The Instigator
Thiest_1998
Pro (for)
The Contender
oracle1
Con (against)

The big bang theory is false

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Thiest_1998 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 month ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 320 times Debate No: 96703
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

I will be arguing against the big bang theory showing why I think its false.
oracle1

Con

I accept. Note, the big bang theory is rather post hoc, and does not assert to know what happened before it. Also, the big bang theory is not just one thing; there are many differing big bang models. However, I suspect this debate, inappropriately enough, will invariably descend into a philosophical diatribe on causality. However, in the case that we actual discuss the physics, I believe it will be necessary to have an operative definition of theory. “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.” In science, theories are not guesses, conjectures, or anything of the sort. They are the most rigorous expressions of scientific knowledge we have, continually demonstrated to be true, and supported by evidence. This being said, I wish to thank pro for the opportunity to debate an interest, and scientific topic.
Debate Round No. 1
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate and I hope to have an enjoyable debate

The Big Bang is a theory that sounds impressive on the surface, but simply does not hold up to extensive examination.

Here is how the Big Bang is often presented:

Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.

This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says:
"Everything tends towards disorder"

And the list goes on and on about the problems with the big bang theory but I'm sure my opponent shouldn't have any problems answering any of my questions.

Your Turn :)
oracle1

Con

I shall offer my constructive case and address pro’s claims in R2. While I am not a physicist, and as such cannot discuss the highly technical contemporary inquiries of big bang cosmology, I believe I can demonstrate the high probability of the big bang, at least on a fundamental level.

Definition:

BBC- There are a multitude of varying expressions of big bang cosmology, however, operating, I think we may adopt the following definition: The view that the universe, as it is now, is the result of expansion from an initial singularity(Oversimplified, but I think it gets the job done).

Red Shifts

A redshift occurs when electromagnetic radiation is increased in wavelength, contingent on the source moving further from the observer. A simple exemplification of this observed in the Doppler Redshift--Z>0, if c<

[1]

Verifying inflation is contingent on Hubble’s law, and extension of the aforementioned principles, stating:

1- “Objects observed in deep space (extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more) are found to have a Doppler shift interpretable as relative velocity away from Earth”

2-”This Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away”

[2]

This has been empirically verified, displayed by the Hubble diagram


Here's the link if the picture doesn't show
up: s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="266" height="190" />


http://www.uni.edu...



From the diagram, we can easily observe that the velocity of a galaxy, relative to observers, corresponds to the distance they are from observers. V ^ D^. So, if we extrapolate far enough, we will come to a point of singularity. In order to get from a singularity to the current state of affairs, a period of inflation is necessary. Inflation is still taking place, however, just not as rapidly, as evidenced by the relative low temperature of the universe, relative to its early state, further evidence by the CMB.

Homogeneity and Isotropy

If the universe expanded from a singularity, we would expect to observe homogeneity and isotropy in the universe. This is a derivation of the Copernican principle, simply stating “no special observers”.

https://upload.wikimedia.org...
s://lh3.googleusercontent.com...; alt="" width="318" height="159" />


This is the CMB, looks quite homogeneous to me. Originally, the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state, however, after expansion, the universe cooled, eventually into the microwave spectrum, which is the nature of the CMB, and this is why it is observable(Also, this is exactly what one would expect to observe, if the universe rapidly expanded from a hot and dense state, and cooled down, unambiguously indicating inflation). So what about small scale anisotropy? The universe is largely homogeneous and isotropic, however, small scale anisotropy is to be expected, by virtue of fluctuations and perturbations. This is of special importance, because it reinforces the redshift. “ Local galaxies, within the CMB, have been observed to have a velocity 627±22 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB,in the direction of galactic longitude l = 276°±3°, b = 30°±3°”. This indicates the the CMB should be warmer in the direction of movement, and it in fact is,which is explained through redshifts. So, given the large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, we have a good reason to espouse big bang cosmology, however, small scale anisotropy is expected, given fluctuations and perturbations, which were necessary for the development of large scale structures, which we can discuss in greater length if you wish.

[3]

Since pro didn’t specify any particular big bang model, I think the aforementioned discussion is sufficient to establish the high probability of the big bang, at least concerning the very most fundamental assumptions.



References

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...



Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by oracle1 3 weeks ago
oracle1
I drafted my rebuttal, could you really not have posted your argument-_-_-_-
Posted by oracle1 3 weeks ago
oracle1
I drafted my rebuttal, could you really not have posted your argument-_-_-_-
Posted by Thiest_1998 3 weeks ago
Thiest_1998
Thank you con for answering my questions

Red shift:
The distance to these objects is determined by the Hubble Law"the greater the distance the greater the redshift"and written z = H0 r/c (z is the redshift [expressed as the ratio of change of wavelength to wavelength [6;_5;/_5;], r the distance to the source, c the speed of light and H0 is the constant relating the redshift to the distance.) This is a law that Edwin Hubble discovered in the 1920s and 30s. It was found that the redshifts observed in the light coming from extra-galactic sources could be used to determine their distances. Because he determined their distance by an independent means, he was able to confirm that the law worked for the bright spiral galaxies. The idea has now been extrapolated to all objects in the universe. And because the class of objects called "quasars" have very large redshifts in general they are expected to be very distant.

The problem is that a quasar has been found embedded in the galaxy NGC 7319 only 8? from its centre. See figure 1. The arrow indicates the quasar. It was recently reported on the University of California, San Diego webpage (10 January 2005).1 The subtitle was "Can A "Distant" Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?", extolling the riddle. The work was done by a team of astronomers/astrophysicists including Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp, and will be reported in the 10 February issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

In conclusion to this I would say you can measure distances with the red shift because this study has proven diffrently and

http://creation.com...
Posted by Thiest_1998 3 weeks ago
Thiest_1998
well fek i missed the time again
Posted by Thiest_1998 3 weeks ago
Thiest_1998
missmedic he probably fulfilled all of his wants
Posted by Thiest_1998 3 weeks ago
Thiest_1998
Zaephou My opponent didn't answer in round 3 last so yh just wanted to finish a debate this time
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
If god is perfect, does god need to create. A perfect being has no needs or wants.
To believe God created this world is to go against the character of an immutable God, because that means he changed his mind from being the sole being of existence to many beings of existence.
If god is immutable, he never changes, then how can he change his mind and create.
Posted by EnglandAm3 1 month ago
EnglandAm3
Interested to see how y'all do!
Posted by Zaephou 1 month ago
Zaephou
Pro: you have been repeating this debate, I am hoping you change your arguments.
Posted by missmedic 1 month ago
missmedic
The big bang theory is provisional and does not contradict our background knowledge.
Knowledge is knowledge about reality. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms. When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.