Creationist is true

*Counterargument* 1. You present the video in your argument, so every point it makes in the video I should be able to refute accordingly unless you said otherwise. Besides, you did address Darwin's finches, and it's only logical for me to conclude that your point will be made through the video in the previous round. -But more importantly, you haven't refuted my points! Are you conceding this argument? Have I won this point already? Already one thing for the voters to take note of. 2. I'd rather go to heaven then hell also, as would most rational human beings. Does it mean that I believe it is real? Of course not, in the same way you don't believe a god called Hades rules the Underworld. 3. There could be tons of other alternatives. Aliens, other dimensions, etc. --> This is VERY important. So far, my opponent has dodged every point I have made and refuted about evolution. He hasn't given me any argument against my side, and this leaves open a wide gap of unanswered points I have made. Unless he resolves this, may the voters realize how big of a reason they should vote for Con is. *Refuting the video* A pure propaganda video. Dramatic music, but no valid scientific points. Yeah, right off the bat it states why "The Big Bang Theory will never become a law of science...". I gave a lesson on theories and laws, just refer back to my previous arguments. 1. In cosmological scales, the speed of light hasn't much significance, since interpretations of recession velocities are inherently general relativistic, ruling out special relativity. 2. The Big Bang is an intrinsic expansion - it's relative. The Copernican principle directly addresses this, dang I talked about this point in my previous round already. 3. What started the Big Bang has nothing to do with the validity of the theory in itself. Man I am repeating myself a lot in this debate, I have already addressed this issue in my previous round. 4. The expansion is due to a cosmological constant unknown as of now, and of inertia from the initial point when all matter was expanding from a singularity. 5. I fail to see the connection, so please clarify. 6. When was the singularity expanding a supernova? It's not. 7. What kind of "argument" is this? I need a reference to check up that claim, but for the sake of argument let's say it was true. So basically, we don't have computers powerful enough, a null point. 8. The metric expansion of space is valid on the scale of galactic super clusters and anything above that in size. That is why galaxies can and do collide. *Kent Hovind Section* 1. His "5-minute argument against evolution" is complete crap. What mean by "evolution mister Hovind is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Refute that bub. 2. I rather not address his objection to Earth's age as that's another big topic. But eh, I'll just throw in radiocarbon dating and the fossil record for some proof now. 3. Or maybe the MATTER WAS ALWAYS THERE. 4. The Big Crunch is only one of the possible scenarios, though this doesn't undermine it's validity in anyway. 5. The Big Bang doesn't postulate that the universe came from "nothing". It doesn't even address that issue! Man I hate repeating myself. Though, a hypothesis about this is the Hartle-Hawking state. The Big Bang hasn't been exposed as a fraud, especially not from the doctorate-faking Kent Hovind. *Conclusion* ONCE AGAIN, my opponent has supplied NO evidence for creationism, just what he thinks to be flaws in the Big Bang theory and Evolution, all of what have been refuted. He has skipped many of the previous points in previous rounds, and I have an inkling feeling he'll do the same in the next round.