The "Big Bang Theory" is false

Pro is mistaken as to what actually occured during the Big Bang. It is often thought of as an "explosion" - a cartoonish "Ka-blam! " that sent galaxies and fully-formed planets hurdling in every direction. But this assumption comes from a severe lack of understanding of the theory itself. I will attempt now to enlighten Pro about what the Big Bang Theory actually entails:The term "Big Bang" is in fact a misleading one, coined by a skeptical 1940's radio host making fun of the idea. In reality, it refers to the constant expansion of matter in the universe that is actually still occuring today. [1] About 14 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was concentrated into a small area - a superheated, ultra-dense point containing all energy. Where did this come from? Scientists don't know, and this is the grey area where physics has no answers and all is left up to philosophy. But this theory wasn't invented on the spot; it was based on the discovery of the universe's constant expansion [2]. The universe's boundaries are perpetually widening, as evidenced by galaxies moving farther and farther apart. There is also something known as the cosmic microwave background [3], which is radiation left over from the Big Bang that scientists study. Determining how old this radiation was helped scientists discover the age of the universe as a whole. While I enjoy debating about philosophy, the category of this debate is very explicitly "science". And yet, Pro's argument contains massive amounts of philosophy and appeals to emotion, but very little scientific reasoning. In lieu of science, she substitutes loosely-fitting analogies, asking us to picture a "car" or "child's bedroom" to represent the various aspects of her argument. While analogies are helpful at times, relying on them too much borders on logical fallacy. For example, here is an extremity that Pro used:"To think that this all happened because of an explosion that happened billions of years ago would be like believing that something as simple as a car was made because it somehow willed itself to be created out of nothing. "Here, Pro compares two completely unlike things: manmade technology and natural formation of matter. While cars were invented to serve a purpose for mankind, the universe formed - according to my personal views - at random and on its own. Also contained in this quote is a plain inaccuracy: the universe was not formed out of nothing. The amount of matter was the same when the universe was formed as it is now; it was just compacted into a very tight space. "This miraculous event would have occurred by trillions of non-living chemical cells, also know as 'matter'. .. "There is an error in terminology here. A cell is the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism. They are complex structures made of many elements and compounds [4], far too complex for Big Bang times. Cells would not appear until 10 billion years after the Big Bang. The substance that filled the universe at the time of the universe was pure matter. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. This broad category shows that at the time of the Big Bang, the universe was mostly hydrogen and helium, the most basic of all elements. However, at the time, the universe was so hot that not even the tiniest particle could form. Later, as it expanded, the universe cooled enough to allow the formation of subatomic particles [5]. Atoms formed later, then molecules, and so on, growing more complex with time. Pro uses a misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in her argument. The idea of entropy is a complex concept, and cannot be explained as "stuff gets messed up over time". The actual idea, though I oversimplify it here, is that certain changes happen in matter that cannot be reversed. When it comes to the Big Bang, this applies to its expansion and decrease in temperature. No outside forces (since there are no forces outside the universe, as far as we know) can make the universe become smaller or hotter. So, if anything, the Second Law actually strengthens the theory somewhat. Pro's "child's bedroom" metaphor is never properly explained. She takes the analogy and runs with it, but never ties it back to how this explains the "impossibility" of the Big Bang. The reason planets form with such "perfection" can be explained fairly easily with science. The universe, in its early stages, consisted of elemental particles randomly flying around. When particles combine, they grow larger, which causes smaller particles to be gravitationally attracted to them. Most of the particles get stuck together, and this is why large astral bodies - planets - were formed. The reason they are almost perfectly spherical is because that is the shape that all objects tend toward when gravity it pushing against them evenly in all directions [6]. With the universe being well over 93 billion light-years across, it is very likely that at least one planet will have the perfect conditions for life to form. In her final point, Pro invites us to "Try to imagine a new color. Try to design a new animal using completely new characteristics. .. " She is right, a human cannot possibly design all the intricacies of the universe from scratch. But it makes no sense to say that the Big Bang can't be believed in because it was a simple "accident". The human mind and acts of nature are very different things. A human cannot create, from scratch, a planet, nor a forest, nor a tree, nor a leaf, nor even one cell. Therefore, intelligence does not at all correlate with this and cannot be applied. Pro seems to be implying that because random chance is somehow "dumb", it cannot have created anything. But here, it again comes down to philosophy. Some people, like myself, believe that landscapes were formed by tectonic plates, precipitation, and random chance, while others believe that the tectonic plates and such were moved by God or otherwise, as everything is part of His plan. This may be, or it may not be; neither can be proven by science, so it is left to personal beliefs. I have never in my life had any "feeling" that some sentient force was behind all of creation. A shame that it cannot be explained. It would seem that Pro is unable to accept the cold, dispassionate way in which the universe was created. Whether our reality has any meaning could be debated, but as I have said, that dwells in the realm of philosophy. Pro, however, has been more than content to enter this realm in a scientific debate. Thank you again, Pro, and I await your rebuttal for Round 3. SOURCES:1. Cox, Gary. The God Confusion: Why Nobody Knows the Answer to the Ultimate Question. London: Bloomsbury Plc, 2013. Print.2. . http://skyserver.sdss.org...3. . https://en.wikipedia.org...4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)5. . https://en.wikipedia.org...6. . https://lcogt.net...