First ya have ya Big Bang that swims. Then some of them grow legs and walk on land. Then you have some that walk upright and after that some big bangs start to get smarter and smarter until they create gods and ideas of "small humans" starting the universe
First ya have ya adam and evenin', who were told by Big Boi not to do the thing, then they up and did the thing, then their little adams and eves did more of the things and scoffed at Big Boi, so they up and got drowned and a new adam had to rebuild without doing the things
No, because then the Golgafrincham Ark Fleet Ship B crashed and the Golgafrinchams useless part of the population became the dominant species. That's us.
Just gonna point out that the theory of evolution is more well understood and verified than the theory of gravity.
Gravity is a fact. It is a fact that things with mass are attracted to one another. The theory of gravity is describing how it happens.
Evolution is a fact. The fact is that evolution happens. The theory is describing how it happens.
The big bang model is similar in how well established it is. The debate has been over for many years. The Big Bang happened. The arguments are over how it happened.
A theory makes predictions. I can predict the speed of an object falling with the theory of gravity. If that prediction holds up, then that is evidence for the theory. Evolution makes similar predictions about what variation should be found, where it should be, and how long ago it should be. This happens to uncanny precision. I'm not as familiar with the BBT, but it predicted that we would be receiving microwave light from all directions everywhere. We found that too.
We can see micro evolution happening, that is true, but macro evolution and the big bang are not observable science. It's a world view, to rival young earth creationism, but neither world view can be proven more truthful with science alone. It's just as easy for me to say the debate was over long ago and that creationism is more sound than evolutionism, but I do not make such a bold claim because I acknowledge the uncertainty of such historical events. Also, I heard the big bang event required matter being expelled at faster than the speed of light in order to get such uniform background radiation.
Micro evolution and macro evolution are the exact same thing. You claim that it is possible for someone to walk a dozen meters, but that it is impossible for them to walk a mile. The only difference is time. You can just as easily claim it, but that wouldn't be true. If we want to look to court cases, then the Edwards vs. Aguillard and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover cases are examples where the American court houses ruled that Creationism (And it's clone with another name: intelligent design) is not actually science and is merely a bundle of unsupported assertions. The entirety of biology, genetics, taxonomy, epigenetics, embryonic evolution, microbiology, and geology are just a few of the sciences that support, provide evidence for, and/or depend on evolution.
As for what you said about the Big Bang, that isn't correct. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion of space. The difference is immense. The speed limit of the universe (The speed that light is limited by) doesn't apply here. This descriptive law (A descriptive law describes what is happening rather than a prescriptive law that permits/prohibits it from happening) states that nothing within space may move faster than the speed of light. Space (As in the dimensions X, Y, and Z) isn't limited by this. As a side note, it wouldn't even be proper to say that matter even existed then. Matter didn't exist for some time after the Big Bang. Before that it was simply pure energy. When the universe expanded, it was able to cool (The bigger space allowed the energy to move away causing the temperature to decrease) allowing the matter to form. E=MC^2 isn't just a random tidbit. 1 unit of mass requires energy divided by the speed of light square.
I would be delighted to try explaining evolution to you, @sublime gaming. Evolution is absolutely a fact, and I believe myself competent enough in the theory to explain any questions or explanations you have of it. Even people who agree with evolution usually have large misunderstandings on aspects of it. I'm sure I do as well, but I do my best to discover and correct those mistakes. I won't solely rely on other sources or even take steps into religion unless you bring it up. Of course, this evolution I am talking about here is biological evolution which is the only evolution scientists tend to use the term evolution for. There is a misconception that certain groups have the evolution and all of science are the same thing. The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with evolution as evolution is merely the change in genetic populations over time.
I would be delighted to continue this discussion too, as long as we keep things professional and not personal. I am a young-earth creationist, so I obviously don't share your point of view, but interesting sciencey stuff is always cool to talk about. I like to generalize evolution as the origin of the universe without God, and creation as the origin of the universe with God. Thus the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and common ancestry are all part of this evolutionary world view, while the six-day creation 6000 years ago, Noah's flood 4500 years ago, and other such scriptural events are part of the creation world view. I bring up religion here for the purpose of a foundational truth that I can build off of with science.
Your point with the Big Bang makes sense, space expanding. However, the Big Bang itself begs the question of where did it come from? Some say it's cyclical, with another one every trillion or so years. This is unscientific (it could be truthful, but we cannot observe it or test it), and "In the beginning, Dirt" is just as valid an explanation as "In the beginning, God".
Gravity is a fact. It is a fact that things with mass are attracted to one another. The theory of gravity is describing how it happens.
Evolution is a fact. The fact is that evolution happens. The theory is describing how it happens.
The big bang model is similar in how well established it is. The debate has been over for many years. The Big Bang happened. The arguments are over how it happened.
A theory makes predictions. I can predict the speed of an object falling with the theory of gravity. If that prediction holds up, then that is evidence for the theory. Evolution makes similar predictions about what variation should be found, where it should be, and how long ago it should be. This happens to uncanny precision. I'm not as familiar with the BBT, but it predicted that we would be receiving microwave light from all directions everywhere. We found that too.