Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

"SCRIPTURE" Is my subject topic of debate. I asked for no theories to support the subject theories being debated, but obviously We both are allowed to mention our subject theories. It is very clear that you have either not realized, or ignored my logic that I have paired with scientific principles. I explained that, logically, if something not eternal exists than it had to be started in some way from something else. You see this in nature. If you see a man, you know that that man at one time had to have a birth. You then ask, who was the one that conceived him? So my question to you: How did all the matter/energy in the universe first "come to be?" I am saying that logic says that someone greater had to have first set it all in motion. On the Big Bang, just a simple question. According to the Big Bang theory, how fast did everything blow up? And is the universe still expanding at the same rate as it first "blew up?" If not, what is slowing its rate of expansion? " "He is eternal and self-existent and has no beginning." " "This overtly violates Thermodynamics, Newtonian physics, and the conservation of mass; all of which have been invoked by PRO. The Big Bang can potentially comply with these laws, an eternal creator cannot." I know that my statement violates these laws. According to my theory, God is able to do that. But if we discounted the possibility of a "God," than violation of these laws are not possible. But I have showed that, even with the Big Bang, logic demands that there was a violation of these laws in order to get everything started. Or else how did it all START? How did it BEGIN? Angular Momentum: I never said that I don't believe in red shifts. Another moment where you jump to a conclusion. I told you that I do believe that the universe is expanding. I'm glad that red shifts prove that. About the galaxy, What in the universe could have possibly collided with and entire galaxy to cause it to change direction of rotation?? And if something did collide with the galaxy, why did it not set the entire galaxy in disarray? How did it perfectly change the direction of its rotation without messing it up? I am not using Carbon "dating." I am only talking about C 14. I don't like repeating myself. White Dwarfs: "By searching for faint white dwarfs, one can estimate the length of time the oldest white dwarfs have been cooling. Oswalt, Smith, Wood and Hintzen (1996, Nature, 382, 692) have done this and get an age of 9.5+1.1-0.8 Gyr for the disk of the Milky Way. They estimate an age of the Universe which is at least 2 Gyr older than the disk, so to > 11.5 Gyr." http://www.astro.ucla.edu... The problem with this statement is that the only way to properly and accurately estimate the length of time the oldest white dwarfs have been cooling, you first need to know how bright, and thus how hot the white dwarf was to begin with. These sites do not show how they have this information. I do not see how it is possible to know. If you know, please post the equation that is used to figure this out. The Scientific theories: While I fully support the evidence that shows that the universe is expanding, I still only see equations used that have either not been proved to work or rely on the big assumptions to work to support the theoretic age of the universe. If I am missing something please show me specifically. Kent Hovind: I don't care what YECs say about Kent Hovind, that is if what you are saying is true... People are liars. Scientists too. Everybody has a bias, and thus an agenda. You say that you are just a chemical mistake. How can you trust any of your thought patterns? Mr. Kent is not a liar. You only think he is a liar because you disagree with him. He is not a fraud. The feds lied about that. If he is guilty of anything, it is just not paying tax. They made up quite the story to make him look bad. But I can't believe we are arguing about the credibility of Kent Hovind's teachings. What he says is either right or wrong. You haven't showed any evidence that anything he said is wrong. If a murderer tells you that the Sun is hot, the fact that he is a murderer does not mean he is wrong about the Sun being hot. "My opponent has conceded twice that science cannot explain a creator." You repeatedly take bits and parts of what I say, take them out of their contexts, and then change their meaning. This is the only way to make this above claim. It seems to me that you have closed your mind to anything I say and are just trying to win a stupid debate. It's just a debate, and nobody really votes. If they do vote they just vote off bias. An atheist will not vote for a theist. You have not answered my arguments within their contexts. God wants you! He loves you. If you gain all the knowledge in the world, what does it matter if in the end you'll just die and be recycled. God created you with a purpose. He doesn't like you throwing your purpose away. Why even live if you have no purpose? "For Elohim so loved the world that he gave his first begotten son that, whosoever believes in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. For Elohim sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved." "He was in the world and the world was made by him, but the world knew him not. He came unto his own, but his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the Sons of Elohim, even to them that believe on his name." You are not outside of God's reach! I pray that he will show himself real to you. This I pray in the name of Yeshua the anointed one.