The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
toocoolblue
Con (against)
Losing
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 1 vote the winner is...
Stupidape
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 927 times Debate No: 98136
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Structure
R1 Acceptance and definitions
R2 Arguments
R3 Rebuttals
R4 Defense

Burden of proof will be equally shared.

I will argue that the Big Bang Theory is a solid scientifc theory that is a good explanation for the galaxies and solar systems of the universe.
My opponent will argue against the Big Bang Theory.

Big Bang Theory definition

"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." [0]

Round one

Acceptance and definitions only. All definitions will use common usage unless otherwise disputed and agreed upon.

Round two arguments

Each person makes his/her case. Respond only indirectly.

Round three rebuttals

Respond directly to your opponent's r2 arguments.

Round four Defense

Respond directly to your opponent's r3 rebuttals.

Source.
0. http://www.space.com...
toocoolblue

Con

Ok. I'll make a half-hearted effort. Why half-hearted? Because I know its a waste of time.

Pro asks for definitions in Round one.
The first thing he may want to define is the Big Bang.
The Big Bang Theory does not describe the creation of the Universe.
In fact, the Theory does not describe, what banged, why it banged, what started the bang, what powered the bang, what stopped the bang, it doesn't even describe the universe immediately after the bang, in fact it requires all the known Laws of Physics to collapse and then be randomly turned off and on like a light switch, not only does it not provide " a good explanation for the galaxies and solar systems" it cannot describe 96% of the Universe at all.
These cheats were simply added to theory over time to save the theory.

Albert Einstein never accepted the theory, he simply tolerated it because he couldn't work out something better.

In fact, the observational evidence is so strongly against the Big Bang Theory that it would not be taken seriously if it was invented today.

Actually, defining the Big Bang Theory is impossible, since it consistently fails every test it is subjected to, the theory has to be rewritten about every two seconds.

The Big Bang is in fact actually a term of derision.

Given that it is the only Theory that most people alive today have been taught, it may come as a a great shock to realize how recently this theory was accepted by the establishment.

This acceptance was based mostly on two factors.

1. The prediction of the abundance of light elements. (which has now been debunked)
Replication of Big Bang reveals flaws in theory of atom formation
Fusion experiments show that the Big Bang can't account for lithium.
http://arstechnica.com...

2. The CMB, (which has now been proven by 3 different satellites to say the Earth is the Center of the Universe.)
Which in my opinion, proves the CMB is NOT what scientists have been claiming and is not really anything important at all.

Lawrence Krauss is a Prof. of Theoretical Physics at Arizona State and arguably the loudest spokesperson for Atheism on the planet. He states -
That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun " the plane of the earth around the sun " the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
https://www.edge.org...

Researchers at MIT were looking over data from NASA's WMAP satellite when it was noticed that there IS a special direction in space. Cosmologists have dubbed this the "Axis of Evil". You can read more about this here -
Why is the solar system cosmically aligned?
http://www-personal.umich.edu...
Dragan Huterer is a theoretical cosmologist and a professor in the department of physics at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

At first, scientists simply laughed this off as some kind of fluke or mistake, because it just couldn't be real. Even though the findings were confirmed by looking back at the earlier COBE satellite data , rather than admit what they had discovered, NASA tried to prove the WMAP satellite was broken. quote -
So perplexing is the axis of evil that Hinshaw and WMAP's principal investigator, Chuck Bennett, have obtained a grant for a five-year examination of the WMAP data. They hope to explore the possibilities that the WMAP instrument was in error, or that something else went wrong. "There's no question there's stuff that looks unusual," says Bennett.
We will have to wait and see whether the study reveals the axis of evil to be a cosmic mirage, or shows the big bang model to be in serious trouble.
http://www.independent.co.uk...

After about 10 years of failed attacks on the WMAP data, the scientists figured that the European Space Agency's PLANCK Satellite would finally discredit the data.
Here's what they found -
Finally, the strange anomaly WMAP first observed in 2001 at the largest scales is still there. Some people held out hope that the WMAP results were a fluke, an error arising from the observatory's basic construction. However, Planck is sufficiently different in design to make that hope futile. The effect is real. (Some sources made this sound like it's something new, but maybe that's because cosmologists tried not to call attention to it in the last decade.)
https://galileospendulum.org...
Matthew R. Francis is a physicist, and was director of the MD Anderson Planetarium from 2007-09.

The Planck satellite's lead cosmologist took this approach -
"Why characteristics of the CMB should relate to our solar system is not understood. ... I was explicitly told not to say anything about God in this talk " which I've just violated," Efstathiou said half-jokingly.
http://www.nbcnews.com...
George Efstathiou is a Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge and director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology .

The approach our so-called "Scientists" have taken toward this data is to simply pretend it doesn't exist. Quoting from the above linked article- "but maybe that's because cosmologists tried not to call attention to it in the last decade."
That sure is a funny way to conduct science......

Here are some other "definitions" we will need to discuss the "funny science" behind the Big Bang.

Dark Matter - something cannot be found, no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory.
Dark Energy - something cannot be found, no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory.
Parallel Universes - something cannot be found no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory.
Alternate Dimensions - something cannot be found no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory.
Inflaton -something cannot be found no matter how hard we look for it, but must exist to save the Big Bang Theory.
Cosmological Constant/Lamda - Something that must be set to 1 part in a Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion,
Trillion, Trillion, Trillion, Trillion.

And that's just getting started...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Round two arguments


We will stick to the original definition as opposed to my opponent's definitions in round one. Big Bang Theory definition


"The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began. At its simplest, it talks about the universe as we know it starting with a small singularity, then inflating over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today." [0]"

Is the Big Bang Theory observable?

Yes, via red shift.

"This shifting of wavelengths can be observed on a graph. This figure shows spectra of a star and of galaxies with typical redshifted spectral lines given by the equation: " [1]

As you can see nearby stars are blue where far away stars are red.

Additional observational evidence.


"The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts." [2]


Is the Big Bang Theory testable?

Yes, it is,

"For the tests, engineers built a giant contraption called the Large Hadron Collider. The unit is designed to smash sub-atomic particles into each other at extremely high speeds. They hope to use the LHC to crash protons into each other and create events that are similar to those that supposedly occurred when the universe formed. " [3]

We can test the heat of cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang should have been very hot and now cooled considerably and continues to cool. We can also test how far away galaxies are via redshift.

Thanks for debating.

Sources
1. http://universeadventure.org...
2. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
3. http://www.informationweek.com...

toocoolblue

Con

Quote -
Is the Big Bang Theory testable?

Yes, it is,

"For the tests, engineers built a giant contraption called the Large Hadron Collider.

Pro states the LHC is built to test the Big Bang Theory, so....

What does is mean when the Physicists who worked at the LHC wrote this? -

The LHC "NIGHTMARE SCENARIO" has come true.
DURING MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER, ALL I HAVE SEEN IS FAILURE. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science " it"s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we"ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com...

What does is mean when the the TOP Physicist who works at the LHC says this? -

"It"s striking that we"ve thought about these things for 30 years and WE HAVE NOT MADE ONE CORRECT PREDICTION that they have seen," said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J.
https://www.quantamagazine.org...

What does it mean when the Director of the top Physics Research Institute in the World, who was also the Chairman of the Math and Physics Department at Cambridge tells you the ALL THE THEORIES HAVE FAILED?
https://vimeo.com...

Everything that the state has ever taught us is wrong.

Proven wrong.

For decades, they shoved these absurd "THEORIES" down our throats because we lacked the technology to properly test them. Thankfully, that day has passed.

But the people who built their careers on Imaginary Energy, Imaginary Matter, Non-Existent Parallel Universes, Non-Existent Alternate Dimensions, Selectrons, Photinos, Neutralinos, Tooth Fairies, Easter Bunnies and any other lie necessary to save their jobs are doing everything in their power to hide the truth.

If you don't believe that..simply read my first post again....you might want to pay particular attention to the part about DISCOVERING THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!

That would be the most important scientific discovery in the history of the human race.... and yet nobody told you about it..hmmm
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

R3 Rebuttals


"Round two arguments

Each person makes his/her case. Respond only indirectly." Stupidape r1


"Quote -
Is the Big Bang Theory testable?

Yes, it is,

"For the tests, engineers built a giant contraption called the Large Hadron Collider.

Pro states the LHC is built to test the Big Bang Theory, so...." toocoolblue r2


My opponent has deviated from the round one setup structure. Creating a rebuttal in round two when he/she should have created an argument in round two and saved the rebuttal for round three. Thus I cannot rebuttal a non-existent argument, nor can I respond to my opponent's round two rebuttal without breaking the structure myself and becoming a hypocrite.

Therefore, I pass round three. I plan to respond to my opponent's r2 rebuttal in the next round, round four defense.

toocoolblue

Con

Ok...That reply is what I expected, and why I only bothered to cut and paste a few things I had already written in another debate.

I realize that Pro has no intention of clicking any link or investigating any statement of fact that may lead to Pro reconsidering their position, thus rendering this debate a complete waste of time.

It's a sad state of affairs, that mirrors all of modern science.

We are stuck. All path to scientific enlightenment is blocked. Just as the CERN physicist so accurately described when she wrote, "What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we've been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results."

LCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?
all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter {and now} dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? I demonstrate in this article that while some of is based upon truth, at least just as much of LCDM cosmology has been propped by a paralyzing amount of propaganda which suppress counter evidence and subdue competing models.
https://arxiv.org...

Farewell to Reality: How Fairytale Physics Betrays the Search for Scientific Truth
It seems that barely a week goes by without some new astounding science story; some revelation about hidden dimensions, multiple universes, the holographic principle or incredible cosmic coincidences. But is it true? What evidence do we have for super-symmetric squarks', or superstrings vibrating in an 11-dimensional space-time? How do we know that we live in a multiverse? How can we tell that the universe is a hologram projected from information encoded on its boundary? Doesn't this sound like a fairy story?
In Farewell to Reality Jim Baggott asks whether all that we currently know about the universe is based upon science or fantasy.
https://www.amazon.com...

When the facts say you're wrong, ignore them or fudge them -
Here the TV show, "Through the Wormhole" admits Higgs Boson discovery is "Fudged Math", and sadly that's not even the REALLY BIG LIE that's being told about the "Higgs".
https://vimeo.com...

How many failures does it take before people open their eyes?

Star Formation Theory - Failed
The Big Problems in Star Formation: the Star Formation Rate, Stellar Clustering, and the Initial Mass Function
https://arxiv.org...
The data show early notions of how star clusters are formed cannot be correct.
http://phys.org...

Planet Formation Theory - Failed
Why all we knew about planets is wrong
http://www.bbc.com...

The Moon Formation Theory - Failed
'Giant Impact Theory' of Moon's Origin--Nixed by New Research
http://www.dailygalaxy.com...

Astronomy: Planets in chaos
The field in its current state "doesn't make much sense", says Norm Murray of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto.
http://www.nature.com...

Biggest Thing in Universe Found"Defies Scientific Theory
Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, an international team of researchers has discovered a record-breaking cluster of quasars"young active galaxies"stretching four billion light-years across...
...current astrophysical models appear to show that the upper size limit for cosmic structures should be no more than 1.2 billion light-years.
So this represents a challenge to our current understanding and now creates a mystery"rather than solves one," Clowes said.
The titanic structure, known simply as the Large Quasar Group (LQG), also appears to break the rules of a widely accepted cosmological principle, which says that the universe would look pretty much uniform when observed at the largest scales.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Dark Dilemma
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it"s clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
https://www.quantamagazine.org...

If the Big Bang really happened....
The Stars we should see - We don't
Nonetheless, despite intense searches, no Population III stars have ever been observed, so their existence is entirely hypothetical at present.
https://room.eu.com...
PopIII stars with masses below 0.8M should survive to date though are not observed yet
https://arxiv.org...

The Stars we shouldn't see - We do
Blue stars are large and compact, this causes them to burn their fuel quickly
http://www.kidsastronomy.com...
Young, hot, and blue: stars in cluster NGC 2547
http://www.astronomy.com...

You see, according to Theory, the Universe stopped making stars about 3 Billion years ago.
The Universe Is Almost Done Making Stars
http://www.popsci.com...

So where are all these Blue Stars coming from?

Why do we have more Matter than Anti-Matter?
According to these theories there should not be enough mass to enable the formation of stars and hence life."...
...The model does not come close to explaining the difference between matter and antimatter we see in the nature. The imbalance is a trillion times bigger than the model predicts...
http://www.universetoday.com...
https://home.cern...

Where are the monopoles?
The mysterious missing magnetic monopole
Particle physics experiments have, on occasion, announced possible monopole candidates, but so far none of these discoveries have been shown to be irrefutable or reproducible.

The Monopole and Exotics Detector at the Large Hadron Collider (MoEDAL) has taken up the search, but has found no monopoles to date.
http://phys.org...

I can keep going on... Horizon Problem, Flatness Problem, Quantized Redshifts (also proving Earth is the center of the Universe) Quasar Light Polarization but why?

People only hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see.

And we just keep repeating the same mistakes, over and over and over.

The Einstein's and Tesla's of today are stuck trying to save failed ideas rather than inventing anything new.

1972 - Scientific Progress R.I.P.
Might as well laugh about it...
https://www.youtube.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

R4 Defense

My opponent has broken the structure enough times that I don't feel obligated to respond. Nevertheless, I'm going to respond to my opponent's round two.

Opponent's round two:

"Quote -
Is the Big Bang Theory testable?

Yes, it is,

"For the tests, engineers built a giant contraption called the Large Hadron Collider.

Pro states the LHC is built to test the Big Bang Theory, so....

What does is mean when the Physicists who worked at the LHC wrote this? -

The LHC "NIGHTMARE SCENARIO" has come true.
DURING MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER, ALL I HAVE SEEN IS FAILURE. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science " it"s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we"ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com......

What does is mean when the the TOP Physicist who works at the LHC says this? -

"It"s striking that we"ve thought about these things for 30 years and WE HAVE NOT MADE ONE CORRECT PREDICTION that they have seen," said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J.
https://www.quantamagazine.org......

What does it mean when the Director of the top Physics Research Institute in the World, who was also the Chairman of the Math and Physics Department at Cambridge tells you the ALL THE THEORIES HAVE FAILED?
https://vimeo.com......

Everything that the state has ever taught us is wrong.

Proven wrong.

For decades, they shoved these absurd "THEORIES" down our throats because we lacked the technology to properly test them. Thankfully, that day has passed.

But the people who built their careers on Imaginary Energy, Imaginary Matter, Non-Existent Parallel Universes, Non-Existent Alternate Dimensions, Selectrons, Photinos, Neutralinos, Tooth Fairies, Easter Bunnies and any other lie necessary to save their jobs are doing everything in their power to hide the truth.

If you don't believe that..simply read my first post again....you might want to pay particular attention to the part about DISCOVERING THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!

That would be the most important scientific discovery in the history of the human race.... and yet nobody told you about it..hmmm" toocoolblue


Let's take this line by line.


"What does is mean when the Physicists who worked at the LHC wrote this? -

The LHC "NIGHTMARE SCENARIO" has come true.
DURING MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER, ALL I HAVE SEEN IS FAILURE. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science " it"s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we"ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." toocoolblue


First off, in the original source, there are no all caps sentences. Here is the original paragraph


"During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have." Sabine Hossenfelder


As you can see the sentence uses normal capitalization. Second, this is a blog which is difficult to take seriously. My opponent has no met his/her burden of proof that Sabine Hossenfelder is the Physicists who worked on the LHC. In fact, since Sabine Hossenfelder is only one person, it is impossible for Sabine Hossenfelder to be all the physicists who worked on the LHC.

If particle physics was a failure, why wouldn't Sabine Hossenfelder have posted this in a scholarly peer reviewed journal for my opponent to quote? One malcontent who may not even have worked on the LHC doesn't discredit the entire project.

Then, you go on to quote someone from quantummagazine.org A website that most likely nobody else on debate.org has heard of, and therefore is of dubious reliability. You take one quote, most likely out of context, and make huge assumptions.


"Everything that the state has ever taught us is wrong.

Proven wrong." toocoolblue


You make extremely bold claims and provide no to virtually no evidence to backup these claims. This is non-sequitur. The fact that you frequently use all caps is also detrimental to your case. I suggest rather than trying to disprove 150+ theories simultaneously, focus on disproving one theory using scholarly peer reviewed sources and other reliable sources like snopes.com. Otherwise, your arguments are non-sequitur and come off as crazy talk.

Non-sequitur

"Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion.

Logical Form:

Claim A is made.

Evidence is presented for Claim A.

Therefore, claim C is true.

Example #1:

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!" [4]


Thank you for debating. Good luck in future debates and disproving main stream science. Happy holidays.

Sources.
4. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

toocoolblue

Con

Once again, exactly what I expected. If you can't attack the message. attack the messenger.

When presented with a mountain of Scientific Evidence that refutes the "Theories" that are being taught as facts - the only reply that Pro can muster has nothing to do with Science or the Big Bang Theory.

Pro states-
this is a blog which is difficult to take seriously.
REPLY - actually the article in question first appeared in FORBES
http://www.forbes.com...

Pro states-
If particle physics was a failure, why wouldn't Sabine Hossenfelder have posted this in a scholarly peer reviewed journal for my opponent to quote?
REPLY - As I have previously stated, you only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. You could just click on the link (in the very post you are quoting) to hear the director of the Top Physics Research Institute in the world - tell you precisely that Particle Physics has failed.
Let me link it again -
https://vimeo.com...

What do you think the Physicists mean by "Nightmare Scenario"? Is that what people say when their "Theories/Fairy Tails" have been confirmed? Hmmm, Big Bang Detector....Nightmare Scenario... what could this mean? Does this mean the Big Bang has been detected?

Physicists are confronting their "nightmare scenario." What does the absence of new particles suggest about how nature works?
https://www.quantamagazine.org...
The Nightmare Scenario
http://www.math.columbia.edu...
With the Large Hadron Collider unable to find the particles that the theory says must exist, the field of particle physics is back to its "nightmare scenario"
https://www.scientificamerican.com...

Pro states-
Then, you go on to quote someone from quantummagazine.org A website that most likely nobody else on debate.org has heard of, and therefore is of dubious reliability
REPLY
Once again, Pro's arguments have nothing to do with Science or what is actually the subject of the debate.

The author of the article you question has won numerous awards for scientific writing.
Council for the Advancement of Science Writing
Natalie Wolchover wins Evert Clark/Seth Payne Award
Another of her articles was recently honored with the 2016 Excellence in Statistical Reporting Award, presented by the American Statistical Association, and yet another was chosen for inclusion in The Best Writing on Mathematics 2015.
http://casw.org...

Pro States -
and other reliable sources like snopes.com.
REPLY
Really!?! That's where Pro gets his knowledge of science from? The Internet? That says it all doesn't it?
Video of Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet
https://www.youtube.com...
Snopes credibility on display...
Al Gore never claimed that he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way
http://www.snopes.com...

Pro has run as fast and as far as he can to avoid any real debate.

Pro has hidden behind every possible reason he can think of to avoid responding to the scientific facts presented here. He doesn't understand the Science and does not want to.

Hiding from reality is his only escape.....

Let's not talk about Science or the Big Bang or Gravity or Non-existent Higgs Bosons or the CMB or anything like that...
And just because you have presented links to the most respected scientists on the planet telling me that I am wrong doesn't mean anything.....As long as I don't read the links....

Instead....Let's whine about Snopes and Capitalization.

50 years ago we adopted a Theory, which is something that is literally defined as, "an UNPROVEN idea, a guess or conjecture" as though it were a fact.

But recent tests and observations have made this theory absurd.

Stephen Hawking - He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech"s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.
http://www.space.com...

It's too bad there isn't another round to this debate, I can hardly wait for Pro to cry about, "Who is Stephen Hawking and what are his credentials?" ...

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.

We are all born ignorant, meaning we have to be taught.
But stupidity is choosing to remain ignorant.

Pro, you have been presented with more than enough evidence to refute everything claim to believe in, and the fact that you can not bring yourself to click on the links, and did not attempt to verify or refute the claims made, on any scientific grounds- is simply because you are scared.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
You're welcome.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Thanks for voting Ragnar.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Matpat// Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Con (S&G, Arguments, Sources), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: -_-

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
As for Snopes not being credible due to Al Gore's statement. First you used an eleven second video, which is suspicious within itself. Second, Al Gore explains in this later video about how he was misquoted. The Internet began in the 1960's via the USA military.

https://www.youtube.com...
Posted by stova11 1 year ago
stova11
Con:

| "Ok. I'll make a half-hearted effort. Why half-hearted? Because I know its a waste of time."

That's one helluva sexy intro, mate.

You clearly have a lot to say. I can tell from your writing that you care. You've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into "a waste of time."

Do you want us to read your arguments and be persuaded? You've got some good points in there - excellent even. So why did you bury them in the middle of a sea of emphatics and hyperbole? Arguing in absolutes and absurdities is usually read as a sign of a weak argument. But you have some strong arguments in there that leave the model deficient and suspect. But who's going to take you seriously if you pepper your arguements with "rewritten... every two seconds","so called scientists",and "tooth fairies?"

You linked some of your citations. Did you not think we would read them? The odd thing is that several of them are strong on their own - without your mis-characterization. That's another bad sign. Providing a citation that doesn't square with your rhetoric, people start to turn away. And, by the way, one of your citations is presented in Comic Sans typeface. Dude. Seriously?

The straw man tactic in your (anti)definition was unnecessary. The pro side doesn't claim it describes the creation of the universe; or that there was a bang banging around looking to get banged.

I'm not here to make your argument for you. But I hope you can turn this around. By all reasonable accounts, you would have a good shot at using a few un-embellished facts to win some votes. I was certainly rooting for you.

Instead it reads like, "All the scientists, using the scientific method, observations and experiments are just insecure imbeciles who have gotten everything wrong. And, instead, a model that relies solely on philosophical inputs - with the aid of three satellites (Wow! Three?) putting Earth at the center of the universe is right."

Come on.
Posted by stova11 1 year ago
stova11
Pro:

You brought this up at an auspicious time. Last week, the Royal Astronomical Society announced completion of first phase testing on Verlinde's theory of Emergent Gravity. Predictions generated by Verlinde's theory agree well with the observed gravity distribution.

http://phys.org...

Granted, it's early days, but the theory now has traction and is moving forward.

The bad news for big bang theorists is that Verlinde's theory is predictive, and uses no free parameters. He gets there entirely based on the mass of visible matter. The big bang has the problem of having to add dark matter as a free parameter to account for the observable distribution of gravity. So while this may lead to future acceptance of competing theories that yield roughly the same conclusions, It also improves the fundamental standing of big bang. Maybe all the extra gravity is the ghost of dark matter. Maybe not.

We've known that the big bang was challenging for some time now. It's based on artifact, instead of direct observation. And of great concern is the unexplained free parameter - the mysterious dark matter.

You framed your argument well: "the Big Bang Theory is a solid scientific theory that is a good explanation for the galaxies and solar systems of the universe." You stayed away from asserting it to be the best theory, only valid theory or complete theory. On this point alone, your side might well prevail. It's still solid and good.

But, your three measurable signatures, while valid and compelling, are not conclusive. Be careful to avoid making a post hoc error. At least we now see possibility in other theories that can accurately model the universe and predict it too.

Interesting times. Good debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
StupidapetoocoolblueTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for breaking from the agreed upon structure of the debate. Arguments are hurt by it, but they fail due to pro catching the non-sequitur and that holding up. If planet formation may have happened differently than is assumed, it does not infer anything about the Big Bang (plus thr source for that specifially said earth is not the center of the universe, and that no theory was rejected due to the new data). Pro of course made a concise case about the the expansion of the universe tracked via Red Shift. Cons trollish Gish-Gallop case went everywhere rarely on topic. Sources, even while some if cons own sources either disagreed with him, or even what he was claiming (Snopes for example disproved the edited video connected to it), I must give some credit to the entertainment value and work he clearly put in, so leaving them tied when otherwise they would go to pro for reliability.