The Instigator
lightingbolt50
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
JasperFrancisShickadance
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

The Big Bang

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 2 votes the winner is...
JasperFrancisShickadance
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 59619
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

lightingbolt50

Pro

I shall be arguing that the universe began with the Big Bang. In your acceptance statements, please state what you think created the universe.

Round 1: Acceptance Statements
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Counter Arguments
Round 4: Counter Arguments
Round 5: Closing Statements

1. Please, no trolls. I don't want someone replying with "Santa made the Universe!".
2. No Ad Hominids or Cursing.
3. If you are quoting or getting info from a website, please give a link to that page.

Failure to comply with these rules will result in a 7 point deduction.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

I am a believer in God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit but in this debate the main focus will be on God. By accepting this, I am going to argue that He is our Creator of the Universe and our very existence is based on His love for us. I also believe that humans are not animals, the reason being God created us as worshippers and people to love Him and we are special in His eyes! I understand that this won't be about Evolution, rather about the Origin of Life, and the Burden of Proof is shared.

LET THE DEBATING BEGIN!
Debate Round No. 1
lightingbolt50

Pro

~Before I start I would like to mention that this is not about origin of life, rather it is about the orgin of the universe, Also, this is not a religion debate. God could've started the big bang, instead of the genesis creation event. This is strictly about what event started the universe. You are arguing for the genesis creation, I am arguing for the big bang. You will explain why creation happened as explained in genesis, and I will explain why the big bang happened.~


Starlight Problem

Since light moves at a finite speed, we see what the light looked like when the photons first started moving towards earth. For example, since our sun is ~8 lightminutes away from earth, when we look at the sun, we see what the sun looked like ~8 minutes ago. On a much larger scale, we see stars millions and billions lightyears away from us, If the universe began ~10,000 years ago like Young Earth Creationists believe, we shouldn't be able to see these stars. Their light wouldn't have come to earth yet.

Background Radiation

According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the Universe one second after the Big Bang, what we would see is a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the Universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). As it continued to cool, it would eventually reach the temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms. Before this "recombination" occurred, the Universe would have been opaque because the free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds. But when the free electrons were absorbed to form neutral atoms, the Universe suddenly became transparent. Those same photons - the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation - can be observed today.

Missions Study Cosmic Background Radiation

NASA has launched two missions to study the cosmic background radiation, taking "baby pictures" of the Universe only 400,000 years after it was born. The first of these was the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE). In 1992, the COBE team announced that they had mapped the primordial hot and cold spots in cosmic background radiation. These spots are related to the gravitational field in the early Universe and form the seeds of the giant clusters of galaxies that stretch hundreds of millions of light years across the Universe. This work earned NASA's Dr. John C. Mather and George F. Smoot of the University of California the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics.

The second mission to examine the cosmic background radiation was the Wilkinson Microware Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). With greatly improved resolution compared to COBE, WMAP surveyed the entire sky, measuring temperature differences of the microwave radiation that is nearly uniformly distributed across the Universe. The picture shows a map of the sky, with hot regions in red and cooler regions in blue. By combining this evidence with theoretical models of the Universe, scientists have concluded that the Universe is "flat," meaning that, on cosmological scales, the geometry of space satisfies the rules of Euclidean geometry (e.g., parallel lines never meet, the ratio of circle circumference to diameter is pi, etc).

A third mission, Planck, led by the European Space Agency with significant participation from NASA, was. launched in 2009. Planck is making the most accurate maps of the microwave background radiation yet. With instruments sensitive to temperature variations of a few millionths of a degree, and mapping the full sky over 9 wavelength bands, it measures the fluctuations of the temperature of the CMB with an accuracy set by fundamental astrophysical limits.

Universe Fate-1 Accelerating Universe

One problem that arose from the original COBE results, and that persists with the higher-resolution WMAP data, was that the Universe was too homogeneous. How could pieces of the Universe that had never been in contact with each other have come to equilibrium at the very same temperature? This and other cosmological problems could be solved, however, if there had been a very short period immediately after the Big Bang where the Universe experienced an incredible burst of expansion called "inflation." For this inflation to have taken place, the Universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been filled with an unstable form of energy whose nature is not yet known. Whatever its nature, the inflationary model predicts that this primordial energy would have been unevenly distributed in space due to a kind of quantum noise that arose when the Universe was extremely small. This pattern would have been transferred to the matter of the Universe and would show up in the photons that began streaming away freely at the moment of recombination. As a result, we would expect to see, and do see, this kind of pattern in the COBE and WMAP pictures of the Universe.

But all this leaves unanswered the question of what powered inflation. One difficulty in answering this question is that inflation was over well before recombination, and so the opacity of the Universe before recombination is, in effect, a curtain drawn over those interesting very early events. Fortunately, there is a way to observe the Universe that does not involve photons at all. Gravitational waves, the only known form of information that can reach us undistorted from the instant of the Big Bang, can carry information that we can get no other way. Two missions that are being considered by NASA, LISA and the Big Bang Observer, will look for the gravitational waves from the epoch of inflation.

Dark Energy

During the years following Hubble and COBE, the picture of the Big Bang gradually became clearer. But in 1996, observations of very distant supernovae required a dramatic change in the picture. It had always been assumed that the matter of the Universe would slow its rate of expansion. Mass creates gravity, gravity creates pull, the pulling must slow the expansion. But supernovae observations showed that the expansion of the Universe, rather than slowing, is accelerating. Something, not like matter and not like ordinary energy, is pushing the galaxies apart. This "stuff" has been dubbed dark energy, but to give it a name is not to understand it. Whether dark energy is a type of dynamical fluid, heretofore unknown to physics, or whether it is a property of the vacuum of empty space, or whether it is some modification to general relativity is not yet known.

JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Alright. I am arguing for the Genesis Creation, you are arguing for the "big bang."

I will begin by showing evidence for YEC--mostly of the creation story--and afterwards I will display the contradictions/problems with the "Big Bang" theory. Next round I believe will be specifically rebuttals.

Section 1.
YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE

~ The reason I chose to give proof for our Young Earth is because this is what the Bible explains to us happened. Yes, there are Old Earth Creationists, but there is lots of science involved with the YET and I'll be happy to share them with you all. The Bible, or God's Word, explains in detail the way He created the Earth. God's prized creation were humans, I know that because of Genesis 1:27 [7]. ~

A) There is very little sediment on the sea floor. If sediments have been accumulating on the seafloor for three billion years, the seafloor should be choked with sediments many miles deep. Some sediments appear to be removed as tectonic plates slide slowly (an inch or two per year) beneath continents. An estimated 1 billion tons of sediments are removed this way each year; this evidence makes sense within the context of the Genesis Flood cataclysm, not the idea of slow and gradual geologic evolution. In the latter stages of the year-long global Flood, water swiftly drained off the emerging land, dumping its sediment-chocked loads offshore. Thus most seafloor sediments accumulated rapidly about 4,300 years ago. [1]
http://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...

B) In many mountainous areas, rock layers thousands of feet thick have been bent and folded without fracturing. How can that happen if they were laid down separately over hundreds of millions of years and already hardened? The region around Grand Canyon is a great example showing how most of the earth"s fossil-bearing layers were laid down quickly and many were folded while still wet. Exposed in the canyon"s walls are about 4,500 feet (1,370 meters) of fossil-bearing layers, conventionally labelled Cambrian to Permian.2 They were supposedly deposited over a period lasting from 520 to 250 million years ago. Then, amazingly, this whole sequence of layers rose over a mile, around 60 million years ago. The plateau through which Grand Canyon runs is now 7,000"8,000 feet (2,150"3,450 meters) above sea level. [2]

C) Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. If dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago, why do some dinosaur fossils still contain well-preserved soft tissues? [3]

D) Evidence now supports astronomers" belief that the sun"s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the sun"s core, but there is a huge problem. As the hydrogen fuses, it should change the composition of the sun"s core, gradually increasing the sun"s temperature. If true, this means that the earth was colder in the past. In fact, the earth would have been below freezing 3.5 billion years ago, when life supposedly evolved. [4]

E) Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly"with a half-life of only 5,730 years"that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in "ancient" fossils"supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old"ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating. [5]

Section 2.
EVIDENCE FOR GOD AND HIS CREATION STORY (GENESIS)

I would first like to point out that God has not revealed the entire creation process in the Genesis creation account, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind. Many events in the creation account of the Bible have been intentionally left out (unicellular life forms, dinosaurs, etc.), I believe, because they would have been difficult to express in the Hebrew language, and would have lead to confusion, since they would not have been understood through the vast majority of mankind's existence (i.e., only understandable in the last two centuries). The interpretation of the Genesis creation account should not be made independently of the remainder of the Bible, as many "young-earth" creationists do. The interpretation presented here is based upon the creation accounts found throughout the entire Bible (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.1) as it relates to God's creation of the heavens and the Earth, and is consistent with all the biblical texts in addition to the revelations of science. The Bible describes the creation of the universe, the earth, and life on it. The Bible also describes the laws that govern the universe and its ultimate fate. [6]

Creation of the entire physical universe (matter, energy, space and time) from the invisible (16 x 10 years ago). This creation event includes an expanding universe, which continues to expand at this time. In the Bible, God prepares planet earth for the creation of life. The Bible describes the Earth's initial conditions following its creation when the Sun is already shining. The Bible also says that the Earth is controlled by the heavens and not the other way around (geocentrism is refuted). The original Earth is described as being without any oceans or water at all (4.5 x 10 years ago). Science tells us that the Earth's water probably came from cometary collisions that were common during the early history of the Solar System. The main biblical creation account (Genesis 1) begins after the formation of the Earth's oceans with a description of the Earth as a water-covered planet covered by dense clouds (4.0 x 10 years ago).

The Creation Story of Earth, in Genesis, explains in detail how the dense atmosphere is partially cleared so that light can strike the surface of the earth. It explains the formation of a stable water cycle, as well as the formation of continents including an accurate description of the tectonic activity that produced the continents. This is where history and science meet together: right here in the Bible where all the answers to life and the actual truth are held. It is unique because, in some cases of the Bible, science proves the history. (The history of the world is proven by all the Young Earth evidences I have shown earlier.)

NOTE: I know this is not a debate about the creation of the earth, rather how the Universe came to be, but I mine as well explain how God created the Universe AND the Earth with its dwellers because the Bible goes more into detail with the creation of earth rather the whole world.

Section 3.
PROBLEMS WITH THE BIG BANG [8]

-It violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, because science has never proven you can destroy of create matter, time, and/or energy therefore it couldn't have happened.
-The formation of our galaxy violates the law of entropy, which suggests systems of change become less organized over time.
-Scientists have misinterpreted evidence like the redshift of celestial bodies and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
There are many versions of your theory, including the "steady-state model," Ekpyrotic model, Plasma cosmology, etc.

Thank you

SOURCES
[1] http://answersingenesis.org...
[2] http://answersingenesis.org...
[3] http://answersingenesis.org...
[4] http://answersingenesis.org...
[5] http://answersingenesis.org...
[6] http://www.godandscience.org...
[7] http://biblehub.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lightingbolt50

Pro

lightingbolt50 forfeited this round.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Sadly my opponent has forfeited, but because of all the rounds left in this so-called debate, I will get the rebuttals over with before concluding (so to keep the readers entertained!).

I agree that religion is not the belief in God. Religion implies the rituals, practices, and moralities the people believe in, and the belief in God is a relationship instead. I am arguing that God created everything and did not start the Big Bang nor evolutionism.

REBUTTALS.
Starlight Problem
The reason this claim is often made is because science has calculated some stars to be millions of light-years away from earth, yet we can see them today. A light-year is the distance that light can travel (about 186,000 miles/second) within one year"s time, which is roughly 6 trillion miles. At the estimated current speed of light it is calculated that it would take millions of years for the light from one of these very far stars to reach us. Gravitational Time Dilation: Einstein formulated a theory that the fabric of time and space is not always constant, but that it can in fact be different throughout the universe. He predicted that time itself is affected by things such as speed and gravity in his theories of General and Special Relativity. One aspect of his predictions is that time itself tends to slow down the closer an object is to a source of gravity. This has been shown to be true through many experiments such as synchronized atomic clocks, that when one is taken into orbit, or even on an airplane it comes back with a slightly different time. It is also seen with clocks that are at sea level vs. those on mountains. Although they may be set at the exact same time, the ones further away from earth (mountains, sky, space) tend to experience time faster than those on the earth. If the earth itself were in a cosmic "gravity well" then time itself may in fact be ticking by quicker in other parts of the universe where these distant stars are located. Although God may have created everything within those same six days, what the earth has experienced in thousands of years may be affected by Gravitational Time Dilation and other parts of the universe may in fact be millions of years old at this point.

http://www.lloydpye.com...
Background Radiation doesn't only support the Big Bang, in fact there is lots of evidence that goes for creation too. Recent data from cosmic microwave background supports creation theory [3]

Dark Energy (More rebuttals)
In 1934, the first warning signs began to flash the message to the scientific community that the currently accepted theory regarding the structure of our Universe was fundamentally flawed. Because the velocity of rotation versus the distance from the galactic center cannot be explained by only the visible matter in the galaxy, the assumption that the visible material makes up only a small part of the cluster became the standard explanation accounting for this mystery. Since then, the "missing" matter supporting the extra required gravity has been called "Dark Matter", which is imagined to be of unknown composition, transparent, and absolutely undetectable by any means, other than the massive effects of its gravity. As much as 74% of our Universe is imagined to be composed of this nebulous, phantom Dark Matter. "Dark Flow" is the last mysterious and invisible force that seems to be required to account for another mystery of recently observed gravitational effects.

Vast areas of the Universe are moving in seemingly discrete currents, and in directions that cannot be accounted for by appeal to the known laws of physics. This time, not even a serious guess has been made to account for an imaginary source of the necessary gravitational force. Nothing has been pulled out of the knowledge vacuum besides hand waving and more smoke. The currently bankrupt state of cosmological theory could not be more starkly illustrated. The scientific community of our planet has been attempting to understand and account for these multiple anomalies of absent and excess gravity for nearly eighty years now. They are stumped. Their responses have been not only mutually exclusive but, also totally lacking for evidence, amounting to a "Deus ex machina" rationale.

It is the Multiverse that perfectly accounts for the so"called "Dark Matter". It is not invisible particles, or particles composed of an entirely alien form of phantom matter that is the source of extraordinary amounts of gravitational force causing inexplicable rotational speeds of stars in seemingly ordinary galaxies. It is quite simply common, mundane gravity. It is the "ordinary matter" of the rest of the Multiverse projecting its gravity across the higher dimensions that separate each unique Universe. Plain and simple.

It is also the vast Multiverse that sweeps away the need to construct a bizarre appeal to a dilute and universal repulsive force; the strangely labeled and mysterious fiction of "Dark Energy". It is our familiar and common force of gravity, emanating from the uniform ambient background gravitational field of the Multiverse "outside" our Universe that is driving the accelerating Universal expansion. It is not an undetectable source of "antigravity" doing that work. [4]

Big bang problem #1: Missing antimatter problem. (Baryon number) How much in the universe, ZERO. One fluke exception is not an answer either, there should be plenty.

Big bang problem #2: Monopoles problem. magnets have +/- and at high temperatures greater then the core of a star can create singular poles and the big bang started at infinite temperature and that would be hot enough. Guess how many we find ZERO.

#3: Singularity point problem. The Big Bang DOES NOT even explain the origin of the universe. How did that singular point get there?

Problem #4: Known physics breaks down in this situation. General relativity (powerful gravitational fields) and quantum mechanics (very small situation) exists separately but there is NO physics currently that can explain both situations at the same time which is what the Big Bang requires. Known physics cannot describe that (big bang) situation so big banger's take it on BLIND FAITH that if such physics is ever discovered that it would even allow for the theory of the big bang.

Problem #5: Population 3 stars there should be these type of first stars everywhere all over the universe. Any guess to how many are out there...ZERO! All stars have trace amounts of the heaver elements. [2]

Many times the Big Bang has been researched. What has become of this research? More controversy and more frustration for the atheists, except for the ones who were never told that all these fill-in stories such as Multiverses are fake, of course they are innocently ignorant as the mainstream science and media doesn't tell them everything that would unveil the dark secrets. But I want all to know that there is a vast amount of proof for both Creationism and the Big Bang--even though the Big Bang Theory is most likely just evidence floating around that leads to a dead end...

Conclusion: next round.

SOURCES
[1] http://www.rforh.com...
[2] http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com...
[3] http://creation.com...
[4] http://my.firedoglake.com...
Debate Round No. 3
lightingbolt50

Pro

lightingbolt50 forfeited this round.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

I will refrain from anymore arguments or rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 4
lightingbolt50

Pro

lightingbolt50 forfeited this round.
JasperFrancisShickadance

Con

Lightningbolt50 hasn't been on this site for more than 4 days now. This has been an unproductive debate and a waste of my time - I wish I hadn't written a rebuttal for his first argument - but still, I am glad LB50 brought up this subject! I thank him/her for instigating and thus end this.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
Pity this debate got forfeited. If anyone is still curious about Big Bang cosmology, my debate here on it is ready for voting!

http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
Subutai
Seriously, this debate is sad, especially since pro forfeited. Con's arguments are either irrelevant or bullsh*t, backed up by sources that have fewer credentials than someone who claims they were abducted by aliens. Not to mention the plagiarism.
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
Did Pro give ANY?! No.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
those are some really unbiased sources by con...
Posted by JasperFrancisShickadance 2 years ago
JasperFrancisShickadance
I ran out of characters unfortunately!
Posted by FMAlchemist 2 years ago
FMAlchemist
@PikeTooth What creationism has to do with factual,not even evolution is factual,not even freaking gravity is factual,how creationism could be factual?
Posted by Victoria85176 2 years ago
Victoria85176
I really wan to debate this wwith you can you close the other debate that you set up wrong, please :)
Posted by PikeTooth 2 years ago
PikeTooth
@Seido: Sure they can, people debate Creationism all the time.
Posted by Cassius 2 years ago
Cassius
So, can Con agree that the Bang Bang was the beginning of the Universe, but argue that _if_ the Big Bang was the beginning, _then_ there must also be a God?
Posted by Seido 2 years ago
Seido
Can you really debate a factual matter?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
lightingbolt50JasperFrancisShickadance
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
lightingbolt50JasperFrancisShickadance
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.