[kwick20]

How do you explain the existence of the physical universe? Evolution? Every evolutionary model that I have seen postulated is not only unscientific, but anti-scientific, violating a plethora of the laws of science. It takes a far greater faith (and a blind faith at that) to embrace the theory of evolution than it does to embrace the truth of creation. No matter what area of science one examines, i.e. physics, biology, geology,etc. evolution is always refuted, and creation buttressed (if one is intellectually honest).
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:18-22

[Dimensio]

How do you explain the existence of the physical universe?

Well, I can't speak for others, but I am willing to honestly admit "I don't have all of the answers".

Evolution?

Certainly not. Evolution deals with the current diversity of the species. It can not and does not attempt to explain the existence of the physical universe.

Every evolutionary model that I have seen postulated is not only unscientific, but anti-scientific, violating a plethora of the laws of science.

Perhaps you could explain this further? Of course, since you seem to think that evolution might be used as an explanation for the existence of the physical universe, I question your knowledge on the field in general.

It takes a far greater faith (and a blind faith at that) to embrace the theory of evolution than it does to embrace the truth of creation.

What, exactly, is the "truth of creation". No matter what area of science one examines, i.e. physics, biology, geology,etc. evolution is always refuted, and creation buttressed (if one is intellectually honest).

I'm sure that you can give specific examples of this. You will need to support a particular creation theory if you're going to advance one, just asserting "creation" and then claiming that it's the one creation story to which you subscribe doesn't cut it.

[Hephaestus]

kwick20 postulated: "How do you explain the existence of the physical universe? Evolution?"

Not by the magical actions of an imaginary man in the sky. Nor by the rhetoric of those on earth with a vested interest in maintaining their social positions and personal self-respect based upon their metaphysical collective fantasies. I have far more respect - if not exactly blind faith - for the written works of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison and Stephen Hawking than I have for the politically edited written record of first century cultists.

Moreover, "The theory of evolution does not require faith or belief. When there is evidence present, a theory does not require faith. Evolution has evidence to support it therefore it does not require faith. It should also be noted that 87% of the population accepts the theory of evolution. While 87% of the population accepts evolution, only 13% of the population is secular. Therefore, even if the entire population of secular individuals accepted evolution, one would have to wonder where the other 74% came from." http://www.geocities.com/atheist_anon/common.htm