Thank you for writting back on my views.
1. Can you then tell this humble court (as if in the law court) the cause of the supposed "failed time keeping", the origin of the prior universe (parent universe) and also the origin of the supposed higher dimensions branes and the cause of the colliding?
2. Concerning the Fossil record, there is no fossil ever recorded that contains an actual transmutation or transitional form from lizard to bird. If you have have a fossil that shows a lizzard with wing or bacteria with lizard head then I would like to take a look.
3. Science cannot prove or disprove God. God is Personal, Animate, not inanimate, matter or atom.
4. I wonder why evolutionist refuse to accept the fact that their philosophy is a godless religion, because it is a philosophy that falls 'only' in the category of metaphysical system.
5. Atheist don't believe in Divine ethics, spiritual influence and Freewill, rather they believe that everything is by chance, why then do you put people prison for crimes committed if you know that it is by chance and not by purpose.
6. Sir Isaac Newton might be alchemist but posterity will not laugh at him like it will Macro-evolutionist.
1. Are you seriously going to argue "God did it"? No, I cannot tell you which would cause or birth any of these scenarios, because I don't even know if any of them are actually true. But that doesn't mean to say that just because you can provide an answer (A supernatural entity that can do anything), you have the better argument. What was before or outwith the universe is an unknown. Due to it's very nature, it may even stay unknown until our species dies out. It is a question without a logical conclusion. You can assert that a being capable of doing anything it wants did it because it can do anything it wants, but it is not a conclusion based on any evidence, it is just an assertion. That does not fall under
Axiomatic Truth, Logical Proof, Mathematical Proof, Empirical Proof, Historical-Legal Proof or Relational Proof. It is just a baseless assertion. It could be true, but there is no point in believing it to be true since we cannot observe or measure it.
2. It is clear you have a fundamental lack of understanding of evolution. I highly recommend wiping the slate clean with regards to your knowledge of it, and start at the beginning again.
First of all, you must understand what a 'transitional species' is. This would be an intermediary between a line of 'organisms' with distinctively similar features of the before and after organisms, or linking two potentially related groups together through observable evidence. I suggest you look at the Archaeopteryx which provides the transitional 'link' between mesozoic dinosaurs and modern birds.
Now, I can do you one better. Clearly you don't really care about the evolution of birds, it's our evolutionary line you have the biggest problems with. Due to your understanding of evolution I can gather from your post, you are clearly one of the creationists who like to use "There is no missing link" as an argument against evolution. By missing link, I must assume you mean the EXACT halfway point between humans and other species of apes in the evolutionary chains. Now, it's rather improbable to actually accurately tell which species on the evolutionary chain was the exact halfway point, because this is not how evolution works. It is not three stages: species A - species AB - Species B. Speciation is the result of a large quantity of SMALL changes over a monstrously long period of time. Only then when you look at your beginning and end points, will you see a distinct difference in it's form due to the accumalated small changes. This is also why you don't see 'bacteria with lizard heads'.
Australopithecus sediba is touted as being the much desired 'halfway point' you desire. Dated to be 1.9 million years old (est), it is attributed with being a transitional species between Australopithecus Africanus, and Homo Habilis or even Homo Erectus itself. Some criticised it and said it could be an extremity of Australopithecus Africanus, but later peer reviews accepted it was an independant species.
Australopithecus afarensis, the hominid which lived between 2.9 and 3.9 million years ago (Lucy), is also a major part of the evolutionary chain due it being the most closely related primate from the same period than any other. It's skull, teeth, hands, pelvis, feet, even things like it's tibia and many other features are distinctly human.
3. Exactly, these claims you make about God are the very reasons why I don't waste my time believing it exists. By very definition God is an unanswerable question. He is not confined to our reality constraints. But our knowledge, logic and reason are, and this is the reason you cannot prove your God, because the only ways we can perceive something to be true is by observing it and measuring it within the constraints of reality, because we ourselves are confined to it. As soon as you begin claiming there is a being not confined to reality, the assertion instantly becomes unproveable.
4. Many denominations of Buddhism are godless religions. Atheism is a godless reality.
5. I do not know of any Atheist that said everything happens by chance. The very definition of natural selection is the exact opposite.
Free Will? Lets examine this concept in relation to the bible. The God of the bible is considered as omnipotent (more than once he is attributed with the characteristic "Nothing is too hard for him"). This would naturally assume that The God of the Bible could do anything it wanted, include making himself omniscient. This would mean that God has the power to know the future. This would mean God could have known IN ADVANCE that Eve would pick the forbidden fruit, he could have known IN ADVANCE that she would disobey him, and he could have known all along he was going to cast us into a life of sin redeemed only by repentance, or make us suffer in hell for all of eternity, all because of something he could have known was going to happen even before he made us. But he made us anyway. And got angry. And threw us into a life of misery without him until possible eternal torture, all for something he knew all along would happen.
Could you explain to me how any of this even remotely suggests free will?
6. Again, you show a severe lack of understanding of evolution. The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is timescale and environmental opportunities. Like I explained above, Speciation is not a three stage process where one species under goes insane mutations, and then turns into a completely new species. A new species is a result of millions of accumulated small changes over a massive timeframe until the starting species is unrecognisable to the current finished product, and in the macro-evolution scenario, the transition is much longer, but much bigger mainly due to rare competition and a great diversity of ecological niches.
