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

"So I see many people argue that god COULD of created the big bang, but if we base everything off could we would get nowhere. The big bang theory is a THEORY, which really is put together pieces of evidence. Yes the big bang theory has a lot of flaws in it. But, we know so little of the universe since we have limitations. I only have to explain why the creation story is less valid than the big bang theory." Rebuttal: BOTH are theories: The Naturalistic Big Bang, and Creationism. However, what you"re failing to recognize is the Naturalist Big Bang Theory does not explain anything about creation. The evidence we have for the Big Bang Theory is limited to the Big Bang itself, not its link to the creation of the universe or the world. However, even if there was a link to the actual creation of the world, it would be illogical based upon the premise that the Naturalist Big Bang Theory runs postulates that and orderly universe and world, to include life, came from disorder and chaos " something we have never witnessed in our observation of the known universe, or during the scientific method. "As my opponent brought up the big statistical ways that earth has so little of being created. He also says god must have made this possible. But, we are here on earth correct? Which means it was from by some act. Sure its very improbable that we are here, but how probable is this "divine creator?" I pointed out a piece of evidence is the red shift in the galaxies. Which is based off of logic and fact. While god creating the earth is merely a story with no proof god exists. The Greeks had stories about how the earth is ruled by MULTIPLE gods. But, I don't see how that's less valid than there only being one god. They both have no proof while the big bang theory ATTEMPTS to explain through scientific observation how we are here. True it has a lot of flaws in it. But, once we get different new pieces of evidence we will revise it. While creation just sticks to the same story. "go" with is "magical" powers some how created all of this through the words "Let there be...." How is this even possible. If I say Let there be bacon, bacon doesn't magically appear. The earth didn't start like that either. This proves how big bang theory has more logic than creation." Rebuttal: The piece of evidence, (the red shift in the galaxies) is not proof for creation. It"s proof that a Big Bang occurred, and that the known universe began at some point. However, as I said before, it does not prove that it was responsible for the creation of life. Furthermore, the hypothesis of the Naturalist Big Bang Theory dictates that the explosion occurred from nothingness " a ridiculous notion which does not require a scientific degree to realize the absurdity of it. What"s even more fascinating is the change of mind amongst those who are Naturalists " Perhaps you do not realize this, but it wasn't too long ago that Naturalists believed the universe was always eternal. The proof of a beginning (i.e., a Big Bang), actually lends more credibility to a Creator and the Creationism Theory, than the previously conceived notion held by Naturalists. Once Naturalists were proven wrong (by Science), they quickly pushed the "Eternal Universe" Theory under the rug, and latched on to the Big Bang, twisting it to suit their theories about the beginning of the Universe without the existence of God. As far as Creationism goes, Albert Einstein taught us that time is relative. With that being said, any question relating to time is already riddled with complexity in scientific terms, let alone philosophical terms. Yet Creationism teaches the world was created 7 days. Theoretical physicist Gerald Schroeder, a former professor at MIT, calculated the entire history of the universe relative to our present point in space-time and comes to the rather startling conclusion that one could compress 15 Billion years from the point of the Big Bang explosion into about the space of a present-day Earth week" holy crap " I"ll leave that to the reader to judge the theological implications of that proposition. " Gerald Schroeder, Genesis and the Big Bang, Bantam (1990), Chapter 2: " Stretching Time". (By the way " this is Science and Mathematics we"re talking about) "My opponent brings up these quotes: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." " Albert Einstein As you can see both of these are true as of right now. But being blind is worse than being "lame." In conclusion religion is blind to not accept these facts about how the universe was created an thus not following the laws of logic." Rebuttal: I already explained how science is limited: What it can explain, and what it cannot. When it comes to creation, science can only explain materialism and functionality " not why something functions or its purpose. Here"s an analogy of how Naturalists explain creation with science in the absence of God: Suppose two scientists are wandering in the desert and come across an unmanned Harrier fighter jet. Neither scientist has ever seen anything remotely like it before. No sooner than the scientists come upon the aircraft, it soars vertically off the ground. The aircraft begins to hover from side to side, forward and back, shooting out to the heavens with mind-boggling speed, then returning gently back to the Earth. The scientists are astonished at the feats of this incredible entity. After some deliberation, they develop the belief that the plane must have been designed by someon or something extremely intelligent, who must somehow be at work within the aircraft itself. They resolve that the aircraft was designed by someone intelligent, and they themselves were intelligent beings, therefore they should be able to study and understand it. So, being scientists, they proceed to examine the aircraft piece by piece. Over years and years of study and research, they strip the aircraft to its barest bones; deducing the laws of jet propulsion, internal combustion, aerodynamics, and mechanics. They elicit the many composites and materials from which the aircraft is constructed. They strip apart the mind of the vehicle, and the interface between its many elaborate computers and mechanical parts, even discerning the complex digital language by which the mechanisms function. The more the scientists learn, the less mysterious the aircraft becomes, and the more they fill with intellectual pride. Before long, they discover how the Harrier is able to take flight, and the loud roars are but the sounds of exploding jet fuel. They even conclude the aircraft was probably produced on an assembly line in the mindless process by "blind" machines. After years of scientific examination the scientists more or less figure out how the aircraft was made and how it works. The only mystery left they are with is how the Harrier is able to take flight entirely by itself. But since this is a mystery that can"t be explained by any scientific means they know of, they simply dismiss it as unimportant. A the end of the glorious journey, one scientist turns to the other and says, "I suppose it was never created by anyone at all." One can see how ridiculous this proposition is " and just how wrong the scientists were. How does the unraveling of the aircraft"s mechanisms and composition take away from the existence of a creator? What if I told you that the creators (Sir Sydney Camm, Sir Stanley Hooker, and Ralph Hooper) were the ones operating the aircraft from their control room, thousands of miles away on the outskirts of the desert, and that the their hope was that someone would find their precious creation and fly it back to them? By the flawed logic of the scientists who deem themselves intellectually superior, they would never be able to deduce this scientifically. They have already accepted the idea proposition that the aircraft had no purpose for being there, and refuted the possibility it was even created by an Intelligent Being. The subject of God and Creationism is an explanatory hypothesis, not a mythical conjuring truck devised for no apparent reason. Evidence for this is our ability to even perform science and our possession of intelligence. Go back to my previous argument in Round 2 in which I explained how an orderly universe leads to our ability to perform science. Creationists believe God formed an orderly universe " Naturalists like Dawkins claim the following: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won"t find any rhymes or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." A universe devoid of design and pitiless indifference does not lend towards intelligence or the ability to practice science. "I believe in Spinoza"s God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in the God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." "Albert Einstein (Letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, 1929.) "In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views." Albert Einstein (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000).