Refuting Theist_1998 on Big Bang Cosmogony

Right, so Theist_1998 has been ripping arguments from Kent Hovind in regards to the Big Bang theory, and I think it's about time that someone well versed in the talking points of creationists (I'd like to think that I am one of those people) take a problem with Theist_1998's tactics. I told Theist_1998 that he shouldn't use Kent Hovind's arguments in the comment section of a specific debate [1], and yet Theist_1998 is still using Kent Hovind's talking points in a later debate [2]. Theist_1998 has not answered my comments anymore (which is fine, he's not obliged to answer my comments), so I'm challenging him to a debate - I cannot comment on his profile, nor can I send him messages, so setting up the debate is going to be part of this debate. It is up to Theist_1998 if he wishes for me to argue against the below copy and paste argument which he presents against the Big Bang theory, or to find better arguments. If Theist_1998 chooses to accept this debate, I do recommend that he doesn't use his usual copy and paste argument against the Big Bang, because I can poke holes in every single one of them, whilst simultaneously showing that he plagiarised creationist talking points from Kent Hovind. On the other hand, if Theist_1998 wants me to refute his copy and paste argument that he uses against Big Bang cosmogony, that is fine, and I have no troubles with that, but it's not something I'd personally recommend for him to do. For ease of access, I will copy and paste Theist_1998's opening argument below: "The Big Bang is a theory that sounds impressive on the surface, but simply does not hold up to extensive examination. Here is how the Big Bang is often presented: Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it. There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from? If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together? If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning? Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum. This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from. So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction. However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards. Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets. The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says: "matter cannot be created or destroyed" Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says: "Everything tends towards disorder" And the list goes on and on about the problems with the big bang theory but I'm sure my opponent shouldn't have any problems answering any of my questions. Your Turn :)" Links: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...