Answer these series of questions. Ready?

Could you not have just posted the questions I was ready ages ago.

What is "time"?

A concept used to describe things moving along. An abstract theory it doesn't really exist.

Use sources.

There is no reliable source for time seeing as it doesn't really exist.

Yep whenever you are.

Let me post something. Wait a sec.

I've been waiting for over a day now I've given up hope of something logical coming out of you.

(1) Evolution has no explanation as to it's own origin. Atheists try to explain this, but are never under the same conclusion. (2) Darwin stated, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory." (3) Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, He is the creator of time; therefore, He is not limited by the time dimension He created. So He has no beginning in time,and the Bible concurs that God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.

1 I stated myself that evolution theory does not explain everything and is not a fact. To me it is the most logical explanation. It does not explain how things started because it has no explanation for things just being. 2 as I have stated scientists have not figured out an explanation for everything. But science is every growing and the knowledge given by it is always improving becoming more accurate over time. 3. I do not believe in the existence of time I have already stated that. It's an abstract concept we use to name things moving forward it does not exist in a physical sense. I don't feel god not being bound by time ( which I have explained my opinion of ) is a reason for him just existing. Its a nice theory and a new one to my ears but It has no gravity as far as I'm concerned sorry.

If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?

I do not have the time to write a response to the entirety of that much like I had no time to reply to the entirety of the original post. So in short you are correct there is no explanation for how it all started as far as science is concerned. However just because science gives no answer and the bible does give an answer does not make the bibles answer correct. You see small scale evolution in England its very apparent. Go back 3 generations and many English men worked in mines. The average height of a white English male is good chunk taller now than it was before. Yes this isn't long scale yes this is just a reverse of them getting smaller to fit in the mines. Humans won't evolve much if it all now at least not in a permanent way. Much like the sharks haven't evolved much since the time of the dinosaurs. Because we have no predators so their I no natural selection. The smart humans generally produce 1-3 if any children and many less intelligent humans have upwards of 5. I believe if anything the human race will devolve. As to your question of would I love a disabled person the answer is probably no. You do realise its only positive genetic mutations that improve a species. Missing a chromosome ect. Will not improve the human species so your argument is irrelevant.

[quote]So in short you are correct there is no explanation for how it all started as far as science is concerned. [/quote]This is... ...Why I Say No to Evolution: (1) Evolution has no explanation as to it's own origin. As evident in the explanation provided above, and whenever I research from an atheistic perspective, there are either complications or conflicting stories. Evidently, Atheists try to explain this, but are never under the same conclusion. (2) Darwin stated, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory." Darwin himself made a point as to the complexity of biology self-developing or evolving into something better from acclaimed simpler beginnings. Remember the watch scenario by Sylux102? It perfectly exhibits this mysterious scenario completely. I can't believe I didn't think of such a metaphoric situation, but please, do try to explain the complexity. (3) What if there was a deity? You yourself Demonwarfare stated, "There's always a chance, no matter how small it may be." What if it was God Himself? ...and then you say, "What? From the Bible, all of it is nothing but a bunch of bull." Okay then. Would you have it rather say, "In the beginning, a cosmic force evidently defying the natural laws of time and space in a manner well-reserved specifically for the development on life on a small planet which will inevitably called Earth (God) proceeded to make the biological manifestation of Higgs' boson with a spiritual Large Hadron Collide (created the heaven's and the Earth)" (Genesis 1:1)? Everyone should understand what this is since all of humanity is considered smart enough to know what this means, even to 6000 years ago. Perhaps, all you needed was the Bible to talk like you. Instead of like a wit-less human will under no compulsion to follow in order of living. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, He is the creator of time; therefore, He is not limited by the time dimension He created. So He has no beginning in time, and the Bible concurs that God is the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity (Isaiah 57:15); therefore, He doesn't have a cause.