Voltaire Said If God Didn't Exist, Then It Would Be Necessary To Invent Him Him

[james bond]

First, as others have pointed out, this is not an atheistic system, but rather a scientific system. There are many scientists who also believe in a deity.

None of the list you have given (singularity, invisible particles, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, theory of evolution, dark energy, dark matter) is in any way similar to the proposal that there is a God. Some are well-tested scientific principles (quantum mechanics, the theory of evolution), some are broad ranging explanations for the observations we have made (the Big Bang), some are speculative but have observations to back them up (dark matter, dark energy), some are vague (invisible particles) and some are just plain misunderstandings (singularity). But NONE of them is a God-substitute. ALL are our attempts to understand the universe around us.


Yes. They have created an understanding of the universe around us. As I pointed out, some on your list are extensively tested. Others need new equipment or new techniques to test more thoroughly. The 'invisible particles' have been discovered and have broadened our understanding of matter. We have found gravitational waves. We understand much more now about the chemistry of life and what had to have taken place when life first formed.


If you think any of them said definitively that they *will* find microbes somewhere else, then the problem is in your understanding of what they said, NOT in what they said. Because NOBODY has made that claim. They claim that the *conditions* are better than expected for such.


Again, this has nothing at all to do with atheism and everything to do with how science is done. It takes time, energy, and extensive testing. It requires making hypotheses and seeing which ones hold up to scrutiny. It laso has to deal with a public ignorant of the process expecting immediate answers when it may well take decades for full answers.



Really? Please let us know about these testing procedures! Which falsifiable hyppppp have been brought to the table? Please show us one! Please show exactly where the current scientific models do not work and propose one that is better.


Please present this evidence. All I have ever seen from the creationist camp is ignorant attacks on what other people have done. When the mistakes are pointed out to them, they ignore the instruction and repeat their myths. Ultimately, we simply have to start assuming that creationists are lying and attempting to play to the crowd rather than to find the truth.

I just met someone who I now realize is on the list for one of the smartest people in the world. He's a professor who studies dark energy as one of his areas. I think he's a physicist and I can't remember his other area right now. He sounds liberal, but I think he's Christian. Maybe I'll ask him to explain his views one day instead of hitting him with I disagree because of blah, blah, blah ha ha.

Anyway, science is not what you describe as a "scientific system." That sounds like the liberal internet atheist BS of "science is science" or what Degrass said,

Science is about the search for truth and has always been about disagreements. There are no proofs. For example, the ones who have promoted string theory have fallen by the wayside. What's important is some of the findings led to M-theory. Is M-theory the final truth? Well, no. It can be replaced by something else, but much of the mathematics backs it up so physicists consider it sexy. Just like when string theory was in its hey day years ago. Was it the 90s? We're getting to over twenty-five years already. (I just looked it up, it was the second superstring theory in the 90s which I am addressing.)

I'm saying all of it -- singularity, invisible particles, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, theory of evolution, dark energy, dark matter -- are replacements for God by the atheist scientists. It may not be every single point in detail, but overall it is. Else, we would not have have creation vs evolution. Am I saying that they're wrong? No, I didn't say that. I'm just interpreting what Voltaire said that way. Voltaire was a strange cat anyway.

So they created understanding? I think you mean knowledge. Isn't knowledge immaterial? That's one point for me. I'm talking about the material which today's science seems to be interested in and what they only count. It's the testable and falsifiable thinking. Here's what I mean. That may be part of today's scientific method, but it should not be science. Being testable and falsifiable is only one goal. I think Edward Witten was right in saying we do not use testable and falsifiable science to explore our universe. For example, he said we do not want to explore Mars in order to falsify Mars. People just do not think like that. We should go to Mars to enhance our knowledge. I wouldn't advocate sending people to Mars to colonize (rather colonize the moon or outer space). Experiments are expected to fail. Theories are made to fall by the wayside.

I'm not criticizing the founding of gravitational waves and the building of the LHC. To the contrary, I applauded it when it happened. I'm for it. I think you misunderstand. What I am applying it to isn't science but philosophy in regards to what Voltaire said. Was it done to create a Creator or a substitute for one? No. But it helps serve the purpose doesn't it? I am equating it to cosmology or referring to the cosmological aspects of this science. Wouldn't you say that it would fit what Voltaire said?

LMAO on the microbes. It was NASA's chief scientist who said it -- NASA Chief Scientist Ellen Stofan Predicts We'll Find Signs Of Alien Life Within 10 Years | The Huffington Post . I have even seen a NASA video (now taken down due to scientific criticism) of a tiny fish scamper across a screen to show life on Mars. So, if they succeed and find microbes, then it has no effect on creation vs evolution? Is that what you're saying? Or are you just covering their arses saying ahead of time that if they fail, then it has no effect on creation vs evolution? What I am saying is if they fail, then it's another point for the creationists. If it's a point for evolutionists, then it will be used to denigrate God. It's not the end of our disagreements. Like I said, that's science.

If you're a scientist, then I think you're hung up on testable and falsifiable. If I were one in hard sciences, I wouldn't have that as my main focus in my thinking. By now, you should understand what my thinking would be.

Aside from science I showed against evolution, the science for creation is:

Scientific Evidence for God
Feedback: The Most Compelling Scientific Evidence of Young Earth?

Electrical design in the human body

Six Evidences of a Young Earth

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

Genetic Variability by Design

https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html

I think one of the biggest obstacles for non-theists to creation science is the thinking that it isn't science and that science does not back the Bible. That the Bible defies common sense. However, what we have found through science is that truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's funny you say that because I thought you were a smart person, but it's "Such a waste of effort, and for no purpose."

You might as well go back to ignore.

Would you rather have me lying?

 

[james bond]

Would you rather have me lying?

I did say ignore, but if you can't do that then keep on replying. My truthful answer is just be yourself.

Now, is that lying? If so, then ignore would be better ha ha.

 

[Polymath257]

Scientific Evidence for God
Feedback: The Most Compelling Scientific Evidence of Young Earth?

Electrical design in the human body

Six Evidences of a Young Earth

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html

Genetic Variability by Design

https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t008.html

I think one of the biggest obstacles for non-theists to creation science is the thinking that it isn't science and that science does not back the Bible. That the Bible defies common sense. However, what we have found through science is that truth is stranger than fiction.

What we have found is that the stuff in all of your links is garbage. It has been thoroughly debunked ages ago. That you are repeating it either shows you haven't actually read any science or are so deluded that you think this is reasonable. Sorry, but this isn't science. And neither is creationism or a young earth.

 

[james bond]

The recent scientific evidence for God. It has converted some agnostics. I think what the non-believers need to pay attention to is what's still going on, i.e. the expansion of our universe and finding another place similar to our earth. Not just in local physical description, but in terms of a solar system. As for the non-believers, they'll just continue to find other reasons and these reasons such as multiverses in another dimension seem just as incredible or even more so than Genesis, Tower of Babel, Noah's Flood and the more. It's already has started with claims of we'll find alien life soon. What's next? Intelligent aliens more superior than us? Already we're seeing how mutation is getting bigger, too. This will be rammed down our throats even more than what we have today. The non-believers will be wearing tees with MUTATION on it. Oy vey ha ha.

 

[james bond]

What we have found is that the stuff in all of your links is garbage. It has been thoroughly debunked ages ago. That you are repeating it either shows you haven't actually read any science or are so deluded that you think this is reasonable. Sorry, but this isn't science. And neither is creationism or a young earth.

No, I think it's you're so focused on believing your worldview that you can't accept alternative science. Believe me, we aren't that much different. I held the same views until I opened my eyes and ears and started to listen to creation scientists. What started me off down that path was learning the Big Bang Theory in the 1980s when I was taught the Steady State Theory as a child. One starts connecting the dots and go that fits the Catholic views of the universe I was taught as a child. It was a start, but it still took a while as evolution came to forefront of science. I think the doubters of evolution started in the early 2000s and reached a crescendo in 2011. I had questions that evolution could not answer until I finally realized they were BS'ing. It's the same with internet atheists today. Ask them a question and the listen to their answers, or actually their non-answers.

The biggest difference between you and I is that I've kept an open mind. Or maybe I went to school and learned to think for myself instead of just regurgitating what was taught and get good grades. Maybe my religious background had something to do with it, but with creation science all of the pieces started to fit. There are incredible things in the Bible I thought I could not ever explain. However, I kept the faith and those incredible things have become things I can explain now. However, I could not explain the BS about Lucy. Then I found out there were other lies and fraud committed by evolutionists. They pulled the wool over an entire generation with Piltdown Man. I couldn't explain macroevolution even if I did believe in an old Earth back then. What bothered me a lot was news articles constantly telling me the earth was it started as 3.8-billion to 4.5 or 4.6-billion. Or dinosaurs died 240-to-245 million years ago. Why did the articles keep telling me what I already knew? If it was truly fact, then the news didn't have to keep repeating it.

To be fair, are all the creation scientists right? Heck no! Some are crackpots just like you meet in any endeavor. Or how they predict events or how they present the supernatural. One has to be careful that it may as well be coincidence. With the supernatural, you have ghosts, spirits and haunted houses and the like. However, the creationists have better sources today and can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Finally, I think you would have debunked a few if science did do so. I already debunked the apes prior to Lucy and Lucy may as well be considered debunked as racist and the evidence is too scant. And why couldn't an ape-human continue to survive? The creation scientists continue to debunk the theory by stating apes were apes and early post-flood humans were not as healthy as the ancient pre-flood humans. Thus, we have the early post-flood humans as being crude such as cave dwellers who didn't know how to use tools. Of course, you're going to say this is too incredible, but again I understand how it happened better than you because I have an open mind.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Isn't this true? In the atheist world, God doesn't exist so the atheist scientists have invented him. They call it singularity, invisible particles, quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, abiogenesis, theory of evolution, dark energy, dark matter, and such. Some of it has science involved, but not enough of their invention is testable and falsifiable. Oh, they have spent billions on the LHC to find the invisible particles, sophisticated equipment to find evidence of gravitational waves or biology equipment to produce living matter from existing living matter, but have they actually created anything? Recently, they claim they will find microbes in outer space or other planets within ten years. While impressive, have they found the smoking gun? Isn't that why atheist scientists argue so hard and won't peer-review any God-based creation? They have nothing else to hang their hat on besides their "inventions" so to speak. If I am wrong on this, then where are the tests?

Those inventions are the tests.

Do you enjoy riding a car instead of walking or riding a horse? Do you like your power windows, air conditioning, GPS, dashcam, and satellite radio service in it? They are the evidence of the validity of the scientific method. Those are the gifts of science.

What has creationism contributed? The plastic Jesus on the dashboard? OK, but only if you exclude the plastic. That also came from science.

Maybe you should walk more in order to enjoy the fruits of creationism.

Is creation testable and fasifiable? Yes, it is. Can believers show that the atheist scientists models do not work? Yes, they can.

We're waiting.

Christianity hardly makes any claims that involve anything that one can see or feel or that involves material reality, but every once in a while, it does. It makes testable claims.

It does say that with faith, one can move mountains. That's a scientific claim - falsifiable. Christianity also claims that God answers prayer, another potentially falsifiable claim. Do you know of any others?

How about testing those two? Any thoughts on how that would turn out? Go ahead and move a mountain with faith. Or a pebble if you'd like to start small.

Why isn't the Discovery Institute chomping at the the bit to do those experiments to show the power of prayer? Or the Institute for Creation Research. That would be actual research.

I've got a test in mind: Let's divide cardiac patients going for invasive cardiac surgery into three large, roughly equal groups. Let's tell a third of them that they will be prayed for, and have devout believers do the praying.

Then let's randomize the other two-thirds into a cohort that is prayed for, and another that isn't, with neither patients nor clinicians knowing which was which (double blinding). Then all we need do is count the outcomes and witness the positive impact of prayer on those who were prayed for. Wouldn't you like to see how that turns out to be able to shout that God answers prayer from the rooftops?

Perhaps CARM, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry would like to fund that one. With so many Christian research groups out there, surely we can find one willing to test the prayer-works claim.

The scientific model of creation includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time.

There is no scientific model for creationism, just a bare claim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I didn't say it, but Voltaire did. There's no reason to invent God when we do not disavow him and believe in his existence and love. Every time I come on here, there is some internet atheist beotching about his miserable life and then wanting evidence for God.

I don't recall any of us complaining about our lives. Mine is quite satisfactory.

Nor am I looking for any evidence of gods. I know you have none.

Why should he care if God doesn't exist? If I was an atheist, I wouldn't care. I'd call myself jbburnsinhell and wouldn't waste my time on religious forums. Thus, why should an atheist care if God doesn't exist? It's because he needs the answers.

What answers? Answers about gods? There are no answers.

What is real is organized, politicized religion and the damage it does. That's what matters, not gods.

Back to the misery. The typical internet atheist disavows God, so there is no evidence he will accept. Instead, he has to accept responsibility for all the cr*p that goes on in his miserable life and try to make his life better. Not only is his life miserable, he has to go find reasons for why his life is so. How did he get here? Why does the planet work this way? The internet atheists do not read books to find the answers. They just come on here and beotch and hope someone gives him the answers. He doesn't even know where his worldview comes from. It's laughable.

"The misery"? LOL. You know nothing about atheists. You should come to us to find out how we feel about our lives, not Christian apologetics sites.

Atheism was a great choice for me. It opened the door to the philosophy of secular humanism, which is a rich ideology that has served me well.

Now, I can have hope for man and the world. When I was a Christian, I thought we were all goners. It was always the end times, and we were all praying for Jesus to come again and destroy the earth. But now, I know that it is possible that man can go on until he evolves into something better, and then again.

Now I can have respect for mankind, life, earth and the universe. Christianity teaches that animals are soulless meat bags to be exploited as man sees fit, and that man is an inherently spiritually diseased creature. Then it teaches that the whole material world including earth is made of a base substance - matter - which is only transitory. Christianity demeans mankind enough to make the phrase "the flesh" derogatory, and the material world enough to make the word "worldly" an insult. I don't need ideas like that to be happy. In fact, how can one be happy holding them?

Atheism freed me from the tyranny and bondage of a hell belief. I have freedom from fear of damnation. Freedom from fear of eternal torture. Freedom from fear of Satan. Freedom from fear of demons and devils. Freedom from fear of my own thoughts. Freedom from the fear of death.

Now, when a cute, doe-eyed girl somewhere in the word dies today, I am free to see it as bad luck, not the will of an indifferent god that sat idly by. I have no further theodicy problem

Nobody is telling me who to hate or that women are inferior.

I escaped an intellectual system that despises science and erudition. There is so much richness there. Belief robs the victim of the sense of the sense of mystery, grandeur, awe and connection with our universe that a scientific education entails and substitutes an anti-intellectualism and philosophical nihilism that functions as a dark cloud overhead.

I escaped a moral system that defines love in terms of torture and crucifixion, mercy in terms of no hope f parole from hell, justice in terms of an eternity of torture as punishment for unbelief. Faith, obedience, worship and piety are not moral virtues. Nor is meekness.

How about the relief from thousands of hours spent praying, reading the bible, and attending churches.

How about my charitable donations now going to actual local charitable efforts rather than underwriting the promotion of Christianity? What's that worth?

All of these have enriched my life. Why would I want to go back to that darkness, pessimism, and nihilism, hoping and waiting for the annihilation of earth in a fiery apocalypse to sterilize it of what was depicted as the scourge of humanity.

 

[Polymath257]

The recent scientific evidence for God. It has converted some agnostics. I think what the non-believers need to pay attention to is what's still going on, i.e. the expansion of our universe and finding another place similar to our earth. Not just in local physical description, but in terms of a solar system. As for the non-believers, they'll just continue to find other reasons and these reasons such as multiverses in another dimension seem just as incredible or even more so than Genesis, Tower of Babel, Noah's Flood and the more. It's already has started with claims of we'll find alien life soon. What's next? Intelligent aliens more superior than us? Already we're seeing how mutation is getting bigger, too. This will be rammed down our throats even more than what we have today. The non-believers will be wearing tees with MUTATION on it. Oy vey ha ha.

Do you really think that comes anywhere *close* to being a proof of God? Seriously?

Much of what you wrote is special pleading: that we should regard the scientific discoveries as supporting the myths of your religion. Well, they don't. Instead, you have forced the interpretation to coincide with your pre-formed biases.

For example, when it talked about the Earth being so special, it failed to point out how many planets we have found around other stars, including ones in the 'Goldilocks zone' for their stars, It failed to point out that until only a couple of decades ago, we knew of no planets around stars similar to our sun (other than our own solar system). It failed to point out that when we developed techniques for detecting such planets, we *immediately* found hundreds of them, And, even today, our techniques are biased to finding large planets that orbit close to their stars or ones whose orbits are almost aligned with us.

In other words, your video lies through omission.

When it talks about which elements are required for life, it neglects to point out that these elements are actually quit in the universe. It repeatedly calls the Big Bang a 'cosmic explosion' and fails to point out that life didn't develop until *billions* of years after the initial expansion started. So, its description of an explosion creating life is, at best, disingenuous and at worst is out and out fraud.

It looks to me like you are reading popular articles directed towards the rather uneducated (scientifically) rather than the technical stuff you find in actual science journals. Here's a hint: if the article was written by a journalist, then you can probably ignore most of the details because that journalist probably didn't understand them.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I think it's you're so focused on believing your worldview that you can't accept alternative science. Believe me, we aren't that much different. I held the same views until I opened my eyes and ears and started to listen to creation scientists. What started me off down that path was learning the Big Bang Theory in the 1980s when I was taught the Steady State Theory as a child. One starts connecting the dots and go that fits the Catholic views of the universe I was taught as a child. It was a start, but it still took a while as evolution came to forefront of science. I think the doubters of evolution started in the early 2000s and reached a crescendo in 2011. I had questions that evolution could not answer until I finally realized they were BS'ing. It's the same with internet atheists today. Ask them a question and the listen to their answers, or actually their non-answers.

And you would be wrong in most of this. First, I was debating creationists in the 1980's. Even at that point, the claims they made were old and known to be wrong. The list you gave isn't anything that wasn't dealt with before then.

In fact, most of the creationist claims go back to the late 1800's and have the credibility of those attempting to fight a rear guard action to preserve their myths rather than to really look at the science.

The biggest difference between you and I is that I've kept an open mind. Or maybe I went to school and learned to think for myself instead of just regurgitating what was taught and get good grades. Maybe my religious background had something to do with it, but with creation science all of the pieces started to fit. There are incredible things in the Bible I thought I could not ever explain. However, I kept the faith and those incredible things have become things I can explain now. However, I could not explain the BS about Lucy. Then I found out there were other lies and fraud committed by evolutionists. They pulled the wool over an entire generation with Piltdown Man. I couldn't explain macroevolution even if I did believe in an old Earth back then. What bothered me a lot was news articles constantly telling me the earth was it started as 3.8-billion to 4.5 or 4.6-billion. Or dinosaurs died 240-to-245 million years ago. Why did the articles keep telling me what I already knew? If it was truly fact, then the news didn't have to keep repeating it.

First, the advance of science tends to be slower than most people would like. It takes time to do the expeditions to find the fossils, dig them up (carefully), categorize them, and do the required measurements to really compare them to others. But even in your paragraph here, you show you don't really grasp what is going on. The *Earth* is about 4.5 billion years old. The earliest life we know of is about 3.8 billion years old. Dinosaurs *started* about 240 million years ago and died off about 65 million years ago. The Piltdown hoax was discovered by scientists because it simply didn't fit the evidence that was coming out. Also, it was hidden from the eyes of independent investigators in ways that are no longer tolerated.

To be fair, are all the creation scientists right? Heck no! Some are crackpots just like you meet in any endeavor. Or how they predict events or how they present the supernatural. One has to be careful that it may as well be coincidence. With the supernatural, you have ghosts, spirits and haunted houses and the like. However, the creationists have better sources today and can separate the wheat from the chaff.

I have read a number of creationist books and have found them to be *uniformly* poor. They misunderstand very simple concepts, lie about the evidence, and use propaganda to speak to the crowds rather than evidence to speak to the scientists. When the wheat is separated from the chaff, there are no creationists or IDers left with the wheat.

Finally, I think you would have debunked a few if science did do so. I already debunked the apes prior to Lucy and Lucy may as well be considered debunked as racist and the evidence is too scant. And why couldn't an ape-human continue to survive? The creation scientists continue to debunk the theory by stating apes were apes and early post-flood humans were not as healthy as the ancient pre-flood humans. Thus, we have the early post-flood humans as being crude such as cave dwellers who didn't know how to use tools. Of course, you're going to say this is too incredible, but again I understand how it happened better than you because I have an open mind.

Sorry, but I didn't have the endurance to go over all the well-worn junk you presented. Your 'pre-flood' scenarios are easily shown wrong by simple archeology. This doesn't even get to actual questions of evolution.

 

[james bond]

Those inventions are the tests.

Do you enjoy riding a car instead of walking or riding a horse? Do you like your power windows, air conditioning, GPS, dashcam, and satellite radio service in it? They are the evidence of the validity of the scientific method. Those are the gifts of science.

What has creationism contributed? The plastic Jesus on the dashboard? OK, but only if you exclude the plastic. That also came from science.

Maybe you should walk more in order to enjoy the fruits of creationism.



We're waiting.

Christianity hardly makes any claims that involve anything that one can see or feel or that involves material reality, but every once in a while, it does. It makes testable claims.

It does say that with faith, one can move mountains. That's a scientific claim - falsifiable. Christianity also claims that God answers prayer, another potentially falsifiable claim. Do you know of any others?

How about testing those two? Any thoughts on how that would turn out? Go ahead and move a mountain with faith. Or a pebble if you'd like to start small.

Why isn't the Discovery Institute chomping at the the bit to do those experiments to show the power of prayer? Or the Institute for Creation Research. That would be actual research.

I've got a test in mind: Let's divide cardiac patients going for invasive cardiac surgery into three large, roughly equal groups. Let's tell a third of them that they will be prayed for, and have devout believers do the praying.

Then let's randomize the other two-thirds into a cohort that is prayed for, and another that isn't, with neither patients nor clinicians knowing which was which (double blinding). Then all we need do is count the outcomes and witness the positive impact of prayer on those who were prayed for. Wouldn't you like to see how that turns out to be able to shout that God answers prayer from the rooftops?

Perhaps CARM, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry would like to fund that one. With so many Christian research groups out there, surely we can find one willing to test the prayer-works claim.



There is no scientific model for creationism, just a bare claim.

You're the typical ignorant internet atheist that I keep referring to ha ha.

Walking or bipedalism was such a big deal according to evolutionists that they say that apes couldn't help themselves. These apes could get around better swinging from trees or go faster on all fours, but for no reason started to stand and walk on two legs. Thus, they couldn't climb up a tree to get bananas any more. They even had to invent a pole apparatus to help them get the bananas from the ground. Of course, this took time like around 2.8 million years. What happened to these apes? How did evolution help them? They ended up starving to death. This is why we have the missing link, right? Ha ha.

Give it up. There is no way we descended from apes. Not only is it racist, it's dumb. The apes still can't think for themselves and they still swing from trees and run on all fours. Those Planet of the Apes movies are science fiction.

As for creation, God gave man a brain to rule over all the animals. This also helped him with his bi-pedalism problem of not being able to get around so easily. Thus, he invented the horseless carriage to go faster, farther and more comfortably than riding a horse. What do you know? Henry Ford was Christian.

Here are what the Christian scientists have accomplished. Much more than what that racist and wrong scientist Durwood Darwin did. BTW Darwin was raised as a Christian, but disavowed it. Thus, he became a defacto atheist if not a strong atheist. See where he went wrong and why he ended up being so wrong?

Too many to list -- so knock yourself out -- Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science .

As for the rest, it's obvious you do not know Christianity so we can stop here ha ha.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're the typical ignorant internet atheist that I keep referring to ha ha.

Walking or bipedalism was such a big deal according to evolutionists that they say that apes couldn't help themselves. These apes could get around better swinging from trees or go faster on all fours, but for no reason started to stand and walk on two legs. Thus, they couldn't climb up a tree to get bananas any more. They even had to invent a pole apparatus to help them get the bananas from the ground. Of course, this took time like around 2.8 million years. What happened to these apes? How did evolution help them? They ended up starving to death. This is why we have the missing link, right? Ha ha.

Give it up. There is no way we descended from apes. Not only is it racist, it's dumb. The apes still can't think for themselves and they still swing from trees and run on all fours. Those Planet of the Apes movies are science fiction.

As for creation, God gave man a brain to rule over all the animals. This also helped him with his bi-pedalism problem of not being able to get around so easily. Thus, he invented the horseless carriage to go faster, farther and more comfortably than riding a horse. What do you know? Henry Ford was Christian.

Here are what the Christian scientists have accomplished. Much more than what that racist and wrong scientist Durwood Darwin did. BTW Darwin was raised as a Christian, but disavowed it. Thus, he became a defacto atheist if not a strong atheist. See where he went wrong and why he ended up being so wrong?

Too many to list -- so knock yourself out -- Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science .

As for the rest, it's obvious you do not know Christianity so we can stop here ha ha.

Everybody knows Christianity just like we know Hansel and Gretel. There's no hard part.

Face your ape heritage with pride. You are an ape. It's not a choice.