//The 'theory' of evolution has changed//

Yes, scientific theories do have a tendency to develop over time. You've never actually explained why we should consider that a problem.

//Get over it.//

Sorry, over what?

//In the beginning God//

Right... and then after that, what? We just stop taking any interest in how stuff works, because God?

I mean, it's fine as a beginning. I like God too; obviously not your God, but God nonetheless. I don't see why assuming 'in the beginning God' invalidates scientific theories that don't concern themselves with the question of God's existence.

Which evolutionary theory does not, any more than the big bang theory does.

It's painfully obvious that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge of theories that you claim are flawed. I suggest that a better use for your time than sitting around trying to think up clever names to call people might be to spend a bit of time looking into those theories - sufficient to know what to actually criticise. Because criticising theories that aren't really theories but you've decided they are to give you an excuse to fly off the handle when anybody corrects you.... well, it seems a bit pointless, doesn't it?

//So you don't not want to know

Oh dear oh dear god deniers accusing others of not wanting to know.//

Words fail me.

runner,

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; which indeed is smaller than all seeds. But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches."

You know seeds grow , you do know. Men in white coats do arithmetic and it is written that gravity waves space time relativity quantum acceleration stuff.. little seed became big stars- but it wasn't a mustard seed.

Christians like me believe in gravity. Atheists believe in gravity. Supernovas explode and you can't tell whether a believer or atheist is saying that

'Christians like me believe in gravity. Atheists believe in gravity.'

' nicknamenick

obviously the laws of nature require a Lawmaker. Even Newton himself was a man of faith.

runner
So then , Newton measured the forces within laws. The big bang doesn't have to exclude the lawmaker. It seems to be a very large example of such laws.

Proverbs 30:24-30 mentions animals from which to learn.

//obviously the laws of nature require a Lawmaker.//

Who must necessarily be more complex than his design, which then leaves us with the question of 'how did something so complex just pop into existence'?

By your logic, the only possible answer is that something even more complex created him... and so on.

To infinity and beyond!

//Even Newton himself was a man of faith.//

As were Darwin and Lemaitre. And Newton, whilst a man of faith, was an antitrinitarian heretic who believed that worshipping Christ as God was idolatry.

None of which has any relevance to their scientific achievements.

Newton was into renewables . Conceptually, the bigbang may be theist,
greenie, trinitarian , Islamic or illusion . Communal violence and Marx also ran.