The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

Science is CONSTANTLY striving to be more correct. Just because we don't know everything, does that mean we should stop trying ? Science is science until it is disproven. And currently, the big bang theory has stood up to scrutiny…otherwise, the myriad number of studies per year would come up with something else. Just because you can't understand it (as evidenced by your simplistic "oh...and by the way, the universe was created by an explosion which led to evolution, and your ancestors were monkeys.") I will put it in terms you can understand, because I am beginning to form a theory (as demonstrated by our interactions) that you don't have even a fundamental knowledge of how science works or the theories involved. Lest you think I am attacking you, I am not. I am simply clarifying that you are in no position to debate scientific principles because you don't have a clue about what you are talking about. Case in point…our ancestors were not ‘monkeys' as you state. Monkeys are a whole different species and they are NOT our ancestors. However, we share a common ancestor (which was not a monkey). Chimpanzees (technically not a ‘monkey') share 98% of our DNA. Just so you don't make the assumption that ANY currently living ape, monkey, gibbon, etc. was our ancestors, they were not. We had a common ancestor that was neither monkey, human, or ape. It was something different. We branched off from them. But I digress. I'm curious. What would you have taught in it's place ? You state that this is not about religion, yet you talk about religion, evolution (which has nothing to do with big bang theories and is a separate discipline in and of itself—the only thing they have in common is that they are both scientific explanations of how ‘we' came to be and the fact that organized religion doesn't adhere to either theory) both in this debate and in your comments. As far as the Science Daily report, did you understand it? For those that did not read it, in essence it states that there is ‘dark matter' that is theorized to make up most of the universe (which should have more mass than it appears to have through direct observation). In 2002, scientists surmised through testing that they had found some of this ‘dark matter'. Then just now they realized that is was something else. And that is science's strength. WHICH BRINGS ME BACK TO MY FIRST LINE IN THIS ROUND. They test and retest and then retest again. Contrary to what you believe, it is not a bunch of scientists sitting around making stuff up. They had loads and loads of data and test, test, test, test, ad infinitum. If something doesn't measure up it's out. The example you give only serves to strengthen my position that science is self-policing and will re-evaluate itself in the search for truth. You have now flipped no less than 3 times.. In your opening statement you said "There is no real evidence that this theory is accurate so we should NOT be teaching it to our children in public schools." You then changed it to: "I have no problem with this theory being introduced, studied, and debated at the college level. It absolutely should be. That is where the research belongs. A sixth grader, however, isn't in position to debate, study, or test the theory" in Round 1. You went further in Round 1 with "I am not at all suggesting we should just dismiss the theory out of hand, I'm suggesting we keep the discussion where it belongs." Then you changed again when you stated "I said the theory was ridiculous "on it's face" (which you actually said ludicrous, but no matter) in my opening argument, and it is." Which was then followed by : "Nothing is being debated or tested at that grade level, it is instead being presented to children as factual information. " Which is it sir ? Do you even know where you stand ? We did away with what Theory means in my opening statement. We saw that it is indeed not a ‘fact'. So when a theory is taught it is not the same as teaching facts. You have not given any reason as to why this should not be taught to our children. Is it because it is a ludicrous theory ? You say that it is not and then say it is. Is it because 6th grade children cannot debate it ? YOu then say they don't debate at that age. Is it because it is taught as fact ? We saw that theory is not the same as fact. What is your hidden motive here ? Please try to form a cohesive argument here. I'm getting seasick from all this round and round and up and down stuff.