The Instigator
Sniper1576
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
qoioqx
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Big Bang Theory ISN'T REAL!!!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
qoioqx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/20/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 934 times Debate No: 75558
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Sniper1576

Pro

The Big Bang Theory isn't real. If it was... Then ask yourself this:
How can something be created out of something that came from nothing?
Or simply stated:
How can something be created out of nothing?
qoioqx

Con

The Big Bang theory is nothing more than a theory about the universe expanding. The universe was in a very high density state when it expanded. We have evidence that approximately 13.8 billion years ago this event occurred and thus created the age of the universe. Now if you disagree with that then explain to me how physics works. Also in 1964 Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was discovered. This is thermal radiation that can date back to the same time as the Big Bang and is also known as the oldest light in the universe which dates back to epoch of recombination.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...

Something coming from nothing is a very opinionated statement. Is there any proof that were was ever "nothing" or was there always something that formed through evolution. Your statement has no support to it just as evolution has no support to it because it is only a theory.
Debate Round No. 1
Sniper1576

Pro

I am saying that people thinkable universe created itself... It is scientifically impossible for something to be created out of nothing. I am a Christian, I do admit, but, even so, the idea that something came from nothing or the Universe expanding is virtually imposable... The universe expanding on its own can't be done. I am not one to fight, but to debate, but... Please, tell me, how can something (The universe) either
1) Be created out of nothing
or
2) Something (Universe) expand on its own
qoioqx

Con

Take the time to do a little bit of research and you will find the answer about the expanding universe. Galaxies are moving away from us and this is due to expansion. Every galaxy will see other galaxies moving away from them in an expanding universe. Unless the galaxies are bound to the same gravitational pull.

Hubble's law exclaims "The distant galaxies we see in all directions are moving away from the earth, the evidence is from their red shifts" http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Again to imply that there was "nothing" is a bold statement as there is not factual evidence that there was ever nothing. There could very well have always been "something".
Debate Round No. 2
Sniper1576

Pro

I am also going off of my belief as a Christian, and basing my information off of the Bible, which is a solid source.
"In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth."
It did not indicate that there was something, nor does it state that there nothing. But, it indicates that God created the universe.
qoioqx

Con

To say that the bible is a solid source is like me saying everyone on the Internet tells the truth. Religion is a belief and is not a fact thus making the bible a non credible source in an argument that requires factual evidence.

Putting personal beliefs aside while in a debate is the key to seeing the truth. Facts do not lie. I can not say that having a higher power such as God is real because there is not factual evidence of his existence there are only stories passed down just like the game Chinese Whispers (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Big bang theory has more evidence of its occurrence than there is of a God.

There is not a single ounce of proof that can defend the statement from the bible "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." as where there are hundreds upon thousands of pieces of evidence that the universe was created through a type of physics.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Deathbydefault 2 years ago
Deathbydefault
Jonny I think you may be mistaken there. Science requires no blind faith at all if research is what you're looking at. There is no way to determine the existence of a god other than old books. You read the book. You believe what the book says. There is no outside proof of what the book states. No factual evidence of what the book states. No physically recorded, like with a camera, evidence of what the book states. The book is worthless. But for some odd reason there are tons of people believing in the book. They go so far as to believe in different versions of the book even. Some call themselves Christian, other Muslim, some Jews. No matter what they don't have any support for their beliefs. No wait, that isn't entirely true. They have a book.

Science is different. You have something you think works a certain way. You either prove that it does or prove that it doesn't. It's all about discovering the way everything works. There. Simple right? The big bang has tons of evidence, so much I couldn't even begin to link you to it all. Evolution has a ton of evidence, like a ton a ton. Around %99.9999 percent of scientist believe in evolution due to all the evidence.

Oh, but wait! That book says it's not true.... So it must not be true. Lets just throw all this evidence and all these facts, that have been worked for endlessly, right out the window.

Makes sense right?

Wrong.
Posted by Deathbydefault 2 years ago
Deathbydefault
Jonny I think you may be mistaken there. Science requires no blind faith at all if research is what you're looking at. There is no way to determine the existence of a god other than old books. You read the book. You believe what the book says. There is no outside proof of what the book states. No factual evidence of what the book states. No physically recorded, like with a camera, evidence of what the book states. The book is worthless. But for some odd reason there are tons of people believing in the book. They go so far as to believe in different versions of the book even. Some call themselves Christian, other Muslim, some Jews. No matter what they don't have any support for their beliefs. No wait, that isn't entirely true. They have a book.

Science is different. You have something you think works a certain way. You either prove that it does or prove that it doesn't. It's all about discovering the way everything works. There. Simple right? The big bang has tons of evidence, so much I couldn't even begin to link you to it all. Evolution has a ton of evidence, like a ton a ton. Around %99.9999 percent of scientist believe in evolution due to all the evidence.

Oh, but wait! That book says it's not true.... So it must not be true. Lets just throw all this evidence and all these facts, that have been worked for endlessly, right out the window.

Makes sense right?

Wrong.
Posted by cannotseethehaters 2 years ago
cannotseethehaters
The universal laws of physics in THIS UNIVERSE does not mean that it governs the laws of "nothing". In fact, the universe itsself can travel faster than the speed of light, because it is the expansion of the universe(NOT inside our current universe) . Inside the universe, there are physical laws that take place.

Who knows how it started? cycle of big bangs then big crunches? quantum partices suddenly leaping into existance? Rip in another universe's space-time? Or in this area of "nothing" matter was created, expanded into our current universe, and we are how we are today.
Posted by Sniper1576 2 years ago
Sniper1576
Kaynex, God isn't something out of nothing! He is the uncreated creator! He wasn't made... He IS the maker, he hasn't been created by some... Myth or by the people's imagination!
Posted by Kaynex 2 years ago
Kaynex
Jonny, I like how you guys always give very good criticisms of science. You are absolutely correct, nobody has any idea how or why the big bang happened.

Despite this, we still have slam dunk proof that it did indeed happen. Has any creationist gone to look at this info and dispute it? Do you even know what "cosmic background radiation" is? If you haven't, then you are not debating anything.

Finally, Evolution and Abiogenesis are unrelated to the topic. But you think they are, because Ken Ham said so, right?

God is something out of nothing. Why don't you apply your own reasoning to your faith?
Posted by Jonnykelly 2 years ago
Jonnykelly
Saying that there was always matter is just as ridiculous as saying that something came out of nothing. Abiogenesis and Evolution require just as much blind faith as creation does.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by ooberman 2 years ago
ooberman
Sniper1576qoioqxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: "I am also going off of my belief as a Christian, and basing my information off of the Bible"... clearly that's the source of his confusion.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
Sniper1576qoioqxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con only made real arguments. Pro's arguments were opinions. Pro also provided 0 sources.
Vote Placed by Khana 2 years ago
Khana
Sniper1576qoioqxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro essentially failed to make an argument - it mostly boiled down to, "I don't understand the Big Bang theory, and because I don't understand it, it makes no sense!" Con's arguments were limited, but they didn't need to be any more, since Pro's arguments essentially didn't exist at all. It'd be nice to see this debate with a Pro who is aware of what the Big Bang Theory actually is.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
Sniper1576qoioqxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: All in all, there was very little substance to this debate. Pro never really makes any arguments for his case (and those he does remain unsupported assertions), while Con does answer with supported explanations. Arguments to Con. Con cited the only sources.