Oh see this happens to be an area I'm very well versed in and you're just flat wrong here.  I don't want to derail the thread but I'm certainly not going to let this go unchallenged so allow me to refer you to topics of interest in regards to observable evidence for BBT.

Cosmic Background Radiation, Universal Expansion (as demonstrated by Hubble's Law), and a whole host of predictions about quasars and star clusters of varying sizes which have subsequently been backed up by literally thousands of astronomic observations.

Those are the ones I actually understand to a decent degree, a quick perusal indicates that other forms of observational evidence I'm not familiar with include observational evidence regarding the abundance of light elements (ie primeordial elements) and the fact that nearly half a dozen methods for estimating the age of the universe agree with the BBT timeline.

With that said BBT has openly acknowledge aspects which have yet to be explained. Probably the most prominent is the Horizon Problem...but I've already gone on to long.  I'll just conclude by saying BBT has extremely strong obersvational evidence at the moment and even with all of that there are things we don't know, as someone else pointed out earlier we still don't have a full grasp on gravity and in fact the standard model currently used essentially ignores gravity and pretty much appends it in as an "oh and this".   Developing theories place gravity in a more central role and we now have very strong mathematical evidence  for the gravity particle that most have probably heard dubbed as the "graviton".  So whats the point of pointing this out?  Just because we don't completely and fully understand a process and how it works doesn't mean we must distrust it, let alone completey dismiss it.

We don't understand how gravity works but thanks to observational data we have a rough idea and are refining it as we speak.  We don't understand the specifics of BBT or the causal event (if any) behind it, but observational data tells us we have at the very least a good idea of what happened with only the details to be ironed out (and the devil is in the details).  But with evolution we do understand the specifics and we do have a metric ton of observational data and of the 3 is easily far and away the most rigorously proven.....so if you don't want to believe in evolution you should probably stop believing in gravity as well.

PS - If you want to do your own experiment for observable evidence of BBT you can tune an older TV  away from a recieving channel and the static you witness is partly made up of CMB radiation.

Skull one is a primitive hominds skull (or an ape as you call it), the other skulls show the progress of evolution from that first skull going in chronological order to which they are dated, ending up as homo-sapiens (us).

Besides how can you PARTLY believe in evolution? if you believe that environment exist where certain genetic traits allow the fittest to survive and passing on the traits to next generation then you have to believe that 5 million years ago us and apes have a primitive ancestor, 85 million years ago we all had a common mammal ancestor and so on. Because life has been standing up straighter, running faster etc... since the first single cell organism.

I think the example of the bacteria I gave prooves evolution beyond the means of simply standing up too, it was an evolution we witnessed. There was a better example in this months focus (British science journal) which explained how we analysed bacteria in some lemon juice, after 40,000 generations the bacteria had gone from being destroyed by the lemon juice to thriving on it and requiring it for nourishment. That is a complete evolution, far more than us even evolving from rodents some 80 million years ago.

I could go on like this all day but I have lectures and reports to do

on a lighter note

Nearly all rational people understand evolution is scientific fact -- and it doesn't mean that they're all atheists. In fact, most people are not atheists.

Plus, I'm pretty sure the Pokemon thing was a joke. You fundamentalists should really lighten up and try to enjoy life a bit.

I'm very supprised noones posted this yet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYxcAslHTTA

 What does evolution have to do with atheism...???

I didn't post in this thread originally, but I always loved this thread!

I was one of the originals! Do I get a cookie?

I would like to know when being religious and being so hostile towards science became so intertwined. I mean if God can do anything, why couldn't he have just done everything through evolution? Because its not in Genesis? When Genesis was written, people still believed that demons possessed people on a regular basis (what we know now as mental illness) and that the earth was flat.

Do people really think they wrote Genesis with anything scientific in mind? Is it really such a stretch of the imagination to just say that they had no idea what they were talking about at least from a scientific perspective? Last time I checked, the Bible is a religious book, not a science textbook.

Guess who, Akuma?  :)

2nd part: ... Yes.  Inspired -> All True

1st part.   We (or I) are not hostile towards science; just this particular movement amongst scientists.  *Confession time*  I do not think evolution is correct, and that's not just because I think it it contradicts the Bible.

Now, why would I be so against the idea of God using evolution?  Because, according to my understanding of Genesis, the Earth was created only 6,000 years ago, and death only arose after the fall, so you'll probably guess as to why that might cause a slight contradiction between the two.

What precludes god from creating the heaven's and the earth with the appearence of being much older as a way to help sate the unquentiable curiosity of mankind?

And would it not ruin, or at least significantly diminish, the experience for him to tell us that's what he did?

From a strictly logical viewpoint neither evolution nor Big Bang Theory have any real bearing on the "Is there a god?" question.

@Akuma,

The timeframe of your comment regarding flat-earth is somewhat ambiguous but I want to point out for clarity that during the middle-ages flat-earth theory was not the prevailing viewpoint among cosmologist of the day.  It's a common myth that christian scientists vigorously rejected the idea during this period.  I'm not sure if that's what you were referring to, but I know many would take it that way because of how prevalent this myth is.  edit: Oops, missed the "when Genesis was written" part.