First of all, why should I believe any of these sources? But, more importantly, at what point in the op did I state that I was against evolution? Go on...

How old do you think the earth is?

Who knows. But, I'm inclined to go with science. I don't like to speculate on things the bible doesn't explicitly state.

Then I'm sorry for assuming you deny evolution. What evidence does your religion have that other religions don't?

Of what?

There are only two possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an antonymic pair that exhausts all possibilities. It is either one or the other. There is no third option. Let’s first look at the atheist option to explain the universe: an impersonal cause.  If the atheist were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature. With no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can’t be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn’t work. If the atheist said that the universe has always existed, that doesn’t work either because that would mean the universe was infinitely old. If it is infinitely old, then why hasn’t it run out of useable energy by now as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can’t work. If the atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can’t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again)--not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now.  So, that explanation doesn’t work either. Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot be infinitely old in its present form or any other form. So, how did it and ultimately we get here? Atheism can’t help us here. So, let’s turn our attention to the other option: a personal cause. If there is a personal influence, which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an explanation for the cause of the universe. Let me explain. A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist? Whatever caused the universe existed before the universe. Since the universe had a beginning in time and since matter and energy do not spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision. In other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best explanation of the existence of the universe. Of course, we Christians would say this decision was made by a personal being whom we call God. You see? The atheists have nothing to offer us with the important issue of explaining how we got here. Atheism can’t answer one of the most important philosophical questions pertaining to our own existence. It is deficient and lacking and at best can offer us only ignorance and guesses.

First off, the Big Bang isn't a claim for the creation of matter. It's the idea that matter compressed until it expanded again. And no information is better than false information. Taking the universe and saying that a God created it without any evidence, is [i]not[/i] an answer. How was your God created?

Sometimes atheist assert that there is no proof God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim. In order to state there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence. At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say that he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that he simply has not yet encountered one. Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.

If you're talking about the christian God. I can disprove him. This is assuming you're taking the bible literally. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html And not having proof, therefor nothing to be disproven, is a horrible idea for accepting something as true. If I told you right now, that there were invisible leprechauns flying around your house right now, you wouldn't be able to disprove me. Does that mean you should take me seriously? Of course not.

How does that disprove the Christian God?