God is the best explanation rather than Science

Please forgive me for forgetting the ground rules. Let the voters punish me as they see fit. "The Law of Thermodynamics states matter cannot be created or destroyed. However the Law encompasses several principles and can be state in several ways." This is false. Using my opponent's source, I read that "The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy)". Temperature, energy and entropy have nothing to do with the creation or destruction of matter. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org... "The law of conservation of energy : This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. The total energy of an isolated system does not change." This is irrelevant. Energy is not matter. "- The only exception to this would be if they encountered a large mass, such as another planet." Yes. The source that I provided previously shows that planets/moons such as those were hit by large celestial masses. "- However, this event should certainly have left a crater, which it would have been observed by astronomers." Yes. Large craters have been observed. http://www.wingmakers.co.nz... "This (Angular Momentum) would have caused the Sun to spin very rapidly. Actually, our Sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the Sun. In fact, although the Sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis." The Sun is one of the least dense masses in our solar system. Generally, the more dense an object is, the faster it spins. This partly explains the slow spin of the Sun. Also, Celestial objects do not spin forever, their spin gradually slows down, and since the Sun is by far the oldest object in the solar system, it spins slowly. (and will be slowing down even more as time goes on). http://www.smartconversion.com... http://www.universetoday.com... http://physicsfocus.org... Plus, to support Big Bang theory, recent studies have found "gravitational waves" that create a much better understanding of the Big Bang. http://www.cnn.com... "Natural Selection is a process that causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common in a population and causes harmful traits to become more rare" I am fully aware of this. What I previously explained is just the general process of how this occurs. For example, antibiotics promote evolution. Pretend you have three cells, A, B, and C. Antibiotics are introduced and as a result, A and B die. C remains because it has a gene that allows it to survive. C reproduces and creates a new strain of cells that are immune to antibiotics. This is natural selection in action. http://mmbr.asm.org... Another example of natural selection in action is the formation of new strains of viruses. Viruses are the most common and observable form of natural selection because it occurs very quickly. "The Cambrian Explosion proves Natural Selection is wrong." This is a common misunderstanding. The Cambrian Explosion does not challenge the central thesis of evolution. In fact, many fossil records show a smooth transition. An "explosion" of diversity is actually very common after mass extinctions as shown by the fossil record. http://biologos.org... "note there is little or no evidence in the preceeding geological strata of transitional fossils" There are actually many transitional fossils and here are a few: http://www.transitionalfossils.com... "Darwin himself found the paucity of transitional species to be one of the greatest weaknesses of his theory:" The source that my opponent provided to support his claim is non-existent. It is from wikipedia and says: "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name". Please check my opponent's source and you will see what I mean. I would also like to note that although my opponent has attempted to disprove the Big Bang theory and evolution, he has done nothing to prove God and why it is a better/more logical explanation.