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

Pro implies that I am ignorant and I find his comment regarding which habits I must develop a little annoying since most of what I refer to is already in his quoted sources. With that said, let me likewise take off the gloves. Pro's stated purpose for the debate was: "I would like to discuss the naturalistic viewpoint about Big bang and Evolution with a theist." Apparently Pro is literary challenged because what he actually meant was that I must prove creationism. Pro states: "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." Strange that Pro will say that because the evidence for his support that he quotes says the following: "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. We need a theory that goes before the Big Bang, and that's String Theory. 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. http://bigthink.com.... Did you get that? Do I need to explain to you what misnomer means? Can you read and see that the source you quote proposes a new theory? In case it eludes you what is being stated here; your source is debunking the current theory of the Big bang. Another source Pro quotes states the following: (The author of the article states the following in the comments section) It"s "merely a theory" like gravity, relativity and evolution. Scientists use the term "theory", so I wanted to hold with their terminology, but also help people understand how seriously we should take these arguments. https://www.universetoday.com.... Did you get that too? It"s a theory. That involves speculation. In spite of this you claim there is no speculation only evidence. 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 a phenomenon found about 20 years ago. Yet you say the theory did not change over the years. Again, some of the sources you quote include dark matter and the like to explain the big bang which is different from 50 years ago. There might be similarities that are retained but it is definitely not the same anymore. 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? I must get in the habit of providing evidence? Why don"t you get into the habit of reading the evidence you sight instead of just posting all your arguments from different websites? So far there is nothing original or to be discussed as the purpose of this debate state because the majority of what you post is copy paste without any meaningful discussion. Pro writes: "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." Normally I would say you made a mistake but since you quoted from a source that actually proves you wrong I will flat out say you are lying. If in doubt, go read your own sources. "How did the universe begin? The Big Bang is traditionally envisioned as the moment when an infinitely dense bundle of energy suddenly burst outward, expanding in three spatial directions and gradually cooling down as it did so. 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." https://www.space.com... I stated: "The Theistic view suggests a quick formation". Pro responds: "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." You are not arguing against the different Theistic religions, you are supposed to address what I believe. That is what I believe and I find my support in the Bible as I mentioned. Focus a bit, I"m over here. I stated: "The theory set out by Pro has never been observed and tested and therefore fails the scientific process criteria." Pro responds: "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......)." Anyone who knows a little about the subject knows that no one has ever reproduced the initial formation of the universe or observed it. Pro should know better than to make such statements, but then again all his arguments so far is copy paste. Pro responds to my question: "What caused the singularity to start existing?" - Maybe it was eternal or maybe it was in cycles of big bangs and big crunches. MAYBE? Did you read what you wrote when you said there is no speculation involved before? MAYBE? Maybe, you"re not only literary challenged but impaired as well. Ignorance may be bliss but in your case also a sign of stupidity. Pro is the one inventing possibilities but then try to argue for a god of the gaps? I hope quantum mechanics can also progress to cure your intellectual vacuum. That would be impressive. Again Pro responds: "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." By now it should be clear Pro is a bit confused. Pro state: "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? Again, this is from one of your sources: It's a daunting challenge, especially since researchers are working at a 13.7-billion-year remove. But don't count science out, Carroll said. 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. "The pace of progress is actually astonishingly fast, so I would never give in to pessimism. There's no reason in the recent history of cosmology and physics to be pessimistic about our prospects for understanding the Big Bang." https://www.space.com.... Do you still want to maintain your position that the theory did not change? Unfortunately I will have to get the textbook used in school to provide the siltation of what I remember, but I"m sure you can google it. Evolution Pro states: "With enough adaptations, mutations and differences, speciation happens and new species and organisms are formed." That"s what I have been saying all along. As stated, the issue is kind to kind not species within species. Again Pro state: "No. E. coli experiment proves that unicellular organisms like E. coli evolve to become multicellular colonies by colony morphology". And what did they become? Only a variation of the same species. Pro states: "This is an example of atavism at best." Apparently you missed the point here. How do you distinguish a deformed fossil from one you will classify as transitional? That is the point. Pro continues: "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." 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? Pro states: "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." Pro miss the point again. Darwin understood the point and said that the lack of fossils was what challenged his theory. Reptiles to birds Pro: "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)." Only in your mind. Vestigial Features - Structures that have no apparent function and appear to be residual parts from a past ancestor are called vestigial structures. https://www.boundless.com... The coccyx, also known as the tailbone, is a small, triangular bone resembling a shortened tail located at the bottom of the spine. It is composed of three to five coccygeal vertebrae or spinal bones. ... The coccyx serves as an attachment site for tendons, ligaments, and muscles. www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/coccyx - atvasims Pro concludes with: "Darwin never said we came from apes". Quotes from: Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. "If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group... we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." https://www.quora.com... Pro cannot provide prove of how the singularity he refers to came into existence. His argument is therefore based on speculation and not an absolute truth.