The "Big Bang Theory" is false

This will be the last round of this debate, but I am open to anyone who would like to start a new debate with me on this same topic. My first point I would like to make is that while Con made some great rebuttals, he did not make any arguments of his own, therefore he has not made any points for the Big Bang theory being scientifically accurate. I will begin this round with some arguments as to whether or not some of Con"s rebuttals were valid, and then make my own points. -Rebuttals- Most of Con"s rebuttals were about my analogies. First he states that the analogy about the car making itself was "loosely-fitting". I believe he is stating that comparing a car to the universe is not appropriate. However, since analogies are there to help make complicated points easier to picture, I believe that all my analogies were valid. In my first point, I explained how it is impossible for the universe to create itself, I used a car to represent the universe, and stated how far-fetched it is for a car to create itself. I then pointed out that a car cannot create itself, because a car is made up of so many different parts that need to be assembled by someone much more intelligent than the car itself. The universe cannot create itself for the same reason. It is far too complex, and too perfectly formed in a whole. My analogy was perfectly appropriate for the point I was making, and I see nothing wrong with using a man-made object to prove this point. I am not saying that the universe and a simple car are similar objects and can be compared to each other in a sense that they are basically the same thing, but merely giving viewers a chance to see what I am saying and have a picture in their minds. This helps viewers get a better understanding of my statement and makes my argument stronger. Because the viewers and voters of this debate are just ordinary people and not professional judges, I feel as though analogies are sometimes needed in hard debate topics such as this one. My other analogy, the one about the child"s messy bedroom, was again perfectly fine to use for my point about the Law of Entropy. My opponent stated that: "The idea of entropy is a complex concept, and cannot be explained as "stuff gets messed up over time" ". That is true, it cannot. I did not leave my point hanging with this statement, but rather, explained it as thoroughly as I could using examples, points, and an analogy. The Law of Entropy is difficult to understand, so to use it in my argument I have to simplify it, and I see nothing wrong with that. Next my opponent states that: "When it comes to the Big Bang, this applies to its expansion and decrease in temperature. No outside forces (since there are no forces outside the universe, as far as we know) can make the universe become smaller or hotter. So, if anything, the Second Law actually strengthens the theory somewhat. ". This has nothing to do with the Law of Entropy, which states that anything organized tends to become disorganized over time. He uses this point for one simple sentence, and then abandons it without any explanation as to why this could relate to the Law of Entropy. He accuses me of "running away with my analogy", when he himself does it in his own argument with his own point. Having completed my rebuttals, I will move on to my own points to strengthen my argument. Stephen Hawking, a famous scientist who is an atheist and supporter of the big bang theory, once said this quote: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. " This quote, though it may sound legitimate, is actually a fallacy known as circular reasoning. I believe this quote could be turned around, and state that "because there is a universe, there is a law such as gravity. " Gravity cannot help the universe create itself, because without the universe, there would be no gravity! It is easy to see the flaws in his quote just by parsing the sentence and looking deeper. If gravity helped create the universe, then without gravity, the universe must not have been able to create itself, but gravity cannot exist without a universe, so the universe cannot have created itself simply because of the lack of gravity! Circular reasoning, especially coming from such a renowned scientist, can be difficult to spot, but once spotted, the entire point is powerless. It does not make any sense. Scientists say that the Big Bang happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago. In 2012, we could see 13.2 billion light years away. Because of the speed of light, when we look out into space that far, we are technically seeing 13.2 billion years into the past. If the Big Bang happened anywhere near that time period, we should be seeing signs of an incomplete universe, or at least one that is still "evolving" from birth. No matter how far we have looked, we have not found anything that can relate to the Big Bang causing our universe to create itself. Nothing that can prove or even strengthen the Big Bang theory has been found in the past. I have listed many different laws that the Big Bang theory has violated, as well as some evidence and facts for my case. I believe if a theory, even one as well-known as this one, can break that many scientifically correct laws, it cannot be true. Remember, this is a theory we are debating about, and not an actual law. Not once has anything been able to challenge the laws of science because of how accurate these laws are. We haven"t been able to find any real scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory, so I think it is grossly unqualified to challenge our laws for science, let alone defy them. Another big thanks for my opponent for his graciousness at letting me participate in this round, and I am excitedly awaiting his argument for Round 4. . http://www.gavinjensen.com... . http://thetechreader.com... . http://www.universetoday.com...