The Instigator
harrytruman
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Vermillion
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

The Big Bang Theory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
harrytruman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 359 times Debate No: 82636
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

harrytruman

Con

The Big Bang Theory:
So, in this debate I will be arguing that the big bang theory is false.
The Big Bang theory says that there was a piece of matter the size of a sugar cube, and it blew up and suddenly there is all these random particles which formed quarks and electrons which formed the nuclease which formed hydrogen atoms. Then they formed nebulas which formed stars which blew up and formed planets.
So, first off, how do they know it was the size of a sugar cube, better yet, how do they know that there was one, and what set it off? Why are all the particles exactly even to all like particles, an up quark is equal to all the trillions of up quarks in existence, a down quark is equal to all the down quarks in existence, why? So, after these particles came into existence, how is it that all of them, every single one formed a hydrogen atom, consider this; there are trillions of atoms in your body alone, how many compose earth, how many compose our solar system, our galaxy, our universe, and who knows how many others, and that is how many times this design repeated without fail. So, consider the next part, hydrogen atoms are too small to pull together to form nebulas, remember here, these were the biggest particles at the time, and if it all blew up they would all be dispersed.
So then this guy Steven hawking"s, as intelligent as he is, decided to form an entirely new theory, he says that they all "appeared- out of nothing, you heard me right, he says that trillions to the trillionth power to the trillionth power etc. hydrogen atoms, all alike, appeared out of nowhere. Well, we can all thank Steven hawking"s, for his ingenious problem solving, you solve a problem of a ridiculous theory, by coming up with an even more ridiculous theory.
""The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."- Nikola Tesla
Vermillion

Pro

I accept the debate and will be arguing in favor of the Big Bang theory.

--Critique of harrytruman's arguments--

Contention 1:

A: "The Big Bang theory says that there was a piece of matter the size of a sugar cube..."

There are so many things false in this first sentence I don't even know where to begin! Scientists have proved that the beginning of the universe was in fact much, much, much, much, much, much smaller than a sugar cube. It simply sprang into existence as a sigularity, a zone which is commonly found at the core of black holes. Black holes have such intense pressure that finite matter can be squished into an infinite density, called a sigularity. I have proven my opponent incorrect on this term and thus the argument is void.

B: "...and it blew up..."

A common misconception about the Big Bang theory is that it was a large explosion, when experts say that it was, and continues to be, an expansion. This can be proven on many levels, such as using Hubble's Law to evaluate the continuous expansion of the universe. Again, my opponent's argument here can be rendered dead and meaningless.

Contention 2:

A: " Why are all the particles exactly even to all like particles, an up quark is equal to all the trillions of up quarks in existence, a down quark is equal to all the down quarks in existence, why?"

These questions are not related to the debate, and if you truly want to know the answer I suggest a quick google search or consulting a physics textbook.

Contention 3:

A: "So, consider the next part, hydrogen atoms are too small to pull together to form nebulas, remember here, these were the biggest particles at the time, and if it all blew up they would all be dispersed."

What would cause the hydrogen atoms to blow up? Hydrogen is one of the most flammable gases, but I recall learning in my elementary school on the three things a fire needs: Fuel, heat, and oxygen. Do tell, what could possibly cause these hydrogen atoms to explode in an endless vacuum, where there is no oxygen, and explain why wouldn't they form stars instead? I believe this argument is also invalid.


--In defense of the Big Bang theory--


Contention 1:

As I said before, the only reason we know that the universe is expanding is because of Edwin Hubble, who, in 1929, found that galaxies appear to be moving away from us and each other at speeds proportional to their distance. This expansion phenomenon supports the idea that the universe was once tightly compacted, allegedly from a sigularity.

Contention 2:

A: "So then this guy Steven hawking"s, as intelligent as he is, decided to form an entirely new theory..."

In fact, my opponent's mention of Steven Hawking just harms their argument, as it is very clear that this supergenius supports the theory. He says (well, accurately, has a machine say for him), "The universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." In case you missed it, he is very clear on what he believes, as has pages of work to back himself up. It goes unsaid that one can never argue with someone like Hawking.


--Conclusion--


With over a century of science (and Stephen Hawking) to back me up, I feel very confident saying that the Big Bang theory is a valid and logical theory. I would like to thank my opponent early on for making this debate as I belive that it shall be LOTS of fun to participate in. Nice quote from Tesla, by the way. However, at the end of the day, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." ~Thomas Edison


--Resources--

http://www.big-bang-theory.com...
http://www.hawking.org.uk...;
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Con

"There are so many things false in this first sentence I don't even know where to begin! Scientists have proved that the beginning of the universe was in fact much, much, much, much, much, much smaller than a sugar cube. It simply sprang into existence as a sigularity, a zone which is commonly found at the core of black holes. Black holes have such intense pressure that finite matter can be squished into an infinite density, called a sigularity. I have proven my opponent incorrect on this term and thus the argument is void. "
Really, because my extensive research tells me that they did theorize it was the size of a sugar cube. Additionally, my common sense tells me that saying that it was smaller, does not make it any more credible.
"A common misconception about the Big Bang theory is that it was a large explosion, when experts say that it was, and continues to be, an expansion. This can be proven on many levels, such as using Hubble's Law to evaluate the continuous expansion of the universe. Again, my opponent's argument here can be rendered dead and meaningless."
Again, this is not what they say, besides, if it held together for so long (according to them, it was like that since always) then why did it expand, wouldn"t it continue to implode, the mass is only becoming more dense. So let"s get this straight, first you say that it was ever imploding, now it is ever expanding, how, if this force which is expanding said matter is strong enough to pull that mass apart, stronger than the gravity of all the mass in the universe combine, how did it even form in the first place.
"These questions are not related to the debate, and if you truly want to know the answer I suggest a quick google search or consulting a physics textbook."
You are just avoiding my statement, this is relevant to the debate so drop it or give me a real rebuttal.
"What would cause the hydrogen atoms to blow up? Hydrogen is one of the most flammable gases, but I recall learning in my elementary school on the three things a fire needs: Fuel, heat, and oxygen. Do tell, what could possibly cause these hydrogen atoms to explode in an endless vacuum, where there is no oxygen, and explain why wouldn't they form stars instead? I believe this argument is also invalid. "
The Big Bang blew up, if it blew up they would be dispersed, this is a classic example of a straw man fallacy, besides, provided it expanded rather than blew up, said expansion force which is apparently stronger than the combine gravity of all the mass in the universe, how did said hydrogen atoms get together with such weak gravity?
"As I said before, the only reason we know that the universe is expanding is because of Edwin Hubble, who, in 1929, found that galaxies appear to be moving away from us and each other at speeds proportional to their distance. This expansion phenomenon supports the idea that the universe was once tightly compacted, allegedly from a sigularity. "
How do you know that it was not recording the earth moving in its orbit, ooh, it seems as if the sun is moving away, dude, it"s called the sunset. Of course I was not saying he was talking about the sun, it was an example.
"In fact, my opponent's mention of Steven Hawking just harms their argument, as it is very clear that this supergenius supports the theory. He says (well, accurately, has a machine say for him), "The universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." In case you missed it, he is very clear on what he believes, as has pages of work to back himself up. It goes unsaid that one can never argue with someone like Hawking."
Steven Hawking, I could win an argument with that guy and win, a monkey could, the truth is, Steven hawking is not per-say the kind of guy I would base my physics on. The point is, you cannot support the big bang theory by saying that Steven hawking"s believes it, I find it quite unintelligent to believe something because "an authority figure" believes it. In fact I can cite numerous occasions when "the authority figure" turns out to be a wrong;
The Jewish Holocaust
The Salem witch trials
The Bay of Pigs
The Iran Contra deal
"With over a century of science (and Stephen Hawking) to back me up, I feel very confident saying that the Big Bang theory is a valid and logical theory. I would like to thank my opponent early on for making this debate as I belive that it shall be LOTS of fun to participate in. Nice quote from Tesla, by the way. However, at the end of the day, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." ~Thomas Edison"
Thomas Edison, you think you can combat NIKOLA FREIKING TESLA with Thomas Edison, those two actually had disputes, and I will have you know that one, your quote is irrelevant it has nothing to do with this, 2, Edison thought that frying dogs would discredit tesla, yeah, that guy is smart.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Vermillion

Pro

Vermillion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Con

Harry Truman wins by knockout!
Vermillion

Pro

Vermillion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Con

Looks like I hit him as little too hard, Uh, anyone have a teeter board, adrenaline, and a blood thinner on hand?
Vermillion

Pro

Vermillion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
harrytruman

Con

Oh, someone get the shovel!
Vermillion

Pro

Vermillion forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by AWSM0055 1 year ago
AWSM0055
Big Bang was caused by a singularity

Singularity is when the laws of physics break down and we therefore can't make any logical prediction as to why it happened because, again, a physically lawless point in existence is impossible to explain with our current understanding of physical laws.

Furthermore, the Big Bang was not an explosion but an expansion. Big difference, yet common misconception (scientists really need to change the name 'Big Bang').

Moreover, time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and "past, present and future" of the Big Bang wouldn't have existed before the Big Bang expanded. Therefore, the Big Bang wouldn't have been caused by anything for any reason, but would rather just 'happen'.

And one more thing. The Big Bang released mass amount of energy, not matter. The matter was later converted into energy from the high temperatures.
Posted by Vermillion 1 year ago
Vermillion
*cough cough* *violently points to resources* I had them! I did!
Posted by Mister_Man 1 year ago
Mister_Man
So far a decent debate, but a tip to both of you - use sources. Saying "so far my extensive research shows x, y, z," actually show your research. Anyone can make a claim, but if you're able to actually back it up, that's what gives your stance validity.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by retroz 11 months ago
retroz
harrytrumanVermillionTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro offered more reliable resources than "the huffington post" and "my extensive research", Con wins this debate because of forfeiture and because Pro's arguments were relatively irrelevant to the topic, and did not refute Con's