You are right about my knowledge of evolution. I do actually realize that the Big Bang is separate. It's just that a certain dogmatic someone gets under my skin.
So you were intentionally lying, pretending to be stupid?
I didn't realize there was a middle theory between that and evolution. So it is improper to lump them all together. However the theories I refer to still exist.
Can you even accurately describe one?
Can you explain what any of this has to do with a god existing or not existing?
we have a huge battle over words.
No, we have you being belligereent and dishonest, unwilling to be open and sincere enough with others to acknowledge their post. You're treating us like shit for keeping you honest, then blaming us for the consequences.
My study of evolution mostly has been the study of other people's opinions, people much more educated on the subject than I. If all these theories were as cut and dry as it's supporters act then there would not be so many debates.
There are not debates, it is the a scientific consensus. Creationist do not make credible scientific arguments and have no place in the world of academia.
Well according to my own knowledge it is not observable
This is false. There are tens of thousands of experiments, publications, and data points upon various evolutionary mechanisms.
Which one are you saying is not observed?
which is part of the scientific method posted above.
This is also false.
You don't 'see' something for it to be 'science'. You can observe something either directly or indirectly, much of scientific theories are about things we cannot detect readily with our senses. That's why we build devices in order to examine that which we cannot see, plus we are also limited to drawing deductive conclusions based on the remains of evidence left over from an event. Regardless of not observing the event, we can take the evidence and form hypothesis about what the event was.
In fact, it's the very first step. Sure some of it can be observed, species have variance. I guess this is what keeps it scientific. But the parts that could help end the debate are not.
Can you even describe anything that has anything to do with evolution?
We have yet to get you to even describe anything accurately.
So you people should not go around and tout it as fact and bash me for not agreeing because like it or not people far more educated in the matter than I believe this also.
It IS fact, you are not being bashed because you don't agree with it, you're being repeatedly hammered with questions and smited BECAUSE YOU'RE LYING
The newly released documentary "Expelled" blows the whistle on what many evolutionists have been doing for decades, which is brooking no opposition to anything that challenges Darwinian dogma.
False. Not a single person in the fake documentary was actually 'fired' for being a creationist, in fact many of the individuals lied about their own termination or changes to their access within their department.
Sternberg in particular claimed to have had his 'keys' taken away from his access to a museums displays because he dared 'talk' about intelligent design.
What really happened is that his keys were replaced with magnetic swipe card and he had access all along. He also claimed to be a member of the institute, but his actual position was temporary from the very beginning. He turned entirely clerical changes in an office space into a full blown conspiracy.
More importantly.. nothing in the video addresses what scientific evolution is.
Actually we can't even get to this point.
Because you can't actually define or explain anything you're claiming to talk about. You follow a similar pattern of equivocation; make a blind assertion that misuses terminology explains nothing and just begs more questions, refuse to answer anything while equivocating to any question to get you to be more accountable, and then finally peoples frustration with having to deal with your ignorance as to why you were right all along.
Right. That'll convince everyone.
I am even bashed for using process of elimination? That's absurd. If A and B are not correct then C, however improbable, must be correct unless there's a D, E, and F. I believe evolution supporters use this to conclude evolution is correct, at least according to what I have read here so get off your high horses.
Holding you accountable for your claims is not 'bashing' you. People are taking you to task over your horrific use of logic and poor arguments. This is another fantastic example in your second sentence:
// If A and B are not correct then C,//
Evolution being true or false, has nothing to do with your god claim being true.
This is a type of fallacy called a false dichotomy, you're intentionally limiting the choices two binary options that do not follow from the evidence or are not rational in any sense. Hence that's why I asked you what do any of your claims have to do with a god existing or not existing when I first responded to you.
In order for all of the evolution, and related theories, to be true then God and the Bible must also be eliminated.
False. This is the same false dichotomy.
Evolution has nothing to do with a god ( generically ) existing or not existing. It is also a false dichotomy when you imply that it is either your god or no god, that's just ignorance and arrogant considering the shear number of god claims.
Your choices are no god, or an infinite number of gods, or an infinite number of something else.
The big bang, evolution, and the entirety of science has nothing to do with it. Science is only integral where it literally contradicts a literal creationist myth.