[TheRealThing]

We will just have to agree to disagree, I suppose.
Darwin had an educated guess based on his research and observations, a hypothesis. Obviously he didn't have the use of such scientific methods that were discovered after his death, such ad DNA and radiocarbon dating that other scientists used years later to prove that his hypothesis was actually fact. His genius brain had the original ideas and they have been expanded on ever since by others.

And you haven't answered my question: Who created God? You said some believe that everything began from a exploding rock.....so, who created the rock? And I answered that was a good question, but if you are going to assume that God created the rock then we have to go on and ask the age-old question of 'who or what created God?' No one has ever given me a satisfactory answer to that question that makes a lick of sense to me.

Sorry about that, point taken and here's my answer. Mortal man has a finite existence, a starting point and a day when he departs this earth. So, it is only natural for him to assume that everything else has a starting point as well. And, absolutely everything we see around us, whether by electron microscope or Hubbell Telescope, does indeed have a starting point. The scientific community says that starting point was something they call the big bang. The Christian community (by faith) accepts that the starting point was God breathed. I agree, it seems only natural to think that God must have had a starting point too.

Let me ask you this. Where does space start and where would space end? I believe that God in His wisdom offered the impossibly vast universe as a model for man's mind to sort of have a place to go play. That, and the fact that the vastness of space is indeed infinite, never ending. I dare say that not one man who has ever lived could truly say he can understand that the universe goes on for infinity in every direction without end. Same the thing is true about God, and we men who all have birthdays seem to miss that truth during our deliberations. God has no end, but, what may well be even more challenging for us to wrap our mind around, is the fact that He had no beginning. When Moses asked God His name, God referred to Himself as I AM. God has no beginning and obviously has no end. In fact, God said that He exists outside the constraints of time which, apply only to that which He has created. 2 Peter 3:8 (KJV)
8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Time is something we men use up, it doesn't apply to things that are eternal. For God then, time means nothing, a day is like a thousand years and vice-versa. Not so for men, none of us are eager to see the dawn of our last day on this earth. Space then, is one example of natural phenomena which has no beginning and no end. A point I am sure even Stephen Hawkin would stipulate.

So, will science ever prove the existence of God? Absolutely not. As I mentioned, God created a people to live and enjoy Him forever. However, though He would have all men accept His offer, some (most) choose to reject that offer. Free will, in my mind, is the most powerful tool man was ever given, and governs whether he will choose to submit to God's rule. So, those who will be living with God forever, must choose of their own free will to bow before Him and accept His Lordship. Like I said, man's relationship with God is reflected by the institution of marriage. A relationship instituted by God Himself and formed by the act of mutual choice. Salvation and belief in God (for man) are one in the same. But, don't get the idea that the Lord would intimidate His Creation into submission. James 2:19 (KJV)
19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." Obviously fear alone will save no one. I mean, were not Satan and his minions once with God and were cast out? They were there and chose to rebel. God will never allow Himself to be accepted through science though, neither will science ever disprove His existence either. When He says there is only ONE way to come to know Him, He means without equivocation that one way is non-negotiable. He allowed His Son to die on the cross to provide the only way in which we humans will ever get to know Him. A matter which is "spiritually discerned." No, all men who would come to know Him and believe Him, will come by way of the cross or not at all. The God of all that is, will not have the death of His own Son circumvented by that which He has created.

I said I am a big fan of science. I am no fan of Charles Darwin. Let me show you something he said that most text books would never publish.

CHARLES DARWIN--- "Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.
These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:—

Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?"(pp. 171-172)[17]"


BTW, is it easier on us to accept that we evolved or admit our fallen state and confess our sin before the Omnipotent, God of Creation? Men tend to take the path of least resistance, do they not?