God is real. Big Bang and evolution did not occur.

For what it's worth... here we go. "OKay, I would like you to explain to me why you believe that God doesn't exist and why you believe the big bang and evolution (not adaptations, but creating humans and how we evolved from the same ancestors as apes, etc.) happened." -First, I did not say that I believe god does not exist or that I believe that the Big Bang and evolution did happen. Don't put words in my mouth and I will kindly reciprocate. Second, my personal beliefs are irrelevant. This is a debate, not a mutual interview. As far as you know, this is simply a position I am arguing against. I'm sorry if you were hoping for something different; a debate is (ideally) judged on who has the stronger argument for their position, not on if the debater believes what he writes is the "truth." As a tip to you, because you are new but obviously eager, I ask you to consider these points in this and all future debates you may have on this site. As a philosopher, I might be interested in discussing my personal metaphysic with you, but outside of the context of debate, and certainly only after the debate is over. Do not consider this a mark of insincerity - that's just the way it works. Third, you have posited two positions: 1)God is real, and 2)[The] Big Bang and evolution did not occur, and have provided arguments in favor of neither. Again, the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't provided anything for me to either concede or refute. You must prove your statements; I don't have to prove the opposite, only create reasonable doubt as to their validity. You have asked questions, not written a clear and coherent argument for your positions. Fourth, you wrote, "So far, none of my opponents have given an answer to my questions I have about the two theories. They have twisted the question and yet again tried to question my beliefs and faith." I would have to disagree, especially in the case of Kleptin. He was more than fair. He answered all of your questions directly and courteously. He was more courteous and patient with you than most might be, I would venture to say. Disagreeing with you and providing superior arguments is not twisting the question, or questioning or attacking your beliefs and faith. You have made it abundantly clear that you believe in god and not the Big Bang or evolution. That is not in question; what is in question is the validity of those beliefs and faith. Again, it's a debate that you instigated - what did you expect? Fifth, when I asked you for a clarification of the definition of "god," I was trying to do you a favor. Your response did not help. Even you must admit that the "Christian God" is a vague concept, as it varies from one denomination to another, as well as from one individual to another. Christendom is far from a unified ideology, or even a unified and consistent theology for that matter. Sixth, there is only "evolution." Adaptation over time and descent from a common ancestor are one in the same. To discuss one without the other is ridiculous. -Prime arguments against the reality of "god," which is still a very loose term here. (Unless you want me to define "god" as my goldfish "God," in which case I would concede that god is real and thank you for your enthusiastic, if somewhat strange, affirmation of its existence and your faith in it?) 1. Lack of empirical evidence. See Ockham's Razor. 2. Lack of logical arguments that support the reality of god. 3. The errancy and inconsistency of documents, doctrines, and dogma purporting to be either the word or the will of god. 4. The problem of pain, and similarly, the brutality of the world in general. 5. In Christianity, the gruesomeness and immorality of the "god" character, especially in the Old Testament. -Prime arguments that the Big Bang occurred 1. The universe is expanding. 2. By observing the universe today, astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists can gauge a relatively accurate age for the universe, around 15 billion years, give or take. 3. By having this knowledge, scientists can somewhat effectively reverse-engineer how the universe came to be as it is today. When they go back far enough, they find that the universe began as a singularity with an excessive amount of mass that exploded. Prime argument that Evolution occurred 1. The over-abundance of empirical evidence that all organisms descended from a common ancestor: the fossil record, similarities and differences in DNA, "etc." American biologist Douglas J. Futuyma sums up eloquently: "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors - the historical reality of evolution - is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved 'facthood' as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled 'New evidence for evolution;' it simply has not been an issue for a century." -As for abiogenesis, there isn't quite a consensus in the scientific community, but there are many workable models, including but not limited to: the RNA-world hypothesis, iron-sulfur world hypothesis, autocatalysis, clay theory, the polyphosphate model, and the PAH-world hypothesis. That's all for now. I eagerly await your refutations and your arguments.