The big bang theory is a more valid reasoning of how the universe was created than creationism

What my opponent said: BOTH are theories What I say: I'm sorry but for something to be a theory, there must be evidence. What my opponent said: Furthermore, the hypothesis of the Naturalist Big Bang Theory dictates that the explosion occurred from nothingness What I say: 1. Its a theory not a hypothesis. 2. I see I need to explain more. There was never nothing, it was just a highly compact, that expanded, CREATING the universe in which elements started to form over BILLIONS an BILLIONS of years. What my opponent said: Once Naturalists were proved wrong (by Science), they quickly pushed the "Eternal Universe" Theory under the rug, and latched on to the Big Bang, twisting it to suit their theories about the beginning of the Universe without the existence of God. What I say: We don't really know if that was actually the beginning. It could have been some point in time where the universe was huge, but then became compact (just some speculation, maybe not true), but science in science if we do not know something, we will admit it, and then find away to figure it out instead of what creationists do trying to twist everything more to loosely fit into what they originally thought. What my opponent said: As far as Creationism goes, Albert Einstein taught us that time is relative. With that being said, any question relating to time is already riddled with complexity in scientific terms, let alone philosophical terms. Yet Creationism teaches the world was created 7 days. Theoretical physicist Gerald Schroeder, a former professor at MIT, calculated the entire history of the universe relative to our present point in space-time and comes to the rather startling conclusion that one could compress 15 Billion years from the point of the Big Bang explosion into about the space of a present-day Earth week" holy crap " I"ll leave that to the reader to judge the theological implications of that proposition. " Gerald Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang, Bantam (1990), Chapter 2: " Stretching Time". (By the way " this is Science and Mathematics we"re talking about) What I say: Yes I agree with you on time is complex. As the doctor has said "people say time is a straight progression of cause to effect; but from a non linear, non-subjective viewpoint, in fact its a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey whimmy stuff" which if you think about it that way is even more complex. You brought up that "the entire history of the universe relative to our present point in space-time and comes to the rather startling conclusion that one could compress 15 Billion years from the point of the Big Bang explosion into about the space of a present-day Earth week." I see one you believe in the big bang from that and two see that it is EXTREMELY IMPROBABLE ( I would say impossible but I never say impossible) for the whole universe to be created in an earth week. Which shows full force that you o not believe in your position. And from your short story I see how you don't understand truly how science works. True scientists would not throw that piece of how it can take off on its own away, they would keep searching for more explanations. And by the way i'm still waiting for true evidence of how god actually created the universe, which you have provided none for which means talking in terms of validity, The Big Bang theory is more valid than creationism.