A lot of people feel that way. That has nothing to do with your descriptions of evolution and the Big Bang, though: they’re just wrong, and not by a little bit.
Then explain why it is wrong.
By the way, when it comes to who introduced mythological creatures into this conversation, you religionists get full credit.
I already did several times. The Big Bang theory doesn’t propose that the universe began with a black hole or an explosion, and there’s nothing in evolution or abiogenesis about rocks creating themselves or rocks making animals. You can read this stuff for yourself.
I disagree, Proteins are objective proof of God, and they do not prove Unicorns exist. Proteins never form except in already living cells; please, explain to me then how the first protein got here if God did not create it? Even scientist cannot make DNA in a lab. These proteins are too unique to have formed or " Folded themselves." Proteins must fold perfectly. And science just is not that perfect, nor is natural selection. Explain to me what taught Proteins to turn themselves on and off , if God did not?
If a first living cell would have formed without a creator, which is impossible, the cell would still have had to replace each of its proteins as soon as it wore out. If the cell did not already contain the information to correctly turn on and off the production of the replacement proteins, the cell would have died as soon as the first protein wore out. Explain that to me. This is objective evidence of a creating designing God who knows how to turn them on and off.
Hello!
Then you don’t follow the " Evolving theory of evolution", because it used to say exactly that. Its just evolved.
Unicorns can do things like that, and the fact that scientists cannot make DNA in a lab proves it.
What’s it feel like to be loosing a debate that your pride thought it could never loose?
What’s it feel like?
Tight, dude-tight.
I don’t believe that this was ever part of evolutionary theory, but I’d welcome a cite. Putting that aside, if you’ve admitting that scientists no longer believe this, why bring it up and present it as if they still think it’s true? In my experience this is not how people who actually accept that evolution is real talk about evolution. This is how people who think evolution is stupid talk about evolution.
The existence of any superbeing – Zeus, Pele, Jehovallah, whichever – is a surmise. There is no supportable evidence for any superpowers that arbitrarily surpass the demonstrated limitations of physics, so any given deity comes up short on that count alone.
In the case of jehovallah, it is typically portrayed as “omnimax”, meaning it has the three or four key characteristics that start with “omni-”. Apart from the fact that the omni’s tend to be self-canceling, a relationship between an infinite entity and various nominally finite entities is mathematically untenable. Which is to say, a putative everything-god simply cannot be relevant to us because it cannot relate to us in any way that is meaningful either to us or to it.
The concept of metaphysics arises out of our rational ability to analyze our existence. We are built to pursue our own survival, death is highly undesirable, hence we invent this “soul” thing that will outlive our bodies, because the finality of death is terrifying. Thence, the invention of the spirit realm, god, hell (not to drift off-topic) and redemption.
Atheists do not need any mythologies to not believe in. Life is just what it is, and we all deal with it. You complain that others characterize you in certain ways, the you go and characterize atheists as pleases you. Double standards like that tend to weaken your position quite a bit.
Many believe the big bang theory, and its obvious there are different scientific views of the theory, and its still theory. Scientist are not united as to the origin of the universe , and I will not accept any inuendo that suggest they are.
The views vary; THE BIG BANG
I haven’t read the last two pages yet, but you don’t get it. Mass actually did not create itself - after the Big Bang there was just energy, which froze into mass when the expansion cooled it.
I have no idea where you got the Quasar idea. Quasars are relatively small (and very old.) There are large structures - mind giving a cite where you got this information so we can see what it really says?
Voyager 1 (my oldest child 
) is just crawling. That it takes forever to get anywhere means nothing. In any case the universe has had 13 billion years to expand.
Now if you had read some books on this you’d know that the Big Bang theory made predictions about the background radiation - the temperature of the universe - which Penzias and Wilson accidentally discovered to be true. The inflation theory made more predictions about the detailed structure of the radiation that were confirmed. That is solid evidence. Your astonishment about the density of the early universe does not falsify it. In fact, IIRC, there was far more mass originally, but almost 50% was antimatter which was annihilated when it met regular matter, so only the excess of regular matter was left - and is all the matter in our universe.
I totally disagree, every Atheist I have debated, and I have debated hundreds of them, ALWAYS use myths in their dialog against God; its academic that they need them. And in my view, that weakens their position; Theist don’t need myths.
All religionists I have ever known use myths to dialog with their god. Fair’s fair.
Have you looked up what the word “theory” means when it comes to the scientific community yet?
I think you don’t get it, nothing created itself, creation is only possible by a creator. Nothing has the power, or knowledge, or innate ability to create itself; nothing! I disagree with the Atheist belief in the nothing. Something can only come from something, and to avoid infinite digression , God must be the origin.
I hold no interest in this type of language in a debate, go curse at some one else.
Peace on your journey.
Have you looked up the word “theory” yet as it pertains to the scientific community, or do you not care that you are misusing the word?
I’m getting the sense you’re either not paying attention or not understand what you are reading. Yes, the Big Bang is widely accepted. It does not say the universe began with a black hole and “an explosion in space.” And your use of the words “its still theory” (aside from being grammatically wrong) suggest you don’t know how scientists use the word “theory.” Look it up.