The Big Bang is currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe

RebuttalsA: The First Law of ThermodynamicsOne of the common misconceptions about the Big Bang theory is that it attempts to explain where the Universe came from, while in fact it doesn't. The Big Bang theory only explains what happened after the Universe started expanding from the singularity in the beginning, not what happened before. However, since the Big Bang theory is usually associated with this problem, I am still going to attempt to provide a rebuttal.First of all, there is actually a significant theory that states that the sum of all the energy in the Universe is, in fact, zero.[1][2] Basically, all of the positive energy of the Universe is cancelled out by the negative energy created by gravity. This would mean that the creation of the Universe wouldn't break the first law of thermodynamics, since if it was really created out of nothing, the sum energy would have to be zero as well, which it likely is to begin with.So, how did the original nothing transform into a positive and negative, whose sum is also zero? How was all of the matter created? The best explanation likely lies in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Without going into too much detail of the principle itself, it is known that these things called virtual particles exist. These are particles that have basically been created because of a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum, technically nothing. The reason these things aren't filling the Universe right now is that they have a very short lifespan since they form in pairs and almost instantly get to cancel each other out[3]. So the Universe could have actually been a result of a sufficiently large quantum fluctuation.B: Some simple questionsI have already answered the first three questions in the rebuttal for A.The steady state model is obsolete, so I am not arguing for it, obviously.As for the Big Bounce theory, you have provided no source on your claim that the Big Bounce theory would imply that the Universe only has a few more million years to live. Also, the Big Bounce theory does not fall into the scope of what I am arguing for, since it deals with the end, and potentially creation of the Universe, not it's early evolution.Quote:"With this debate, I am not arguing for another theory on the origin of the Universe, but I am arguing that the Big Bang theory is not the most credible scientific on the evolution of the Universe, because it is full of so many assumptions and variation; how could it be the most credible, when we can't make up our minds about what it actually is!"First of all, I would just like to reassure you that you are arguing for the correct thing - that the Big Bang theory is not the most credible scientific theory on the early evolution of the Universe.Second, just because a particular theory has many variants does not make it less credible. For example, evolution in the late 19th century and early 20th century had many variants. Does it make it any less credible today? Of course not.Quote:"The Big Bang theory has changed over the years, and this story of Cosmic Evolution has, in its own ways, evolved since Georges Edward Lemaitre, the all-famous Belgian astronomer, conceived the idea of the Big Bang. According to Isaac Asimov, it was Lemaitre who conceived the beginning mass (that began the expansion of the Big Bang theory) to be twelve trillion miles across. Then, in 1965 that figure was reduced to 275 million miles,by 1972 to 71 million miles, by 1974 they said it was only 54 thousand miles,and by 1983, scientists said it was only "a trillionth the diameter of a proton"And today, some would even say it was nothing at all! A singularity! Something non-existant and smaller than a period in this text.Even the predicted age of the Universe has changed.It has gone from only a few millennia, to a dozen billion, in only a century!"It's called science. Theories constantly change as new discoveries are made. For example, less than 1000 years ago we thought that our Solar System is the only one, and that all the stars in the skies aren't other "Sun's" similar to ours. Then, we thought that our galaxy is the entire Universe. Then, we thought that the Universe is infinite, and now we think that it is simply huge, but not infinite.Quote:"It would also seem that an origin of creation by a God would be so much more credible because of its consistency, simplicity, and even its harmonic relationship with the scientific evidence we already have."I am not sure what you are exactly advocating here. If you are actually arguing for Young Earth Creationism, I am sorry, but there is just too much evidence against this to even put in this round, and that is not what the debate is about anyway. Also, take into account these two facts:1. Just a few paragraphs ago you have argued that the Big Bang theory is less credible due to it's many variations. Views on a supreme being are even more varied, so one of these arguments has to be incorrect.2. 300 years ago we thought that a supreme being created the Earth and Solar system, since we had no idea about any other possible mechanism which could have done this. Then, one day someone came up with an idea- that Earth was formed through the accretion of dust around the Sun. Now we know that this is the mechanism through which planets form, not a supreme being. One cannot just dismiss any scientific theory because a supreme being is a simpler explanation.[1]http://www.astrosociety.org...[2]Edward P. Tryon, "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?", Nature, vol. 246, p.396[3]http://www.scientificamerican.com...