Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

The Rules "You have failed to answer ANYTHING said in my previous argument." PRO missed my explanation for this at the start of round 2. Please disregard all statements suggesting otherwise. "I asked for no theories please. Only facts, evidence, laws of science, and explained logic." PRO insisted no unproven theories, a rule that I have followed and he has broken. Let us not confuse the definition of scientific theory with the informal definition, and let us not forget the rules we agreed upon only 2 rounds ago. "Almost all of this evidence supports both the Big Bang theory AND my Scriptural Creation story." PRO concedes that scientific evidence supports the Big Bang theory rather than "destroying" it. "What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe" PRO concedes that scientific law cannot support a creation narrative, as the creator is outside the laws of the universe. "something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God." My opponent changes the definition of "god" to suit the argument. The debate was agreed upon as the Christian creator, God, and will remain so; all other definitions and incarnations of a creator are off the table and cannot be invoked. PRO must also prove how he knows which creator created the universe. The Science "We mentioned that we would not get into evolution, but then you mention stellar evolution" Biological evolution and stellar evolution are vastly different, the only share similar vocabulary. "Newton's first law states..." The biblical creation narrative violates Newtonian physics the Big Bang does not. PRO must explain how the creator in the narrative can exist and cause physical changes without himself having a creation or physical change occur upon him. "Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass..." The biblical creation narrative violates this law, the Big Bang does not. PRO must explain how a creator can bring something in and out of existence and how he himself mustn't comply with this law. "my question about the Conservation of Angular Momentum" Angle and direction of capture may dictate rotation of celestial bodies. http://www.fsteiger.com... Collisions or close orbits with others may affect rotation of celestial bodies. http://physicsworld.com... Atmospheric tides combined with friction between the mantle and core may affect rotation of celestial bodies. http://www.scientificamerican.com... Here are three possible scenarios that could initially create or alter the rotation of a planet or satellite. PRO has not explained how planetary rotations would imply a creator in any case. "And touching on the white dwarfs" Physics and math provide all the parameters required to establish the age of white dwarfs. We know how hot, how large and how long lasting white dwarfs can come to be. Their evolution is observable and predictable, and can be traced backwards. http://www.slac.stanford.edu... http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... "Yes the Universe is expanding, but this can not be your only proof for the Big Bang?" An abundance of primordial elements, stellar evolution, radiometric dating of Population II stars and age measurements of white dwarfs that match predicted outcomes lend evidence. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community (especially those in related fields) and the theory's inability to be falsified despite intense criticism and scrutiny for more than 80 years offer some credit as well. The Pseudoscience "So allow me to also explain the problem with carbon dating" Please provide a source. I referenced radiometric dating. Carbon dating isn't used to measure stars, as it's only good for tens of thousands of years and stars are billions of years old. We don't measure Earth with a meter stick, and we wouldn't measure a star with a kitchen timer. "The problem is that we know that radiocarbon is still forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying, which proves that the earth is less than 30,000 years old or else it would all be stabilized by now." Please provide a source. My opponent attempts to discount carbon dating entirely, then fall back on carbon dating in his only argument. This estimation makes the mistake of assuming that Carbon-14 is in constant quantities rather than acknowledging fluctuations that skew the results. The scientific community understands this to be the case by measuring Bristlecone Pines. By measuring the C-14 of ancient pines, and then comparing the accuracy of the carbon dating to the tree rings, we have observed fluctuations in C-14 quantities, thus skewing the results. http://ncse.com... Even if I were unable to provide this information, measuring plate tectonics and the creation of mountains puts us well into the millions, and red-shift from distant star systems lengthens that date. PRO must provide evidence that geology and the scientific law of redshift are either wrong or prove a creator. http://people.chem.duke.edu... Carbon dating isn't flawed; it's a specific tool for a specific job. Suggesting that your screwdriver is broken because it can't weld isn't a flaw on the tool so much as the user. "Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life." Rocks can move under the effects of gravity, wind, and water. Water flows, freezes, rains, steams, and can cause devastating damage or life providing conditions on our planet, with or without the living organisms. Plants and trees... are alive, and do all sorts of things that living organisms do. This is akin to claiming that if a tree fell in the forest, it wouldn't make a sound. Physics still applies with or without life around to experience it, we couldn't have ever existed if this was not the case. "Likewise, as the BEGINNING of the universe is impossible and yet we do not deny the existence of it..." The Big Bang does not state that the beginning of the universe is impossible. All science and reason dictate the "miracles" contained in the scripture are impossible. The very definition of miracle, to defy natural understanding and scientific law: http://dictionary.reference.com... PRO must explain how a scientifically impossible creator used scientifically impossible actions to create the universe. "but here is a Kent Hovind video" Kent Hovind is a conspiracy theorizing young earth creationist in jail for 53 felony charges. He graduated from a diploma mill and parades around as a doctor to trick people into believing that his unproven and unsourced claims have merit. His manufactured evidence is no good to anyone, even fellow Young Earth Creationists suggest to avoid using his evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org... The Scripture "This shows clear proof of preservation of these writings." The age or degree of preservation of a document does nothing to imply the document is truthful or scientifically accurate. We have no reason to believe Set tricked Osiris into a box and cast him into the Nile, even though the Egyptians recorded it. http://ancientegyptonline.co.uk... We have no reason to believe Inanna battled a mountain, despite what the ancient Sumerians may say. http://womenshistory.about.com... We have no reason to believe that Amaterasu created humanity by chewing up swords and jewelry, even though the ancient Japanese would contest that point. http://www.britannica.com... And we have no reason to believe that God willed us into existence with a wave of his hand. With this logic all it takes to become a legitimate source of truth and historicity is continued existence, regardless of the impossible text within. Even if these documents were considered historical, they still wouldn't be considered scientific. Therefor the scripture does not come close to meeting the expectations of a scientific document, and is dismissed entirely. Conclusion My opponent has violated his own rules by introducing false theories with no proof into the debate. My opponent claims that science defends the Biblical creation narrative while simultaneously disproving the Big Bang, yet has only provided false science with no sources. My opponent has negated his own argument twice by admitting that the Big Bang is supported by science, and that a creator is not. All my claims remain valid and all PRO's claims remain negated.