evolution\big bang

"But Try this the big bang is said to have started from a dot, or blob. And was spinning and spinning when finally it exploded. Wouldnï¿½t that mean all stars and planets would be spinning the same way. " No, this is absurd. I've never heard that the singularity was spinning when it expanded at the Big Bang, and even if it was, galaxy, stellar and planet formation is such a complicated process that what happened at the Big Bang has no bearing whatsoever. --------- "With this math, do all the stars move at the same rate? and even though the speed was calculated now, it could change later. Or how are you certain of the speed and direction, what is there wassomething wrong with its calculations. " Your argument has really reduced to 'What if Hubble was wrong'? For this argument to be used, it would be necessary for my opponent to find such disproof and provide evidence, or else disprove it herself. She has clearly not done this. Besides which, the Hubble constant has been verified to a very accurate tolerance, and the maths doesn't lie. ---------- "The big bang needs a cause, it started at one point, God always was, but the universe want always, therefore, must have an explanation of starting. Secondly, by you saying there is no need for a cause reinforces that there has been no logical explanation, created to back it up, therefor making it a belief instead of science because of its lack of evidence. " This is a repeat of my opponent's Cosmological-type argument, and I've dealt with this is previous rounds. If God always was, why couldn't the singularity always have been? If either God or the singularity were to be without a creator, Occam's Razor would suggest it would be the far less complicated singularity. ---------- "With the flys, being unable to mate with the other group, were they able to mate with normal, flys who weren't forced into this unearthly condition? " You honestly think a group of reputable scientists didn't take things like this into account? They didn't create this experiment to trick you into thinking there's no God, this isn't some conspiracy. The article I linked to on speciation says that these results have been repeated time and time again. The lesson here is that speciation occurs, and therefore evolution occurs. ----------- "I agree there is evidence, and i believe a small amount of evolution has taken place called micoevolution. But if evolution can not support how life first started, then what did start life? and in what form, I believe humans were made humans, with meaning, and and many changes have happened form then till now. " First, you can stop using micro and macroevolution, as they are all encompassed under the title evolution. As I've shown above, there is solid, repeatable evidence for both, so please stop pretending there's a difference. Second, abiogenesis =/= evolution. I have dealt with this is previous rounds. ----------- "I have meet many people who have had healing from God. " I don't believe them and I don't believe you. Sorry. Also, this has nothing to do with the resolution. "A man told he has a couple months to live, from doctors is now living years after. " Happens all the time. Nothing out of the ordinary at all. Also, this has nothing to do with the resolution. "A man risen from the dead" "all the miracles Jesus did in his time, he did to show there is a God" I don't partake in this particular myth. Also, this has nothing to do with the resolution. ------------ Voters, I have provided several good pieces of evidence to show that the Universe began circa 14 billion years ago with a Big Bang. My opponent has failed to counter this evidence, merely asking 'what if they're wrong'? My opponent has also conceded that microevolution occurs, and has failed to rebut my evidence of speciation. My opponent's constant reference to abiogenesis clearly has no bearing on this debate. If my opponent wishes to take this path, I would suggest her next debate be called Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution.