Science vs

I like the way you work kingcriple this its beginning to become a great debate as he stated there is no evidenc for the Big Bang but there is like anything in science they have reason to believe hears the evidence 1. Redshift of Galaxies The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang. Cosmic Microwave Background. Microwave Background Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct. The Sun is a fairly new star. Mixture of ElementsAs the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang. Galaxies of long ago. Looking back in timeThe main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory. My opening so claims you need evidence so were s your evidence my opponent to prove god and don't tell me to read the bible I read it alreadyDon't worry I don't judge you becouse your Christian most of my feins ae and they now I'm atheist the only reason I made this debate is I love debating so heras my second argument it's about evolution hoe you enjoy it Charles Darwin grew up embracing the "intelligent design" thinking of his day"William Paley"s renowned argument that the design of a watch implies there must have been an intelligent watchmaker, and so design in the universe implies there must have been an intelligent Creator.1 Concerning this, Darwin wrote, "I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley"s "Natural Theology".2 I could almost formerly have said it by heart."Nevertheless, Darwin spent most of the rest of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence. He labelled himself an agnostic, and gave us his "Religious Belief" in his Autobiography,4 written in 1876 when he was 67Darwin asserted that different species originated by the extremely slow process of evolution. However, he knew that Genesis taught that God had created plants, animals and man by separate sudden commands. Both premises could not be true. So either his theory or Genesis was in error. Which? He wrote:"I had gradually come, by this time [i.e. January 1839, when he was 29"Ed.], to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos [sic], or the beliefs of any barbarian."4Concerning "the miracles with which Christianity is supported", he wrote,"[T]he more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,"that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,"that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,"that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;"by such reflections as these " I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."4Comment: Christianity is indeed a religion of miracle. From the creative acts of God recorded in Genesis 1, through the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt in Exodus, to Christ"s many miracles in the Gospels, and the disciples" miracles in Acts, we see a God at work who is greater than our imagination can devise. He who brought everything into existence by His spoken word (Genesis 1) is certainly later able to legitimately vary what happens in His creation by the exercise of His will.Darwin"s arguments are philosophically bankrupt. He supposedly knows that all miracle reports are false because he knows that the laws of nature are fixed. However, he can know that the laws of nature are fixed only if he knows in advance that all miracle reports are false. So he is arguing in a circle: he dismisses the miracles by dismissing the sources; but he dismisses the sources because they contain miracles.He also invokes intellectual snobbery by assuming that Jesus" contemporaries believed in miracles out of ignorance. However, Joseph (Matthew 1:19) and Mary (Luke 1:34), for example, knew very well how babies are made"needing both a man and a woman, although they did not know certain details about spermatozoa and ova. They questioned the announcements of the Virginal Conception because they did know the facts of life, not because they did not!Also, miracles are properly considered not as breaks in the laws of nature, but additions to them. So to disprove miracles, Darwin would need to prove that nature is all there is, with no God capable of acting outside the normal laws by which he upholds it (Colossians 1:15 ff.)3. Darwin resented the biblical doctrine of future judgmentHe wrote,"I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine."4A sin against an infinitely holy God is infinitely serious.Comment: If Darwin had read his Bible as well as he had read Paley, he would have known that it says: "The Lord is " longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). In fact, by sending the Lord Jesus Christ to die for sin (John 1:29), God the Father provided the way of escape from everlasting punishment.Darwin also fails to show why the punishment is unjust, relying instead on the fallacy of argument from "outrage". However, a sin against an infinitely holy God is infinitely serious. God"s perfect justice requires that either the finite sinner must endure punishment for an infinite duration, or an infinite Substitute must bear the punishment we deserve. This is fulfilled by the God-man Jesus taking upon Himself the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:6). He wrote, "If the truth of this conclusion be granted [i.e. that there is more happiness than misery in the world], it harmonises well with the effects which we might expect from natural selection. If all the individuals of any species were habitually to suffer to an extreme degree they would neglect to propagate their kind " ." He then added that many sentient beings "occasionally suffer much. Such suffering, is quite compatible with the belief in Natural Selection, which is not perfect in its action " ." He continued, "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time?"4 Comment: Darwin"s views on suffering were highly personalized through the death of his 10-year-old daughter, Annie, in 1851, which "destroyed Charles"s tatters of belief in a moral, just universe" and "chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity".9 But Charles, suffering and death are integral parts of your theory of evolution. God originally created a perfect world, where there was no violence or pain or death (Genesis 1:29"31). When this sinless world was marred by the rebellion of the first man, Adam"s disobedience brought an intruder into the world"death (Genesis 2:17, cf. 3:19). However, now, because of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, we all can be restored to a right relationship with God and enjoy peace with Him. This sad outcome for Darwin shows the baneful danger of compromise with the concept of millions of years. Darwin"s main opponents in the Church had views very much like today"s "progressive creationists", who believe that God created species over millions of years. But this view entails that God had created the germ that killed Annie as a deadly pathogen. This contradicts the biblical teaching that death is "the last enemy" (1 Corinthians 15:26) and "the wages of sin" (Romans 6:23). This teaching implies that God had created the germ as a beneficial agent, and that it became deadly only after the Fall.10 Hope you joy my argument bye