The Big Bang Theory is Scientifically Impossible

I will be as direct as I like when I'm arguing with someone who is immature and refuses to debate honestly, Which is what you are clearly doing. You are making assertions that are not founded in science and you are being dishonest by intentionally ignoring or misusing definitions (like nothing and laws/theories). You are either lacking in education and truly don't understand the definitions, Which is ok but it means you are not ready to tackle a subject like this, Or you do understand them and you are just being dishonest and ignorant - which is it? Or both? Did these photons come from your definition of nothing or mine? If it came from yours, It doesn't fit in this debate. Case and point. I'll try to make this very easy for you. They come from the definition of nothing we are referring to when we are discussing physics. Quit trying to play word games. I was VERY clear on what the version of nothing is we are referring to - dishonesty will not get you anywhere in a debate like this. Next, You repeated your attack on my definition of nothing. Do you honestly believe that the universe has been around forever? This certainly is an outdated belief that has been easily proved wrong. If you believe this, Please offer some evidence of it. If you don't actually believe it, Please stop wasting time by even mentioning it. I don't know if it is or isn't. That is out of scope, But nice straw man. Next, You questioned my view of order and disorder. Dan Barker, Renowned atheist, In a debate between him and the apologist Kyle Butt, Spoke about how you cannot prove on-hundred percent that God doesn't exist, But you can prove how "improbable" his existence is. He said that it is nearly impossible, So he doesn't exist. And yet, You say that because of there being a minute chance of order coming from disorder, It could have happened. Starting to contradict yourself, Eh? I never said this. Once again, Nice straw man. You're really trying hard to misdirect and push the burden of proof on me. You made the proposition this debate is focused on - support it. Next, You said in response to my argument about the universe being at one point, "No I don't know what you mean. There is no center on something that has no boundaries. Referring to a center is nonsensical. " Wow. Now who's playing word games? You apparently didn't even bother to read my previous statements on this. I said that the word "center" that I used means more like "starting point. " I made this clear, And you are straw-manning me by twisting my words. For someone who accuses me of misquoting you, You certainly do a lot of it yourself. There is no straw man here, I would have to be setting you up for a knock down. That's simply not the case and I never used it to knock you down. I'm being very careful with my words because I know what you're attempting to do. The universe has no center, Because it has no boundaries. This is nonsensical. Next, If the answer "I don't know" is sufficient to you, It's sufficient to me. If you can get out of answering a key point just by saying "I don't know, " then what's stopping me from doing just that? And you atheists accuse US of using the "God of the Gaps" argument. I find this quite humorous. That is a perfectly honest answer and you are free to use it anywhere you want. If there is no answer, The answer is "I/You don't know". Throwing in an answer of "Oh, Magic did it" (God of the gaps) is not an answer. Once again, You resorted to insults by stating that we creationists aren't scientists. You called us "delusional imbeciles. " Funny. I seem to recall debating someone on that exact topic and winning. . . I proved you wrong already. I don't need to again. My arguments were sound in that debate and I won it regardless of your fellow creationist sympathy vote. Creationists are NOT scientists, They are antiscientific. You accused me of using a 2-second google search. Wow. This coming from the guy who's told me to "google it" multiple times. To prove his point. If it is veritable when you say to do it, It is just as veritable when I do it. It seems that you like to pick and choose when you want to use logic. Because you are putting no effort into this debate and simply on here to troll/rant with your unfounded assertions. It's not worth the time writing a large response when you're arguments are self-defeating on their own. Readers can clearly see your limited scope of knowledge and intentional dishonesty. This is not the first debate I've had with you. Once again, You say that the burden of proof is on me to prove my viewWho started this debate again and made a proposition they failed to support? Oh right, YOU.