The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
ThinkingPunk
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

The Big Bang is scientifically proven

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...
ThinkingPunk
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,279 times Debate No: 60237
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

I will argue that the big bang theory is based on scientific fact

First round acceptance
ThinkingPunk

Con

Alright, I accept.
I should mention, just to preserve some DDO reputation, that I do think the Big Bang is how the universe began. But why not play devil's advocate every once in a while. Best of luck, Truth Seeker.
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

The big bang theory states that the universe expanded from a hot tiny dense point millions of years ago. After the explosion, it cooled enough to form subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Evidence for the theory comes from Hubbles law which states the universe is constantly expanding.

The big bang theory was proven when Christian Doppler discovered that the frequency of a sound wave (sound, water, and light travel in waves) depended on the position of it's source. As a moving object approaches you, the sound compresses, frequency changes, and the sound pitch is perceived differently. When the object moves away, the pitch goes down and is called the Doppler effect.

Scientists observed that some stars had more light into the red part of the spectrum. They theorized that the stars were moving away from the earth and the wavelengths emitted were being stretched. The stars shifted to the red end as it had longer wavelengths. Hubble noticed that the star's velocity was proportional to the distance of the Earth, showing that the universe is expanding.

He then proposed that the universe would've been so much smaller and dense billions of years ago until it reaches a single point with a lot of radiation and heat. This is evidenced by the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation.

With this in mind, the big bang theory is grounded on science.

Sources:

1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
ThinkingPunk

Con

Before I begin, I should like to define one term:

Proven[1]: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument.
In scientific terms, to be proven means to be given proof beyond any doubt, with 100% certainty, and with repeatable and demonstrable results.

You do, very truly, have quite a case proving that the Big Bang was almost certainly the creation of the universe. However, if you would notice, the resolution states that 'The Big Bang is Scientifically Proven'. Meaning that science must be completely without doubts as to the Big Bangs existence in the same manner as gravity. Which brings me to a cliche, but still valid argument: There is no proof that proves, with 100% scientific certainty, that the Big Bang is the only way that the universe could have come into existence.

We, as humans, have extensive evidence lending itself to the idea of the Big Bang, and nearly all rational thought would lead to that explanation, of course. But, unfortunately for your case, it is not scientifically proven.

Firstly, while all these piece of evidence certainly do lend themselves very nicely to the Big Bang, there are other possibilities. First of all, Christians might (very slim chance, but whatever) be right, and an all-powerful, all intelligent God could have zapped the universe into begin exactly as it was 5000 years ago. Of course, this is a slim chance, but we have no scientific way to prove otherwise at this point and, until we do, it cannot be said that the Big Bang is 'scientifically proven', because that proof would have to be demonstrable, repeatable, and without any doubt.

We are close to being able to repeat the big bang with machines such as the Large Hadron Collider, but we have not yet achieved demonstrable evidence that proves, with absolute, 100% certainty which is required by science, that the Big Bang is the only way.

I'll be honest, the Big Bang is likely what created the universe. But, it is NOT anywhere close to 100% certain. There are other theories and ideas that mean that there is some margin of doubt, and any doubt prevents the Big Bang frombeing absolutely proven.

In order to scientifically prove something, it must also be demonstrable and repeatable and, given the fact that we are unable to, with current technology, demonstrate, and much less repeat, experiments that would mimic the creation of the universe, we are unable to label the Big Bang as anything other than a theory. Mathematical and scientific models aside, the slim possibility that they are inaccurate and that some other force created the universe is enough to ensure that the Big Bang is currently impossible to prove with the certainty that is required for something to be considered 'scientifically proven', and will likely remain so for a very long time.

1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

"Firstly, while all these piece of evidence certainly do lend themselves very nicely to the Big Bang, there are other possibilities. First of all, Christians might (very slim chance, but whatever) be right, and an all-powerful, all intelligent God could have zapped the universe into begin exactly as it was 5000 years ago. Of course, this is a slim chance, but we have no scientific way to prove otherwise at this point and, until we do, it cannot be said that the Big Bang is 'scientifically proven', because that proof would have to be demonstrable, repeatable, and without any doubt."

While yes i am a Christian, i am only arguing within the field of Science. You bring up a good point and because it already happened, we cannot be as certain as we want that the big bang is verified, however efforts are being made to create a collider that could potentially recreate the big bang explosion (1). While science cannot yet completely replicate the actual event, it can gather observational data to recreate the past.

"There are other theories and ideas that mean that there is some margin of doubt, and any doubt prevents the Big Bang frombeing absolutely proven."

you can present those ideas and see if they explain the universe better than the big bang.

Sources:

1. http://www.nbcnews.com...
ThinkingPunk

Con

I am not under any obligation to prove that any idea is more likley than the Big Bang, I must only prove that, scientifically speaking, the Big Bang is not proven beyond all doubt, even within science. I hate to sound like a funamentalist creationist and use such weak arguments, but it is a theory because, while it is the accepted way of the universe's creation, it is not proven. There are people that believe the universe was zapped into existence by their chosen creator God. There are those that belief the universe was ALWAYS there (ignoring the fact that time can't exist outside of the universe). And yet, despite most of science accepting the Big Bang as the way it happened, they are not able to disprove these other theories with absolutely certainty.

Because these other theories would disprove the Big Bang, and they cannot be entirely disproven until we have actually, with repeatable accuracy, been able to demonstrate, in experiments (not simply models, it must be experiments) that there is no other way the universe could have formed, than we cannot say that the Big Bang is 'scientifically proven', but rather that it is only the most logical answer, which is not the same as proof.

For instance, the most logical explanation for the reason the sky was blue for a very long time was that there was another ocean above us. Just because something seems like the most logical answer does not mean that, inherently, it is proven.
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

" I must only prove that, scientifically speaking, the Big Bang is not proven beyond all doubt, even within science"

In Science, nothing is proven beyond all doubt, but based on what i have presented, you have not explained why it's not the big bang. Until then, the big bang is the most likely explanation.

"I hate to sound like a funamentalist creationist and use such weak argument, but it is a theory because, while it is the accepted way of the universe's creation, it is not proven."

1) A theory according to science has been supported by repeated testing (1). This contradicts your claim that a theory is accepted, but at the same time not proven. 2) These sources show that it is proven. It's been shown that cosmic background radiation has been found (2). You bring other alternative viewpoints but present no sources as to why they are more scientifically accurate than the big bang.

Like i said, you have not disproved the big bang theory. Neither have you presented a better explanation that would explain the observations made by scientists regarding the observations of the expanding universe.

Sources:

1. http://www.livescience.com...

2. http://www.space.com...
ThinkingPunk

Con

I must ask, then, what experiments have been done that are repeatable and demonstrable that stand as absolutely scientific fact that, beyond all doubt, prove that the Big Bang must be what happened. There are undeniable facts proving things like micro-evolution, how (a large part of) the human body works, and magnetism, and these things are testable, repeatable, and demonstrable. They can be -- and have been -- recreated in a lab, thus proving the conclusion. However, we are unable to replicate the Big Bang, and all the evidence used to support it, while leaning towards the Big Bang, is not a guarantee that the Big Bang was the only thing that possibly could have created the universe.

I do not need a better theory than the Big Bang and I do not need to disprove the Big Bang, I must merely prove that, within the boundaries of science, the Big Bang is NOT proven.

I will admit that I was foolishly attempting to catch you in semantics in reference to the 'Big Bang' being a theory, but regardless of that fact, the Big Bang remains unprovable. So long as there are alternative explanations and it cannot be replicated in a scientific setting, it cannot be proven to the degree that science demands. Science does not demand 100% accuracy (which I had stated before), but does require a degree of certainty that the Big Bang does not yet have.

As soon as the Large Hadron Collider (Or, I suppose, some other, similar, lab setting) is able to, every time, produce results that lead to the conclusion that the universe MUST have been created by the Big Bang, than the results, even within science, are debatable. Again, before we knew about the world, the 'best explanation' for why the sky was blue was that there was another ocean above us. Before we knew more about female sexuality, a hyper-sexual woman was considered to be suffering from 'female hysteria', because that was our most logical assumption. But, both of these, through demonstrable and repeatable evidence, have been disproven. Clearly, these were wrong.

That is not to say that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, but merely to say that the Big Bang theory still has too much potential to be wrong to be considered 'Scientifically proven'.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkingPunk 2 years ago
ThinkingPunk
Alright, I think I might have made a mistake by going into this argument. I kinda started on shaky ground, and I'm not really proud of this debate (on either side).
Posted by dylancatlow 2 years ago
dylancatlow
Insofar as "scientifically proven" implies proven *within the bounds of science*, I don't think exploitation of the wording would be justified.
Posted by ThinkingPunk 2 years ago
ThinkingPunk
@Samreay Yeah, he could do that. I kinda regretted putting '100%' after I posted it. Still, I wouldn't mind losing this one, because I am on his side (just thought I might get an easy victory with wordplay). We will see.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Yeah, so the wording of the resolution isn't good, as stated in the comments. However, Pro could use the slightly different working of the opening statement, and the fact that proven, in a scientific context, means strongly validated (unlike 100% certainty with the context of mathematics and philosophy) to try and skip the semantic bullshiit that most of these debates fall into.
Posted by Gwydion777 2 years ago
Gwydion777
"I think the big bang was scientifically proven because i've seen it on films and I believe in it."

DUDE. That is not scientific in any way, shape, or form. Because you saw it on TV or because you believe in it does not allow you to call it scientific no matter what. Nice logic btw.
Posted by fussydog 2 years ago
fussydog
I think the big bang was scientifically proven because i've seen it on films and and I believe in it. I think it is just the expansion of the universe and it is still happening now! New space, stars and planets are still being invented. So, this is for the BIG BANG. Count me in!
Posted by ThinkingPunk 2 years ago
ThinkingPunk
@ Subutai Yep. Some idiot is totally gonna use the terrible wording of the resolution in his or her favor. Maybe someone with a tarantulas for an icon...
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
I strongly suggest changing the wording of the resolutions. No scientific theory is designed to be the last word on the subject, and someone will probably exploit the resolution along those lines.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
the big bang....that's even more impossible to defeat than the theory of evolution
Posted by Aerogant 2 years ago
Aerogant
Life is the result of the Cosmic Turtle.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
Ore_Ele
Truth_seekerThinkingPunkTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a rough debate on both sides. To start with, Pro set a burden for himself at an astonishing height. To go with "proven" puts a massive burden upon himself that he never reached (as Con pointed out every round). Pro later tried to shift the goal, by telling Con to come up with a better idea and stating "the big bang is the most likely explanation." (rather then proven). This shifting is basically an admission of defeat, that they cannot reach the goal. Pro almost did not get sources because most of the sources were debating from the source (read this source, it says I'm right). Sources need to be used to support your arguments, not make them for you. However, he did use sources in R2 the correct way (regarding the Doppler and Red Shift), though they don't "prove" his case. Con should have had an easy case. It is easy enough to show that the universe is changing its speed and so we cannot 100% conclude that is came from a single point, but he instead went with creatio