Re: Worldview Survey

[rlrose328]

RE: MULTIPLE PARTNERS:  If I'm asked the question of whether I think it is right or wrong, I am going to say that it's wrong. I do have the right to do that and that's what I'm doing. According to your reasoning, YOU have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors, period. So unless you are the only one who is exempt from your rule I guess you just excluded yourself from having the right to say anything on this topic.

I know I have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors... that's my point.  They can do what they wish, period... as long as they are CONSENTING and ADULTS (just so my words don't get twisted).  We're getting bogged down here with semantics.

It does matter what the Bible says because the Bible is the truth. I agree, emotional scars are left even without sex. I didn't say that other scars didn't exist. I wouldn't know, I haven't had sex. When and if I do it will be extremely pleasurable I hope because I will be with the love of my life.

If you haven't yet had sex, then you have no experience with which to make judgements.  You can quote your pastor/minister or the bible, but this is real life, not mythology out here in the big bad world.  Everyone makes choices they have to live with, and your bible and apologics class won't stop that.  I hope it will be pleasurable for you.  It's not just for procreation... why on earth would it feel that good if that's all it's for?

What you are describing is the "new tolerance".   Dictionary.com definition of true, traditional tolerance:  "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Like I said before, I tolerate other belief systems. That means I put up with and "permit" (see definition) them to exist and be free even though I disagree with them. Tolerance doesn't mean you believe everything to be equally correct. That's the "new tolerance" crap being thrown around these days.

New tolerance or old tolerance, whatever.  Semantics again.  You want everyone to be Christian so their souls are saved.  Therefore, all the other religions are wrong in your opinion and should be abolished for the good of mankind.  SO... you may tolerate them, but you do wish they were not practiced.  If you don't mind that they are practiced, then why disrupt the beliefs of others (or non-belief, as they case may be) in order to convert them?

God is not a "guy". We can't categorize God as one of us and think of how we would act in that situation and make a judgment based on that. It would be wrong for us to do those things. However, God, being perfect, had every right to carry out those actions. He warned the people what would happen if they continued to sin and disobey Him. God does not want to have to punish anyone but if they refuse to do what is right, it is only fair and just that He does. Would it be right for a father to let his children run around and cause havok in their neighborhood, beating up other kids? I don't think you would like it if the father just sat back and did nothing. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of your second question to answer it fully but I believe we are in a time when God is allowing us to live until His final judgment. I promise Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and all those who practice evil will suffer.

Semantics AGAIN... I know got is not a "guy."  I was just using colloquialisms.  Of course I don't think it's right for a father to let his child run rampant all over the neighborhood, beating up other kids.  But I don't think the child would deserve death for doing so.  This is ruling with fear, not discipline.  FEAR is what drives Christianity.  FEAR is what makes people indoctrinate their children.  Then FEAR is what they use to keep children in line.  Fear that god will punish them if they don't behave.  FEAR is then what makes parents beat their children... fear that if they don't obey the rules of god, they'll go to hell and they won't see their children in the afterlife.  (That may be a little overwrought, but my point is valid.)  God killed people for disobeying and a just and loving "father" wouldn't do that.  Period.  

And yes, I can judge god based on how we react here on earth.  We were created "in his image," correct?  God is given man-like attributes throughout the bible and by the clergy all the time!  But when an atheist does it, we're out of line?

So, are you admitting God exists?

No, not at all... where did you get that?

I got that because you said this:

"Which god are YOU talking about? Just? Nope. Holy? Maybe... all the "o" words... not really. I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is. But loving? NO, not the god I read about in the bible."

It seems like your trying to classify who God is. Asking me which God I'm talking about, giving me "immortal"? But no, he's not a loving God? It seems like you've already assumed God exists and your debating his attributes.

I'm using your mythology to make a point.  If I said the Easter Bunny is fluffy, does that mean I must believe in the Easter Bunny?  Of that Santa Claus is generous and kind, I must believe in him?  No.  I'm being sarcastic and referring to your deity as if he were real for YOUR sake.

No, I offered this surveyed for the reason I posted in the first post. I needed the answers for class. Of course I don't mind it going into a discussion about God's existence. I can use logic and reason to defend and prove the existence of a creator to a reasonable person who has not already committed in their heart that God does not exist. True Christianity is not a business except the business of spreading Christ's message.

"True Christianity"?  Who exactly decided what is and isn't "True Christianity"?  Many televangelists have claimed to be "True Christians" and thousands have followed them, given them money, made them very wealthy (there's the business part) then we later find out they were skimming off the top and sleeping with their secretaries.  All of a sudden, they aren't "True Chrisians."   So it seems to me that any given Christian may or may not be true Christians.

Religion is a business.  The preaching of religion is a business.  Churches are businesses.  My mother has worked at Air Force churches, Lutheran churches, Catholic Churches, and mortuaries for 40 years.  I know a business when I see one.  True Christians are petty, mean, and spiteful people, just like the rest of us sinners.  One of them was so upset recently because she prayed and prayed and prayed that I get a 100% on a test but I got a 96%.  She even started to question (not very seriously) her faith because he hadn't answered her prayer.  Does this mean she's not a True Christian?  Of course not.  

And finally... I'm always open to the possiblility that god exists.  In all truthfulness, I am.  I discuss it all the time with my mom, my Christian friends, and over the years, various pastors and ministers and priests.  They present their facts and arguments (though we don't argue), I listen, I think rationally about what they've presented, and I come to a conclusion... which has always been that it can't possibly be real and factual.  If it works for them, great.  We all have to make our own way in this life.  But I prefer to remain grounded in reality, regardless how horrible it is at times.  I don't care how ANYONE worships whatever deity they've chosen... as long as they don't, in any way, shape, or form, coerce or force me to do the same (usu. in the form of laws based on some aspect of their faith).

[curiosityandthecat]

Multiple partners... where's Kylyssa when you need her?  

[VanReal]

I agree morals are related to our involvement with other people. I don't think people have ever lived in isolation. Can you give me an example? I disagree completely that moral have no basis in objective truth or objective morality. How do you explain the "conscience"? Are you telling me you never felt bed for doing anything in your life?

People have chosen to live apart from the rest of society, of course they would be one person off by themself so it's not like you nor I would know any of them.  Hence the term recluse and hermit, they are choices, not that they were raised by wolves or anything:)

I think a conscience is just the personal attachment in the social contract as well.  You are raised to be a part of society and what "rights and wrongs" to follow (or feel or believe) and when you go against that your conscience bothers you.  Or, if you are a sociopath it doesn't bother you at all because you don't have one since you don't participate in the social contract.  A conscience is merely a personal attachment to your activities but it's not necessarily loaded with everything that is supposed to be morally right or wrong but rather the ones that you feel are reasonable and accurate.  If they were absolute and or objective they would not change over time within the same person.  When I was younger I was somewhat mean (happens from being the baby girl of 14 brothers) so I picked on people, bullied, and often physically fought with other kids for no real reason and it did not bother me one bit.  Now at 35 I can't imagine doing that to someone and really can't figure out how I ever did that with a second thought.  I'm also very defensive of people, so my conscience has done a literal 180 degrees.  Nothing objective about them, just something I learned along the way from experience and interaction with other people.

[SSY]

14 brothers, wow. Were you the only girl? Did you all live together? Were your parent mormons   ?

[VanReal]

14 brothers, wow. Were you the only girl? Did you all live together? Were your parent mormons   ?

No, Irish catholic:) One older sister, two sets of twins so my folks definitely believed in the "being fruitful" thing.  Seriously though we were farm people so that's pretty typical.  We were all in the same home for two years before people started trickling away.

Each of us only has one kid though, isn't that interesting?

Jon and Kate plus 8 are wimps!

[mbell31]

RE: MULTIPLE PARTNERS:  If I'm asked the question of whether I think it is right or wrong, I am going to say that it's wrong. I do have the right to do that and that's what I'm doing. According to your reasoning, YOU have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors, period. So unless you are the only one who is exempt from your rule I guess you just excluded yourself from having the right to say anything on this topic.

I know I have no right to say what consenting adults do behind closed doors... that's my point.  They can do what they wish, period... as long as they are CONSENTING and ADULTS (just so my words don't get twisted).  We're getting bogged down here with semantics.

You must not understand what I'm saying. You say you don't have that right and yet you also give the opinion that they should be able to do whatever they want. Isn't that a glaring contradiction? You shouldn't have any opinion at all on that matter if you don't have a right to, but you give one anyway! I do have the right to weigh in with my thoughts so I do.

It does matter what the Bible says because the Bible is the truth. I agree, emotional scars are left even without sex. I didn't say that other scars didn't exist. I wouldn't know, I haven't had sex. When and if I do it will be extremely pleasurable I hope because I will be with the love of my life.

If you haven't yet had sex, then you have no experience with which to make judgements.  You can quote your pastor/minister or the bible, but this is real life, not mythology out here in the big bad world.  Everyone makes choices they have to live with, and your bible and apologics class won't stop that.  I hope it will be pleasurable for you.  It's not just for procreation... why on earth would it feel that good if that's all it's for?

I never said it was just for procreation. I agree it is made for pleasure and connection between man and wife.

What you are describing is the "new tolerance".   Dictionary.com definition of true, traditional tolerance:  "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry."

Like I said before, I tolerate other belief systems. That means I put up with and "permit" (see definition) them to exist and be free even though I disagree with them. Tolerance doesn't mean you believe everything to be equally correct. That's the "new tolerance" crap being thrown around these days.

New tolerance or old tolerance, whatever.  Semantics again.  You want everyone to be Christian so their souls are saved.  Therefore, all the other religions are wrong in your opinion and should be abolished for the good of mankind.  SO... you may tolerate them, but you do wish they were not practiced.  If you don't mind that they are practiced, then why disrupt the beliefs of others (or non-belief, as they case may be) in order to convert them?

Semantics? Defining a word is not semantics. If you are misusing a term and I show that it is not the correct definition that is not semantics that is a very important fact to distinguish. If we can't determine what words really mean what use is there in talking? I never said anything about disrupting the beliefs of others. I just know everyone deserves a chance to hear what Christianity says and decide for themselves what they think about it.

God is not a "guy". We can't categorize God as one of us and think of how we would act in that situation and make a judgment based on that. It would be wrong for us to do those things. However, God, being perfect, had every right to carry out those actions. He warned the people what would happen if they continued to sin and disobey Him. God does not want to have to punish anyone but if they refuse to do what is right, it is only fair and just that He does. Would it be right for a father to let his children run around and cause havok in their neighborhood, beating up other kids? I don't think you would like it if the father just sat back and did nothing. I don't have the knowledge on the topic of your second question to answer it fully but I believe we are in a time when God is allowing us to live until His final judgment. I promise Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead and all those who practice evil will suffer.

Semantics AGAIN... I know got is not a "guy."  I was just using colloquialisms.  Of course I don't think it's right for a father to let his child run rampant all over the neighborhood, beating up other kids.  But I don't think the child would deserve death for doing so.  This is ruling with fear, not discipline.  FEAR is what drives Christianity.  FEAR is what makes people indoctrinate their children.  Then FEAR is what they use to keep children in line.  Fear that god will punish them if they don't behave.  FEAR is then what makes parents beat their children... fear that if they don't obey the rules of god, they'll go to hell and they won't see their children in the afterlife.  (That may be a little overwrought, but my point is valid.)  God killed people for disobeying and a just and loving "father" wouldn't do that.  Period.  

Semantics again huh? Well I was just using that as a point of saying God is not human. Fear does have something to do with it. If you knew you were going to be disciplined when you screw up, you would be afraid. Newsflash, that's what fear is. There's nothing wrong with that. God is just and in his justice it wouldn't be right to allow evil to take place without punishment. I wish everyone could go to heaven but that's not the way it appears to work. Some people will simply deny the truth up until their death.

And yes, I can judge god based on how we react here on earth.  We were created "in his image," correct?  God is given man-like attributes throughout the bible and by the clergy all the time!  But when an atheist does it, we're out of line?

God isn't given attributes we simply discover what He is like through the Bible and His creation. I Never said anything about you not being able to do that.

So, are you admitting God exists?

No, not at all... where did you get that?

I got that because you said this:

"Which god are YOU talking about? Just? Nope. Holy? Maybe... all the "o" words... not really. I'll give you "immortal" only because his fan club insists that he is. But loving? NO, not the god I read about in the bible."

It seems like your trying to classify who God is. Asking me which God I'm talking about, giving me "immortal"? But no, he's not a loving God? It seems like you've already assumed God exists and your debating his attributes.

I'm using your mythology to make a point.  If I said the Easter Bunny is fluffy, does that mean I must believe in the Easter Bunny?  Of that Santa Claus is generous and kind, I must believe in him?  No.  I'm being sarcastic and referring to your deity as if he were real for YOUR sake.

Ok, well you might want to do so in a way that doesn't make it look like you've already admitted He exists by what you're saying

No, I offered this surveyed for the reason I posted in the first post. I needed the answers for class. Of course I don't mind it going into a discussion about God's existence. I can use logic and reason to defend and prove the existence of a creator to a reasonable person who has not already committed in their heart that God does not exist. True Christianity is not a business except the business of spreading Christ's message.

"True Christianity"?  Who exactly decided what is and isn't "True Christianity"?  Many televangelists have claimed to be "True Christians" and thousands have followed them, given them money, made them very wealthy (there's the business part) then we later find out they were skimming off the top and sleeping with their secretaries.  All of a sudden, they aren't "True Chrisians."   So it seems to me that any given Christian may or may not be true Christians.

True Christianity is believing in and living your life for Jesus Christ. So, people lie that doesn't make Christianity a lie. Yes, some people who claim to be Christian are not truly Christian, this is a well-known fact.

Religion is a business.  The preaching of religion is a business.  Churches are businesses.  My mother has worked at Air Force churches, Lutheran churches, Catholic Churches, and mortuaries for 40 years.  I know a business when I see one.  True Christians are petty, mean, and spiteful people, just like the rest of us sinners.  One of them was so upset recently because she prayed and prayed and prayed that I get a 100% on a test but I got a 96%.  She even started to question (not very seriously) her faith because he hadn't answered her prayer.  Does this mean she's not a True Christian?  Of course not.  

Christians are sinners, yes but hopefully in the process of becoming less and less sinful to the point of being free from sin. The Christians I know are not petty, mean, and spiteful. Those are obviously immature Christians.

And finally... I'm always open to the possiblility that god exists.  In all truthfulness, I am.  I discuss it all the time with my mom, my Christian friends, and over the years, various pastors and ministers and priests.  They present their facts and arguments (though we don't argue), I listen, I think rationally about what they've presented, and I come to a conclusion... which has always been that it can't possibly be real and factual.  If it works for them, great.  We all have to make our own way in this life.  But I prefer to remain grounded in reality, regardless how horrible it is at times.  I don't care how ANYONE worships whatever deity they've chosen... as long as they don't, in any way, shape, or form, coerce or force me to do the same (usu. in the form of laws based on some aspect of their faith).[/quote]

That's good, I'm glad your open. Why can't it be real and factual?

[rlrose328]

That's good, I'm glad your open. Why can't it be real and factual?

On what are you basing the fact that god is real and factual?  It can't be the bible because you cannot use a document that has never been 100% verified scientifically to be true and factual.  Besides, it's supposedly the word of god himself, so that's like saying "he exists because he says so."  Of course he does... but in order for something to be factual, it must be independently verified and that is impossible.

Then there's the bible, the inerrant word of god, which is filled with so many inconsistencies.  If god inspired the men to write what they did, how did they get so many versions of the same story?  Did man get it wrong or did god?  Either way, you'd think god would get a better editor if it's his inerrant word.

Then there's the horrible stories of death and destruction at the command of god himself.  Make whatever excuses your apologetics class has given you to pass on to heretics like me, but he wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah because they were naughty?  My son is naughty and never once have I wanted to kill him.  A creator doesn't treat his creations like that... ever.  Those actions are not done by someone who loves his creations.

There could not have been a flood that covered the entire earth and there could not have been a boat that carried two of every species (and 7 of some of them) of creature on earth AND the food AND Noah's family, etc.  It is just impossible.  The Christian line on this, as I've heard it repeatedly, is that god can do miracles and with Noah's boat, this is what he did.  Well, if he can do miracles, why did he need Noah to begin with?  Also, how did penguins and other creatures from far away get onto the boat?  The Christian line on this one is that god told Noah not to worry about it, that he would take care of getting the animals there in time.  Again, if he could do that, why did he need Noah?

No one can turn a few fish and loaves of bread into a mass of food for an entire group of 500 people.

People don't come back from the dead, son of god or whatever.  That is called a zombie (and my 7yo son got it the minute we read that story to him from the bible without any help from us).  The other place I've heard of people coming back from the dead is classical mythology, yet if you call Christianity "mythology," they get all upset.

People didn't live to be 700 or 900 years old.  It was a different calendar back then, not the Gregorian calendar we have today.

Most of this is commonly referred to as "magic," yet Christians eschew magic.  Why is that?

So many religions in the world who all seem to dislike the others and want to do whatever they can to convert everyone else to their religion or belief system.  Well not all of them can be right.  And if they can't all be right, then none are right.

I won't even get into the behavior of Christians because that has nothing to do with god himself, but honestly... their behavior is so unChristian as to be nauseating.  Repressive, uncompromising, prejudice, holier-than-thou, judgemental... and many other adjectives I just don't want to list right now.

Based in part on this information, I decided that man created religion to answer the questions he was unable to answer as sheep-tending nomads.  Now, in the 21st century, we have an abundance of science and research to tell us that the earth is not flat, that the sun doesnt' revolve around the earth, that eating pork won't kill us, that wearing two different clothes won't result in death, and many more answers.  We have grown past the era of supernatural beings in the heavens that create us and guide us.  We know many more facts now.

Bottom line:  You can have your own TRUTH... but you cannot have your own FACTS.  If you choose religion, you may have truth, but you sacrifice facts.

[mbell31]

Since you basically summarized many common objections to Christianity and seem to have a response for them, I won't take the time to respond to each point.

My question for you is, if the universe isn't the result of a creator, where did it come from?

Is it logical and factual to think that everything came from nothing? Prove that to me scientifically.

[rlrose328]

Since you basically summarized many common objections to Christianity and seem to have a response for them, I won't take the time to respond to each point.

My question for you is, if the universe isn't the result of a creator, where did it come from?

Is it logical and factual to think that everything came from nothing? Prove that to me scientifically.

1.  Your arguing with the "god of the gaps" argument... that because we don't know for sure (a gap in our knowledge), it must be god.

2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

Converting energy into matter isn't completely new to physicists. When they smash together particles like protons and anti-protons in high-energy accelerator experiments, the initial particles are destroyed and release a fleeting burst of energy. Sometimes this energy burst contains very short-lived packets of light known as "virtual photons" which go on to form new particles. In this experiment scientists observed for the first time the creation of particles from real photons, packets of light that scientists can observe directly in the laboratory.

(http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=747)

As for what I believe, this website presents it in a logical and factual way, almost word for word what I would say:  Creation of a Cosmology:  Big Bang Theory.  Quarks and atoms swirling, heating up, expanding... not a BANG, but a whoosh of expansion.  A billion years in the making, planets are formed, quarks and atoms form molecules which form bacteria in the goop that is the newborn planet.  From there, evolution.  

All of this has plenty of science to back it up.  The "science" that creationists rely on is faulty at best.  They have the end result "god made the world" and then look for the evidence to shove into that result.  That's not science... science looks at what it finds and determine what it means.  When they find more, they amend what they previously knew to incorporate the new information.  Religion is finite, unchangable, no matter what the earth and its peoples are doing.

[mbell31]

If I'm arguing for the "god of the gaps" then you arguing for the "it must be methodological naturalism that explains everything" argument.

what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

What is the mechanism for evolution? Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

[rlrose328]

If I'm arguing for the "god of the gaps" then you arguing for the "it must be methodological naturalism that explains everything" argument.

No, I'm coming from a position that has scientific facts which have been peer-reviewed and agreed upon by physicists, biologists, and other science professionals.  There is nothing assumed or mythological or supernatural about any of it.

what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Just because it CAN explain everything doesn't mean it DOES explain everything.  Harry Potter explains magic just fine... doesn't make it true.  Many books can explain LOTS of things... palm reading, mind reading, disappearance of objects, zen and such... doesn't make ANY of them true.

Besides, I'm pretty sure I never said thinking a creator designed the universe is silly, but now that you mention it...

Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

Did you even READ the article I included?  Based on this question, I'm thinking you didn't.

The bottom line is that NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE what actually happened and no one ever will because NO ONE was there.  I don't know.  You don't know.  Your pastor and your apologetics professor don't know either.  Like I said, though, there is evidence supporting the big bang event.  There is NO evidence supporting "god did it."

What is the mechanism for evolution? Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

The mechanism is survival.  Period.  Those biological structures that can survive their environment continue to evolve to adapt to it and those that don't, die off.  In some instances, like the Galapogos Islands, we can find very similar species on each island that have evolved to adapt to the special needs of their immediate environment.  Science suggests they were all on one island initially but as the land masses moved, the species became spread out and they either adapted through evolution or they died.  Most adapted and thus, a species that has differing characteristics.  The human species is the same.  Look at the shape of the eye and face.  I can expand later, after I finish working and such.  And the Darwin thing, too.

[Hitsumei]

2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

This is false, energy is not a thing, it is a description of the ability to cause change, or do work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

[PipeBox]

If I'm arguing for the "god of the gaps" then you arguing for the "it must be methodological naturalism that explains everything" argument.

what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Let's assume the big bang is true. What caused it? Nothing? Where did the energy come from for it to take place?

I don't mean to get in the middle of this, especially since it's gotten a little strange for a worldview survey (perhaps a mod can separate it into a new thread if everyone else agrees it ought to be), but let me ask you, mbell, just how many times in the whole history of man a supernatural explanation has replaced a working natural one.  I've no reason to believe the primary cause was supernatural, either, but even if it was, all I can say is that we have yet to discover it.  Consider it that you're no longer arguing for the Christian God, but just some arbitrary deist god, just so you can stick on the outside possibility that it's your god.  Under this logic, Brahma is as likely as anyone else to have made the universe.  Heck, I don't know my future, maybe I did it after going back in time, some time after I had achieved godhood by utilizing the awesome power of sand paper and a clavichord.  I think that last one is incredibly unlikely, but if we're only rooting for a creator, and the whole of the supernatural is up for grabs, why not?  After all, it could be anything supernatural, right, even things that only give the appearance of being godlike.  But the main argument is that, so far, every time there's been a gap that a god filled, like moving the sun or making lightning, we've filled the gap with knowledge and killed that god.  It just so happens that some of the religious have now found the ultimate gap for them to put their faith in.

What is the mechanism for evolution? Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

*moan*
After I get some sleep...

[Hitsumei]

what's so silly about thinking a creator designed the universe? Wouldn't that immediately explain everything?

Actually it explains nothing. You cannot derive an explanation from an inexplicable. How did god design the universe? What were the mechanisms it employed? Where did it acquire the matter, and energy, and how did it go about forming the universe in the way that it currently appears, and from this, what kind of predictions can you draw about the future physical states of matter and energy in the universe? Where did god come from, and where and how did it acquire its universe designing abilities? What did it do before the universe exists? What is it doing now? What will it do after? What is it composed of? What types of energy does it employ to operate? Etc.  

Saying that god designed the universe explains exactly nothing, and offers exactly zero information about the universe. Especially since no information is known about god, what it is, where it came from, how it does things, what is consists of, and all of the things we would need to know about it in order for it to serve as an answer to any questions about the physical state of affairs of the universe.

What is the mechanism for evolution?

Natural and sexual selective processes, spontaneous genetic mutation, genetic drift, and other known mechanisms, as well as likely some unknown ones.

Why did Darwin say that if 50 years after his death thousands of fossils of intermediate species would be found or his theory would fall apart? Still waiting for those...

Go visit a natural history museum.

[rlrose328]

2.  Physicists have long been able to convert energy into matter.  That is nothing new.  And because energy is not something physical, this means they can literally create something from nothing.  It IS possible and that is probably how the universe began.

This is false, energy is not a thing, it is a description of the ability to cause change, or do work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Thank you... I know my understanding isn't complete.  I appreciate your pointing me to further info.  

(I did say that energy is not something physical... that's basically what I meant.  I could have worded it better though.)