The Instigator
Coffey
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
21MolonLabe
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The idea of the big bang isn't logical

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 89180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Coffey

Con

When you say the idea of the big bang isn't logical, that was not a fact. That was subjective, so using that as a valid point to declare that the big bang is false/God is real is not a factual argument. Another mistake, not all Atheists believe in the big bang. The point of the conservation is proving God's existence or validating he is true, so do that instead. Remember, just because we don't understand how something works/worked, doesn't automatically make it invalid.
21MolonLabe

Pro

Thanks to Coffey for challenging me to this debate. This is a topic that I have recently gained interest in, so I am delighted to have the chance to discuss it.

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. BoP is Shared
3. No Trolling

Observation

Due to the nature of this debate, my BoP only entails that I argue that the Big Bang is illogical. I do not have to provide an alternate theory for the existence of the Universe to win, but I will anyway. With that being said, I will first build a case for Creationism, then I will discredit the Big Bang. I am splitting my arguments for Creationism into 2 parts, Creation of the Universe, and the Creation of Life.


Creation of Universe

I shall provide evidence that the universe is younger than the Big Bang posits.

Lunar Recession
Firstly, the Moon cannot come any closer than about 10,000 miles from the earth without it breaking up into rings like that of Saturn, also known as the Roche Limit [1]. It is known the Moon is receding from the earth at a rate of about 1.5 Inches per year due to tidal interaction. It has been calculated that after 1.5 billion years, the moon would have been touching the earth. Not within the Roche Limit, but actually touching it. This is approximately 1/4 of the time within the Evolutionary Timescale. It is for this reason that the Earth and the Moon can be at maximum, 1.5 billion years old if the Roche Limit could be violated.

Winding Galaxies
The stars in our galaxy rotate around the galactic center at different speeds, with stars closer to the center revolving faster than those farther from the center [2]. If the universe was even a few hundred million years old, only a tiny fraction of the Big Bang timescale, then the universe would be a formless cluster of stars rather than a spiral [3]. This shows that our Galaxy is younger that the Big Bang model would posit, which is about 13.6 billion years [4].

Supernovae
On average, the Milky Way experiences 3 supernovae per century [5]. However, there is only evidence of about 200 supernovae ever occurring in our galaxy[6]. When you do the math, it comes out to be only 6666 years, which is consistent with the Biblical account.

Creation of Life

Irreducible Complexity
This argument attempts to establish that simultaneous, instantaneous creation is true and the only plausible explanation for certain biological structures, thereby rendering Creationism (which posits that God created everything instantaneously, and all life simultaneously) true and evolution false.


Irreducible Complexity will be defined as that which“cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional [7].”

My argument is structured as followed:
P1) If irreducibly complex biological structures exist, then Creationism is true.
P2) Irreducibly complex biological structures exist.
C) Therefore, Creationism is true.

P1 is true by definition.

For support of P2, I shall use the bacterial flagellum motor. It has been described as: “so breathtakingly elegant and mesmerizing that the sheer engineering brilliance of the flagella motor and, indeed, the magnitude of the challenge it brings to evolution cannot be properly appreciated…[8].

Why does it pose a problem to evolution? It has been suggested that flagellum evolved from the T3SS, but this could not be the case. The T3SS only makes up of about 25% of the flagellum and fails to account for how the main function of of the flagellum, the propulsion system, evolved [9].

Yet another in support of P2 is Termites. Termites cannot digest the wood that they eat, and depend on microbes within them to do so [10]. The problem for the Evolutionist is that the Termite and the microbes have an obligate symbiosis relationship, which means that they depend on each other for survival [11]. The question is then, “Which one evolved first?” This question could only be explained by a simultaneous creation.

The last example of irreducible complexity that I will provide will be the eye. The National Center for Biotechnology Information explains the process that allows us to see,

“Upon photon capture, the chromophore isomerizes to all-trans retinal, causing a conformational change in rhodopsin and activation to meta-rhodopsin II. This initiates the process of phototransduction, a cascade of biochemical events that culminate in closure of ionic channels in the cell membrane, hyperpolarization of the photoreceptor and transmission of the signal(s) to second-order neurons in the inner retina via modulation of neurotransmitter release at the synaptic terminals. All-trans retinal is then transported to the RPE for recycling and is returned to the photoreceptor in cis form, to allow production of new chromophore molecules [12]”

If any of the parts were absent, this process would not be possible, rendering us blind. So it is thusly mistaken to think that they eye slowly evolved, because it would have been absolutely useless until it was complete. Again, the only plausible explanation for this is instantaneous and simultaneous creation of the eye and its parts.

Thus, we have a reason to believe that the universe and life were created by God.

Problems with Cosmic Evolution

Something From Nothing
Many scientists that believe in the Big Bang, defend the idea that a Quantum Fluctuation was the cause of the universe. A difficulty for this idea is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. One would expect that the energy content of the universe would have been enormous. So if the universe did in fact “pop”into existence, the energy content of the universe would be so large that the corresponding time would be extremely small. This means that the universe would only last for an extremely small amount of time. This is obviously not the case.

Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
According to the modern explanation of the universe, the universe was spinning before it expanded [13]. According to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, all of the galaxies, stars, planets, etc. must also be spinning the same way. However, scientists have observed that half of the known galaxies, respectively, spin clockwise and the other half spin counterclockwise [14].

Cosmic Evolutionists believe that the solar system that we live in was formed by the ignition of the sun [15]. Again, the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum posits a problem for this, as Venus rotates backwards and Uranus rotates in a 98 degree angle from its orbital plane [16].

For either of these, it could be objected that there was some cosmic collision or the accident that caused these, but how many “accidents” can we allow to prop up the Big Bang?

More on the Moon
Cosmic Evolutionists believe The Giant Impactor Theory [17]. It posits that the Earth was impacted by something the size of Mars. According to this theory, this impact was fast enough to make the Earth spin and knock off enough debris to create the moon.

I am going to stop it there and address one major issue: if something the size of Mars hit the Earth fast enough to make it spin as fast as it does, most surely it would knock the entire Earth out of orbit.

NASA claims, “This theory can explain why the Moon is made mostly of rock and how the rock was excessively heated [18].”

I have a qualm with this. If a large quantity of debris from the Earth was “ejected,” would not the Moon have the same or nearly the same composition of Earth? Furthermore, Celestial Mechanics and lunar chemistry have shown that the moon could not have condensed from interstellar dust or the Earth[19].

All Sources will be in the comments. I will address my opponent’s statements in the next round.

Debate Round No. 1
Coffey

Con

Coffey forfeited this round.
21MolonLabe

Pro

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`\

I figured that Con would forfeit. I will waive this round to give my opponent a chance to resond to my argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Coffey

Con

Coffey forfeited this round.
21MolonLabe

Pro

So disappointing. Because Con forfeit and provided no arguments, Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 1 year ago
21MolonLabe
Sources from Round 1:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...

[3] Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
[4] http://www.universetoday.com...
[5] https://arxiv.org...
[6] Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), pp. 175-184
[7] http://www.discovery.org...
[8] http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com...
[9] http://www.evolutionnews.org...
[10] http://www.kennethnoll.uconn.edu...
[11] Ibid
[12] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[13] http://physicsworld.com...
[14] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu...
[15] http://www.howstuffworks.com...
[16] John Whitcomb, The Early Earth An Introduction to Biblical Creationism (1996), p. 59
[17] http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[18] Ibid
[19] John Whitcomb, The Early Earth An Introduction to Biblical Creationism (1996), p. 64
No votes have been placed for this debate.