Big Bang Theory

Con:"The speed and direction of galaxy movement is something impossible to calculate"Actually, it's not impossible at all. The speed of our solar system through the Milky Way is 515,000 miles (828,000 kilometers) per hour. I admit, the solar system is not a galaxy, no one can provide a true speed of the Milky Way unless a point of reference is set first.At this magnitude, and also because of the fact that we are also moving, it's hard to determine a general speed. This does not alter the fact that the galaxy is moving, though.Con:"About the elements, this is also not solid evidence. It could go both ways. God may have created elements to be this certain way, or maybe another scientific explanation."Well I don't make a distinction between "evidence" and "solid evidence". There's evidence, or there's none. We can observe, first hand, fusion of elements into other elements - in the sun! Also, there have been experiences of fusing elements into others in chemistry labs. A lot of the elements above numbers 104 were man-made. So calculating the rate of element fusion, with the number of existing natural elements, it correlates with the initial fusion of hydrogen into helium about 14 billion years ago.Have you read the links I provided?This is evidence - it's observable, reproducible. Why would anyone think god created the elements? No evidence for that, it's not observable, not reproducible.Con:"Either way, what I'm saying is this "proof" has no meaning if you don't have the others to support it."I would like you to elaborate on this. I'm not sure what you mean.Also please explain why this proof has to rely on other proofs to support it.Con:"I can say that fire is hot, and it's this way because the big bang happened."You could, but it wouldn't be correct, since the big bang isn't a direct cause for the temperature of fire. Also, I don't understand why you would say this.Con:"There's just no way to prove if these methods are accurate, or even if the scientists are being truthful."The science that allows us to have this debate while being miles apart is the same science that scientists use to provide proofs, theories and evidence for the big bang. Physics! And a bit of chemistry, too. Even if a scientist would be mischievous enough to attempt to provide false evidence for anything, he/she would almost immediately be corrected by a slew of other scientists. Science has proved itself to be very accurate and reliable for a very long time, now.----------------I would also like to point out that, as you said, you have "no evidence against [the big bang theory]". You seem to be attempting to discredit the evidence for it, though, to "open [a] door for the unproved existence of God."You're trying to find flaws in observable evidence, so you could validate the legitimacy of unproven theories that have no evidence for them.Let's just say that it would be reasonable to do so. Wouldn't this also validate the legitimacy of Thor? Zeus? Ra? Mithra? Buddha? Allah? Jupiter? Fairies? Leprechauns? Why would it only validate the validity of the theory of the existence of the Judeo-Christian god? (I assume this is what you're attempting, please correct me if I'm wrong).