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

Rebuttal: 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. 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. The Watchtower Society is known for exactly the same type of behavior. They make claims and predictions and when found to be wrong they alter what they said and think they are very pious to admit their mistakes, as if that makes everything ok. 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. The Red shift is similar but the big difference is the amount of years said to evolve everything by some so called scientists. The theory set out by Pro has never been observed and tested and therefore fails the scientific process criteria. 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. Pro stated in the comments section that he hopes I will be open minded and rational. In return I would ask of Pro to be honest and answer the following questions based on what was said above: 1. What caused the singularity to start existing? 2. 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)? 3. 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? Abiogenesis: Species: noun, plural species. 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind. 2. Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species. http://www.dictionary.com... There is a difference between kinds and species that gets neglected when dealing with evolution. I have mentioned this in my opening round. Evolution today propagates a change in kind. A variation in species is adaptation. Although this was mentioned my opponent went right ahead and presented adaptation as evidence for all of evolution although it is not. Experiments done in this field is often confined to micro organisms and bacteria. The observed bacteria may acquire new properties to classify it by someone as a new species but the fact is it is still bacteria. It did not change kind. The same holds true for micro organisms. What did the micro organisms become? It became a new variation of MICRO ORGANISMS. None of these experiments have ever proved that these organisms can produce intelligent life form as found in the human race. Dogs, reptiles and birds all have variant forms of intelligence that is clearly distinguishable. Simple organisms that may be produced in no way automatically prove that humans came from or that animals came from these organisms. The example mentioned regarding the survival of species also shows this type of speculation to be just that, speculation and unfounded at that. It's like a disabled mother with severe impairments expected to take care of a new born baby. Example: 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. If this is proof of evolution then it refutes the claim that evolution takes millions of years, If it is not then it supports my view of adaptation and variance in species that is NOT evidence for evolution. Many so called scientists confuse this point. Transitional fossils: 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. Why do I mention this? Quite simply because the so called transitional fossils could have been people or animals with severe deformities themselves. This is likely because millions and millions of transitional fossils are not found as would be expected but only a few here or there. These fossils are often "build" up to represent what some person think it should have looked like and therefore is also based on speculation and not fact. There are a number of other problems which I will list: 1. Fossils are found without knowing if they were freaks of nature instead of true transitional fossils. 2. It can not be proven that these transitional fossils were able or in fact did reproduce. 3. 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. 3. 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. 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. Vestigial Features: Vestigial features are based on usefulness. Humans cannot do without the tailbone (coccyx) because it is used to anker nerve endings which is essential for normal functioning. The appendix, once thought unnecessary, has been found to assist in the immune system. The list goes on and on how people spoke without knowing what they were talking about. Atavisms: If you suggest we came from the monkeys like Darwin proposed then you are obviously not up to date. That theory is not held anymore and replaced rather by the cell-fish-human evolution theory. Many current "scientists" have criticized Darwin and presented "evidence" to disprove his original theory. "But now scientists say 50-million-year-old Algeripithecus was not an ape or human ancestor and was more like today's lemurs, after all." http://news.nationalgeographic.com... Some of the points raised were not addressed because I do not really see a remarkable difference between it and what can be expected if God created everything.