The Instigator
Muted
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points
The Contender
iamladygaga
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Muted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 951 times Debate No: 26677
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Muted

Con

This debate is about the Big Bang Theory. Anyone who accepts this debate agrees to the following:
1. No trolling
2. No semantics, other than in the case of clarifying technical terms with credible sources
3. The BoP will be shared
4. The debate will not sidetrack off-topic
6. Arguments will be intelligent, logical, and data-based.
7. All arguments will be text-based
8. All arguments will cite reference first-hand. Shrinking links, sources, etc. by any means, such as tinyurl, creating a file with links within is not accepted.
9. Forfeiting equals a 7 point to the opponent.
10. No plagiarism. Any arguments must be properly cited or be original

Base definitions: Big Bang Theory
The widely held belief that the Universe began in a fiery explosion, 10-15 billion years ago. The cosmic microwave background, big bang nucleosynthesis, and the observed Hubble expansion of the Universe are considered proof of the big bang theory. [1]

I expect the acceptor to be literate in science and its definition, hence I will not define it here.

I have made the debate generally unacceptable for now. Comment or pm me to let me know if you want to debate.
(For Stephan_Hawkins)

1. http://cfpa.berkeley.edu...; http://cfpa.berkeley.edu... (This is for more information)
iamladygaga

Pro

State your case young one.
Debate Round No. 1
Muted

Con

I will advocate no other model. Once I have referenced something, I will not do so again. I will not go too much into technicality first, instead I will set out a general case.

Dark Matter: Not only has this hypothetical entity not been observed, when compared with other models, it fails [1]. It has failed to validate each and every one of its testable predictions. It makes predictions contradictory to the available data on mass surface density, rotation curve shape, rotation rate of rise, CMB geometry and peak ratio, etc which I will expand on in the third round.

The Big Bang relies heavily on fudge factors such as this. [2] Without these fudges, the Big Bang has no ability to make retroactive predictions consistent with the data.

The big bang theory has no observably verified quantitative predictions. Its ability to retrospectively fit data to large numbers of adjustable parameters supersedes all other models.

Cosmological Principle: This principle states, "Since the universe looks to us the same in all directions, and we are not in a special position, then the distribution of matter across very large distances is the same everywhere in the universe." [3] This is one of the basic assumptions of the Big Bang.

Observational data, however, contradicts this assumption.

Quantized redshifts show that galaxies are quantized at certain distances [4]. This is a clear indication that the Universe is not homogeneous, although it is isotropic.
The fact that we are able to see distinct regions of redshifts show that statistical noise has not yet made an impact on the data. This indicates that the galaxy shells do not overlap, from our point of view. For such to occur, we have to be near the center.

CMBR: The background radiation data show a uniform radiation temperature of around 2.7260K +-0.0013K[5]. This provides a problem for the theory that is not solved. The BR could have been the same before the expansion, but not after. There is not enough time for radiation to have dispersed in such a manner. The WMAP [6] data uses a priori assumptions that cannot be experimentally confirmed. The assumption is that foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency.

Superstructures: The fact that there is superstructures such as the Sloan Great Wall [7] shows that the Universe is not homogenous and cannot be.

Lack of Population III stars: There is an absolute lack of population III stars [8]. This hypothetical entity is required for the Big Bang to work.

Galaxies and quasars: The fact that time dilation is not observed in quasars [9] opposes the prediction of the Big Bang.

I will wait here and turn over the debate to my opponent.

1. http://www.astro.umd.edu...
2. http://www.cosmologystatement.org...
3. http://www.cpepweb.org...
4. http://adsabs.harvard.edu...; www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/455-463.pdf
5. http://iopscience.iop.org...
6. www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF
7. http://arxiv.org...
8. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu...
9. http://arxiv.org...
iamladygaga

Pro

iamladygaga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Muted

Con

Extend all non-arguments.
iamladygaga

Pro

iamladygaga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Muted

Con

Extend all arguments
iamladygaga

Pro

iamladygaga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Muted

Con

Any more?
iamladygaga

Pro

iamladygaga forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
iamladygaga's account has been closed. Debate over
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
You've been on the site for 7 minutes, and you start making allegations??? Hawkins, I hope you don't mind, but what I'm going to start with here is going to be almost the same as that which I will post if you accept. Hence you will have a head-start on me. Fine by you?
Posted by iamladygaga 4 years ago
iamladygaga
I guess my opponent isn't confident enough in his debating skills. Unfortunate
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
http://www.debate.org... Stephan, here's the link
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I have been trolled. Didn't you see the "For stephan Hawkin"??? Anyway hawkins, I'll be reposting the debate again...
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
I'll accept, when including the rule "no plagiarising".
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by truthseeker613 4 years ago
truthseeker613
MutediamladygagaTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by mecap 4 years ago
mecap
MutediamladygagaTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
MutediamladygagaTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: That was pretty sad.