particles:

There is mountains of evidence for evolution
Here are some writings on the evidence:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
and wikipedia has compiled evidence (with links for verification at the bottom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Evolution is a fact. Evolution is a scientific (a word you do not seem to understand) explanation on how organisms change over time (for example how both modern day humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor). It is not a worldview and it does not give an explanation on the origin of life, just how life has changed over time. My atheism has nothing to do with be accepting that evolution is a fact. I am an evolutionist because I adhere to the theory of evolution.

Also, you can be a christian and also accept evolution
So please, stop comparing evolution to christianity as if both are at the same level of validity and both are worldviews.

Read the suggested link below why Evolution is a religion and not science.

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

OLAADEGBU:

Let me give you a more advanced explanation of how science confirms the doctrine of the trinity using C.S. Lewis's explanation:

I will be using a helpful analogy by C.S. Lewis a former atheist who had come to the saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, in his book called Mere Christianity.

"You know that in space you can move in three ways – to left or right, backwards or forwards, up or down.  Every direction is either one of these three or a compromise between them.  They are called the three Dimensions.  Now notice this.  If you are using only one dimension, you could draw only a straight line.  If you are using two, you could draw a figure:  say, a square.  And a square is made up of four straight lines.  Now a step further.  If you have three dimensions, you can then build what we call a solid body: say, a cube – a thing like a dice or a lump of sugar.  And a cube is made up of six squares.

Do you see the point?  A world of one dimension would be a straight line.  In a two dimensional world, you still get straight lines, but many lines make one figure.  In a three dimensional world, you still get figures but many figures make one solid body.  In other words, as you advance to more real and more complicated levels, you do not leave behind you the things you found on the simpler levels: you still have them, but combined in new ways - in ways you could not imagine if you knew only the simpler levels.

Now the Christian account of God involves just the same principle.  The human level is a simple level and rather empty level.  On the human level one person is one being, and any two persons are two separate beings – just as, in two dimensions (say on a flat sheet of paper) one square is one figure, and any two squares are two separate figures.  On the Divine level you still find personalities; but up there you find them combined in new ways which we, who do not live on that level, cannot imagine.  In God’s dimension, so to speak, you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube.  Of course we cannot fully conceive a Being like that:  just as, if we were so made that we perceived only two dimensions in space we could never properly imagine a cube.  But we can get a sort of faint notion of it.  And when we do, we are then, for the first time in our lives, getting some positive idea, however faint, of something super-personal – something more than a person.  It is something we could never have guessed, and yet, once we have been told, one almost feels one ought to have been able to guess it because it fits in so well with all the things we know already.

You may ask, ‘If we cannot imagine a three-personal Being, what is the good of talking about Him.  The thing that matters is being actually drawn into that three-personal life, and that may begin any time – tonight, if you like."

I will not be surprised if this goes above your head knowing that you may struggle to comprehend this simple analogy.

Well at least you know what an analogy is.  
This ANALOGY does not go over my head, thank you. Just as much as the Chronicles of Narnia doesn't go over my head.
This is simply an analogy with the use of simple geometric concepts.  It fails to prove anything scientifically.  Also, you do not understand what science is.
Please give me your definition of science.

Image123:

@olaadegbu
i'm seeing things oh my brother. i still do pray that God will not give them up, but open their eyes to the Light.
1Timothy 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Timothy 6:21  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
May God's grace continue to be with you, and keep you from erring. Amen.

Amen.  As Christians we continue to swim against the flow but our labour is not in vain in the Lord.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/

particles:

Well at least you know what an analogy is.
This ANALOGY does not go over my head, thank you. Just as much as the Chronicles of Narnia doesn't go over my head.
This is simply an analogy with the use of simple geometric concepts. It fails to prove anything scientifically. Also, you do not understand what science is.
Please give me your definition of science.

I should be the one asking you the definition of science. It was a Christian who developed the scientific method that you guys are now singing about and he got his idea from the Bible. The belief in particles-to-people evolution is not necessary to understanding biology sciences. It is not even helpful nor has it made any technological advances. A belief in molecules-to-man evolution is not necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate or how plants and animals function. No medical research benefited from a belief in evolution.

OLAADEGBU:

Read the suggested link below why Evolution is a religion and not science.

http://www.icr.org/article/455/

Creationism is not science, it is a religious belief.  There is no demonstrable evidence that the universe was created by a supernatural being.  Creationism is rejected by the scientific community and evolution is accepted by it.
I am going to say this one more time, since you are so monumentally freaking frustrating to have a discussion with.
1. Atheism is not a religion or a worldview.  It is simply a rejection to the claim that a particular god exists.  We are all atheists in some form.  You are an atheist when referring to any other religious gods, like the Hindu gods or the Greek gods.  I am an atheist when referring to all gods since there is no demonstrable evidence to say otherwise.  Analogies, verses in the Bible, the Bible itself, so called "miracles" (which cannot be tested), diagrams that just have words on them are not forms of demonstrable evidence.
2. Evolution is a scientific theory (a FACT!) and is not a religion or worldview. It does not seek out to explain the origin of life or even to prove or disprove god's existence.  It is simply an explanation of how organisms change over time.

You do not know what science is, so you do not have the right to claim that it confirms that validity of the bible or that god exists.
I am done with your ignorance.
Whenever you do find out what science actually is and that it can be used to demonstrate that your Bronze Age beliefs are true, you will be be ready to have an intelligent and rational conversation with me  

Real Scientists Who Believe

Most of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science were biblical Christians who were creationists.  Note the following sampling:

Physics:  Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay

Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur

Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz

Astronomy: Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder

"These men, as well as scores of others who could be mentioned, were creationists, not evolutionists, and their names are practically synonymous with the rise of modern science.  To them, the scientific enterprise was a high calling, one dedicated to thinking God's thoughts after Him."

-- A creationist and theologian, Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science?

Here is another quote from Arthur H. Compton, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics:

"Science is the glimpse of God's purpose in nature.  The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything . . . An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God . . .'" 

Johann Kepler:

"The chief aim of all investigation of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God."

Lord Kelvin: 

"With regard to the origin of life, science . . . positively affirms creative power."

Sir Isaac Newton: 

"All material things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid particles above mentioned, variously associated in the first creation by the counsel of an intelligent Agent.  For it became Him who created them to set them in order.  And if He did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature."

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

-- Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," New Scientist

And this is what a Jewish scientist who was obviously influenced by the Jewish Scriptures had to say:

Albert Einstein:

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with inspiration toward truth and understanding.  This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."

Most of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science where biblical Christians who were creationists.  Note the following sampling:

In terms of that belief they were wrong. It is not the first time. Furthermore, Isaac Newton was a Unitarian/Alchemist. This was a fact he keep secret from fear of persecution from other Christians. I do not think I have to explain to you what happened to Galileo when his belief of a Heliocentric model clashed with the mainstream biblical view at the time. Also you may be interested in the list of scientist that profess a belief in Christianity AND Evolution. I will dig it up after I finish with my work.

Image123:

@olaadegbu
i'm seeing things oh my brother. i still do pray that God will not give them up, but open their eyes to the Light.
1Timothy 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
1Timothy 6:21  Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
May God's grace continue to be with you, and keep you from erring. Amen.

@thehomerOfcourse, i know that Leviticus 13 &14 talk about leprosy. The question is "where does it point to the cure/treatment?" You asked for the biblical cure for leprosy, and i showed you that it is faith in God, i gave you examples in the New testament and Old testament. You said NO, the cure is in Leviticus, Okay show us this cure. Highlight, color, bolden the verse or part that says this is the cure/treatment for leprosy, or that says "do this and your leprosy will be cured". You can't show it because it's not there. Be humble enough to accept that you were wrong.i know the place/S. i want to be sure if you know the place, or have read the place. If you can explain what the place means.

What do they actually say about leprosy? Why do you think they were being advised to play with animal blood? The cure is not a single verse but the verses 1 - 32 of Leviticus 14 which I pasted there when you kept whining that you couldn't find it. I've explained to you that it gives the procedure for curing leprosy so it's up to you to say what [b]you [/b]understand from it.

OLAADEGBU:

I should be the one asking you the definition of science. It was a Christian who developed the scientific method that you guys are now singing about and he got his idea from the Bible. The belief in particles-to-people evolution is not necessary to understanding biology sciences. It is not even helpful nor has it made any technological advances. A belief in molecules-to-man evolution is not necessary to understand how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate or how plants and animals function. No medical research benefited from a belief in evolution.

Even if the scientific method was devised by a Christian, that would simply be committing the genetic fallacy. The fact that a method was devised by a Christian does not make it right or wrong. Neither does it make Christianity right or wrong. Each of these features stand on their own evidence.
As usual, you have still refused to understand or are deliberately misstating what evolution actually deals with.

OLAADEGBU:

Real Scientists Who Believe

Most of the great scientists of the past who founded and developed the key disciplines of science where biblical Christians who were creationists.  Note the following sampling:

Physics:  Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry: Boyle, Dalton, Pascal, Ramsay

Biology: Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur

Geology: Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Agassiz

Astronomy: Kepler, Galileo, Herschel, Maunder

"These men, as well as scores of others who could be mentioned, were creationists, not evolutionists, and their names are practically synonymous with the rise of modern science.  To them, the scientific enterprise was a high calling, one dedicated to thinking God's thoughts after Him."

-- A creationist and theologian, Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science?

Here is another quote from Arthur H. Compton, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics:

"Science is the glimpse of God's purpose in nature.  The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything . . . An orderly universe testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In the beginning, God . . .'" 

Johann Kepler:

"The chief aim of all investigation of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God."

Lord Kelvin: 

"With regard to the origin of life, science . . . positively affirms creative power."

Sir Isaac Newton: 

"All material things seem to have been composed of the hard and solid particles above mentioned, variously associated in the first creation by the counsel of an intelligent Agent.  For it became Him who created them to set them in order.  And if He did so, it's unphilosophical to seek for any other origin of the world, or to pretend that it might arise out of a chaos by the mere laws of nature."

"An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

-- Michael Ruse, "Darwin's Theory: An Exercise in Science," New Scientist

And this is what a Jewish scientist who was obviously influenced by the Jewish Scriptures had to say:

Albert Einstein:

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with inspiration toward truth and understanding.  This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of Religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith."

Again with lists and quotes.
Have you forgotten the thousands of current scientists who with reason dismiss creationism?
You seem to have a predilection for the naturalistic fallacy and above, I've explained why you fall into it repeatedly. You need to realize that when a fallacy is pointed out in your argument, if you wish to argue using reason, then it behooves you to either stop using that argument or to modify it so it doesn't fail based on the demonstrated fallacy.

You also fall into appeals to authority when you simply quote some people. I've addressed this habit of yours on another thread yet you keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

@thehomer
You should have simply asked me to explain it to you. The passage talks of cleansing rites that WERE to be observed AFTER leprosy was healed or cured. i see you've conveniently ignored the other parts of the post, that's quite wise of you.
Why should someone not refer to people's words and thoughts, yet you find it RIGHT to refer to links and webpages, is this not double standards?

@ OLAADEGBU >>> the converse of your topic is also true >>> The Bible confirms Science >>> it is thru both that we make progress >>> I must say that since that old conversation we had upon the tripartite nature of God expressed through Natire : I have never been the same again >>> Few, if any, religionists (including Christians) tasks their minds as to who God is ?

"Oblivion and Eternity are 2 forms of the same thing: Infinity"
- Uyi Iredia

@olaadegbu

Maybe if you did a bit of honest enquiry and not just on creationist websites you will find the overwhelming amount of peer reviewed evidence in support of science.
Did you watch the documentary i posted earlier?

Here it is again.
Everything and Nothing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHPx4YezdE

I would love to heard you opinion on it and if you learned anything from it.

If you believe that science confirms the bible, why is it that science says the earth is about 4 billion years old and the universe about 13 billion years old?

How old do you think the earth is?

Image123:

@thehomer
You should have simply asked me to explain it to you. The passage talks of cleansing rites that WERE to be observed AFTER leprosy was healed or cured. i see you've conveniently ignored the other parts of the post, that's quite wise of you.
Why should someone not refer to people's words and thoughts, yet you find it RIGHT to refer to links and webpages, is this not double standards?

Cleansing rites after leprosy is cured? If the person is cured, then what are they cleansing?
What did I ignore? You already claimed the cardinal points were corners whereas they aren't. You may interpret anything you want anyhow you want but then, I guess that's all the Bible is good for. A nice big Ouija board.

Idehn:

In terms of that belief they were wrong. It is not the first time. Furthermore, Isaac Newton was a Unitarian/Alchemist. This was a fact he keep secret from fear of persecution from other Christians. I do not think I have to explain to you what happened to Galileo when his belief of a Heliocentric model clashed with the mainstream biblical view at the time.

Isaac Newton was not an evolutionist he believed in the creative work of God as well as the Bible.  This is why it would be a good idea to read responses to allegations that has been clearly refuted in the earlier posts.

OLAADEGBU:

Skeptics often try to ridicule the Bible by saying that the Christian Church persecuted Galileo when he maintained that the earth circled the sun. As a professor of astronomy at the University of Pisa, Galileo was required to teach the accepted theory of his time that the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. Later at the University of Padua he was exposed to a new theory, proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, that the Earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. Galileo's observations with his new telescope convinced him of the truth of Copernicus' sun - centred theory. Galileo's support for the heliocentric theory got him into trouble with the Roman Catholic church. In 1633 during the inquisition he was convicted of heresy and ordered to publicly withdraw his support for Corpernicus. The Roman Catholic church sentenced him to life imprisonment, but because of his advanced age allowed him to serve his term under house arrest at his villa outside of Florence, Italy. The Christian Church therefore should not be blamed for his imprisonment. It was the Roman Catholic church that persecuted Galileo.

Idehn:

Also you may be interested in the list of scientist that profess a belief in Christianity AND Evolution. I will dig it up after I finish with my work.

I am only interested in uncompromising scientists who believe in truth and are committed to real science. 

The Bible has all the answers to man's questions

These scientists believe the truth as their starting point and go on to think God's thought after Him while they carry out observational science.

1.  Who created?------------God

2.  What was created?  ----All things

3.  How was it created?--- By His Power

4.  When was it created?—In the beginning

5.  How long did it take to Create?-- 6 days

Some top and highly qualified Hebrew scholars, who are called lexigraphers wrote in the most widely recognised Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries, published in the 20th century says that the creation days written in the book of Genesis are literal days.

Below is a partial list of scientists who believe in the Bible's account of creation as is recorded in the Bible and through their professional fields have come to the scientific conclusion that confirms the Bible's account:

Danny Faulkner         Ph.D.  Astronomy
John Byl                     Ph.D.  Astronomy
Tom Greene               Ph.D.  Astronomy
James Dire                 Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Dave Harrison            Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd               Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones     Th.D., Ph.D.  Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt                    Ph.D.  Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole                Ph.D.  Semitic languages
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon
Georgia Purdon          Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish                Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton            Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick          Ph.D.  Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene              Ph.D.  Astronomy
Jason Lisle                Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys   Ph.D  Physics
Don DeYoung            Ph.D.  Physics
Terry Mortenson       Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner   Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton            Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh         Ph.D.  Combustion Theory
John Johnson           Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel          M.D.
Andrew Snelling       Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre           Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su                 Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt           Ph.D. Neuroscience

mantraa:

@olaadegbu

Maybe if you did a bit of honest enquiry and not just on creationist websites you will find the overwhelming amount of peer reviewed evidence in support of science.
Did you watch the documentary i posted earlier?

Here it is again.
Everything and Nothing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHPx4YezdE

I would love to heard you opinion on it and if you learned anything from it.

If you believe that science confirms the bible, why is it that science says the earth is about 4 billion years old and the universe about 13 billion years old?

How old do you think the earth is?

I take my authority from the Bible while you take yours from fallible, sinful human ideaologies. If the fairytale you wrote above is to be taken as science then what was the repeatable experiment you conducted to arrive at the age you gave for both the universe and the earth? What are their origins or rather, where did it originate from?

Uyi Iredia:

@ OLAADEGBU >>> the converse of your topic is also true >>> The Bible confirms Science >>> it is thru both that we make progress >>> I must say that since that old conversation we had upon the tripartite nature of God expressed through Natire : I have never been the same again >>> Few, if any, religionists (including Christians) tasks their minds as to who God is ?

"Oblivion and Eternity are 2 forms of the same thing: Infinity"
- Uyi Iredia

I glorify the Lord that you were blessed on the subject of the nature of God.  This shows that you hunger and thirst for the truth of God's Word and may He continually meet you at the point of your needs.  Amen.

It is also true that through the biblical account of creation and real science that we can make progress. The Bible stands on it's own and does not need science to confirm it but it is interesting to see how it supports the claims made in the Bible. But I must say, science is still playing catch up with the revealed Word of God. God has originated everything in nature but scientists have to make their own discoveries. Science uses observation and experimentation to draw conclusions about nature and this is the nature of observational science which involves repeatable experimentation and observation in the present. Evolutionists cannot say this.

Scientific Evidence That Demands A Creator God.

There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from.  By way of the elimination we will arrive at our destination. 

[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.  That 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 that:

3. The universe was created:  

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

Science confirms the Bible.  Simples.

OLAADEGBU:

I am only interested in uncompromising scientists who believe in truth and are committed to real science. 

The Bible has all the answers to man's questions

These scientists believe the truth as their starting point and go on to think God's thought after Him while they carry out observational science.

1.  Who created?------------God

2.  What was created?  ----All things

3.  How was it created?--- By His Power

4.  When was it created?—In the beginning

5.  How long did it take to Create?-- 6 days

Some top and highly qualified Hebrew scholars, who are called lexigraphers wrote in the most widely recognised Hebrew lexicons and dictionaries, published in the 20th century says that the creation days written in the book of Genesis are literal days.

Below is a partial list of scientists who believe in the Bible's account of creation as is recorded in the Bible and through their professional fields have come to the scientific conclusion that confirms the Bible's account:

Danny Faulkner         Ph.D.  Astronomy
John Byl                     Ph.D.  Astronomy
Tom Greene               Ph.D.  Astronomy
James Dire                 Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Dave Harrison            Ph.D. Astrophysics
Steven Boyd               Ph.D. Hebraic and Cognitive Studies
Floyd Nolen Jones     Th.D., Ph.D.  Author of Chronology of the Old Testament
Herb Hirt                    Ph.D.  Biblical Exposition
Robert Cole                Ph.D.  Semitic languages
Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon
Georgia Purdon          Ph.D. Molecular Genetics
Duane Gish                Ph.D. Biochemistry
David Menton            Ph.D. Cell Biology
Donald Chittick          Ph.D.  Physical Chemistry
Tom Greene              Ph.D.  Astronomy
Jason Lisle                Ph.D.  Astrophysics
Russell Humphreys   Ph.D  Physics
Don DeYoung            Ph.D.  Physics
Terry Mortenson       Ph.D. History of Geology
John baumgardner   Ph.D. Geophysics
Bob Compton            Ph.D. Physiology, DVM
Andy McIntosh         Ph.D.  Combustion Theory
John Johnson           Ph.D. Mathematics
Tommy Mitchel          M.D.
Andrew Snelling       Ph.D. Geology
Emil Silvestre           Ph.D. Geology
Esther Su                 Ph.D. Biochemistry
David DeWitt           Ph.D. Neuroscience

Not this again? I've presented you with project Steve in the past. It's very interesting that there are so few biologists who actually support this creationism.
By the way, what was the universe created from?

OLAADEGBU:

Scientific Evidence That Demands A Creator God.

There are only three possibilities from where the universe can come from.  By way of the elimination we will arrive at our destination. 

[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.  That 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 that:

3. The universe was created:  

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

Science confirms the Bible.  Simples.

There are only three possibilities from where God can come from.
a) God created himself,
b) God has always existed,
c) God was created.

a) Things cannot create themselves therefore God could not have created himself.
b) God could not have always existed because minds are not eternal. Which leaves only one explanation.
c) God was created by man as he evolved.

thehomer:

There are only three possibilities from where God can come from.
a) God created himself,
b) God has always existed,
c) God was created.

a) Things cannot create themselves therefore God could not have created himself.
b) God could not have always existed because minds are not eternal. Which leaves only one explanation.
c) God was created by man as he evolved.

How will you construct this word into a sentence?  GODISNOTHING.  Your evolutionary mindsets will most likely to come up with a sentence like this: GOD IS NOTHING.  But a Christian with a creation worldview is likely to see GOD IS NO THING.  I hope you can now see that God is not a thing.

In essence what you are saying is: where did God come from?  You and your fellows ask this because you misunderstand the nature of God.  You are suggesting that God is bound by the universe and that God is part of the chain of effects within time, all of which require a cause.  For your information, God does not require a cause since He has always existed, He is beyond time, that is, He is outside of time T, and is not part of the physical universe.  God is a Spirit, not a sequence of energetic reactions, and so the laws of thermodynamics does not apply to Him.

"Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is none like Me" -- Isaiah 46:9

God is no thing!

OLAADEGBU:

How will you construct this word into a sentence?  GODISNOTHING.  Your evolutionary mindsets will most likely to come up with a sentence like this: GOD IS NOTHING.  But a Christian with a creation worldview is likely to see GOD IS NO THING.  I hope you can now see that God is not a thing.

In essence what you are saying is: where did God come from?  You and your fellows ask this because you misunderstand the nature of God.  You are suggesting that God is bound by the universe and that God is part of the chain of effects within time, all of which require a cause.  For your information, God does not require a cause since He has always existed, He is beyond time, that is, He is outside of time T, and is not part of the physical universe.  God is a Spirit, not a sequence of energetic reactions, and so the laws of thermodynamics does not apply to Him.

"Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is none like Me" -- Isaiah 46:9

Sooooo you simply do not have an answer.
Just to let you know, when you say God is no thing, that is yet another way of saying God is nothing because nothing is no thing.

thehomer:

Sooooo you simply do not have an answer.

How will you see the answer with those opaque evolution goggles?  Let me try again since you are on image123's scholarship because you have to pass this exam o.  Everything that has a beginning must have an end.   The universe has a beginning and therefore must have an end.  God does not have a beginning and therefore does not have an end.  God is living outside of time, space and matter, this means that He can see the past, present and future in one stretch because He created it.  That is why I can be confident in His revealed counsels that tells us how He created the universe, and this is by divine imperative (Ex-Nihilo) and His prediction of when it is going to be consumed by fire in the future Gen.1; 2Peter 3.   God lives in "eternity" which is the life time of the never dying God.  He is the Alpha and Omega, The beginning and The End, The First and The Last. Revelation 22:13.

thehomer:

Just to let you know, when you say God is no thing, that is yet another way of saying God is nothing because nothing is no thing.

As long as you are fixated on those goggles by which you view the evidence you will always see men as trees.  Let me give you an assignment.  What do you see in this word?  

GODISNOWHERE

How will you construct a sentence using the space button where appropriate?

Input-Output.

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/creationwise/InputOutput.gif[/img]

Archaeology confirms the accuracy of the Bible:

Following the 1993 discovery in Israel of a stone containing the inscriptions "House of David" and "King of Israel,"  
Time magazine stated:

"This writing -- dated to the 9th century B.C., only a century after David's reign -- described a victory by a neighbouring king over the Israelites . . . The skeptics' claim that David never existed is now hard to defend." 

-- Time, December 18, 1995

OLAADEGBU:

How will you see the answer with those opaque evolution goggles?  Let me try again since you are on image123's scholarship because you have to pass this exam o.  Everything that has a beginning must have an end.   The universe has a beginning and therefore must have an end.  God does not have a beginning and therefore does not have an end.  God is living outside of time, space and matter, this means that He can see the past, present and future in one stretch because He created it.  That is why I can be confident in His revealed counsels that tells us how He created the universe, and this is by divine imperative (Ex-Nihilo) and His prediction of when it is going to be consumed by fire in the future Gen.1; 2Peter 3.   God lives in "eternity" which is the life time of the never dying God.  He is the Alpha and Omega, The beginning and The End, The First and The Last. Revelation 22:13.

How do you know God does not have a beginning? Did he tell you or are you simply imagining it?
Can you really say God is alive? If he cannot die then can he be alive?
For something to be alive, it has to at least have time so if God is outside of time, then he is not alive.
Divine imperative. In other words, magic out of nothing. Do you realize this violates the scientific laws you're attempting to use to prove that he did this?
How did he reveal this? Did he whisper it to you? Please don't point to the Bible because that would simply be an insult to even assign that to a person not to speak of an omnipotent etc God.

OLAADEGBU:

As long as you are fixated on those goggles by which you view the evidence you will always see men as trees.  Let me give you an assignment.  What do you see in this word?  

GODISNOWHERE

How will you construct a sentence using the space button where appropriate?

Input-Output.

What is the relevance? How would any answer here aid in showing whether or not science confirms the Bible?

OLAADEGBU:

Archaeology confirms the accuracy of the Bible:

Following the 1993 discovery in Israel of a stone containing the inscriptions "House of David" and "King of Israel,"  
Time magazine stated:

"This writing -- dated to the 9th century B.C., only a century after David's reign -- described a victory by a neighbouring king over the Israelites . . . The skeptics' claim that David never existed is now hard to defend." 

-- Time, December 18, 1995

How about some archaeological evidence of the stories of Moses and the Jews in Egypt? And Noah's ark?

thehomer:
 
How do you know God does not have a beginning? Did he tell you or are you simply imagining it?
Can you really say God is alive? If he cannot die then can he be alive?

Your questions are oxymoronic.  You are asking me to describe to you the aroma of Coffee, can you?  And if you can't does that mean that Coffee doesn't exist?  Try describing a red colour to a person born blind.

thehomer:

For something to be alive, it has to at least have time so if God is outside of time, then he is not alive.

When would you learn that God is not something?  God is a Spirit who lives in eternity, He created this universe which comprises of time, space and matter.  What part of that don't you get?

thehomer:

Divine imperative. In other words, magic out of nothing. Do you realize this violates the scientific laws you're attempting to use to prove that he did this?
How did he reveal this? Did he whisper it to you? Please don't point to the Bible because that would simply be an insult to even assign that to a person not to speak of an omnipotent etc God.

 
What law is violated?  God, the law-giver is above and beyond the natural laws He gives but that does not mean that He contradicts it, it just means that He is on a higher level.  Natural laws are not the limit of what is possible and God is not bound by natural laws.  If you want to know more about the nature of God read your Bible because I know that in your heart of heart you know God exists it is just that you don't want to believe Him.

thehomer:

What is the relevance? How would any answer here aid in showing whether or not science confirms the Bible?

Let me tell you what you fail to admit.  What you will see is God is nowhere because of your evolution spectacles with which you use to view the evidence but if you will see from another point of view you will see God is now here.  Look at that cartoon I posted earlier and see why you see and think the way you think.

thehomer:

How about some archaeological evidence of the stories of Moses and the Jews in Egypt? And Noah's ark?

What have you done with all the evidences that has been presented, do you now believe them?

OLAADEGBU:

Your questions are oxymoronic.  You are asking me to describe to you the aroma of Coffee, can you?  And if you can't does that mean that Coffee doesn't exist?  Try describing a red colour to a person born blind.

How was the question an oxymoron?
The first two were requests for your evidence.
The second two were simple logical inference on what it is to be considered a living object.

OLAADEGBU:

When would you learn that God is not something?  God is a Spirit who lives in eternity, He created this universe which comprises of time, space and matter.  What part of that don't you get?

If God is not something then a spirit is not something. This of course means that a spirit is nothing. Which of course implies that nothing created the universe etc.

OLAADEGBU:

What law is violated?  God, the law-giver is above and beyond the natural laws He gives but that does not mean that He contradicts it, it just means that He is on a higher level.  Natural laws are not the limit of what is possible and God is not bound by natural laws.  If you want to know more about the nature of God read your Bible because I know that in your heart of heart you know God exists it is just that you don't want to believe Him.

Rubbish you're just making up things as you go along. I say it is Quetzyl that created the universe and commanded the laws. Who knows maybe your God is this Quetzyl?

OLAADEGBU:

Let me tell you what you fail to admit.  What you will see is God is nowhere because of your evolution spectacles with which you use to view the evidence but if you will see from another point of view you will see God is now here.  Look at that cartoon I posted earlier and see why you see and think the way you think.

So seeing things now means God is everywhere? Please you really need to avoid thinking and presenting arguments to support your views this way. They make it look as though you're just not serious and really have nothing to say.

OLAADEGBU:

What have you done with all the evidences that has been presented, do you now believe them?

I already pointed out to you that what you consider scientific evidence simply isn't scientific evidence some are just mere assertions on your part. Others just misquoting your Bible and other poor tricks.