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

1) "What I say: 1. Its a theory not a hypothesis." If you suppose by my story illustration I am inept in science, then I would suppose by the statement above, you are inept in English. In case you were not aware, the word "Theory" is synonymous with the word "hypothesis". However, since you had a problem with recognizing this, I will break down synonymous for you: It means "Same" or "Equivalent". http://thesaurus.com... http://thesaurus.com... You"ll also note, that in the antonym (meaning opposite) section of "Theory" , it lists the word "Proof". What does this mean to us? Simply put, the Naturalist Big Bang Theory (which you recognize above as being theory) means it is absent of proof. This alone essentially defeats your entire claim that you have proof through Science the Naturalist Big Bang Theory is the more logical explanation for the creation of the universe. A theory is the lack of proof. The Theory of the Naturalist Big Bang is that it is the cause for the creation of the universe. However, as I mentioned twice already, the only evidence you have brought to the table is limited to the event itself " not the after effects of the event. 2) My correlation between Creationism and the Big Bang does not conflict as you would like to believe. I believe there was a Big Bang, however, unlike the Naturalist interpretation of the Big Bang, as being and unguided, meaningless process which happened to produce life, I believe it was guided, (which is more reasonable based upon what we see in Science and Nature). Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It goes into detail as far as the creation of the Earth is concerned, however, not the heavens (space). The only mention of bodies outside of the earth are the moon and the stars. For more correlation, please refer to the following link: http://www.reasons.org... Other examples which contradict the notion of a mindless, meaningless, life by mere chance process include the following: If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun. If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped, and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any starts had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed. Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth. (The first words out of God"s mouth were, "Let there be light". Light is comprised of tremendous amounts of energy " and given the effects on the rest of the law of physics, possibly the "Big Bang" itself which started it all?) If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life; if they were less, and insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth too cold to support human life. If Jupiter were not in its current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter"s gravitational fields acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike the earth. If the thickness of the earth"s crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible. If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great. The 23-degree axil tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered, slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth. Need me to keep going? You can rest on a Naturalist theory which says all of this happened by mere chance, but LOGICALLY speaking, it would appear more reasonable and valid that the universe and earth was DESIGNED, specifically with the intent to not only foster life, but maintain it as well. As a matter of fact, Astrophysicist Hugh Ross calculated the probability that all 122 constants found for our planet to exist for any other planet by chance, assuming there are 1022 planets in the universe " that being 1 with 22 zeros behind it, the answer is shocking: It would be one chance in 10138 " that"s one chance in one with 138 zeros after it! Lastly, as I recall, the premise of the debate was to figure out what was more logical and valid as to the argument of the creation of the universe " the Naturalist Big Bang or Creationism. There was never a mandate concerning evidence on how either actually created the universe " just what seems more plausible. Ergo, I am not required to provide that, just as you are not required to provide evidence for exactly how the Naturalist Big Bang Theory actually created the universe. Be that aside, I have already established, based off the definition in the beginning of this response, that a Theory does not require evidence. Keep in mind, you and I are actually working with the same evidence - I simply attribute the things I do not know, which science cannot explain, to a Creator. You don't like that theory, so you dismiss it, much like the scientists in the story I mentioned in my previous response. THAT was the point I was making with that story. Logically speaking, if I attribute the Creation of the universe to one who is immaterial, space-less, time-less, and uncaused, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, it would appear that with the precise settings of the universe, and the laws governing it, they came about from Someone or Something intelligent, contrary to the notion that it all happened by chance, as the Naturalist Big Bang Theory prescribes " Science does not demonstrate the latter ideology, and what we perceive and observe in our world does not demonstrate this ideology. Finally, I do run a spell-check before submitting my responses. However, this website translates my responses into some jacked-up format and replaces certain punctuation with double quotes.