That is what we are disagreeing on. We have not observed any evolution which would result in species changes. (I mean like an ape changing into a man) Evolutionists are just hoping that something will appear that shows we did indeed come from apes, there is no proof (and I will continue to argue no evidence) we did.Umm... I may have missed something, but if not, micro-evolution IS a small segment of macro-evolution...
Here is the definition.I don't know exactly how that theory works, but I don't see why there can't be a random element that allows it to suddenly stop oscillating... Though I really don't know the physics of that.
Definition of oscillating universe. The problem with your idea is that if there was any probability of this event happening, (which caused the universe to not re-collapse) it would have already happened.Originally Posted by http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0025900.html
You misunderstood my argument. My argument was that scientific principles are built upon induction (what we can see), and these scientific principles disagree with the oscillating universe theory/infinite time. The point was that if infinite time does not exist, then the universe requires the supernatural. As I said before, only some of the laws of Physics must break down at the singularity.Inductive reasoning to the extent you're suggesting would seem to me to be along the lines of:
'In every instance of observing the beginning of the universe it was created by God, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by a God."
Our actual reasoning would instead require this logic:
'In no instances have we ever seen the beginning of the universe, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by God.'