Science Disproves Evolution

I will agree that there are a lot of unanswered questions about the origin of the universe - that has absolutely nothing to do with a debate about evolution - evolution and cosmology are separate fields and the proof or lack thereof of a big bang does not have any impact on evolution, which does not speculate on the origins of the universe.
As to the specific points above - we cannot look around us and say - this is a problem with the big bang therefore God. Scientists look for problems with theories - then propose counter theories that are either proven correct or false - that information then gets incorporated into the overall theory and mankind's collective knowledge of the universe around him increases. To say this is a problem therefore we must abandon all research and say it was magic sends us back to the dark ages. If you want to go down that route then you must abandon all the scientific research that enriches our lives.

As opposed to a belief that a magician said some magic words and *POOF* all life just happened to come into existence. To be honest if God created us the way we are now - It did a pretty poor job

You can't be a Christian without being a creationist. The two go hand-in-hand. That'd be like saying you're an atheist but you believe Zues exists.

Wow, the troll only got 3 posts. This must be a new record for the mods. Hope they keep up the good work.

Genesis 1:1. If they don't believe God created, then they simply aren't Christians, only "Christians."

Also, thanks for admitting that evolution and creationism are at opposite ends. Usually atheists will try and throw evolution under the bus when they're cornered, saying things like "well, it's not like they can't co-exist" or "disproving evolution doesn't help creationism in any way."

Your myths about events from "billions of years ago" is not a fact, no matter how many times you claim it is and no matter how many people ("Christian" or otherwise) believe the way you do.

Biological evolution does not examine the cosmos and vice versa.

A noted evolutionist has frankly admitted the following:

"Although we may recognize the frailties of Christian dogma and deplore the unconscionable persecution of thought which is one of the less appetizing aspects of medieval history, we must also observe that in one of those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself.

"Many things undoubtedly went into the amalgam: Greek logic and philosophy, the experimental methods of craftsmen in the arts as opposed to the aristocratic thinker - all these things have been debated. But perhaps the most curious element of them all is the factor dwelt upon by Whitehead - THE SHEER ACT OF FAITH THAT THE UNIVERSE POSSESSED ORDER AND COULD BE INTERPRETED BY RATIONAL MINDS.

"For Whitehead rightly observes, the philosophy of experimental science was not impressive. It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He has set in operation.

"The experimental method succeeded beyond men's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something to the Christian concept of the nature of God. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origin to an act of faith that the Universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

(Darwin's Century, Dr. Loren Eiseley, 1959, p.62) (A.N. Whitehead, "Science and the Modern World, Mentor Book., 1948, pp 4-17)

Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

Also God believes in creation!

Not everyone on here believes in creationism (at least the 6,000 year old, stratification was caused by flooding brand). Is that your definition? Or is creationism simply believing in a creator?

There is organic evolution and there is cosmic evolution. The notion of a Big Bang deals with the latter. When you assert that there was a primordial atom at the beginning, you are asserting the eternal existence of matter. That notion cannot be supported by science.

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed.

You are stating that logically all things must be created because everything must have a cause - so creationism is true with an uncaused cause (God) creating it. That does not make sense. If you want to follow this logic correctly then you must ask what caused God to exist. You state science is wrong in assuming that the universe could have spontaneously come into being yet assert that a God could do the same - there is an internal logical inconsistency there

There is no logical problem with saying God has no cause. In fact it is very illogical to state that everything must have a cause because for that to be true there would be an infinite number of causes. A happened because of B. B happened because of C. C happened because of D. and so on infinitely.

It is far more logical to assume at some point there was no cause, and that is God. I believe C.S. Lewis dealt with this in his book "Mere Christianity".

I did not say everything must have a cause. Take another look. I said "All things that came into existence were caused to exist."

There is no internal logical inconsistency. You are comparing apples with snakes. The universe is physical. God is spiritual. That is a huge difference.

In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”

Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.

Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

Seeing things from God’s infinite perspective is probably as hard for us as it is for a dog or cat to understand what is on this printed page. If God is infinite and we are His finite creations, our limited understanding and perspective should not surprise us.

How else do we know that time began? The Bible is the most widely read book of all time. Within it, the most read page is probably the first page of Genesis. The first three words on that page

“In the beginning ...”

are probably the best-known group of three words of all time—the single, most widely proclaimed idea. By reading the fourth word, one sees that God was there at the beginning.

Another key insight comes from John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Again, there was a beginning; we are also told Who was there when time began. Verses 1:2, 3, and 14 clarify these profound events even more.


In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - References and Notes

Seriously, why is it the same old atheists go up to Christians daily and ask the "What caused God" question, pretending the Christians can't possibly have an answer, while ignoring the answer Christian give. Then they come back or go to other Christians asking them the same thing, still pretending as if it somehow blows a hole in Christian theology and still pretending the Christians don't have an answer.

I find it humorous that atheists claim to be logical and then use impossible logic to prove their case.

You know how some people define insanity as "doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result." I think it's more like that.