Refuting Theist_1998 on Big Bang Cosmogony

Is it really that hard to make sure that your responses are actually in line with my headings? You're all over the place with your reply.1.1 Con’s Source“Yes it's a good place to start getting the wrong information and I haven't used Jesus or Dinosaurs I would have no reason to and yes I have the gall to berate you, you should be impressed they're quite big in size ;)”Yes you have used “Jesus, Dinosaurs and More.” If we look to your source [1] and scroll down, we come across this button called “Main Index.” Click on that button and we are then sent to source [2], which is the home page of the website you are using. Therefore, you are using that website as a source.1.2 Age of the Universe“And with the picture if you're going to attempt to do the impossible which is prove that the earth is 14-20 billion years old state fact not an equation that nobody reading the debate nor me understands.”I would like to think that you’re trolling, but unfortunately I have run out of faith for humanity. I am in no way trying to prove that the Earth is 14-20 billion years old. The Earth is not the universe! The Earth is dated to be 4.5 billion years old via Uranium-Lead dating, and I have not touched on the age of the Earth… Well, that was before you decided to pull this nonsense. I have given sufficient evidence that the universe is approx. 14 billion years old.1.3 Expansion of the Universe“The amount of insults you're trying to throw is unbelievable do you really feel this bad about yourself.”Yes, when you are intentionally disingenuous by quote-mining the person you are debating, your opposition is not likely to treat you respectfully after such a ridiculous display. I would also like to point out that Con has dropped this argument. Hmmm. I wonder why that is? Couldn’t be that you were caught out lying about your opposition’s stance could it? No, it couldn’t be that!1.4 Backwards spinning planetsCon offered nothing in response to my rebuttal/1.5 Thermodyamics“again I don't understand a bunch of doodling you did in class real facts the second law of thermodynamics is: “Everything tends towards disorder"Then maybe you should understand physics before you decide to talk about it, hey? You do realise that physics is literally nothing but mathematics? You do realise that if you are discussing physics, then having an adequate grasp of mathematics is essential? You were the one who brought up thermodynamics, but you are not even equipped to talk about the subject. I’m not even going to bother with naming “5 things that don’t tend towards disorder.” I have told you that “disorder” and “order” are vacuous in this context; your refusal to admit that is no skin off my nose. Also, I would hardly call physics equations “a bunch of doodling you did in class.”I would like to point out that Con really hasn’t answered any of my refutations that I put forward in Round 3. He hasn’t offered a repudiation for my comment on backwards spinning planets, he hasn’t accepted culpability for quote-mining me, he shows that he’s in no position to comment on thermodynamics as he doesn’t even understand what the equations are for the second law; not to mention the other 3 laws of thermodynamics and calls these equations “doodles.” I would like Con to actually address my criticisms of him in round 3 and not dodge around the issue.Sources:[1] http://www.angelfire.com...[2] http://dinosaursinthebible.com...