the big bang is just another unrealistic theory

However I disproved that due to the high chance that quantum fluctuations are constantly occurring. Matter can in fact be created, but in a virtual particle/anti-particle relationship - the matter destroys itself after a very short amount of time due to it's "contents." I wish I could ask what theory you're talking about when you're referring to the Big Bang theory not being in line with other theories, but unfortunately this is the last round. The Big Bang is a theory, like you said. Because it isn't the same as other theories doesn't make it unrealistic, it just makes it... another theory. Like creationism. However the difference (I'm sure I've mentioned earlier) is that the Big Bang theory actually has reasonable "evidence" to support it. It of course doesn't make it a fact, or true, or maybe even close to true, but it has a better chance of being a reasonable explanation for the origins of the universe over "God did it - here is zero anything that points toward this."Conservation of EnergyRight off the bat you're asserting that the laws of physics not only are consistent throughout our current galaxy, but have been consistent throughout all of time, and pre-time. It is actually highly likely that it can and does change over time, according to Stephen Hawking, "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down," " Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang." [1], or maybe the laws of physics didn't exist at all, or the reason we believe them to be what they are today is simply our understanding of how stuff works that we can test [2], and considering (as I remember, I may be wrong, I'm not too keen on reading through our entire debate again) you would like to dismiss the string theory and eternal inflation theory, Mr. Frank Heile briefly explains how a different set of laws for physics may be possible to occur [3].So now that we got that out of the way...Tossing aside a theory (or law that has the possibility to change throughout spacetime) to make way for another theory could actually be acceptable if both theories have the ability to work together, or if one makes more sense.If watermelon is red, and only orange food tastes good, we can test both these to see if maybe the watermelon is actually orange. There are always possibilities in science, and to dismiss a theory because it doesn't get along with another is like kicking someone with a PhD in astrophysics out of a group because someone else with a PhD in astronomy doesn't like him. Too bad - we're trying to figure out the most reasonable/plausible origin of the universe. If one theory outweighs another, or even another separate thing, then we re-evaluate both of those things to see if there's any way they can coexist in their present form or if we have to study them even further to see if there's a possibility they were different at a time. And it turns out, the laws of physics very well could have been.Light Element AbundancesWhen I copied and pasted your response into Google, I noticed you just got this word for word, ie. Plagiarized it. Now I usually don't care, as it's technically still a valid argument, but it isn't your argument. I also love how this guy's (Eric J Lerner) words have been copied and pasted all over Christian forums, again... word for word [4], [5], [6], and many more.The only thing I really want to say about this is that a contradiction, or even fault in the Big Bang theory, and one possibly incorrect idea does not dismiss the entire idea of the Big Bang, nor does it make it anywhere close to "unrealistic." Also, to put your number of one hundred trillion (a one, followed by fourteen zeros) into perspective, check out this time line of events to happen in the distant future - [7] - I know it's from Wikipedia, but they have their sources and it's still a very interesting read. Check out the time period predicted for quantum fluctuations to create a new Big Bang - - You know how many zeros are in that number? Well, it's ten to the power of one hundred septendecillion. That's... you might as well consider that infinite. So how many hundred trillions can fit in 10^[10^56]? Enough to say there's a good chance this theory could be right.Large-scale Voids are too oldI can sense a pattern here. I'm technically debating against a person with a Bachelor's degree in physics - Eric Lerner - considering you've copied and pasted his teachings to this debate. So I guess I'm thankful, considering I don't even have any post secondary education yet, and to debate against someone with a degree like this, well, it's fun.However this debate between you and I unfortunately doesn't exist - I'm sure LogicalLunatic or Aerogant (if his account was still active) would love to debate me to this idea - as you haven't provided your own words. You've copied and pasted somebody else's argument (as I have seen many creationists do) in hopes of... well I don't know, but it sure isn't conveying or opening the possibility to new arguments, even for your idea.But hey, "you" bring up large-scale voids, and we all know how the laws of physics works the same way the hell out there, inside "non-matter" areas of the universe, as they do down here on Earth, right? I would also love if your friend Eric Lerner would provide some kind of sources or back his claims up with something, as the definition of "large-scale voids" is simply areas of space that consist of no matter, in the form of galaxies or dark matter [8], [9]. To say these areas are "too old to exist," or don't make sense if the Big Bang theory is correct, is ridiculous, considering these "voids" are simply pockets of space that contain no matter. Gravity or other energy forces have repelled or attracted the matter away from that area of space.I was very reluctant to do this, but after copying and pasting several of your previous arguments into Google, I was upset to find out that you had simply dragged someone else's argument into this site. I'm sure not many people on this site respect plagiarism - it would have been better if you had even paraphrased someone else's arguments to three lines a round.Thanks for getting me to think and do some research, I know I came out of here knowing more than I did before. Not too sure about you.Thanks, take care![1] http://www.hawking.org.uk... [2] http://boingboing.net... [3] http://www.quora.com... [4] http://www.biblewheel.com... [5] http://www.christianforums.com... [6] http://www.jehovahs-witness.com... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://www.whillyard.com... [9] http://www.universetoday.com...