"If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)"

We have observed one species turning into another.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
5.0 is where it lists new species.

Now you'll probably say this doesn't count because it's not a dog turning into a fish or something, but it counts. If you can't understand that these changes accumulate over millions/billions of years to produce a very, very different organism, I really don't know what else to say to you. I give evidence, and you continue to say "no evidence".

We will never view a large evolutionary change (ape turning into man, as you've said) because it doesn't happen. Small changes accumulating is how it works. Micro evolution adding up to macro. Normal dogs were bred to Chihuahua's by breeding small to small over many generations. Never will a great dane give birth to a chihuahua by a fluke mutation. That seems to be what you expect as "proof". It's just not how it works. There is no great extrapolation here. It doesn't seem you understand.

"Yes, using your approach, we can never know anything, because we cannot assume anything. (i.e. certain scientific laws)"

What I meant was that it's unknowable because the big crunch would've destroyed anything we could've known about the previous universe. There's no data to go on.

"Whatever, the higher the acceleration of the expansion, the more likely that it will continue to expand."

Nice. Instead of debating my point, you disregard it with a "Whatever". The acceleration of the universe is expected, in theory, to speed up until the mass starts to slow it down, eventually causing it to crunch back. What I meant was that the mass is like gravity on the rocket. It slows it down, but the rocket still speeds up first.

"I am not mocking you, sorry if it came across that way. I just mean to say that most scientists are rejecting that theory because of all the evidence against it."

It is a very flawed theory at present. So is yours. I remember reading somewhere that a singularity WOULD restart the state of entropy, and since I know that's wrong now, I've gotta reconsider. Either way though, proving oscillation wrong doesn't prove you right, which is what you should focus on.

"Science supports a finite beginning to time."

I agree with you there. What I disagree is that it indicates god created time.

"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."

That's because we didn't come from apes. There is proof we have a common ancestor. No, we don't have an exact fossil record of every single change and generation, but we have a very good indication of what happened. There's many different kinds of early apes and humans, and when you trace back the fossils they both go back to one species.

"Do you have an example of this?"

White tailed deer. Up here (Canada) they're massive, weighing up to a ton. Florida deer, often called key deer, are tiny, about 100 kg. they're genetically the same species, aside from the size difference. This is classic geographical seperation. Some migrated, some didn't, and because of the difference in climate, their phenotypes differ. This has been observed and recorded in other species too.

"What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)"

Looking for food or mates is a pretty standard reason to migrate. Happens frequently, especially when areas are invaded by other species (biggest one nowadays is us, or species brought by us).

"Whatever, the gigantic extrapolation is unscientific."

Look on the site I linked above, it gives observed and recorded examples of this so-called "gigantic extrapolation". Why is it unscientific?

"Remember, the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is also limited by time. (no infinite time trick, even if you just consider the beginning as the big bang)"

Why would anyone say "infinite time". It's very obvious that the Earth doesn't have infinite time to devolop life.

"Remember, this is still assuming that the conservation of energy (mass suddenly dissappearing?) and second law of thermodynamics can be broken."

Yes, and I'll take Hawking's word that it can't be broken, so that puts the oscillating idea rather unlikely. But that doesn't make intelligent design, or god any more likely.

"I define supernatural to be that which does not follow the same rules as our universe, not 'what is not understood by science"

Then I agree with that, but not that it means supernatural. the word supernatural generally implies something like a ghost or god, which I disagree with. "time was created by something outside the universe" doesn't imply god, or even that a being/alien created time.

"1000 years should be enough to view a noticeable change, because evolution is gradual, we should be able to see a difference between these times."

And there are differences. Check the site I liked. New breeds and races of animals have come up. Humans are different (inter-racial people).

"The thing that bothers me most about evolution is that so many scientists accept it as proven (as we were arguing, you can always just say it takes longer then we can see because there is no way for you to show that macro-evolution has ever occured unless we see some evidence."

I've said this before. We see gradients in fossils. We see genes change over time. It is not ridiculous extrapolation to theorize that these changes accumulate to equal the changes we see in the fossil record. What would be ridiculous extrapolation would be to say that a magical floating god in the sky went poof and created the species, despite genetics and biology. how can you say people believe it "just because it is an alternative". Where's the evidence for intelligent design? Proving evolution wrong is NOT evidence.

"See this article about the evolutionary tree. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-150b.htm"

Gah. That site is very biased. Maybe they don't deliberately ignore the whole picture in order to prove their point, but it sure looks like it.

The cambrian explosion for one thing, is not the beginning of life. It is a population explosion, large attributed to the fact that around that time (we're talking 12-40 MILLION years for this "abrupt" event) creatures began developing hard parts. Soft things are EXTREMELY unlikely to be fossilized, that's why when we see fossils they're almost always shellfish, or bones. We do have a couple of fossil impressions of early unicellular life, but they're very, very rare. It does not by any means imply what that site is saying.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion <- good source for googling up a better understanding of the issue. Again, I recommend against creationist sites. Well, take ideas from them, sure, but their evidence very often leaves vital bits out.

From your site: "Extensive Cambrian layers are underlain by equally extensive and undisturbed pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock, just right for fossil preservation, but which contain only occasionally single-celled organisms, but no ancestors for any of the abundant array of complex marine creatures in the Cambrian! Some are extinct, but essentially nothing has developed ever since the start. Thus, the evolutionary tree is turned upside down."

There is most certainly a gradient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline <- based on fossil evidence coordinated with their geological appearance. I can't give you an example of each, it would take forever.

We have fossil evidence of some single-celled life. We have evidence of symbiosis (organisms joining to become one; mitochondria and cholroplasts are some of them). We have evidence that a lot of multi-celled life developed over millions of years. The cambrian explosion is largely attributed to the fact that it seems that sexual reproduction was developed, and oxygen appeared in the atmosphere. That article makes it sound like a million species appeared overnight, and evil evolution scientists choose to ignore it.

Aside from that, that site doesn't even give examples of WHY the fossil record isn't a gradient, it just says that it's not, and the cambrian explosion happened. That really doesn't say much at all.