Daystar

[Purple Rabbit]

That evidence equivocally shows that

Later scientific evidence showed that

You talk about there being evidence out there which proves your point, but you haven't presented any of this actual evidence, that's all I'm saying. And in that respect, I understand Daystar's position in most debates.
However, posting links as reference won't help as Daystar doesn't follow links, and an in-depth summary of the experiments which lead to the discoveries would be a waste of your effort. Maybe we should start filling up the science section with some actual information, explanations, experiments, etc. Maybe Daystar would be more tempted to click the link if he knew it was to a thread on these boards posted by us religious atheists =/

Well, a forum is about debating and the body of evidence I present is the total of scientific knowledge. My claim that earth was formed after the big bang is pretty straightforward and amply documented. There is no use in replicating that over here, so it seems that in this debating environment referral to specific parts of that body of evidence should suffice as a starter. Then we hopefully can identify the parts that are disputed. As long as Daystar's only evidence consists of faith claims like "the bible is a reliable witness" I am not urged to strain myself with replication of evidence that's available to all with a few mouse clicks. Let's first find out which part of my claim Daystar does not subscribe to. Maybe he can start with explaining how earth was formed prior to the big bang without spatial extension.