The Instigator
IceeeStorm1816
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Phenenas
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

The "Big Bang Theory" is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Phenenas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 664 times Debate No: 81824
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

IceeeStorm1816

Pro

Anyone can accept this debate but I would prefer to debate someone who truly believes the "big bang" really happened. This debate is not referring to the tv show, but to the actual theory many scientists believe.

May the best debater win.
Phenenas

Con

I accept this debate, and will wait for Pro to post their first argument. I will be arguing that the Big Bang Theory is accurate and true.
Debate Round No. 1
IceeeStorm1816

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will begin with stating my three main points, which will be followed by a paragraph for each.

1. It is illogical to believe that our entire complex universe was created with a simple "bang".
2. It is highly improbable that something was created by chance when we can't even create the same thing with all of our advanced scientific technology.
3. It is not likely that something so amazing and awe-inspiring could have been "accidentally created" because not even the most intelligent human being could have thought it up.

I will now list my three points again with their supporting paragraphs.

1. It is illogical to believe that our entire complex universe was created with a simple "bang".

If you have ever looked up at the sky at night, you probably noticed the billions and billions of glowing stars. You probably saw the moon, in all its shining glory, sitting right up there amongst the stars. At some point in your life you probably asked yourself this question: Where did all this come from? This question was probably followed by similar questions. How did we get here? Why do we exist? When did the universe begin? There is a large debate going on between scientists, atheists, Christians, and philosophers about how our universe began, when and how it was created, and why. The Big Bang would be one way to try to explain it, and this is actual what many people believe. This miraculous event would have occurred by trillions of non-living chemical cells, also know as "matter", somehow coming together at just the right place and time to explode, therefore conceiving our universe as we know it. We cannot prove that this event actually happened, or even the exact point in time that it happened, but scientists describe it as the only "logical explanation" for why we exist. It is normal to feel pressured by our peers, so the human instinct chooses to do what everyone else is doing, and even to make ourselves believe in what we are told. If we could just take a moment to stop and observe the natural world around us, we would see how truly magnificent it is. To think that this all happened because of an explosion that happened billions of years ago would be like believing that something as simple as a car was made because it somehow willed itself to be created out of nothing. The Big Bang theory might sound reasonable, but the science behind it is just too far-fetched to be true.

2. It is highly improbable that something was created by chance when we can"t even create the same thing with all of our advanced scientific technology.

If the universe was created by a giant explosion, then where did we come from? Charles Darwin promoted the "Theory of Evolution" which is another one of the most popular beliefs among scientists. People who actually believe in this theory believe that anything can happen with time. They think that the universe had to have created itself because of how long it took. This might seem logical, but it really isn"t. One of the reasons of why it cannot have happened by chance, not even with all the time in the world, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything organized tends to become disorganized over time. Picture a child"s bedroom, for instance. No matter how many times the child cleans his room, it becomes messy again. This is because of how much time the child spends in the room, the his cleaning skills, and his habit of making messes and forgetting to clean them up. His room, though perhaps clean at first, will keep becoming dirty and untidy until he cleans it back up again. The room will not become clean by itself. Someone has to clean up that messy room. It is the same way with the universe. To create itself, the universe must have begun with billions of tiny dead cells. The cells floated around the universe in a huge mess until they came together and formed the world we live in. Scientists have studied our galaxy as best as they can, and as we keep progressing with our technology, they discover more mind-boggling facts every day. Take our solar system, for example. It is made up of eight planets and their moons, a sun, and thousands of asteroids. It might look like a huge mess at first, but it isn"t. If it was, the earth would have been destroyed a long time ago. Our vast solar system is formed ever so perfectly so nothing is out of place. The earth is the only planet that can support life on earth, but why is this? It circles the sun on its orbit at just the right distance, at just the right speed, at just the right time. We survive because our surroundings are placed perfectly to aid our needs. We have survived for thousands of years without a need of superheroes such as Superman to save us from a giant meteor larger than life hurling at the earth. This is because of the natural laws that each piece in our cosmos seems to follow. Scientists cannot explain how these natural laws came into place with the big bang theory, and they never will be able to because a "big bang" could not possibly have done it. Nothing disorganized can become organized. Chaos does not become order. The universe could not have been created by an explosion of matter because of how orderly it is put together.

3. It is not likely that something so amazing and awe-inspiring could have been "accidentally created" because not even the most intelligent human being could have thought it up.

Try to imagine a new color. Try to design a new animal using completely new characteristics that have absolutely nothing in common with any other animal in the world. It is a little tricky, and practically impossible. Now imagine having to imagine the entire universe and everything in it from scratch. It would be completely and utterly impossible for a human being to even be able to come close to envisioning a universe that could compare to ours. Our universe is so unique and complex that we wouldn"t be able to replicate it no matter how hard we tried, so why should we believe that it was created by chance?

"Something we cannot see, touch, or get our hands around is out there, organizing life." (Margaret J. Wheatley)

It is almost impossible to explain, but all of us can feel it if we only try. We can see it in a sunrise, on the waves of the ocean, in a newborn baby"s first cry. This couldn"t have just happened in a big bang.

http://www.godandscience.org...
http://www.dailydot.com...
http://www.breakpoint.org...
Richards, Lawrence O. It Couldn"t Just Happen. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1989. Book.
Phenenas

Con

I thank my opponent for her opening argument.

Pro is mistaken as to what actually occured during the Big Bang. It is often thought of as an "explosion" - a cartoonish "Ka-blam!" that sent galaxies and fully-formed planets hurdling in every direction. But this assumption comes from a severe lack of understanding of the theory itself. I will attempt now to enlighten Pro about what the Big Bang Theory actually entails:

The term "Big Bang" is in fact a misleading one, coined by a skeptical 1940's radio host making fun of the idea. In reality, it refers to the constant expansion of matter in the universe that is actually still occuring today. [1] About 14 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was concentrated into a small area - a superheated, ultra-dense point containing all energy. Where did this come from? Scientists don't know, and this is the grey area where physics has no answers and all is left up to philosophy. But this theory wasn't invented on the spot; it was based on the discovery of the universe's constant expansion [2]. The universe's boundaries are perpetually widening, as evidenced by galaxies moving farther and farther apart. There is also something known as the cosmic microwave background [3], which is radiation left over from the Big Bang that scientists study. Determining how old this radiation was helped scientists discover the age of the universe as a whole.

While I enjoy debating about philosophy, the category of this debate is very explicitly "science". And yet, Pro's argument contains massive amounts of philosophy and appeals to emotion, but very little scientific reasoning. In lieu of science, she substitutes loosely-fitting analogies, asking us to picture a "car" or "child's bedroom" to represent the various aspects of her argument. While analogies are helpful at times, relying on them too much borders on logical fallacy. For example, here is an extremity that Pro used:

"To think that this all happened because of an explosion that happened billions of years ago would be like believing that something as simple as a car was made because it somehow willed itself to be created out of nothing."

Here, Pro compares two completely unlike things: manmade technology and natural formation of matter. While cars were invented to serve a purpose for mankind, the universe formed - according to my personal views - at random and on its own. Also contained in this quote is a plain inaccuracy: the universe was not formed out of nothing. The amount of matter was the same when the universe was formed as it is now; it was just compacted into a very tight space.

"This miraculous event would have occurred by trillions of non-living chemical cells, also know as 'matter'..."

There is an error in terminology here. A cell is the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism. They are complex structures made of many elements and compounds [4], far too complex for Big Bang times. Cells would not appear until 10 billion years after the Big Bang. The substance that filled the universe at the time of the universe was pure matter. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space. This broad category shows that at the time of the Big Bang, the universe was mostly hydrogen and helium, the most basic of all elements. However, at the time, the universe was so hot that not even the tiniest particle could form. Later, as it expanded, the universe cooled enough to allow the formation of subatomic particles [5]. Atoms formed later, then molecules, and so on, growing more complex with time.

Pro uses a misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in her argument. The idea of entropy is a complex concept, and cannot be explained as "stuff gets messed up over time". The actual idea, though I oversimplify it here, is that certain changes happen in matter that cannot be reversed. When it comes to the Big Bang, this applies to its expansion and decrease in temperature. No outside forces (since there are no forces outside the universe, as far as we know) can make the universe become smaller or hotter. So, if anything, the Second Law actually strengthens the theory somewhat. Pro's "child's bedroom" metaphor is never properly explained. She takes the analogy and runs with it, but never ties it back to how this explains the "impossibility" of the Big Bang. The reason planets form with such "perfection" can be explained fairly easily with science. The universe, in its early stages, consisted of elemental particles randomly flying around. When particles combine, they grow larger, which causes smaller particles to be gravitationally attracted to them. Most of the particles get stuck together, and this is why large astral bodies - planets - were formed. The reason they are almost perfectly spherical is because that is the shape that all objects tend toward when gravity it pushing against them evenly in all directions [6]. With the universe being well over 93 billion light-years across, it is very likely that at least one planet will have the perfect conditions for life to form.

In her final point, Pro invites us to "Try to imagine a new color. Try to design a new animal using completely new characteristics..." She is right, a human cannot possibly design all the intricacies of the universe from scratch. But it makes no sense to say that the Big Bang can't be believed in because it was a simple "accident". The human mind and acts of nature are very different things. A human cannot create, from scratch, a planet, nor a forest, nor a tree, nor a leaf, nor even one cell. Therefore, intelligence does not at all correlate with this and cannot be applied. Pro seems to be implying that because random chance is somehow "dumb", it cannot have created anything. But here, it again comes down to philosophy. Some people, like myself, believe that landscapes were formed by tectonic plates, precipitation, and random chance, while others believe that the tectonic plates and such were moved by God or otherwise, as everything is part of His plan. This may be, or it may not be; neither can be proven by science, so it is left to personal beliefs.

I have never in my life had any "feeling" that some sentient force was behind all of creation. A shame that it cannot be explained. It would seem that Pro is unable to accept the cold, dispassionate way in which the universe was created. Whether our reality has any meaning could be debated, but as I have said, that dwells in the realm of philosophy. Pro, however, has been more than content to enter this realm in a scientific debate.

Thank you again, Pro, and I await your rebuttal for Round 3.

SOURCES:
1. Cox, Gary. The God Confusion: Why Nobody Knows the Answer to the Ultimate Question. London: Bloomsbury Plc, 2013. Print.
2. http://skyserver.sdss.org...
3. https://en.wikipedia.org...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org...
6. https://lcogt.net...
Debate Round No. 2
IceeeStorm1816

Pro

IceeeStorm1816 forfeited this round.
Phenenas

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round. To make things fair, I will wait until she responds to add any further points.
Debate Round No. 3
IceeeStorm1816

Pro

I apologize for forfeiting the previous round, and I thank my opponent for giving me grace and allowing me to continue this debate. This will be the last round of this debate, but I am open to anyone who would like to start a new debate with me on this same topic.

My first point I would like to make is that while Con made some great rebuttals, he did not make any arguments of his own, therefore he has not made any points for the Big Bang theory being scientifically accurate. I will begin this round with some arguments as to whether or not some of Con"s rebuttals were valid, and then make my own points.

-Rebuttals-

Most of Con"s rebuttals were about my analogies. First he states that the analogy about the car making itself was "loosely-fitting". I believe he is stating that comparing a car to the universe is not appropriate. However, since analogies are there to help make complicated points easier to picture, I believe that all my analogies were valid. In my first point, I explained how it is impossible for the universe to create itself, I used a car to represent the universe, and stated how far-fetched it is for a car to create itself. I then pointed out that a car cannot create itself, because a car is made up of so many different parts that need to be assembled by someone much more intelligent than the car itself. The universe cannot create itself for the same reason. It is far too complex, and too perfectly formed in a whole. My analogy was perfectly appropriate for the point I was making, and I see nothing wrong with using a man-made object to prove this point. I am not saying that the universe and a simple car are similar objects and can be compared to each other in a sense that they are basically the same thing, but merely giving viewers a chance to see what I am saying and have a picture in their minds. This helps viewers get a better understanding of my statement and makes my argument stronger. Because the viewers and voters of this debate are just ordinary people and not professional judges, I feel as though analogies are sometimes needed in hard debate topics such as this one. My other analogy, the one about the child"s messy bedroom, was again perfectly fine to use for my point about the Law of Entropy. My opponent stated that: "The idea of entropy is a complex concept, and cannot be explained as "stuff gets messed up over time" ". That is true, it cannot. I did not leave my point hanging with this statement, but rather, explained it as thoroughly as I could using examples, points, and an analogy. The Law of Entropy is difficult to understand, so to use it in my argument I have to simplify it, and I see nothing wrong with that. Next my opponent states that: "When it comes to the Big Bang, this applies to its expansion and decrease in temperature. No outside forces (since there are no forces outside the universe, as far as we know) can make the universe become smaller or hotter. So, if anything, the Second Law actually strengthens the theory somewhat.". This has nothing to do with the Law of Entropy, which states that anything organized tends to become disorganized over time. He uses this point for one simple sentence, and then abandons it without any explanation as to why this could relate to the Law of Entropy. He accuses me of "running away with my analogy", when he himself does it in his own argument with his own point.

Having completed my rebuttals, I will move on to my own points to strengthen my argument.

Stephen Hawking, a famous scientist who is an atheist and supporter of the big bang theory, once said this quote:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

This quote, though it may sound legitimate, is actually a fallacy known as circular reasoning. I believe this quote could be turned around, and state that "because there is a universe, there is a law such as gravity." Gravity cannot help the universe create itself, because without the universe, there would be no gravity! It is easy to see the flaws in his quote just by parsing the sentence and looking deeper. If gravity helped create the universe, then without gravity, the universe must not have been able to create itself, but gravity cannot exist without a universe, so the universe cannot have created itself simply because of the lack of gravity! Circular reasoning, especially coming from such a renowned scientist, can be difficult to spot, but once spotted, the entire point is powerless. It does not make any sense. Scientists say that the Big Bang happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago. In 2012, we could see 13.2 billion light years away. Because of the speed of light, when we look out into space that far, we are technically seeing 13.2 billion years into the past. If the Big Bang happened anywhere near that time period, we should be seeing signs of an incomplete universe, or at least one that is still "evolving" from birth. No matter how far we have looked, we have not found anything that can relate to the Big Bang causing our universe to create itself. Nothing that can prove or even strengthen the Big Bang theory has been found in the past.

I have listed many different laws that the Big Bang theory has violated, as well as some evidence and facts for my case. I believe if a theory, even one as well-known as this one, can break that many scientifically correct laws, it cannot be true. Remember, this is a theory we are debating about, and not an actual law. Not once has anything been able to challenge the laws of science because of how accurate these laws are. We haven"t been able to find any real scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory, so I think it is grossly unqualified to challenge our laws for science, let alone defy them.

Another big thanks for my opponent for his graciousness at letting me participate in this round, and I am excitedly awaiting his argument for Round 4.

http://www.gavinjensen.com...
http://thetechreader.com...
http://www.universetoday.com...
Phenenas

Con

Pro claims that I did not make any arguments of my own. I believe she may have skipped over the second paragraph of my argument, where I quite extensively went over the entire process of the Big Bang. Scientists accept the Big Bang as very likely true because of two strong reasons: universal expansion and cosmic microwaves, both of which I brought up then. Pro, in fact, had little to say outside of analogies and philosophical questions. Her argument that dead cells randomly came together to form the cosmos makes far less sense than the Big Bang Theory, and she failed to defend it in her final round.

Pro makes a case as to why she used so many analogies. She testifies that she knows what she is talking about and is only making it easy to picture so viewers will understand. While analogies can be helpful in illustrating a certain point, they should only be used after describing your actual reasoning. Pro, rather than explaining why the universe cannot be created without an outside force, takes one object, explains how it works, and moves on. This is a serious logical fallacy. One can argue any point, no matter how far-fetched, by simply taking an unrelated example and saying "It's like that". Pro claims that using analogies "helps viewers get a better understanding of [her] statement and makes [her] argument stronger." I don't understand this logic. Pro seemed quite eager to describe cars and children's rooms, but never gave any concrete points or evidence to support her anecdotes.

Simplifying your argument for the "common people" may be a good strategy in politics, but on this website, it is expected that you deliver all the knowledge and empirical evidence that you can muster. In the future, don't worry about making sure that everyone can understand. No reliable scientist believes that the Big Bang violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Brian Greene, a physicist at Columbia University, gave a very good counter-argument to the "child's bedroom" analogy [1]:

"You have to take into account all of the sources of order and disorder, including the body of the human who is cleaning up the room, the heat that they are generating, the fat that’s being burned as they undertake this exercise. And when you take into account everything – the molecules of air that get excited by the sweat forming on the brow of the individual doing the cleaning – when you take into account all of these features, the amount of disorder generated overly compensates – always – for the amount of order that’s being created in the room."

While the "child's bedroom" was a logical fallacy to begin with, Greene explained why the analogy itself was faulty. And as I explained earlier, the idea of gravity forming giant clumps of matter over time, as well as all the universe's energy spreading out and expanding, is completely consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Pro, on the other hand, sticks only to the bare-bones definition of the Second Law, without checking what "organization" actually means. A tiny point with an even structure of matter and energy is far more orderly than the uneven mess of a universe that exists today.

Pro goes on to renounce a quote by Stephen Hawking. Rather than arguing against the Big Bang Theory itself, she is arguing against one sentence. This quote comes from a book called The Grand Design, written by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow [2]. The problem is that while I cannot claim to have read the book, I'm sure this quote had plenty of explanation before and after it. Pro instead takes this single quote out of context, claiming that it uses circular reasoning. This demonstrates a lack of research about the quote itself. As for Pro's questioning of why there isn't light from 13 billion years ago...well, there is. Cosmic background radiation, as I've mentioned before, is one of the many reasons why the Big Bang did happen [3]. It is not visible to the naked eye, as there is no proof that the Big Bang was a visible occurence.

No matter how much evidence I gave, Pro persevered in her assumption that there was absolutely no evidence for the Big Bang. Pro states that she has "listed many different laws that the Big Bang theory has violated" but in fact she only "listed" one law, which was actually a simple misinterpretation.

I will now summarize the arguments put forth in this debate. I argued in the prior round that because the universe is expanding and scientists have discovered leftover radiation from that time, the Big Bang is very likely true. Pro, not acknowledging this nor contradicting it, argued that the Big Bang violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I countered that Pro does not understand this law, and explained why. Pro has also delivered several philosophical points, which cannot be proven one way or the other, and are better left up to personal interpretation. Pro also relied too heavily on analogies and logical fallacies, which I have addressed this round.

I thank Pro for this debate, and wish her the best of luck in the voting period.

SOURCES:
1. http://www.factcheck.org...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...(book)
3. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
Convincing arguments is not limited to solely their own, but for rebuttals too, if I recall correctly.
Posted by IceeeStorm1816 1 year ago
IceeeStorm1816
@Hayd You admit that he did not provide any arguments, so why did you vote that he had more convincing arguments? Also, I believe it is the voter's job, not mine, to decide whether the sources in debates are reliable.

@Phenenas I agree you did bring up radiation and expansion, but that was part of your description on the Big Bang theory. Your job is to provide evidence for why the Big Bang Theory is true, and you didn't make any points. I couldn't make any rebuttals because there was nothing to rebut.
Posted by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
@iceestorm

I said in my RFD that if you had any questions or disagreed with anything at all to PM me and I would be more than happy to discuss it. Posting your concerns here does not help me nor you.

As far as Con not providing arguments, he did not need to provide any arguments. For only you had the BoP, his only job was to negate whatever you argued. Although it would have strengthened his case if he provided more arguments, he did not *need* to. He also discussed microwave background, which you dropped.

If you would have stated in the debate that Con's sources are invalid because they are from Wikipedia, then that would have been different. But you never disputed Con's sources in the debate, so I therefore had to take them as reliable. I agree, Wikipedia is not reliable, you should have said that.
Posted by Phenenas 1 year ago
Phenenas
@IceeeStorm I brought up universal expansion and microwave background radiation on several occasions. Both of these are factual, tangible things which scientists use as evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. You failed to refute these points. Next time, I suggest you pay close attention to your opponent's claims and make sure to respond to all of them.
Posted by IceeeStorm1816 1 year ago
IceeeStorm1816
@Phenenas If you could please point out your actual arguments I will look into them. Describing what the Big Bang theory is does not count since there are no actual points as to why it is most likely true. Also, perhaps Wikipedia is more reliable now, but it still does not compare to an actual book on the topic, which was one of my sources.
Posted by Phenenas 1 year ago
Phenenas
@IceeStorm There is no reason to be offended. Perhaps you should read Hayd's analysis of our arguments; he does a good job reading into them. I gave several arguments in the form of scientific evidence of the Big Bang's existence. Wikipedia is far more reliable nowadays, since not just anyone can edit anymore. I consider it a valid source. Perhaps you should consider whether your own argument was strong enough, rather than assuming that the voters are simply inaccurate.
Posted by IceeeStorm1816 1 year ago
IceeeStorm1816
Though I am grateful to the voters for voting, I am slightly offended by their decisions. Con did not give any arguments of his own, so he should not get any points for more convincing arguments. Also, Wikipedia, which is where Con got most of his information for rebuttals, is one of the worst sources you can count on since anyone can get on and post inaccurate information. I would like to ask voters to please take this into account for next time so they can vote more accurately from now on.
Posted by IceeeStorm1816 1 year ago
IceeeStorm1816
I agree you did explain the Big Bang theory quite well, but you still did not provide any actual arguments as to why the Big Bang theory is most likely true. Just giving a description does not count as making your argument.
Posted by IceeeStorm1816 1 year ago
IceeeStorm1816
Oh no! I did not mean to forfeit! Can we please continue the debate in future rounds?
Posted by Phenenas 1 year ago
Phenenas
I apologize for the formatting. Notepad was being dumb about Word Wrap and such.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
IceeeStorm1816PhenenasTied
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: just finished it, will revise later when I have time. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1diI7cDz7HgT6mxZ6QqTslEtcBtdXZC7w-yIK4RQIJdA/edit?usp=sharing
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
IceeeStorm1816PhenenasTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.