The Instigator
derDepperte
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrainofanIndividual
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Big Bang theory is real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
BrainofanIndividual
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 897 times Debate No: 41512
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (5)

 

derDepperte

Pro

I will be arguing in favor of the resolution that the Big Bang theory is in fact real. My opponent may argue first, but has to leave his argument for the last round as blank, or forfeit.
BrainofanIndividual

Con

There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.

So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.
Debate Round No. 1
derDepperte

Pro

Good argument. I may present MY CASE now:

God is not real. Thus making it impossible for Big Bang theory to not be real. It doesn't make sense when you say that the universe is eternal.
BrainofanIndividual

Con

You say you do not believe in the monotheistic God, yet when I checked your oldest argument, you were arguing in favor of the resolution that he does in fact exist. Why is that so? Did you magically become an Atheist?

You also say it as if it is a fact. Prove it.
Debate Round No. 2
derDepperte

Pro

Evil is everywhere, and God created everything. Therefore, God is evil.

About cause, how about God? Doesn't he need a cause?
BrainofanIndividual

Con

Rebuttal(s):

1) Does cold exist?

Cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

Does darkness exist?

Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Does evil exist?

Evil does not exist, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

2) You atheists fail to account for existence. God doesn't have a cause. He did not come into existence. He is eternal. He exists outside of space, time, etc. thus making his existence possible.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

You are working on the Premise of Duality. Your philosophical premise is flawed. YOU EVEN SAID THAT IN YOUR OLDEST ARGUMENT! Yet, you use that. Why is that so?
Debate Round No. 3
derDepperte

Pro

faith is the problem of science, have u ever percepted your god. if nut ur gud dont exis.
BrainofanIndividual

Con

Have you ever touched, smelled, tasted, or seen my kidney? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says my kidney doesn't exist. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly.
Debate Round No. 4
derDepperte

Pro

Vote for con! I have officially been convinced. i now do not believe in big bang
BrainofanIndividual

Con

I can not leave it as blank; I can't submit this.

Vote for con!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MathandScienceprodigy 3 years ago
MathandScienceprodigy
There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.

So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.
Posted by Mmyvett 3 years ago
Mmyvett
Every religion has some truth to it. No o e book has all the answers. We are already in hell! Look around.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Gs325jcbd 3 years ago
Gs325jcbd
derDepperteBrainofanIndividualTied
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: BrainfanIndividual won.
Vote Placed by Gohan12345 3 years ago
Gohan12345
derDepperteBrainofanIndividualTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 basically gave a full argument while and pri nevered prooved his point
Vote Placed by 2-D 3 years ago
2-D
derDepperteBrainofanIndividualTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con does not appear to understand the Big Bang Theory equating it with the life of a star but Pro did not object. Pro dropped Con's arguments and offered none of his own.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
derDepperteBrainofanIndividualTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro arguments were nothing but one big non sequitur tied up with a false dichotomy.
Vote Placed by torterra 3 years ago
torterra
derDepperteBrainofanIndividualTied
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: The pro obviously didnt know that they arent supposed to admit defeat