The Instigator
jdog2016
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
jtg007
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

RESOLVED: The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 7 votes the winner is...
jtg007
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,229 times Debate No: 32265
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

jdog2016

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance ONLY. Thank you.

I believe that the big bang created the universe.
jtg007

Con

I accept this debate and look forward to some good arguments. Please be sure to define terms in your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
jdog2016

Pro

ev·o·lu·tion: Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation,
natural selection,and genetic drift.

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion: Evolutionary change over a short period.

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion: Major evolutionary change.



The word evolution can mean either established fact, and to the theoretical model explaining observations in terms of what we know about that fact. Evolution, the fact, refers to the observed phenomenon of the changing of allele frequencies in populations. Evolution, the theory, refers to the theory that evolution (the fact) is a result of reproductive variation, and is mediated by differential reproductive success (natural selection) to produce new forms.

Far to many people out there who haven't studied the "theory of evolution" simply says that evolution has happened. That's why creationists say "It's just a theory" and why people who accept evolution but don't really understand it say "The theory of evolution has been proven!" That's not what the theory of evolution says at all. To sort this mess out, we need to take a look at the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory".

So is evolution! We have observed evolution, both in the laboratory and in nature. Now some people who don't want evolution to be true will tell you that we haven't ever observed evolution, or that we've only seen microevolution (not macroevolution). These people are wrong. There's really no other way to say it. They want you to think that microevolution and macroevolution are somehow two different things, and that one can happen while the other can't. They don't want you to know that micro- and macroevolution are just two different ways of looking at the SAME THING. Beware creationist lies.

A scientific theory is quite different from a fact. A theory doesn't say THAT something happens, but attempts to explain HOW something happens. For example, the theory of gravity doesn't say THAT gravity happens, but attempts to explain HOW gravity happens.

The theory of evolution does not say THAT evolution happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution happens.To many people who haven't studied evolution, the "theory of evolution" simply says that evolution has happened. That's why creationists say "It's just a theory" and why people who accept evolution but don't really understand it say "The theory of evolution has been proven!" That's not what the theory of evolution says at all. To sort this mess out, we need to take a look at the scientific definitions of "fact" and "theory".

In science, a fact is simply a data point; something that has been observed and catalogued. For example, you could say that gravity is a fact because when you let something go, you can observe it falling to the ground. If the object is acting under the influence of gravity alone, it falls to the ground every single time.

The theory of evolution does not say THAT evolution happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution happens.

Can a theory ever be proven? No. Unfortunately, many people think that the reality of evolution means the theory has been proven. That's not the case. The explanation about HOW evolution occurs can never be proven, just as NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY CAN BE PROVEN! You can accumulate evidence to support a particular theory, but there must always be the possibility of falsification. The theory of evolution could be falsified if we found some example of evolution that is not occurring in the way that we think it does. Again, even if the THEORY were falsified, that doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening. It just means we're back to the drawing board to figure out HOW.
jtg007

Con

My opponent, apparently, accidentally posted the wrong arguments. I'm a fair player and will burn this turn. Let this round be ignored by scorers.
Debate Round No. 2
jdog2016

Pro

I apologize for that.



Bearing in mind that it is ascientific theory as opposed to ahypothesis, the Big Bang idea is called a theory because it has met all challenges and withstood them, fits all evidence and explains the phenomenon in question quite easily. It is as real as anything can be.

As for all the religious folk out there who believe that God alone created the universe, I completely respect you. And I agree with you. However I believe that God made the big band happen one way or another. Lets not get too off track however. I don't want to start debating about how the Big Bang happened, only whether or not it happened at all. (I obviously believe it did).


jtg007

Con

Before I even start: As the challenger AND the one claiming something that about 144 million Americans [1] don't believe, you have the entire BoP. And as such you cannot resort to claiming that the Big Bang is a theory that could have happened, you have to prove that it happened. And I think that it will be difficult when it is a) not observable and b) not repeatable. "It is as real as anything can be" is not a valid conclusion to a theory.

I'm a little confused as to your thesis here. Your title states that "The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec." You later state that you believe that God made the "Big Band" (I think you meant the "Big Bang"), in which case it would logically followed that God created the universe which is contrary to your own thesis. There is a huge difference between the Big Bang "Happening" (Round 3), the Big Bang "Creating the Universe" (Round 1), and the Big Bang creating the universe "As opposed to God...".

You call this YouTube video to the witness stand, made by some guy. This guy has three points:

1. The universe is expanding, so it must have started out as a point which means that the Big Band happened.

Let's suppose I have a baloon. And, when it is deflated, I put a bunch of little star stickers on it. You probably know where this is going. If I inflate the ballon, with stars, when you aren't looking, and then I let you in the room and allow you to watch while I continue to inflate it, you will see all the little stars getting further and further apart. You say, "Wow! Look at them getting further and further apart! If I rewind time, they will get closer and closer to a point. There must have been a huge explosion that caused all this!"

Your YouTube guy states that "The only logical explanation is that there was one massive explosion..." which is totally false. There could exist the logical explanation that God is blowing up the baloon. This does not prove the Big Bang's occurence.

2. There is isotropic radiation found all over the place, which means that the Big Bang happened.

You YouTube guy doesn't even explain this point. He just says that there is isotropic radiation, and that this means the Big Bang happened. Oh, and it's like a jigsaw puzzle. Somehow.

3. The huge abundance of lighter elements means that all matter started out very hot which means that the Big Bang happened.

There couldn't possibly exist the plausible explanation of God creating the elements in their current proportions.

All that you effectivley prove is the the Big Bang COULD have happened, and that if it did it would explain some things that we see today, but you do absolutely nothing about actually showing that it did or refuting alternative possibilities.

Sources
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
Debate Round No. 3
jdog2016

Pro

"Your YouTube guy states that "The only logical explanation is that there was one massive explosion..." which is totally false. There could exist the logical explanation that God is blowing up the balloon. This does not prove the Big Bang's occurence." (spelled OCCURRENCE wrong FYI)



So you are trying to argue that God blew up a giant balloon and that that is a more logical explanation than the big bang?
I might be one of few, however I find that hardly plausible.



"I'm a little confused as to your thesis here. Your title states that "The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec." You later state that you believe that God made the "Big Band" (I think you meant the "Big Bang"), in which case it would logically followed that God created the universe which is contrary to your own thesis."


I do not think that God created the universe, I simply believe that he created the big bang, which in turn led to the creation of the universe. I apologize if you had difficulties understanding my position.


"Before I even start: As the challenger AND the one claiming something that about 144 million Americans [1] don't believe, you have the entire BoP. And as such you cannot resort to claiming that the Big Bang is a theory that couldhave happened, you have to prove that it happened. And I think that it will be difficult when it is a) not observable and b) not repeatable. "It is as real as anything can be" is not a valid conclusion to a theory."


My friend, do you know exactly what a theory is? It seems as though many people such as yourself seem confused as to what it stands for.

the·o·ry
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

A theory is something that comes only after a fact is discovered. A theory is used to explain WHY that fact happens, not prove the fact. The fact itself has already been proven. For example, the THEORY of evolution, or natural selection. Evolution is a fact. (Though some people may refuse to accept it). The THEORY of evolution is what explains how evolution its self works.

Since it is called the big bang THEORY, it is inevitably a fact.

jtg007

Con

My understanding of your argument is that because the Big Bang is a Theory, it is therefore fact.

Let's examine some statements that you have made previously, even though they didn't actually pertain to this argument. In round two you mistook this debate for a different one and gave a very nice dissertation on the difference between "Theory" and "Fact," thinking that it was your evolution debate. Let's examine some things that you said.

"A scientific theory is quite different from a fact. A theory doesn't say THAT something happens, but attempts to explain HOW something happens."

"Can a theory ever be proven? No."

"NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY CAN BE PROVEN!"

"The theory of evolution [or the Big Bang] does not say THAT evolution [or the Big Bang] happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution [or the Big Bang] happens.To many people who haven't studied evolution [or the Big Bang], the "theory of evolution"[or "the Theory of the Big Bang] simply says that evolution [or the Big Bang] has happened."

I couldn't agree with you more. And yet your point on a completely parallel subject [the Big Bang] is that since the theory exists, it MUST then be a true fact and therefore proven. You are deluded.
Debate Round No. 4
jdog2016

Pro

Up until 1924, all scientists believed that the universe was static, and infinite. In other words, they believed that the universe was infinite, and that it has always been here, and that it always will be. Even Einstein's calculations supported this theory. Also, scientist in that time believed that the universe only consisted of one galaxy, (Milky Way) and that the other lights out in space were only stars and nebula's.

However, in 1929 Edwin Hubbleinvented the Hooker telescope. Because all other telescopes during that time were not very good at that time, this was a big invention. This telescope also had a 100 inch diameter(bigger than any telescopes at that time as well). Anyhow, this telescope could see things that scientists had not known even existed before. When Hubble looked though the telescope, he saw that there were in fact other galaxies in the universe.( Later he discovered there were billions of other galaxies). This of course changed everything in the astronomers community.

It was not until the end of that year that he started making recordings of the outside galaxies. After months of studies, he noticed that all the galaxies were actually moving away from each other at a rate of 71 kilometers per second.


There are billions of galaxies in the universe, as stated before. Our milky way is surrounded in all directions by millions of them. Therefore if space was not expanding, it would be impossible for any galaxy(including our own) to move away from one another. For example, if I(galaxy) were to go to a music concert, and was surrounded in every single direction by a huge crowd(other galaxies), I could move away from some people, however that would only bring me closer to the people on the other side of me.

However if the room that me(Galaxy) and the huge crowd(Other Galaxies) were in started to expand in all directions(obviously not possible, this is just an analogy to help you understand), the floor of the building would get bigger, inevitably pulling each person away from the next. Continue doing this for 13 billion years, and you will have a room so big that each person(galaxy) whom used to be in the crowd would now be millions of light years away from each other.

The big bang works in exactly the same way.


"The theory of evolution [or the Big Bang] does not say THAT evolution [or the Big Bang] happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution [or the Big Bang] happens.To many people who haven't studied evolution [or the Big Bang], the "theory of evolution"[or "the Theory of the Big Bang] simply says that evolution [or the Big Bang] has happened."

By saying this I did not imply that I do not believe the Big Bang happened. I merely stated that most people make judgments about things they know nothing about. I am sorry if you had trouble understanding.


--It has been a pleasure--
JDoG

jtg007

Con

There is no misunderstanding of your point about galaxies expanding. My point was that this fact does not conclusively prove that the universe started out as a point (which you claimed earlier, through the video, but now deny).

Also, nobody is claiming that the Big Bang is the same as Evolution, as you7 imply in your comment. My point was very obviously an analogy of two theories that are similar in structure - that is, they are supported by the same kinds of evidence.

You have failed to refute ANY of my points, all of which still stand. I have refuted ALL of your points.

The Big Band Theory cannot be proven.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Reni-1_3 4 years ago
Reni-1_3
The Big Bang may not be able to be proved a definite happening in time, but the fact that the universe is expanding is a provable "current happening" even if it is at a slow rate. And the only way the universe can be expanding is if it was thrown with a force similar to or exactly like the Big Bang. I'm just glad the Big Bang happened, and life exists, I mean, what would it be like if there were no life forms such as ourselves? I've always wondered that.
Posted by glassplotful 4 years ago
glassplotful
Sorry - I forgot to answer your question directly.

Do I think the BBT can be proven?

Proven to be an absolute fact? No. Not in this current day and age.

Proven to be a reliable theory? Yes.
Posted by glassplotful 4 years ago
glassplotful
As a theory, I accept the Big Bang model, considering the substantial amount of evidence it has in its favor. However, I believe it is too early to claim it as fact, and it may never be established as an indisputable truth because we can never directly observe it.

This is in contrast to Evolution which we can directly observe, even now. I agree with the Big Bang theory, I just wouldn't go so far as to call it an absolute fact. It is certainly a very compelling theory with a large body of evidence.
Posted by jtg007 4 years ago
jtg007
That's right, glassplotful. Also, if we were to "rewind time," since the universe is accelerating its expansion, the backwards replay would be decelerating, meaning that we aren't sure whether it would ever make it back to a point before it came to a stop.

Incidentally, do you think that the BBT can be proven?
Posted by glassplotful 4 years ago
glassplotful
"there is an imaginary damn in front of the point at which the big bang happened"

This is not an accurate analogy since the Big Bang theory does not imply that the universe was ever point-like. Which credible scientists are claiming this?

"later on the pressure would decrease, until the space coming out of the point is now a steady, calm flow. causing space to expand at a constant rate(71 kilo/sec)"

The universe is not expanding at a constant rate. Rather, the rate of expansion is increasing, such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from us should be continuously increasing with time.
Posted by jdog2016 4 years ago
jdog2016
I don't even know what erroneous means lol xD

Good debate jtg007
Posted by jtg007 4 years ago
jtg007
You still don't get it.

Nobody is arguing what the Big Bang is. Nobody is even discussing evidence anymore.
The argument is centered on whether or not the Big Bang can be PROVED. jdog is claiming that since it is a Theory, it must be fact, which is totally and completely erroneous.
Posted by jdog2016 4 years ago
jdog2016
glassplotful that is exactly what i am trying to say. I don't think the big bang threw matter in to already existing space. I know that the big bang created time and space, as well as matter to go into the space. That is why I argued that space is expanding from the initial singular point at which all space and time not blew up, but expanded from. A lot of people think the Big Bang was actually a BANG. It wasn't really. Think of it like this. There is an imaginary damn in front of the point at which the big bang happened. When that damn is released, large amounts of pressure would initially burst from the point. However, later on the pressure would decrease, until the space coming out of the point is now a steady, calm flow. Causing space to expand at a constant rate(71 kilo/sec)
Posted by jdog2016 4 years ago
jdog2016
jtg007 your last argument was very ignorant
Posted by glassplotful 4 years ago
glassplotful
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the Big Bang theory on both sides.

The Big Bang theory is not about the origin of the universe. No credible scientist is claiming this. This is an assertion usually propagated by the mainstream media. The primary focus of the Big Bang theory is the development of the universe with relation to time.

The Big Bang theory does not imply that the universe was ever 'point-like'- rather, it argues that at some distant time in the past, the universe itself expanded from a hot, dense state into a cooler, more expansive state.

The Big Bang theory does not say that the universe came about as an explosion of matter into already existing space.

The theory of Evolution and the Big Bang are not synonymous. Evolution does not describe the origin of life, and neither does the Big Bang. Both focus on the development of something over time.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by campbellp10 4 years ago
campbellp10
jdog2016jtg007Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro defeated his own proposition. Either Pro is severely confused with logic, or he was intentionally misleading with the resolution. Either way, Pro loses conduct and argument points. By claiming that God created the big bang, and that the big bang created the universe, you are logically concluding that God created the universe via hypothetical syllogism. If P-->Q and If Q-->R, then If P-->R. It called logic, deal with it.
Vote Placed by SavedByChrist94 4 years ago
SavedByChrist94
jdog2016jtg007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: What caused The Big Bang? Nothing? Sorry Scientifically Nothing causes, Nothing, therefore Cause is Immaterial, The Cause of The Big Bang is The First Uncaused cause and is Immaterial. The First Uncaused Cause, has no cause. There are only 2 types of causes, Purposeful or Accidental, Intent or Mindless, Accidental/Mindless causes require a Prior Mover/Cause, The First Uncaused Cause has no Prior Mover/Cause, therefore Caused on Purpose, therefore is Mind, therefore YHWH(The Father, and The Son, and The Holy Spirit) is God and God who is YHWH exists. Also Pro has Equality sign, I suggest you become a Christian, as Christianity Supports Homosexuality, not "atheism", Read my Blog, SavedByChrist94 Presents True Christianity http://savedbychrist94.blogspot.com
Vote Placed by TheSophisticatedIncumbent 4 years ago
TheSophisticatedIncumbent
jdog2016jtg007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: ?
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 4 years ago
Misterscruffles
jdog2016jtg007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to meet the BOP as he set it by his phrasing of the proposition.
Vote Placed by Gondun 4 years ago
Gondun
jdog2016jtg007Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con was correct when he said that the BoP was on Pro. I do not think that Pro gave adequate reason to believe that the Big Bang was the creation of the universe. Just saying that it is already a theory is not a good argument. Also, I do not consider You Tube videos a reliable source, so that goes to Con. The second video the Pro used is actually against his point if you watch from 8:30 to the end.
Vote Placed by TN05 4 years ago
TN05
jdog2016jtg007Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: If I want to kill someone, there are a number of methods I can use. I could shoot them, stab them, etc. Regardless of method chosen, it would be improper to say that I used the knife to kill him, but I didn't kill him. Simply put, this is much of Pro's argument with the Big Bang - God created the Big Band, which created the universe, so God didn't create the universe. Logically, the answer would be God did create it - indirectly. Con wins because he established Pro's contradiction and firmly established the burden of proof on Pro, who apparently confused 'theory' with 'fact'. The closest thing to 'fact' in science is a 'law', not a 'theory'. All Con needed to do was prove that we either don't know conclusively what created the universe; Pro failed to prove conclusively that it did.
Vote Placed by nathanknickerbocker.9 4 years ago
nathanknickerbocker.9
jdog2016jtg007Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10