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

Thanks to my opponent for this debate.1. Pro's case is built upon a fallacy.My opponent's case is built upon an argument from incredulity. His false proof is that if A and B are proposed as explanations, and A seems to an average person to be less incredible that B, then A is the more likely solution. The error is that what seems to be more or less incredible is subjective and depends entirely upon the experience and knowledge of the person judging. Anthropologists went to an isolated valley in New Guinea where the indigenous people knew nothing of modern technology. The anthropologists took video recording equipment, recorded the village, and played back the video for the people. The people were not impressed. They explained the video as being magic, of the same general kind the local Shaman used to make it rain and perform other miracles. Had the anthropologists tried to explain recording technology with transistors and magnetic tape, it's quite likely the explanation would have been rejected if favor of straightforward everyday magic. Being "less incredible" is by no means proof of truth, nor even a good indicator of what is true. Before science, most natural phenomena were explained as the work of gods or spirits. 2. Science is more probable than miraclesPro's argument implies that the parting of the Red Sea was a miracle. Wikipedia provides references to alternate versions of the events recounted in the Bible, "The narrative contains at least three and possibly four layers. In the first layer (the oldest), Yahweh blows the sea back with a strong east wind, allowing the Israelites to cross on dry land; in the second, Moses stretches out his hand and the waters part in two walls; in the third, Yahweh clogs the chariot wheels of the Egyptians and they flee (in this version the Egyptians do not even enter the water); and in the fourth, the Song of the Sea, Yahweh casts the Egyptians into "tehomat", the mythical abyss." [1. https://en.wikipedia.org... ]The article continues, referencing additional scholarly works, "The Hebrew term for the place of the crossing is "Yam Suph". Although this has traditionally been thought to refer to the salt water inlet located between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, known in English as the Red Sea, this is a mistranslation from the Greek Septuagint, and Hebrew suph never means "red" but rather "reeds." ... General scholarly opinion is that the Exodus story combines a number of traditions, one of them at the "Reed Sea" (Lake Timsah, with the Egyptians defeated when the wheels of their chariots become clogged) and another at the far deeper Red Sea, allowing the more dramatic telling of events." Pro clearly rejects the mundane explanations for crossing in favor of a miraculous explanation. He cites as evidence artefacts claimed to have been found in a part of the Red Sea over 600 feet deep. We are debating the probability of a miracle having occurred for the crossing versus the probability that science has correctly established the Big Bang as a fact. 3. Witnesses are not as good as scientific evidencePro claims that there were many witnesses to the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea, but he does not cite a single statement of witness claiming to have observed the events as being an apparent miracle. As described in [1], the Bible story is most likely a composite of real events, with miraculous embellishments. Saying that the story claims it was once witnessed has no more credibility than any other myth handed down through generations. Many myths may have some basis in factual events, but the miraculous parts of the stories are not supported by the mere fact that the stories are told.In criminal proceedings witnesses are notoriously unreliable compared to forensic evidence. "Fingerprints offer an infallible means of personal identification. That is the essential explanation for their having supplanted other methods of establishing the identities of criminals reluctant to admit previous arrests. Other personal characteristics change - fingerprints do not." [2. http://www.usmarshals.gov... ]There have been 310 post-conviction DNA exonerations in United States history. ... In almost 50 percent of DNA exoneration cases, the actual perpetrator has been identified by DNA testing." [3. http://www.innocenceproject.org...] A sample showed 78% of the wrong convictions were the result of eyewitness misidentification. [4. http://www.apa.org... ]When it comes to scientific observations, witnesses are the least reliable evidence. Pro's is wrong that we cannot be sure of the Big Bang because it was not observed. Criminals are convicted reliably based upon fingerprints and DNA evidence, and scientific evidence of the Big Bang is equally compelling. Contrary to Pro, The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time. BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like. The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space. There are twenty-six scientific observations supporting the Big Bang Theory ranging from 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. [6. http://www.talkorigins.org...] No other scientific theory agrees with the evidence. 4. Bogus evidence for the parting of the Red Sea Pro cites claims by an amateur archaeologist that remnants of chariots were found at the bottom of the Red Sea, and that this proves the story of a miraculous parting of the Sea. The usual way that objects reach the bottom of the ocean is that ships transporting the objects capsize of break up, losing their cargo. A steam locomotive was found at the bottom of the Atlantic off the coast of New jersey, and no one has pronounced it proof of a miraculous crossing. chariots were invented around 1600 BC and continued in use through Roman times, and ships of that era were not reliable. I doubt that Ron Wyatt, the amateur archaeologist. [7. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com...] discovered anything at all. What would anyone do after discovery of ancient chariots on the sea bed? Some of the coral-encrusted objects would be given to a museum for analysis. The underlying objects would be identified beneath the coral, the growth rings of the coral counted to establish the dates, and the dates cross-checked with radiocarbon dating of the coral or of any wooden fragments surviving. None of this happened. None of Wyatt's "discoveries," which include Noah's Ark and other ancient wonders, have ever been verified by a legitimate archaeologist. "Wyatt always seemed to get a glimpse of something and then it promptly vanishes, ..." [7. op cit] "a TV producer's wife was told by one of Ron Wyatt's sons that the chariot wheels that Ron supposedly discovered in the Gulf of Aqaba were planted there by Ron. Also, John Baumgardner, who is a Christian and initially believed Wyatt and inspected Wyatt's Noah's ark "discovery", later wrote that "I am almost 100% certain that Ron 'planted' them [rivets on the Ark]." 5. Calculating the Probabilities I admit that nothing is known by science with absolute certainty. There is always some finite probability that a better theory will come along that explains all of the twenty-six scientific observations that provide evidence for the Big Bang. Still, after a great deal of scientific investigation, no alternative has emerged as viable. Put the probability at 0.99. In the specific case of the parting of the Red Sea scholars have identified the likely origins of the story as an embellishment of various true events. There is no reliable eyewitness or physical evidence. The probability is less than 1%.