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

The big bang theory is false

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
zupermushy 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: 12/30/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 690 times Debate No: 98564
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Thiest_1998

Pro

I will be arguing against the big bang theory showing why I know its false.
zupermushy

Con

the big bang theory is true and this is warm up round so i will see how you will argue the big bang theory is false.well firstly the theory makes sense and that many laws of science especially physics are based on it. cheers
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 :)
zupermushy

Con

well of course it is still a mystery where hte energy came from.and it will remain one for some time to coe.but to make this topic more debatable i would lik to eplain how it was probably much smaller than dot. it was extremely dense and this energy well formed everything else. i have two different arguments which one might be true. first, the energy might not have been created and was there beofre tim reated by a superior being hich most of us me included blieve as God.next the law o fthermodynamic may as well be a hox. one quetion posed by scentist was where did waste energy go to . then they created a orm of axion that are 'invisible' and inert. this might never be proven unless we can see themor rect withthem which woul dnt is there.happen in the real world. so the la f thermoynamics may be broken because not enough proof . for the record even the big bang theory includes God as a upremebeing
Debate Round No. 2
Thiest_1998

Pro

Thank you Con for your argument I would like to start of by saying please fix your spelling some of your words I couldn't understand so apologies if I misunderstand some of your arguments.

Yes it is a mystery where the energy came from but I think the energy must have been created even though we don't know how to doesn't mean there is someone who knows how to.

Are you trying to say all of the energy in the universe because I said something about it in the last argument and I don't think you argued it properly.

And how does the big bang theory include God as a superior being because if so it
contradicts Genesis.

Thanks for the argument your turn
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
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
But not enough for evolution
Posted by epicemmy9 1 year ago
epicemmy9
@Theist_1998 You seem to have no problem pointing out plotholes in a scientific theory, but how can you criticize science when there are so many illogicl events that occur in the Bible? Please explain the story of the talking snake or a man living inside a fish for three days, which both occur in the Bible. We know that snakes can"t speak " they lack the vocal cords to produce the sounds necessary for speech. We also know that the digestive mechanisms of the fish would make it impossible for a man to actually live (let alone breathe) inside of a fish for three days. Atheists have reasons for why we don't belive in religions.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@Theist_1998 What utter nonsense. Every single one of your talking points from this debate is from Kent Hovind. Every. Single. Point. Do not try and tell me that these aren't Kent Hovind's "arguments." I know his arguments when I see his arguments when I see them, and those are most certainly them. As for your link, I don't know what's that even supposed to be evidence of. Congrats, you found a website which rehashes every single point from Kent Hovind. How does this therefore mean that your arguments are not Kent Hovinds'? Far as I'm aware, it doesn't. I also find it quite comical how you call me dumb, yet you're the one parroting Kent blasted Hovind mate.

Also. "Dr" Hovind. Lol.
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
Btw that link is my source from which I got my information from
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
I clearly said Most of my debates I copy from Kent Hovind but in this debate I didn't, Dr Hovind is right some Athiest are really dumb.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
Also, because I just realised i didn't answer your next question of "what do you mean, why would I do that to yourself," I'm going to have to type an other comment. I mean that if you are ripping arguments from Kent Hovind, you are setting yourself up for failure. The guy is *infamous* even amongst creationists. If you get your arguments from Kent Hovind, you are shooting yourself in the foot (figuratively speaking of course) and setting yourself up to be wrecked by your opponent. I would recommend that you on't parrot Kent Hovind's arguments from this point forth bro. If you come across someone who actually knows what they're talking about and you use these arguments, the debate you have will be swift, uncompromising and not to mention unforgiving. A person who is knowledgeable enough about this topic would have a field day with your arguments; and that is something no debater wants.
Posted by Spud 1 year ago
Spud
@Theist_1998 What utter tosh mate. Of course you got this from Kent Hovind; you got every single one of his talking points from Hovind; from the spinning singularity to the brutalisation of thermodyanimics, to the claim that the Big Bang was an explosion, these claims are all made by Kent Hovind. If you didn't watch Kent Hovind's notorious 2001 seminar and got all of your arguments from that, I will eat my left shoe. Or maybe you could have got your arguments from his son; Eric Hovind, as Eric just rehashed his father's nonsensical arguments. Which still in turn means that the original claimant of these arguments was in fact Kent Hovind.

In order to make sure that my comments do not sway the outcome of the debate that is currently taking place right now between you and zupermushy, I will not go into reasons as to why everything you have said is silly, but you are most certainly not doing yourself any favours by claiming that you did not just parrot everything from Kent Hovind.

You also contradict yourself by stating that you do in fact copy Kent Hovind. So you don't get your arguments from Kent Hovind, but you do. Impeccable logic right there bro.
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
you
Posted by Thiest_1998 1 year ago
Thiest_1998
What do ypu mean why would I do that to myself
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.