The "Big Bang Theory" is false

Pro claims that I did not make any arguments of my own. I believe she may have skipped over the second paragraph of my argument, where I quite extensively went over the entire process of the Big Bang. Scientists accept the Big Bang as very likely true because of two strong reasons: universal expansion and cosmic microwaves, both of which I brought up then. Pro, in fact, had little to say outside of analogies and philosophical questions. Her argument that dead cells randomly came together to form the cosmos makes far less sense than the Big Bang Theory, and she failed to defend it in her final round.Pro makes a case as to why she used so many analogies. She testifies that she knows what she is talking about and is only making it easy to picture so viewers will understand. While analogies can be helpful in illustrating a certain point, they should only be used after describing your actual reasoning. Pro, rather than explaining why the universe cannot be created without an outside force, takes one object, explains how it works, and moves on. This is a serious logical fallacy. One can argue any point, no matter how far-fetched, by simply taking an unrelated example and saying "It's like that". Pro claims that using analogies "helps viewers get a better understanding of [her] statement and makes [her] argument stronger." I don't understand this logic. Pro seemed quite eager to describe cars and children's rooms, but never gave any concrete points or evidence to support her anecdotes.Simplifying your argument for the "common people" may be a good strategy in politics, but on this website, it is expected that you deliver all the knowledge and empirical evidence that you can muster. In the future, don't worry about making sure that everyone can understand. No reliable scientist believes that the Big Bang violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Brian Greene, a physicist at Columbia University, gave a very good counter-argument to the "child's bedroom" analogy [1]:"You have to take into account all of the sources of order and disorder, including the body of the human who is cleaning up the room, the heat that they are generating, the fat that’s being burned as they undertake this exercise. And when you take into account everything – the molecules of air that get excited by the sweat forming on the brow of the individual doing the cleaning – when you take into account all of these features, the amount of disorder generated overly compensates – always – for the amount of order that’s being created in the room."While the "child's bedroom" was a logical fallacy to begin with, Greene explained why the analogy itself was faulty. And as I explained earlier, the idea of gravity forming giant clumps of matter over time, as well as all the universe's energy spreading out and expanding, is completely consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Pro, on the other hand, sticks only to the bare-bones definition of the Second Law, without checking what "organization" actually means. A tiny point with an even structure of matter and energy is far more orderly than the uneven mess of a universe that exists today.Pro goes on to renounce a quote by Stephen Hawking. Rather than arguing against the Big Bang Theory itself, she is arguing against one sentence. This quote comes from a book called The Grand Design, written by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow [2]. The problem is that while I cannot claim to have read the book, I'm sure this quote had plenty of explanation before and after it. Pro instead takes this single quote out of context, claiming that it uses circular reasoning. This demonstrates a lack of research about the quote itself. As for Pro's questioning of why there isn't light from 13 billion years ago...well, there is. Cosmic background radiation, as I've mentioned before, is one of the many reasons why the Big Bang did happen [3]. It is not visible to the naked eye, as there is no proof that the Big Bang was a visible occurence.No matter how much evidence I gave, Pro persevered in her assumption that there was absolutely no evidence for the Big Bang. Pro states that she has "listed many different laws that the Big Bang theory has violated" but in fact she only "listed" one law, which was actually a simple misinterpretation.I will now summarize the arguments put forth in this debate. I argued in the prior round that because the universe is expanding and scientists have discovered leftover radiation from that time, the Big Bang is very likely true. Pro, not acknowledging this nor contradicting it, argued that the Big Bang violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I countered that Pro does not understand this law, and explained why. Pro has also delivered several philosophical points, which cannot be proven one way or the other, and are better left up to personal interpretation. Pro also relied too heavily on analogies and logical fallacies, which I have addressed this round.I thank Pro for this debate, and wish her the best of luck in the voting period.SOURCES:1. http://www.factcheck.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...(book)3. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...