Chuck "I'm not questioning the existence of God! The Atheist's are making that claim."

>>By definition it's not a claim if it's a question.
-------------------
"My question is if there is no God, how did we get here?"

>>That's a common logical fallacy, called argumentum ad ignorantiam. God did it has no more explanatory powers than claiming pixies did it.
--------------------------
" If there is no God then evolution is the only other explanation for the universe, and life."
>>Sigh, where to start with such woefully muddled thinking. Ok, firstly you keep insisting your belief in a deity is justified if evolution is false, this simply isn't true. either you can evidence your deity's existence or you can't, and that is true independently of all other facts and claims.

Secondly the scientific theory of evolution explains the origins of species, it makes no claims, and does not try to explain the origins of life or the universe. Now like your god claim, evolution either can be evidenced or it can't, and all the scientific evidence gathered in over 150 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny from multiple fields of science supports species evolution through natural selection, it's as well evidenced a scientific fact as any other we have. This evidence is entirely independent of the origins of the universe and the origins of life, it is a simple fact that the universe exists and life exists, and it is a scientific fact that the diversity of life we now see has evolved slowly over billions of years, how it started does not change this, Most Christians have long since accepted the fact of species evolution, as does the Catholic church. With their resources they'd have falsified it if it were remotely possible to do so, as of course would creationists, instead they deal in duplicitous propaganda, their latest dishonesty involves using their massive wealth to create their own journals because they can't produce any evidence that is remotely scientific and so no worthy scientific journals will peer review their hokum. The simple fact is that at it's core creationism makes claims for supernatural causation, and by definition this is unscientific.

Lastly it's nonsense to keep insisting we are limited to only two explanations for the origins of life and the universe, and insisting one is your deity and creationism which you can't evidence at all, and then setting up a straw man argument as the second.
---------------------------
"The problem for the Atheist is there is no evidence for evolution in nature."
>>Nothing in that sentence is true, firstly evolution could be falsified tomorrow and I'd still be an atheist because humans create fictitious deities and always have, and there is no evidence for them. The second claim is simply risible, as there is nothing but evidence for species evolution.
------------------------
"There is only thoughts about it. They don't get that there is no order in an explosion as in a big bang theory. Explosions do not cause order. And it can't create life!!!!"
>>Sigh, firstly the big bang theory has nothing whatever to do with the theory of evolution, which is a well established and well evidenced scientific explanation of the scientific fact of species evolution, and this is a fact independent of the origins of the universe. Secondly the origin of the big bang wasn't an explosion, and your ignorance of such a simple fact suggests that you are either trolling, or are being duplicitous as anyone could check facts like these. Lastly nothing in the big bang theory makes any claims about the origins of life, so this is yet another straw man argument you have created, you seem to like these even more than the average religious apologist, that's not good if you have any interest in whether what you believe is true or not.

Your post is wrong on every single claim it makes, and it is hard to credit that anyone with access to the internet and who can read could be this woefully ill-informed by accident. Do you enjoy believing things that are palpably false? You might also like to research how volcanic explosions produce islands that millions of years later are teeming with life and order, so yes explosions can create order and are a catalyst for life, so yet another fact you have got completely wrong. You're consistent I'll give that...

＠Chuck: "Explosions do not cause order."

If that were true, there wouldn't be any heavy elements They emerge from the explosive deaths of stars. We are star dust. Now that's order.

Closer to home, have you ever heard of explosive forming? You place sheet metal over a shaped cavity and set off an explosion that pushes the metal into the cavity. I've seen boat hulls formed that way. And of course, explosions are used all the time in civil engineering.

You need to open your mind a little.

@Chuck: "along with the oldest tree in the world"

Have you heard of dendrochronology? You take a slice of a tree or a core sample and observe the tree rings. There'll be a pattern of thick and thin rings, depending on rainfall and other environmental factors in the year each ring was laid down. If you find older trees, say in peat bogs, you can overlap the tree-ring patterns by matching the center rings of one tree to the outer rings of another. I believe that the record has been extended back 12-14,000 years so far in the Northern Hemisphere.

And then there's ice core measurement. Like trees, glaciers form a new layer once a year. A few years ago a 3.2-kilometer ice core was taken from Antarctica. That takes us back about 800,000 years, and it's possible an even deeper one will go back to about 1.3 million years.

So did your deity magic the light from stars more than 6000 light years away en route?

"Six miles from Urfa, an ancient city in southeastern Turkey, Klaus Schmidt has made one of the most startling archaeological discoveries of our time: massive carved stones about ****11,000 years old,****crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery. The megaliths predate Stonehenge by some 6,000 years. The place is called Gobekli Tepe, and Schmidt, a German archaeologist who has been working here more than a decade, is convinced it’s the site of the world’s oldest temple."

Chuck "I believe God's word, and studying the years in the Bible along with the oldest tree in the world, and several other things, I agree with others on the approximate age of the earth is 6,000 years."

Genetic Diversity. Human children inherit 3 billion base pairs of DNA from each parent, but they are not an exact duplicate. The rate of change has been measured precisely to an average of 70 bases (out of our 6 billion total) per generation. So as we go back on the family tree, there are more and more genetic differences between us and our ancestors. For example, there would be about 140 differences between your DNA and that of your four grandparents, and 210 differences between you and your eight great-grandparents, and so on. That enables us to make a prediction from the amount of genetic diversity between two species about the time since their common ancestor population lived. Using non-genetic evidence, the common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees was estimated to have lived about *****6 million years ago.***** The calculation from genetic differences gives a figure remarkably close to the estimated value.

Genetic “scars”. Just as scars stay on our bodies as reminders of past events, the DNA code contains “scars” and these are passed on from generation to generation. DNA scars result from the deletion or insertion of a block of bases (not just single base changes as in the previous section). Because we have a lot of these (hundreds of thousands) and they can be precisely located, they serve as a historical record of species. If we have the same scar as chimpanzees and orangutans, then the deletion or insertion must have occurred before these species diverged into separate populations. If we and chimpanzees have a certain scar but orangutans do not, we can conclude the deletion or insertion must have occurred after the common ancestor of chimps and humans separated from our common ancestor with orangutans. In this way we can create a detailed family tree of common ancestors.

Genetic synonyms. In a certain context, the words “round” and “circular” mean the same thing to an English speaker—they are synonyms. So too, there are “synonyms” in the genetic code—different sequences of DNA bases that mean the same thing to cells (that is, they cause the production of the same proteins). Mutations in the genetic code are often harmful, resulting in an organism not being able to successfully reproduce. But if the mutation results in a “synonym”, the organism would function the same and continue passing on its genes. Because of this we would expect the synonymous changes to be passed on much more effectively than non-synonymous changes. That is exactly what we find among the DNA of humans and chimpanzees: there are many more synonymous differences between the two species than non-synonymous ones. This is exactly what we would expect if the two species had a common ancestor, and so it provides further evidence that humans and chimpanzees were created through common descent from a single ancestral species.

The more research that is done on DNA, the more evidence we find that all life is related.