evolution\big bang

First REBUTTAL: "My opponent's argument here (her only one against the Big Bang) seems to be that everything has an external cause, and so the Universe must also. This infinite regress must stop at some stage, so why not with a singularity approximately 14 billion years ago, which is where all available evidence leads? Time, as a dimension, is a property of this Universe, so asking what came 'before' this Universe existed is like asking the classic chestnut 'what is north of the north pole?' If my opponent is asserting that the Universe must have been created consciously, I must ask who created the creator. Either we accept that the Universe spontaneously began to expand from a singularity, or that a much more complex 'creator' did. If my opponent wishes to have this 'everything has a cause' argument, it needs to work both ways." Response about evidence, It is all a point of view, and no not all the evidence points to the big bang, the evidence that doesn't is discarded. Because now a days the big bang is the only accepted theory, so all the things that can be some way used to support the big bang as you say 14 billion years ago will be used. Time is a big thing and evolutionist think if they stretch the time to billions of years thing will appear out of nothing. Well I am asking what started the big bang, and there is no answer, so I was right you canï¿½t answer it. No one created the creator, because he always was. But the earth wasnï¿½t always existing, so therefor it had to be created. Second rebuttal "This is, again, just plain wrong. We have witnessed the speculation of domestic sheep into a different species, so that they may no longer reproduce with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they descended. We have also brought upon speculation in a group of fruit flies, so that after several generations two isolated groups are no longer sexually compatible." Response Okay, I do not see what you are getting at. Are you trying to prove evolution occurs, because sheep no longer able to reproduce, as well as fruit flies. I would not consider that evolution. If you are trying to say thatputting two animals of the same genes together and matching their offspring generation after generation, the DNA becomes less complex. Please explain your self. Third "The entire remainder of my opponent's arguments are regarding abiogenesis, the theory of how life came from non-life. Interesting though this topic is, it is outside the scope of this debate and has no relevance.[2] Scientists have no workable theories for abiogenesis, but there is no doubt that once life has begun, evolution will take over." Response This is very much in the debate and very important, if evolution can not explain how life first began, why believe it, God did it, and If nothing else then God making it because it can not be explained otherwise, why canï¿½t God make everything he is God. God doesn't need evolution he didn't create it man did. and I am arguing with it. And You canï¿½t explain it. Sure you can say hey look at where the world is now and all is evolved, but never forget evolution is a theory, and if it cant back itself, why try to make it? I agree with the last sentence, just in another light, after God created his creation, then changes willoccur, the offspring will not always look the same as the parents. If you want to call that evolution. Fourth You explained how they calculated how long ago it was, from the explanation movement of the universe. That's very nice of you, but doesnï¿½t explain what started it, which was my question. There were once people that thought the world was flat from what they saw, there are people that think the world is expanding from a big bang, okay, back it up. Thanks for responding, I am not here to make you angry, just want to let you rethink what you believe.