Whatever people believe started evolution, what start that? And I've heard/read so many differnet theories, including the one on the universe expanding/contracting infinetely, but I say again to that and to all other theories as to why things are the way they are, what caused them in the first place if there isn't God? Seriously, I want a serious response to this. Every other time people just blow past that question because they either don't know or they don't want to answer.

I'm just going to focus in on this part.  

You're not talking about evolution.  Evolution started when life originated.  Anything before that falls into the category of either abiogenesis or cosmology. 

Once life originates in whatever way it does, then we have a pretty good idea of how it grows and changes over time.  Evolution is logical because we know that genes exist and we know how they work.  Evolution is gene changes in a population over a certain period of time.  And we can see this happening in humans over the course of human history, in species we've domesticated, and in labarotories with fruit flies and bacteria.  Evolution is the cornerstone of biology, and biology has proven itself over and over in practical application.  So, we know how evolution happens. 

As  for how life and the universe started, the answer is we don't know.  And what is wrong with that answer exactly? You're demanding a serious answer to how the universe was created from a random guy on a message board.  And the answer is I don't know.  It's honest, and it's accurate.  There are many theories as to how this is possible, and they're a bit too complex to sum up here.  I would recommend watching Lawrence Krauss' presentation, A Universe From Nothing, or reading Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design" if you're truly interested.

But let's say that nobody had any clue.  Then the answer is just I don't know.  We don't get to insert an intelligence into the equation, because that just pushes the problem back one level, and we have to figure out where that intelligence came from.  And of course, if you want to propose god as a theory to be taken seriously, then you need some actual evidence.  You can believe whatever makes sense to you, but unless you have evidence don't try to convince others. Or at least don't try to convince me.

And, again, that has nothing to do with evolution.  Just because we don't know how life starts doesn't mean we don't know what happens once it's here.

1) I don't push people into my beliefs. I do not believe anyone would accept Jesus Christ as their savior if they were forced to instead of having their heart change. I was just curious so I was just pushing for a response to my question (of which you gave me and I thank you).

2) Really, when I say evolution, I'm talking about anything changing. I was more saying macro evolution (how the universe itself changes).

3) Why do genes work the way they do? Why are their genes in the first place? Either there is a purpose for them, which points to something deciding that there needed to be a purpose, or there isn't a purpose, in which case they shouldn't exist at all.

4) Inserting an intelligence into the equation can resolve the issue. If I believe in God, I awknowledge that I do not understand things the way HE does. I awknowledge that one day I will understand a great deal more, however:

1.  I wasn't accusing you of anything.  I was addressing your use of god as an explanation for creation.

2.  In that case, you're just not using the right terminology, and it's going to get confusing.  Evolution means something really specific in science.  There is a word for how the universe itself changes, and that word is cosmology.  If you're using the terms interchangeably, you're not going to be understood.

3.  I don't know why they need any kind of purpose to exist.  But as for why there are genes (this is called abiogenesis), we have a decent idea.  Genes are made of amino acids, and we have been able to produce these in a lab without any pre-existing life.  So when you get certain molecules together in certain places, it is likely possible for life to exist.  See the Miller Urey experiments.

As for why genes do what they do, there is a really long explanation, but the much shorter one is that they're chemicals.  And chemicals act in certain ways according to the laws of chemistry. In nature we see even non-living things such as crystals (which some people actually think may have something to do with the origin of life) that replicate themselves.  So, yeah.  When you get certain molecules together, they replicate.  And, when those molecules have an imperfect method of replicating, they changes.  

If you're really and genuinely interested in this topic, there are a lot of books and lectures that can explain it better than me.  These aren't unanswerable questions, and we've got some pretty strong ideas.

4.  It resolves the issue in the same way that flipping over a chess board resolves a game of chess.  It's an answer that doesn't have any evidence to support it, and it raises more questions than it answers.  

You're asking a lot of questions when it comes to scientific explanation, which is a good thing.  But, you don't seem to be applying the same scrutiny to the idea of a creator.

Where did this creator come from?  What purpose was behind his creation?  Why did he want to create the universe?  What mechanisms can he use to create the universe?

If you want an answer that actually answers the questions, then an intelligence does not help.  We simply don't have a compelling answer yet, and we need to keep looking.  Maybe that search will turn up an intelligence of some sort, but we have no evidence for one now.

3. Then why are there molecules? And why do they function the way they do? It's just an endless lists of questions. Whatever you or someone else may come up with as an explanation of molecules, I'll just ask what the origin behind that is. When it comes down to it, it's incomprehensible. We have no ability to understand it because things get infintetly smaller and smaller and the "building blocks" become made up of other things. People once thought cells were the smallest things, then atoms, then bases, on and on.

4. The difference here is that, and you can look at the scripture I referenced, I accept the fact that I will not understand everything and I am trusting in God to have the answers (faith). Science dictates that we try to solve everything and figure out the reason. I believe, based on my previous comments, that we, as humans, are incapable of fully (or even remotely) understanding why things are in existence instead of there being nothing. Faith allows me to say to myself, "hey, I don't fully get this and I have a lot of questions, but I can rest assured that God is in control." That is why I don't apply the same scrutiny to the idea of creator.

5. And as far as evidence goes, that is something you see a lot more after you become a believer. I have experienced things in my life that I know to be evidence, but attempting to explain those things to people (particularly non believers) can be incredibly difficult. Miracles happen all the time, but there is one that I can look at on a grand scale and it affirms my belief. My own comprehension of my own existence. I am not an instinctual creature like every other organism. I can do things counter to what my instrincts tell me to do. I can think on my own above survival mode. People love dogs and cats and other organisms and think they are part of their family and that they smile and love them, but they don't smile (just the way they look) and they only do things for you (tricks, don't run away, etc) because they know you have the food and you provide comfort to them. If that comfort left or the food ran out, they would leave or try to eat you (depending on what we are talking about). Humans don't do that necessarily. I can choose to starve to death rather than eat something. I can choose to kill myself if I wanted to. I can choose to wait to eat until I decide to, not when my stomach gets hungry. I can choose an infinite amount of options that no other species can do, because they are controlled by instinct and survival mode. That is amazing. The fact that I am self aware is astounding and illogical. Why and how could the universe (if there is no God) have organisms come from matter that can become self aware when the universe itself isn't self aware? How did self awareness even come into being if there is no divine contribution?

3. Then why are there molecules? And why do they function the way they do? It's just an endless lists of questions. Whatever you or someone else may come up with as an explanation of molecules, I'll just ask what the origin behind that is. When it comes down to it, it's incomprehensible. We have no ability to understand it because things get infintetly smaller and smaller and the "building blocks" become made up of other things. People once thought cells were the smallest things, then atoms, then bases, on and on.

4. The difference here is that, and you can look at the scripture I referenced, I accept the fact that I will not understand everything and I am trusting in God to have the answers (faith). Science dictates that we try to solve everything and figure out the reason. I believe, based on my previous comments, that we, as humans, are incapable of fully (or even remotely) understanding why things are in existence instead of there being nothing. Faith allows me to say to myself, "hey, I don't fully get this and I have a lot of questions, but I can rest assured that God is in control." That is why I don't apply the same scrutiny to the idea of creator.

And as far as evidence goes, that is something you see a lot more after you become a believer. I have experienced things in my life that I know to be evidence, but attempting to explain those things to people (particularly non believers) can be incredibly difficult. Miracles happen all the time, but there is one that I can look at on a grand scale and it affirms my belief. My own comprehension of my own existence. I am not an instinctual creature like every other organism. I can do things counter to what my instrincts tell me to do. I can think on my own above survival mode. People love dogs and cats and other organisms and think they are part of their family and that they smile and love them, but they don't smile (just the way they look) and they only do things for you (tricks, don't run away, etc) because they know you have the food and you provide comfort to them. If that comfort left or the food ran out, they would leave or try to eat you (depending on what we are talking about). Humans don't do that necessarily. I can choose to starve to death rather than eat something. I can choose to kill myself if I wanted to. I can choose to wait to eat until I decide to, not when my stomach gets hungry. I can choose an infinite amount of options that no other species can do, because they are controlled by instinct and survival mode. That is amazing. The fact that I am self aware is astounding and illogical. Why and how could the universe (if there is no God) have organisms come from matter that can become self aware when the universe itself isn't self aware? How did self awareness even come into being if there is no divine contribution?

3. You talk about a "why" as if to find someone who motivated the molecules into existence. There is no need for a motivation for them to exist, in order for them to actually exist. That molecules bind with other molecules out of which we get new properties is only a consequence of the action and reaction between them. These building blocks are then formed into larger structures and, sometimes, into cells. What we call life is just a consequence of actions that, by chance, can recreate themselves. We find this to be amazing (myself included) but it is no more amazing than any non-biological matter, only less likely to happen as far as we know. And we constantly seek answers to how everything is constructed from the start and, as you say, has found smaller and smaller particles. So apparently science is the tool that gives ut the best opportunity to find this answer, wouldn´t you agree?

4. I would never give up on knowledge in the way you describe. When we constantly push our own scientific boundaries forward, we can´t, or rather should never, give up on our own intellectuality and just say "I will never seek knowledge, only put my faith into a sky creature created by humans thousands of years ago".

5. Well, if you can´t recreate it, you don´t have evidence of its existence, simple as that. And this whole notion that somethig that isn´t self-aware can´t create something self-aware. Self-awareness is nothing more than a complex chemical and electrical process in our minds and bodies so ofcourse it can exist without a "higher" intelligence behind it. You try to find a reason behind it, and the reason is simple: because chance and laws of nature has formed it.

And I always find it fascinating how so many religious people try to question scientific method by saying "yes, but why do we have molecules" or "well, then who created the universe to begin with", then explains it with a sky god and suddenly turns around and say that we should then not question what created this sky god? So the whole argument revolves around what created what in the world, except for sky god? Well, that´s very convenient then :).

3. You talk about a "why" as if to find someone who motivated the molecules into existence. There is no need for a motivation for them to exist, in order for them to actually exist. That molecules bind with other molecules out of which we get new properties is only a consequence of the action and reaction between them. These building blocks are then formed into larger structures and, sometimes, into cells. What we call life is just a consequence of actions that, by chance, can recreate themselves. We find this to be amazing (myself included) but it is no more amazing than any non-biological matter, only less likely to happen as far as we know. And we constantly seek answers to how everything is constructed from the start and, as you say, has found smaller and smaller particles. So apparently science is the tool that gives ut the best opportunity to find this answer, wouldn´t you agree?

4. I would never give up on knowledge in the way you describe. When we constantly push our own scientific boundaries forward, we can´t, or rather should never, give up on our own intellectuality and just say "I will never seek knowledge, only put my faith into a sky creature created by humans thousands of years ago".

5. Well, if you can´t recreate it, you don´t have evidence of its existence, simple as that. And this whole notion that somethig that isn´t self-aware can´t create something self-aware. Self-awareness is nothing more than a complex chemical and electrical process in our minds and bodies so ofcourse it can exist without a "higher" intelligence behind it. You try to find a reason behind it, and the reason is simple: because chance and laws of nature has formed it.

And I always find it fascinating how so many religious people try to question scientific method by saying "yes, but why do we have molecules" or "well, then who created the universe to begin with", then explains it with a sky god and suddenly turns around and say that we should then not question what created this sky god? So the whole argument revolves around what created what in the world, except for sky god? Well, that´s very convenient then :).