The Instigator
Subutai
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

The Big Bang Theory Is True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+10
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 6 votes the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,882 times Debate No: 32704
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (6)

 

Subutai

Pro

I'm doing this for a lot of reasons - Commitment, learning, and most importantly, the weekly stupid.

The Big Bang Theory - "A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."[1]

First round for acceptance, and please don't forfeit.

Sources

[1]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Anti-atheist

Con

I accept. I do accept a type of big bang theory but not the one your proposing.
Debate Round No. 1
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank Anti-atheist for accepting this debate.

In this round, I will post various proofs for the validity of the Big Bang Theory (BBT).

I. Homogeneity of the Universe

While the universe is not homogeneous in small regions, the universe as a whole is relativity homogeneous. This was a predicted result of the Big Bang Theory and his been confirmed by the WMAP probe:


[1]

This ties in to the thing known as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), shown below:



[2]

The CMBR is isotropic (the same) to roughly one part in 100,000, further confirming universial homogeneity. This spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K.[3][4]

II. Galatic Evolution

The above information leads into my second point. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early Universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.[8][9]

Here is a visual representation of this:



This is indeed observed in galaxies throughout the universe, and confirms another prediction of the Big Bang Theory.

III. Abundance of Elements


Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen.The relative abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. This value can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CWMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10−3 for 2H/H, about 10−4 for 3He/H and about 10−9for 7Li/H.

The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and off by a factor of two 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too.[5][6]

Here is a graph showing the abundance of elements in the universe (abundance versus atomic number):

[7]

Notice how the abundancies roughly decrease asymptotically as the atomic numbers of the various elements go up. This further confirms the predictions of the Big Bang Theory with regards to the abundance of elements in the universe.

IV. Dark Matter and the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect

In addition to the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, photons from the CMBR can also be subtly affected by the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The basis for this effect is gravitational redshift, one of the most basic predictions from GR and first demonstrated experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960. The basic idea is that, as photons enter a gravitational potential well, they pick up extra energy and when they exit they lose energy. Hence, scientists refer to photons "falling into" and "climbing out of" gravitational wells.

As CMBR photons pass through the foreground large scale structure, they pass through many such gravitational wells. If the depth of the well is static (or rather if the depth of the well is increasing at the same rate as the expansion of the universe), then the net energy change is zero. All of the energy they gained falling in is lost climbing out. However, if the universe contains dark energy (or has an open geometry), then the universe expands faster than the gravitational wells around massive objects can grow. As a result, the CMBR photons do not lose all of the energy they gained falling into the potentials. This makes the CMBR look very slightly hotter in the direction of these potentials, which also contain the highest concentrations of galaxies.

Following the release of the WMAP data, studies measured this effect using galaxies selected in a number of different ways. The signal-to-noise in any one of the measurements was not very large. However, taken together (and combined with the WMAP observation that the geometry of the universe was best fit by a flat universe), they provide significant evidence that this effect is real and is best explained by the standard Lambda CMD model of BBT.[1][10][11][12]

V. Hubble's Law

Hubble's Law states that v = H0D where

  • v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object,
  • D is the comoving distance to the object,
  • H0 is Hubble's Constant, measured to be 70.4 (errors +1.3, -1.4) km/s/Mpc
The only plausible explanation for this is the expansion of the universe, which we are currently expericing. It is one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang Theory, and its validity is more proof of the Big Bang Theory.[13][14][15]

Sources

[1]: http://www.talkorigins.org...
[2]: Weinburg, S. The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe.
[3]: Spergel, D.N. et al. (2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology"
[4]: http://arxiv.org...
[5]: Kolb, E.; Turner, M. (1988). The Early Universe.
[6]: http://arxiv.org...
[7]: Croswell, Ken (February 1996). Alchemy of the Heavens.
[8]: http://arxiv.org...
[9]: Bertschinger, E. (1998). "Simulations of Structure Formation in the Universe".
[10]: http://arxiv.org...
[11]: S. Boughn and R. Crittenden, A correlation between the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure in the Universe, Nature 427 (2004) pp. 45
[12]: http://arxiv.org...
[13]: http://dx.doi.org...
[14]: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[15]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anti-atheist

Con

The Secular big bang has many problems with it. Too many to list. Here's some

Potential

One huge problem with the big bang is that it has a possibility of being wrong

If it is possible the big bang is wrong, then the big bag is wrong. Since if the big bang is true, it can't possibly be wrong! So since its possible that the big bang is wrong, then the big bang is wrong.

Antimatter

According to the Big Bang cosmology most evolutionists assume that there should be an exact counterpart to matter known as antimatter right down to the same mass. Each particle of antimatter is an exact copy of of its identical matter particle except that each antimatter particle has the opposite charge.[1] These assumed predictions of the Big Bang have lost a lot of credibility because we have not found nearly the amount of antimatter in the universe that could be accepted under such a model [2][3]

Inflation? Noflation!

Many problems were supposedly solved by the inflationary theory. Such as the horizon and flatness problem. But inflation has the hidden assumption of aristotelian physics. Since it says the inflation was acted upon by a motion of triangulating particle mechanics. That must be a natural resting state. Also theres no plausible inflationary mechanism.

The only way that this can happen is if a hypothetical particle called the "inflaton" by theorists exists. This particle must have the properties of certain particles observed in physics laboratories called "zero spin". However, unlike particles observed with this characteristic, the inflaton must have a property that has never been observed: it must experience a very peculiar potential energy character that slowly decays. Such a feature has never been observed in any laborites.


Now lets look at the positive evidence. Unfortunately subati thinks he can wow the voter with perty pictures of the universe. Don't be amazed at the perty pictures! Listen to the facts!

I. Homogeneity of the Universe

On paced examination we realize his evidence is bullsh*t. The universe isn't really that homogeneous. In the year 2000, a survey of the red-shift found that it has an inhomogeneous distribution to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. This shows that there are no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. The Big Bang requires large-scale homogeneity. There is many new discoveries that are disproving time and time again the homogeneity.

The largest large quasar group LQG ever has been discovered, stretching an enormous 4 billion light years from end to end. That is 40,000 times larger than our Milky Way galaxy which is only 100,000 light years across. This LQG contains 73 quasars!

“The quasar group appears to violate a widely accepted assumption known as the cosmological principle, which holds that the universe is essentially homogeneous when viewed at a sufficiently large scale.” [4]

On the CMBR

While CMBR exists, it is not the only cosmology that cosmic microwave background (CMB) comes naturally out of, though others like the White Hole Cosmology were developed after the discovery of CMB.

II. Galatic Evolution

It is not really known how much of quasars' red shift is due to expansion. So little is known about them that it cannot be said for certain that any of their high red shifts are expansion related. If they are dense objects, their red shift would be caused by gravity rather than expansion. [5]

Blue stars are seen to be poor in heavy elements. According to Russell Humphreys' White Hole Cosmology theory, water was expanding out of a white hole. The normal distribution of elements in a gravitational field would naturally result in outer galaxies being poor in heavy elements.


III. Abundance of Elements

The fact is that to get the observed abundance of these elements requires the proper adjustment of variables specific to each element. The universal abundances of most elements were predicted correctly by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State cosmological model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium. The Big Bang co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the abundances of the light elements. Each such prediction requires at least one adjustable parameter unique to that element prediction. Often, it’s a question of figuring out why the element was either created or destroyed or both to some degree following the Big Bang. When you take away these degrees of freedom, no genuine prediction remains. The best the Big Bang can claim is consistency with observations using the various ad hoc models to explain the data for each light element [6]

IV. Dark Matter

Physicists, in this respect, are like children who are afraid of the dark. They cannot explain the empty closets opposite their beds. The child reasons thus:Why is my closet so empty, so dark? Surely there should be something in my closet; closets are after all, according to my explanatory framework, made for things. Indeed I remember putting my toys away just yesterday. And besides, Stephen Hawking says there just must be stuff in my closet. But I can’t see it! Therefore: monsters.This is exactly how physicists think about Dark Matter. They see an empty darkness, they haven’t any notion of what is happening, and so they create invisible monsters as explanations.

Here is how it works



Dark matter is so halrious. It was actually created by novelists [7].

Belief in Dark Matter has roughly the same validity as a small child’s belief that there is a monster in his closet. He can’t see anything, his parents aren’t home, the closet is dark, and its properties don’t fit with his explanatory theory which has been accepted by his epistemic peers in the scientific community. Therefore there must be this ridiculous substance to explain his yucky feelings.

Thinking I’m out on a limb on this one? Well, don’t take my word for it. According to smartest man in the world and noted scientist Noam Chomsky,

Physics is in a situation in which something like 90% of the matter in the Universe is what is called dark matter — it’s called dark because they don’t know what it is, they can’t find it, but it has to be there or the physical laws don’t work. So people happily go on with the assumption that we’re somehow missing 90% of the matter in the Universe. [8]

There you have it, from an official and mainstream scholar of the natural sciences. What more do you need?



Astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa in a review article to be published in a major astrophysical journal [9] noted that dark matter as a new particle has been falsified by the observation that dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way are aligned in a plane and consistent with having no dark matter at all. The fact that dark matter particles do not exist (in spite of decades of searching, none have been discovered) and the fact that the Big Bang is dependent on the existence of such "dark matter particles" means that Dr. Kroupa has been able to convincingly falsify the Big Bang hypothesis. Kroupa's falsification of the Big Bang has been receiving growing attention from an astronomical community that is beginning to realize that there is no support for the fairy tales of an old, naturalistic universe [10].


V. Hubble's Law

Hubble's law also works with white hole cosmology


[1] http://www.answersingenesis.org...
[2] Lamicella, Paul W. "Antimatter and the Big Bang." Answers in Genesis, March 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
[3] http://creationwiki.org...
[4] http://www.foxnews.com...
[5] http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu...
[6] www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.janushead.org...
[9] http://web.archive.org...
[10] http://web.archive.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank Anti-atheist for presenting his arguments.

I. Potential

Just because something has the possibility of being wrong doesn't mean it is wrong. That would be like saying that Faraday's Law might be wrong, so it is wrong, even though it isn't. This argument is fallacious.

II. Antimatter

There are two plausible explanations for this:

1. There might be some subtle difference in the physics of matter and antimatter that left the early universe with a surplus of matter. While it is often thought that there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, some experiements show otherwise. For example, CERN experiments showed that one particular exotic particle, the kaon, turned into its antiparticle slightly more often than the reverse happened, creating a tiny imbalance between the two. If this happened during the creation of the Universe, matter would easily predominate.[1]

2. That annihilation was not total in those first few seconds: somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars and anti-galaxies.[1]


Either way, this discrepancy does not disprove the big bang.

III. Inflation

First of all, the cosmic microwave background radiation is a wonderful proof of inflation, but I will post another.

Inflation predicts that the structures visible in the universe today formed through the gravitiational collapse of perturbations which were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch. The detailed form of the spectrum of perturbations called a nearly-circle invariant Gaussian random field is very specific and has only two free parameters, the amplitude of the spectrum and the spectral index which measures the slight deviation from scale invariance predicted by inflation (perfect scale invariance corresponds to the idealized de Sitter universe). Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturbations). This structure for the perturbations has been confirmed by the WMAP spacecraft and other cosmic microwave background experiments, and galaxy surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey. These experiments have shown that the one part in 10,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly the form predicted by theory. Moreover, there is evidence for a slight deviation from scale invariance. The spectral index, ns is equal to one for a scale-invariant spectrum. The simplest models of inflation predict that this quantity is between 0.92 and 0.98. From the data taken by the WMAP spacecraft it can be inferred that ns = 0.963 ± 0.012, implying that it differs from one at the level of two standard deviations (2σ). This is an important confirmation of the theory of inflation.[2][3][4][5][6]

Inflation is a very well tested idea.

IV. Homogeneity of the Universe

This existance of the Large Quasar Group (LQG) does not disprove either the big bang or the cosmological principle. The upper limit for the size of structures in the universe has gotten bigger as bigger objects have been discovered. In fact, "The researchers say this could undermine the cosmological principle, although it may simply mean that we need to revise upwards the size limit on large structures."[7]

Think of it another way. In an even larger scale, recent galaxy surveys show some large scale structures such as the Great Wall and the Voids. Can we conclude that our universe is inhomogeneous? Though more and more evidence points to the existence of the large scale structures, the answer is no. The reason is that the distribution of the largest structures may be uniform.[8]

Here is a representation of this:



[8]

The universe is homogenous on the largest of scales. My opponent is cherry-picking using small samples of data without looking at the bigger picture.

V. Galactic Evolution

My opponent does not even touch this point at all here. He has not compared observations with predictions from theory and simulations, so his claims are baseless. When astronomers compare observations with simulations, there is no discrepancy between the data and the Big Bang paradigm.[9]

Here is a graph of the distribution of galaxies in observations and simulations:



[9]

Note how the observations and simulations are remarkably similar.

VI. Abundance of Elements

We do achieve consistency in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis models with observed element abundances, given uncertainties in the measurements. The number of adjustable parameters needed to match this consistency is in fact not very large. The relative abundances of H, D, He, etc. depend on the relative numbers of baryons and photons in the universe. Therefore, given a measured baryon fraction the relative abundances are all predicted with no free parameters. This is a strong test of the standard model.[10][11]

Here is a graph to show this, yhe predicted abundance of elements heavier than hydrogen, as a function of the density of baryons in the universe (expressed in terms of the fraction of critical density in baryons, Omega_B and the Hubble Constant, h):

[

[11]

VII. Dark Matter

First of all, most of my opponent's argument is plagarized from a blog named "Science Debunked" of all things, so I leave it to you, the voters, to decide on my opponent's argument's credibility.

Anyway, there are numerous other proofs for dark matter:
  • Rotational speed of gravities is sufficiently explained only by dark matter[12]
  • Only Dark Matter predicts Type 1 supernova to be fainter than other cosmological models[13]
  • Gravitaty lenses, especially the bullet cluster, can only come about with something having the properties of dark matter[14]
  • It is the only theory that explains orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies[15]
Dark matter is not a figment of scientist's imaginations.

VIII. Hubble's Law

My opponent has simply made a claim with no proof. Prove it.

IX. White Hole Big Bang Theory

My opponent's proposed alternative to the inflationary model is the white hole cosmology theory. "He [my opponent and Humphreys] fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else)... Humphreys badly mangles the standard GR treatment for gravitational time dilation: in order for time to pass more rapidly far away from the Earth, we would need to be near a black hole, not a white hole. Humphreys tried to salvage his model by later claiming a time dilation within the white hole, but this was equally unworkable. It goes without saying that his model fails to explain a vast array of cosmological observations, e.g., the existence of the CMBR and its anisotropy, supernovae time dilation, the light element abundance and so forth."[16] This theory has been discredited.

Sources

[1]: http://www.newscientist.com...
[2]: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[3]: http://arxiv.org...
[4]: http://arxiv.org...
[5]: http://arxiv.org...
[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)
[7]: http://www.newscientist.com...
[8]: http://www.physics.hku.hk...
[9]: http://world.edu...
[10]: http://scienceblogs.com...
[11]: http://www.astro.umd.edu...
[12]: http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...
[13]: http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu...
[14]: http://scienceblogs.com...
[15]: http://www.nrao.edu...
Anti-atheist

Con

Potential

Its not possible for faradays law to be false. By modal logic. You failed to refute.

Anti matter

Tea yeah so what? They haven't been proven to be true beyond doubt. The explanations fail.

1. This would be violating a prediction of the big bang. One disproves big bang.

2. Oh yes some how. Ad hoc. You can say somehow with anything.

Inflation
you didn't answer me. All those fit with white hole also inflation has problems i proved it.

Homogeneity of the Universe

The upper limit getting bigger assumes the big bang is true to interpret its data. No model but the big bang can say this. So
big bang proves homogeneity and
homogeneity proves big bang. Bad logic.

Galatic evo

I did address it. Other guy doesn't understand.

Abundance of Elements

Excuse me.... you achieved big bang newspaper synthesis! One does not simply achieve nuclosynthesis. How can you say that if there is so many unknown factors. The adjustable parameters are huge. Other guy just says there not. The number of adjustable stellar helium stars is more than the universes carbon potential. Come on.

Dark Matter

Notice how other guy is visually stumped. You can see the shock in his writing. He ran like a politician. Why is other guy soooo scared????
Dark matter has already disproved

http://arxiv.org...

Other guy is ascared of that study.

VIII. Hubble's Law

Whitehole would produce space.

White Hole Big Bang Theory..

Time dilation and white hole aren't the same thing. Whitehole pruduces space time ect.

"fails to explain why that white hole does not appear to exist anymore (we would notice the extremely strong X-ray flux, if nothing else)."

No we wouldnt see a strong flux or see it. A whitehole would be one of immense size and producing space. Producing space would mask it from any xray or redshift.
Debate Round No. 3
Subutai

Pro

I would like to thank Anti-atheist for this debate.

I. Potential

You are the one using faulty logic. Just because something is unproven does not make it wrong. My point was that Faraday's Law was a theory at some point, and eventually came to be proven. The same can be said for the big bang. All and all, many things that have been unproven at first, eventually came to be proven, disproving my opponent's objection here.

II. Antimatter

1. This principle does not violate the big bang theory. Theories suggest that even if equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created with the Big Bang, disparities in their physical properties, such as decay rate or life span, might favor a matter-filled world. This idea is a charge parity violation, which is an example of a kind of asymmetry between particles and their antiparticles that describes the way they decay.[1][2]

2. My opponent makes no argument here. Inflationary cosmology models suggest that there may be more to the universe than can be seen from the Earth, if only for the simple reason that the universe is not old enough for light from the most distant parts of the universe to have reached us yet. If so, radiation from the boundary of matter and antimatter dominated regions may simply still "be on its way" to Earth, and so cannot be observed.[3]

III. Inflation

I did respond to my opponent's argument. The spectral index (mentioned in more detail in R3), ns is equal to one for a scale-invariant spectrum. The simplest models of inflation predict that this quantity is between 0.92 and 0.98. From the data taken by the WMAP spacecraft it can be inferred that ns = 0.963 ± 0.012. This proves the principle of inflation that my opponent is trying to disprove. Inflation is not a principle of the white hole cosmology theory, therefore its existance can't be a proof of it; conversely, it is a disprover of it.[4]

IV. Homogeneity of the Universe

While I have proved that the homogeneity proves a principle of the big bang, I have never mentioned that the big bang proves homogeneity. My opponent has neglected to respond to this argument whatsoever. He has never responded to my argument that the CMBR's high degree of isotropicity is a indicator of overall universal homogeneity. To sum this argument up, on the grandest of scales, the universe is homogenous, which is a prediction of the big bang.[5]

V. Galactic Evolution

My opponent has not responded to this argument either. The galactic evolution models are in agreement with the predicted simulation from the big bang theory, thus proving the big bang.[6]

VI. Abundance of Elements

My opponent continues to ignore my argument here. There is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too. He also fails to respond to my proof that the abundance of elements in the universe is asymptotes to zero as the atomic number of the element increases - another proof of the big bang.[7][8]

VII. Dark Matter

Now my opponent is just using ad hominem, incorrect at that, The paper he cites is a critique of the Standard Model of Cosmology, not a disproof of dark matter. Here is one quote from the paper: "This cannot be the case because the phase-space occupied by dark matter sub-haloes and the star-formation processes within them are uncorrelated."[9] Not exactly a falsification of dark matter. My opponent fails to respond to the four proofs of dark matter I provided in round 3 also.

VIII. Hubble's Law

But the white hole cosmology theory is incompatible with Hubble's Law becuase Hubble's Law predicts the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which the white hole cosmology theory denies. In addition, space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the cosmological principle and the Copernican principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous, supporting the Cosmological principle that the Universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions. Hubble's Law further proves the principle of universal homogeneity.[10]

IX. White Hole Big Bang Theory

Let me simplify the problem. The problem is that white holes and big bang cosmology are two very different solutions to Einstein's general relativistic equation for gravity. White hole 'solutions' require a background space-time in which their particular curvature manifests itself, and within which the world lines of particles emerging from this type of singularity can be defined. Big bang solutions require no 'embedding space' a priori because unlike the 'local solutions' of white holes and black holes, the cosmological solutions are global solutions for the geometry of spacetime. There is nothing outside of them to serve as a background for world lines to be defined. You cannot convert the big bang singularity into a white hole singularity for the same reason that you cannot change a cat into dog. My opponent has not provided any solid evidence at all for his case, and the theory itself has been generally discarded.[11]

Sources

[1]: http://www.exploratorium.edu...
[2]: http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru...
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]: http://arxiv.org...
[5]: http://www.physics.hku.hk...
[6]: http://arxiv.org...
[7]: http://arxiv.org...
[8]: Croswell, Ken (February 1996). Alchemy of the Heavens.
[9]: http://arxiv.org...
[10]: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[11]: http://www.astronomycafe.net...;

Note: Source 16 in Round 3 is this: http://www.talkorigins.org...
Anti-atheist

Con

I. Potentialality

No im not using faulty logic. You haven't shown this is wrong. It is a very very very very good argument. You ignore and evade like a politcan. Nothing can disprove faraday's law. Its logic.


II. Antimatter

1. Yes it does violate BB. If the BB is true an expansion from a point would create symmetristic from the point of expansion since it all must be conserved. If a parity violation exists the laws of physics would be messed up.

2. Ad hoc ad hoc ad hoc! Its just trying to salvage an abaondond theory.


III. Inflation

Pro didn't respond to me here. He just evades evades evades.

IV. Homogeneity of the Universe

He evades here too. Why is he so scared?

V. Galactic Evolution

Pro runs away from this one too.


VI. Abundance of Elements

Evade. He ignored my science


VII. Dark Matter

Ohhhhhhh sure ignore me here too. Wow do you guys see how flawed his arguments are. I ignored your evidence because DM is false. DM is just like the monsters in the room. Ohhhhhhhh. The paper does disprove Dark matter.

VIII. Hubble's Law

The expansion would be from the white hole. Nothing violated in it. The Copernican Principle is false because the expansion is all away from us.


IX. White Hole

Ohhhh so your saying my theory doesn't work under my theory therefore your theory is wrong. Space is irrelevant because God would be the background space. The evidence is the same as the BB even more because of the cosmological constants.



Vote Con. Pro never did
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
@RyanR619: DDO has been wondering that ever since he joined this website. Most of us think he is a troll account.
Posted by Subutai 4 years ago
Subutai
@RyanR619: DDO has been wondering that ever since he joined this website. Most of us think he is a troll account.
Posted by RyanR619 4 years ago
RyanR619
Anti-atheist are you really a gay Christian Nazi geocentrist or are you trolling? All these ideas go against each other lol.
Posted by Bitemenow 4 years ago
Bitemenow
It's more sad that we are sitting right next to each other in class right now. I agree let's hug it out
Posted by JeebusReebus 4 years ago
JeebusReebus
This whole debate sucks lets just hug it out.
Posted by Bitemenow 4 years ago
Bitemenow
You know what is sad? You are an independent clause
Posted by JeebusReebus 4 years ago
JeebusReebus
Your mom is an independent clause.
Posted by Bitemenow 4 years ago
Bitemenow
It was a dependent clause therefore not needing a period.
Posted by JeebusReebus 4 years ago
JeebusReebus
Ha! You forgot a period!
Posted by Bitemenow 4 years ago
Bitemenow
Metamorphic Rocks
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
SubutaiAnti-atheistTied
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 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: CVB
Vote Placed by wolfgangxo69 4 years ago
wolfgangxo69
SubutaiAnti-atheistTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Atheist
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
SubutaiAnti-atheistTied
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: Countering imabench by forum request. I don't feel his RFD aquatically touched on the issues (not calling it a VB, merely a weak vote).
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
SubutaiAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: CON's effort to use inconsistencies to discredit the Big Bang theory was to no avail, because the inconsistencies -even granting the validity of CON's points- are insufficient to discredit the theory, as a theory, which PRO adequately demonstrated. CON's conduct was irritating, so points there to pro. This was on balance a depressing read. I don't even know why I bother. Source points are obvious.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
SubutaiAnti-atheistTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con points out problems with the Big Bang Theory, like unresolved imbalance f matter and anti-matter. The question is whether the problems are so great as to invalidate the Theory, or whether they are issues to be resolved within the framework of the theory. Pro made the case that the cited problems do not discredit the theory as whole. Con's "white hole" theory has not gained any significant acceptance for reasons Pro cited. Chomsky is a smart guy, but a linguist, not a physicist, and his remarks about dark matter are amount to saying that it is deduced by indirect observation rather than direct. Con's conduct was poor, but he insulted evidence and scientists more than Pro, so I'll let it pass.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
SubutaiAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Got some awesome material for the show, thanks Subutai! ;D