The Instigator
imsmarterthanyou98
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Hairseduction
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 4 votes the winner is...
imsmarterthanyou98
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,098 times Debate No: 45021
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Hi i would like to have a interesting debate about this topic!
I would like to debate that
The Big Bang theory is scientifically sound theory.

1.Use logic
2.First round acceptance.
3.Second round opening.
4.Third rebuttals.
5.Closeing statements/rebuttals.
Failure to comply with the above will result in full 7 points to opponent,
Thanks,:)
Hairseduction

Con

Based on my understanding of things I would personally argue against the big bang theory being a scientifically sound theory in terms of explaining the origin of the universe. I feel there is a fundamental problem to be addressed. The big bang theory does not explain the origin of the universe it explains only why the universe exists in its present state. The big bang theory is not the theory of which physical existence came from the theory states that all physical existence existed in a tiny point of singularity then rapidly expanded. For me two questions come to mind here. Firstly what caused the expansion? Also did something exist before the physical universe or is the universe simply eternal? In terms of causing the expansion the view of empirical science that only physical substances exist does not make sense to me. If all physical existence was in that point of singularity what reason would there be for the expansion? The reason could certainly not be of a physical origin since all physicality was in that single point and physicality itself is incapable of thought which would cause a change. In my humble opinion the universe could be eternal or it could be created, but in either case an outside force must have caused the expansion. Since all physicality was in the point of singularity the cause must have been non physical the cause must have been the immaterial mind of god. In my humble opinion I do not see the big bang theory as valid or complete.
Debate Round No. 1
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro


Definitions.


From the Oxford Dictionary.Big Bang


· the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.


A fireball of radiation at extremely high temperature and density, but occupying a tiny volume, is believed to have formed around 13.7 billion years ago. This expanded and cooled, extremely fast at first, but more slowly as subatomic particles condensed into matter that later accumulated to form galaxies and stars. The galaxies are currently still retreating from one another. What was left of the original radiation continued to cool and has been detected as a uniform background of weak microwave radiation”



(sound) http://www.thefreedictionary.com......


5.”Sound”


“a. Based on valid reasoning: a sound observation.”


“b. Free from logical flaws: sound reasoning.”


sci·en·tif·ic (sī′ən-tĭf′ĭk)


adj.


“Of, relating to, or employing the methodology of science.”


Keep in mind I do not have to prove the Big-Bang theory do not have to explain why or what caused the big bang merely I must prove that it is a


scientifically sound theory.


P1.Overwhelming evidence.


There is huge amounts of evidence and fulfilled expectations as I will describe.


a)Large-scale homogeneity as expected.


One of the many assumptions made in deriving the big bang theory from General relativity was that the universe is at a large scale homogeneous


An example, consider the plot below showing galaxies from the Las Campanas Redshift Survey by Ned Wright. Each dot represents a entire galaxy!


They measured both the position on the sky and the redshifts and translated that into a location in the universe. Think of putting down many circles of a fixed size on that plot and counting how many galaxies are inside each circle. If you used a small aperture then the number of galaxies in any given circle is going to fluctuate a lot relative to the mean number of galaxies in all the circles some circles will be completely empty, while others could have more than a dozen. On the other hand, if you use large circles the variation from circle to circle ends up being quite small compared to the average number of galaxies in each circle. This is what is meant by the universe is homogeneous.


Here is the CMBR you can view the true homogeneity of our universe.


b) The Hubble Diagram.

The concept of a expanding universe is the notion that the distance between any two points will increases over time. One of the consequences of this t is that, as light travels through this expanding space, its wavelength is stretched as well. In the optical part of the electromagnetic spectrum, red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, so cosmologists refer to this process as redshifting.


The longer that light travels through expanding space, the more redshifting that it will experience. Therefore, since light travels at a fixed speed,( 299 792 458 m / s) The big-bang theory tells us that the redshift we observe for light from by a far away object should be related to the distance to that object.


The change in wavelength (either for sound or light) that one observes is due to relative motion between the observer and the sound/light source. An example for this is the change in pitch as a car approaches and then passes the observer as the car draws near, the pitch increases, followed by a rapid decrease as the car gets farther away.


Edwin Hubble made a series of measurements at Mount Wilson Observatory near Pasadena, California. Using stars in a number of galaxies, Hubble found that the redshift roughly proportional to the distance. This relationship became known as Hubble's Law and sparked a series of theoretical papers that eventually developed into The Big-Bang theory.


The only data that we have from the universe is light and using a combination of geometry physics and statistics, astronomers have managed to come up with a series of interlocking methods, known as the distance ladder, which is fairly reliable.


The most striking example of this is the Andromeda galaxy, within our own Local Group. Despite being around 2 million light years away, it is on a collision course with the Milky Way and the light from Andromeda is consequently shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum, rather than the red. The upshot of this complication is that, if we want to measure the Hubble parameter, we need to look at galaxies that are far enough away that the cosmological redshift is larger than the effects of velocities.


This is the Hubble Diagram showing nearly linear nature of the Hubblerelationship

c) Abundances of light elements The big bang does not include the beginning of our universe. It merely tracks the universe back to a point when it was extremely hot and extremely dense.

We have temperatures and densities high enough that protons and neutrons existed as free particles, not bound up in atomic nuclei. This was the time of primordial nucleosynthesis.


So now we know that the expansion at the first few moments of time was dominated by radiation and some nuclear physics, cosmologists can make very precise predictions about the relative abundance of the light elements from this .


Deuterium: for example was one of the elements produced As a result, deuterium that is produced in stars is very quickly consumed in other reactions and any deuterium we observe in the universe is very likely to be primordial.


Looking at stars and gas clouds which are very far away thanks to the finite speed of light, the larger the distance between the object and observers here on Earth, the more ancient the image. So by looking at stars and gas clouds very far away, one can observe them at a time when the heavy element abundance was much lower. By going far enough back, one would eventually arrive at an epoch where no prior stars had had a chance to form, and thus the elemental abundances were at their primordial levels.


We can also observe older stars, measure their elemental abundances, and try to extrapolate backwards.


Like most predictions, the primordial element abundance depended on several parameters. In this case they are the Hubble parameter and the baryon density the dependence on both parameters is expressed as a single dependence on the combined parameter OmegaB h2 (as seen in the figure below, provided by Ned Wright).



As this figure implies this thus again verifies the theory also Second, independent measurements of OmegaB h2 from other observations like the WMAP results yield a value that is consistent with the composite from the primordial elements.


The major pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory are the consistent observations showing that, as one examines older and older objects, the abundance of most heavy elements becomes smaller and smaller.


Abundance of helium vs. oxygen


d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

· The test of a theory is not that it meets one prediction. Instead, the true test is whether the model can match other observations once it has been calibrated against one data set.


The cosmological origins of the CMBR comes from looking at distant galaxies. Since the light from these galaxies was emitted in the past, we would expect that the temperature of the CMBR at that time was correspondingly higher. By examining the distribution of light from these galaxies, we can get a crude measurement of the temperature of the CMBR at the time when the light we are observing now was emitted .


They do agree with the big bang theory predictions for the evolution of the CMBR temperature with redshift.


The state of this measurement is shown in the plot below.








c) Age of stars

Since the stars are a part of the universe, the big bang theory and our theories of stellar formation and evolution are correct, then we should not expect to see stars older than the universe. More precisely, the suggest that the first stars were "born" when the universe was only about 200 million years old, so we should expect to see no stars which are older than about 13.5 billion years.Which we do not.



Conclusion. .



  • The Big Bang Theory is a very well tested theory.

  • A large quantity of data, coming from wildly different types of observations supports it.

  • The primary set of parameters dictating the behavior of theory have been determined to a precision of 10% .

  • While objections and alternative models exist, they are either easily disproved by the data or unable to explain the full range of the data as well as the standard picture.


The Big Bang theory is scientifically sound theory.


Hairseduction

Con

You say that you do not have to explain what caused the big bang and that you must only prove that it is scientifically sound. However if you cannot explain what caused it in what way is it sound? Yes the big bang is probably the reason that our universe exists in its present state, but since it is not know what caused the big bang the theory is not sound. Gravity was not thought to be science for thousands of years it was just a fact of life, it was not considered science until Newton and later Einstein were able to explain how it worked. To just say something is the way it is simply because it is, is not science, at best it is incomplete and unsound science.
Debate Round No. 2
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

Rebuttals My opponent all but forifieted here
"Yes the big bang is probably the reason that our universe exists in its present state"
However.


My opponent has just disregarded nearly my entire argument.
Let's review the topic at hand.

The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

Let's review the definition i provided.
From the Oxford Dictionary.Big Bang

· tthe rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

A fireball of radiation at extremely high temperature and density, but occupying a tiny volume, is believed to have formed around 13.7 billion years ago. This expanded and cooled, extremely fast at first, but more slowly as subatomic particles condensed into matter that later accumulated to form galaxies and stars. The galaxies are currently still retreating from one another. What was left of the original radiation continued to cool and has been detected as a uniform background of weak microwave radiation”



As i mentioned in round one I do not have to explain what happend or what started the Big bang as that is not part of the Big Bang theroy.
I must however demonstrate that the Big Bang is scientifically sound that is backed up by evidence and observation which I have demonstrated in round one it clearly is.
Con has yet to make a single rebuttal on any peice of evidence or my argument.
Vote pro if you value evidence and logic.

Hairseduction

Con

I do not deny that the big bang theory occurred you are correct that scientific evidence backs it up. However the theory is simply not complete. To say that not knowing what caused the big bang is not relevant to the big bang theory is a cop out. The fact that scientists do not know what caused the big bang makes the theory incomplete and therefore unsound. Furthermore not knowing what caused the big bang is not the only problem. If all of physical existence was restricted to the point of singularity then what did the universe expand into? Modern science cannot explain what caused the big bang and it cannot explain what the universe expanded into this a scientific cop out and an incomplete theory.
Debate Round No. 3
imsmarterthanyou98

Pro

"I do not deny that the big bang theory occurred you are correct that scientific evidence backs it up."
Con has just conceded.
Let's look at the proposition.

The Big Bang theory is a scientifically sound theory.

I do not have to explain what caused the big bang as that is not part of the big bang theory.
But I will.

The short answer.The Big Bang occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there.


The long answer.
First I must explain to you the Highs Boson. About 40 years ago, physicists tried to put together a theory that would explain why stuff behaves the way it does. They called it the Standard Model. One of the things they imagined would need to be part of that Standard Model was a boson, a type of particle that would allow other particles to do the kinds of things that particles do. In July 4, 2012, they finally found it and on March 4, 2013 they confirmed it exists.

That was the history, now for what it exactly is. It is a particle that gives everything in the universe it's mass. It is often named the "God Particle" because it gives everything it's mass. It is said that there is always a Higgs field. Just like there is a magnetic field around a magnet, there is a Higgs field around ANYTHING that has mass. The Higgs Boson is looking to be confirmed the last piece of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

The model consists of Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force, Gravitation, and Electromagnetism. The Higgs Boson is believed to be the last missing piece of the model. The model defies particle physics and explains how particle physics work.

Now let's move on to how the big bang got started connecting it with the Higgs Boson. I hope you know what a singularity is, because I'm not explaining that. The singularity was the only point before the big bang. It was a point of absolute nothing but infinite potential. Because of this potential, it rapidly expanded and cooled. Why did that happen? It is theoretically observed that Quantum Mechanics absolutely allow this to happen. And physics show that there can never be nothing because infinity cannot exist. Thus, there is always a quantum field existing in any defying point whether it be absolute nothing theoretically or in a penny.

In Quantum Mechanics, a point with the infinitely least probability of potential will act because there is indefinite order in how things work. So if a random singularity has a chance of 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% chance to separate, it will separate no matter the chance. This is what proves the Big Bang can be true. Things can act according to their potential no matter the consequences or before-act.

The Higgs Boson shows that because Quantum Mechanics allows spontaneous acts, that the Higgs Boson gave the singularity the mass to expand and cool. Since there was always Quantum field, anything could happen and a Higgs Boson happened to appear to give the singularity 3 dimensions + time. The Higgs Boson with the combination of Quantum Mechanics is the most widely accepted part-theory scientifically.



But remember all of the above is not needed as con has already conceeded.
Hairseduction

Con

I have certainly not conceded. You have just disproved your own point in your short answer "The big bang occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there". Time and space did not even exist until the big bang occurred and the laws of physics simply do not apply outside of time and space. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY TO SINGULARITY. To even suggest that the big bang was caused by the laws of physics is absolutely ridiculous from the point of view of modern physics.

http://www.google.com...

I have not conceded whatsoever you have totally conceded by not being able to explain the cause of the big bang. To say that you do not have to explain the cause of the big bang to make it valid its totally ridiculous and a pathetic cop out. The spirit of science to explain the physical world through the use of observed evidence if there is no observed evidence for the cause of the big bang then WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE BIG BANG. If we do not understand the big bang then to say it is valid is absolutely ridiculous. According to the laws of modern physics the big bang could not have been caused by any physical observable phenomenon.Your argument that science can explain the big bang is based on a LIE. The only rational explanation for the big bang is that its cause was not of the physical world it was the immaterial mind of god.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Hairseduction 3 years ago
Hairseduction
Thank you :)
Posted by Hairseduction 3 years ago
Hairseduction
Thank you :)
Posted by Hairseduction 3 years ago
Hairseduction
Thank you :)
Posted by Hairseduction 3 years ago
Hairseduction
Thank you :)
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Not a problem didn't notice you where new.
Posted by Hairseduction 3 years ago
Hairseduction
I apologize for breaking the rules of the argument I am totally new to this site and totally unused to the rules and way things are done here.
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Me*
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Me*
Posted by imsmarterthanyou98 3 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
Voters beware Conduct points will go to be Since Con broke rules as mentioned in round one and posted his opening argument in round 1.
Conduct goes to PRO
Posted by abraralam 3 years ago
abraralam
According religion Islam the big bang theory is not right. Because according to beliefs of Islam God of Islam created all things. The natural, neutral and irrefutable proof on it is that those who are true followers of Islam their fresh dead bodies with fresh blood are preserved in their graves since centuries and years. But those who believe on big bang theory their dead bodies are not in fresh condition since centuries and yers without used any chemicals. So it is proof that the big bang theory is not right.
How you can verify about fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs, companions of last prophet Muhammad (SAW) saints and true Muslims, who are preserved in their graves without used chemicals since centuries and years?
All interviews on this site are true with eye witnessed people and based on our research in cemeteries. We also mentioned true events of fresh dead bodies. If any team of medical doctors, researchers, scientists or religious scholars in the world want to check existence of fresh dead bodies, they are welcome! We will pay their fix charged, if we couldn"t prove our above claim.
So, either trust on our research about above "fresh dead bodies" we mentioned on our web site WWW.RIGHTFULRELIGION.COM with details or research yourself or invite us on world medias for discussion. These fresh dead bodies are our natural, neutral, perceptible and irrefutable proof on truth of our beliefs and life styles. Because the earth haven"t capacity to preserve any fresh dead body in it since centuries and years. So, it is an irrefutable Miracle of Islam. But no any Atheist and non-Muslims have any fresh dead body with fresh blood of them. Or any natural, neutral, perceptible and irrefutable proofs/signs on truth of their thinking/beliefs and life styles.
We suggest various methods:
1. Cemeteries Research and Grave-Diggers:
Visit Muslim cemeteries and Non-Muslim cemeteries in your country"OR travel through other cemeteries in the world and contact g
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
imsmarterthanyou98HairseductionTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is just making a far more convincing argument here. He backs up his argument with a far larger and better supply of sources, and makes efforts to fully explain his arguments. Con may not have conceded, but his arguments didn't work well. Saying that it's not sound because we don't know what caused the Big Bang is not a very solid argument, since it doesn't explain away all of the evidence that a large explosion must have occurred in order to have the universe as it is. That's simply insufficient. You brought up gravity. Can you name the source of gravity? The reality is that no one can. We haven't found a "graviton" yet, or a molecule that produces gravity, unlike with the other forces. Is gravity unsound theory? Of course not. The source isn't necessary for sound theory, though it does leave a gaping hole in the support. Since I don't see arguments for why this particular piece is absolutely necessary for it to be sound, it's an easy vote for Pro.
Vote Placed by Arosi2123 3 years ago
Arosi2123
imsmarterthanyou98HairseductionTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe the theory
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
imsmarterthanyou98HairseductionTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had some interesting points, though Pro made the most sensible connections. Though Pro still insists in overdoing the Fonts, Con's argument is hard to read because there is no separation of points, it is simply a block of words. Which makes it harder to read. Con needs to learn to format his arguments better, open up the block, separate the main points from the block of words. Which makes his emphasis and points clearer to the reader, though he doesn't need to go crazy with the fonts like Pro. The dictionary reference for Big Bang was a better reference than pointing out what a Singularity is. The singularity may have been a collision of Spent Universes or Black Holes, which would be quite capable of forming the universe we know.
Vote Placed by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
imsmarterthanyou98HairseductionTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave evidenc for th big bang being a scientific theory that was unresponded to.