The Big Bang is scientifically proven
Debate Rounds (4)
First round acceptance
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.
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.
Proven: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||2||3|
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
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.