The Big Bang Theory is Scientifically Impossible

You said "My opponent wants me to PROVE that something cannot come from nothing. But I would ask him, Have you ever observed this occurring? It never has, And that in and of itself proves this point. " Sure, And you have too. Photons, They do not exist, Then they exist as a byproduct of energy. You seem to have completely disregarded my entire paragraph I wrote you explaining that there are things in physics that appear delusional to our everyday senses. You said "Next, I am using the true definition of "nothing. " And that is the absence of anything. If something cannot come from nothing, Then the Big Bang theory is impossible. " This is a straw man. You cannot use the "real" definition of nothing, Because that is not what we are talking about. The big bang is a scientific theory and it involves physics. In the world of physics, Nothing is not the same as it's typical nomenclature usage - nothing in physics has a different meaning. If we are discussing a subject, We have to use the terminology applicable to that subject. I already wrote about this in my last rebuttal, Which once again you seemed to ignore with your selective reading. You said "Next, There aren't really any other ways to say "order cannot come from disorder. The Big Bang, As the name obviously implies, Was an explosion. No explosion in history ever created something. Did the 9/11 explosions that occurred bring about any complex creation? Could a nuclear bomb dropped in a junkyard create a new Bugatti Veyron? No! It can not! This is what I mean by that. " Contrary to its name, The big bang was not an actual explosion, It was just an expansion. You are totally off base here. There was no 9/11 or nuclear warhead that started our universe. You said "Now, To answer my opponent's questions. I acknowledge that the universe gives the appearance of expanding, But this is not evidence of evolution. The universe being at a central spot could have happened with either the atheistic or creationist worldviews. Next, Yes, The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, But once again, That doesn't prove anything. If you're going to use the age-old argument that because the light of stars light years away is reaching us, The earth must be billions of years old, That is incorrect. The creationist view supports the idea that just as man was created fully developed, The universe was as well. But this is beside the topic. We aren't talking about the age of the universe. We are talking strictly about the Big Bang. In our last debate, You accused me of going off topic. Looks like you have that tendency too, Huh? Lol I would need examples of physics laws that apply to this topic before I discredit any of them. Your question is very broad, And we need to stick to the topic. So far, You cannot prove that something can come from nothing, And you cannot prove that order comes from disorder. Back to you. " I'm going to break this down into smaller chunks so we can discuss it further. 1) I'm not sure what evolution has to do with an expanding universe. I will just disregard this as nonsense and move on. If you meant something else here, Write a few more details next time. 2) There is no center of the universe, So I don't know where you are getting that idea from. In order to have a center you have to have a boundary. 3) I'm glad we agree the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. This DOES matter. If something travels at a specific speed you can determine how long it will take to get somewhere. This is paramount to our discussion. I was not using this to argue the age of the universe or take us off subject, As you insinuated. I was asking you this because it's important evidence as proof of the big bang. If we agree that light moves at a constant rate in a vacuum, Then we can agree that electromagnetic radiation (light) will be stretched if the universe is expanding. This is exactly what we see - stretched light. If the universe is expanding, It must have had a smaller origin since it's expanding. Through mathematics, You can reverse all this back to it's starting point. Hence, Big bang. This is also important in calculating the age of the universe like you mentioned, But it's irrelevant to my point here. Red shift is one of the ways we know the universe is expanding since the spectral lines are being displaced towards longer wavelengths resulting in "red" electromagnetic radiation. It is shifting towards the red spectrum, Hence red shift. It is proportional to it's velocity of recession and thus it's distance - Doppler shift. This tells us the universe is expanding outwards, And mathematically we can then figure out how fast. It's rate of expansion is actually increasing, Which is causing the shifting to occur. Moving backwards through time, The universe would be smaller and smaller (because it's expanding). Eventually it becomes so small (T=0) that the laws of physics begin to break down. This is it's origin point - aka the "big bang". What caused the big bang? No one knows for sure and it's outside the scope of this argument. There are theories such as the multi-verse, Lawrence Krauss's theory of Something From Nothing (where nothing isn't your version of nothing), To name a few. This is not related to the big bang though. The big bang does not describe the universes cause (if it had one), It describes what happens around and after T=0 (T = time). 4) Creationists are not scientists and unless you can provide me with something stronger than "because they say this", I am not even wasting my time refuting it. I will say this much - in Christian theology, The Genesis creation story clearly depicts the entire universe and all life being created in about a week. This is entirely unscientific in every possible way. The Genesis myth is not "how God sparked the big bang". Our universe was not created in 7 days or anything remotely close. This is off subject and I don't want to straw man this any further. I am only responding to this because YOU brought it up. We can debate this in a separate debate, If you'd like. 5) The reason I asked you for laws that you disagree with is simple. If we agree on all the laws of physics, You have absolutely no choice but to agree with me there was a big bang. In order to disagree with the idea of a big bang, You would need to disagree with numerous laws of physics. Since you are arguing against the big bang, I assume you have more than "because i don't think it could happen" as a reason, Right? I agree with all current laws of physics. What scientific evidence do you have that disagrees with the big bang?