The Big Bang is currently the most credible scientific theory on the evolution of the early Universe

A: The First Law of Thermodynamics Just as the Pro's first argument, this is also probably one of the commonly used evidences when arguing against the Big Bang theory, and also the simplest. The First Law of Thermodynamics states, "The change in Internal Energy of a system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system. " [1]This scientific law essentially states that you cannot create or destroy matter or energy. This means that as the Big Bang Theory claims, something came from nothing, and that nothingness condensed together in extreme heat and exploded, expanded, and created our Universe today. Of course, according to the first law of Thermodynamics, this would not be possible. To say that it is possible, would mean disproving a scientific law, which would drastically change thermodynamics and science as we know it. B: Some simple questions What exploded? If anything? Where did it come from? My arguments are short and should be quick to reply with a rebuttal. However, I'm also afraid I entered this debate not knowing all the details of what the Pro is arguing for, for example:Which model/theory of the Big Bang are we talking about? There is the Steady-state model, which claims that the Universe has always been the same density, only constantly expanding and generating matter at a proportional rate of expansion. Then there is the big bounce theory, that states that our Universe is only one of a series to expand, and then contract, and repeat the process. If this is the theory that we speak about, then it must mean that, with our "13.8 billion year old" [2] Universe has only a few million more years until we shrink up again. Forget about global warming! There are plenty of other theories and models that explain the "Big Bang Theory", which you could find just 4 of the such at this link: [3]With this debate, I am not arguing for another theory on the origin of the Universe, but I am arguing that the Big Bang theory is not the most credible scientific on the evolution of the Universe, because it is full of so many assumptions and variation; how could it be the most credible, when we can't make up our minds about what it actually is! The Big Bang theory has changed over the years, and this story of Cosmic Evolution has, in its own ways, evolved since Georges Edward Lemaitre, the all-famous Belgian astronomer, conceived the idea of the Big Bang. According to Isaac Asimov, it was Lemaitre who conceived the beginning mass (that began the expansion of the Big Bang theory) to be twelve trillion miles across. Then, in 1965 that figure was reduced to 275 million miles,by 1972 to 71 million miles, by 1974 they said it was only 54 thousand miles,and by 1983, scientists said it was only "a trillionth the diameter of a proton"And today, some would even say it was nothing at all! A singularity! Something non-existant and smaller than a period in this text. Even the predicted age of the Universe has changed. It has gone from only a few millennia, to a dozen billion, in only a century! It would also seem that an origin of creation by a God would be so much more credible because of its consistency, simplicity, and even its harmonic relationship with the scientific evidence we already have. A religion that claims a spaghetti God created the universe would be more credible! Because every year, when it comes to the Big Bang theory, we think we have the answer, and we think we know that this is the right solution; but every following year, we always come up with ways to assimilate this theory into the new evidence we find, and it always changes the theory completely. And with that, I ask once again the you readers, remain open minded as you read both arguments and rebuttals here on out. Because finding the origin of the Universe, and life itself, is something that has interested human kind for thousands of years-- and is not something we should be so quick to believe in, when the most popular theory of Cosmic Evolution is currently going under an evolution itself! [1] . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...[2] www. space. com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe. html[3] . http://science.howstuffworks.com...[4] . http://www.pbs.org...;[5] . https://answersingenesis.org...;