The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
18 Points

The Big Bang Theory is More Probable Than Genesis in Explaining The Beginning of the Universe.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/20/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,870 times Debate No: 26409
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (3)





1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No profanity
4. No vulgarity


1. Acceptance/Definitions
2. Opening Statement
3. Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals
5. Closing Arguments/Conclusion


Genesis- the first book of theHebrew Bible (the Tanakh) and the Christian Old Testament.

A summary of this book could be as follows:

God creates the world in six days and consecrates the seventh after giving mankind his first commandment: "be fruitful and multiply". God pronounces the world "very good", but it becomes corrupted by the sin of man and God sends a deluge (a great flood) to destroy it, saving only the righteous (Noah) and his family, from whose seed the world is repopulated. Man sins again, but God has promised that he will not destroy the world a second time with water.

God instructs Abram (the future Abraham) to travel from his home in Mesopotamia (modern Iraq) to the land of Canaan. There God makes a covenant with Abram promising that his descendants shall be as numerous as the stars in the heavens, but that they shall suffer oppression in a foreign land for four hundred years, after which they shall inherit the land "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates." Abram's name is changed to Abraham and that of his wife Sarai to Sarah, and circumcision of all males is instituted as the sign of the covenant.

Sarah is barren, and tells Abraham to take her Egyptian handmaiden, Hagar, as a concubine. Through Hagar, Abraham becomes the father of Ishmael. Abraham asks God that Ishmael "might live in Thy sight," (that is, be favored), but God replies that Sarah will bear a son, who will be named Isaac, through whom the covenant will be established. At Sarah's insistence Ishmael and his mother Hagar are driven out into the wilderness, but God saves them and promises to make Ishmael a great nation.

God resolves to destroy the city of Sodom for the sins of its people. Abraham protests that it is not just "to slay the righteous with the wicked," and asks if the whole city can be spared if even ten righteous men are found there. God replies: "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it." Abraham's nephew Lot is saved from the destruction of Sodom, and through incest with his daughters becomes the ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites.

God tests Abraham by demanding that he sacrifice Isaac. As Abraham is about to lay the knife upon his son, God restrains him, promising him numberless descendants. On the death of Sarah, Abraham purchases Machpelah (modern Hebron) for a family tomb and sends his servant to Mesopotamia to find among his relations a wife for Isaac, and Rebekah is chosen. Other children are born to Abraham by another wife, Keturah, among whose descendants are the Midianites, and he dies in a prosperous old age and is buried in his tomb at Hebron.

Isaac's wife Rebekah is barren, but Isaac prays to God and she gives birth to the twins Esau, father of the Edomites, and Jacob. Through deception, Jacob becomes the heir instead of Esau and gains his father's blessing. He flees to his uncle where he prospers and earns his two wives. Jacob's name is changed to Israel, and by his wives Rachel and Leah and their handmaidens he has twelve sons, the ancestors of the twelve tribes of the Children of Israel.

Joseph, Jacob's favourite son, is sold into slavery in Egypt by his jealous brothers. But Joseph prospers, and when famine comes he brings his father and his brothers and their households, seventy persons in all, to Egypt, where Pharaoh assigns to them the land of Goshen. Jacob calls his sons to his bedside and reveals their future to them before he dies and is interred in the family tomb at Machpelah. Joseph lives to see his great-grandchildren, and on his death-bed he exhorts his brethren, if God should remember them and lead them out of the country, to take his bones with them. The book ends with Joseph's remains being "put in a coffin in Egypt.

The Big Bang Theory- The theory that the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly.

The Beginning of the Universe- The beginning of the the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.

probable- supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof.



Agree to debate, but not with your summary of Genesis, I will just quote from it. Your explanation for the Big Bang is insufficient. However, I will not expand on it. Bring it on. I hope for a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Muted for accepting my debate. Happy Debating................

On to my arguments............

Scientific Flaws in Genesis:

Throughout Genesis there are numerous unrealistic and contradictory texts that make The Bible that much more unbelievable:

May I adress some-

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite.

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?

Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes.

God makes two lights: "the greater light [the sun] to rule the day, and the lesser light [the moon] to rule the night." But the moon is not a light, but only reflects light from the sun. And why, if God made the moon to "rule the night", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky?

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars.

"I have given you every herb ... and every tree ... for meat."
Since many plants have evolved poisons to protect against animals that would like to eat them, God's advice is more than a little reckless. Would you tell your children to go out in the garden and eat whatever plants they encounter? Of course not. But then, you are much nicer and smarter than God.

In Genesis 1 the entire creation takes 6 days, but the universe is at least 12 billion years old, with new stars constantly being formed.

Humans were not created instantaneously from dust and breath, but evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms.

After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while.

God curses the serpent. From now on the serpent will crawl on his belly and eat dust. One wonders how he got around before -- by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don't eat dust, do they?

Because Adam listened to Eve, God cursed the ground and causes thorns and thistles to grow. Before this, according to the (false) Genesis story, plants had no natural defenses. The rose had no thorn, cacti were spineless, holly leaves were smooth, and the nettle had no sting. Foxgloves, oleander, and milkweeds were all perfectly safe to eat.

When Lamech was born, nine generations were alive at once. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, and Lamech were all alive at the time of Lamech's birth. Adam lived to see his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandson.

Noah sends a dove out to see if there was any dry land. But the dove returns without finding any. Then, just seven days later, the dove goes out again and returns with an olive leaf. But how could an olive tree survive the flood? And if any seeds happened to survive, they certainly wouldn't germinate and grow leaves within a seven day period.

When the animals left the ark, what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find their way back after the flood subsided?

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savor."
Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark.

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." Although this would have been good advice for the mythical Noah, it is deadly advice for humankind as a whole. Overpopulation is one of our greatest problems, yet there is nothing in the bible to address it.

"Into your hand are they (the animals) delivered."
God gave the animals to humans, and they can do whatever they please with them. This verse has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to animals and environmental destruction.

According to this verse, all animals fear humans. Although it is true that many do, it is also true that some do not. Sharks and grizzly bears, for example, are generally much less afraid of us than we are of them.

God is rightly filled with remorse for having killed his creatures. He even puts the rainbow in the sky to remind himself of his promise to the animals not to do it again. But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.

Theory vs. Hypothesis-

theory- a tested and expanded
hypothesis that explains many experiments and fits ideas together in a framework.

hypothesis- a proposed explanation for some event or problem.

Another way The Big Bang is more reliable is because it is a widely accepted theory, whereas creationism is only a hypothesis, meaning there is no definite evidence or argument to back this up. Whereas a theory is backed up with numerous arguments and claims that have been verified.


May I address the arguments of non-cosmological background. Firstly, the challenge says "The Beginning of the Universe- The beginning of the the totality of existence, including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy."
Therefore, the arguments presented herein should be purely cosmological in nature. Nonetheless, I will briefly address them.
Pro fails to differentiate between operational and origins science, also known as forensic science.
As shown in the book The Bible, Protestantism, And The Rise Of Natural Science by Peter Harrison [1], proper understanding if the Scriptures, especially Genesis, led to modern science. The basic assumptions, like the one that assumes a rational universe due to a rational creator, is still in use.
God is Light (Rev 21:23; 1 John 1:5). Hence day and night could already have occurred.
"Moon is not light": I also may well argue that the Sun does not set. Pro refuses to take into account perspective.
"He made the stars also": Notice in the full verse that no mention is made whatsoever of time during the day. It was neither an afterthought, nor at the END of a hard day"s work. God made things instantaneously.
"Poison in plants": Should people then not take any medicine at all? They are all toxins. The deadliest toxin in the world is used in beauty treatments (C. Botulinum). Water, if taken in large enough amounts, will cause a person"s death. Pro does not give thought in writing to either the idea of death after the Fall or of having things in moderation.
"The universe is at least 12 billion years old": This is an assumption. (As close to rounding to a half number, 14.5 bya). Why an assumption? It cannot be proven. (If Pro wishes to argue this, please put it in specific detail)
"Humans evolved": Once again, an assumption. John Sanford, Prof. points out that mutations actually prevent evolution. [2]
Pro confuses species with kinds. [3]
"Serpent": See [4], snakes do eat dust. (If you don"t believe the reference, check its sources).
"Thorns and thistles": Pro apparently does not understand simple plant growth. A simple search on wikipedia [5] would give all relevant information. I know it to be accurate because I checked out the sources.
"All were safe to eat before": Has Pro ever eaten a durian? Does he propose that durians use not to have thorns? The argument makes no sense.
Pro fails to provide an argument for how Adam could NOT see Lamech.
"Dove with olive leaf": There is nothing to suggest that vegetation could not survive [6]. Creationists have long since given the explanation of vegetation mats to explain the survival in such instances.
"What to eat?": When the animals were on the ark, what would they have eaten? Certainly Noah would have thought of that. Revegetation naturally happens very rapidly.
"Carnivores would starve": No they would not [8].
Vegetation mats to migrate the continents.
"Clean animals slaughtered": Pro has ignored Gen 7:2. Seven pairs of clean, two of unclean.
"Overpopulation": Largely addressed by others such as [9]. The problems today are caused by logistics problems. in fact, there is enough food produced to feed the entire human population.
"Cruelty to animals": This ignores the fact that animal welfare was founded primarily by Christians [10].
"Fear of humans": We are afraid of sharks and grizzly bears mostly due to popular films such as "Jaws", etc. Furthermore, it is a widely acknowledged fact that humans are at the top of the chain.
"Rainbows": A natural explanation does not rule out a cause by the Divine. One question that needs to be put to Pro is that, "Have we seen rainbows billions of years ago?" "In what manner?" Rainbows do not leave traces after they are gone.
"Big Bang more reliable because widely accepted": This is known as an argumentum ad populum [11], it is a logical fallacy and should be removed from this debate.

Pro has failed in fulfilling his BoP to show how the BBT is more probable that Genesis. He goes into an attack upon portions of Genesis that is not connected with this debate. Pro fails to provide references. Pro fails to provide supporting evidences for BBT, instead assuming Con will accept his assertions that BBT is a theory and Genesis a "hypothesis."
Pro has made allegations not related to the subject in discussion which has forced me to deviate from the topic and left me no space to defend the cosmological argument against the BBT and for Genesis. Thus, I propose that he be demerited with a conduct vote when the debate ends.

Debate Round No. 2


Your existence is a logical fallacy.


"Your existence is a logical fallacy."

And yet no explanation is provided. I now feel justified in posting the cosmology statement.

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3


The reason I am troll my debates is cos I need to get over debates, and accept no more, and then i got serios.


You could just concede.
Debate Round No. 4


All you Christians Asians.


Well, Christianity certainly was derived from a religion within the Asia continent. Your objections, however, as irrelevant because asians have been known to excel in areas where caucasians consider their own. This, however, is irrelevant to the topic matter, because my being an asian or a Christian does not determine the accuracy or truth of the Big Bang Theory.
The whole distinction of race is a genetical misnomer. There is really not any difference genetically between the races. All that differs is the genetic switch related to the production of melanin. I hope to return to this topic in the future.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
I wish someone would just do a debate about the show The Big Bang Theory and stop getting my hopes up.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
That explanation is hardly worth your time, Microsuck. Pasteur did experiments for bacteria, (Swan neck flask experiments), and bacteria are one of the more simplified organisms that we know of. Even viruses, which are sometimes thought to be between the living and the dead, do not spontaneously generate.
I do not understand the assertion that it disproves a form of creationism. Apparently the writers have to add something negative about creationism in every paragraph.
I can"t believe talkorigins would write such a uninformed piece. "Very primitive life"? Does the talkorigins writer even know the widely acknowledged complexity of even the simplest of cells? What they teach in High School is an incredibly simplified version of the cell (For more information see, it"s a journal). We know of many highly complex chemical molecules, they are everywhere, but they are not becoming "living" in any way whatsoever.
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Yeah, he DID get the basics right, however, how the universe started the Big Bang cannot answer. I do not wish to go into all the details here, as I would most probably do so in the debate.
LordKnukle, in anticipation, no, the big bang cannot be mathematically proven, the equations used, as they approach zero, simply collapses.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
LordKnukle, The Law of Bio-genesis is a well recognized law, yet it cannot be mapped out mathematically.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
A "law" in science is something that can be mapped out mathematically and always happens. If it always happens and cannot be mathematically mapped out, then it is not a "law" but a "theory."
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Con, the definition for "BBT" may not be that eloquent, but it got the basic's right. The definition I use is thus:

"In the distant past, the universe was very dense and hot; since then it has expanded, becoming less dense and cooler."
Posted by Microsuck 4 years ago
Con already won, the BBT doesn't expalin the origin of the Universe.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Samyul, a "theory" in science indicates many valid predictions. A "Law" indicates that its basic premise/prediction, has never been broken.
Posted by davemark07 4 years ago
@Samyul: Scientific laws and theories are not the same thing, they are actually describing two completely different things. A scientific law is a way to describe a body of observations (for example Evolution). A theory is how this law operates (for example Natural selection). Science uses mathematics because it creates scientific laws (for example Kepler's laws) however it isn't that a theory ever becomes a law: a theory is the explanation given to explain a law.

What you have demonstrated is the equivocation fallacy. What I mean by this is there are essentially two definitions of theory: there is the colloquial definition and the scientific. The colloquial definition of theory is that of a guess. However the scientific definition of a theory is that of a body of evidence which supports a hypothesis which has yet to be proven wrong
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Magic8000 4 years ago
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: Pro was being a stupid troll.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 4 years ago
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: emospongebob is such a troll it's kind of ridiculous.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
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: poor conduct from Pro and failing to debate.