The Instigator
MikeNH
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
logicaldebater
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

There Is No Observable Evidence For 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 3 votes the winner is...
MikeNH
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 799 times Debate No: 40682
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)

 

MikeNH

Con

In the comments of a prior debate, logicaldebator made the following claim:

"Believing in a Creator is, based on observations made, much more scientific than believing in a "big bang" which has no observable evidence to back it up, whereas believing in an orderly and logical Creator makes much more since because we live in an orderly and logical universe."

I will be arguing that there is in fact substantial evidence that the big bang occured, but all I will require to refute his claim that there is no evience is to provide SOME evidence.

The big bang is defined here as the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe. (1)

The first round is for acceptance only and no arguments are allowed to be made. We will both present our arguments in round 2.


(1) http://lmgtfy.com...;
logicaldebater

Pro

I accept your challenge, on the basis that we both have an understanding of the word "observation": "something you notice by watching and listening"(1), and an understanding of the "Big Bang":

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the "big-bang model [is the] widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density"the so-called big bang that occurred 13.8 billion years ago"(2). When talking about the Big Bang that, apparently, occurred 13.8 billion years ago, we must agree that this is historical (origins) science, not operational science. When talking about the evolution of the universe, an expanding universe, etc., we must agree that this is operational science because we can both observe it.

(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(2)http://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 1
MikeNH

Con

You have directly contradicted yourself, and have subsequently conceded the entire point to me when you first agree to use the definition of the big bang that includes:

"According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the "big-bang model [is the] widely held theory of the evolution of the universe."

Then you directly say:

"When talking about the evolution of the universe, an expanding universe, etc., we must agree that this is operational science because we can both observe it."

The expansion of the universe, that you conceded we can observe, IS direct observable evidence supporting the big bang. You have agreed that we can observe this, and the debate was formed predicated on the idea that if I could demonstrate that there is at least SOME evidence for the big bang. Therefore, your claim, "there is no evidence for the big bang" has been shown demonstrably false by your own definition. At this point I need not even present any further evidence until I hear your rebuttal.
logicaldebater

Pro

logicaldebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
MikeNH

Con

I will rest my case unless you'd like to present another argument. Thanks again.
logicaldebater

Pro

logicaldebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
MikeNH

Con

I will rest my case unless you'd like to present another argument. Thanks again.
logicaldebater

Pro

logicaldebater forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by MikeNH 3 years ago
MikeNH
@logicaldebator - your definition of observation is very limited and I don't really accept it moving forward for fear of us playing a semantics game.

Do you accept the following (google "define observation")

"the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information."
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
MikeNHlogicaldebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro disagreed with himself in his own definition. This costs him the arguments. He loses conduct for forfeiting the debate.
Vote Placed by Sargon 3 years ago
Sargon
MikeNHlogicaldebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, by forfeiting, failed to establish the resolution, and failed to answer Con's argument. Pro also failed to show up for most of th debate. Arguments and conduct Con.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
MikeNHlogicaldebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Yup. Con is right. Pro shot himself in the foot in the first round. Con pointed this out very clearly, so I gave arguments to Con. I also gave conduct to Con because Pro bailed on the debate.