The Instigator
Leo.Messi
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
400spartans
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Is the "Big bang" true?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Leo.Messi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 599 times Debate No: 67329
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Leo.Messi

Con

The Big Bang is not TRUE.

It is unreasonable-as I will argue in this debate.

I will define our terms:

The Big Bang: The model postulates that at some moment all of space was contained in a single point from which the universe has been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.[2] After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial conditions of the universe; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on.

True:exact; precise; accurate; correct:

There will be four rounds, but the first argument is acceptance.

All other arguments are your choice (on how to organize them, display etc)

Please be civilized in conduct.
400spartans

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Leo.Messi

Con

Here are my arguments.

I. What science has really proven to us.

What have we observed from the world around us about explosions? Two things.
a) Explosions must be set off by something or someone
b) Explosions do NOT create, they destroy...
Explained.The big theory is an accepted theory by many today. The Big bang was an explosion that supposedly created all the matter in the universe etc. However, what have we seen from explosions created today? They do not create matter, they decimate the structure of an object and sometimes (Nuclear) SPLIT the very atoms.
I. Nuclear bomb effects.
"When a nuclear weapon is detonated on or near Earth's surface, the blast digs out a large crater. Some of the material that used in be in the crater is deposited on the rim of the crater; the rest is carried up into the air and returns to Earth as radioactive fallout. An explosion that is farther above the Earth's surface than the radius of the fireball does not dig a crater and produces negligible immediate fallout. For the most part, a nuclear blast kills people by indirect means rather than by direct pressure." --http://www.atomicarchive.com...

A nuclear bomb effects matter, causing a crater. many nuclear explosions split atoms apart.

II. Bomb effects.
Bombs blows up structures (9/11, construction, etc.) mountains (Railroads) and other objects.

As we can see from these examples-Explosions do NOT create matter, they destroy the structure of matter and in some cases split atoms. This evidence we see from on hand information, tests, and data confirm that explosions do NOT create matter. So why should a giant explosion have created matter 7,800,000,000 years ago? If explosions destroy today, why should they have created long ago? Simple answer-they don't.

II. Other problems.
"The present crisis in Big Bang cosmologies began in 1986, when R. Brent Tully, of the University of Hawaii, showed that there were ribbons of superclusters of galaxies 300 million light-years long and 100 million light-years thick, stretching out about a billion light-years, and separated by voids about 300 million light-years across.[1] These structures are much too big for the Big Bang theory to produce. At the speeds at which galaxies are supposed to be moving, it would require 80 billion years to create such a huge complex, but the age of the universe is supposed to be somewhere between 10 and 20 billion years.'

"In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long.[2] A team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers, it is reported, discovered even larger structures.[3] They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretched across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology."---http://www.icr.org...

"Missing shadow of the big bang: As reported in Science Daily, University of Alabama at Huntsville scientist Dr. Richard Lieu concludes, "Either... the Big Bang is blown away or ... there is something else going on'." The Astrophysical Journal reported on a "vital test of the present cosmological paradigm" i.e., the big bang, that "taken at face value, one may even hold the opinion that there is in fact no strong evidence" for the long-predicted shadow of the CMB from behind 31 nearby galaxy clusters, "beyond the usual primary CMB... variations". As with dozens of some of the most careful and extensive observations ever made in the history of science, the missing shadow is yet another failure, not of an incidental off-the-cuff prediction but of a fundamental requirement of the big bang."--- http://kgov.com...

"The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: As is true also with dozens of the greatest observations in the history of physics and astronomy, consider that the extraordinary fine tuning of the cosmos is not a prediction of the big bang model. The many finely tuned parameters of the cosmos together form perhaps the greatest scientific insight and discovery ever made. And yet to the big bang theory, fine tuning is a massive anomaly, leaving those who believe in it to attempt to explain away, with extremely wild secondary assumptions, the mathematical beauty and precision of the creation. To begin with, Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe," and include the wildly unlikely combination of:
- the electron to proton ratio standard deviation of 1 to 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 0s)
- the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe
- the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) perfect for forming molecules
- the electromagnetic and gravitational forces finely tuned for the stability of stars
- the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency
- the electromagnetic force constant perfect for holding electrons to nuclei
- the electromagnetic force in the right ratio to the nuclear force
- the strong force (which if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements)"
---http://kgov.com...

"* The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Earth include:
- the Earth's just-right ozone layer filters out ultraviolet radiation and helps mitigate temperature swings
- the Earth's surface gravity strength preventing the atmosphere from losing water to space too rapidly
- the Earth's spin rate on its axis provides for a range of day and nighttime temperatures to allow life to thrive
- the atmosphere's composition (just right oxygen-nitrogen ratio, etc.)
- the atmosphere's pressure enables our lungs to function and water to evaporate at an optimal rate to support life
- the atmosphere's transparency to allow an optimal range of life-giving solar radiation to reach the surface
- the unique abilities of the carbon atom enables carbon-based lifeforms
- the atmosphere's capacity to hold water vapor providing for stable temperature and rainfall ranges
- life-giving photosynthesis dependence on quantum physics as reported in the journal PNAS
- no species metabolizes cellulose, thus preventing runaway consumption of all plant life
- the water cycle is phenomenally harmonious
- the water molecule's astounding robustness results from finely balanced quantum effects. As reported by New Scientist, "Water's life-giving properties exist on a knife-edge. It turns out that life as we know it relies on a fortuitous, but incredibly delicate, balance of quantum forces. ... We are used to the idea that the cosmos' physical constraints are fine-tuned for life. Now it seems water's quantum forces can be added to this 'just right' list."
- water is an unrivaled solvent; its low viscosity permits the tiniest blood vessels; its high specific heat stabilizes biosphere temperatures; its low thermal conductivity as a solid insulates frozen-over lakes and as a liquid its high conductivity lets organisms distribute heat; its an efficient lubricant; is only mildly reactive; has an anomalous (fish-saving) expansion when it freezes; its high vapor tension keeps moisture in the atmosphere; and it tastes great too!
- etc."

All this from an explosion of matter?
No. The Big Bang is very unlikely.

Good luck on your arguments!

http://kgov.com...
http://www.icr.org...
Wikipedia/nuclearweaponeffects
400spartans

Pro

1. Nuclear bomb effects

The big bang was a rapid expansion of the universe, NOT an explosion. This allowed protons and neutrons to form, which it couldn't before the big bang.

2. Other problems

A. Big Structures

These arguments are actually disregarding dark matter. Dark matter is this matter found in galaxies, making them heavier than they would be. This also accounts for faster movement in galaxies and bigger things, like the "Great Wall".

B. Finely Tuned Parameters of the universe

This is much like finely tuned parameters of earth. The reason is that there are multiple "Earths" and Universes. It is like this.

A poker player plays poker thousands of times and finally gets a royal flush. This is not finely tuned parameters, it's just chance. Out of those thousands of times, there is almost guaranteed to be at least one royal flush. Same with your finely tuned parameters of the earth and universe.

Sources

1:
http://www.livescience.com...
http://profmattstrassler.com...
http://www.science20.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Leo.Messi

Con

Counter-Arguments:

"The big bang was a rapid expansion of the universe, NOT an explosion."
On the contrary,
"This explosion is known as the Big Bang"---http://www.umich.edu...

"This extremely dense point (the Big Bang) exploded with unimaginable force"---http://www.exploratorium.edu...

"This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion" (the big bang)---http://www.bbc.co.uk...

"Then it suddenly exploded. The Universe that we know was born".----http://www.esa.int...

"The theory that all matter in the universe was created from a gigantic explosion called the "big bang"---
http://www.encyclopedia.com...

"an explosion known as the Big Bang"---http://www.factmonster.com...

"It all started with an explosion known as the Big Bang (BB)."---http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com...

The big bang WAS an explosion. And so my argument still stands.

"A poker player plays poker thousands of times and finally gets a royal flush. This is not finely tuned parameters, it's just chance. Out of those thousands of times, there is almost guaranteed to be at least one royal flush. Same with your finely tuned parameters of the earth and universe."

I do not see what a poker player has to do with earths fine parameters. The chance of this (royal flush) is 4/2,598,980 (actually 2,598 if you do the math)
---en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability, While the chance of Earth's fine parameters is near impossible. 2,598 is nowhere close to the probability of Earths fine parameters. There are many more variables than a few cards to consider in Earths parameters. You have Earths perfect axis, perfect space away form the sun (not to hot or cold), perfect amount of oxygen and carbon di-oxide, and the list goes on. If ONE of these things where JUST BARELY off, humans could not survive on this planet. This is way different from a card game, So they really are not worth comparing.
Thanks for the debate!

I will present my other arguments in the final round.
Thanks!
400spartans

Pro

1. Explosions

I think the confusion here is that we are using different definitions of Big Bang. You are defining it as an explosion IN space, while I'm defining it as an explosion OF space. Given that the Big Bang made space and time itself, there is no way that the Big Bang was an explosion IN space. Rather, it had to be an explosion OF space.

2. Finely Tuned Parameters of the universe

Con here is ignoring the whole point of my argument. What I am saying is that there must be multiple Earths and Universes, each with their own parameters. Sure, the chances are almost infinitesimal that life will start on one single planet in one single universe, but given all of those Earths and Universes, the chances that at least one Earth in one Universe has life is almost 100%.

It's probably time I presented my arguments:

1. CMBR

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is thermal radiation made by the Big Bang. It shows the "imprint" of radiation from the Big Bang about 380 thousand years after, due to the radiation from then not being able to be absorbed by newly forming neutral atoms. Thus, CMBR was made.

2. Expansion

To put a long story short, galaxies seem to be moving away from Earth. This is one of the most basic evidences for the Big Bang. If we turned the clock back, everything would move closer together into one single point called the singularity. The time when this singularity expanded is called the Big Bang.
Debate Round No. 3
Leo.Messi

Con

I would ask my opponent to cite his sources next time please.
Counter Arguments:
"Rather, it had to be an explosion OF space."
Empty Space cannot create matter my friend. And an explosion OF space is still an explosion. It would not create, it would destroy.

"Con here is ignoring the whole point of my argument. What I am saying is that there must be multiple Earths and Universes, each with their own parameters. Sure, the chances are almost infinitesimal that life will start on one single planet in one single universe, but given all of those Earths and Universes, the chances that at least one Earth in one Universe has life is almost 100%."
There must be multiple Earths? First, you lack the evidence to support this. There is no proof of another Earth!
Second, the chance of there being one earth is close to nil! simply put, Earth could not have exploded into existence.
The chances are, I repeat close to nil! The chance of there being two Earths are even closer to zero! And the chance of multiple Earths is so near impossible I would waste my characters writing it.

"1. CMBR

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is thermal radiation made by the Big Bang. It shows the "imprint" of radiation from the Big Bang about 380 thousand years after, due to the radiation from then not being able to be absorbed by newly forming neutral atoms. Thus, CMBR was made."

First the big bang came from nothingness. Nothingness cannot make radiation, it must be caused by atoms. And nothingness cannot make atoms via explosion as I have explained previously time and time again, Explosions do NOT create matter. So there would be no matter for the radiation to act on.
So I honestly don't see how some microwave radiation would ever support this idea.

Sorry I have to cut this argument short, but I am very busy (holiday stuff)
But you gave a very good argument and I enjoyed this debate.
Good luck and Merry Christmas/ Happy New Year!

http://www.mayoclinic.org...
(other sources are in my previous round)
400spartans

Pro

400spartans forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
great debate, i congratulate both you and your arguments. Excellent job.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Just as there was a beginning to our universe, there will be an end as well.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
L. Ron Hubbard pointed out in his BASIC 1950 book on Dianetics
that Absolutes have to be considered logically unobtainable.
There can't be any such thing as a single point, so all of space couldn't fit into it.
Albert Einstein stated that the universe is Finite, but Unbounded.
It had no beginning, & will have no ending.
There couldn't have been any "Big Bang" .
Quantum Physics (the Young Experiment) shows that particles cannot exist.
It's Energy Waves, Interference (Probability) Patterns.
Posted by chewster911 2 years ago
chewster911
I would accept this, but you have to realize nothing in our universe is precise, 100% correct. If you are arguing against the Big Bang, I could present evidence for it, but then we would have to be using a different definition. like "the body of true statements and propositions", for example.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
Leo.Messi400spartansTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's explosion argument was effective, and despite Pro returning the bang with strong, concise counter-arguments, Con continued to explode with re-rebuttals. Con also draws enough queries about the CMBR, and whilst not correcting with the correct answer to his questions, still drew enough doubt about the phenomenon in regards to the Big Bang. The expansion point was not contested by Con, but I don't think it hurts Con's case enough to reverse the outcome of the debate (constant expanding is a result of the supposed Big Bang, not necessarily proving that it happened). So, I award Con arguments. I'm tieing sources because I thought they were, overall, strong and helped the debate. I'm giving conduct to Con for Pro's last round forfeit. Had Pro answered in the final round, this debate might have gone the other way.