The Instigator
Victoria85176
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Samreay
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Did the Big Bang happen??

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Samreay
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/27/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,551 times Debate No: 59637
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

Victoria85176

Con

I'm really exited to debate this!!
Round one- Acceptance
Round Two-Arguments
Round Three & Four-Arguments/Rebuttals
Round Five- Closing arguments
--
Rules:
*No trolling
*No new arguments in the last round
__
I'm super exited to debate this topic, good luck! :)
Samreay

Pro

I accept this debate. As a student currently working in a cosmology team looking at dark energy, I believe I can reasonably support the idea that the Big Bang theory is the best cosmological model we have at the moment, and thus there is good reason to believe the Big Bang did indeed happen.

I will try and keep arguments as non-technical as possible, but please, Con or readers, let me know if I start going in too deep into the topic. Looking forward to a good and informative debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Victoria85176

Con

I wouldn't worry about going to deep into the topic, I put up this debate to learn more about the Big Bang Theory.
For readers that do not know, the Big Bang Theory is usually presented like this:
Billions of years ago all of the matter in the world was compressed into a small "dot", this dot spun faster and faster until it exploded. Thus, creating the universe and everything in it.
But, there are so many questions that this theory does not answer, such as:
1. If the "dot" was spinning, where did the energy come from to make the dot spin??
2. What caused all of the matter in the universe to compress into this one small dot?
3. Where did the gravity come from that held the dot together?
--
Conservation of Angular Momentum
This is a known law of science. So, In a environment with out friction the dot would end up spinning so fast that it would explode. If this happened then all of the particles coming from the dot would have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from. This matter created the universe and everything in it, so it created the planets. If it created the planets then all of the planets would have to spin in the same direction. However, Venus and Uranus spin backwards, some planets even have moons that spin backwards around there planets.

Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics:
"Matter cannot be created of destroyed"
For instance even if you melt a ice cube its still matter although it is no longer solid. The Big Bang Theory ignores this law completely.
The second law of thermodynamics:
"Everything tends towards disaster"
So rather than a big bang, becoming ordered (The universe), just the opposite would occur. For instance if I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado, and this resulted in the complex design of the house that you live in, you would think I'm crazy! But (in essence) this is what the big bang theory teaches us.

Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big Bang predicts that's no object can be before the time of the big bang. But, certain large-scale voids in the distortion of galaxies could not have been formed after the big bang. This is because it would result in velocities of present day galaxies in excess of the observed. With the observed velocities it would take five times as long for the voids to form.
References:
https://answersingenesis.org...
http://bigbangneverhappened.org...
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...
http://science.nasa.gov...
http://www.wisegeek.org...
http://www.reactionwheel.com...
Samreay

Pro

Thanks to Con for their opening statement. As agree, I will not rebut in this round, though I will unfortunately have to correct their definition of the Big Bang, as the presented definition is simply not accurate.Can I also ask Con in future rounds to link to citations in text, as I do. It makes chasing up your sources much easier for all parties.


Definitions:

The Big Bang Theory is the leading cosmological model of the evolution of our universe, and, at the most basic level, states that space-time and matter expanded (and is still expanding) from an initial singularity in the past [1][2][3][4][5]. In contrast to Con's definition, matter was not compressed (in space) - as space-time itself was also compressed, it did not "explode" in the sense of an actual explosion, this was not because anything was spinning (how does space-time even spin?) [6][7].

Also, unless explicitly told otherwise, I shall be dealing with the Lambda-CDM model in Big Bang Cosmology [8], as it is the currently preferred model [9].


How hypothesis testing works:

In science, the way to test a hypothesis (again at the most basic level) is to theoretically determine what predcitions the model makes, and to then go out and put such predictions to the test. Evidence (the outcome of our observations) will thus either agree with predictions, lending weight to the hypothesis being true, or act to disconfirm the hypothesis if predictions are not met. Thus, I shall briefly outline a few predictions of Big Bang cosmology and what our observations find.


Predictions of Big Bang Comsology:


Element Abundances:
Big Bang nucleosynthesis refers to the creation of atomic nuclei in the very early universe (t less than 3 min), in which protons and neutrons combined to form different elements [10][11][12]. The ratio of the elements in the universe is thus highly dependent on the amount of time nucleosynthesis was allowed (ie unbelievably hot and dense). The element ratio predictions are confirmed by observation [13], shown below. Red line intercepts are predictions, red circles are observation.





Background Radiation:

If the universe began in an initial hot and dense state, initially nuclear matter would have existed in ionized form in the time before recombination [14][15]. Due to free electrons being able to absorb all incident photons, ionized gas is opaque, and thus if we look far enough out we should eventually see an opaque "wall" (in all directions) of plasma. Furthermore, if, and only if, the universe was vastly smaller back when this plasma existed should we observe a high degree of thermal equilibrium in the plasma we find. These predictions are confirmed by the observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation [16] from multiple sources. Even moreso than this, we can predict the power spectrum of the CMBR theoretically, and match this to observations of the power spectrum, and this is an absolutely fantastic vindication of Big Bang cosmology [17].




Large Scale Structure:
If the universe began in an incredibly small state, it is predicted that quantum mechanical variations in the initial dense matter would, via the process of expansion, result in areas of above average and below average densities in the universe. Furthermore, the size of these densities is constrained by the distance a sound wave could travel through the plasma (discussed above) before recombination (now we call this Baryon acoustic oscillations [18][19]). Areas of over density should collapse to form large scale structure [20][21], and under density can form voids. Given their size constraints, we have predictions about the size of large scale structure we should find, and we can go out and observe the size of said structures. We find them to support predictions [22].



Current Expansion:
Big Bang cosmology would predict that the universe is currently still expanding. Thus, we should observe that light from objects further away would be redshifted more than light from objects closer to home [23]. The rate of expansion is given the name Hubbles constant [24], and it is something can be determined with multiple lines of evidence, from supernova data to Plank's results. Observations unambiguously support that the universe is expanding [25] (the fit shown below should be a horizontal line if no expansion, not a positive gradient), and in fact Brian Schmidt (and others) received the Nobel Prize in 2011 for going beyond this and showing the expansion is actually accelerating [26].



I could go on for thousands or more words, discussing neutrino evidence, galaxy formation rates as evidence, the metallicity of the stars as evidence, the geometry of the universe (essentially flat) as evidence, etc, etc, etc, but I feel given my opponents familiarity with the subject that this should be persuasive (also, word count).

Conclusion:

I have given four predictions of Big Bang cosmology which have been unambiguously supported by observational evidence. Given that the predictions of the theory are consistently confirmed, it is reasonable to affirm that the Big Bang did indeed happen, as if it did not we should not be observing the evidence we do. In my next round I will explain how my opponents position rests on several misconceptions of the Big Bang.




[1] http://www.space.com...
[2] http://www.wisegeek.org...
[3] http://www.universetoday.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://science.nasa.gov...
[6] http://www.mso.anu.edu.au...
[7] http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://arxiv.org...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] http://www.einstein-online.info...
[12] http://astro.berkeley.edu...
[13] http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[15] http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com...
[16] http://en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)#Results
[17] http://arxiv.org...;(Fig 19)
[18] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[19] http://arxiv.org...
[20] http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...
[21] https://www.e-education.psu.edu...
[22] http://www.nature.com...
[23] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[24] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_law#Determining_the_Hubble_constant
[25] https://www.noao.edu...
[26] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
Victoria85176

Con

The Big Bang Theory is a theory, therefore it must have some proof behind it. But there are also multiple points that prove that it could not of happened. For instance:
1. Based on the big bang theory the majority of cosmologists are predicting that the distribution of matter scattered across the universe will be consistent. Therefore (based upon a Cosmological Principle) all of the galaxies should be in uniform. This is untrue, there are clusters of galaxies or great voids in space{1}.
2. Ribbons of super clusters of galaxies 300 million light years long and 100 million light years thick, this stretches out about a billion light-years, this is separated by voids about 30 million light years across {2}{1}. This is way to big for the Big Bang Theory to of created, since it would of taken 80 billion years for this to of formed. But, the universe is said to be in between 10 and 20 billion years old{2}{3}.
3. The Big Bang Theory predicts that the background radiation to a few degree's Kelvin. But in 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7 degrees Kelvin (Penzais and Wilson were awarded noble prizes for this btw). So the back round radiation of the Big Bang is not proof, but evidence agenst it.
I could go on, there are many more accounts of evidence to support the points I made, and there are other points as well. Your points have scientific reasoning behind them, so I cant rebuttal them. But, the points presented above also have scientific reasoning.
--
There are also theory's, other than the big bang theory that describe how the universe began.
{1} http://www.icr.org...
{2} http://en.wikipedia.org...
{3} http://www.infoplease.com...
{4}
Samreay

Pro

Alright, rebuttal time, awesome.

To start with though, I just want to highlight to Con - and to readers - some differences in sources. So far, I have tried to present the best scientific sources I can - changing between popular science and scientific publications depending on complexity of topic. Con has so far cited both AnswersInGenesis and the Institute of Creation Research. Neither of those are scientific institutions, neither have any scientific credibility, and both are opposed to the Big Bang theory for ideological reasons - not scientific ones. I would very much appreciate if Con can source future arguments from scientifically credible websites.



Answering Questions

1. "If the "dot" was spinning, where did the energy come from to make the dot spin??"

The "dot" (being the universe at t=0) was neither spinning (theoretically and conceptually nonsensical to say the space-time was spinning), nor accessible via modern physics (being a singularity [1][2][3]). Energy addressed later.

2. "What caused all of the matter in the universe to compress into this one small dot?"

There was no cause. Nothing had to gather matter to a spot - the Big Bang involves the creation of all energy PLUS space and time. There is no prior.

3. "Where did the gravity come from that held the dot together?"

Nothing held the dot together. The "dot" did not exist for a period of time just sitting there. The singularity exists for an infinitely small amount of time, only when t = 0.


Rebuttals

1. Conservation of angular momentum / momentum / energy

Con states that the Big Bang violates conservation laws. Whilst their example (some planets spin backwards) is not actually relevant to their object, I will address the objection anyway. The answer is simple: conservation laws do not apply. More specifically, conservation laws are derived from Noether's Theorem [3][4], in which we can see that invariance of the system Lagranigan under a specific transformation (such as movement or changing orientation) will lead to a conserved quantity [5]. Invariance in time gives convservation of energy, invariance of position gives conservation of momentum, invariance of rotation gives conservation of angular momentum, etc [6]. The Big Bang deals with the creation of space-time, and is thus not invariant under either time, position or rotation.


2. The First Law of Thermodynamics defies the Big Bang

See the above rebutal. The first law is just stating conservation of energy, which doesn't apply. Interestingly enough, the total energy content of the universe is (within error) actually zero - we live in essentially a flat universe [7][8][9]


3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics defies the Big Bang

This would be a valid objection, if Big Bang cosmology has initial conditions of higher entropy than the current entropy of the universe. Unfortunately for Con's argument, the early universe was extremely low entropy (thank you inflation) [10][11][12], and entropy has been increasing - as expected - since then.


4. Large scale voids should not exist

My opponent is correct is saying that it is not possible for galaxies to traverse a void in the amount of time the universe has existed. Luckily, Big Bang cosmology does not predict that galaxies should in fact cross voids. As I discussed in my previous argument, the voids and superstrucutres form, not from moving galaxies, but because of initial over and under dense regions - the former which do not undergo gravitational collapse to form structure, and the latter which do. So, voids are not formed by everything moving out of them, but simply because the lower density of matter in them is not conducive to strucutre formation. If you want to watch a nice simulation of structure formation in the early universe, see here [13]. For general information, see here [14]. I do readily admit that the size of some of the large voids doesn't mesh perfectly with expectations, this is an unsolved problem in cosmology.


5. Galaxies should be uniform and Superclusters should not exist

The cosmological principle states not that "Everything everywhere will look the same", but that "One sufficiently large scales, the properties of the universe are independent of viewing position". The scale is far larger than our galaxies, a few hundred Mpc[15][16][17], and even the massive Sloan Great Wall is consistent with it [18]. As to superclusters again and their formation rates, see the rebuttal above for voids.


6. The CMBR temperature is evidence against the Big Bang

Con seems to have been mislead by some either wrong or purposefully disingenous evidence somewhere. The CMB - including the blackbody spectrum, is fantastic evidence for Big Bang cosmology [19][20]. The very reason they were awarded the Nobel Prize con mentions is because their discovery was so profound it elevated the Big Bang to the best cosmological model and disconfirmed many other models [21]. Just take a look at the figure below (notice the staggering 400 sigma error bars - ie the error bars are shown 400 times the size of the actual error) from here [22], and this statement about it from the NASA WMAP website [23]:

"This figure shows the prediction of the Big Bang theory for the energy spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation compared to the observed energy spectrum. The FIRAS experiment measured the spectrum at 34 equally spaced points along the blackbody curve... There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum. The accurate measurement of its shape was another important test of the Big Bang theory."




7. Other theories exist, so my evidence cannot differentiate between them


Many other theories do exist, but essentially all the ones that *do* explain the evidence I presented are simply parametrisations of Big Bang cosmology, not different theories. For example, see the NASA quote from above as to the extent at which non BB models explain the data. For the lazy: "There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum". Fortunately for cosmologists, we can put all the different variants and parametrisations of Big Bang cosmology against each other and compare. Some may match all data. Some may match most but not all. Some are ridiculously bad. And at the end of the day, we can say "This model is preferred". Currently, that model is the Flat LambdaCDM model, as I discussed last argument. For information in how comparisons are done in hypothesis testing, please see this analysis [24], but it effectively comes down to how well the model fits the data (reduced chi squared fit), and how simple the models are (via information criterion tests). The relevant table from the cited paper is shown below, and you can see we have some very good models (Flat cosmo. constant = Flat LambdaCDM), and some very bad models (Flat Chaplygin). Note GoF = Goodness of Fit (Higher is better)







Another Persuasive Argument

A Valid Appeal to Authority

Let us be frank here, and realise that much of what I have presented will be over the heads of those unfamiliar with cosmology. Trying to weigh up evidence and what it means for what theory is probably not the best idea for someone that is uncertain about both what the evidence actually is, and what it means, and this is why we have experts. You go to the doctor when you want to know what is ailing you. You go to a civil engineer when you want construction plans scrutinized, and you go to a cosmologist when you want to know about the history of the universe. All this is saying is that the people best equipped to come to the correct decision are those who know the most about the field, can analyse the data the best, and understand the implications the best. So, even if a person was confused about the Big Bang, the correct course of action would be to ask questions, instead of trying to assert that the Big Bang was incorrect. After all, when doing maths in highschool, if you won't understand the answer, one does not assume it is because mathematics is incorrect, one assumes it is because you lack the necessary knowledge or insight to understand.

To try and drive this point home, imagine a layman disputing Big Bang theory. Which is more likely: that they, without training, have outsmarted the entire field of cosmologists and decades of scientific progress, or that they are not understanding an important concept.


[1] http://www.physlink.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_theorem
[4] http://www.sjsu.edu...
[5] http://www.mathpages.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_theorem#Example_1:_Conservation_of_energy
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://physicsworld.com...
[9] http://arxiv.org...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...(arrow_of_time)#Overview
[11] http://arxiv.org...
[12] http://preposterousuniverse.com...
[13] http://cosmicweb.uchicago.edu...
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org...(astronomy)#Significance_of_Voids
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[16] http://m.teachastronomy.com...
[17] http://sancerre.as.arizona.edu...
[18] http://arxiv.org...
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[20] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[21] http://www.nobelprize.org...
[22] http://quarknet.fnal.gov...
[23] http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[24] http://arxiv.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
Victoria85176

Con

First of all, my sources are fine. You might have found different information but different scientists are going to have different theory's. Answers will vary because were talking about a THEORY, while some of the things were saying are cold hard facts, there are theory's out there as well. One more thing, your using wickipedia so don't even start about my sources being untrustworthy, when on wickipedia anyone can change almost any of the information. Ergo, any and all information that was obtained from wickipedia should be disregarded, because it may not be true (the majority of his arguments did have some reference from wickipedia btw).
Note to Pro- Sorry I'm currently in NJ on vacation, seeing family, bla bla bla. Haven't had much time to post a argument.
Samreay

Pro

Given Con has not given me much to discuss, I will briefly address the points, and then respond to some questions from the comments section.

On Source Validity

Con, AiG and ICR are not different scientists with experience in the field coming to different conclusions, they are groups of people who already believe a conclusion (Biblical literalism) finding anyway, honest or not, to support their conclusion. This is in no way scientific nor credible. Just look at the faith statement from AiG (bottom of this link [1]) where they explicitly claim that any evidence that seems to contradict Scriptural accounts is not valid evidence. There is no scientific investigation here, no testing of hypotheses, just people undergoing massive cognitive bias to try and support their religious views.

The reason I use Wikipedia has two parts. One, it normally provides a good layman explanation of what I am talking about, and secondly, and more importantly, it enables you to follow citations. If, at any point, you disagree with Wikipedia, you just see what reference the information comes from and follow it back to the source. Furthermore, can you and the readers both note that in many cases in my arguments I supply multiple citations, where secondary and ternary citations are outside of Wikipedia so that no one can claim my citation for that claim is not credible. For example, in my last argument, under "The First Law of Thermodynamics...", I give citations [7][8][9], corresponding in order to a Wikipedia entry, a science article from Physics World, and results from a formally published scientific paper on arXiv. I believe this is the best way to cite, as it provides maximum accessibility in terms of level of understanding for all readers, as they can choose which citation to read.


Other Theories

It is all well and good to claim there are other theories out that that explain the same data, but this is a debate and you will need to actually support this claim. What other theories out there support this data which are not parametrisations of Big Bang cosmology? I have already provided a citation from NASA disputing this, so I think the burden is really on your to actually support this claim. Unfortunately, as per your rules, no new content is allowed in the last round of debate, so I think you missed your chance to elaborate.


A lack of rebuttals

I would like to draw the readers attention so far in this debate to the lack of rebuttals my opponent has managed to present. My opponent has not rebutted evidence from element abundances, background radiation power spectrum, large scale structure, expansion rate, CMBR blackbody or my argument from scientific authority at all. In addition to this, I believe I have successfully rebutted every single counter argument Con has provided, showing in each instance why it is based on misunderstanding Big Bang cosmology or a misapplication of physics (such as the conservation laws).


Questions from the comments

From Victoria85176:

1. "What caused the Big Bang?"

We don't know if the BB had a cause, or even if it requires one. Causality, as we know it in physics, is the product of two things: the arrow of time, and interactions via the four fundamental forces. Everything we experience in our world can be reduced down to that level physically. Neither of these conditions would apply to the BB itself, which means we would require a new, unobserved and unsupported type of causal mechanism. On top of that, there are several different theroetical models about the universe around the Plank epoch that explicitly do not require any cause (see the Hartle-Hawking model, heres some good old Wiki [2]). Finally, I should also point out that causality isn't even complete in our observable universe, in that the universe is at least in some way probability and not fully deterministic thanks to the quantum mechanics, where some events are thought to be truly random [3]. Also see radioactive decay is you want more sources.

2. "Where did the universe come from?"

I don't know if that's even a valid question, as it assumes a prior state to the universe from which it can come. Such a state may not exist (ie no multiverse), and so the universe did not come from anything. I avoid saying "The universe came from nothing", because it makes some people think that nothingness is an actual physical state. You may be interested in Vilekin's paper on "Creation of universes from nothing", which investigates quantum tunelling into de Sitter space from no prior state [4].

3. "Did the universe always exist, or did nothingness exist at one time?"

Well, if space and time were created at the BB, it would be accurate to say the universe has existed for all time. That is, you cannot pick any location in space or time in which the universe has not existed. I would also say no, nothingness cannot be treated as a physical state which existed. It's confusing to even talk about nothing existing, especially in the light that it existed nowhere for no time.


From reasondeductively:

1. "Doesn't the extreme heat of the early universe indicate an explosion?"

In this sense an explosion means the rapid expansion of matter in space. The article is saying its not a traditional explosion because it's not the matter expanding due to pressure, it is space itself that is expanding.

2. "What is the mechanism of expansion?"

You are probably wanting the Friedmann equations [5][6], which come directly from GR. In the simplest terms, three things govern expansion: the radiation density, matter density and cosmological constant. Analytic solutions are difficult, but we can take the observed radiation, matter and dark energy density and numerically solve to get a model of the expansion rate of the universe. This page [7] has a simplified diagram of the process. Current evidence indicates we are on the "Constant Dark Energy" tangent.

3. "Are there sources for the BB itself?"

Yes... but there are too many. In that I mean there are many proposed models that deal with the BB itself and the Plank epoch only (and then regualr Big Bang cosmology takes over), but there isn't exactly a concensus yet on what the best model is. You could see Vilikin's paper and the Hartle-Hawking model, or slides 28+ from this presentation by Sean Carroll [8], and that barely scratches the surface, but at the moment this area is highly theoretical.

4. "Thoughts on parallel universes?"

Maybe, maybe not. Reserving judgement until someone figures out a way to test their hypothesis.

5. "How is [this] possible is there was no space prior to the BB?"

That is correct, if we just extrapolate GR backwards. But there are some models about the BB (Hartle-Hawking) in which a spatial but not temporal singularity exists. I think the best answer is to simply say that, according to the only empirically confirmed space-time framework, general relativity, space and time did not exist prior to the BB.

5. [Invented] "How much of BB cosmology is theoretical?"

We can get fairly close to t=0 and have it confirmed with observational cosmology. For example, the element ratios in my first argument are predictions from when the universe was less than three minutes old. Its essentially once we approach t=0, around the Plank epoch, that things become more theoretical and there are many competing ideas. Luckily though, that doesn't effect Big Bang cosmology, which (as you stated) has to do with the evolution of the universe and not its genesis.




Conclusion

Hopefully I have answered the above questions simply enough that it is not confusing, but deeply enough that the answer is at least partially satisfying. It is a hard act to balance. I look forward to my opponents conclusion.






[1] https://answersingenesis.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.technologyreview.com...
[4] http://mukto-mona.net...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
[7] http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com...
[8] http://www.slideshare.net...
Debate Round No. 4
Victoria85176

Con

Victoria85176 forfeited this round.
Samreay

Pro

In this debate I have presented many scientifically sound predictions of Big Bang cosmology and their subsequent confirmation via observation.

I have shown that all my opponents problems with Big Bang cosmology stem from misunderstandings of either what the theory predicts, or basic science.

My opponent has failed to tangibly produce any competing theory that can explain any of the observations I have discussed.

Finally, my arguments are supported with strong science, with numerous references to published and peer reviewed scientific papers, whilst my opponent has cited more than one source from scientifically non-credible sites espousing Biblical literalism.



I hope this debate was informative to the readers, and I encourage anyone to PM/message me if they have any further questions regarding cosmology, I am always happy to talk about a topic I enjoy so much.

Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Thanks for the vote bladerunner060. Were there any predictions I went over that could have been explained better (or just didnt make much sense), that I can improve on next time?
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Victoria, reasondeductively, have tried to answer your questions in my latest argument.
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
Victoria85176
Sorry on vacation (seeing family not really vacation lol) so I will be on vacation until Wednesday. I wont be able to get much done until then. Sorrryyyy :)
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Apologies to those in the comments that had questions I didn't address, I ran out of characters. Hopefully next round.
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
Victoria85176
Uh-huh I started working on my argument last night, I will have it posted within 24 hours! Ta
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Victoria, would it be possible in your rebuttal to include reasondeductively's questions, so that I can respond to them without having to make reference to the comment section? Cheers.
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
Victoria85176
Oh and btw I looked into the multiverse one and that's seems really cool and interesting. Thanks lightningbolt50
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
Victoria85176
I know, that's why I don't believe in the big bang. Just trying to make a point.
Posted by lightingbolt50 2 years ago
lightingbolt50
Victoria, if we had a answer to those questions we'd be sitting with a Nobel prize right now. It's really just some hypotheses that don't have much evidence. Though, there are some really interesting ones out there. Some people think that when a universe expands to far, it creates a "big crunch" that implodes the universe into the tiny ball, creating the big bang, in an infinite loop. Some people think that through the multiverse a "mother universe" can give matter to smaller universes and create their big bang. I'd suggest looking into it.
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
Victoria85176
I read the article you posted about the big bang, and I also have some questions that I eaither cant find in the reading or didn't make much sense to me:
1. What caused the explosion of the big bang? I understand that the universe is still expanding and that the big bang was a explosion OF space and not IN space, but what caused this to happen?
2. Where did this universe come from? In other words, were did all of this mass come from in the universe? I don't understand how something can come from nothing. Do. Not. Say. God. Please.
3. Did the universe always exist, or did nothingness exist at one time?
Thanks SO much for all of your help sameary!!!!! :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
Victoria85176SamreayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Conduct for the forfeit--I almost wonder if it was a concession. Arguments for Pro's failure to properly respond to Pro's case. Sources because, as Pro pointed out, Con's were not accepted scientific sources, but were instead very well known to be biased...Pro's were both more, and more reliable. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.