The big bang theory is a more valid reasoning of how the universe was created than creationism

"There is a difference between hypothesis and theory. A theory is a put together set of proven hypothesis that through testing gives a logical conclusion on a topic. While a hypothesis is a suggested explanation of why it is before testing it or not testing it. For another explanation you can use this link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu...... A theory is an explanation. The validity of a theory rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence. Gravitational theory, for example, attempts to explain the nature of gravity. Cell theory explains the workings of cells. Evolutionary theory explains the history of life on Earth." Now let"s look at a dictionary version: the"o"ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Noun, plural the"o"ries. 1.a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrastto well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms:idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation. 3.Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from itspractice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system ofrules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read. http://dictionary.reference.com.... I"d like to propose we look at number 2 of the definition " Which also happens to mention the antonyms, "practice, VERIFICATION, CORROBORATION, and SUBSTANTIATION. I find it even more interesting that the synonym "hypothesis" is AGAIN listed. However, since you do not like .com websites, I"ll refer to Webster"s dictionary definition: the"o"ry-noun \G2;thē-ə-rē, G2;thir-ē: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events : an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true : the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject In the first definition we see, "an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events". Notice! An idea used to explain facts or events. This goes back to what I was saying about the evidence you claimed to be more reasonable, but in fact, only explains there was a Big Bang. There is NO evidence that the Big Bang created all life and the universe as we know it. Hence why it"s a THEORY or IDEA. One that is ridiculously based upon some explosion occurring ages past. HOWEVER, there is known source for the cause behind the Big Bang, and NO evidence which proves that this explosion of mindless, disorganized chaos actually established that which is orderly (refer to facts I listed in my last statement). To make such an absurd assumption is far less logical than the idea that God started the universe with a Big Bang and actually guided the processes which established all the laws, principles, and constants we currently see" ones operating with exquisite precision, inferring intelligence. Intelligence begets intelligence. Chaos begets chaos. I fail to understand why you cannot see the illogical fallacy Naturalists take concerning Creation when Science itself has demonstrated nothing BUT order in our universe " Order comes from Intelligence " Not mindlessness. "Getting of topic about sources now: the best websites are those of .org and .edu as very reliable sources. While those of .com are not always since ANYONE can own one of those an those websites usually do not care about the content as long as they get money for advertising. Just a little rant, now back to the debate at hand. Which that source you have is also flawed since it really does not know what a theory is if it lists proof as an antonym since a theory is put together pieces of PROOF, observations, and facts. 2) 1. really nice source I love the .org This website is just speculation about why it could of. But this debate clearly states validity. Which to bring up the definition of it, look in round 2 please. Which is sound. The big bang theory is based off evidence directly relating to it instead of the twisted way the creationist are using it. Which means since creation has so much speculation about it written a long time ago, I don't bring up the year since every website I have went to has given me n good answer. But, the point is its very old, which means it came out before the new evidence. The Big bang Theory was shaped fro evidence while creation is twisting the facts around to loosely fit creation. Which in terms of validity means the Big Bang Theory is more valid than creation." Allow me to quote you again:"Getting of topic about sources now: the best websites are those of .org and .edu as very reliable sources. While those of .com are not always since ANYONE can own one of those an those websites usually do not care about the content as long as they get money for advertising." REEEEEEALLLLLY? Funny, as you turn right around and criticize a "reliable" (by your standard) source with a .org simply because you don"t like what it has to say. I guess you"re defeating your own argument here. Frankly, I take issue with your stance anyway. Wikipedia is a .org site. When registering for an account with Debate.org (Oh crap! Another .org site!), there is a video everyone is encouraged to watch. It actually talks about avoiding Wikipedia as a source for debates, due to lack of credibility. Secondly, you hit the nail on the head with this: "The big bang theory is based off evidence directly relating to it instead of the twisted way the creationist are using it." Absolutely correct on the first part " the evidence of the big bang is directly related to the event itself. Nothing more " not the creation of anything; just that it occurred, and the universe began to expand. The second part of your statement makes absolutely no sense. I believe in Creation and the Big Bang " But I already explained what I believe about the Big Bang. I acknowledge it happened. However, from a logical premise, based upon what science has revealed, it shows that the universe is orderly. Science demonstrates that order comes from intelligence. Intelligence comes from the mind. A mind is located in a living Thing. I happen to call this thing a person, or God. What"s even more baffling about your statement concerning creationists twisting the Big Bang is the very fact that not all creationists believe in the Big Bang. "You also bring about how it is so unlikely that we are here an life came about in such improbable terms. Which still doesn't prove there being a god. You could also use those facts to say multiple gods created life "because it is just so unlikely one could do this." I'm joking of course, but it proves how creation is less valid than the Big Bang Theory. Which is the purpose of this debate." When we talk about the subject of the existence of God and multiple gods, that"s an entirely different debate. Sure, it"s linked, but it would take another whole segment to weed through it. Needless to say, without the absolute proof in the existence of God, I am left with the same evidence you are. The difference between you and I, however, is that I attribute that which science cannot explain to an all-powerful, all knowing, time-less, space-less, eternal Creator. You, and your fellow naturalists are left with, "We don"t know." Or "We believe one day Science will tell us." Then, because you do not like God as an explanation, you throw every stone possible to destroy that theory, all while offering nothing of your own. The common excuse is "Well, saying "We don"t really know" is an honest answer, and it"s ok to say that." Yes, it is ok to say you don"t know. However, unless you can provide a more reasonable hypothesis (which Naturalists can"t), it is hypocritical to criticize a theory or hypothesis you don"t agree with. You can"t even do that in a debate! Naturalists, or atheists do not get to sit in the luxury of infinite possibilities at their finger-tips, all while requiring an explanation from Creationists and other religions regarding their beliefs. In order to refute a claim, you have to present a far better one. So far, it hasn"t happened. As far as validity goes, I have explained whom I believe God to be. Whether He actually exists or is everything I believe Him to be is up for debate and personal belief. As I and others believe He is immaterial, He cannot be measured by a material (scientific) standard. However, I believe His attributes or finger-prints. AND if I am correct about His characteristics then evidence in the universe certainly lends credibility Him, hence validity. I believe I have essentially made my case as best as possible, and have a more logical stance based upon what I and other Creationists believe concerning God"s characteristics and some of the evidence I have listed that exists in the universe. To reiterate any further would essentially equate to "beating a dead horse". Though I could expound with much more, I doubt many people will actually take the time to read through our entire debate. Most will do opposite of what my opponent desires " and vote based off personal preference. I thank my opponent for the debate. It was fun.