1. With your change in tactics, we'll assume that you can't come up with any empirical evidence that might prove evolution to be true.
We're talking about big bang theory, not evolution, remember? Your website made erroneous claims about
1) The source of star's light
2) The age of the universe
3) The nature of the biblical god
I'm more than happy to point out errors when I see them, using empirical evidence such as:
1) The detection of solar neutrinos predicted by a thermo-nuclear sun fueled by a hydrogen core
2) The constant speed of light in addition to light and radiation detected from astronomical events more than 6000 light years away.
3) The biblical claims that god is not deceitful and that we can learn about god from his creation. (admittedly, using the bible isn't on the same level but the logical contradiction is pretty obvious).
2. It's fascinating that you guys think that God works within the confines of man's mind. I suggest you look up the word 'supernatural.'
I suggest you look up Romans 1:19-20,
". . .since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made."
If god claims that we can come to understand him through what he has made doesn't that indicate that, in regards to this universe, god is making the claim that he did, in fact, work within the confines of what human beings can understand?
4. Since you don't feel confident to debate your theory by using actual empirical evidence, you might find this forum more your liking:
I'm going to take a guess that you fellas got destroyed on your last message board and are trying to avoid a repeat by limiting the kinds of arguments that you'll deal with/not delete to an absurd degree. I've presented empirical evidence showing that your claims that,
1) God is the source of light from the sun, moon, and stars
2) God created all the "light" in the universe instantaneously, thus getting around old earth arguments
3) The Genesis account of creation has never been falsified
Are just plain wrong. Your response is to completely gloss over your errors and my questions to try and dismiss it all by labeling it "philosophical". Detecting solar neutrinos predicted by thermonuclear fusion theories about the sun's energy is not philosophical. The detection of supernova and other phenomena more than 6000 light years distant in addition to observations confirming that the speed of light is constant, is not philosophical. Those are statements supported by empirical evidence.
The philosophical part of my posts deals with the nature of your god in light of these observations, but the observations themselves are very well supported and the philosophical implications I draw from them are very direct and, quite frankly, fantastically obvious. Do you have a theory that can account for this evidence by making more verifiable predictions?