The Big-bang is a good theory

First Pro says that he will not debate about the fact that the Big Bang theory was an uncaused phenomenon or that something came from nothing. This is hard to do. Pro says that the big bang is "not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time". This is not true. "The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe" [1] "Big Bang Theory; An astronomy theory that says the Universe began with a super-powerful explosion" [2] It is easy to see that the Big bang theory is about the origin of the universe. The big bang teaches that somehow matter got there, then exploded. How did the matter get there? Where did it come from? The big bang theory cannot explain these questions. However, I will attempt to debate the big bang without bringing up these points. First, the big bang teaches that a ball of mass smaller than a dot on the page was spinning very fast. This then caused an explosion. Enter the scientific law, Conservation of angular momentum. The Conservation of angular momentum says that if an object is spinning, it will remain spinning in the same direction unless acted upon by an external force. The Big Bang theory defies this law of science. This ball of mass was spinning in one direction, so for the Big bang to fit with science all the planets and moons would have to be spinning in the same direction. However, this is not what is true. Venus and Uranus spin in the opposite direction of the other planets. [3][4] And some planets have moons that spin in the opposite direction as the planet they orbit. One of Neptune's moons, Triton, spins in the opposite direction of Neptune. [5] Also Pro says that the Big bang happened 13.75 billion years ago. This is scientifically impossible. "The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of 5 feet per hour" [6] "Recent studies have provided evidence that the Sun actually shrinks about 5 feet every hour." [7] "John A. Eddy (Harvard -Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder) and Aram A. Boornazian (a mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston) have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century…corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour"[8] The sun is shrinking at about 5 feet per hour. "Assuming (by uniformitarian-type reasoning) that the rate of shrinkage has not changed with time, then the surface of the sun would touch the surface of the earth at a time in the past equal to or approximately 20 million B.C." [9] So only about 20 million years ago, the sun would have been touching the earth, obviously destroying the earth. Yet Pro claims that the Big bang happened 13.75 BILLION years ago. So Pro claims "at some point in time, approximately 13.75 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense" I have shown that if this ball of dense mass was spinning, which is what the big bang teaches, all the planets and moon would have to be spinning in the same direction, which they are not. I have also shown that 13.75 billion years ago is impossible. I look forward to Pro's response. [1] http://big-bang-theory.com... [2] http://space.about.com... [3]http://www.annabelburton.com... [4]http://www.indianchild.com... [5]http://filer.case.edu... [6] http://www.faqs.org... [7] http://thesop.org... [8] Lubkin, Gloria B., Physics Today, V. 32, No. 9, 1979. [9] http://www.icr.org...