The Instigator
jrardin12
Con (against)
The Contender
Im_Intelligent
Pro (for)

Scientific Problems with 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
jrardin12 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: 5/16/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 114001
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

jrardin12

Con

The Big Bang has a number of scientific problems. Big-bang supporters are forced to accept on "blind faith" a number of notions that are completely inconsistent with real observational science. These are: missing monopoles, the flatness problem, inflating the complexities, not enough antimatter and missing population III stars.
Im_Intelligent

Pro

This sounds interesting, let me start with what you stated

missing population III stars > you need to understand that population III or sometimes referred to as generation I stars were very massive, on the order of 60 to 300 times the mass of our own sun, and made almost purely of hydrogen, so the most if not all have died long ago,
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...

Regarding the missing mono-poles and not enough antimatter, i ask you to go into more detail about that.
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Con

Missing Monopoles
Most people know about magnets-like the kind found in a compass or the kind that sticks to a refrigerator. We often say that magnets have two poles a North Pole and a South Pole. Poles that are alike well repel each other, while Opposites attract. A monopole is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but has only one pole. So a monopole would have either a North Pole or a South Pole, but not both.
Particle physicist claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high-temperature conditions of the Big Bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don't find any monopoles suggests that the Universe was never that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible's account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot.

The Flatness Problem
Another serious challenge to the Big Bang model is called the flatness problem. The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat. If the universe were the accidental by/product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big Bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn't greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe).
The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the Universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past past then it is today. Thus, at the moment of the Big Bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the Big Bang), despite the fact that the law of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, balance is expected since the Lord Has fine-tuned the universe for life.

Inflating the Complexities
Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called inflation in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole. Inflation proposes that the Universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture- much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with a big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true. These are examined below.

Where Is the Antimatter?
Consider the "baryon number problem." Recall that the Big Bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton as a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions.
The Big Bang (which has no matter to begin with, only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter- with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere.
This devastating problem for the Big Bang is actually consistent with Biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only and it's a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter as the Big Bang requires, life would not be possible.
Missing Population III Stars
The Big Bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the Big Bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as Big-bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova).The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second- and Third- Generation stars are thus "contaminated" with small amounts of these heavier elements.
If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements.
Since these would have been the only elements in existence initially. Some Stars should still be around today since their potential lifespan is calculated to exceed the (Big Bang) age of the universe. Such Stars would be called Population III stars. Amazingly (to those who believe in the Big Bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over a 100 billion stars in it, yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements.
The Collapse of the Big Bang
Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the Big Bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists who challenge the Big Bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful Big Bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:
The Big Bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions. The Big Bang seems to be losing considerable popularity. Secular scientists are increasingly rejecting the Big Bang in favor of other models.
Im_Intelligent

Pro

Well then, that's quite a bit.

:Missing Monopoles
The issue here is that your using a "then can, so they must" argument, what I mean by that is you think that because they can exist and would be stable, they thereby must exist, this is simply not true.

A great example of this is the foundation of all life on earth "DNA/RNA" you see the thing is, dna and rna are not the only possible nucleic acids that could have formed on the prebiotic earth, there are a mulitude of other prebioticly possible and STABLE nucleic acid and nucleic acid hybrids, so by your logic they should all exist because nothing is stopping them from forming and they are stable, but did they? NOPE, this is because the situation is more complicated then that, the universe isnt black and white on these type of things.

So no, a lack of monopoles proves nothing, and even if it did, and you were able to prove the universe was never hot, that wouldent automaticly prove an intelligent designer, let alone the god of the bible, sorry.

-

The Flatness Problem
"The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity"
Im going to have to correct you on your point here, the universes rate of expansion is NOWERE NEAR FINELY BALANCED, we know through observation and study that the universes expansion is speeing up with no sign of slowing down, so your wrong in that reguard.
You also seem to have a missconseption on what they mean by and open and closed universe, they are refering to the geomerty of space time itself, also you claim that cosmology cannot account for this, again you are simply mistaken, its possible that the universe can be flat and infinite, its also possible that the universe is a closed 4D sphere, and we just havent been able to messure it because its so big that messuring its curvature is simply not withen our relm of capliabillity, also the infinite values you talk about only apply to our equations, the universe itself is not these equations, we use these equations to better understand how reallity works.

And this universe is by no means fine tuned for life, if that were the case we would be able to find life to be very common throughout the expanse of the universe, instead what we find is a vast cosmic ocean full of radiation and constant forces of destruction, were life is pretty rare at best, heck we havent found any other life yet o_o, most planets are completely inhospitable and incapliable of creating replicons and other possible life predisesors, so no sir the universe couldent be farther then fine tuned for life, i give you the water in the puddle example, the water finds that it fits in this iregular shaped puddle and says "wow! this puddle is just the right shape for me!" when in reallity it is the water "aka life" that molds to fit the puddle, the point is, when ever life does manage to get a foot hold, it evoloves and adapts to its given envioronment and surroundings, you stating the universe is fine tuned for life is simply ignorant.

-

Inflating the Complexities
why would the universe need to stop expanding? for what we can observe its speeding up, and its most likley that the universe constantly goes through varrying rates of expansion, and inflation is very true, because we can demonstrate that it happens, unlike you with biblical claims and empty speculation.

-

Where Is the Antimatter?
You are correct in the reguard of matter and antimatter being made in equal amounts, however like i have mentioned before the univese isnt perfect or black and white, it would have taken one atom out of slightly out of place to put one in the favor of another.
Your statement about god creating the universe with matter is simply false, if this were true in any reguard, you expect that antimatter would only be able to be created via artifical methods, however this is inconsitant with what we see in reallity, we see that anti matter does indeed exist in some quanity out in the universe, so much so that we have been able to record an entire light spectrum from it, which is conseqently the same as ours, this is not constiant with your biblical claim by any strech, but rather more empty speculation and a god of the gaps arugment to top it off
https://www.nasa.gov...

-

Missing Population III Stars

Again, most of these stars were incredibly massive and died off LONG AGO, a pure hydrogen star of 200 solar masses only has a life time of around only 17,600 which is INSANELY SHORT, however it would be reasonable to assume that some smaller mass population III stars would be around right? well the issue is, you want a PURE HYDROGEN STAR, not even trace elements, nada, and the problem with that something called cosmic contamination, if an asterioid or such were to fall into this star, it would hold trace amounts of said element and you would deem it not a population III star, what your basicly asking for, is for us to add a drop of freshwater into the ocean, find said water drop without a SINGLE SALT ATOM IN IT, that is the problem with finding stars like these, and we may have evidence that such stars still could be around.
http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www.eso.org...

_

Darkmatter and etc

You state that dark matter and comisc inflation have not been observed, we have observed comic inflation, and we have observed the effects of dark matter, we dont need to directly observe dark matter in order to messure its effects and know of its existance, in the same way we cant directly observe electrons and tempature, or neurlogical activity, but we know it exists, and we can messure its effects.

-

I Highly suggest you did a bit more research on this before posting your rebuttle, because its quite obvious you have some misconseptions in reguard to this topic

also even if we cant explain something, that doesnt mean your god did it.
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
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
Sorry I did not get back to you. I have three more debates.
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
@Followerofchrist1955
Maybe someone would accept your debate if you would actually debate.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 3 years ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Duh yeah ... it's a Lie!
God created all that?
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by master-de-baiter 3 years ago
master-de-baiter
and i thought Im intelligent was just a troll
Posted by master-de-baiter 3 years ago
master-de-baiter
and i thought Im intelligent was just a troll
Posted by master-de-baiter 3 years ago
master-de-baiter
and i thought Im intelligent was just a troll
Posted by Im_Intelligent 3 years ago
Im_Intelligent
Well regarding HOW it happend, we dont exactly have an answer to that, using observation combined with modern mathematics we can trace the universe back to the very PLANK SECOND after the big bang, the problem is if we try to go further our equations break down, this could be because our equations simply dont work on that scale, or perhaps physics itself no longer exist on that scale, however this has not stopped us from formulating some hypothesis's on before the big bang.

one example is that all energy and matter is eternal, this is assumed on the law of conservation of energy and mass "hence energy cannot be created or destroyed" the idea is that a quantum flux happened without space and time, causing the expansion of said space and time, and consequently the energy as well.

Another interesting hypothesis that focuses more on the "something from nothing" arugment, is that when you combine matter and antimatter, they destroy each other in a 100% efficient conversion to energy, the idea is that if energy existed in some shape or form before the big bang, this process could have worked in reverse, giving us matter and antimatter from nothing, this has some mathematical issues to be solved, but its still a competing hypothesis.

as for some sources, i have a source from nasa that talks about some observable evidence we have that the big bang did happen
https://science.nasa.gov...
http://www.exploratorium.edu...

if you want more sources, tell me and i will give you more.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 3 years ago
32doni32nido32
This is very interesting! @Im_Intelligent do you have any sources I could read about the Big Bang and how it happened? I would appreciate if you sent me links to either websites or videos. :D
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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.