Theists ask me a question

[dyresand]

The sudden rapid expansion of matter and energy from a singularity. The singularity is the a point of energy that is infinity small without dimensions. The singularity more than likely was unstable causing it to expand outwards  that's the big bang in nutshell the sudden expansion of space and time. Gravity simply is the force that attracts two bodies together that's pretty much it.
Most of your questions can be answered via google you know

I asked where gravity came from, not what it is
Matter? I thought there wasn't any matter? And how was the energy produced?
You need there to be something already there for evolution to even be remotely plausible. Except, apparently there wasn't. Which disproves the big bang. Nothing can come from nothing.

Mass creates gravity I.E. objects create it if there is empty space there would be no gravity you cannot have gravity without mass  all it is just the force of attraction nothing more nothing less.

There was simple matter created after the big bang simple clouds of hydrogen and helium the two basic and abundant elements in the universe so the idea of nothing is wrong because there is something. Simple very hot clouds of hydrogen and helium given enough  time to cool off would create stars and eventually water. The water on earth is older then sun you can find out about star formations our sun itself is still fairly brand new. 

Give simple bacteria enough time over a long time span in the right conditions like earth you will eventually get complex life that's pretty much it. The first life on earth could have been a type of algae and then types of bacteria which would have then given time would have more than likely given rise to early sea life such as fish.

The nothing can come from nothing fallacy never use that. Okay for one know one knows for certain how the energy of the universe or the singularity you can only look so far back until mathematics start going wonky and don't make since. I didn't say after the big bang there was nothing after the big bang there was hot clouds of gases that were something and they did form stars  after awhile. But if you do say nothing cannot come from nothing you clearly haven't read up on quantum physics. Because the notion of nothing is a paradox nothing cannot exist as nothing is unstable if the universe were to end via entropy after awhile on a universal scale time itself would flow backwards crunching back in on itself restarting the universe all over. 

I mean this thread has gone so far off topic just PM me

[dyresand]

A lot of your questions you have are literally that easy to google and find out i mean you are on the internet
google it's a good tool for education

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Has your finger ever broken through the toilet paper when you wiped your butt?

Nope i am very careful not to get shitty fingers.

Oh, then you probably use an excess of paper - TREE KILLER!!!!

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Evolution has evidence of it happening we can look at our DNA animal DNA and look at both. 
Believe it or not everything on this planet, past future or even present is all related. All life on earth
shares a common ancestor of sorts we can look at tree and biologically speaking that is pretty much a very distant
cousin. Dogs and cats too are closely related ironically. I don't really need to prove it as there is so much evidence
for it you could pretty much go to google i'll even give you give you a video. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

I've seen that video and honestly its pretty convincing. However, it focuses only on the very clearest 'evidence' there is, as if more were not needed. I accept the fact that we do not and cannot know everything, such as the amount of change that can occur in one species due to natural selection and mutation, however the video claims to have found many fossils of a transition between dolphins and legged land animals. I am not convinced by this claim, as it is only a very small part of what would be required to prove the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is not evidence of evolution, but merely diversity of kinds?
Lets start from the beginning - can you prove that the big bang created everything we see today?

Maybe those who are the most esteemed scientists in the world among others who actually do science instead of try and prove anything (and you need to understand this, most of them haven't the time nor interest in proving anything to those who make unfalsifiable "Goddidit!!!" claims) are really a secret society of people who spend all their time out in the field dancing about while wearing rabbit masks. Their "science" consists of chanting out dark, unmelodic spells, and performing various other Satanic rituals in the buff (other than the masks), culminating in ritual sex which climaxes when they drink each other's blood. Then at the end of each day they defecate on the desert sands, and out of this is formed their daily report on new "species" discovered, which doesn't even once use that archaic word from the 19th Century, "kinds".

***sigh***

If you understood the difference between how science works, and precisely what the claim of an "unfalsifiable" doctrine means, then there would be no confusion as to who's word should carry weight in an educated society. Theistic doctrines offer 0 evidence - "evidence" does not equal rhetorical argument! Therefore I'll accept the accounts of the side which presents quite a bit in one video, and a whole lot more than you will ever see in just one! If education scares you, then I can't imagine why you are interested in dealing with questions on nature at all, unless your motivation happens to be equally dishonest.

Science is precisely an observational and methodological search for answers, not for proof of anything. If you were interested in what you can learn from science instead of attempting to prove it wrong, then you would understand that there is no need to prove that the big bang, nor anything else actually happened when your interest is in learning what facts actually can be learned about life on this earth. There is more evidence than the theist with creation on the brain will ever want to admit awareness of that life has progressed from simple to complex at rates which vary on our genetic tree at points which are very much consistent with how they would if the changing genetics was the cause of this itself, not some heavenly button-pusher designer. There is undeniable evidence which theists throw garbage at, but genes do change over the generations, and this has been observed in real time with short-span creatures such as insects, while the evidence for "microevolution" limitations is as absent as the idea is a wishful and time-wasting filibuster. ALL EVOLUTION IS MICROEVOLUTION without the presumption of outside intervention, for which no evidence exists - it's the simplest answer, it explains the most which can be observed, and the simplest explanation is typically the best. The creationist and his ridiculous argument for "kinds" does not wish to accept the likelihood which this implies, that we all have an ancestor which was not only (in all liklihood) some sort of a lower primate, but that our own lineage descends all the way down the tree through rabbits, rats, fish, and on down further through lower forms, but worldwide evolution of species from low to higher complexity could have happened no differently for the evidence which exists. Fossilized life forms are empirical evidence, and the details on change-triggering environments which can be determined in the fossil strata from low to high is circumstantial. Note that none of this is either a wishful attempt to manipulate your attention away from evidence at hand unless you call moving the goalposts, use of rhetoric, and starting a different argument (typically consisting of fallacious attacks) when all else fails are what you call "evidence". That is really all the creationist can do to keep himself employed today in the business of theism-based creationist apologetics.