The Big Bang Theory is Scientifically Impossible

To start off, I would like you to stop being insulting and debate rationally. You don't need to throw in junk like your statements about me not having a basic education and other bilge like that. Your debating has been rather impulsive so far, And it's really unethical. Just because you think something doesn't mean you need to say it. Now, For your "arguments. " First, You said, "What I said was photons do not exist, Then they exist, Meaning they came into existence. This was an example of what you were asking for. " Did these photons come from your definition of nothing or mine? If it came from yours, It doesn't fit in this debate. Next, You repeated your attack on my definition of nothing. Do you honestly believe that the universe has been around forever? This certainly is an outdated belief that has been easily proved wrong. If you believe this, Please offer some evidence of it. If you don't actually believe it, Please stop wasting time by even mentioning it. Next, You questioned my view of order and disorder. Dan Barker, Renowned atheist, In a debate between him and the apologist Kyle Butt, Spoke about how you cannot prove on-hundred percent that God doesn't exist, But you can prove how "improbable" his existence is. He said that it is nearly impossible, So he doesn't exist. And yet, You say that because of there being a minute chance of order coming from disorder, It could have happened. Starting to contradict yourself, Eh? Next, You said in response to my argument about the universe being at one point, "No I don't know what you mean. There is no center on something that has no boundaries. Referring to a center is nonsensical. " Wow. Now who's playing word games? You apparently didn't even bother to read my previous statements on this. I said that the word "center" that I used means more like "starting point. " I made this clear, And you are straw-manning me by twisting my words. For someone who accuses me of misquoting you, You certainly do a lot of it yourself. Next, If the answer "I don't know" is sufficient to you, It's sufficient to me. If you can get out of answering a key point just by saying "I don't know, " then what's stopping me from doing just that? And you atheists accuse US of using the "God of the Gaps" argument. I find this quite humorous. Once again, You resorted to insults by stating that we creationists aren't scientists. You called us "delusional imbeciles. " Funny. I seem to recall debating someone on that exact topic and winning. . . I proved you wrong already. I don't need to again. You accused me of using a 2-second google search. Wow. This coming from the guy who's told me to "google it" multiple times. To prove his point. If it is veritable when you say to do it, It is just as veritable when I do it. It seems that you like to pick and choose when you want to use logic. Once again, You say that the burden of proof is on me to prove my view. In our debate over Christians being delusional, YOU STARTED THE DEBATE, And you still insisted multiple times that the burden of proof was on me. You really are unethical, Aren't you? You change your logic and requirements whenever it would hopefully further your side. This is the style of debate that I abhor. I hat debating with people like you, Because you change whenever it suits your purposes. This is very unethical, And the burden of proof is on both of us. So stop trying to turn attention away form you. Back to you.