The Instigator
Spud
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thiest_1998
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Refuting Theist_1998 on Big Bang Cosmogony

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 992 times Debate No: 99457
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Spud

Pro

Right, so Theist_1998 has been ripping arguments from Kent Hovind in regards to the Big Bang theory, and I think it's about time that someone well versed in the talking points of creationists (I'd like to think that I am one of those people) take a problem with Theist_1998's tactics. I told Theist_1998 that he shouldn't use Kent Hovind's arguments in the comment section of a specific debate [1], and yet Theist_1998 is still using Kent Hovind's talking points in a later debate [2]. Theist_1998 has not answered my comments anymore (which is fine, he's not obliged to answer my comments), so I'm challenging him to a debate - I cannot comment on his profile, nor can I send him messages, so setting up the debate is going to be part of this debate.

It is up to Theist_1998 if he wishes for me to argue against the below copy and paste argument which he presents against the Big Bang theory, or to find better arguments. If Theist_1998 chooses to accept this debate, I do recommend that he doesn't use his usual copy and paste argument against the Big Bang, because I can poke holes in every single one of them, whilst simultaneously showing that he plagiarised creationist talking points from Kent Hovind. On the other hand, if Theist_1998 wants me to refute his copy and paste argument that he uses against Big Bang cosmogony, that is fine, and I have no troubles with that, but it's not something I'd personally recommend for him to do.

For ease of access, I will copy and paste Theist_1998's opening argument below:

"The Big Bang is a theory that sounds impressive on the surface, but simply does not hold up to extensive examination.

Here is how the Big Bang is often presented:

Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.

This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says:
"Everything tends towards disorder"

And the list goes on and on about the problems with the big bang theory but I'm sure my opponent shouldn't have any problems answering any of my questions.

Your Turn :)"

Links:

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.debate.org...
Thiest_1998

Con

I would firstly like to inform Spud that I have a life where I have to go to College, football, jogging to keep up my fitness and work on the occasion so if I don't reply to a comment for a few days its because I have priorities.

Let's Begin!!!

"The Big Bang is a theory that sounds impressive on the surface, but simply does not hold up to extensive examination.

Here is how the Big Bang is often presented:

Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.

This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says:
"Everything tends towards disorder"

And the list goes on and on about the problems with the big bang theory but I'm sure my opponent shouldn't have any problems answering any of my questions.

Poke holes in that because nobody has.

btw I haven't watched Dr Kent Hovind since 2016

Your Turn :)"

Where I get my information from: http://www.angelfire.com...

Also you didn't refute my argument by posting it so what did you expect me to do try and refute my own argument thats like Peter Dinklage jumping over Peter Crouch and doing a slam dunk from a standing stalk.
Debate Round No. 1
Spud

Pro

"I would firstly like to inform Spud that I have a life where I have to go to College, football, jogging to keep up my fitness and work on the occasion so if I don't reply to a comment for a few days its because I have priorities."

That is fine. I would ask that there will be no forfeiting however. If you are unable to make a full reply due to stuff in life, please post that you are forfeiting 1 round as an argument, and I will do the same to keep things fair.

I'll take a comment from the end of your argument and put it here:

"Also you didn't refute my argument by posting it so what did you expect me to do try and refute my own argument that's like Peter Dinklage jumping over Peter Crouch and doing a slam dunk from a standing stalk."

The point was to extend an olive branch here. Your copy and paste text is absolute nonsense, so I gave you the opportunity to find better arguments against the Big Bang theory, rather than the usual stuff you do. Unfortunately, you decided to not take my advice and instead want me to refute your plagiarised material. Now of course, I need to state where Con has plagiarised from. Con has given a source, but tracing all of his arguments back to their original source, we get to Kent Hovind (I'm unfortunately well acquainted with Kent Hovind's "arguments" and know them when I see them). Please look to source [1] as to the origin of these arguments - this seminar which Hovind did, occurred in 2001. Throughout this debate, I will be referencing time-stamps on this video to show where these arguments originate from, and their context. It doesn't matter if you haven't watched Hovind since 2016 either; these are where the arguments originated from, despite your source.

So let's get started.

No, it's not actually "usually" presented as that. I've been doing this stuff for 6 years, and nowhere in that expanse of time has the Big Bang been labelled as occurring 18-20 billion years ago. It occurred approx. 14 billion years ago, and even a basic Wikipedia search would be able to tell you this:

"If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe" [2].

Going further than that, please look at source 3 also states the correct age of the universe. Source 4 gives a rough approximation of 12-14 billion years old.

Of course, we need to know where you got this from. Please look @ time-stamp 6:55 of source [1]. As we can see this came from a low-level, outdated text book from 1992 - that was before I was even born. 25 years ago is when this text-book was published. 25 years ago. The information presented in this textbook is incorrect since that age is outdated and thus incorrect. All you had to do was type "What is the age of the Universe" into a Google search bar. That was all you had to do. But unfortunately, you would much rather use extremely outdated information for this.

Moving onto your next statement of a spinning singularity, this comes from the time-stamp of 8:45 of source 1. @8:50 the text is unreadable, but thankfully, good old Hovind made my job easier for me. At the bottom of the page we see this, "The nebula begins to rotate." Since when is a nebula the singularity which started the Big Bang? But it gets worse.

@ 8:55 "As the nebula shrank it spun faster and faster, gradually, the spinning nebula flattened into a huge disk almost 10 billion kilometers across. At the center of the disc a growing protosun, or new sun, began to take shape. As the gas cloud continued to collapse towards its centre, the protosun grew more and more massive. It became denser as well. In time perhaps after many millions of years, gravitational forces caused... Hydrogen in the protosun to fuse and... This fusion gave off energy in the... light. A star - our sun - was born."

The periods in the above quote is where the image of the textbook cuts out the words. However, it's clear that this is discussing a spinning *nebula* and has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. What sort of person confuses the origin of the sun with the origin of the universe? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. Obviously Kent Hovind does.

Another mistake is to think that the Big Bang was an explosion (@ time-stamp 5:33-5:42 of source 1; Kent asks what exploded). It wasn't an explosion. It needs to be pointed out that there is a very real difference between an explosion and an expansion. When talking about the Big Bang, we are not talking about mixing nitric acid with hydrazine. As a hypothetical, let's say that you have a balloon in your hands. You breathe into the balloon and the balloon expands in size, and the speed of which the balloon expands at, decreases as times goes further on (the more you breathe into it, the more breathless you become). Now imagine that you decide to pop the balloon with a pin, which results in the balloon exploding. The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang.

In an explosion, an object which is come into contract with this explosion will be moved away from the explosion. The objects themselves are intrinsically being moved because of the force of the explosion. In an expansion, objects themselves are not being moved intrinsically, but the space between an object and the point of expansion is stretched. There's the difference between an expansion and an explosion [5]. I made up my own analogy based off that source.

As to where the energy came from, Krauss's work on quantum instabilities and virtual particles looks promising (A Universe from Nothing is a good read), but at this point in time, it is not formally reconciled with the Big Bang theory. We don't know what caused it to happen and we don't know about where the gravity came from either. These are hardly "major" problems with the theory; it's just that we don't know everything there is to know prior to the singularity.

The singularity was not spinning; as shown above, that lie was based of Kent Hovind not even being able to correctly read low-level, outdated texts, as he conflated the singularity with a blasted nebula. Subsequently, all of your points about backwards spinning planets, and the law of conservation of angular momentum, is rendered moot. Also, if we look at time-stamp of 14:28 - 16:45 in source [1], Hovind also brings up this conversation of angular momentum nonsense with regards to the moons and planets spinning backwards. Yet you want to claim that you didn't get yoiur arguments from Kent Hovind on this specific issue? Funny that isn't it? Every single one of your points have been from Kent Hovind. Every single one. Doesn't matter if you found a website which repeats talking points from Kent Hovind, the fact remains that the original person who said this nonsense, is in fact Kent Hovind.

This took a lot less time than expected, but I think I'll stop here regardless. We can discuss thermodynamics at a later point in time, as you already have a lot to respond to here, and like I said in the comments, thermodynamics is complex and needs some time to properly address it. We've got a large word count if we need to use it, but I think it's best for the both of us if we keep this debate to a manageable size initially.

Sources:
[1] https://www.youtube.com...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.skyandtelescope.com...
[4] https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[5] https://profmattstrassler.com...
Thiest_1998

Con

I would just like to ask if the website and Dr Hovind words are the same what's the point of going to the video its just taking more time to watch it come up with a reply when instead you could just read the info from the website and reply.

If the big bang happened 18-20 billion years ago what difference does it make, also I wouldn't trust Wikipedia as a source of information because someone who has the wrong information can just log in a edit the text.

Also you're not using my source.

How do you know the age of the universe is 12-14 billion years old you've just attempted to correct me with no justification.

My source doesn't have a time stamp of 6:55 so I have no idea what you're talking about and if the text Dr Hovind gave is unreadable go to my source.

"The periods in the above quote is where the image of the textbook cuts out the words. However, it's clear that this is discussing a spinning *nebula* and has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. What sort of person confuses the origin of the sun with the origin of the universe? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. Obviously Kent Hovind does".

Excuse me you're debating 'me' not Kent Hovind.

You say there's a difference between expansion and explosion hinting that there was no explosion but the going on to say it exploded.

"Now imagine that you decide to pop the balloon with a pin, which results in the balloon exploding. The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang".

Not knowing where the energy came from is like saying a can be built without the necessary materials or workforce the theory just falls flat on its face.

Instead of refereeing me to a book why don't you just state some points.

Again my source doesn't have time stamps.

And since Thermodynamics is a complex and time consuming topic why don't we star it now

Q1. how does the big bang theory come about even though it completely forgets the first law of thermodynamics "matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Q2. And the second law of thermodynamics co-exist with the theory of the big bang theory "Everything tends towards disorder"

So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true.. And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic...

Paul was aware of this when he wrote his letter to the Hebrews:
Everything ".. waxes old like a garment" (quoted in both Psalm 102:25-27, and also Hebrews 1:10-12).

"This verse "anticipates the famous second law of thermodynamics, or law of entropy, indicating that everything in the physical universe is growing old and wearing out. God created everything in the beginning, winding it up like a great clock, so to speak. Because of sin and the curse, however, it has been running down and "perishing" ever since. Jesus also said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away" (literally, "are passing away") (Matthew 24:35)" - Waxing Old, like a Garmet.

Things wear down. Nothing gets better by itself.

If I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in, you would think this was absurd to say the very least.

Yet in essence this is what the Big Bang theory teaches.

So my last question is what is your answer to what I've just said?.
Debate Round No. 2
Spud

Pro

Right, so I'm going to be organising my rebuttals. There is a lot of repetition from you, so to keep my response orderly, I'm having to organise it.

1.1 Con's Source
I made this distinction of going to Kent Hovind, because every single one of your arguments had the tell-tale signs of Kent's stupidity. Therefore, I think it's quite acceptable that I thought you were trying to cover up your tracks by using this source. You have rehashed Kent's baseless nonsense before in previous debates you've had [1], so I thought this was a cut and dry issue of you doing the usual nonsense that you're accustomed to doing, because it falls in line with the stuff you've pulled over the course of your other debates.

I stand corrected however. I went to WayBackMachine and get this [2], which puts the date of this claim to 2000; 1 year before Kent made that notorious seminar. Look to heading 1.3 for my answer to this

1.2 Age of the Universe
It makes a very large difference because you are off the mark by a factor of 4-6 billion years. That is not a small margin of error. But this is what happens when you get this information by sources which are extremely outdated. And your website you are using is extremely outdated. It's also just wrong.

Yes, Wikipedia is unreliable, but it is a good place to start for an introduction to something. And judging by the absolutely mental nature of your own sources, you are in no position to comment on the authenticity of the sources which I have used. You use "Jesus, Dinosaurs and More," as your one and only source for this discussion, yet you have the gall to berate me for using Wikipedia? I don't know if I should be impressed by the balls you just showed, or shake my head in admonition because you don't understand the irony of this situation. However, because Wikipedia can be unreliable, that's why I also backed up the age of the Earth with two other sources; one which gives a correct age, and one that gives a rough estimate. All 3 of those links were nowhere near your outdated age of 18-20 billion years.

As for the justification that the universe is approx. 14 billion years old, please look to below picture of working out using Hubble's Law; I cut out conversions.




1.3 Expansion of the Universe
"You say there's a difference between expansion and explosion hinting that there was no explosion but the going on to say it exploded.

"Now imagine that you decide to pop the balloon with a pin, which results in the balloon exploding. The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang"

That is what you gave as evidence. I'm not going to lie, your incompetence is actually breath-taking. Let's take a look at the *entire* quote shall we? Hint: you left a portion of that quote which implies there's more that that quote.

"It wasn't an explosion. It needs to be pointed out that there is a very real difference between an explosion and an expansion. When talking about the Big Bang, we are not talking about mixing nitric acid with hydrazine. As a hypothetical, let's say that you have a balloon in your hands. You breathe into the balloon and the balloon expands in size, and the speed of which the balloon expands at, decreases as times goes further on (the more you breathe into it, the more breathless you become). Now imagine that you decide to pop the balloon with a pin, which results in the balloon exploding. The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang."

As can be seen in that quote, I gave 2 examples to an analogy which involved a balloon. The first example of the analogy was the balloon expanding. The second example was that the balloon exploded. Now here comes the important bit, which I'll re-quote:

"The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang."

I said former! Former! Not latter; I said former! Which means that I am talking about the *first* example when I'm referring to it as being analogous to the Big Bang. Not only did you decide to quote-mine, but you decided to quote-mine the very person you are having a debate with, and also left in a part of my comment which hints there's more to what I said. Really? Are you kidding me?

1.3 Planets and moons which spin backwards
If we look to source [3], we find the actual original claimant of this - "In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood."-1995. That definitely sounds like a scholarly source, which most certainly isn't biased in the slightest! Yes, that's a joke. As Talk Origins goes over, this claim fails because collisions happen. This isn't a frictionless, perfect environment in which collisions do not occur. Your point is overly simplistic and childish.

1.4 Thermodynamics

As is common with creationist brutalisations, you go for a lay understanding of thermodynamics. "Order" and "disorder" are nebulous in this context. These are terms which are presented in introductions to the subject and do not vindicate what the second law of thermodynamics actually is. The laws of thermodynamics are all about heat, work and entropy. Everything does not tend toward "disorder" according to the second law. Below are what the actual laws of thermodynamics are:





There'll be different ways to lay out those equations, but they"re the same in essence. For instance on page 102 of source [4] the second law is laid out a bit differently.

Where do you get everything tends towards "disorder" from the second law? Case in point, you don't. You lapped this up from some creationist who brutalised thermodynamics. In an isolated system, the total entropy does not decrease. Where entropy is essentially waste energy - which means energy that cannot do work. Your superficial grasp of this topic does not invalidate cosmogony. I'm not even going to bother with your facile tornado either. That's beneath even my level. To give a bit of context, I refute asinine arguments all the time. When I say that something is beneath even my level, you know you're scraping the very bottom of the barrel.

My answer is that you know nothing about what you’re talking about. Look, I think there comes a time where we no longer have the excuse that we don't know any better. And I think you've overstepped that boundary, judging by this debate and your other debates. It's easy to fall prey to creationist pseudo-science (trust me, I should know, I was nearly one), but what we do when faced with irrefutable statements… That is what makes a person. It’s time to face the music; you don’t have to give up your faith; but you have no excuse anymore for being this ignorant about science.

Sources:
[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] https://web.archive.org...
[3] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[4] https://www3.nd.edu...
Thiest_1998

Con

LOL what are you trying to prove if I used Kent Hovind as my source you still can't refute it, you should've called this debate refuting Thiest_1998's source because to me its like that's the only thing you're doing.

Yes it's a good place to star getting the wrong information and I haven't used Jesus or Dinosaurs I would have no reason to and yes I have the gall to berate you, you should be impressed they're quite big in size ;)

And with the picture if you're going to attempt to do the impossible which is prove that the earth is 14-20 billion years old state fact not an equation that nobody reading the debate nor me understands.

1.3 is it your time of the month I have to use yours I'm debating you.

1.3 Planets and moons which spin backwards reply

Well it was a bad one because I'm not laughing and probably nobody else is.
Well yes it is childish I want to explain it in a way that even you can understand.

again I don't understand a bunch of doodling you did in class real facts the second law of thermodynamics is:"Everything tends towards disorder"
Name 5 things that doesn't tend towards disorder

The amount of insults you're trying to throw is unbelievable do you really feel this bad about yourself.

I'm not ignorant I face the facts now my questions to you are.

Now I know that anyone with kids might say that a tornado ripped through their room - but the tornado did not create their room. It only created the mess that is throughout the room. Will the mess ever get cleaned up? Yes, but it will not cleaned up by itself.

Even if millions of years of tornados did somehow randomly land in a complex pattern thus assembling your room, this would still not explain where the trees came from that were made into the lumber.

It would not explain who planted, or cut the trees, or even how the trees grew.

You see, such theories do not give an absolute answer of truth. They only serve to cause people to become distracted and lose sight of the larger picture of the Creator and who God is. Satan is a master of deception and distraction. He wants you to lose sight of Christ, and focus on impossible things.

The Big Bang theory also teaches that in another 80 to 100 billion years, all of the matter that makes up our Earth and solar system will become compressed again, drawing in on itself and fold up once again into a tiny dot.

A Big Bang is said to occur every 80 to 100 billion years.

If the Big Bang theory is true, then I sure hope Jesus comes back soon, otherwise we"re all going to get squished!

As absurd as the "Big Bang" theory is, it is widely accepted because the only other choice is a Divine Creator. And some people will believe the most ridiculous theory, rather than even entertaining the possibility that there could be a Creator.

As I see it, there are only 2 choices.
Either someone created the Earth,
or the Earth created itself..
(despite all the known Laws of Science saying it couldn't have happened this way).

Have fun mate Love you x
Debate Round No. 3
Spud

Pro

Is it really that hard to make sure that your responses are actually in line with my headings? You're all over the place with your reply.

1.1 Con’s Source
“Yes it's a good place to start getting the wrong information and I haven't used Jesus or Dinosaurs I would have no reason to and yes I have the gall to berate you, you should be impressed they're quite big in size ;)”

Yes you have used “Jesus, Dinosaurs and More.” If we look to your source [1] and scroll down, we come across this button called “Main Index.” Click on that button and we are then sent to source [2], which is the home page of the website you are using. Therefore, you are using that website as a source.

1.2 Age of the Universe
“And with the picture if you're going to attempt to do the impossible which is prove that the earth is 14-20 billion years old state fact not an equation that nobody reading the debate nor me understands.”

I would like to think that you’re trolling, but unfortunately I have run out of faith for humanity. I am in no way trying to prove that the Earth is 14-20 billion years old. The Earth is not the universe! The Earth is dated to be 4.5 billion years old via Uranium-Lead dating, and I have not touched on the age of the Earth… Well, that was before you decided to pull this nonsense. I have given sufficient evidence that the universe is approx. 14 billion years old.

1.3 Expansion of the Universe
“The amount of insults you're trying to throw is unbelievable do you really feel this bad about yourself.”

Yes, when you are intentionally disingenuous by quote-mining the person you are debating, your opposition is not likely to treat you respectfully after such a ridiculous display. I would also like to point out that Con has dropped this argument. Hmmm. I wonder why that is? Couldn’t be that you were caught out lying about your opposition’s stance could it? No, it couldn’t be that!

1.4 Backwards spinning planets
Con offered nothing in response to my rebuttal/

1.5 Thermodyamics

“again I don't understand a bunch of doodling you did in class real facts the second law of thermodynamics is: “Everything tends towards disorder"

Then maybe you should understand physics before you decide to talk about it, hey? You do realise that physics is literally nothing but mathematics? You do realise that if you are discussing physics, then having an adequate grasp of mathematics is essential? You were the one who brought up thermodynamics, but you are not even equipped to talk about the subject. I’m not even going to bother with naming “5 things that don’t tend towards disorder.” I have told you that “disorder” and “order” are vacuous in this context; your refusal to admit that is no skin off my nose. Also, I would hardly call physics equations “a bunch of doodling you did in class.”

I would like to point out that Con really hasn’t answered any of my refutations that I put forward in Round 3. He hasn’t offered a repudiation for my comment on backwards spinning planets, he hasn’t accepted culpability for quote-mining me, he shows that he’s in no position to comment on thermodynamics as he doesn’t even understand what the equations are for the second law; not to mention the other 3 laws of thermodynamics and calls these equations “doodles.” I would like Con to actually address my criticisms of him in round 3 and not dodge around the issue.

Sources:
[1] http://www.angelfire.com...
[2] http://dinosaursinthebible.com...


Thiest_1998

Con

Cheeky of you, I ain't quitting.

1.2 Age of the Universe reply
No you haven't you gave a random doodle and tried to make it look like an equation you need to explain it in a way that 'everyone can understand'

1.3 Expansion of the Universe
Drop what out all, you did was insult me.

1.4 Backwards spinning planets
Barley understood what you said didn't you just went on a rant.

1.5 Thermodyamics
Umm you started the debate claiming you can refute my beliefs, again not doodles put it in a way everyone can understand, no I didn't-http://www.bbc.co.uk...
There is a way of explaining equations to people and I showed the equation to a physics professor at my College and he said he has no idea what you wrote down and he studied physics at university you can't argue that.

1.3 Planets and moons which spin backwards round 3 reply
Again it was a rant you don't even have a question mark in that stanza it's a rant if you want me to answer something for you just ask

"5 things that don"t tend towards disorder." answer please
Debate Round No. 4
Spud

Pro

So despite, my recommendation, CXon decided top post a very short reply, as he had 30 mins elft to type up a response, which is not enough time to post something weorthwhile, and we see this exemplified in his argument.

1.1 Con’s Source

Con has dropped this; I have shown conclusively that Con’s source is “Jesus, Dinosaurs and More,” despite Con claiming that he did not use this as a source. As I pointed out before, I find it exceptionally ironic that Con scoffed at the use of Wikipedia, but had the gall to use the source he did.

1.2 Age of the Universe

According to Con, using Hubble’s law is a “random doodle.” Whether or not Con likes to admitr it or not, this is physics, and in physics we use mathematics. Whether that’s the mass-evergy equivalence formula to calculate radioactive decay, or using a simple trajectory formula (d = ut + 1/2at^2) to calculate the speed of an object moving of a cliff, or if it’s using equations to calculate the safest speed to travel around a corner in a moving car etc. I think the point is made here. Physics is all about mathematics, and the best that Con has to offer to the mathematics I have shown is that “it’s just doodles.” Anyone with any respect for mathematics should be more than well aware of just how asinine Con’s stance is.

1.3 Expansion of the Universe

When you quote-mine the very person you are arguing against, it’s rather difficult to maintain a level head in light of your blatant dishonesty. I still see that you have not admitted culpability for your ridiculous decision to quote-mine me. There was something you could do here; you could have admitted that you made a tactical error here and admitted that you were wrong to quote-mine your opposition, But rather than trying to conduct yourself with some sense of dignity, you would much rather hide behind the curtains of “My opponent’s being mean to me!”

1.4 Backwards spinning Planets

This argument ignores that collisions occur – something that does affect the spin of an object. This applies to moons as well. You have no offered any sufficient repudiation to this argument.

1.5 Thermodynamics

Once again, Con shows a complete lack of respect for physics and by extension mathematics. Those equations are not “doodles.” If you took even a high school physics class, you would know how foolish it would be to claim that equations are “doodles.”

Oh, yes. You showed these equations to a physics professor did you? There are 3 options here;

- You’re simply lying (and that’s something you’ve done all throughout this exchange, so I don’t see any reason why I should even believe you – yes, quote-mining me and refusing to acknowledge that you made an error, is a form of lying.)

- Your college presents these equations in a somewhat different fashion and that professor didn’t pick up on it. Something that is unlikely, because whilst there are changes to how those equations are laid out, those changes are minor as I pointed out in Round 3.

- You’ve enrolled in as pseudo-scientific college. Considering your disposition, it wouldn’t surprise me if you enrolled in a college which promotes creationism. If that is the case, the fault lies with you for enrolling in such an institute, and that is why a physics professor there doesn’t know what those equations are.

As for what the laws are:

Zeroth law of thermodynamics – If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.

First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.

Second law of thermodynamics – The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum.

You are talking about a very difficult subject, which is thermodynamics. You cannot expect your superficial understanding of the subject to hold any weight at all; especially if you don’t even know what the equations I presented are. Subsequently, your ridiculous notion that I should present “5 things that don’t tend toward disorder,” is thrown out of the window. I will say this again. Your childish brutalisations of thermodynamics do not constitute a valid argument.

1.6 Conclusion
In conclusion, whilst I did have to admit my fault for wrongly thinking that Con got all of his arguments from Kent Hovind (a mistake I think is justifiable, as his arguments are almost word for word used by Kent Hovind), I think I have done a reasonable job in showing Con's complete lack of understanding about cosmogony. Con has simply dropped arguments from here, without giving any reason why, and I'm quite sure that reason is because Con cannot answer my refutations with any sort of competency. Like many creationists, Con merely repeats creationist brutalisations and struggle to worm their way out of their own failures. Con has not given any competent rebuttal to my refutation of his backwards spinning planets & moons argument, he has not owned up for his quote-mine, has not touched on the fact the Big Bang refers to an expansion and not an explosion, and harps on about his superficial grasp of thermodynamics, and calls mathematics "doodles." I think all of that speaks for itself really. Vote Pro.

Thiest_1998

Con

It was enough time for me I submitted the argument with 7 minutes remaining and I had more than 30 minutes

1.2
Yes I have the gall to accuse someone of using Wikipedia even though I didn't use Wikipedia, now you're using a correct formula but the doodles you did before was just doodle again I showed it to a science professor and he said that was just foolishness but the equation you've given in this round isn't doodle but a bit unrelaveant to the topic, also you have a lot of thrash talk for someone who hasn't proven anything or been right.

1.3 I can assure you I am a very honest lad, I'm not being mean

1.4 just dodging the question again

1.5 Actually I did take Physics classes in secondary school and showed the equations to a "Professor" and he said that its just doodle, I don't know any creationism Colleges in England let alone London and I'm enrolled at Lewisham Southwark College which teaches a whole variety of subjects as well as science I don't think its a pseudo-scientific college.
present "5 things that don"t tend toward disorder," you couldn't answer that so I'm assuming you don't know and you're shying away from the question, look there's nothing wrong by being or not knowing, many people have been like this ever since they've been trying to find evidence for evolution.

Conclusion reply:Thank you for humbling yourself and realising that you're wrong I didn't get my arguments from Kent Hovind and if I did you couldn't refute it anyway, but you didn't prove that, I did answer your arguments you just didn't accept them, everything you're saying I didn't do I actually did and what you wrote down was doodles but what you typed in this round was actual equations but not relevant ones seriously are you running for presidency or something I can't believe you actually come on this website to trash talk put random doodles in your arguments and ask for votes just to boost your ego LOL get a life mate.

My conclusion I think Pro didn't put up much of a fight he doodles dodges questions and asks for votes.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thiest_1998 11 months ago
Thiest_1998
I felt like I shouldn't have replied
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Spud
@Theist_1998 Because if you had forfeited, this debate wouldn't have gone into the voting session. And with the amount of effort I put into this, this debate not going into the voting period would have annoyed me.
Posted by Thiest_1998 11 months ago
Thiest_1998
Why would you be
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Spud
You have 3 hours Theist_1998. If you forfeit Round 5, I will be legitimately annoyed.
Posted by Thiest_1998 11 months ago
Thiest_1998
Enjoy :)
Posted by Thiest_1998 11 months ago
Thiest_1998
You made me chuckle
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Spud
10 mins left dude. Highly recommend you post that you are forfeiting round 4, and I'll post that I'll forfeit round 5.
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Spud
I see you're online right now Theist 1998. You have 30 mins to post. If you cannot post in round 4, please post an argument saying you'll forfeit round 4. Out of fairness, I will forfeit my round 5 and you can post your summary in your final round.
Posted by Spud 11 months ago
Spud
"In an isolated system, the total entropy does not decrease. Where entropy is essentially waste energy - which means energy that cannot do work."

I made a small mistake here; I should have stated that I am referring to applicability of the second law. That is essentially what the second law of thermodynamics means in a nutshell.
Posted by Thiest_1998 11 months ago
Thiest_1998
Doesn't matter if it originated from Kent Hovind use the source in fact the person who made the website and did the research is Henry Morris, Ph.D. it says it on the website.
No votes have been placed for this debate.