Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

The Original Claim "I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory." The Major Points Newton's First Law - PRO's creation narrative violates this law, the Big Bang theory does not. Conservation of Mass - PRO's creation narrative violates this law, the Big Bang does not. A sentient creator is necessary for life - No proof of this was ever provided and it's logical to assume the opposite. Rivers, oceans, and sunlight have no sentience, but have been largely responsible for all life on our planet. Conservation of Angular Momentum - This is no way disprove the Big Bang, and in no way supports a creator. Age of White Dwarfs - Demonstrated to be scientific and dependable, and supports a universe that is far older than 30,000 years. "I am saying that logic says that someone greater had to have first set it all in motion." Thousands of other creators have made the same claim with exactly as much evidence and PRO has refused to explain why it must be his creator, he has failed to provide evidence that the creator Elohim created anything. This claim should be dismissed. A line of reasoning that asserts any infinite being capable of violating physics would require an extraordinary amount of proof. As this claim was made without evidence, it should be dismissed. "I know that my statement violates these laws." PRO concedes for a fourth time that science cannot prove a creator, as a creator inherently violates science. "I never said that I don't believe in red shifts." PRO cannot believe in redshift without disproving his entire Young Earth belief. Because red shift conclusively proves that even young galaxies are hundreds of millions of years old, surely PRO, who believes that the Genesis account to be literally true, could not agree with redshift measurements. This means that PRO does not believe in a literal creation account, or does not believe that redshift supports a creation account I assumed the latter, despite redshift being scientific fact. "What in the universe could have possibly collided with and entire galaxy to cause it to change direction of rotation??" Another galaxy. http://www.bbc.co.uk... "I am not using Carbon "dating." I am only talking about C 14. I don't like repeating myself." Carbon-14 was utilized in the 1940's by Willard Libby to date carbon. You cannot discuss the age or quantity of Carbon-14 without using carbon dating. "you first need to know how bright, and thus how hot the white dwarf was to begin with." We can observe that stars become white dwarfs at a certain point in their life cycle, and we know the life cycle of stars. By measuring how cool a white dwarf is we can work backwards to when it first became a white dwarf based on the very predictable measurements of chemicals, then work backwards from there to the natural evolution of the star. The physics and math I have provided in my multiple links explain this well. Kent Hovind "that is if what you are saying is true" You haven't showed any evidence that anything he said is wrong. If a murderer tells you that the Sun is hot, the fact that he is a murderer does not mean he is wrong about the Sun being hot." Kent Hovind isn't a murderer, he's a fraud. He received his diploma from a diploma mill: http://www.bakersguide.com... The mill was given accreditation by a fake accreditor: http://www.quackwatch.com... The "university" has no professors: http://www.patriotuniversity.org... The "university" has no campus: https://www.google.com... Hovind's dissertation was not reviewed by a board: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au... And the high-school quality dissertation was refused to the public for scrutiny, (almost unheard) of: http://wikileaks.org... He claims to be a doctor, although not recognized by local, state, or federal entities: http://www.kenthovindblog.com... He consistently makes erroneous and misleading claims that use bad science (a few of which reared up in this debate): http://www.talkorigins.org... Christians are as skeptical of his bad science as atheists. Possibly more so, as he makes them look bad by association. http://www.christianforums.com... http://creation.com... http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au... Hours of comprehensive critical analysis of every claim made by Kent Hovind: https://www.youtube.com... "It's just a debate, and nobody really votes. If they do vote they just vote off bias. An atheist will not vote for a theist." This is insulting. I've seen plenty of theists vote for things they disagree with, I've even had some vote for me, despite our disagreeing on the topic at hand. The same goes for atheists. It seems that my opponent believes that because he is not capable of challenging his bias, the rest of us are hopeless too. Conclusion On four separate occasions PRO conceded that science could not support a creator: "I know that my statement violates these laws. According to my theory, God is able to do that." "Because he operated outside of the universe to create the universe, therefore also operating outside of science, there can be no scientific explanation" " What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe" "(God) had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe... I stated that the laws of physics DEMAND a creating God" And once conceded that science does support the Big Bang "Almost all of this evidence supports both the Big Bang theory AND my Scriptural Creation story." Despite the burden of proof being on PRO, he consistently expected evidence to negate his disbelief rather than provide valid evidence to support his belief. All of PRO's claims remain negated and unsourced, and sources were openly denied upon request. All of my claims have been extended, and were repeatedly explained and supported with multiple sources. Thanks for reading, and unlike PRO, I encourage you to vote and challenge your preconceptions, even if that means voting against me.