No, it's not. Go ahead and try using circumstantial evidence in science. No one would nor should take you seriously. Circumstantial is weak "evidence." And I'm not playing games. I'm quite serious.
Something not make believe like bible stories and myths.
So you concluded. You're on the wrong side of the fence.
Nope. I'm on the side of science. Not myth or delusion.
No, it's not!
You're on the side of guesses. Your faith is strong.
Projection big time.
I admit much of my perspective is based on beliefs and the resultive experience I've had. You have no experience actually observing macroevolution; just all guesses. Scientists have not answered conclusively why there is something rather than nothing, when nothing is what you had before the Big Bang.
Which is entirely subjective and anecdotal.
Who said there was nothing before the BB? Certainly not science. Science admits it doesn't know what, if anything, there was before the BB. Science is honest like that. But it doesn't make things up or goes by mere belief like religion does.
Again, no it's not.
Which doesn't make it false. It just gives YOU a reason to reject it.
What's your best guess of what existed prior to the Big Bang? Why is there something other than nothing?
Enjoy the rest of your day.
It doesn't make it true. Its perfectly reasonable to reject anecdotes and circumstance. It's wishful thinking at best. But no good or rational reason to accept..
I'm not in the habit of making guesses.
Enjoy your fairy tales.
What do you mean? You've said nonsense and offered nothing as usual.
Help me with what exactly? Who said i needed help? I certainly didnt ask for any help. It's just a story and nothing more.
Circular reasoning and a myth.