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

Unfortunately the character limitation in the Debate do not allow me to address everything, so forgive me if I choose what to reply too. The last round was cut short and I was not able to post everything I wrote. "Pro provides no arguments against the evidence I proposed for the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution but he just goes on with frankly weak red herrings and strawmen fallacies". I agree 100% with this statement made by PRO!!! (if anyone cared to check I am CON). I have stated in the last round that I have a problem with Pro inferring that I am ignorant and insulting my intelligence asking me to provide sources when HIS SOURCES states what I referred too (does he think I am an idiot and cannot understand what his sources says and must therefore find some of my own?). In the comments section Pro and Backwarden criticized, belittled and mocked primearchitect. Pro states in the comments section: "primearchitect, that guy is a massive idiot". Pro also states that he hopes I will be open minded and rational thereby inferring that I am probably not. Yet Pro starts of the round by saying "I am going to have to ask you to stop with the personal attacks .... we are not in a daycare, grow up". You are a hypocrite, and a vain one at that, and I am being polite. The debate is Big Bang + Evolution (Pro) vs. Theism (Con) which can mean anything. Yet Pro defines his intention as: "I would like to discuss the naturalistic viewpoint about Big bang and Evolution with a theist". This does NOT say that the MAIN object of Con was to prove Theism. I started the "discussion" by pointing out where I think are areas of misunderstanding. Therefore Pro is guilty of creating a totally different meaning as to what the purpose was of this debate (I am sure you can figure out which logical fallacy you are guilty of). I quoted sources LISTED by PRO that refutes his own argument and then he goes and discredit HIS OWN SOURCE: "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." THIS IS FROM PRO"S LISTED SOURCE in the comments section, NOT MINE. AND HERE IS PRO"S REPLY: "You should have taken the time to read the Big bang theory before coming here to debate it. The big bang happened to the infinite-density infinite-energy singularity 13.8 billion years ago, and it happened because the higgs boson broke its symmetry". "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." THIS IS FROM PRO"S LISTED SOURCE in the comments section, NOT MINE. AND HERE IS PRO"S REPLY: "Not even close. The string theory has nothing to do with the origin of the unvierse, all it says is that the uarks are made from strings. You have probably been on answersingenesis.com for too long". He discredited HIS OWN SOURCE. Pro then states a few lines down: "If you post one example of where a source said something against the claims I made or where it supports you in a controversy between us, I will forfeit this debate. But you need examples and evidence instead of claims". So, let"s see if Pro is truthful and honest to do what he said he will do. It should be clear to the reader who will check the sources listed in the comments section by PRO that these were from the sources he quoted. I say again, he should stop the copy paste tactics and start reading what is said. Pro states: "a theory in science is different from the every day use of the word theory. In science, theory means best possible explanation of an aspect of the natural world substantiated with a vast body of evidence. So no speculation at all". The best possible explanation is speculation. spec"u"la"tion - spekyəG2;lāSH(ə)n/Submit noun - 1. the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. (Google definition). When dealing with whether the BB theory changed: "Dark matter is evidence for the big bang and not part of the theory same with the CMBR. Thats is like saying the big bang is false and changing because they found the CMBR and the redshift of galaxies". Of course it changed!! New elements were introduced to explain it. Pro states: "Except that I showed you bible verses that contradict the fact of the big bang and that the earth is 4.5 billion years. The bible says the earth came before the rest of the universe and the earth is ten thousand years old at best with all the interpretations (Genesis 1, 4, 5, 11). No way to fit that with the earth coming ten BILLION years after the rest of the universe". I never disagreed that the there is a contradiction between the two, I agree!! What is your point. Did I not state that I did not deem in necessary to address what we agree on? I stated: "Pro should know better than to make such statements, but then again all his arguments so far is copy paste." Pro replied: ad hominem fallacy and you provide no proof that I copy pasted. Again, the Reader who takes the time to check Pro"s sources will quickly see that Pro just copied and pasted from various websites. He did not try to articulate, summarize or present the material in his own unique way as would be expected in a debate. Pro states: "There is no speculation in the big bang, it is certain and the theory of the big bang merely explains how this fact happened, but there is speculation about where the singularity came from". Type "is the big bang speculation" and you will find "About 641,000 results (0.46 seconds)". Most of the references I read all admitted it is, and no I did not read the Christian or religious ones. "Ignorance may be bliss but in your case also a sign of stupidity." Pro ask: "You believe in talking snakes and Jewish zombies, literally 6-year-olds are smarter than you". Not only that, I have seen people speak in different languages while possessed that thy never knew. I have seen predictions made that came true. You will be amazed and what you can found outside your comfort zone. Try spending some time with witch doctors in africa who go into a trance and start levitating. I quoted from Pro"s source: " 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." Again, THIS IS PRO"S SUORCE and he calls what HIS SOURCE says a STRAWMAN FALLACY!!!! This is his reply: "Straw-man fallacy. I never said we did not know any of these things. Science is beginning to find evidence to explain tons of stuff but the theory of the big bang has not changed. You go on saying we now know about general relativity or quantum mechanics but how does knowing stuff we did not know before prove the big bang changed". And the Pro states there is NO EVIDENCE that he is confused. Dealing with the rest of what Pro had to say, I will list the following points: 1. Dealing with evolution, Pro ignores the kind to kind point raised and keeps on providing variations as species as evidence. Variation in species is NOT evidence for kind to kind which is what evolution teaches. 2. The reproduction of transitional forms and its survival was addressed from the first round and Pro never addressed this issue. It is worthless to bicker over fossil evidence if it is impossible for certain species to survive without an adult taking care of the young. 3. Pro states that deformed fossils is not regarded (in so many words) in the records and that is my point. Pro did not provide evidence that the so called fossils are absolutely not deformed species that existed. The fossil record is FULL of mistakes and FAKES. A simple google search will provide tons of information how so called transitional forms where found just be found it was not. Not taking all possibilities into account (like deformed species), seriously questions it as factual and "scientific". It is a logical fallacy not to take all possibilities in account. Darwin was the man who popularized the theory and also stated that the fossil record is the problem with it. That problem is still not solved even today. 4. Pro posts articles to prove his point but ignore the same source that states that it is not 100% certain (my paraphrase). Yes Pro believes for some reason that if he posts a quote and provides a siltation that that is evidence that cannot e refuted. The theory of black holes was proven WRONG after 30 years when everyone believed it as fact. Everyone referring to or quoting it during those 30 years were all WRONG. If you need a citation for that then you are the one who should read some more. 5. Pro admits he does not know what caused the singularity but yet argues it is a fact based on evidence. I kept on referring back to how everything started because it ant theory that fails to define its beginnings is speculation and assumption. 6. The same evidence you quote is also used by other scientists to explain creation. The reason for this is because of the assumptions and speculation involved based on uncertainty. If evolution and the Big bang was an ABSOLUTE PROVEN FACT then we would all believe it. The reason there is disagreement is because there are uncertainty involved in the theories that most scientist ADMIT. Even the ones in your sources! 7. Pro states that the Vestigial features he sites is not required. If the tailbone is required for tendons and to set then it has a use. I need my arm but when amputated I can still get around, that does not make my arm VESTIGIAL. That"s the absurdity involved in your reasoning. As for the appendix: A Higher Purpose for the Appendix. Researchers deduce that the appendix is designed to protect good bacteria in the gut. That way, when the gut is affected by a bout of diarrhea or other illness that cleans out the intestines, the good bacteria in the appendix can repopulate the digestive system and keep you healthy.Oct 11, 2007 Appendix May Actually Have a Purpose " WebMD www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20071012/appendix-may-have-purpose 8. Pro believes that similarities are proof that a fish with things that appear to be legs means could be the ancestor of a human. The common ancestor theory debunks this because an ape and a human can come from on ancestor but have distinct lines that do not cross over although many similarities exist. Therefore similarities is not absolute prove of ancestry. I have pointed out the logical problem with this and you just repeat the same line over and over. Why not try to deal with the logical aspect of it? If you want to insult and belittle someone else then be prepared to receive as well. If you want to treat me and other people as dogs then you can expect to be bitten. I have respect for Backwardseden because he can at least take criticism standing up and not resort to what you said: - Most of his argument on round 3 are personal offences which discourages me from continuing this debate and makes me ponder how old he is. - If the next round, pro's argument follow the same trend of no evidence, pure claims, not addressing my evidence, red herrings and straw-man fallacies, I will not continue this debate since it is a waste of time.