The Instigator
m4bell
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daltonslaw
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The big bang is wrong

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...
daltonslaw
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 953 times Debate No: 54712
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

m4bell

Pro

The big bang is an illogical myth that does not use common sense. I strongly believe that it is false. I will state my facts after my opposition states his view.
daltonslaw

Con

I on the other hand believe the Big Bang to be a perfectly logical view of the creation of the universe, so I accept the debate. I expect scientific arguments on your side and not just religious arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
m4bell

Pro

EXPLOSIONS DONT COME FROM NO WERE!!!!!!!! When somebody uses common sense they would know that if there was nothing, an explosion would not just happen. Explosions have to have a source.
daltonslaw

Con

Well, first of all let me explain to you the theory breifly. It is not a theory explaining what caused the creation of the Universe, but a theory relating its evolution. The first instant is defined by scientists to be t=1*10^-43 seconds, and t being the time that passed since the start of the Universe.That's 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, What happens is that in the first instants of the Universe it was so small and dense that regular physics didn't apply to it, quantum physics did. This is known to scientists as quantum cosmology, quantum physics being the branch of physics studying subatomic particles. At this time matter and energy were basically the same thing as subatomic particles. Later on the Universe expanded and cooled a little, letting energy and matter become different things. This is known to scientists as baryogenesis when the observable type of matter, baryonic matter was formed. In this there was more matter than antimatter, so most particles anhialated themselves, releasing photons or light. After this happened it was the beginning of particle cosmology where our Universe's Unified Force separated into the four basic forces of the Universe:
-Electromagnetism
-Strong Nuclear force
-Weak Nuclear force
-Gravity.
this happened in t=1*10^-11s
Then standard cosmology happened in t=0.1 s as the universe kept expanding and it began getting cooler and cooler and soon enough hydrogen and helium atoms formed out of the roaming protons and electrons.
Debate Round No. 2
m4bell

Pro

There are NO VALID facts that back up the big bang. Like I said, the explosion could not have happened because there was no ignition source! If there was nothing then were did the explosion come from?
daltonslaw

Con

Yes, that if beacause the Big Bang was not an explosion, rather, it was a very rapid expansion. we can still see its effects today.
BTW I forgot to post my sources on my last argument here they are I recomend you read them attently.
http://science.nasa.gov...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 3
m4bell

Pro

m4bell forfeited this round.
daltonslaw

Con

I think I have successfully proven my opponent wrong by simpely stating facts, whereas he showed none, sourcing nothing, and as the cherry on the cake forfeited, so I guess you should just vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Thing I find most pathetic is the lack of research Pro has done.
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Because it has bang in the name
Posted by Your_Logical_Fallacy 3 years ago
Your_Logical_Fallacy
The big bang was an expansion not a explosion
Posted by Surrealism 3 years ago
Surrealism
Why does he think it was an explosion?
Posted by Mrlowe 3 years ago
Mrlowe
I hate debates like this. It always makes the instigator look stupid.
Posted by Mrlowe 3 years ago
Mrlowe
I hate debates like this. It always makes the instigator look stupid.
Posted by alexmiller887 3 years ago
alexmiller887
It was not an explosion. No ignition source was needed.
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Uneducated banter by Pro, I wonder who will win this debate...
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
lol, Pro's second and third round are basically the same.
Posted by SNP1 3 years ago
SNP1
Wow... Pro, are you trolling? If not I think you must be one of the most ignorant people I have seen..
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Anon_Y_Mous 3 years ago
Anon_Y_Mous
m4belldaltonslawTied
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: Conduct for Pro's forfeiture. Spelling and grammar for multiple errors on the part of Pro. Con refuted Pro's only 'argument', and listed several of their own. Con's sources were credible.