The Big Bang Theory is Scientifically Impossible

You said "First off, You said "Photons, They do not exist, Then they exist as a byproduct of energy. " First you say that they don't exist, Then you say that they exist in a certain circumstance. Well, Then they DO exist! If they exist in a certain sense, Then they exist. "What I said was photons do not exist, Then they exist, Meaning they came into existence. This was an example of what you were asking for. Quit playing word games, You know exactly what I was trying to convey. Another example is virtual particles. If you don't know about this stuff, Google it. You said "Next, No matter what definition of "nothing" you're using, Ultimately the universe had to have had a moment when there was nothing. "There is only one definition of nothing when used in the context of physics. Context matters. Your claim that a universe HAD to have come from nothing is an assertion YOU will have to support. There is nothing saying the universe itself isn't eternal. We don't know what happened, If anything, Before the big bang. That question alone may be nonsensical. The universe could be the product of a multi-verse or many other things. The answer is "WE DON'T KNOW". Theism is certainly not the answer, That we do know. You said "Next, You said that the Big Bang was not an "explosion, " but an expansion. Well, This "expansion" would have needed an incredible amount of energy to expand into the massive universe we have. But this is besides the point! Even if this wasn't an explosion, It was still disorder. My exact argument was that order cannot come from disorder. "Show me why order cannot come from disorder. It's completely possible that wind blowing across a beach can arrange the sand particles into a sand castle. The probability is just incredibly low and it's not something we see. It is possible, However. Our solar system however is NOT an example of this because our solar system is a product of the laws of physics. Gravity and many other things played a part in the formation of our solar system. This is all backed by science and you can even see distant galaxies in the stages of formation. Once again, You have made baseless assertions and you have not backed it up with any actual evidence. Prove it. You said "Well, If this has nothing to do with the debate, Why did you mention it in your first argument? If it has nothing to do with the debate, It is just as incorrect when yo use it. "I mentioned it first because YOU DID, First. I was taking them in order. Try to keep up. You said "You know very well what I mean. If, As you say, The universe is expanding, Then the universe must have at one time been in one central, Small location. "No I don't know what you mean. There is no center on something that has no boundaries. Referring to a center is nonsensical. You said "In response to your answer to my third argument, Could you please offer some hard evidence that we see light being stretched? Even if this was the case, It actually isn't proof of the Big Bang. If the creationist model is true, Then the universe would have been created already in its mature state. We see in the Bible that Adam was created as a man, Not as a baby. So it naturally follows that the universe would also be created in its mature stage. This answer also is to refute your next point about red shift. "Yes I can, Google red shift. There, I put about as much effort into this as you are with your one sentence rephrasings and intentional misdirections. I already explained above how we see light stretching, Which is only consistent in an expanding universe where light is moving through the expanding vacuum of space. You said "Next, You said "What caused the big bang? No one knows for sure and it's outside the scope of this argument. " Outside the scope of this argument? We're talking about the alleged "science" surrounding the Big Bang theory. If the starting of the Big Bang was a part of the Big Bang, Then it most definitely is in the scope of this debate. Pleas answer my previous arguments surrounding this point. "Um, I did answer. I said "we don't know". That IS an answer, Whether you like it or not. This discussion is about the big bang being scientifically impossible. It is not about what started the big bang. You know this and you're only trying to dodge the subject. You said "Next, I would like you to actually prove that creationists aren't scientists. This was a very bold statement, And you offered no actual proof of this. This was an argument from emotion, Not of fact. "Easy, Creationism has no basis in naturalism and is not in concordance with reality. It uses magic and makes assertions that are entirely antiscientific. Therefore, Creationists ARE NOT SCIENTISTS. They are delusional imbiciles that are so indoctrinated and brainwashed in their thinking that they actually deny reality and hard evidence that contradicts their presuppositions. Done. You said "Next, So far, None of the laws of physics actually prove the Big Bang. If they did, It would not be a theory but a law. "Wrong. Laws are consistent observations of natural phenonomen that theories explain. I suggest you take a basic science class if you don't even know the difference. How can you possibly argue against a powerful scientific theory like the big bang when you don't even have the most basic comprehension of science and it's methologies. This alone demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. As for your evidence against the big bang, Nice 2 second Google search and copy/paste. If this is seriously all you got, And all the more effort you're going to put it, Then I'm not even wasting my time writing a scientific response. You can Google the rebuttals and copy/paste them back in yourself. Here are my quick responses: 1) Monopoles are theoretical and their absense is explained by inflation. 2) The probability is slim is not a valid argument. Anthropic prinicple. 3) There is no "center point" of the universe that we are looking at when we see light. We are seeing light being refracted and reflected off many distant objects, Light being created from distant stars, And light arriving from the outer edges of the expansion (red shift). Your argument makes no sense. 4) Just because we haven't found a way to detect it doesn't mean it's not there. Are you familiar with particle physics? Higgs Boson. 5) Only things with mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light because they would require an infinite mass. 6) Static universe requires us to ignore red shift and other phenomenon that disproves it. Explain red shift in a static universe for me please. Remember, You are the one saying the big bang is scientifically impossible. The burden of proof is on you, Not me. It's up to YOU to provide proof. Try to find some scientific reasons next time and not something on a creationist website. I hope you can put a little more effort into the next one and actually type your explanations. Anyone can Google copy/paste something that's already been hashed out.