The splitting of the sea is more probable then the Big Bang

In a debate each side makes statements (contentions) and gives arguments and evidence why the statements are true. Evidence includes the opinions of experts who are knowledgeable about the topic and data that supports the contentions. This debate is about two events and the probability that each occurred. Pro has the burden to prove that the probability of the Biblical splitting of sea is greater than the probability of the Big Bang. Let's see how this debate stacks up.The EventsThe parting of the sea is described in the book of Exodus in the Bible. Pro initially claimed that the parting of the sea might have been a natural event caused by the wind, and he declared that the debate should not discuss religion. However, in all versions of the story, the splitting of the sea is described as a miraculous event and not a natural event. Upon a sign from Moses, the Lord began the wind that caused the parting of the seas. The wall formed walls on the sides of the passage, and the ground between the walls was dry enough to allow unhampered passage of the Jews. The Lord disabled the chariots of the pursuing soldiers of the Pharaoh and then closed the sea upon them. This cannot be a natural event, so we must assess the probability that a miracle occurred.The Big Bang Theory was defined by Pro, citing a dictionary reference, as the theory that the universe (Pro says "world.) by explosion from a single point. Pro and the dictionary share a common misperception of what the Big Bang Theory actually is. I cited the scientific description that clarifies that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion rather than an explosion and that the theory does not say whether it began from a single point or from a very compact area. As the debate unfolded, Pro made no use of these differences, so the issue is moot. In any case, the scientific Big Bang Theory is very well defined, and I referenced a scientific description that details the Theory.Probability of the splitting of the seaArgument from incredulity. Pro asserted in R2, "[the Big Bang]...That does not sound wondrous? Yes in the splitting of the sea an entire sea split but in the Big Bang an explosion created the whole world and that sea! Now what is more probable one sea splitting or an explosion that created trees, the ground, light, ..." I argued that there is no objective way to measure how wondrous something is, and if both events were miracles happening outside of the laws of nature, we have no way to say which miracles are more likely than others. More, because it is subjective, how wonderful an event seems does not relate to it's probability of occurrence. I don't think Pro responded my arguments. He reasserted that he doesn't know if either event occurred, but that's irrelevant to proving the contention.Witnesses. Pro argued that while there were allegedly witnesses to the splitting of the sea, but no witnesses to the Big Bang, we should therefore judge the splitting more probable. I challenged Pro to cite the witness testimony that is independent of the Bible, and Pro admitted there is none. We have only the story saying there were witnesses, and not any witnesses themselves. Pro said that because 14 million Jews accept the truth of the event, that's good reason to suppose it occurred. I challenged Pro to prove that Jews generally believed the event was literally true, and Pro only said that it was part of the Bible so belief could be assume. However, throughout Pro, who said he is Jewish, also said he thought the truth improbable. I pointed out that much large religions included miraculous stories in their scripture, and that because the stories conflict, we know for sure that they can not all be true. The evidence from unverified scripture is weak at best.I cited scholarly opinion that the Biblical splitting of the sea was most likely an embellished composite of actual events. That is expert opinion. Pro offered no contrary scholarly opinion of it being literally true.Evidence. Pro initially cited a video produced by an amateur archaeologist claiming to find chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, in an area where the water is too deep to have been parted by the wind. I rebutted that none of the discoveries were verified by professional archaeologists, and that there were substantial accusations of insiders that he faked evidence. Pro offered no rebuttal.Probability of the Big BangPro claimed in R2, "The Big Bang is considered a theory but I don't think it is even a hypothesis. It is literally a guess not based on any facts." That claim is nonsense. The origins of the universe is one of the most-studied problems of cosmology, and the Big Bang Theory only came to be accepted over the Steady State Theory as a result of solid scientific evidence. I referenced twenty-six scientific facts that prove the Big Bang actually occurred, and for which no other theory provides an explanation. The cited [6] evidence includes Hubble Diagrams, the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation, the existence of dark matter and dark energy, the formation of stars and galaxies, and the dominance of light elements. Pro asserted without any argument or evidence that all the cited evidence didn't prove the Big Bang. For example, if he had an argument as to how Hubble Diagrams (the observational evidence of our universe expanding from a point) could be interpreted so as not to prove the Big Bang, he could have made the argument. If he had a single legitimate cosmologist who expressed any doubt of the Big Bang, he might have cited the expert opinion. He offered nothing beyond his unsupported opinion that all the redundant evidence for the Big Bang did not prove it.Early on, Pro argued that a witnessed event was more probable than an unwitnessed event. The splitting of the sea has no supporting witnesses, but rather only the story that it was witnessed. Beyond that, forensic evidence is far more reliable than witness evidence. fingerprints and DNA are far better evidence than witness opinion of what they saw. The fingerprints of the Big Bang are all over the observed universe from the measurements of expansion, to the distribution of light elements, to the microwave background radiation. It is conclusive.The Big Bang Theory earned its universal acceptance by scientists as a consequence of the evidence that supports it and rules out other theories. In a limited debate I couldn't explain each piece of evidence and how it supports the theory. All I had to do was make the claim and give the reference to the supporting science. Pro had nothing but unsupported denial.The debatePro should lose the sources aspect of the debate for citing a bogus source that he was forced to abandon. Worse still, he provided no scientific opinion or other source refuting my cited scientific evidence of the Big Bang.Pro should lose arguments based upon my evidence that Big Bang is solid science proved with little probability of it being overturned, while the Biblical story of the miraculous splitting of the sea is, according to scholars, is most likely not true, but rather an embellished composite of events. Pro also made basic logical errors in saying that something that seems more wondrous is less probable, and that witness testimony (or actually stories of their being witnesses) is more likely true than scientific evidence.Thanks to Pro for a vigorous debate.We have agreed to shorten the debate by both passing in the last round.