Evolution/Big Bang Atheism vs Creation by God

Con, you have either misunderstood much of what I have said or jumped to many conclusions. Please tell me what theory I have used to try to support my subject "theory" at hand or rebut yours..?? By "Almost all this evidence," I meant all that related to the evidence that the universe is expanding. The evidence that you provided that the universe is expanding supports both of our arguments, as I explained in my previous argument, and therefore proves neither. "What or who ever did this thing impossible, 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 because all the matter/energy of 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 (Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation). I know that the Big Bang does not stated that something came from nothing, but it does state that there was energy and/or matter all crammed into a small dot. This leaves the question; Where did the energy and/or matter come from? It had to have come from somewhere, or else it would have no beginning, and therefore be eternal and have no end. We know this is not so due to the second Law of Thermodynamics that states that everything is at a state of deterioration. And, according to the Big Bang, the electrons that make energy spun faster and faster, and became more and more unstable and eventually exploded. If electrons were spinning, or even any other type of movement was happening pre Big Bang, logic tells us that some external force had to have set it in motion. What external force was that? WHAT STARTED IT ALL? "My opponent changes the definition of "god" to suit the argument." This statement is not true. "The debate was agreed upon as the Christian creator, God." This is not true; I specifically said, "I am not a "Christian" to western standards. I believe In the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Old covenant and the Aramaic Peshitta new covenant as completely true history." Might I emphasize, " I AM NOT A "CHRISTIAN." The Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Old covenant and the Aramaic Peshitta new covenant do not support the Christian "god." Christianity is the mixture of some ideas in the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures and Greek/Roman mythology. Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (306-337) Is the one the drafted the Hebrew religion in with his own religious practices. But since this is not the debate, I do not need to site this information. If you are interested you can do some studying. According to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures, the word for "God" is Elohim, which means Mighty one. And So "Creation by God," according to my claim, means Creation by a/the mighty one. Whether or not he is the only one is a different debate all together (I believe he is the only one). I do not have to prove how I know which "creator" created the universe because "which one" was never the debate. ""Newton's first law states..."" "The biblical creation narrative violates Newtonian physics the Big Bang does not." I have already showed above how Newton's Law of Motion fitted with the Big Bang demand another force to set it all in motion. The Big Bang does not offer a solution to this, But, obviously, The creation "theory" does. So I have asked, what external force started all the movement?? "PRO must explain how the creator in the narrative can exist and cause physical changes without himself having a creation or physical change occur upon him." In My first argument I stated that " What or who ever did this thing impossible, had to be something or someone that was able to operate outside of the laws of the universe, being that the universe did not exist. something or someone this powerful, whether animate or inanimate has to be considered a God. And if done alone, the only God." This is part of the definition of God (Elohim, meaning mighty one.) According to the scriptural definition of "God," "God" HAS to be able to operate outside the laws of the universe, otherwise he would not be Mighty enough in the eyes of the universe to Be called "Elohim." He is eternal and self existent and has no beginning. If he did, he would not be God, just like the universe is not God because it all BEGAN somehow. (somehow is the debate). This answer also answers your ""Antoine Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass..." question. So to recap on a couple of points that I have made so far: The universe is run by laws..... Who gave these laws? If no one gave them than they are self existent, which would mean that you believe the LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE are God. Conservation of Angular Momentum: Yea, you could make up this story and that story to try to explain the backwards rotation and spin of different celestial bodies, But how do you explain how a galaxy (NGC 4622) has also been found to be spinning backwards. http://hubblesite.org... "PRO has not explained how planetary rotations would imply a creator in any case." One thing you need to realize is that not all my arguments are going to prove my side and disprove your side. Some will prove my side, others will disprove your side. All my arguments are meant to work together to prove Creation and disprove Big Bang. Conservation of Angular Momentum was not meant to necessarily prove Creation, but rather to disprove the Big Bang. " "And touching on the white dwarfs" " "Physics and math provide all the parameters required to establish the age of white dwarfs." I disagree with this statement. I do not believe scientists can know how hot a white dwarf was to begin with, which would be necessary (as explained in my previous argument) to properly determine the age of the dwarf. If you have proof that they can do this, please share. " An abundance of primordial elements, stellar evolution, radiometric dating of Population II stars and age measurements of white dwarfs that match predicted outcomes lend evidence." I see a claim with no evidence or proof to support it. All links you have given me are full of science only on the theoretical level and unproven. You need to provide an explanation on HOW the one can measure the age of the universe. I do not believe that this is possible at this time. Also I pay no credit to something simply because of majority agreement. It doesn't matter. Carbon Dating: "Please provide a source".... This isn't science class. Go study to see if this information about how carbon dating works is true. Where have I fallen back on carbon dating to support my argument? The equilibrium factor has to do with carbon 14 but nothing to do with carbon dating. And the equilibrium factor is not my only argument to the young age of the earth nor my best. I simply mentioned it because I was talking about carbon 14. Try to keep in mind, this is only suppose to be the Big Bang portion debate. I will give more evidence to disprove the old age of the earth in the Evolution portion debate. " "Think of this.. Can a rock DO anything by itself? how about a plant? water? a tree? no, because none possess life." " Rocks can move under the effects of gravity, wind, and water. Water flows, freezes, rains, steams, and can cause devastating damage or life providing conditions on our planet, with or without the living organisms. Plants and trees... are alive, and do all sorts of things that living organisms do."- Yes, rocks can move under the EFFECTS of gravity. I asked if a rock can DO anything BY ITSELF. No, a rock can not move upon its own VOLITION. Water flows, freezes, rains, steams, and can cause devastating damage or life providing conditions on our planet, with or without the living organisms only because it is EFFECTED by gravity, the elements, and wind, but can DO NOTHING upon its own VOLITION. And as I specifically stated in my previous argument, "A tree or plant is not living given the definition (animate) that I used." The subject word being used was ANIMATE, not living. The word ANIMATE is a more detailed and narrower definition than just living, it only refers to that which lives AND acts on its own VOLITION. "The Big Bang does not state that the beginning of the universe is impossible." In my first main paragraph of this argument I explained that, although the Big Bang does not offer an explanation to the BEGINNING of all matter/energy, It still requires that there be a cause to the effect. What caused the effect of the "Big Bang?" "PRO must explain how a scientifically impossible creator used scientifically impossible actions to create the universe." I already did this in this argument: "What or who ever did this thing impossible..." Because he operated outside of the universe to create the universe, therefore also operating outside of science, there can be no scientific explanation "how," It can only be scientifically proven that the universe DEMANDS that there had to be an eternal, self existent cause (God) to set in motion the effect (non eternal universe). The second Law of Thermodynamics demands the universe to be non eternal. Only something outside of the universe could possibly be eternal. Kent Hovind: I now full well that Kent is in prison. I find it unconstitutional to imprison someone for failing to pay taxes. Although I believe that the core reason for the arrest of Mr. Kent Hovind was because he was destroying evolution, which I believe to be the scientific and American agenda. And you can not discredit something someone says just because of who they are and what kind of person they are. If I followed this logic with your evolution theory, I could say that nothing you say matters at all because you are just a mix up of chemicals that came together by chance with no reason or purpose. But this is not who you really are. You are God's creation, and he loves you very much!