evolution\big bang

Thanks to my opponent for posting this debate. To clarify, we are debating the theories of evolution AND the big bang, with my opponent attempting to disprove them and me attempting to support them. Seeing as she has provided a number of arguments in her first round, I suggest we eschew the 'burden of proof' business and just say we both carry equal burden. I will first rebut my opponent's arguments: CON: "The big bang, now scientifically if you hear a small bang there is going to be a reason why you heard it, it dosenï¿½t just happen someone or something made it. Now how should it be any different for a big bang. I have not found any logical way this could occur, without an outside force. I think the big bang is a okay idea, but should not be considerd science." 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 northpole?' 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. CON: "Second, sure, we see small or mini evolution this dog is white, this dog has spots, if you want to call that evolution. Or even the butterfly example, were all the white moths were wiped out and the black ones were left, but that's not evolution that's just the disappearance of the white ones and the black ones were there before, so it really wasn't related to evolution at all." REBUTTAL: My opponent has brought up the old micro vs. macroevolution argument, which is just wrong. Microevolution leads to macroevolution, the only difference being time and scale. This argument, generally used by creationists, admits that variation occurs within species, and that natural selection and other mechanisms may act upon the variations. They just don't admit that speciation (macro-evolution) occurs. This is, again, just plain wrong. We have witnessed the speciation of domestic sheep into a different species, so that they may no longer reproduce with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they decended. We have also brought upon speciation in a group of fruit flies, so that after several generations two isolated groups are no longer sexually compatible. These are just two of many examples of observed speciation, and if my opponent is still not convinced I will provide more. [1] 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. I will now provide some evidence for the Big Bang: 1. The Big Bang theory arose from an observation made by a man named Edwin Hubble. He found, through rigorous experiment, that all matter in the Universe is receding away from Earth, and indeed that space itself is expanding. He also found that the velocity of galaxies moving away from us can be calculated by a simple formula, the so-called Hubble law. That relationship is: v = H.d where v = velocity of galaxy, H = Hubble constant, d = the galaxy's distance from Earth. The Hubble law suggests that at a finite time in the past, all matter in the Universe was in one place, the so-called singularity I alluded to earlier, and has expanded to the size it is today. To find an approximate time for the beginning of the expansion, the Big Bang, we do some simple maths: t = d/v so, t = d/H.d t = 1/H t = 1.4 x 10^10 years Thus, using the Hubble law, we can estimate the Universe to be 14 billion years old, which is a figure that has been verified by measurements based on temperature fluctuation is the cosmic microwave background, the correlation function of galaxies, and a number of other methods. [3][4] I'll leave my round here, thanks again to my opponent, I hope for a hard-fought debate. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] - Freedman, R.A., Young, H.D. 2004, University Physics, 11th Edition, Addison Wesley, San Fransisco