The Instigator
hillkill65
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
yomama12
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

The Big Bang Theory

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,023 times Debate No: 52443
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

hillkill65

Pro

I believe there is countless facts to support the big bang theory. Rules Round 1: acceptance. Round 2: Opening. Round 3: Argument. Round 4: Rebuttal. Round 5: closing argument any other closing comments.

This is my first Debate on here so I am just trying to further my understanding of debate and hopefully gain some experience
yomama12

Con

ive never heard of such evidence, but, go on, lets se what "evidence" supports your theory.
Debate Round No. 1
hillkill65

Pro

There are many different theories on how everything we know came into existence, but there are two very well known theories the Biblical version and the Big Bang Theory. I believe the Big Bang Theory is the most probable start of all we know today.
There are facts after facts that support the Big Bang or suggest towards it. Now some of the most compelling information was founded by Edwin Hubble and the pair of scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. "Edwin Hubble observations that galaxies are speeding away from us in all directions suggest some source of ancient explosive force" which led to the theory of the Big Bang. Now scientist suggested that the rate which we are expanding is slowing down, but when three astronomers, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess, found that the universe was speeding up as though something were propelling it, driving its expansion faster and faster.

Scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson helped us hear the leftovers of the Big Bang. "Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way, when they serendipitously discovered the CMB(Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)." "This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology."
These examples are only 2 among other substantial information which supports the Big Bang Theory.

(http://science.nationalgeographic.com...)
(http://hubblesite.org...)
(http://www.aps.org...)
yomama12

Con

http://scienceblogs.com...

This website tells us how the big bang doesn't work.

A couple reasons why include:

1. The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can"t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

2. Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile

3. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

4. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

5. There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn"t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

6. Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

7. The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow. Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, R.H. Dicke, says it well: "If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."

8. There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter"if the Big Bang was true. "Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up." "We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."

9. The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another.

So, we have learned that the Big Bang theory really couldn't have happened. All the facts are in the trusty site that i've cited at the top of my argument. So, what caused the universe to happen? I will explain that next round. I await my opponent's response and rebuttals
Debate Round No. 2
hillkill65

Pro

Now I did have a huge long paper using all 8000 characters trying to prove my point, and show that you are wrong, blah blah blah. But something did not click! I kept looking all over the place and even information in children science books show what you are saying is completely wrong. I began to think where did you get all of this absurd information from and I decided to check out the website you cited that claims how the Big Bang Theory won't work and BANG just like that all my questions were answered!

I don't know how oblivious you could have been to use a website whose title and information is dedicated to proving you wrong like what!

My contender used the website http://scienceblogs.com... as can be seen in his arguement above. Now what disappoints me is you must be one who just copy and pastes any information you see to try and prove something wrong.

Now I urge all of you reading this and my contender to read that full article or even the points which my contender pointed out! Now in the following I am going to copy and paste the title of the website and all of the information from my contenders 1 point on down

Why not? After all, I do, and I"ve got your ear. Let"s take a look at what science has to say about these so-called scientific objections.
1. The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can"t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. But let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science.

Theoretical extremes happen all the time. The one example used to show how ridiculous the Big Bang is " black holes " definitely exist. (I"ve even written about that, too.)

But this isn"t even a scientific objection; it"s just a repetition of earlier inaccuracies coupled with the lie that "there is no definitive evidence that it" ever happened." Check out this article for some simple, straightforward, but comprehensive evidence for the Big Bang, which no alternative has successfully explained.

2. Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile.

It sounds like the author is upset, in his own particular words, as to how the Big Bang got started in the first place. That"s actually a good question, and one that we didn"t have a reasonable answer to until 1979.

Although we aren"t 100% sure of it, our best theory for that is called cosmic inflation, which details what happened before the Big Bang and tells us how the Big Bang resulted from it. The one major test that"s been done of the theory " detailed measurement of the scalar spectral index " is as close to a smoking gun for inflation as we"ve gotten so far. But it isn"t a problem with the Big Bang, its a limit to the scope of the theory.

3. A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.

A vacuum does have no density. (No matter density, at any rate.) A total vacuum is the opposite of infinite density. But it is not said, by anyone, that "the nothingness got very dense, and that it why it exploded." Rather, the very hot and dense stuff, the moment it began to exist, was hot and dense, and that forced it to expand.

4. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms!

As people have been stating for nearly a century, it isn"t an "explosion" at all. It"s called the "expanding" Universe for a reason.

It was neither a chemical nor a nuclear explosion, it"s a continuous and rapid (but gradual) expansion. This has been known since the 1920s, thanks to Edwin Hubble"s great discovery.

5. There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn"t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding.

It isn"t magic, it isn"t a push, and it isn"t a pile of emptiness. The Universe expands due to the definition of space. And this is one of the most fascinating things about it: if you take General Relativity as your theory of gravity, and you say that space is " on average " full of stuff (matter and energy) everywhere, you only have two possibilities. Either your Universe is expanding or it"s contracting. Nothing else is even theoretically allowed.

Ever since the observation of the 1920s, it"s been demonstrated that the Universe is expanding. Although there"s still some uncertainty about how it"s going to end,

every single one of the possibilities starts with a Big Bang, and comes forward in time to give us an expanding, cooling Universe. So there"s not only a way to expand it, the expansion of your Universe is unavoidable.

6. Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source.

Of course there can"t be heat without energy; heat by definition is a form of energy transfer! But the question you"re asking, in other words, is "why is the early Universe so hot?" This goes back to the same question we answered earlier: where did the Big Bang come from? The Big Bang will take us all the way back to the beginning of what we call "the radiation era", which is where matter flying around at ultra-relativistic speeds and photons " particles of light " were the dominant constituents of the Universe.

So where did all the energy that started the Big Bang come from? We know, from the answer to question #2, that we"ll want to look at what cosmic inflation says. (And if you want something that violates "common sense," you"ll love inflation!)

And it says that, while the Universe was undergoing its period of exponential expansion (i.e., inflation), it wasn"t matter or radiation that was driving it. Rather, there was energy in the vacuum itself that caused it. But there isn"t anywhere near that amount of energy in the vacuum today. So what happened?

That vacuum energy (on the vertical axis) decreased down to zero (or almost zero), but that energy had to go somewhere! Where did it go? Into matter, photons, radiation, etc., but there was so much of it! So the matter and energy that was created was born hot, and hence sometimes we call it not just the Big Bang, but the Hot Big Bang. (And the process by which inflation ends and the Universe gets hot is called Reheating.)

7. The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow. Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill.
continue reading on the website he used. He used a website that contradicted everything he stated. with that being said his last argument is completely invalid. Thank you.
yomama12

Con

"Now what disappoints me is you must be one who just copy and pastes any information you see to try and prove something wrong."

In DDO, as long as you cite the information correctly, you can pull stuff from that source. Otherwise, it's plagiarism. I cited the sources, didn't I? You ave nothing to call me out on.

"Theoretical extremes happen all the time."

name one theoretical extreme that you have heard of.

"Check out this article for some simple, straightforward, but comprehensive evidence for the Big Bang, which no alternative has successfully explained."

What article? You never cited any article relating to this message. You really goth work on your debating my friend.

"It isn"t magic, it isn"t a push, and it isn"t a pile of emptiness."

I never said it was magic, or any of those things to be exact, all i did was pull it from the website. No harm done in that, as long as I cited it, which I have.

You have so many holes in these last rebuttals. I have rebutted your rebuttals, so my arguments are perfectly valid. Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
hillkill65

Pro

hillkill65 forfeited this round.
yomama12

Con

he has forfeited, so 7 points go to me, i await my rebuttal's rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 4
hillkill65

Pro

hillkill65 forfeited this round.
yomama12

Con

My opponent has forfeited two times now, making my arguments more refined, as he never rubuttaled my rebuttals. That makes me the winner of this debate. I hope to do another debate like this in the future, (but of course, one where the opponent doesn't forfeit).
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by hillkill65 2 years ago
hillkill65
thank you!
Posted by yomama12 2 years ago
yomama12
glad to debate with u on ur first debate. :D
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
hillkill65yomama12Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22 
Reasons for voting decision: Almost the entire debate was copy and pasted from the website that con provided. So neither side gets convincing arguments. Pro used more sources and ones that didn't contradict his point, so pro wins that. However,pro forfeited and therefore loses conduct points. Pro also said "I believe there is countless facts to support the big bang theory", which uses incorrect grammar, so grammar goes to con.