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

First of all, Con provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever for theism or his creationist beliefs. This concession means he did not meet his burden of proof. Big Bang : "Pro states that in the beginning there was a singularity. He starts with a hypothesis that is based on speculation and then gives a sequence of events of how everything came to be by further speculation." No. Speculation means there is no evidence. I provided you with tons of evidence and references that demonstrate that the big band did happen like the CMBR, Expansion of galaxies, big bang nucleosynthesis, etc. If I provide evidence, there is no room for speculations since no assumptions were made. "The theory of the "big bang" has changed over the last 100 years and "science" prides itself that they are willing to change or admit they were wrong as new evidence is acquired. The problem with this is that it does not make the current theory very trustworthy because new evidence may be discovered tomorrow that will change what is believed today." There is no evidence and you did not provide any sources that theory of big bang changed. Please get in the habit of providing evidence and references when you make claims. The theory of the big bang has been the exact same idea from George La Maitre until now, the same idea of rapid expansion from the singularity into what is the universe today as we know it. (http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...). Moreover, I do agree with you, the theory of big bang will be REFINED not changed in the future when quantum mechanics will begin to apply to the singularity, so now the theory of the big bang will not only address the evolution of the universe from the singularity to its current state, in the future, the theory of the big bang will include quantum mechanics to include a more "origin" oriented view to answer questions like where did the singularity come from? "The Theistic view suggests a quick formation with supplementary elements coming into existence after the initial rapid formation of the universe. It suggests a single point that expanded and is still expanding." Far from it, The theistic stance in many world religions is that the Earth came before the rest of the universe and the universe is 6000 to 10,000 years old. This is recorded in christianity (Genesis 1, 4, 5, 11) and in Islam (41:9-12 and the genealogies of adam are also in the quran). The theistic view can not include the big bang which explictly says that the earth came after the rest of the unvierse, in fact 10 billion years after shattering the 6000 figure of the bible and most of the other holy books. "The theory set out by Pro has never been observed and tested and therefore fails the scientific process criteria." Yes we can observe it, the CMBR is literally the leftover energy / heat or the afterglow of the violent expansion of the big bang. Moreover, if you see light far enough and old enough you can actually see a short period of that rapid expansion (http://news.harvard.edu...) "The evidence of heat etc. can well be because of creation because the initial formation is claimed by both sides (although not all sides out there in the world today). The intensity of the original generated heat is not known and subsequent measurement is based on speculation not fact. The same also holds true for radiation." Heat this size and for this long is only rationally possible after an explosion or rapid expansion the size of the big bang. I would like you to refrain from using speculation since science does not make claims without evidence. Claims especially major ones in science are backed by tons of evidence. If you in fact think science is speculation then creationism is at major trouble since it has note even a shred of evidence backing it up. "What caused the singularity to start existing?" - Maybe it was eternal or maybe it was in cycles of big bangs and big crunches. - This is god of the gaps. "I do not know how lightning happens so God did it" "I do not know where the singularity cam from yet so God did it" - quantum mechanics is doing serious progress in answering this question and they have experimental evidence that the singularity could have been the result of quantum energy fluctuations in a quantum vacuum. "With all the different theories replacing each other to explain cosmology, do you think the predominant theory today is reliable (seeing new evidence can replace it tomorrow)?" - There were no theories replacing others. The only competing theory in history was the steady state which was disproved days after it was proposed because of general relativity by Einstein. - new evidence has to explain the universe in light of old evidence. No new evidence will ever change the fact that this universe rapidly expanded from a small singularity. "The number of years it took to form the universe has changed from millions to billions of years. That is a significant error rate when calculated. In light of this, do you think the current 13.8 billion years is reliable?" - Where did you get this from? Source? - The billions figure was arrived at using extrapolations from the CMBR and calculating the size of the universe and the rate of expansion and working their way back to the beginning to find the age of the universe. - Evolution "Although this was mentioned my opponent went right ahead and presented adaptation as evidence for all of evolution although it is not. " With enough adaptations, mutations and differences, speciation happens and new species and organisms are formed. "Experiments done in this field is often confined to micro organisms and bacteria." Yeah but they display speciation and macro-evolution such as the E. coli experiment, fruit flies experiment and the peppered moths experiment. " The same holds true for micro organisms. What did the micro organisms become? It became a new variation of MICRO ORGANISMS " No. E. coli experiment proves that unicellular organisms like E. coli evolve to become multicellular colonies by colony morphology. (http://myxo.css.msu.edu...) "A white and Black person may have a child that will look different from both parents. The child acquired new properties and is thus a variation of a species because the child is still HUMAN." Experiments can not be done on humans. The child may be human but over centuries of variations and mutations especially mutations in the hox genes, the offsprongs will become their own species. We have transitional fossils to prove that happened with primate to man. "Joseph Merrick, known as the Elephant man was born with severe deformities although his parents where "normal" - https://en.wikipedia.org....... He was never regarded as a transitional fossil although his structure contained remarkable physical differences from "normal" human beings." This is an example of atavism at best and has nothing to do with transitional fossils. I do not think you know what transitional fossils are. " Fossils are found without knowing if they were freaks of nature instead of true transitional fossils." What? Freaks of nature? "It can not be proven that these transitional fossils were able or in fact did reproduce." Do you have evidence for this claim? Why would you think that all organisms in history have been able to reproduce except the ones that disprove your beliefs. " The evidence or lack thereof suggests these rare fossil did not reproduce which is also more or less similar to Darwin"s concern due to lack of millions of fossils." Lack of million of fossils. Ignorance is bliss. I do not think you know how hard or rare it is for a fossil to happen. It is so rare because you will either have to be buried the moment you die or you have to be covered in hot tar or sap. That is how rare it is. Fossils do not form that easy. Not every organism that dies forms a fossil. Only a rare few organisms form a fossil. Unless you are buried right after you die (like humans do with themselves) or covered in sap or HOT tar, you will not form a fossil. "Joseph Merrick"s physical change only took 9 months. It did not take millions of years. This is in opposition to current theories of how the human race evolved." Yet another example of your ignorance on evolution. This is called punctuated equilibrium and it has happened with sickle cell anemia in africa too. - Reptiles to birds "Similarities between birds, animals and humans do not automatically make them the same kind or is evidence they came from the same kind. This is a logical fallacy." actually it is. When you find transitional fossils of species that have a mix of characteristics, it is proof that one of those species evolved into another (macroevolution). Showing a fine gradual transition between two species like I did in round one with primate-to-man or fish to tetrapods is even better since it proves a gradual evolution of one species to another beyond a shadow of doubt. - Vestigial Features "Vestigial features are based on usefulness" Exact opposite of their definition. "Coccyx and appendix" No. These things do not carry the functions you want them to carry. You need to provide sources. You can literally get rid of both of these things because the only thing they do is get infections like appendicitis. You can literally remove and take out both of those features (coccygectomy, appendectomy) and still live a normal, even healthier life. http://www.coccyx.org... http://www.healthline.com... - atvasims Darwin never said we came from apes and your source is 8 years old and is not revolutionary in any sense and in fact does not even support your claims. The least you can do is read your own source. You did not disprove my evidence (except for frankly, very weak rebuttals that made no sense with no sources) and provided no evidence for creationism meaning he did not meet his BOP.