The Instigator
Rahma-ali
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mister_Man
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

the big bang is just another unrealistic theory

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mister_Man
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,057 times Debate No: 62631
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

Rahma-ali

Pro

*message if you would like to debate against me*
The big bang theory; a theory that scientists suggest how the earth and universe was created. The big bang theory is rather a unrealistic theory, saying that the universe was created by a spontaneous explosion which created what is now the universe. how can such perfect and planned like universe be created witch an explosion? Such theory goes against religious views; God and his creation.
Mister_Man

Con

Hi! Glad you made this debate, I love discussing the origins of the universe and trying to figure out and understand how things came to be and other people's perspectives on why anything exists.

I would say the burden of proof is on both of us; myself, to explain how the Big Bang Theory is a realistic/reasonable theory, and you, to explain how Divine Creation is a more realistic/reasonable theory.

And just to be clear, the Big Bang is not a fact, it's a theory. A lot of creationists seem to think scientists and Atheists/Agnostics assert that the Big Bang Theory is absolute fact. It's not, it's (currently) one of the most reasonable, realistic, rational ideas we understand.

Yes, this goes against religious views, just like a Divine Creation theory goes against scientific views.

I'll let you start off and just leave this round for my acceptance and clearing up the rules.

Thanks, good luck! Looking forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Rahma-ali

Pro

hello,
The big bang theory of cosmology says that the universe came into existence in a single event some ten or twenty billion years ago from a single, spontaneous explosion.

The first problem involves the three predictions that the big bang theory makes, that the universe is expanding, that the cosmic background radiation exists and that the abundances of light elements are correct. The idea that the universe is expanding is based upon an assumption that may be false. This assumption is that the observed red-shift is a cosmological effect and is not an anomaly. Photographs taken by Halon Arp suggest the possibility that some objects which appear to be physically connected show widely divergent red-shifts. If it can be shown that the red-shifts are not cosmological, this would undermine Hubble's law, and the big bang theory. Likewise, the cosmic background radiation could be a general condition of the universe, not at all related to any big bang event.

the bang theory is a theory, not a fact, as the opposition said. A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. The big bang theory is not rational or realistic. It goes against many of the other theories It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy.

If I told you that thousands of pieces of timber were set in motion by a tornado in a lumberyard and this ultimately resulted in the amazing design and complexity of the house you live in, you would think this was absurd to say the very least. Now, if i told you that your house was created out of an spontaneous explosion, would you believe it? certainly not.
Mister_Man

Con

Hi! Thanks again for starting this debate.

Just to clear up definitions...

[0.1] Unrealistic - Based on what is wanted or hoped for rather than on what is possible or likely; not sensible and appropriate.

[0.2] Realistic - Iinterested in, concerned with, or based on what is real or practical.

Emphasis on practical.


Always remember, improbable is different from impossible. Even if you cannot grasp the concept of all matter in the universe existing in a millimeter of space, that doesn't make it impossible. Take black holes for example [1], stars multiple times the size of our Sun squeezed and packed to be several miles in diameter. That's a big difference. So to dismiss the idea that an even stronger force exists somewhere, or did exist at some time, which contained all matter in the universe, isn't very reasonable, as this is how we even begin our hypothesis regarding space and time - we witness and examine events taking place in the observable universe, and use our understandings of small events and use them to predict what could have happened, or what might happen on a much, much larger scale. And like I said at the beginning, improbable =/= impossible.

Another example of some crazy stuff happening in the universe that is incredibly hard to wrap our heads around is dark flow [3]. We don't know what's past the horizon, but it's speculated that it's another universe altogether. Imagine that. Where we live, our universe, is where all space and time is contained, where every single thing in existence exists... and there's possibly more than one of these. WHOA, RIGHT?

Anyway, let's address your arguments against the theory of the Big Bang, which, just to clear things up, is estimated to have taken place between 12 and 14 billion years ago - this may come in handy later.

I would also appreciate some sources, if you have them.

An expanding universe

I like Halton Arp's theory, and I'm glad you brought it up, as I probably would have mentioned him and the lack of credibility the red shift theory has. However; red shift having a direct relation with the age of the star instead of the speed or distance is simply a minor speed bump in the theory of the Big Bang. This idea simply discredits the red shift theory and it's impact on the Big Bang theory. I found a great little article about Arp's ideas [4], and it was a good read, yet it claimed the Big Bang theory is ridiculous simply because we have a possibly incorrect way on judging the speed stars are travelling or distance they are from Earth. I can find several determining factors related to the Big Bang theory that don't even mention red shift - a rather old space website [5], Nasa's website [6], Space.com [7], and more, but I won't bother posting dozens of articles, as I hope you get the idea - the red shift theory is not a necessary model for "proving" the Big Bang, and it sure isn't going to disprove the Big Bang Theory.

So I agree the red shift theory isn't the greatest, but disproving this one theory doesn't take much credibility away from the Big bang theory at all.

Cosmic background radiation

Your argument is that this could just be a condition of the universe. Well that's great and all, but it really doesn't disprove or discredit the theory of the Big Bang. Simply put, the uniformity of CBR is astonishing, and presents lots of possibilities. However the main use of this is detecting fluctuations in temperatures, which ultimately helps incredibly with detecting larger galaxies, or even the parameters of the Big Bang [8]. When the radiation has been getting cooler in general, but staying hot around larger galaxies, it makes sense to assume it was even hotter at one point [9], as it's cooling off from something, right? Like we've both understood - it's a theory - but one that actually has validity.

First law of Thermodynamics

The main idea of the big bang is that it was originally infinitely densely packed matter, so right away it didn't create matter out of nothing. And it's widely accepted that energy has always existed, and before you ask about dark matter, remember we just currently don't understand it to our fullest ability, let alone prove that it actually exists. As Stephen Hawking says [10], (I'll paraphrase) we can't test what happened before the Big Bang, but we have a pretty good understanding that all matter was infinitely dense as a singularity at a time - we're just unsure how it all got there, and that's why we have theories such as the Big Bang to try and figure out why anything exists.

Your example is much like one of a creationist - the laws of physics and reality most likely didn't apply before the Big Bang. But as I already mentioned, we don't know what happened before, and that's what we're trying to figure out. My house was not made out of an explosion, and judging by our current understanding of physics, gravity, reality, particle separation, etc, we can rule that this would be impossible. A singularity erupting, creating planets and suns and solar systems is much different, as a planet isn't a design, as in it hasn't been created by something with the intent of it being that thing - it's a rock with a possible atmosphere and elements.

Just because something is a theory doesn't make it less rational or realistic. There are theories about everything, like evolution for example. If I were to say over hundreds of millions of years, different organisms adapted to their environments and the next generations gradually mutated over long periods of time and their cells divided in different ways to keep them safe from their environments, would that make sense? It's just a theory, right? What if I said a moose and a frog mated and a wolf was born, would that be a theory as well? Of course, but a much less probable one. The Big Bang theory is anything but improbable, as it makes sense.

Thanks so far, I'm looking forward to a good end to this, although I kind of wish it was more than three rounds.

[0.1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

[0.2] http://dictionary.reference.com...

[1] http://science.nasa.gov...

[2] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[3] http://www.newscientist.com...

[4] http://electric-cosmos.org...

[5] http://burro.astr.cwru.edu...

[6] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[7] http://www.space.com...

[8] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

[9] http://www.space.com...

[10] http://www.hawking.org.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Rahma-ali

Pro

"The main idea of the big bang is that it was originally infinitely densely packed matter, so right away it didn't create matter out of nothing."

As I have said in my previous argument, the big bang theory violates the law of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created. which is more explicit than the big bang. If the big bang was a true theory, then why isnt it in line with most theories? Or, why are most theoies not in line with the big bang? For such theory to be true, it needs to have a relation to most theories in astronomy.

The main poins as to why the big bang is indefinite:

No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics. Thid also goes for theories.


Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light [1] lements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.


Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

thank you for this debate, all the best :)




[1] http://metaresearch.org...




Mister_Man

Con

However I disproved that due to the high chance that quantum fluctuations are constantly occurring. Matter can in fact be created, but in a virtual particle/anti-particle relationship - the matter destroys itself after a very short amount of time due to it's "contents." I wish I could ask what theory you're talking about when you're referring to the Big Bang theory not being in line with other theories, but unfortunately this is the last round. The Big Bang is a theory, like you said. Because it isn't the same as other theories doesn't make it unrealistic, it just makes it... another theory. Like creationism. However the difference (I'm sure I've mentioned earlier) is that the Big Bang theory actually has reasonable "evidence" to support it. It of course doesn't make it a fact, or true, or maybe even close to true, but it has a better chance of being a reasonable explanation for the origins of the universe over "God did it - here is zero anything that points toward this."

Conservation of Energy

Right off the bat you're asserting that the laws of physics not only are consistent throughout our current galaxy, but have been consistent throughout all of time, and pre-time. It is actually highly likely that it can and does change over time, according to Stephen Hawking, "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down," " Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang." [1], or maybe the laws of physics didn't exist at all, or the reason we believe them to be what they are today is simply our understanding of how stuff works that we can test [2], and considering (as I remember, I may be wrong, I'm not too keen on reading through our entire debate again) you would like to dismiss the string theory and eternal inflation theory, Mr. Frank Heile briefly explains how a different set of laws for physics may be possible to occur [3].

So now that we got that out of the way...

Tossing aside a theory (or law that has the possibility to change throughout spacetime) to make way for another theory could actually be acceptable if both theories have the ability to work together, or if one makes more sense.

If watermelon is red, and only orange food tastes good, we can test both these to see if maybe the watermelon is actually orange. There are always possibilities in science, and to dismiss a theory because it doesn't get along with another is like kicking someone with a PhD in astrophysics out of a group because someone else with a PhD in astronomy doesn't like him. Too bad - we're trying to figure out the most reasonable/plausible origin of the universe. If one theory outweighs another, or even another separate thing, then we re-evaluate both of those things to see if there's any way they can coexist in their present form or if we have to study them even further to see if there's a possibility they were different at a time. And it turns out, the laws of physics very well could have been.

Light Element Abundances

When I copied and pasted your response into Google, I noticed you just got this word for word, ie. Plagiarized it. Now I usually don't care, as it's technically still a valid argument, but it isn't your argument. I also love how this guy's (Eric J Lerner) words have been copied and pasted all over Christian forums, again... word for word [4], [5], [6], and many more.

The only thing I really want to say about this is that a contradiction, or even fault in the Big Bang theory, and one possibly incorrect idea does not dismiss the entire idea of the Big Bang, nor does it make it anywhere close to "unrealistic." Also, to put your number of one hundred trillion (a one, followed by fourteen zeros) into perspective, check out this time line of events to happen in the distant future - [7] - I know it's from Wikipedia, but they have their sources and it's still a very interesting read. Check out the time period predicted for quantum fluctuations to create a new Big Bang - 10^{10^{56}} - You know how many zeros are in that number? Well, it's ten to the power of one hundred septendecillion. That's... you might as well consider that infinite. So how many hundred trillions can fit in 10^[10^56]? Enough to say there's a good chance this theory could be right.

Large-scale Voids are too old

I can sense a pattern here. I'm technically debating against a person with a Bachelor's degree in physics - Eric Lerner - considering you've copied and pasted his teachings to this debate. So I guess I'm thankful, considering I don't even have any post secondary education yet, and to debate against someone with a degree like this, well, it's fun.

However this debate between you and I unfortunately doesn't exist - I'm sure LogicalLunatic or Aerogant (if his account was still active) would love to debate me to this idea - as you haven't provided your own words. You've copied and pasted somebody else's argument (as I have seen many creationists do) in hopes of... well I don't know, but it sure isn't conveying or opening the possibility to new arguments, even for your idea.

But hey, "you" bring up large-scale voids, and we all know how the laws of physics works the same way the hell out there, inside "non-matter" areas of the universe, as they do down here on Earth, right? I would also love if your friend Eric Lerner would provide some kind of sources or back his claims up with something, as the definition of "large-scale voids" is simply areas of space that consist of no matter, in the form of galaxies or dark matter [8], [9]. To say these areas are "too old to exist," or don't make sense if the Big Bang theory is correct, is ridiculous, considering these "voids" are simply pockets of space that contain no matter. Gravity or other energy forces have repelled or attracted the matter away from that area of space.


I was very reluctant to do this, but after copying and pasting several of your previous arguments into Google, I was upset to find out that you had simply dragged someone else's argument into this site. I'm sure not many people on this site respect plagiarism - it would have been better if you had even paraphrased someone else's arguments to three lines a round.


Thanks for getting me to think and do some research, I know I came out of here knowing more than I did before. Not too sure about you.

Thanks, take care!


[1] http://www.hawking.org.uk...

[2] http://boingboing.net...

[3] http://www.quora.com...

[4] http://www.biblewheel.com...

[5] http://www.christianforums.com...

[6] http://www.jehovahs-witness.com...

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[8] http://www.whillyard.com...

[9] http://www.universetoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
As Rahma has stated in his first round, "Such theory goes against religious views; God and his creation." This implies creationism, for him, is the most realistic theory, and if he is asserting that the Big Bang is unrealistic compared to creationism, I would like to think he would be able to not only dispute the Big Bang, but strengthen his creation argument. He was unable to strengthen his own argument, while I was able to strengthen mine.

If he had not mentioned "God and his creation," I wouldn't have even brought up religion as anything more than a separate viewpoint to make my theory of the Big Bang more plausible.
Posted by MichelleLouise 2 years ago
MichelleLouise
Why would he need to make a religious oriented argument? Its irrelevant. Guilt by association?
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
For anyone who's voting - please at least consider my arguments and our back-and-fourth before skipping it all and voting based on Rahma's blatant plagiarism. Thanks :)
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
I totally forgot Rahma had a religious standpoint, he didn't present anything even related to religion, so I appreciate that. Good job.
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
I'm curious on how this debate will play out. If Pro wins, I will have to challenge him. Con has already made an error in his argument, but I won't point out what it is for the sake of debate integrity. Pro has a massive wall of evidence, proof, and logic to attempt to overcome and only by Con not providing the appropriate arguments could Pro have a hope of winning this.
Posted by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
This debate is un-winnable for pro.

Pro will most likely go off topic about he's theological aspects which are completely irrelevant to the debate.
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
However if Pro can prove or explain reasonably that this specific theory is unrealistic or improbable, he could win.
Posted by huong_ly 2 years ago
huong_ly
The con is more convincing than the pro. The key of the problem here is the word "theory". It is just the most reasonable theory, not the fact
Posted by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
Funnycn - Not having any debates on this site does not mean that person is new at debating, they could be coming from another site. I always love debating religion and science though, so this should be good... as long as Rahma-ali doesn't forfeit like I'm kind of expecting him to as that's what happens with every single good debate.
Posted by Georgiaheartandsoul 2 years ago
Georgiaheartandsoul
I agree with pro
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zanomi3 2 years ago
Zanomi3
Rahma-aliMister_ManTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con put forth better arguments, and Pro failed to refute them successfully. Con also used more sources to back his claim (not to mention more reliable). Conduct goes to Con due to the plagiarism seen in Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Commondebator 2 years ago
Commondebator
Rahma-aliMister_ManTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources go to con. Pro simply stated the the theory seems unrealistic, and con made he's argument more convincing. Also, I see con's third round as some degree of plagiarism.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
Rahma-aliMister_ManTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Father Georges Lemaitre (the Catholic priest who formulated the theory) disagrees with you both.