what we see.

I wonder how you atheists read. Where in that post did you see that the "earth is billions of years old from the bible", or that "humans have been on earth for billions of years"? Only if you open your eyes and smell the coffee will you see and smell the overwhelming evidence of special creation that is all around us.

thehomer:

Science does not arrive at the conclusion you've made. Also, you do not seem to understand this law properly because part of your conclusion is wrong. Matter is constantly being formed and destroyed.

Do you understand what the word entropy means? You don't need to look too far, just look at your very self and see whether you are not getting closer to the grave on a daily basis.

thehomer:

You now seem to imply that the second law of thermodynamics only came into play either some six thousand odd years ago or some few billions of years ago. Science does not show this. Why should structures that God completed and sustains be deteriorating? Can he not hold his "creations" so they never decay? If anything, the second law is against your God's abilities.

If the universe is now dying, this means it should have been living at some point in time. So when was it living? Or do you wish to explain further what you mean?

The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The process of death started the day the first man Adam sinned, but the Last Adam, Jesus Christ paid the penalty so that we can live eternally and there will be a new universe.

thehomer:

The universe does not have any of the properties you ascribe to it except containing living creatures. Your God being eternal and living, omnipotent, omniscient and personal at the same time is just logically incoherent.

Do you understand the scientific law of cause and effect? If the universe and man can be organised and intelligible respectively then what do you expect of the uncreated infinite Creator? Remember that the effect cannot be greater than the Cause.

thehomer:

Biblical "truths" have been demonstrated to be false several times.

Please point out the assumptions and presumptions I've made that are worse that the ones you've made.

When you are talking about origin or historical science no man was there to observe what you now claim as assumptions, presumptions and presuppositions but the Infinite uncreated Creator was there to observe the works of His hands and He has left us His signature as a witness in the Bible. The creation verifies what He has said in His Word and you scientists will be wiser if they use it as their compass to discover what He has originated in His creation.

The Finished Works of Creation
June 1, 2010

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world."(Hebrews 4:3)

Here is a strong New Testament confirmation of the Genesis record of a creation completed in the past--thus not continuing in the present as theistic evolutionists have to assume. Whatever processes God may have used during the six days of creation, they are no longer in operation for "the heavens and the earth were finished, . . . on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made. . . . And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:1-3).

The record in Genesis could not be more clear and specific, but the fact that it is in Genesis tends to demean it in the minds of many scientists and theologians. So they prefer to believe in a continuing evolution and long ages in the past. But the writer of Hebrews once again confirms the fact of a completed creation: "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his" (Hebrews 4:10).

The writer is not trying to defend the completed creation as such, but merely assuming it as a commonly acknowledged truth. In fact, God's "rest" from His works of creation is taken as a prophetic type of the spiritual rest of a Christian believer when he ceases trusting his own works of legalism and relies fully on the finished work of Christ for his eternal salvation. On the cross, after the Lord had died for our sins, He had cried out, "It is finished!" (John 19:30), and our debt for sin was fully paid. God's great work of redemption was completed, just as was His work of creation, and now we also can rest from our "dead works to serve the living God" (Hebrews 9:14). HMM


For more . . . .

OLAADEGBU:

If you open your eyes you will see that the scriptures describes your case precisely.  Your case is like a man who drives a car but believes that no one was behind its design and make.  He believes that it might have come about by an explosion in a scrap yard.

Wrong analogy. Evolution is not like an explosion in a scrap yard.

OLAADEGBU:

I wonder how you atheists read.  Where in that post did you see that the "earth is billions of years old from the bible", or that "humans have been on earth for billions of years"?  Only if you open your eyes and smell the coffee will you see and smell the overwhelming evidence of special creation that is all around us.

[Quote]
You can see that from the very time of creation, men should have seen the evidence of God’s existence and His work in the marvelous universe He had created, for "God hath shewed it unto them"  (Romans 1:19). "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handywork" (Psalm 19:1).  Since these things should have been seen and understood by men from the very time of the creation of the world, it is clear that the latter did not take place billions of years before men appeared on earth, as evolutionists and progressive creationists have alleged.  Men and women have been in the world ever since its very beginning, and all should have recognised the reality of God, even before God gave His written revelation.  Those of you who apply uniformitarian reasoning and natural processes to deduce a multi-billion year age for the world are only merely seeking a means to avoid the overwhelming evidence of the special creation of all things at the very beginning, and are "without excuse."
[/quote]

The way I read and understand has no reflection on atheists. We cannot say that any illogical response given by a religious person is a reflection on all religious people.
I have put what I understood from your quote in bold. It's up to you to present your points clearly especially when writing.

OLAADEGBU:

Do you understand what the word entropy means?  You don't need to look too far, just look at your very self and see whether you are not getting closer to the grave on a daily basis.

Well you're also getting closer to the grave on a daily basis. A child born with anencephaly gets to the grave rapidly so what's the relevance of the above statement?

OLAADEGBU:

The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  The process of death started the day the first man Adam sinned, but the Last Adam, Jesus Christ paid the penalty so that we can live eternally and there will be a new universe.

Where did you get information about a new universe? From the bible? Or are you trying to expound on the multiverse hypothesis?

OLAADEGBU:

Do you understand the scientific law of cause and effect?  If the universe and man can be organised and intelligible respectively then what do you expect of the uncreated infinite Creator?  Remember that the effect cannot be greater than the Cause.

What scientific law of cause and effect? Could you please state this law? There are several problems with your above response.
You have assumed an "uncreated infinite Creator"
What do you mean by "an effect cannot be greater than the Cause"?

OLAADEGBU:

When you are talking about origin or historical science no man was there to observe what you now claim as assumptions, presumptions and presuppositions but the Infinite uncreated Creator was there to observe the works of His hands and He has left us His signature as a witness in the Bible.  The creation verifies what He has said in His Word and you scientists will be wiser if they use it as their compass to discover what He has originated in His creation.

No, there are various qualities of evidence. The qualities can be evaluated by logic.

You on the other hand claim an "Infinite uncreated Creator" was there. Do you speak one on one with this creator? His signature your Bible is poor evidence like I've said due to the contradictions with what we know and observe. We cannot use the Bible as evidence for science due to the multiple errors in it. Using the Bible as evidence has been tried in the past and it failed woefully. Also, how about the knowledge that we've gained that is not available in the bible? Should we throw these away?

OLAADEGBU:

The Finished Works of Creation
June 1, 2010

"For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world."(Hebrews 4:3)

Here is a strong New Testament confirmation of the Genesis record of a creation completed in the past--thus not continuing in the present as theistic evolutionists have to assume. Whatever processes God may have used during the six days of creation, they are no longer in operation for "the heavens and the earth were finished, . . . on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made. . . . And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:1-3).

The record in Genesis could not be more clear and specific, but the fact that it is in Genesis tends to demean it in the minds of many scientists and theologians. So they prefer to believe in a continuing evolution and long ages in the past. But the writer of Hebrews once again confirms the fact of a completed creation: "For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his" (Hebrews 4:10).

The writer is not trying to defend the completed creation as such, but merely assuming it as a commonly acknowledged truth. In fact, God's "rest" from His works of creation is taken as a prophetic type of the spiritual rest of a Christian believer when he ceases trusting his own works of legalism and relies fully on the finished work of Christ for his eternal salvation. On the cross, after the Lord had died for our sins, He had cried out, "It is finished!" (John 19:30), and our debt for sin was fully paid. God's great work of redemption was completed, just as was His work of creation, and now we also can rest from our "dead works to serve the living God" (Hebrews 9:14). HMM


For more . . . .

You are simply picking and lifting quotes from all over the Bible, interpreting them whichever way you want and calling it evidence. So I'd like to know what you consider good evidence.

thehomer:

Wrong analogy. Evolution is not like an explosion in a scrap yard.

I know you guys like to distance yourselves from the Big bang, but how else do you explain the existence of the universe if not the explosion of nothing?

thehomer:

The way I read and understand has no reflection on atheists. We cannot say that any illogical response given by a religious person is a reflection on all religious people.
I have put what I understood from your quote in bold. It's up to you to present your points clearly especially when writing.

All I am saying is that what you see around you, the fossils, the earth, the planets and every living thing are evidences of the Power of the uncreated Creator, it is your theories of natural processes that demand that they can only come into existence in billions of years.

thehomer:

Well you're also getting closer to the grave on a daily basis. A child born with anencephaly gets to the grave rapidly so what's the relevance of the above statement?

This is not a slight on your person it is reality! Death happens to everyone unless you are Enoch and Elijah

thehomer:

Where did you get information about a new universe? From the bible? Or are you trying to expound on the multiverse hypothesis?

If you want to know the history of this cosmos and what would become of it in the future read the Bible, it is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper.

thehomer:

What scientific law of cause and effect? Could you please state this law? There are several problems with your above response.
You have assumed an "uncreated infinite Creator"
What do you mean by "an effect cannot be greater than the Cause"?

I will make an attempt to breakdown this scientific law. If you realise that all of a sudden tomato or egg is thrown at you, if you are reasonable you will first of all ascertain what direction it came from, then you will try and see who threw it. The tomato or egg is the effect, the tomato could not throw itself someone must have thrown it, the person who threw the tomato is the cause while the tomato that splashed in your face is the effect. If there is no cause there will be no effect. Anything the that moves must have been moved by a mover, that is why we call the Chief Cause as the Unmoveable mover, and The infinite uncreated Creator. Do you now see how the effect cannot be greater than the cause?

thehomer:

No, there are various qualities of evidence. The qualities can be evaluated by logic.

What other logic is there beyond an geologist who discovers that a cave consisting of fossils and implements such as cutlass and knives? Would you not conclude that there was some intelligence involved? or if you discovered some sculptures of human faces in the desert would you say that those sculptures form through natural processes?

thehomer:

You on the other hand claim an "Infinite uncreated Creator" was there. Do you speak one on one with this creator? His signature your Bible is poor evidence like I've said due to the contradictions with what we know and observe. We cannot use the Bible as evidence for science due to the multiple errors in it. Using the Bible as evidence has been tried in the past and it failed woefully. Also, how about the knowledge that we've gained that is not available in the bible? Should we throw these away?

I speak to Him on a regular basis which is the ultimate prove to myself but the general evidence is there in His creation and His Word. If you are looking for contradictions you will find contradictions infact you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say but if you are a diligent seeker of the truth you will know the will of God and do it.

Everytime people tell me "there is no God" i usually think to myself.,.'how extremely foolish can people be'
The last time my friend.,.a very close friend.,.said to me that he did not believe in the existence of the so called God becuz such beliefs are illogical and unfounded, unusually i was not in the mood for an arguement that day so i let it go naturally.

But i looked round his room and found a pill. He was s'posed to take a pill everyday for about 6 months becuz the doctors said he had a virus in his body.
That was when i slowly realised that the world is conditioned in such a way that everything you do in life, virtually every decision you choose to make, you do it becuz directly or indirectly, somebody has told you to do so, and you believed it but we are not always conscious of it.,.we do not live our own lives rather we live a designed life.,.

My friend did not use a pill becuz he had a virus in his body, he used it becuz the doctor told him so.
I do not believe you eat everyday becuz you feel you'll die if you don't, rather.,.i believe you eat becuz you were told to do so right from the moment MUM put that breast in your mouth and squeezed it.
If you hadn't believed her and eaten, you would not live long enough to be told you could die.
But i can go a little deeper and ask myself, if you are obviously taught to do everything you do now, then who taught you to breathe?
Who taught you to blink?
Who taught your heart to beat or your blood to flow?
Who taught you to die?
Who designed you?.,.
Is it man?
Society?
Environment?
The cosmos/universe?
Or is it Charles Darwins' apes?.,.
WHO EXACTLY?

We do not see electromagnetic waves but we believe it when we are told they exist becuz we think we can feel its manifestations in our cell phones and radio.

But if we can always feel the manifestation even though we may continue to deny it not only inside of us but in a vast unfathomable universe, The Great Infinite Being,God.,.
What exactly stops you from believing!
Absolute foolishness perhaps

OLAADEGBU:

I know you guys like to distance yourselves from the Big bang, but how else do you explain the existence of the universe if not the explosion of nothing?

Do you have a better theory than the Big Bang which we can test or observe?

OLAADEGBU:

All I am saying is that what you see around you, the fossils, the earth, the planets and every living thing are evidences of the Power of the uncreated Creator, it is your theories of natural processes that demand that they can only come into existence in billions of years.

No they are not evidence of your mysterious creator. They are evidence that such things exist or existed in the past.

OLAADEGBU:

This is not a slight on your person it is reality! Death happens to everyone unless you are Enoch and Elijah

I still do not see the relevance of the previous statement or this one you just made.

OLAADEGBU:

If you want to know the history of this cosmos and what would become of it in the future read the Bible, it is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper.

It's not in the Bible. Lots of information is absent from the bible. Your claim of the future being in the Bible is yet to be proven. Other than the ones we've found to be wrong.

OLAADEGBU:

I will make an attempt to breakdown this scientific law. If you realise that all of a sudden tomato or egg is thrown at you, if you are reasonable you will first of all ascertain what direction it came from, then you will try and see who threw it. The tomato or egg is the effect, the tomato could not throw itself someone must have thrown it, the person who threw the tomato is the cause while the tomato that splashed in your face is the effect. If there is no cause there will be no effect. Anything the that moves must have been moved by a mover, that is why we call the Chief Cause as the Unmoveable mover, and The infinite uncreated Creator. Do you now see how the effect cannot be greater than the cause?

I still don't understand how you link up your fabled unmoveable mover to the Christian God and not Thor.

OLAADEGBU:

What other logic is there beyond an geologist who discovers that a cave consisting of fossils and implements such as cutlass and knives? Would you not conclude that there was some intelligence involved? or if you discovered some sculptures of human faces in the desert would you say that those sculptures form through natural processes?

How does this show it is logical to believe in your mythical creatures like angels, demons and talking animals?

OLAADEGBU:

I speak to Him on a regular basis which is the ultimate prove to myself but the general evidence is there in His creation and His Word. If you are looking for contradictions you will find contradictions infact you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say but if you are a diligent seeker of the truth you will know the will of God and do it.

I've told you before your Bible is not good enough evidence. How do you talk to God? Does he reply? Can you help me ask him some questions as a method of evaluation of whether your God is actually omniscient?

adolfe bad:

Everytime people tell me "there is no God" i usually think to myself.,.'how extremely foolish can people be'
The last time my friend.,.a very close friend.,.said to me that he did not believe in the existence of the so called God becuz such beliefs are illogical and unfounded, unusually i was not in the mood for an arguement that day so i let it go naturally.

Have you considered the paucity of evidence for your God?

adolfe bad:

But i looked round his room and found a pill. He was s'posed to take a pill everyday for about 6 months becuz the doctors said he had a virus in his body.

No he's not just taking the pill because he was told that. He also probably knows what will happen if he does not take it and he wants to avoid this. Which is reasonable.

adolfe bad:

That was when i slowly realised that the world is conditioned in such a way that everything you do in life, virtually every decision you choose to make, you do it becuz directly or indirectly, somebody has told you to do so, and you believed it but we are not always conscious of it.,.we do not live our own lives rather we live a designed life.,.

I wonder if you've realized that the reason why you believe in your God is because you've been told this? How do we live a designed life?

adolfe bad:

My friend did not use a pill becuz he had a virus in his body, he used it becuz the doctor told him so.

This is a very poor conclusion. Is the doctor his commander or something? Did he hold a gun to his head? Do you think that viruses can make a person sick?

adolfe bad:

I do not believe you eat everyday becuz you feel you'll die if you don't, rather.,.i believe you eat becuz you were told to do so right from the moment MUM put that bosom in your mouth and squeezed it.

That is a terrible belief. Now that you think you know better, why don't you try not drinking water for 3 weeks and let us know how it goes.

adolfe bad:

If you hadn't believed her and eaten, you would not live long enough to be told you could die.
But i can go a little deeper and ask myself, if you are obviously taught to do everything you do now, then who taught you to breathe?
Who taught you to blink?
Who taught your heart to beat or your blood to flow?
Who taught you to die?
Who designed you?.,.
Is it man?
Society?
Environment?
The cosmos/universe?
Or is it Charles Darwins' apes?.,.
WHO EXACTLY?

Have you heard of the concept of instinct. Animals have it too. No one teaches animals how to reproduce but they seem to have gotten on fine.

adolfe bad:

We do not see electromagnetic waves but we believe it when we are told they exist becuz we think we can feel its manifestations in our cell phones and radio.

You see we do not think we can feel its manifestations but we actually do. That is how we see, and feel the sun's energy. You can test it for yourself and see that it works.

adolfe bad:

But if we can always feel the manifestation even though we may continue to deny it not only inside of us but in a vast unfathomable universe, The Great Infinite Being,God.,.

That is it. We cannot feel the manifestation of your God like we can that of light.

adolfe bad:

What exactly stops you from believing!
Absolute foolishness perhaps

No what prevents such beliefs is the absence of evidence and the availability of better explanations of the phenomena ascribed to your God.

But what makes you keep believing?
Absolute gullibility coupled with refusal to think perhaps?

Thehomer

if i may ask you
don't you think you might be contradicting urslf?

Quote: do you have a better theory than the big bang.,.

You never cease to amaze me.
The big bang is totally impossible judging from the 2nd law of thermodynamics which describes the universe as a wound-up clock which is slowly running down.,.instead evolution has all life being built up from the simple to the complex.,.
You do not have any valid and reasonable proof of creation and existence

adolfe bad:

Thehomer

if i may ask you
don't you think you might be contradicting urslf?

How am I contradicting myself?

adolfe bad:

Quote: do you have a better theory than the big bang.,.

Well do you?

adolfe bad:

You never cease to amaze me.

Why thank you.

adolfe bad:

The big bang is totally impossible judging from the 2nd law of thermodynamics which describes the universe as a wound-up clock which is slowly running down.,.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to what we observe in closes systems. We do not know if it applies to the universe itself?

adolfe bad:

instead evolution has all life being built up from the simple to the complex.,.

What's wrong with this view?

adolfe bad:

You do not have any valid and reasonable proof of creation and existence

Huh?
A proof of creation and existence? What are you getting at?