Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

"Please tell me what theory I have used to try to support my subject "theory" at hand or rebut yours" Scripture: Suggesting that ancient texts absent of any science have as much merit as current scientific literature in the scientific arena, and making baseless assertions that cannot hope to be supported with scientific evidence. " Who gave (the universe) laws?" It's important not to confuse positive law with natural law. The first is manmade while the latter is inherent within the universe. There's no evidence to suggest that the universe requires a giver of laws, all evidence would lead one to conclude the opposite. " So "Creation by God," according to my claim, means Creation by a/the mighty one." PRO previously denied attempting to change his definition of a creator, yet: "something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God." The creator in question must be a single, living, animate god, the god of the Genesis account, whom PRO refers to as Elohim. PRO offers the possibility that this creator may be multiple, nonliving, inanimate god. Having presented this possibility, the burden is on PRO to use science in explaining how we know Elohim is the true creator. Newton's First Law, Thermodynamics and Conservation of Mass: My opponent demands scientific proof that the Big Bang does not violate Newton's First Law, Thermodynamics, or the Conservation of Mass while simultaneously claiming a creator is exempt from these requirements. "the universe COMING TO BE from absolutely nothing automatically defies the law of physics that state that nothing can pass in and out of existence" The Big Bang theory never asserts this, and no part of the theory attempts to tackle what may have been before the Big Bang. We do know that the matter and energy existed, though, as it was what all current things came from. The Big Bang theory does not necessarily need this to be the case, a creation narrative requires this to be the case. PRO has already stated he knows that the Big Bang doesn't claim the universe came from nothing, so this point must support a creator somehow or be dismissed. "Newton's first law states..." The Big Bang theory does not violate Newton's first law, as it theory does not include what happened "before" the expansion of our universe, while a creation theory does. PRO must explain how an infinite creator can exist without an initial cause, as he already knows the Big Bang doesn't claim this. "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. "We know this is not so due to the second Law of Thermodynamics." The second law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. PRO assumes that the universe was a closed system before the Big Bang, yet has provided to evidence that this was the case. PRO must prove how an infinite creator does not violate the second law of Thermodynamics or provide evidence that proves that prior to the Big Bang everything was in a closed system. Angular Momentum: My opponent doesn't believe in redshift, which by itself disproves a young Earth, but calls on it to question why a galaxy billions of years old spins the way it does. " Yea, you could make up this story and that story...But how do you explain galaxy (NGC 4622) has also been found to be spinning backwards." This evidence wasn't "made up". This is readily testable, highly likely scenarios that experts provided, of which I've sourced. A galaxy can be affected by gravity, collide, combine, capture, or be captured by another just like a planet or moon, upping the scale does not change the nature of the catalyst, only the size. Carbon 14 Dating: My opponent dismisses carbon dating, which is odd as he's the only one using carbon dating in this debate by referencing the measurement of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. "The equilibrium factor has to do with carbon 14 but nothing to do with carbon dating." The measuring of carbon 14 is carbon dating. False Dismissal of Evidence "I do not believe scientists can know how hot a white dwarf was to begin with...If you have proof that they can do this, please share." PRO has offered no scientific evidence to disprove the objective measurements and calculations provided in: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov... http://www.slac.stanford.edu... http://www.astro.ucla.edu... "All links you have given me are full of science only on the theoretical level and unproven." This is the second time that PRO has attempted to avoid dealing with scientific law, fact, and evidence: Primordial elements: measurements of gasses found in various parts of the universe consistently match predicted Big Bang levels. Stellar evolution: measurements of light, redshift, and chemical composition that match predicted age and composition of Big Bang levels. Radiometric dating of Population II stars: Measurements of very predictable amounts of light, chemicals, and sizes from star clusters indicate predicted expansion of Big Bang levels. White dwarf measurements: Measuring temperature and luminosity of a white dwarf gives ample evidence to accurately predict age of white dwarf in question. This alone could disprove a young Earth belief. These are highly testable scientific facts, not theories, ideas, or suspicions, but facts. This argument has been thoroughly explained and dismissed, and should not be brought up again. Refusal to Provide Evidence and Concession "Some (scientific evidence) will prove my side; others will disprove your side." PRO misunderstands his obligation to the debate. In the opening round, he says: "I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory." To suggest that, say, geology agrees with one account, while biology agrees with another is highly indicative of a grave misunderstanding of science. The sciences have overarching observations that complement one another and speak about the objective reality of the universe. All creation narratives fail to withstand the scrutiny of science, while the Big Bang theory emerged from it. The two couldn't be further from equal scientific footing. "I do not have to prove how I know which "creator" created the universe because "which one" was never the debate." PRO claims he will not prove that the creator in the Genesis narrative created the universe, which contradicts his opening statement: "I believe the Creation account in B'reshit (Genesis) to be literally true, and done in six literal days." PRO should either concede and forfeit, or provide scientific evidence that confirms this creator is the true creator, as claimed in the opening statement. "'Please provide a source'" This isn't science class. Go study to see if this information about how carbon dating works is true." PRO repeatedly demands evidence and wrongfully dismisses it, yet openly refuses to provide any evidence to us. "Because he operated outside of the universe to create the universe, therefore also operating outside of science, there can be no scientific explanation" My opponent has conceded for the third time that science can offer no explanation to a creation narrative. "(God) had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe... I stated that the laws of physics DEMAND a creating God" The laws of the universe are scientific laws. PRO claims that a creator operates outside of these laws. This means that it would be impossible for science to defend any creator, negating PRO's claim in every way. "The evidence that you provided that the universe is expanding supports both of our arguments" Which contradicts PRO's opening statement: " I believe that scientific facts, laws, evidence and logic support Creation by God and completely destroy the Evolution/Big Bang theory. Kent Hovind "you can not discredit something someone (Kent Hovind) says just because of who they are and what kind of person they are." You absolutely can, especially if that person is a known fraud and liar with an agenda, as Kent Hovind has proven to be. Young Earth creationists specifically use his arguments to make a list of how NOT to defend creationism. 1. We trust experts more than we trust the unqualified. 2. We trust the intelligent more than we trust the foolish. 3. We trust the honest more than we trust deceivers. Kent Hovind has proven to be the latter in all three cases. Conclusion My opponent has conceded twice that science cannot explain a creator, and once that science supports the Big Bang. He attempts to dismiss valid evidence, while openly refusing to provide evidence of his own. The unfounded assertions that have been provided by my opponent have been negated; and not one point I have given has been legitimately countered.