The Instigator
Warren181
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

The Big Bang theory was made up by scientists to have something interesting to say.

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 10 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/7/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 890 times Debate No: 48628
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (10)

 

Warren181

Pro

I believe that the Big Bang is made up, because, how could a speck become millions and billions of planents?
Debate Round No. 1
Warren181

Pro

The Big Bang cannot be true, how on Earth can a single speck become planets with water and life and suns?
Mikal

Con

All I need is one contention to refute Pros stance

Resolution - The Big Bang theory is not real


CMBR

This is how we know beyond a doubt that the Big Bang actually occurred. It was accidentally discovered by
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965.

CMBR - The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that as it expands, the gas within it cools. Thus the universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, called the “cosmic microwave background", or CMB. [1]

Penzias and Wilson found this on accident and won the Nobel Prize for it.

"Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, and is invisible to the naked eye. However, it fills the universe and can be detected everywhere we look. In fact, if we could see microwaves, the entire sky would glow with a brightness that was astonishingly uniform in every direction. The picture at left shows a false color depiction of the temperature (brightness) of the CMB over the full sky (projected onto an oval, similar to a map of the Earth). The temperature is uniform to better than one part in a thousand! This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation, but none have succeeded."[1]



Conclusion

How do we know the Big Bang exists. We can see the remnants of it in the sky. The resolution is not upheld.








[1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Warren181

Pro

The Big Bang cannot have produced millions of galalxies and planets in perfect form. It is literally impossible. Only one thing could have created everything we can see, and that's God. Not science.
Mikal

Con

This debate is over. My adversary says the big bang did not happen and provided no evidence to support it. I showed there is evidence that it occurred, which is the CMBR

This point went uncontested along with my adversary offering nothing to refute. This is a clear win.


Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by MolecularBird06 3 years ago
MolecularBird06
The Big Bang is possible because the particle was extremely dense and had a great amount of matter compacted into a tiny space. The densest material in the universe is not as dense as the particle. Its basic 8th grade science. F.Y.I Density is mass divided by volume.
Posted by Jabuticaba 3 years ago
Jabuticaba
Voters these days are too biased towards Mikal. He is a great debater, and of course he won this debate, but to be honest, the margin of his victory is slim.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
Warren181MikalTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I give a conduct point to pro because the big bang theory is not absolute fact as stated by con
Vote Placed by judeifeanyi 3 years ago
judeifeanyi
Warren181MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made better argument
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Warren181MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con made arguments and had a source.
Vote Placed by codemeister13 3 years ago
codemeister13
Warren181MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided more thorough arguments with sources to back them. Con failed to prove his case in any way, shape, or form.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 3 years ago
TheAntidoter
Warren181MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to pro for noobsniping
Vote Placed by Taylur 3 years ago
Taylur
Warren181MikalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments only consisted of his inability to comprehend the science; Con used facts and sources.
Vote Placed by CJKAllstar 3 years ago
CJKAllstar
Warren181MikalTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Hitchens' Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Con did nothing but spew garbage out of ignorance, with no evidence. Sorry if this sounds derogatory, but it is the truth. Pro had source backed arguments and tried to debate outside his own logic. Pro wins all my votes basically via default.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Warren181MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had much better and convincing arguments. However, the tiny font was annoying. It's probably made worse by the fact I'm reading this debate on a cell phone.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
Warren181MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by The_Scapegoat_bleats 3 years ago
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Warren181MikalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con didn't deliver any proof, as induction is invalid, his argumentation was still better in the respect that at least it WAS argumentation, while Pro did nothing to argue for his side. This debate was not flattering to either side, but I'll grant Con a point for conduct for at least trying.