The Instigator
christian101
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
boss1592
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Creationism

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: 4/23/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 525 times Debate No: 32851
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

christian101

Pro

Below is why I do not believe in the Big Bang or
evolution, not why I take to creationism, simply why
I disagree with Evolution as well as the big bang.
Here it is:

People ask me, since I am a Christian, why I believe why I do and not in the big bang, and evolution. The answer is so simple, that if it was not for the fact that science has them brain washed in its ways, they would be sure to get it. Getting to the point, the reason I do not believe in the big bang, is simply because it does not make any sense, and is certainly NOT what it claims to be, science. In fact, it is far from anything ever proven by science, even the earth revolving around the sun in the time of Galileo.
Now, the question that generally follows this is: "Why do you find problems with the big bang theory?" In other words, why do you have such firm belief in how it is wrong??? The answer here is, it allows for the impossible to happen. When you look at the big bang, and the so called "creation of our universe", it says that something came from nothing. Why is this so hard to believe, I do not believe I should have to explain my self here.
However, for the sake of explanation I will go through roughly on how the theories go. One point in time billions of years ago, in all of the nothingness, something just popped into existence for no reason at all. See the problem here??? Now, I have saw comparisons that say that it is like a flower popping out of the thin air. The problem with this actual comparison is that, air or empty space, is not actually empty. There is air which has a weight and is existence, so in reality, there is something everywhere all around us as a result of this popping into existence crap.
This is wrong, but however, what the scientist really are saying is that, in a microscopic vacuum, which is nothing more than no air or anything just emptiness at the microscopic level, it is possible for things to pop into existence. What is wrong with this??? Well, it is just as stupid as the rest of the theory. It matters not the size of the vacuum, since a vacuum is nothing, then it really does not have a size anyway. The only real reason the scientist say this is possible at this level, is because, since we cannot observe things at this small scale, we cannot say it is false.
The problem is that they cannot say it is true either, for there is no way they can observe this. Also, why would it matter what size nothing is??? What is different at the microscopic scale than there is at the ordinary visible by the naked eye scale??? The answer is not one thing!!! Nothingness or, emptiness is the same no matter what its size is, which since it nothing is, cannot be given a true measurement. In other words, Big Bang, CRAP!!!!
Furthermore, the problem I have with evolution is also simple. This has been stated by many people before me and that is: There is a complete lack in genetic material with evolution that fails to explain how organisms become more complex overtime. As far as the Evolution goes, that is all I will say for it explains quite simply the problem with it.
As a result, we find that the scientists believe in theories that they claim to be the truth, in which they cannot back up with anything, except the fact that they are assertions from a scientist, or in many cases, an atheist without the slightest Idea of the science behind it, just that they are "sure" that God does not exist.
And that my readers would be why I do NOT buy into the crap that is evolution or the big bang!!!

Sincerely,
Jacob Williams, Christian
P.S. I understand I did not explain why I choose to be Christian while there are many other religions out there that will be the sole topic of my next paper. So" no comments about how I failed to explain why I believe the way I believe!!! THAT WILL BE THE TOPIC OF MY NEXT PAPER!!!

GOD BLESS YOU ALL, AND GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!
boss1592

Con

I accept the challenge. My oppnent has given reasons as to why he doubts the veracity of the big bang theory and biological evolution. Considering that both are complex and separate issues, it will be impossible to adequately address both in one 8,000 character capped post. Therefore, I shall devote my first round to laying out the case for the big bang, and my second for detailing the evidence for biological evolution. First though, let's define some terms. (Definitions from www.merriam-webster.com)

Big Bang Theory - "the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature which according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe."
Evolution - "the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

It is important to remember that the big bang theory does not try to explain where matter and energy originally come from, nor does biological evolution try and explain how life originally got started, they simply explain what happened after those points. The big bang theory describes the evolution of the cosmos from the earliest moments of our universe's life until now, and even into the future. Likewise with evolution explaining how life developed from it's earliest moments into the incredibly diversity and complexity that we see around us today. This is an important point to remember throughout the debate.

Evidence for the Big Bang

1. The Expanding Universe

In 1929, the astronomer Edwin Hubble made the discovery that the universe is expanding, that galaxies were moving away from us, and they were doing so at a speed that was proportional to their distance. This is called Hubble"s Law. We know they are moving away from us because when we look out and observe distant galaxies, we discover that the light from those galaxies is "Redshifted", due to a principle called the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is the change in the frequency of a wave for an observer moving relative to the wave"s source, or the source of the wave moving relative to the observer. A good example of this is when an ambulance passes by, and the pitch of the siren changes as it drives past you. That is due to the wavelength of sound waves being changed due to the motion of the source. We can apply the same principle to light waves. As light moves away from the observer, it becomes tinted red due to the same principle, and when we observe distant galaxies, this is exactly what we see. So, what would we see if we were to run time in reverse? Well, the universe would stop expanding and begin getting smaller, all the galaxies now moving towards each other rather than moving away. Eventually the universe becomes extremely hot and extremely dense, all the matter being packed tighter and tighter. Now, start running the clock forward, what would we see then? The universe would expand, everything racing apart, the universe become less dense and more cold, exactly what our universe looks like today. It is this event that we call "The Big Bang".

2. Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB)

If the universe was indeed once packed into a very small, dense region, before rapidly expanding outwards, then we should expect to see some heat leftover from this original state. In 1965, that heat signature was discovered by radioastronemers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, a faint hiss picked up by their radio telescope that pervaded the entire observable universe. It was radiation in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum with a temperature just 2.7 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero (-454.765 Fahrenheit, -270.425 Celsius). Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery. The CMB is best explained as radiation leftover from the big bang. It has been measured with precise detail by NASA"s COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) and WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe), and despite being almost totally uniform in all directions, minute temperature variations have been detected that show a pattern that we would expect to see from a uniformly distributed hot gas that had expanded to the current size of our universe. In other words, it"s what we would expect to see if our universe had expanded from a hot, dense state into what we see today.

3. Abundance of light elements

The big bang theory says that the universe was once very hot and dense, and is getting less dense, and more cold, which agrees with the observations made by Edwin Hubble. It also predicts that some heat should be leftover from that original state, which explains the CMB. But there"s something else that the big bang theory explains: the abundance of lighter elements in our universe. Hydrogen and Helium combined, the two lightest elements, makeup about 98% of all the elements in the observable universe (I"m excluding dark matter and dark energy from that total). Now why would that be? This was one of the problems with what was known as the steady state theory. According to it, elements were formed in the cores of stars through a process called stellar nucleosynthesis. Nucleosynthesis is the process of new atomic nuclei forming due to nuclear fusion and is the process that "powers" a star. In all stars, it describes hydrogen being fused to make helium. In bigger stars though, the chain doesn"t stop there, in bigger stars Helium is converted into carbon and oxygen in later stages of stellar evolution. The biggest stars can produce elements as heavy as Silicon and Iron. ( I can go into details about how heavier elements are formed if asked, but I don"t think it"s necessary for this debate.) However, if this was the whole picture of how elements form, then the amount of Helium (about 25% of all the matter in the universe) becomes problematic, because if stellar nucleosynthesis is the only way that Helium is formed, then there shouldn"t be much of it, certainly not the vast quantities we observe. The big bang theory provides an elegant solution to this problem: big bang nucleosynthesis. If the early universe was as hot as the big bang theory predicts, then matter would not have been able to form into atoms, or even protons and neutrons due to the astounding heat. As the universe expanded and cooled however, matter could finally form protons and neutrons and eventually could start forming simple atomic nuclei, such as Deuterium (a heavier isotope of Hydrogen) and Helium. Heavier elements couldn't form during big bang nucleosynthesis because the universe would have cooled too much for new elements to form in about 3 minutes, so only fast chemical processes could have occurred during this time. Stellar nucleosynthesis has billions of years to work with, which is why heavier elements are only produced in stars. The 25% percent of matter that is Helium is actually a prediction of the big bang theory, and provides an excellent way to test it: if this percentage was observed to contradict what the big bang theory predicts, then the theory has a big problem. As it happens, so far at least, the theory is in good agreement with observation.

In conclusion
So, the big bang theory is supported by and explains the fact that we can observe the expansion of the universe, the cosmic microwave background and the ratio of Hydrogen and Helium to heavier elements. It agrees with observation and makes predictions, such as the percentage of Helium that we observe, that have been vindicated, which give us excellent reasons to believe that it is true. Due to my character limit, I could only gloss over the finer points of big bang nucleosynthesis, I'll be happy to expand on it a little more in later rounds if I am so asked, along with any other points. In the meantime, I thank my opponent for instigating this debate and I hope that we can make it productive and keep it civil over the course of the next few rounds of engagement.
Debate Round No. 1
christian101

Pro

christian101 forfeited this round.
boss1592

Con

boss1592 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
christian101

Pro

christian101 forfeited this round.
boss1592

Con

boss1592 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
christian101

Pro

christian101 forfeited this round.
boss1592

Con

boss1592 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
christian101

Pro

christian101 forfeited this round.
boss1592

Con

boss1592 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by boss1592 3 years ago
boss1592
I should have figured such a debate would just be a waste of time. Well, you live and learn
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
Yep. It's clear the kid has never had a real science class before.
Posted by boss1592 3 years ago
boss1592
Well, this may have been a mistake
Posted by boss1592 3 years ago
boss1592
I'll do it. Not entirely sure exactly what it is we're supposed to be debating, but I'm adaptable. Let's do it
Posted by Skeptikitten 3 years ago
Skeptikitten
I thought about taking this debate, but it would be cruel. You don't even understand the basics of science, and I'm a biologist by profession.
No votes have been placed for this debate.