The Big Bang Theory is Scientifically Impossible

First off, You said "Photons, They do not exist, Then they exist as a byproduct of energy. " First you say that they don't exist, Then you say that they exist in a certain circumstance. Well, Then they DO exist! If they exist in a certain sense, Then they exist. Next, No matter what definition of "nothing" you're using, Ultimately the universe had to have had a moment when there was nothing. The belief that the universe always existed and always will exist was proved wrong centuries ago. So, Whatever you say, The universe had to have come from nothing at some time. So please answer the contention that something cannot come from nothing. Next, You said that the Big Bang was not an "explosion, " but an expansion. Well, This "expansion" would have needed an incredible amount of energy to expand into the massive universe we have. But this is besides the point! Even if this wasn't an explosion, It was still disorder. My exact argument was that order cannot come from disorder. Next, You broke down my argument into a few smaller arguments and attempted to refute those, So I'll do the same thing and answer each of your individual "rebuttals. " First off, You said in response to my expanding universe answer, "I'm not sure what evolution has to do with an expanding universe. I will just disregard this as nonsense and move on. If you meant something else here, Write a few more details next time. " Well, If this has nothing to do with the debate, Why did you mention it in your first argument? If it has nothing to do with the debate, It is just as incorrect when yo use it. In answer to my next argument, You said "There is no center of the universe, So I don't know where you are getting that idea from. In order to have a center you have to have a boundary. " You know very well what I mean. If, As you say, The universe is expanding, Then the universe must have at one time been in one central, Small location. In response to your answer to my third argument, Could you please offer some hard evidence that we see light being stretched? Even if this was the case, It actually isn't proof of the Big Bang. If the creationist model is true, Then the universe would have been created already in its mature state. We see in the Bible that Adam was created as a man, Not as a baby. So it naturally follows that the universe would also be created in its mature stage. This answer also is to refute your next point about red shift. Next, You said "What caused the big bang? No one knows for sure and it's outside the scope of this argument. " Outside the scope of this argument? We're talking about the alleged "science" surrounding the Big Bang theory. If the starting of the Big Bang was a part of the Big Bang, Then it most definitely is in the scope of this debate. Pleas answer my previous arguments surrounding this point. Next, I would like you to actually prove that creationists aren't scientists. This was a very bold statement, And you offered no actual proof of this. This was an argument from emotion, Not of fact. Next, So far, None of the laws of physics actually prove the Big Bang. If they did, It would not be a theory but a law. Finally, You asked for scientific evidence against the Big Bang. I'm glad you asked! 1. The Magnetic Monopole Problem: "A magnetic monopole is, In short, A particle which contains an electrical charge, Creating a net "magnetic charge" within the individual particle. If the Big Bang theory were true, It should be one of the most prevalent (common) particles in the universe. However, Instead it is the complete opposite - a magnetic monopole has never even been observed, Not even once. This is a serious problem because it means there is something entirely wrong with the Big Bang Theory, Because the total and absolute lack of even a single observed magnetic monopole particle is a direct contradiction to the fundamental principles of the Big Bang theory. 2. The Flatness Problem, Also known as the Oldness Problem: "Initial density of matter and energy in the universe is a very specific critical value. Small deviations from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time. If the universe started off slightly positively curved, It would be enormously positively curved today, And the same holds for negative curvature. However, The curvature of matter and energy in regards to density remains very small so the probability that a Big Bang could have occurred to create the current universe is so astronomically slim that it is entirely improbable. 3. We should be able to see the Big Bang or shortly after, Since the farther you look the farther back in time you see; but we don't: "Essentially, The problem is that if the Big Bang occurred 13. 7 billion years ago, Then the deeper we peer into the universe, The closer to the Big Bang that we should see. However, No matter how deep we peer into space, Still we see no evidence of a Big Bang. A quick google search showed me that even in 2012 we have been able to see 13. 2 billion light years, Which is see the equivalent of 13. 2 billion years into the past. (We can probably see even farther now. ) However, Since the Big Bang was supposed to occur only 13. 7 billion years ago, Then we should be looking at the early pre-formed universe. We shouldn't see fully formed stars and planets. However, Instead we see stars and planets just like in our own galaxy. This is a serious problem for the Big Bang theory because we're looking at the "early universe" yet it doesn't appear very early at all. Thus, The Big Bang could not have happened. Additionally, Although this is in fact yet another issue (one that has been addressed before), If the universe happened totally randomly then there should be all kinds of different forms that we should see as we look out into space. It wouldn't be the same planets, Stars, And galaxies in every direction. Instead it would be a vast array of different types of things. For example, In one direction we might see stars and galaxies but in another direction we might see exotic forms. However this is not the case, Further disproving any Big Bang from ever happening. 4. Dark Matter and Dark Energy: "Dark Matter and Dark Energy have never been proven, Or observed in any way whatsoever, Yet the Big Bang theory depends on the existence of such potentially mythological substances. Not only that, But in order for the Big Bang theory to even be valid, Dark matter and dark energy would have to be the most abundant things in the universe. The "dark" in "dark matter" and "dark energy" doesn't mean color. It means, "unknown". In other words, The proponents of the Big Bang theory couldn't figure out how it could possibly happen so they said, Let's make up some fictional matter and energy that "made it happen". It's kind of like me saying I am the most powerful person in the universe. My power is everywhere and can do everything! You just can't see my power but it's there! And then someone with common sense saying, Pfft whatever man, Yeah right. " 5. The theory of Inflation violates Einstein's General Law of Relativity: "Big Bang theorists have tried to use a magical effect called "inflation" to solve several of the obvious problems, Including the Horizon Problem and the Flatness Problem. The problem is, Inflation states that after the Big Bang, All the particles in the universe traveled faster than the speed of light. But Einstein's General Law of Relativity proves that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Inflation can effectively be called a "magical" effect because it does not hold any basis in science. Theorists made up this magical effect which says, Essentially, That in some magical way everything traveled exponentially faster than the speed of light to get where it is after the supposed "Big Bang". 6. Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models: "Occam"s Razor states that that which has the fewest adjustable parameters should be chosen. However, The Big Bang theory opposes Occam"s Razor, Because it can only exist with innumerable adjustable parameters. Models of a Static Universe have far fewer adjustable parameters than expanding universe models. The Big Bang theory is an expanding universe model. Hence, According to Occam"s Razor you must choose a Static Universe model over the Big Bang's Expanding Universe model. " Are these sufficient for now? Each of these comes from a scientific perspective, So you should have no problem agreeing with them. If you don't, Please provide actual evidence of it. PS. - Seriously? I said why I had to forfeit the last round! Now who's using selective reading? Back to you!