evolution\big bang

Thanks to my opponent for a thorough rebuttal. "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." I ask that you please provide any evidence or knowledge we have of the Universe which refutes Big Bang theory. I'd be very interested to hear it. You also seem to have ignored the simple mathematics I provided which shows that the Universe must have expanded from a singularity circa 14 billion years ago. The constant I used, H, is an experimentally verified figure, and the maths doesn't lie. This isn't a case of scientists presuming the Universe's age then interpreting evidence accordingly; it is the exact opposite. We have amassed a large quantity of cosmological knowledge, all of which points to a singularity around 14 billion years ago. -------- "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 can't answer it." "No one created the creator, because he always was. But the earth wasn't always existing, so therefor it had to be created." Firstly, we are not talking about the Earth, we are talking about the Universe. More specifically, we are talking about the singularity from which the Universe expanded at the Big Bang. Secondly, this argument of yours, the so-called cosmological argument, is entirely unconvincing and illogical. You say God always was, I say the singularity always was. You say God didn't need a cause, I say the Big Bang didn't need a cause. Occam's Razor suggests that if we must assign one or the other to have always existed, it should be the far less compex singularity. --------- "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." I'm sorry, I was obviously wrong in my assumption that somebody so fervently against the theory of evolution would actually have taken the time to understand it. You mentioned 'microevolution' (i.e. evolution within a species) in your first round, and you conceded that there is indeed evidence for it. What you didn't say, though it's assumed you meant, is that there is no evidence for 'macroevolution' (i.e. species evolving into another), which is just wrong. Definition: "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." [1] The examples I gave, of the sheep and the fruit flies, are examples of speciation. [2] This is observable, repeatable evidence for evolution, which is what I was getting at last round. Once again, I can find many more examples of observed speciation if you're still not convinced, or better yet have a read of the links at the bottom of this page. -------- "if evolution can not explain how life first began, why believe it," For two reasons: 1. Because how life began has no bearing on whether or not evolution occurs. 2. The overwhelming amount of evidence, and overwhelming lack of counter-evidence. The evidence mounts every day. [3][4][5][6] -------- "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." You're correct that how life first arose can not be conclusively said at this stage, but that's not to say it's unexplainable. You're going to have to provide some evidence for God or it is at best an over-complicated hypothesis, as it raises more questions than answers. If God does exist and did create life, all evidence suggests that he does indeed need evolution. -------- "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." Right, and those people were soon shown to be wrong using the scientific method. There were also once people who believed the Magic Rainbow Serpent died to form the Murray River, who thought the Earth rested on a tortoises back, who thought that 6000 years ago God created the Earth in 6 days. Unfortunately for anybody who still believes any of these myths, science has continually and convincingly shown none of them to be anything like the truth. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - http://www.talkorigins.org... [4] - http://www.nature.com... [5] - http://evolution.berkeley.edu... [6] - http://txtwriter.com...