BoddhiBody

CUT In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...? hope it helps This is, for want of a better word, crap. You're ascribing layers of superficial, faulty analogous meaning to complicate or manipulate something to a point beyond what it is. Genes are not ''software'', nor are they bound by the rules of computer code. You've no idea what your'e talking about and nor does anybody who spouts this nonsense. Read some real scientific papers, written by a vast majority of worldwide qualified scientists who, funnily enough, have provided and continue to provide overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection. ========================================================================================= A well thought out and measured response; detail oriented. CUT An appeal to popularity (the informal fallacy) is different from an appeal to the overwhelming majority of QUALIFIED scientists specializing in their fields who attest to the validity of the theory of evolution by natural selection and its overwhelming evidence. You assert evolutionary theory isn't science. Give me one peer reviewed & published paper that states such. People who are qualified, doctored, or mastered, in their fields, have AUTHORITY, or ETHOS, expunge relevant logic (or logos) without the inflection of PATHOS (appeal to emotion). You assert that they are wrong, and you are right, but you cannot give any evidence as to why. In fact, all you're doing is misapplying logical premises to support your own viewpoint. The majority of doctored scientists agree that evolution by natural selection happened. You do not agree with them, but you are not QUALIFIED enough to present an argument that disproves what they say. See this website "an Index to Creationist Claims", where every creationist argument I've ever read is explored in detail, backed up and referenced to peer-reviewed published content by QUALIFIED scientists. Evolutionary theory is not science? Scientists disagree: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IIFnotscience.shtml

You forgot to read the rest: When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of vox populi, vox dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory - Darwin

CUT In other words, Show Stupid Atoms Creating Their Own Software...? hope it helps This is, for want of a better word, crap. You're ascribing layers of superficial, faulty analogous meaning to complicate or manipulate something to a point beyond what it is. Genes are not ''software'', nor are they bound by the rules of computer code. You've no idea what your'e talking about and nor does anybody who spouts this nonsense. Read some real scientific papers, written by a vast majority of worldwide qualified scientists who, funnily enough, have provided and continue to provide overwhelming evidence for evolution by natural selection.

Beyond the laws of nature; outside existence. "supernatural" is the biggest, fattest, silliest oxymoron in the English dictionary.

To look at everything that exists, that is the material, physical, energetic state of all the universe, which is space-time and its parts and facets; energy and motion; gravity and forces; is inherently to look at all the "stuff" of our existence. Throughout that study, we glean evidence from physical and natural conditions and bases, then form systems and conclusions based on that evidence. You can't create logical systems from illogical premises. We look at the chemicals and forces and phenomena that make up our universe and we deduce from them logical conclusions and systems that work. And a system's "workability" is proof of its validity. One plus one equals two; E=MC2; gravity causes masses of things to be drawn towards objects of larger mass; genes precede physical characteristics. None of it requires anything other than itself; it does not require something supernatural and in fact we have no evidence of anything such. Supernatural notions are superfluous to existence in any purely logical paradigm of thought. Supernaturalism is surplus. There's absolutely no evidence for the supernatural at all. Your problem is that logic is not sufficient for you. You look at the raindrops and you ask what existential purpose they have, whereas I look at the raindrops and know that the antecedent factors that led to their becoming are as far as reason will actually take me. Anything beyond that is pure speculation. "What existential meaning has it in a world created just for me" is a reprehensibly silly question. It is like asking "what emotion is a cloud?" The issue, really, is that the universe, from all logical deduction, is utterly indifferent to both you and I, and that scares you. Surely, I know more than most that self-realization is a cruel price to pay for an upper hand over the apes, but here is my thought on this: If the universe is oblivious to me, which it is, then it has never offered me existential purpose. Never has, and it never will. And that makes it all the more important that I forge my own purpose from it. If I concede that I mean nothing to the universe, then the people on this planet become everything to me. You say that we, atheists, evolutionary scientists, have a prior commitment to materialism. We're immoral little creatures and surely I imagine that you think you are the moral cure. No, that is not true. What is true is this: Every single "thing" that we observe, see and deduce from, is a "thing" in a material sense. It is impossible for any observable, deductable thing to be immaterial. How can you deduce something from a thing that is not? Everything that IS, IS. And "materialism" in a scientific sense is just that. I have from logic, forged a reasonable motivation to help this planet, a reason for compassion. How can that be? It is because, in the end, your purpose is not cosmic, nor is it from some exterior force, nor is mine. It is self-driven and self--determined just as all of our's are. Your horse neighs and if I could speak horse I'm sure it would be saying "I am not as tall a horse as you think I am. Unsaddle me".

it depends what you mean when you say ''more human-like''. Apes, on the entire scale of different organisms, are the most human like our of them all. They share over 90% of their genetic codes with humans, and some are closer than others. If you mean ''why don't modern apes evolve more like humans'', it's the same reason we still have fish that haven't evolved amphibian traits. Some fish, in certain habitats, never got the mutations that led to them being amphibians, while others did. The idea of natural selection actually affirms itself in this regard. More human-like apes were killed out by smarter human beings whose mutations were selected over other homo species. Not every organism of various fish species will have mutated along the bearings that lead to amphibian traits, and nor is it necessary for all the organisms within a species to do so for evolution to be valid. Some of them will have done so, and they will have procreated and furthered their mutations. Some of those will have mutated further. That's why we have species of fish that are genetically closer to amhibians than other species of fish. That's why we have certain apes that are genetically closer to humans than others. Not every organism of a certain species evolves down the same evolutionary direction. Two apes. One is born with a genetic mutation that gives them a large neocortex and another is not. The one with the neocortex passes its genes on down a certain lineage, and so that lineage has a larger neocortex than other apes. Those are two evolutionary different creatures, yet both exist simultaneously. You need to be aware that organisms in one species are not ever genetically identical unless they are twins or reproduce asexually. in fact, every human on Earth (except for twins, triplets etc) share slightly different DNA. Some humans are, genetically, closer to apes than others, and some apes are, genetically, closer to humans than others. The scientific definition of ''theory'' and the common-use definition of ''theory'' aren't the same. In science, a theory is a conceptual framework that supports empirical facts. When it ceases to support fact, it is thus falsified. Evolution is not falsified, in fact it is probably the most extensively supported theory in all science. The evidence of species evolving into other species is self-affirming. We know the deeper strata contain fewer distinct life-forms than the shallower ones, thus more species existed on Earth as time went on. Can you tell me of another scientific mechanism whereby an extremely large diversification can occur as time progresses, if not evolution? It's not just irreligious people that support evolution. More Christians (The Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterians, Methodists etc) support the scientific version of evolution than those who support Young Earth Creationism. The only distinction between most Chrsitians and an irreligious evolutionist is that the Christians credit God with ''sparking it off''. If life's genetic similarities indicate common descent then there's no logical reason there was not a common descendent for all life on Earth. You consider it to be a God, evolutionists consider it to be an organism.

doesn't matter if it was with a microscope. It has been observed, so your point is meaningless. Evidence isn't proof. That the universe is allegedly expanding isn't proof that the universe began a singularity. Did you really say that Evidence is not proof? So if you have evidence that I stole money from a bank (me waving to the security camera on my way in and out) then I cannot be tried and put away for stealing the money right? Because even though you have evidence whether it be the money or footage it isn't proof . . . Yes, evidence isn't proof. Proof requires a different standard. Proof is undeniable. I can prove that the sun exists. I can prove water extinguishes fire. Evidence supports a claim, but it doesn't necessarily prove a claim because the evidence one possesses may not contain all of the facts on a given issue. Evidence supports a claim, but doesn't always tell the whole story. Evidence allows you to make the case that your claim has value, is rational and has a good chance of being true. But there may be evidence (facts) that might work against your claim, as well. It may be that your claim is based on insufficient evidence and in the face of new evidence your claim may need to modified or discarded altogether. It is also important to understand that in a court of law, the standard of "proof" isn't the same as is required in a laboratory. In court, it is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." In court something is "proven" when the preponderance of evidence points in either direction of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Science works from a far more stringent standard of "proof" that may or may not be attainable. Regardless of whatever rambling you keep doing, the facts of the matter are these. The universe is expanding. The universe, like everything else, is ruled by our laws of physics. it is not ruled by laws of physics which are non-existent, or those of some omni-verse we're yet to ever see, nor of universe X whose laws of physics are not so much laws as instructions. Our universe complies with our laws of physics, or rather, our laws of physics comply with our universe. Physical fun-fact number 1: The universe is expanding. This tells us that over time, it expanded, and so at one point, it was unexpanded. Physical fun fact number 2: Time requires motion, space, and stuff. If the universe was hot, dense and motionless, just potential energy, waiting to be released, time itself would not be existent, thus the idea of 'before the universe' is contradictory. Before 'time' is a better analogy. We know that time had a beginning, but evidence suggests the 'stuff' of the universe, in a state without time, had no beginning. That's just logic. A timeless entity cannot 'begin' or 'end', but time can become out of that beginningless, perpetual 'stuff'. Physical fun fact number 3: Every kind of 'stuff', matter or otherwise, has a gravitational negative energy, able to be counteracted by an opposing positive potential energy. The total energy in the universe is a mathematical zero. (The equilibrium zero, not the 'nothingness' zero) Physical fun fact number 4: Because of this zero-energy existence, our universe has never not-existed. Time, on the other hand, did have a beginning. If you imply God was the driving force behind the expansion of dense matters, thus beginning 'time', then there need be no contradiction between big-bang and bible. Though, 7 'yom' is more likely 7 eons than 7 days.

They aren't a rehash of the Urey experiments. They are completely new experiments. Life did arise from chemical compounds, whether you believe the bible, scientific evidence or both. Science: Life arose from chemical compounds Bible: And he created Adam from the Earth.

Perhaps the Greeks were the first to RECORD their ideas.....anyone who didn't record such things will never be known, even if they were the first. And just like the greeks might have been the first to record the ideas, so to speculate on who did it before is fruitless, so the idea that the 'creation of the Earth was in an infantesimally small time' tries to look 'before' the universe 'existed', thus before time was a factor in it - before there could possible be a 'before' or 'after'. It is silly to look for what exists outside 'existence' itself. As Hawking says: in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical relative quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. It would be like asking for a point south of the South Pole. It is not defined' In other words, it's impossible to find a time before time. It doesn't compute. It doesn't work. It can't work because the concept of time depends on the existence of things and the motion of parts. The universe, in the most broad sense, is an eternal thing. It does not 'begin'. Time certainly begins, but before time is an abstract concept unable to be conceptualized. You can't have something that's 'before' time. Before and after are temporal concepts. Temporarily applied to that without time is just not possible.

The Big Bang isn't a scientific consensus. It's a large majority vote, but unlike evolution there are considerable numbers of reputable scientists who oppose it. Just to get you guys up to speed, the big bang is also not this idea of 'nothing' becoming 'something'. It's to do with super hot, super dense potential energy releasing its potential, not 'nothing' becoming 'something'.

Beloved The Truth Is Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16 A Prideful Boast Of No Fear Is Oh So Unwise I have a message from God in my heart concerning the sinfulness of the wicked: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Psalms 36:1(c-d) (NIV) And Although Science Is Well Understood By Both The Educated And The Common Alike For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 2 Peter 3:5-7 (ESV) Science Metaphysics Is Known By The Rational Folk To Be Lies From The Pit How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT) Lies Deliberately Gossiped About Against Their Creator And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 And Whether One Would Worship Him Our Lord and God, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You have created all things, and because of Your will they exist and were created. Revelation 4:11 (HCSB) Or Would Choose To Bow Down Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 26:1 To Some Idol Made Of Stuff For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens. 1 Chronicles 16:26 Is The Visible Divide The Father loves his Son and has put everything into his hands. And anyone who believes in God’s Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn’t obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God’s angry judgment.” John 3:35-36 (NLT) Between The Wise Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he who is born King of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him." Matthew 2:1-2 (WEB) And Fools But the people replied, "Don't waste your breath. We will continue to live as we want to, stubbornly following our own evil desires." Jeremiah 18:12 (NLT) Clap Clap "For you will go out with joy And be led forth with peace; The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, And all the trees of the field will clap their hands. Isaiah 55:12 (NASB) ~ Believe The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Jeremiah 31:3 And Be Blessed Beloved Your words were found and I ate them, And Your words became for me a joy and the delight of my heart; For I have been called by Your name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16 (NASB) Love Joe You quote 'we shall continue to live as we want to, stubbornly following our own evil desires', as though you know me enough to assume my own desires are evil. What's a follower of Jesus' path if not someone whose very desire is one of ultimate good, and who thus wishes to follow it? Understanding modern science in no way takes away from that. Having reverence for God isn't the same as having fear of dogma formed from misunderstood literature.

On The Metaphysics Of So Called Physics For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12 Where One Universal Law Is Mocked Because Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. Romans 8:21 It Challenges The Pagan Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 1 John 2:15-16 And Their Idol And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. 1 John 2:17 ~ Learn Your Adversary Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c ) And Your Friend For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 I find it unpalatable in regards the ideals of a man, Jesus of Nazareth - in fact I find it blasphemy to the idea of a benevolent and compassionate creator and lover of enemies - for you to insinuate out of assumption that I must be, because I understand some science, a 'lover of the world' who does not wrestle again principalities and powers. The truth is, I wrestle against the power of modern ignorance, whereby the search for the truth is stifled by the same dogmatic and unnecessary fear you try to exhibit in me. I have none of it. You try to instil it in me because you see no other way things can be than the way that you have been taught to believe. But you can't preach to a person who doesn't fear eternal torture, nor to a person who doesn't do all things in their lives to gain some eternal heaven, and ever expect to cause any clinging to your ideas. Even the creature itself will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, as you say. But the jury's out as to which one of us that creature inhabits. It is between me, and God. When you get on your high horse, Jesus rides off on his donkey.

BoddhiBody: 'Stuff' didn't have to come from anywhere. Asking what comes before motion (and therefore time), then making the birth of time synonymous with 'the birth' of energy, is ridiculous. It's even worse to assume the birth of energy equates to the birth of 'stuff'. Stuff exists, existed, always did exist, and always will exist. How's that rub you? Pahu: 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 and 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. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. You don't know what you're talking about. Entropy is the deconstruction of what particular energetic construct arose, usually matter, as evidenced by heat transmission. It is the deconstruction of constructs of energy - leading to disorder. Disorder does not equate to non-existence. Energy cannot be 'used up'. The first law of thermodynamics: The total energy of an isolated system never changes. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Second Law of Thermodynamics The universe is an isolated system, so according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.a A further consequence of the second law is that the universe must have begun in a more organized and complex state than it is today—not in a random, highly disorganized state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory.b a . “The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote.” Jeans, p. 181. b . “A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy? ... The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.” Gordon J. Van Wylen,Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p. 169. u “The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state.”Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry,” Nature, Vol. 304, 7 July 1983, p. 39. “There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state.” Ibid., p. 40. u “The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang.” Huw Price, “Past and Future,” Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html#wp1052519 It pains me how much you misrepresent research, making it conform with research from scientists of different eras whose expanded theories DO NOT COMPLY. "Thermodynamics is an exact science which deals with energy. The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental, best-established laws in all of science. The second law involves a concept known as entropy. Entropy can be understood in terms of energy, disorder, or information. The second law states that the entropy of the universe for any closed system therein, (where an isolated system is one which has neither mass nor energy flow in or out of the system) is increasing. Put differently, the amount of energy available to do work is decreasing and becoming uniformly distributed. The universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy." *B. Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 11. Deconstruction of energy constructs is NOT non-existence of energy. You must understand that the universe's progression is one of OVERALL entropy. The Earth would be considered highly ordered. Most of the universe does not hold that order, and that order decreases. When it decreases fully, the unverse becomes a universe of energy which is in consistent, deconstructed states. "The Law of Energy Conservation—'Energy can be converted from one form into another, but can not be created or destroyed,'—is the most important and best-proved law in science. "This law is considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make." —*Isaac Asimov, "In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even, " Journal of Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, p. 8. ​Learn your physics before you comment any more.

Science Proves God When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic: 1. The universe exists. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe. 4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing. 5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing. 6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause. 7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural. 8. Life exists. 9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis). 10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause. 11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural. Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction. The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind. “Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.” [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown] Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware. Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us. The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell. [From Reincarnation in the Bible?] BoddhiBody: 'Stuff' didn't have to come from anywhere. Asking what comes before motion (and therefore time), then making the birth of time synonymous with 'the birth' of energy, is ridiculous. It's even worse to assume the birth of energy equates to the birth of 'stuff'. Stuff exists, existed, always did exist, and always will exist. How's that rub you? Pahu: 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 and 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. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. You don't know what you're talking about. Entropy is the deconstruction of what particular energetic construct arose, usually matter, as evidenced by heat transmission. It is the deconstruction of constructs of energy - leading to disorder. Disorder does not equate to non-existence. Energy cannot be 'used up'. The first law of thermodynamics: The total energy of an isolated system never changes. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

Science Proves God When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic: 1. The universe exists. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe. 4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing. 5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing. 6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause. 7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural. 8. Life exists. 9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis). 10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause. 11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural. Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction. The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind. “Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.” [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown] Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware. Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us. The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell. [From Reincarnation in the Bible?] 'Stuff' didn't have to come from anywhere. Asking what comes before motion (and therefore time), then making the birth of time synonymous with 'the birth' of energy, is ridiculous. It's even worse to assume the birth of energy equates to the birth of 'stuff'. Stuff exists, existed, always did exist, and always will exist. How's that rub you? All objects have gravity. Gravitation has a negative effect on positive energy, thus the energy level of the universe is a resounding mathematical zero. Perfect equilibrium = eternal 'stuff'. I must admit, that's terribly perfect. Magnificently so, so I'm glad it is. I believe in that, perfection, Oneness. I just don't believe in filling gaps in understanding with dogma and stifling the search for knowledge about things. You should look at the anthropic principle. Trying to second guess what might have been 'before' stuff as we know stuff, is THE single most impossible thing ever. If the universe wasn't like it is, how could you ever know what it was? Science is about studying what exists, all of which is governed by the laws of inter-mass and quantum physics. Without those laws that govern everything, it wouldn't be what it is, so ... what would it be? Non-visible meshes of M=EC3? What about gravity that only attracts invisibleness? Or how about energy being expenseless and mass being massless? :/