Big Bang + Evolution (Pro) vs. Theism (Con)

Pro provides no arguments against the evidence I proposed for the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution but he just goes on with frankly weak red herrings and strawmen fallacies. Worst of all he does not provide any evidence for creationism which means he did not meet his BOP. "Apparently Pro is literary challenged because what he actually meant was that I must prove creationism." I am going to have to ask you to stop with the personal attacks .... we are not in a daycare, grow up. Second of all, you should have read the title of the debate before accepting. The title of the debate is literally "VS Theism (con)" which means that we will have to debate your POV. You should have probably read my first post in this debate where I clearly say "BOP is shared even though it should not be". "First of all, the Big Bang wasn't very big. Second of all, there was no bang. Third, Big Bang Theory doesn't tell you what banged, when it banged, how it banged. It just said it did bang. So the Big Bang theory in some sense is a total misnomer." You should have taken the time to read the Big bang theory before coming here to debate it. The big bang happened to the infinite-density infinite-energy singularity 13.8 billion years ago, and it happened because the higgs boson broke its symmetry. "String Theory says that perhaps two universes collided to create our universe, or maybe our universe is butted from another universe leaving an umbilical cord." Not even close. The string theory has nothing to do with the origin of the unvierse, all it says is that the uarks are made from strings. You have probably been on answersingenesis.com for too long. " http://bigthink.com...; That was my source from round two. It says that the singularity happened because the higgs boson broke the symmetry which supports the big bang. It says nothing of umbilical cords. "Did you get that too? It"s a theory. That involves speculation. In spite of this you claim there is no speculation only evidence." a theory in science is different from the every day use of the word theory. In science, theory means best possible explanation of an aspect of the natural world substantiated with a vast body of evidence. So no speculation at all. "Did the early theories of the big bang include dark matter as part of the explanation more than 20 years ago? No it did not" Dark matter is evidence for the big bang and not part of the theory same with the CMBR. Thats is like saying the big bang is false and changing because they found the CMBR and the redshift of galaxies. "Why do I need to provide sources when you already quoted the sources that support what I said? Are you ignorant of what you quote?" If you post one example of where a source said something against the claims I made or where it supports you in a controversy between us, I will forfeit this debate. But you need examples and evidence instead of claims. "Now, a team of physicists says the Big Bang should be modeled as a phase change: the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time, analogous to ice." Yeah they provided an analogy which still supports the idea that the universe exploded or expanded from a small singularity. Water expanding over a surface is somewhat comparable and analogous to the expansion of matter and energy in the spacetime fabric . "That is what I believe and I find my support in the Bible as I mentioned." Except that I showed you bible verses that contradict the fact of the big bang and that the earth is 4.5 billion years. The bible says the earth came before the rest of the universe and the earth is ten thousand years old at best with all the interpretations (Genesis 1, 4, 5, 11). No way to fit that with the earth coming ten BILLION years after the rest of the universe. "Anyone who knows a little about the subject knows that no one has ever reproduced the initial formation of the universe or observed it." Well you should probably read the source. "Pro should know better than to make such statements, but then again all his arguments so far is copy paste." ad hominem fallacy and you provide no proof that I copy pasted. "Did you read what you wrote when you said there is no speculation involved before?" There is no speculation in the big bang, it is certain and the theory of the big bang merely explains how this fact happened, but there is speculation about where the singularity came from. "Ignorance may be bliss but in your case also a sign of stupidity." You believe in talking snakes and Jewish zombies, literally 6-year-olds are smarter than you. "Pro is the one inventing possibilities but then try to argue for a god of the gaps?" God of the gaps is refering to a 2000 year-old book written by bored bedouins for answers. "By now it should be clear Pro is a bit confused." Claim with no evidence. " After all, 100 years ago, people understood very little about the universe. We didn't know about general relativity, for example, or quantum mechanics. We didn't know the universe was expanding, and we didn't know about the Big Bang. "We know all these things now," Carroll said." Straw-man fallacy. I never said we did not know any of these things. Science is beginning to find evidence to explain tons of stuff but the theory of the big bang has not changed. You go on saying we now know about general relativity or quantum mechanics but how does knowing stuff we did not know before prove the big bang changed. Evolution - "Only a variation of the same species." No read the sources they evolved into different species, one of the test samples became a multi cellular organism, thats definitely not the same species as unicellular E. coli. "How do you distinguish a deformed fossil from one you will classify as transitional?" Deformed makes no sense in evolutionary context. If this "deformed" species or organisms carries on to give birth to a new species then it was a transitional fossil. I know they are transitional fossils because there are multiple ones between the two species that demonstrate a fine gradual evolution. "Do I need to sight a source for something that is common sense? Is there a law that demands all transitional fossils to mate to carry on evolution?" Yeah you do. Because it definitely is not common sense that all organisms in history of evolution could reproduce except for the ones that disprove your genesis account. "Pro miss the point again. Darwin understood the point and said that the lack of fossils was what challenged his theory." What lack of fossils? Do you not see the plethora of transitional fossils I provided in round 2 that you still have not even touched or probably have not even looked at but you go on a straw-man rampage on my minor evidence. Reptiles to birds "Only in your mind." Well you can look at the fossils for yourself. They have feathers and wings which is for birds but they have teeth and a skull unlike any bird and their size is definitely not that of a bird which indicates it is a reptile. Vestigial features "coccyx" Your source provides how modern science uses the useless coccyx and as for the sitting position, I can assure you people who got a Coccygectomy can sit perfectly fine. For the nerves and muscles, um yeah you need leftover nerves and muscles there because primates need nerves and muscles to be able to wiggle their tails. The muscles and nerves there however have no function and do not affect anything in the body except for the useless coccyx You did not address the appendix, hind legs in whales, pelvic bones in snakes, wisdom teeth, ostrich wings. "we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." Yeah, that is the common ancestor between man and apes. Conclusion - - Con did not provide any evidence for creationism and did not meet his BOP - He did not address any of the evidence I provided and goes on a red-herring and straw-man fallacy spree to my minor evidence which distracts us from the main evidence like the CMBR, fossils and atavisms (for example, he goes on to argue that the big bang has changed, which it did not, instead of addressing the evidence for it or shows that an atavisms of some elephant guy disproves fossils). - Most of his argument on round 3 are personal offences which discourages me from continuing this debate and makes me ponder how old he is. - If the next round, pro's argument follow the same trend of no evidence, pure claims, not addressing my evidence, red herrings and straw-man fallacies, I will not continue this debate since it is a waste of time.