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

Pro began by copy pasting from various websites to claim that the big bang is a PROVEN fact. I counter asking how what he says began but then he admits he does not know. He can only speculate. The problem with this is that there are different proposed theories that explain the same thing. Without being able to identify the exact cause pro cannot claim that his particular version of the Big bang is a PROVEN fact. In this regard Pro did not prove anything and did not disprove my counter. Therefore other theories including Theistic theories are also valid alternatives. Pro talked about radiation and the cosmic microwave. I countered by pointing out that the dating based on these methods are also speculative because no one knows how much radiation was present in the beginning or what the intensity of the heat was. I did not argue there are no microwaves or radiation present. I also pointed out that creation scientists use the same data to justify creationism but the problem lies in the "what and how much present" that is based on speculation and probability. Pro failed to conclusively rebut this. Pro relied on Abiogenesis and evolution but failed to distinguish between variation within species, adaption within species and changing in kind. He did not address this although I countered his argument pointing out that what he referred to in every case was adaption or variation within a specie. A new variation of a specie within a specie is not Darwinian evolution or the branches that stemmed from it. The bacteria remained bacteria. The micro organisms remained micro organisms and so on. That is a variation or adaptation within specie, not a change of kind as the dictionary I quoted from define evolution. His ally in the comment section tried to say that Antibiotic resistant microbes is prove but he also seems to fail to understand what I said. What did the Antibiotic resistant microbes become? Nothing, it remained a microbe organism. Pro brought up the fossil record and I pointed out that the fossil record is biased because it does not interpret fossils found very logically. I pointed to ONE of many different cases where a deformed skeleton can be interpreted to be the next step or part of evolution when it is not. When asked how the scientists distinguish true "transitional" fossils from these types of freak structures Pro replied that they did not. That was exactly my point. Pro failed to prove anything. Fossils are based on interpretation. Pro talked about fish to tetra-pod's and I countered saying that likeness do not automatically justify decent. It is said that man and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. That means that we cannot infer because there are likenesses between a man and a chimpanzee that the man evolved from the chimpanzee line. The theory states the exact opposite saying that the two followed distinct branches that did not cross over after the common ancestor. The fish to man theory has never been observed or proven. Pro points to Vestigial Features and I countered his story by quoting articles that says the exact opposite that proved some of the things he listed that supposedly do not have a use do in fact have a use and are therefore not necessarily left over. I used a logical argument saying that if my arm is amputated I can still get around without it but that does not mean it is vestigial. Pro did not address my counter argument. Pro stated Darwin did not teach man came from the monkeys but in fact Darwin and his colleagues did teach man and the apes had a common "ape like" ancestor. The variance within a general statement should always be kept in mind before making absolute statements. So why do I point out that Pro did not answer my arguments? It is because he claims I never answered his! It is obvious what he says is false. Pro maintained that the big bang theory did not change but when I quote from one of his own sources about string theory etc. he tries to disprove it not realizing he is actually discrediting his own source. Pro stated he will forfeit the debate if I can prove he did so but still continued the debate although I did. This shows the level of Pro"s honesty and integrity or rather lack there off. Pro claims personal attacks on him and tries to be the adult in the debate by saying I should not do it. Calling him a hypocrite is not an unjustified attack on him, it is the truth. Further evidence can be found in the comments section where he now also calls me an idiot as he has done earlier talking about another debater who disagreed with him. He says that my comment that if he wants to treat me like a dog he must expect to be bitten s a personal attack. A conditional statement based on cause and effect where the affect is justified by the cause is a personal attack? You where asking for it. If you don"t want people attacking you then don"t attack them. I therefore maintain his impaired-ness and vacuum I mentioned before (proof can be found of this in the round where he states Pro did not prove anything - I AM CON). Thanks for the debate! *excuse the spelling mistakes. I sometimes use my phone to post here which can be a challenge with spell checker changing things.