Refuting Theist_1998 on Big Bang Cosmogony

Right, so I'm going to be organising my rebuttals. There is a lot of repetition from you, so to keep my response orderly, I'm having to organise it.1.1 Con's SourceI made this distinction of going to Kent Hovind, because every single one of your arguments had the tell-tale signs of Kent's stupidity. Therefore, I think it's quite acceptable that I thought you were trying to cover up your tracks by using this source. You have rehashed Kent's baseless nonsense before in previous debates you've had [1], so I thought this was a cut and dry issue of you doing the usual nonsense that you're accustomed to doing, because it falls in line with the stuff you've pulled over the course of your other debates.I stand corrected however. I went to WayBackMachine and get this [2], which puts the date of this claim to 2000; 1 year before Kent made that notorious seminar. Look to heading 1.3 for my answer to this1.2 Age of the UniverseIt makes a very large difference because you are off the mark by a factor of 4-6 billion years. That is not a small margin of error. But this is what happens when you get this information by sources which are extremely outdated. And your website you are using is extremely outdated. It's also just wrong.Yes, Wikipedia is unreliable, but it is a good place to start for an introduction to something. And judging by the absolutely mental nature of your own sources, you are in no position to comment on the authenticity of the sources which I have used. You use "Jesus, Dinosaurs and More," as your one and only source for this discussion, yet you have the gall to berate me for using Wikipedia? I don't know if I should be impressed by the balls you just showed, or shake my head in admonition because you don't understand the irony of this situation. However, because Wikipedia can be unreliable, that's why I also backed up the age of the Earth with two other sources; one which gives a correct age, and one that gives a rough estimate. All 3 of those links were nowhere near your outdated age of 18-20 billion years.As for the justification that the universe is approx. 14 billion years old, please look to below picture of working out using Hubble's Law; I cut out conversions. 1.3 Expansion of the Universe"You say there's a difference between expansion and explosion hinting that there was no explosion but the going on to say it exploded."Now imagine that you decide to pop the balloon with a pin, which results in the balloon exploding. The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang"That is what you gave as evidence. I'm not going to lie, your incompetence is actually breath-taking. Let's take a look at the *entire* quote shall we? Hint: you left a portion of that quote which implies there's more that that quote."It wasn't an explosion. It needs to be pointed out that there is a very real difference between an explosion and an expansion. When talking about the Big Bang, we are not talking about mixing nitric acid with hydrazine. As a hypothetical, let's say that you have a balloon in your hands. You breathe into the balloon and the balloon expands in size, and the speed of which the balloon expands at, decreases as times goes further on (the more you breathe into it, the more breathless you become). Now imagine that you decide to pop the balloon with a pin, which results in the balloon exploding. The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang."As can be seen in that quote, I gave 2 examples to an analogy which involved a balloon. The first example of the analogy was the balloon expanding. The second example was that the balloon exploded. Now here comes the important bit, which I'll re-quote:"The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang."I said former! Former! Not latter; I said former! Which means that I am talking about the *first* example when I'm referring to it as being analogous to the Big Bang. Not only did you decide to quote-mine, but you decided to quote-mine the very person you are having a debate with, and also left in a part of my comment which hints there's more to what I said. Really? Are you kidding me?1.3 Planets and moons which spin backwardsIf we look to source [3], we find the actual original claimant of this - "In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood."-1995. That definitely sounds like a scholarly source, which most certainly isn't biased in the slightest! Yes, that's a joke. As Talk Origins goes over, this claim fails because collisions happen. This isn't a frictionless, perfect environment in which collisions do not occur. Your point is overly simplistic and childish.1.4 ThermodynamicsAs is common with creationist brutalisations, you go for a lay understanding of thermodynamics. "Order" and "disorder" are nebulous in this context. These are terms which are presented in introductions to the subject and do not vindicate what the second law of thermodynamics actually is. The laws of thermodynamics are all about heat, work and entropy. Everything does not tend toward "disorder" according to the second law. Below are what the actual laws of thermodynamics are: There'll be different ways to lay out those equations, but they"re the same in essence. For instance on page 102 of source [4] the second law is laid out a bit differently.Where do you get everything tends towards "disorder" from the second law? Case in point, you don't. You lapped this up from some creationist who brutalised thermodynamics. In an isolated system, the total entropy does not decrease. Where entropy is essentially waste energy - which means energy that cannot do work. Your superficial grasp of this topic does not invalidate cosmogony. I'm not even going to bother with your facile tornado either. That's beneath even my level. To give a bit of context, I refute asinine arguments all the time. When I say that something is beneath even my level, you know you're scraping the very bottom of the barrel. My answer is that you know nothing about what you’re talking about. Look, I think there comes a time where we no longer have the excuse that we don't know any better. And I think you've overstepped that boundary, judging by this debate and your other debates. It's easy to fall prey to creationist pseudo-science (trust me, I should know, I was nearly one), but what we do when faced with irrefutable statements… That is what makes a person. It’s time to face the music; you don’t have to give up your faith; but you have no excuse anymore for being this ignorant about science. Sources:[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] https://web.archive.org...[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...[4] https://www3.nd.edu...