The Instigator
dheaslip
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
malalo75
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Big Bang Theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 277 times Debate No: 93960
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

dheaslip

Con

There is no solid evidence of the Big Bang Theory or Evolution, which leaves an open door for the unproved existence of God.

Round 1.) State evidence on both sides
Round 2.) Discuss legitimacy and meaning of each claim
Round 3.) Gather evidence and compare sides
malalo75

Pro

Thank you dheaslip for creating this debate, and I wish you good luck.

My opponent set the rules as follows:
Round 1.) State evidence on both sides
Round 2.) Discuss legitimacy and meaning of each claim
Round 3.) Gather evidence and compare sides

I have not seen any evidence given for my opponent's side.

Here is why I believe there actually is evidence for the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution:
  • Look up the "4 pillars of the Big Bag Theory". They basically are:
    • Speed and direction of galaxy movement; suggesting they originated from a single point
    • Number of existing elements; called Nucleosynthesis, calculations of elements now versus what we see in distant systems concur with the idea that one element fused into another at the beginning of the universe (Hydrogen fused into Helium)
    • cosmic radiation; now moving so fast (since nothing impedes movement in space) that radiation is now seen on microwave lengths instead of visible light
    • formation of galaxies; after the Big Bang, the universe cooled enough to allow formation of galaxies and observation of galaxy formation (ie.: through Hubble telescope) concurs with this idea

These are the most notorious explanations that give the Big Bang Theory some legitimacy. There are many other explanations as well.

Source: http://www.universetoday.com...
  • Evolution also has tons of evidence, just search for "evidence for evolution" on Google. Many studies come up.
    • Observation of fruit flies
    • Fossil records
    • Almost identical genomes in animals
    • DNA testing

    Evolution is now considered a fact. The overwhelming amount of evidence for it makes this theory irrefutable.

Sources:

https://www.google.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
dheaslip

Con

The reason I did not post anything as evidence, is because I do not have any evidence against it. It's hard to find evidence against a theory like this because the "evidence" is very detached from what we know as reality. The speed and direction of galaxy movement is something impossible to calculate, by measuring light waves and how they fluctuate. They do this by looking at a galaxy through a telescope and sending the light through a diffraction grating, then measure the distribution of intensities. Just because a scientist says that that's proof, it's not enough to support the big bang theory. About the elements, this is also not solid evidence. It could go both ways. God may have created elements to be this certain way, or maybe another scientific explanation. Either way, what I'm saying is this "proof" has no meaning if you don't have the others to support it. I can say that fire is hot, and it's this way because the big bang happened. There's just no way to prove if these methods are accurate, or even if the scientists are being truthful.
malalo75

Pro

Con:
"The speed and direction of galaxy movement is something impossible to calculate"

Actually, it's not impossible at all. The speed of our solar system through the Milky Way is 515,000 miles (828,000 kilometers) per hour. I admit, the solar system is not a galaxy, no one can provide a true speed of the Milky Way unless a point of reference is set first.
At this magnitude, and also because of the fact that we are also moving, it's hard to determine a general speed. This does not alter the fact that the galaxy is moving, though.

Con:
"About the elements, this is also not solid evidence. It could go both ways. God may have created elements to be this certain way, or maybe another scientific explanation."

Well I don't make a distinction between "evidence" and "solid evidence". There's evidence, or there's none. We can observe, first hand, fusion of elements into other elements - in the sun! Also, there have been experiences of fusing elements into others in chemistry labs. A lot of the elements above numbers 104 were man-made. So calculating the rate of element fusion, with the number of existing natural elements, it correlates with the initial fusion of hydrogen into helium about 14 billion years ago.
Have you read the links I provided?
This is evidence - it's observable, reproducible. Why would anyone think god created the elements? No evidence for that, it's not observable, not reproducible.

Con:
"Either way, what I'm saying is this "proof" has no meaning if you don't have the others to support it."

I would like you to elaborate on this. I'm not sure what you mean.
Also please explain why this proof has to rely on other proofs to support it.

Con:
"I can say that fire is hot, and it's this way because the big bang happened."

You could, but it wouldn't be correct, since the big bang isn't a direct cause for the temperature of fire. Also, I don't understand why you would say this.

Con:
"There's just no way to prove if these methods are accurate, or even if the scientists are being truthful."

The science that allows us to have this debate while being miles apart is the same science that scientists use to provide proofs, theories and evidence for the big bang. Physics! And a bit of chemistry, too.
Even if a scientist would be mischievous enough to attempt to provide false evidence for anything, he/she would almost immediately be corrected by a slew of other scientists.
Science has proved itself to be very accurate and reliable for a very long time, now.

----------------

I would also like to point out that, as you said, you have "no evidence against [the big bang theory]". You seem to be attempting to discredit the evidence for it, though, to "open [a] door for the unproved existence of God."
You're trying to find flaws in observable evidence, so you could validate the legitimacy of unproven theories that have no evidence for them.
Let's just say that it would be reasonable to do so. Wouldn't this also validate the legitimacy of Thor? Zeus? Ra? Mithra? Buddha? Allah? Jupiter? Fairies? Leprechauns?
Why would it only validate the validity of the theory of the existence of the Judeo-Christian god? (I assume this is what you're attempting, please correct me if I'm wrong).


Debate Round No. 2
dheaslip

Con

My purpose wasn't to prove the existence of the Christian God. It was to open the door for other possibilities to have just as much credibility as BBT. The reason for this is because the evidence in religions is enough for them to believe, but is not enough for other religions, including atheism, to believe. While atheists hear a lot of convincing proof from their "religion" (I use religion to sum up the belief system relying on faith in word of others) which may not be proof enough for people of religion. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but I'm saying that each is just as possible as another. The majority of atheists believe in the BBT, and the majority of Christians (who take up 1/3 of the world population) believe in a God. I'm not saying Argumentum ad populum means that something is true, but I feel like that belief should not be shoved off as impossible, just because in an atheists mind there is no proof.
malalo75

Pro

My apologies for assuming something incorrect.

You can't categorize atheism as a religion, since atheism is only the rejection of the claim that a god exists. It is not a belief system, and does not rely on faith at all.
Being an atheist has nothing with believing the BBT is true. They are two separate things, similar to Christians believing in Creationism (not all of them do).

In my experience and opinion, there are no other "possibilities [that] have just as much credibility as BBT". But this would make for another debate.

Also, I think you'll find that believing anything to be "impossible" is quite narrow-minded. I don't believe anything is impossible, just improbable to a certain degree.

The theory of the existence of god is so improbable that I, as an atheist, am fairly sure that it is false. But I am open to being surprised, if anyone can provide sufficient proof. Especially from god him/her/itself. Dude, come on. If you do exist, show yourself already.

Finally, you're absolutely right: Argumentum ad populum has no weight in determining if something is true or not.
For eons close to 100% of the human population believed that the Sun circled around the Earth. It didn't make it true.

Thank you for the debate, dheaslip, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheArtfulCodger 4 months ago
TheArtfulCodger
"The Big Bang requires a level of faith in absolute nothingness bordering on hysteria, No historical evidence to the con position would prevail"

I think you are confusing faith with observation here. TBB is the current best explanation for why all the stars seem to be receding away from us (observed via the red shift of light) and the background radiation. It has more in common with a Raymond Chandler mystery than a religious faith in that one gathers availible evidence to arrive at a solution. If there were historical evidence for the con position then it would make a difference only to the existence of a God not to TBB. When Copernicus first stated that the earth went round the sun it was deemed against scripture. However it was later proved that the earth does indeed go round the sun. This did not invalidate God or prove that God didn't exist it merely showed that God (if such a being exists) had made sloar systems with the sun at the centre and our faith shifted to accomodate the new facts. Which is why I am always so puzzled as to why some folk are so dead set against science on religious grounds
Posted by malalo75 4 months ago
malalo75
"The Big Bang requires a level of faith in absolute nothingness bordering on hysteria"....

And any belief in any god doesn't require the exact same thing?
At least the BBT is based on facts, findings and calculations, not supernatural beings.
Posted by Throwback 4 months ago
Throwback
I would vote in favor of the Con Position, despite the inability to present clear and convincing evidence of a negative. Such evidence would be fruitless in the end, as the Atheist need for the Big Bang as opposed to Prima Causa prevents acceptance of any historically documented, factual event which smacks of the existence of an uncreated first cause. The rebuttal to such historical events is simply, "Didn't happen," much like those who deny the Sandy Hook school shooting ever took place, or the claim the holocaust didn't happen. These things cannot be proven true on an axiomatic, mathematical level. They can only be proven from eye witness accounts, and contemporary reports and documents. Just as the deniers of Prima Cause, it is easy for the deniers of these events after evidence of them presented and simply say, "Didn't happen." The Big Bang requires a level of faith in absolute nothingness bordering on hysteria, No historical evidence to the con position would prevail. I cannot vote, as I have not yet completed the 3 required debates.
Posted by TheArtfulCodger 4 months ago
TheArtfulCodger
Ah the perennial argument. What is truth? In my view it comes down to what works and what makes the best predictions. One might add that the most irreducible argument has the best fit. So with evolution for instance we can say that species evolve over time from a common ancestor or we can say that a "God" created them. With evolution we might infer that species rise and fall according to differing circumstance and that their should be intermediate step between species and that they should be a common mechanism to cause it. With God we simply have a single point of creation.
The fossil record and the existence of frozen creatures (ie mammoths) in ancient ice tally with the expectation of extinctions due to changing circumstance, it is already an expected prediction of evolution. With God we need to "invent" an explanation (ie a flood). The fossil record also provides us with creatures that are similar but different from creatures of today, for instance reptiles with wings, and, by a comparison with bones etc, evidence of change over time such as the hooves of horses, the trunks of elephants or the gradual aquatic conversion of land animals into whales. Again which would fit with the predictions of evolution. With God we have to call upon pre-flood creatures again and say that God must have created very similar creatures at differing points in time and then they either died or were destroyed. Either way it is more of an excuse rather than a prediction or explanation. Finally we have DNA a mechanism by which changes in organisms can occur again predicted by the theory of evolution and a mechanism through which organisms can be manipulated today (ethics aside). With God we again have to create an excuse as to why God decided to give his creations such a universal coding. In short evolution makes predictions while God makes statements which we have to modify to fit the evidence as it occurs
No votes have been placed for this debate.