The big bang theory is a more valid reasoning of how the universe was created than creationism

Before I start, I"d like to share a couple of quotes I find appropriate for this debate: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." " Albert Einstein "Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." "James Tour, Nano-scientist. "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society which honors the servant, but has forgotten the gift." "Albert Einstein Let"s also recap your definitions of logic and validity: Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. Validity: the state or quality of being valid. Valid: sound; just; well-founded Lastly, because you remove the premise of God being associated with the Big Bang, I think it"s fair to classify your Big Bang as being the Naturalist Big Bang Theory. I think it"s important to note that we understand there was a Big Bang which started the creation of the universe. Whether it was random chance or the cause started by God is what is truly behind the debate, because you yourself asked the question:"Now if I may ask what evidence is there that there was god?" Furthermore, Genesis deals more than with the creation of the world. You yourself posted a whole passage out of the book of Genesis, and it explicitly states that God created the stars and the moon (the lesser light). Somehow you managed to miss that and question: "Why does it only say the creation of the earth and not the complete universe?" You should really cross-reference scripture, and you will find a host of other verses throughout the Bible which attribute the creation of the "Heavens" stars, and all things created to God. Here are a few: Psalm 147:4 He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Isaiah 40:26- Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. Isaiah 66:2- "Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the LORD. "These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word." You mentioned attributes of the Naturalist Big Bang Theory, but describing attributes does not describe a purpose or function. For instance, you claim that it makes more sense logically, based off science, but nothing we have discovered about the Big Bang, other than it happened, affirms that it actually created the universe and all life as we know it. Furthermore, it becomes even more ludicrous, as those who subscribe to the Naturalist Big Bang Theory essentially believe that the universe and all life in it was merely created from a process that derived from nothingness-that includes all time, matter, and space. Think about that for a second. Now go back to your definition of Logic and Validity. Tell me, when have you ever witnessed in our world, much less the universe, something coming from absolutely nothing? Scientific investigation alone has shown that in order for something to exist it must come from something else. We understand that science can answers a lot of questions, however, it has its limitations. For example, science can answer what something is made of and it"s characteristics " i.e., material and how it functions, but science fails in answering definitively why something works the way it does, and its ultimate purpose " the two categories which Theists attribute to a Creator. However, we have the intelligence which tells us that science works. Atheists are the strongest proponents that science works. For them, it holds the answers to many mysteries which have been solved, and the answers for things we do not already know. But science alone is nothing. It is a tool in the hand of a practitioner " i.e., a person of intelligence. Therefore, we deem the scientific process as being intelligible and one that works. In order for there to be intelligence, there has to be life. In order for something to work, it has to be made or created first " i.e., a living, intelligent, creator. Hmmm. Sound familiar? Yet the view you prescribe concerning the Naturalist Big Bang Theory is one of chaos and disorder randomly producing life and everything else in the universe. That theory alone also goes against what we witness in the Scientific study. Everything we see; from the genetic code, to the reproduction of life, to the changing of seasons, and even the rotation of the Earth around the Sun demonstrates an order. Chaos creates chaos " logically speaking. Disorder propagates disorder " logically speaking. As I mentioned before " the very fact we can perform science speaks to the contradiction of random chaos from a Naturalist Big Bang producing anything of order to create life. Here are the statistical points supporting the idea of Creationism and God, rather than random chaotic chance produced by the Naturalist Big Bang Theory: Though we perceive gravity to be a "strong" force (because we are close to a very massive body) it is actually incredibly weak in comparison with the electrostatic forces that control atomic structures and, for example, cause protons to repel each other. The factor is of order ~ 10-36. Let us suppose gravity was stronger by a factor of a million. On the small scale, that of atoms and molecules, there would be no difference, but it would be vastly easier to make a gravitationally bound object such as the Sun and planets but whose sizes would be about a billion times smaller. Any galaxies formed in the universe would be very small with tightly packed stars whose interactions would prevent the formation of stable planetary orbits. The tiny stars would burn up their fuel rapidly allowing no time for life to evolve even if there were suitable places for it to arise. Our intelligent life could not have arisen here on Earth if this ration had been even slightly smaller than its observed value. (Morison 2008:327) Further examples of the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of physics can also be given, such as that of mass difference between the neutron and the proton. If, for example, the mass of the neutron were slightly increased by about one part in seven hundred, stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist. (Leslie, 1989, pp. 39 - 40, Collins, 2003.) The cosmological constant was a term that Einstein included in his central equation of his theory of gravity " that is, general relativity -- which today is thought to correspond to the energy density of empty space. A positive cosmological constant acts as a sort of anti-gravity, a repulsive force causing space itself to expand. If the cosmological constant had a significant positive value, space would expand so rapidly that all matter would quickly disperse, and thus galaxies, stars, and even small aggregates of matter could never form. The conclusion is that it must fall exceedingly close to zero, relative to its natural range of values, for complex life to be possible in our universe. More can be found in the following article: 8. "The Evidence of Fine-tuning," As I stated before, you mentioned how the Naturalist Big Bang worked in reference to how it came into existence, but that alone does not prove that the Naturalist Big Bang created the universe or life itself (which is the ultimate argument you"re making here). I just demonstrated how the Naturalist Big Bang Theory is NOT Logically sound. It actually contradicts everything we see in nature and can actually study scientifically. I also eluded to why Creationism is actually the more logical argument based upon the balance of the universe. And I"m not the only one with that point of view: The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers" the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." " Professor Stephen Hawking