The Big Bang Theory is More Probable Than Genesis in Explaining The Beginning of the Universe.

May I address the arguments of non-cosmological background. Firstly, the challenge says "The Beginning of the Universe- The beginning of the the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy." Therefore, the arguments presented herein should be purely cosmological in nature. Nonetheless, I will briefly address them. Pro fails to differentiate between operational and origins science, also known as forensic science. As shown in the book The Bible, Protestantism, And The Rise Of Natural Science by Peter Harrison [1], proper understanding if the Scriptures, especially Genesis, led to modern science. The basic assumptions, like the one that assumes a rational universe due to a rational creator, is still in use. God is Light (Rev 21:23; 1 John 1:5). Hence day and night could already have occurred. "Moon is not light": I also may well argue that the Sun does not set. Pro refuses to take into account perspective. "He made the stars also": Notice in the full verse that no mention is made whatsoever of time during the day. It was neither an afterthought, nor at the END of a hard day"s work. God made things instantaneously. "Poison in plants": Should people then not take any medicine at all? They are all toxins. The deadliest toxin in the world is used in beauty treatments (C. Botulinum). Water, if taken in large enough amounts, will cause a person"s death. Pro does not give thought in writing to either the idea of death after the Fall or of having things in moderation. "The universe is at least 12 billion years old": This is an assumption. (As close to rounding to a half number, 14.5 bya). Why an assumption? It cannot be proven. (If Pro wishes to argue this, please put it in specific detail) "Humans evolved": Once again, an assumption. John Sanford, Prof. points out that mutations actually prevent evolution. [2] Pro confuses species with kinds. [3] "Serpent": See [4], snakes do eat dust. (If you don"t believe the reference, check its sources). "Thorns and thistles": Pro apparently does not understand simple plant growth. A simple search on wikipedia [5] would give all relevant information. I know it to be accurate because I checked out the sources. "All were safe to eat before": Has Pro ever eaten a durian? Does he propose that durians use not to have thorns? The argument makes no sense. Pro fails to provide an argument for how Adam could NOT see Lamech. "Dove with olive leaf": There is nothing to suggest that vegetation could not survive [6]. Creationists have long since given the explanation of vegetation mats to explain the survival in such instances. "What to eat?": When the animals were on the ark, what would they have eaten? Certainly Noah would have thought of that. Revegetation naturally happens very rapidly. "Carnivores would starve": No they would not [8]. Vegetation mats to migrate the continents. "Clean animals slaughtered": Pro has ignored Gen 7:2. Seven pairs of clean, two of unclean. "Overpopulation": Largely addressed by others such as [9]. The problems today are caused by logistics problems. in fact, there is enough food produced to feed the entire human population. "Cruelty to animals": This ignores the fact that animal welfare was founded primarily by Christians [10]. "Fear of humans": We are afraid of sharks and grizzly bears mostly due to popular films such as "Jaws", etc. Furthermore, it is a widely acknowledged fact that humans are at the top of the chain. "Rainbows": A natural explanation does not rule out a cause by the Divine. One question that needs to be put to Pro is that, "Have we seen rainbows billions of years ago?" "In what manner?" Rainbows do not leave traces after they are gone. "Big Bang more reliable because widely accepted": This is known as an argumentum ad populum [11], it is a logical fallacy and should be removed from this debate. Conclusion: Pro has failed in fulfilling his BoP to show how the BBT is more probable that Genesis. He goes into an attack upon portions of Genesis that is not connected with this debate. Pro fails to provide references. Pro fails to provide supporting evidences for BBT, instead assuming Con will accept his assertions that BBT is a theory and Genesis a "hypothesis." Pro has made allegations not related to the subject in discussion which has forced me to deviate from the topic and left me no space to defend the cosmological argument against the BBT and for Genesis. Thus, I propose that he be demerited with a conduct vote when the debate ends. 1. http://books.google.com.sg... 2. http://creation.com... 3. http://creation.com... 4. http://creation.com... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://creation.com... 7. http://www.fincaleola.com... 8. http://www.animalliberationfront.com... 9. http://creation.com... 10. http://creation.com... 11. http://philosophy.lander.edu...