Are you the "god of the gaps"?God of the gaps is an argument often made by evolutionists meant to portray that God is merely an argument from ignorance and that science will eventually solve these gaps. Through this, they wish to make a contrast between religious explanations and natural explanations. According to evolutionists, this being would halt the process of science because anything can be explained by God and thus is of little explanatory power. In actuality, creationists such as Isaac Newton have long thought that such scientific discoveries helped them understand the Creator's thoughts and actions when the universe was created. The argument goes like this: “Creationism is not valid, because it merely sticks "God" into the gaps in science. " It is meant to say that because science cannot know something yet, the creationist just ignorantly injects God as the explanation. However it is just as equal to say that there is a philosophical naturalism of the gaps where evolutionists just assume some natural mechanism is responsible even though no direct observation has occurred. In other words, evolutionists employ such an argument as a way to imply that God does not exist. If God did exist and created even a small thing then this intervention would mean that there is something that cannot be possibly explained by naturalistic processes. Flaws of the Argument Flaws in the argument include: Double standard: While evolutionists accuse creationists of making a "god of the gaps" argument, evolutionists are making an "evolution of the gaps" argument. Just as the creationist says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know God did it and it didn't evolve," The evolutionist says, "I don't know how it actually happened, but I know it evolved and God didn't do it." The only important fact is that there are gaps. Excluding action by God from the definition of science: The argument assumes that it is unscientific to credit God with acting in the universe. But certainly if God were to act in the universe, then science would have to acknowledge and even study those acts. The argument that it is unscientific to admit acts of God into science is premised on the philosophical assumption that God either does not exist or does not act in the universe. See Supernaturalism for a more complete discussion. Expanding gaps: The god of the gaps argument assumes that it is inappropriate to credit God with acts because those beliefs are just "gaps in science." The unstated assumption, however, is that science will one day fill those gaps, and more specifically, fill those gaps with evolution. If the gaps were shrinking, perhaps this argument would carry some weight. But in fact, with scientific discovery, the gaps in our knowledge are expanding, and thus the "god of the gaps" is getting bigger. The more we study life, the more complex, intricate, and beautiful we realize it is, the more we discover exactly how impossible the theory of evolution is, and the more we learn about the power and intelligence of the Creator. Expected gaps: The last issue is one of predictions and consistency. Creationism makes a limited number of claims about what God did. It claims that he created life (and life cannot arise spontaneously), that the forms of life were created fully formed and separate (and thus all life is not related), and that the dominant trend in genetics is one of genetic entropy rather than increases in information and complexity. The longer evolutionists fail to fill these "gaps," the more reasonable it is to believe that those gaps in evolution are permanent, because evolution did not occur. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/quotereply/222881/ Did you gap out when you quoted me? My actual quote was directed to CC, and it was: "Are you the "god of the gaps" in my evolved/(or mutated) sense of humor?" It was in response to CC's "duane the bathtub, I'm dwoining" knock-knock joke punchline, that most children know. CC filled in the gap in my knock-knock joke about Duane Gish (the father of the tactic that you are using to spread your bullshit while pretending to be erudite). As opaque and unfunny as my Duane Gish knock-knock joke was, it would never have existed, if not for the more commonly known version of "duane the bathtub". It was a product of evolution, so to speak. It did not arise fully formed, on it's own. But one might think that it did, if they had never heard the "duane the bathtub" version. One would be wrong.
Always gotta ask this one. Why are you here Pahu? What is to be gained by talking to us about this topic? How will benefit you or anyone if you even make one slightly plausible point?I believe if we know the truth our behavior will reflect that truth. I am simply sharing the truth.Let's be honest. You're here to score points with your supposed god. Plain and simple and selfish. ;) I'm sure you're right Cuthbert, but I'm not sure Pahu is aware enough of his own motivations to know you are right. He is no doubt surrounded by people like himself (or I guess he could be completely isolated and has chosen to only read websites he agrees with). And he started with a basic assumption that is completely flawed, and unfortunately, supported by centuries of flawed thinkers. So, I take him at his word. Actually, the first part, "I believe if we know the truth our behavior will reflect that truth." is exactly what I think. And he only needs to add one phrase to the second part, and I'd agree with that too, "I am simply sharing the truth THAT I KNOW." None of us can do more. But I would put something more complex in front of all that, "Truth is not owned by an individual, it is discovered constantly. Knowing how to continuously discover it is far more important than whatever you currently think is true."
Always gotta ask this one. Why are you here Pahu? What is to be gained by talking to us about this topic? How will benefit you or anyone if you even make one slightly plausible point?I believe if we know the truth our behavior will reflect that truth. I am simply sharing the truth.Let's be honest. You're here to score points with your supposed god. Plain and simple and selfish. ;) I'm sure you're right Cuthbert, but I'm not sure Pahu is aware enough of his own motivations to know you are right. He is no doubt surrounded by people like himself (or I guess he could be completely isolated and has chosen to only read websites he agrees with). And he started with a basic assumption that is completely flawed, and unfortunately, supported by centuries of flawed thinkers. So, I take him at his word. Actually, the first part, "I believe if we know the truth our behavior will reflect that truth." is exactly what I think. And he only needs to add one phrase to the second part, and I'd agree with that too, "I am simply sharing the truth THAT I KNOW." None of us can do more. But I would put something more complex in front of all that, "Truth is not owned by an individual, it is discovered constantly. Knowing how to continuously discover it is far more important than whatever you currently think is true." Amen.
Knock knock. Who's there? Duane. Duane who?Duane the tub I'm dwowning. :shut: Are you the "god of the gaps" in my evolved/(or mutated) sense of humor?just a pinch hitter. :cheese:
I am merely giving you information showing that science disproves evolution.
Always gotta ask this one. Why are you here Pahu? What is to be gained by talking to us about this topic? How will benefit you or anyone if you even make one slightly plausible point?I believe if we know the truth our behavior will reflect that truth. I am simply sharing the NO, you are sharing YOUR TRUTH truth.
That is accurate considering the fact God is the creator of everything and everyone including our minds.That would include the universe and untold unique worlds out there, that you know nothing of. That would include billions of years worth of unique worlds coming to pass as this very planet of ours developed in a wondrous utterly unique journey through a life cycle that we are part of for a mere blink in the fullness of time. These worlds went through their individual pageants before returning to the eternal dust of Earth. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Remember we are made out of star dust that constantly transforms itself. Try to imagine that fantastical journey from their to here... Heck even the cells in your body are in constant flux totally replacing themselves at a frantic pace. All this falls under the shadow of this Creator of time, matter and life, you presume to understand, though you haven't come to grips with the most basic truths of life on this planet. It seems so silly, so human, and so totally counter-productive to living a healthy life. Countless worlds flow from this Creator - who dear mortal are you to believe you've figured her out??? What is in your little brain and life experiences that makes you feel qualified to speak with certainty about Thee Creator of Time, matter, life, love and hate? Being convinced you know God's Mind, Heart, and/or Plan is the stuff of self-worshipping childish fantasy. The Teddy Bear and Security Blanket stuff. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Teddy Bears or Security Blankets - we all need a little. I have something against you thinking everyone in the world must adopt your Teddy Bear. Life and god is bigger that what any of us can imagine. The sooner people get that through their armor, the better off society will be. But I'm not holding my breath.
Okay, let me try something simpler.
You say:
“Science Disproves Evolution”
But you’ve yet to define your understanding of evolution.
I mean scientists are watching evolution in action.
Computer programs show us that evolution is pretty near universal.
The flu vaccine must constantly change because the bugs are evolving before scientist’s eyes.
etc., etc.
What part of evolution do you think science disproves? Can you explain that?
so far you’ve mainly presented philosophizing and most of that taken out of context to weave your story
rather than examine the thoughts of these eminent figures you quote. Can you add any substance?
I am merely giving you information showing that science disproves evolution.
Always gotta ask this one. Why are you here Pahu? What is to be gained by talking to us about this topic? How will benefit you or anyone if you even make one slightly plausible point?I believe if we know the truth our behavior will reflect that truth. I am simply sharing the NO, you are sharing YOUR TRUTH truth.
That is accurate considering the fact God is the creator of everything and everyone including our minds.That would include the universe and untold unique worlds out there, that you know nothing of. True.
That would include billions of years worth of unique worlds coming to pass as this very planet of ours developed in a wondrous utterly unique journey through a life cycle that we are part of for a mere blink in the fullness of time. These worlds went through their individual pageants before returning to the eternal dust of Earth.Untrue. God created the universe a few thousand years ago. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
Remember we are made out of star dust that constantly transforms itself. Try to imagine that fantastical journey from their to here... Heck even the cells in your body are in constant flux totally replacing themselves at a frantic pace.In the sense we are made out of the same material as the stars, you are right, but God put us together this way a few thousand years ago.
All this falls under the shadow of this Creator of time, matter and life, you presume to understand... Countless worlds flow from this Creator - who dear mortal are you to believe you've figured her out??? What is in your little brain and life experiences that makes you feel qualified to speak with certainty about Thee Creator of Time, matter, life, love and hate? Being convinced you know God's Mind, Heart, and/or Plan is the stuff of self-worshipping childish fantasy. The Teddy Bear and Security Blanket stuff. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Teddy Bears or Security Blankets - we all need a little. I have something against you thinking everyone in the world must adopt your Teddy Bear. Life and god is bigger that what any of us can imagine. The sooner people get that through their armor, the better off society will be. But I'm not holding my breath.I only understand what God has revealed in His Bible.
Okay, let me try something simpler. You say:Organic evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth. Cosmic evolution (cosmology) is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities."Science Disproves Evolution"But you've yet to define your understanding of evolution.
I mean scientists are watching evolution in action. Computer programs show us that evolution is pretty near universal. The flu vaccine must constantly change because the bugs are evolving before scientist's eyes. etc., etc.Here is an excerpt from an article responding to a TV series on evolution that deals with bacteria. There are too many errors in “Evolution" to itemize here, but let’s examine what the producers clearly believe to be their strongest example: “The development in bacteria of antibiotic resistance. If one wants to demonstrate evolution in action, as the producers claim, bacteria are certainly the best candidates. Some of these microbes reproduce several times an hour, producing thousands and thousands of generations within a single year. “Evolution" thus takes us into a tuberculosis-infested Russian jail, and sure enough, the little pests quickly develop resistance to each new drug the doctors introduce. Case closed." Well, not quite. All the producers have demonstrated is the quite unexceptional occurrence of what is called micro-evolution, the small changes within species that we see all around us. The most obvious example—one Darwin himself used—is dog breeding. The thousands of different types of dogs extant today were all created, probably from some common wild ancestor, by selective breeding. The question is, can these relatively small changes within basic species types be extrapolated to macro-evolution—big changes in body types, such as the evolution of birds from reptiles, say, or humans from apes. The fact is, nothing of the sort has ever been observed. Darwinists counter that when dealing with large animals—even fruit flies —there simply isn’t enough time. The breeding cycles are too long. Fair enough. But what about bacteria? With selective breeding, one should be able to produce new species within a reasonable time. Yet—and this the producers don’t tell us—it has never been done. As British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton recently remarked, despite multitudes of experiments exposing bacteria to caustic acid baths and intense radiation in order to accelerate mutations, in the “150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another." The producers of “Evolution" unwittingly give the game away when they remark that the bacteria clearly identifiable as the same as modern TB have been found on a 6,000-year-old Egyptian mummy. Like the Galapagos finch beaks, what we seem to be seeing here is not macro-evolutionary change, but the extraordinary stability of species. The producers repeat much the same error in a long segment on the HIV virus, which ends with doctors taking their patients off the anti-viral drugs (which appear to do more harm than good) and—voila!—the HIV returns to its original “wild-type." Once again, we have stasis, not evolution. On other issues, “Evolution" mostly commits sins of omission (that is, omission of any evidence contrary to the simple story of Darwin’s mechanism and “change over time" which they hammer away at endlessly). The program glosses over problems with the fossil record and sidesteps the challenge of the “Cambrian Explosion," in which, in direct contradiction to Darwinian theory, all the major animal groups (phyla) of modern animals appeared in a geologic instant, with no plausible precursors. Searching for a more contemporary spin, the program misstates the universality of DNA as evidence of descent from a common ancestor, when important exceptions that undermine this hypothesis have been known for over 20 years. And on and on. http://www.trueorigin.org/pbsevolution01.asp
What part of evolution do you think science disproves? Can you explain that? so far you've mainly presented philosophizing and most of that taken out of context to weave your story rather than examine the thoughts of these eminent figures you quote. Can you add any substance?My first post about sexual reproduction is one example of science disproving organic evolution, which you can review here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#wp5214829 At present I am sharing cosmic evolution. I plan to deal with organic evolution in more detail later. The charge quotes are taken out of context is true, but where do those quotes change the meaning of the contexts?
Moon Dust and Debris
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67 of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon (b). [For more details, see pages 577–579.]
a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:
“I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.” Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.
Lyttleton felt that dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.“ Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.
Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]
Fears about the dust thickness lessened when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]
b. “Powdery particles resting on the moon’s surface could form a layer up to 1 millimeter thick every 1,000 years, according to a new analysis.“ Meghan Rosen, “Moon Dust Gathers Surprisingly Fast,” Science News, Vol 185, 11 January 2014, p. 6.
Extrapolating this rate of 1 millimeter per 1,000 years would produce a dust layer almost 3 miles thick in 4.5 billion years!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences43.html
I only understand what God has revealed in His Bible.There you go. Complete faith in an ancient tribal text. Can't argue with that sort of Faith I allow myself to get too distracted by odd balls and frankly I don't have the time for this one, so excuse me for not going into depth. Oh speaking of proofs - where's your proof that these texts actually spring from the hand of god? Considering your deep skepticism regarding the scientific learning process, what about historical evidence for the evolution within the Bible by the mind and hand of man - You do know that the "holy book" has suffered through some grotesques additions over the centuries and which historians have explicated in detail?
I only understand what God has revealed in His Bible.There you go. Complete faith in an ancient tribal text. Can't argue with that sort of Faith I allow myself to get too distracted by odd balls and frankly I don't have the time for this one, so excuse me for not going into depth. Oh speaking of proofs - where's your proof that these texts actually spring from the hand of god? Considering your deep skepticism regarding the scientific learning process, what about historical evidence for the evolution within the Bible by the mind and hand of man - You do know that the "holy book" has suffered through some grotesques additions over the centuries and which historians have explicated in detail? Exactly. I don't think any further argument will work with someone who puts all their faith in one book. He just needs to investigate for himself and maybe that will change things if he is truly inquisitive enough. It took a lot of work for my mind to change, so just speaking from experience.
It was not that long ago that I was afraid of GMOs and pesticides, thought I might be abducted by aliens any day, and accepted Christ. Then I figured out how to use the internet to do something other than confirm my biases.
Besides the links you’ve provided, where else have you looked? Click here. ]
Moon Dust and Debris If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67 of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon (b). [For more details, see pages 577–579.]Not much to say here, except, those guys were wrong.] That's the cool thing about science, you can say someone is wrong, show your evidence, then later someone will show that is wrong. It's a lot easier than trying say something 3,000 years old is right, despite the lack of evidence.
I only understand what God has revealed in His Bible.There you go. Complete faith in an ancient tribal text. Can't argue with that sort of Faith I allow myself to get too distracted by odd balls and frankly I don't have the time for this one, so excuse me for not going into depth. Oh speaking of proofs - where's your proof that these texts actually spring from the hand of god? The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies, which rules out human authorship: http://www.100prophecies.com/ http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101lastdays.cfm http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm
Considering your deep skepticism regarding the scientific learning process, what about historical evidence for the evolution within the Bible by the mind and hand of manI am not skeptical regarding the scientific learning process. I am not aware of any historical evidence for evolution within the Bible by the mind and hand of man.
You do know that the "holy book" has suffered through some grotesques additions over the centuries and which historians have explicated in detail?The notion the Bible has been radically changed by additions is not true. The Bible consists of 66 books: 39 in the OT and 27 in the new. The Bible took about 1600 years to write. It was written in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) by about 40 authors and is internally consistent throughout. The Bible is 98½ percent textually pure. Through all the copying of the Biblical manuscripts of the entire Bible, only 1½% has any question about it. Nothing in all of the ancient writings of the entire world approaches the accuracy of the biblical documents. The 1½ percent that is in question does not affect doctrine. The areas of interest are called variants and they consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling. The NT has over 5000 supporting Greek manuscripts existing today with another 20,000 manuscripts in other languages. Some of the manuscript evidence dates to within 100 years of the original writing. There is less than a 1% textual variation in the NT manuscripts. Some of the supporting manuscripts of the NT are: John Rylands MS written around A.D. 130, the oldest existing fragment of the gospel of John. Bodmer Papyrus II (A.D. 150-200) . Chester Beatty Papyri (A.D. 200), contains major portions of the NT . Codex Vaticanus (A.D. 325-350), contains nearly all the Bible. Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 350), contains almost all the NT and over half of the OT .
This last post by Pahu could really bring us down a rabbit hole. Maybe the Bible discussion should be posted under the Religion section for whoever wants to address these claims. What do you all think?
Pahu,
I posted a response to your response about the Bible in the Religion thread.
Pahu, I posted a response to your response about the Bible in the Religion thread. http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18627/#222972And I'll raise you a couple chips over there….. ;-)
Untrue. God created the universe a few thousand years ago. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.If you were capable of thinking you would see the flaws in your logic. Why would a god create a young universe and make it look old? Seems like a lot of trouble when creating a universe and letting it evolve would be much more cost effective. "Before the universe existed" is an oxymoron. There was no before. And what existed before god? That's a rhetorical question because you're going to say god always existed. That is not an answer, it is an evasion. If god can be eternal so can the universe. Philosophically, it is impossible for nothing to exist, ergo the universe has always existed. Before you ask how the universe could exist without a creator you need to explain how a creator could exist without a creator. Even if we grant (and we don't) that some thing created our universe it does not logically follow that the creator was the god you worship. You reached a conclusion and accepted the explanations given to you without critical analysis.
I only understand what God has revealed in His Bible.We knew that. You are uneducated, i.e. ignorant.
I am not aware of any historical evidence for evolution within the Bible by the mind and hand of man.And your ignorance is deliberate.
Untrue. God created the universe a few thousand years ago. Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.If you were capable of thinking you would see the flaws in your logic. Why would a god create a young universe and make it look old? There are Biblical indications that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age. There are several examples of this: The stars (Gen. 1:14-19)—The sun, moon, and stars were revealed on the fourth day of the creation week. Individually and collectively they were to have different functions: dividing the day from the night, serving as navigational aids, as chronological indicators, for illuminating the earth, as well as for declaring the glory of God (Psalm 19:1). What is not often noticed is that "it was so" on the very day of their revealing (Gen. 1:15). Granted, the Biblical word "star" (Heb: kokab; Gr: aster) is a broader term than our English usage of "star" as an energy source, and includes just about anything in space, but the point is that the stars—and the nearest is 4 1/2 light-years distant—were seen on the first day of their existence. This means that even if the distances are correct, the stars would merely have given the appearance of having been here longer. Therefore, the stars and the light beams connecting them visually to the Earth were both created at the same time. This concept raises several questions. First, does this not mean that God—like some magician—is intentionally deceiving us by making things appear to be older than they actually are? The question really goes back to the matter of intent: did God intend to fool us, or did He intend primarily to make things fully functional but we are fooled only because we view them with certain uniformitarian assumptions? Therefore, while it is true that the earth and the universe were created with the appearance of age, I think we do better to speak of the creation of a fully functional universe that, as a secondary feature, merely gives the appearance of age. Conclusion There are three "secular" or non-Biblical possibilities to the problem of harmonizing a young universe with the allegedly-great distances of the outer galaxies: (1) the distances may not be that great after all; (2) light may take a "shortcut" as it travels through deep space; (3) the speed of light may have been considerably faster in the past. These three are not mutually exclusive, and may in fact be used in conjunction with each other. The fourth solution, which may be used independently or in conjunction with the above three, is that God created the light beams as well as the stars so that they could be—as indeed they were—seen when they were created. http://www.icr.org/article/starlight-age-universe/
Seems like a lot of trouble when creating a universe and letting it evolve would be much more cost effective.I doubt God is bothered about the cost.
"Before the universe existed" is an oxymoron. There was no before.Why can there be no "before" the universe?
And what existed before god? That's a rhetorical question because you're going to say god always existed. That is not an answer, it is an evasion. If god can be eternal so can the universe.You just said there can be no "before" and yet you ask what existed before god? You are comparing the spiritual with the material. It is not an evasion to say God (a spirit being) has always existed, especially since He revealed that fact to us. 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. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Philosophically, it is impossible for nothing to exist, ergo the universe has always existed.Your "logic" is flawed. Existence is to have objective reality or being. Nothing is the lack of something. Since the universe had a beginning, logically there was nothing before it existed. You can play word games, but that does not alter the facts.
Before you ask how the universe could exist without a creator you need to explain how a creator could exist without a creator.No I don't. The Creator is spiritual and has always existed. His creation is material.
Even if we grant (and we don't) that some thing created our universe it does not logically follow that the creator was the god you worship. You reached a conclusion and accepted the explanations given to you without critical analysis.The God I worship revealed Himself in the Bible, which proves to be accurate: 1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bible-and-archaeology-how-archaeology-confirms-the-biblical-record http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm 2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate: http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scientific_facts_in_the_bible.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml 3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies: http://www.100prophecies.com/ http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProphecy/101lastdays.cfm http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/ http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
I am not aware of any historical evidence for evolution within the Bible by the mind and hand of man.I do. See: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/18627/#222976 for details.