The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
11 Points

The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,502 times Debate No: 26679
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (3)




This debate is about the Big Bang Theory. Anyone who accepts this debate agrees to the following:
1. No trolling
2. No semantics, other than in the case of clarifying technical terms with credible sources
3. The BoP will be shared
4. The debate will not sidetrack off-topic
6. Arguments will be intelligent, logical, and data-based.
7. All arguments will be text-based
8. All arguments will cite reference first-hand. Shrinking links, sources, etc. by any means, such as tinyurl, creating a file with links within is not accepted.
9. Forfeiting equals a 7 point to the opponent.
10. No plagiarizing. All arguments must be cited or original

For Stephan Hawkins

Base definitions: Big Bang Theory
The widely held belief that the Universe began in a fiery explosion, 10-15 billion years ago. The cosmic microwave background, big bang nucleosynthesis, and the observed Hubble expansion of the Universe are considered proof of the big bang theory. [1]

I expect the acceptor to be literate in science and its definition, hence I will not define it here.

I have made the debate generally unacceptable for now. Comment to debate.

1.; (This is for more information)


I accept the debate. To clarify some rules:

"All arguments will cite reference first-hand. Shrinking links, sources, etc. by any means, such as tinyurl, creating a file with links within is not accepted." - this means if referring to any books (or links to books) the page number must be specified (unless the source is to that specific page only)

"No plagiarizing. All arguments must be cited or original"

This is two seperate statements. That means, no plagiarising, AND all arguments must be EITHER cited (secondary source) OR original (primary source, e.g. mathematical calculations based on another's work). Meaning, if "all arguments must be cited or original", that does not necessarily mean that the arguments are not plagiarised. If, for example, the entire argument is lifted from an albeit cited website, then that still counts as plagiarism.

With that in mind, I'll wait for my opponent to post their opening argument, and look forward to a compelling debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree to the further explanations. I will advocate no other model. Once I have referenced something, I will not do so again. I will not go too much into technicality first, instead I will set out a general case.

Dark Matter: Not only has this hypothetical entity not been observed, when compared with other models, it fails [1]. It has failed to validate each and every one of its testable predictions. It makes predictions contradictory to the available data on mass surface density, rotation curve shape, rotation rate of rise, CMB geometry and peak ratio, etc which I will expand on in the third round.

The Big Bang relies heavily on fudge factors such as this. [2] Without these fudges, the Big Bang has no ability to make retroactive predictions consistent with the data.

The big bang theory has no observably verified quantitative predictions. Its ability to retrospectively fit data to large numbers of adjustable parameters supersedes all other models.

Cosmological Principle: This principle states, "Since the universe looks to us the same in all directions, and we are not in a special position, then the distribution of matter across very large distances is the same everywhere in the universe." [3] This is one of the basic assumptions of the Big Bang.

Observational data, however, contradicts this assumption.

Quantized redshifts show that galaxies are quantized at certain distances [4]. This is a clear indication that the Universe is not homogeneous, although it is isotropic.
The fact that we are able to see distinct regions of redshifts show that statistical noise has not yet made an impact on the data. This indicates that the galaxy shells do not overlap, from our point of view. For such to occur, we have to be near the center.

CMBR: The background radiation data show a uniform radiation temperature of around 2.7260K +-0.0013K[5]. This provides a problem for the theory that is not solved. The BR could have been the same before the expansion, but not after. There is not enough time for radiation to have dispersed in such a manner. The WMAP [6] data uses a priori assumptions that cannot be experimentally confirmed. The assumption is that foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency.

Superstructures: The fact that there is superstructures such as the Sloan Great Wall [7] shows that the Universe is not homogenous and cannot be.

Lack of Population III stars: There is an absolute lack of population III stars [8]. This hypothetical entity is required for the Big Bang to work.

Galaxies and quasars: The fact that time dilation is not observed in quasars [9] opposes the prediction of the Big Bang.

I will wait here and turn over the debate to my opponent.




Spreading is a well known American debating tactic consisting of making many arguments in as short a period of time rather than make the arguments sound convincing. That is, a focus on matter rather than method. It is a good tactic in debating. However, the internet as with many things seems to have catched on to it, and has its own, less affectionately known form: the gish gallop[1]. The tactic is known as spewing multiple arguments terse and brusque format, with little to no evidence actually being made clear. In live debates (or in-real-life debates) when one gives a source, it should simply repeat what is being said, not be an additional argument unto itself. This is another sign of a gish gallop tactic. Finally, there is the fact that an argument will be dropped after it being presented. Though my opponent has not done this yet, the claim "once I have referenced something, I will not do so again" highlights something which seasoned debaters shake their heads at. In short, what I am trying to say here is that the arguments are not presented in a lot of cases, instead they are shrank to such a point that they no longer actually work.

Dark Matter

Yes it has, like this says so[2]. I'll explain so in the next round.

This is more or less what my opponent has just said inversed. Claiming that it makes predictions contradictory to X, Y and Z by linking a broken website isn't an argument. In fact, even if the link worked, I wouldn't bother addressing it. A source is to make an argument stronger, not to present the argument. No premise has been proven in this contention.

Fudge Factors

"the big band relies [on] fudge factors such as this. Without these fudges..."

Remember how I said sources should strengthen, not make an argument? Well, what is the argument here? There are fudge factors (an unprofessional term), supposedly, but no reference to what they are. But the argument will undoubtedly continue, so let me put it to rest. Firstly we know the universe is inflating, contrary to both the source, contrary to the claim of a lack of verifiable predictions, and contrary to it being able to fit data into any model. The evidence ranges from the middle-school level[3] of cosmological redshift[4] to undergraduate level[5] of the astronomical position of a 1A supernova being further away than a stationary (or even a linear-increasing) model of the big bang is false. Note how this is a turn as this is evidence for the Big Bang, due to the existence of an inflating universe.

Quantized Redshifts

This seems to be an exercise in nonsense. Nowhere does it link back to the big bang. I'm not sure what to do. The scientist in me says I should address the scientific inaccuracies in the statements, but the debater says ignore the non-sequitur. As this is a debate, I'm forced to do the latter.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, or CMBR

None of this seems to link to the big bang theory again. The Big Bang Theory, to fill in the gaping gaps of my opponent's argument, predicts that there will be leftover radioactive heat from the big bang. The fact that there is this provides evidence. The fact that my opponent is baffled how this happened is in fact a criticism of his own argument: the radiation temperature is a landmark test and proof of the big bang theory.


The Big Bang predicts superstructures, unlike its competitors. What more should I say to this?

Population 3 Stars.

The evidence of Population 3 stars would indeed help the big bang theory prove itself again to be true. However, the lack of their observed existence isn't evidence that the big bang theory is wrong. A good example is if you look at a statue, you can date it in many ways: you can use metal dating, check historical records, or the favourite: look at the plaque saying when it was built. But if the plaque is faded and the writing is no longer there, does that mean the statue was always there? Of course not. It would be nice if the plaque was there, but it isn't necessary. Similarly, it would be nice to see population 3 stars, but it is not necessary.

The reason behind the stars not being there is simple. Pop. 3 Stars were the very first generation of stars and hence they formed with practically no metals at all. As such, their mass is astonishingly high. This means while most stars hang about for billions of years at the least, the Pop. 3 stars last only a few million, a mere instant. Therefore, we must look at regions of universe where the light we observe was first emitted near the time when these stars shone. This means that the light will be both dim and highly redshifted (z ~ 20). The combination of these two effects makes observations from the ground largely unfeasible[7]. However, the Spitzer telescope is doing very well in finding more and more evidence of their existence[6].

For reference, note how long my opponent's criticism was, and how long I had to spend to make a complete rebuttal. This is the problem of gish gallop arguments: to rebut, one must spend vastly more time than one's opponent constructing a complete refutal.

Time Dilation in Quasars

This is again something which has no actual conclusion. There's no reason to accept either the big bang expects no time dilation, time dilation exists, or that this falsifies the big bang theory.

Evidence in favour of the Big Bang

Star Composition

This is a simple one. Stars create the denser materials. If so, then the stars in the 13-billion year old cluster close to would produce high-metallicites, i.e. be population I stars, while stars further out would contain less metals, i.e. be population II stars. And when we look at the composition of stars in the universe, we see this:

This is obvious evidence in favour of the Big Bang Model making one of many correct predictions.

Amount of resources available

Another simple one. In the beginning, the big band model assumes the big bang created an abundance of basic materials such as hydrogen with very little heavier materials. Stars instead produce the heavier materials. So the cosmic abundance of hydrogen would be more than all other materials. Further, due to the way the big bang prediction that stars produce more iron than other materials in its later life especially, we'd expect a spike of iron. When we look at the actual state of things, we see this:

This again is obvious evidence in favour of the big bang.

I'll leave my argument here for now, and shall continue my case into the next round. For reference, any arguments dropped I shall consider conceded. With that, I'll wait for the next round.

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
Debate Round No. 2


I do not intend to drop any arguments. I stated "I will not go too much into technicality first, instead I will set out a general case." This indicates that I am not on a Gish Gallop. I will use links to graphs, as I do not know how to place them within the debate box. I will abbreviate big bang to BB. New arguments will have a "(New)"

I apologize for the broken link. My fault. However, I will cite it again. [1]
Now I will strengthen my argument.

Dark Matter (DM): I will go through just three or less of those listed in the original link. For now as I will have no space to refute Pro if I went through all.
Disk-Halo Conspiracy: This "describes the absence of a feature in galaxy rotation curves at which the dominant source of central attraction changes from luminous matter to dark." [2]
Rotation curves are almost flat at all radii after a rapid rise in all areas. Whether or not the Vc is determined by DM or disk matter. How does the different regions come to have the same rotation amplitude? [3] The Big Bang has no answer for this.

Rotation Curve Shapes: The rotation curve shape predicted by the Big Bang fails [4]. Probably the biggest falsified BB prediction. To subvert this problem, fine-tuning is needed and DM is invoked.

However, DM has never been observed and is purely hypothetical. Why hypothetical? This is because other models such as the MOND and Carmelian Relativity, correctly fits the curve, but do not invoke DM.

Low surface Brightness (LSB) Galaxies: HSB galaxies have steeply rising curves, while LSB have slowly rising curves [5]. The TF relation is the relation between luminosity and rotation speed. [8] LSB galaxies adhere strictly to the TF relation. BB predictions demand that LSB do NOT follow the relation. Thus, the M/L ratio must be fine-tuned with hypothetical mass to compensate. This hypothetical mass is dark matter.

Fudge Factors: The fudge factor I was speaking about refers to the fine-tuning of the M/L ratio. It is indeed a fudge factor as it "fudges" the data. All the data the Pro has provided fits into other models without the need for DM.

Quantized redshifts: This argument does link to the BB. The BB assumes the cosmological principle. This states that the Universe is both homogenous and isotropic. There is evidence that redshift is quantized. Such I gave in the previous round. Quantized redshifts clearly show that the Universe cannot be homogenous. Now that I have linked the two, Pro has to show me what inaccuracies I made.

(New) Redshifts in Quasars: Halton Arp has made the observation [6] that highly redshifted quasars can be seen to interact physically with relatively lower redshifted galaxies. From this observation, Arp claims that redshifts are caused primarily by a young object, not by its velocity. (See last picture of [6]) We can check this claim by analysing the pictures. Magnification of the pictures show, as stated in [6], that there is a "jet" of matter connecting NGC 7319 and the quasar. Thus, redshifts are caused by youth, not by velocity. The basic evidence for BB expansion, redshifts, is undermined.

CMBR: The prediction made by BB is that CMBR is an "afterglow" of the "explosion". I was dealing with the horizon problem, which I will not repeat. Pro dismisses them even though others have tried to address problem. RationalWiki call it a "former mystery," as though a solution has been found. It has not. The inflation theory invokes the problem of "what started the inflation?"

Now to the afterglow. BB predicts that all galaxies would be in CMBR"s foreground. There is observational evidence to refute this. The ~70mK anisotropies, commonly regarded as proof, can be attributed to other effects such as the Sunyaev"Zel"dovich effect. [7] Analysis have found that the cooling due to the shadowing effect falls short of prediction by 100mK. On the average of 31 clusters, no shadow has been detected. This shows that CMBR has a higher possibility of being local radiation and radiation is not coming from behind the clusters, rather than BR.

I do not know how my opponent can see me as "baffled."

Superstructures: As per cosmological principle, this has not been refuted. This is evidence against homogeneity.

Population III(PIII) stars: Pro has basically conceded this argument. He links to a list of <180 NASA articles, most, if not all of which did not contain anything on PIII stars. He then calls it evidence for PIII. The absence of PIII stars do not invalidate BB, but lack of evidence for it is a big indication.

Time Dilation in Quasars: I will expand on this. Time dilation is the effect whereby events occurring far away appear to occur slower than nearby events [9]. This is caused by the lengthening of light pulse intervals as space expands. BB predicts that all events would be affected by time dilation. Quasars, however, give off light pulses at the same rate no matter their distance from the Earth. Light signatures of 6 billion light years away (blya) and 10 blya were found to be the same. [10] Even though redshifts were drastically different, the time taken for the light to reach Earth was the same.

Star composition: I will point out Pro"s arguments are very valid and cannot be refuted. However, he provides no source. I have given one to explain Population I & II stars [11]. Pro, however, does not give a valid explanation for how the stars formed. This is vital in any model. Pro may not use energy from an exploding star to hypothesize about the formation of the first stars. The BB is unable to account for star formation, which is required before one can explain star composition.

Resources: Pro does not clarify his terms. Any element heavier than beryllium or lithium is considered heavy. Pro"s arguments contradict themselves. To support BB, one has to support the Inflation Hypothesis (IH). IH would require a density around 20 times that predicted by BB nucleosynthesis, which explains light element origins.
Notice the Catch-22-like situation. Inflation is required to solve the horizon problem but gives rise to the problem of what started the expansion and would require a higher density. However, a low density is required to explain nucleosynthesis. You can"t have your cake in different flavours, and eat it too.

10. I already cited Hawkins in the previous round.


Arguments which help no case:

Dark Halo Conspiracies and the rotational curves doesn't prove the Big Bang is false. It simply shows something it fails to predict. Similarly, the BBT fails to predict evolution, or germ theory, or enzymes, or anal retentiveness. This does not harm the theory. The Big Bang has no answer because it is not part of the big bang theory. Both of these arguments, even if fully conceded, have no relevance to the debate. The Fudge Factors argument is similar: he's clearly dropped it as a criticism, simply claiming it is not evidence. There's no point going off-track to refute any of the other false claims, due to the debate topic, but regardless these are no criticisms.

Theory Gish Galloping and Dark Matter

When my opponent types off-hand (Mond and Carmelian Relativity), I hope he seriously does not expect me to refute massive models of faulty science as well as defend the argument, when the reasons these hypotheses are dismissed are due to scientific faults, which anyone with google can look up. Moreover, there is a lot about dark matter and attempting to defefat it. Note how all say "this hypothetical mass is dark matter" or similar. Thus, proving Dark Matter's existence is all that is needed. Luckily, there is lots of evidence:
  • Rotational speed of gravities is sufficiently explained only by dark matter[1]
  • Only Dark Matter predicts Type 1 supernova to be fainter than other cosmological models[2]
  • Gravitaty lenses, especially the bullet cluster, can only come about with something having the properties of dark matter[3]
  • It is the only theory that explains orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies[4].
Claiming things about the big bang which are simply false

Low Surface Brightness is predicted by the big bang model, due to the existence of dark matter. Once the insurmountable evidence for dark matter is accepted, then accepting this is no problem is due course: LSB is predicted by the big bang, due to the prediction of dark matter.

Fudge Factors are another example of things which is simply false. Showing how MOND, TeSeV or any other models can fit the data, instead of claiming it to be so. I don't know where you come from, but I come from Britain, and in britain we like evidence.

Quantized Red Shift

Now we've actually got an argument, I can do something with it. So let's do this step by step:
  • There is no evidence for redshift quantization. Instead of citing modern articles, my opponent cites articles from the eighties. Undoubtedly, and I am sure my opponent agrees, astrology and cosmology has vastly developed since then, so modern sources are a better source. Modern sources say less favourable things:
    • "Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."[5]
    • "the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for [the hypothesis]"[6]
  • Quantized redshifts give merit to stupid things[7] like a galactocentric universe.
  • Quantized redshifts showing the universe being unable to be homogenous is still unsusbstantiated.
  • Unfortunately for Tifft's claim, the quantization scale for redshifts has continued to shrink as more data has become available. The initial value was 72.46 km/s. Further observations brought this down to 36.2 km/s, 8.05 km/s and finally 2.68 km/s. Scaled against the speed of light, this suggests a quantization in z of roughly 0.00001, which is ...below the precision for many common redshifts measurements[8].
Redshifts in Quasars

In Arp's model, galaxies and quasars are physically associated with each other and, hence, one would expect that correlating the two populations would look a great deal like correlating the galaxies with themselves. Conversely, BBT tells us quasars are much more distant than the galaxies in this sample, so the cross-correlation due to actual gravitational clustering should be nearly zero. When the SDSS researchers made the measurement, the results matched the expectation from BBT to a high statistical significance.[9] Redshifts prove the Big Bang, not neglect it. To make this clear, this is an argument for the BBT. The evidence doesn't negate it, but isntead promotes it.

Is it just me, or is the criticism still saying nothing? He's managed to argue with himself into saying it's consistent. I never even brought any actual criticisms to the fore: one must question the soundness of the other arguments when an event like this happens...

Evidence for the Big Bang

Star Composition

My opponent says the evidence is valid, but goes on to say I am wrong because i) I didn't use a source, and ii) I did not explain how stars form.

i) is ignorable because my opponent accepts it is true regardless of source. Moreover, the image is the evidence. ii) is a red herring because whether the stars form from the traditional method (below) or any other method, this has no relation to the big bang. Unless we are supposing a universe made last thursday, the argument is sound. In fact, the lack of direct criticism gives evidence for the soundness of the argument.


I will struggle to explain the big bang theory in a thousand characters to a decent depth, but at the same time I wonder whether I have to. The argument my opponent used is just one from not understanding how the big bang model works. At the big bang, atoms are incredibly small, so hydrogen and deutrium and similar. These form stars. These stars produce hydrogen, helium, and heavier metals into the universe. These atoms come together and form "heavier" stars, which will be closer to the beginning of the universe (as fully formed stars moving away that formed earlier will be made of lighter materials and so less metals and will have a headstart, and so be able to "get out" quicker). All stars also produce iron on death, though, which will spike this material. The evidence shows this to be true.

Further, my opponent has to actually prove or justify why the IH would require a x20 larger density, not citing a random scholar who I can simply disagree with as well, nor copy from the cosmological statement site. Actual cold hard evidence, and no less.

CMBR is a cosmological phenomenon

The Big Bang theory, as my opponent repeatedly says, claims the CMBR is a cosmological phenomenon. If we can prove so, this is strong evidence of the BBT. What does the evidence say? Well, thanks to SZ models (Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect models) we cacn see the SZ effect drastically effects the CMBR, showing it to be dependent on cosmological effects.[10]

Dark Matter

If Dark Matter exists, we have good evidence for the big bang theory again, since only the BBT accounts for its existence. And indeed, we have many independent studies. With the few characters left, I'll point to the Integrated Sachs-Wolf Effect[11] and leave it at that.

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
Debate Round No. 3


Pro has clearly conceded the arguments about rotational curves and the Dark Halo Conspiracy. If Pro had bothered to even read my arguments (I'm assuming he hasn't due to the way he has dismissed it), he would realize that both arguments are very valid for BB. I have stated that these are what BB predicted wrong, not what it did not predict. Pro ignores that. I won"t be rephrasing the argument. Pro evidently knows he cannot argue his way out of the falsified predictions, and hence he claims that the arguments presented by me is not evidence.

Notice how later he states, "Now we've actually got an argument, I can do something with it." He knows he can"t refute actual arguments that I presented earlier.

Pro now argues that I commit a "Theory Gish gallop." Not only is his criticism of these theories I cited false, his interpretation of what I meant is also false. I will not re-state myself.

Let me go through each of the supposed evidences for dark matter.
Now he cites rotational curves. First, notice his dismissal of rotational curves earlier on as evidence against the BB. Now, notice his glaring logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Rotational curves falsifies BB predictions unless there is dark matter. Therefore there is dark matter.
His second point references a graph that draws the curves of standard BB theory and BB theory WITH dark matter. Thus, it does not refute any "other cosmological models."
Pro"s third point would have been addressed if he had only read my arguments! This is more evidence that he has not.
Pro has made the a priori assumption that all other models other than variations of BB models are false. Notice that he takes the reference totally out of context. He equates phenomena which DM fits to phenomena to which ONLY DM can fit. See for yourself the actual statement from the article, "The observed phenomena consistent with the existence of dark matter include the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies."

Pro nows goes into accusatory mode and claims that I make false claims about BB. I have surmounted and disproven all of Pro"s "evidences" for DM while he has dropped all of mine, claiming that I provided no evidence. He may be from Britain, but that does not mean he can be allowed to diss evidence. I will therefore not respond to his allegations.

Pro might use this to claim that I have conceded, but all he has shown is that he uses the fallacy of ignoring the argument.

Redshifts: For the fifth reference, Pro uses quotation marks to make it seem like the article"s authors said that. Readers. Be warned. No such remarks exist in ANY format. I downloaded them and went through the whole thing. Pro is being intellectually dishonest here just like how he was intellectually dishonest by dismissing rotation curves as evidence against BB.
At least for his second quotation, Pro quotes straight from the conclusion. With much removed. However, I find articles in support of quantized redshifts published later than that Pro has presented [1][2]. These go to show that quantized redshifts has not been "falsified", as Pro would like readers to believe.
Pro claims that a galactocentric model is stupid. So? We are not debating the merits of a galactocentric model! We are debating the Big Bang model.
Pro claims that my argument that the Universe is shown by quantized redshifts to be not homogenous ignores my previous arguments, which, when taken into account, provides even stronger evidence than one point alone.
Pro cites data from Talkorigins, which does not cite data from any reliable peer-reviewed articles. Thus, readers, please take note of any data which Pro cites with a grain of salt. I could not find the data in ANY peer-reviewed articles despite looking for it on google"s scholarly articles search engine. Thus, those in Britain (with a capital "B", thank you) would be disappointed to know that Pro has not given any verifiable evidence.

Redshifts in quasars: Pro uses a Red Herring here. He totally ignores the evidence I presented and goes off on a different tangent. I will thus not refute his contentions. I consider my point to have been conceded by Pro due to his not refuting the data I presented.

CMBR: The same plague that infests all of Pro"s response is idealized in this section of the reply. If one could visualize his arguments, it would be that of a young boy covering his ears and taunting, "LALALALA! I cannot hear you!" *Sticks out tongue*. This is both intellectually dishonest and immature.

Pro derides me for strengthening my arguments! Is it just me, or does everyone agree how lame that is? Pro demanded in the second round that I provide valid arguments. When I do, how does he reply? He shifts attention away from the argument!

Star composition: Pro claims that star formation has no relation to BB and is a red herring. Star formation [3], however, is vital to the BB, as I have stated. Off-handedly dissing the relationship is actually a red herring in that it detracts from the argument.

Resources: Pro states, "These form stars." The very process by which they form into stars is what I dispute. It is entirely relevant to the BB. Same criteria applies. I don"t want to hear a cosmos-scale story without, and let me quote Pro, "Actual cold hard evidence, and no less."

CMBR (again): Yet more evidence that Pro had not read my arguments. If Pro had only took the time to actually read my arguments, he would have found that SZE opposes his idea of background radiation. I do not repeat un-refuted arguments.

Dark Matter: Let me now paraphrase from Pro. Sources are used to back up an argument, not to make one. Even if the source makes a valid argument, I will not respond. Thank you!


I have come to the conclusion that Pro is intellectually dishonest. This is because he "quotes" from non-existent data and dismisses arguments which have entire relevance to the debate about the BB as having no relevance.

I have presented a data-based argument, which Pro has not bothered to answer.

Pro uses non-peer-reviewed text sources as data. This is unacceptable.

Pro paraphrases me wrongly on two separate occasions, adding grammatical and spelling mistakes which I did not make.

I have shown that Pro frequently, if not consistently, misrepresents, distorts, and straw man my arguments.

If Pro does not validly refute my arguments against BB in the next post, I will assume that he has conceded the debate.



What happens when you get evidence for the big bang?

According to my opponent, it seems you cite it as evidence against it. Going through his arguments, it becomes obvious: supposedly rotational curves are evidenceagainstthe Big Bang, yet in actual fact they are argumentsforit. I criticised his claim that because the big bang does not predict X,Y, and my mother's maiden name, this makes the arguments false. Most of his arguments have this feature. The finite explanatory power of the big bang is not evidence against it. Then I go on to point out howrotational speeds(not rotation curve, which is where my opponent is confused) is evidence for the big bang. Note how he simply dismisses this evidence that glaringly contradicts his case precisely because it glaringly contradicts his case. What I am pointing out is my opponent is wrong. This is, frankly, the purpose of debate.

What happens when you get an alternative theory?

Accept it as fact, and no need to justify them, according to my opponent. Again, he has not justified any contending theory, even when I explicitly say he must do so, for the simple fact that it would i) take up more characters than he has and ii) would make his case actually able to be pinned down. To win this debate, my opponent must pose a counterplan to affirm the resolution. It is not my job to prove false theories: it is my opponent's to prove them right.

Now, let's get to the cut and thrust of the debate.

Does Dark Matter exist?
Rotational Curvesprove that common newtonian physics is not enough. MOND for example is based on this observation. Picking on dark matter is cherry picking. Other theories do not explain rotational speed as well as dark matter. My point onType One Supernovaeis unrefuted and conceded, or my opponent simply did not read the graph. The standard model of the universe before contended cosmology is pointed out. The dashed line is the big bang cosmology. The full line is the big bang model, which is very close to the best line of best fit. The red dots are the type one supernova. The graph plots clearly show the by far most accurate prediction is that of the big bang. Moreover, thegravity lensargument has been dropped and conceded. Nowhere has my opponent referred to it in his argument inanyround.

Do Quantized Redshifts exist?

Let's just go through what my opponent said. He says both the sources are wrong, if one goes through the full pdf. I'll post it up, as he seems unwilling to[1]. It states the quotation there for anyone to search and see, explicit in the abstract as well as later in the article. This is true for both quotations.

Second, quantized redshifts in short prove the existence of a galactocentric universe. This goes contrary to dozens of independent tests. Why is this important? Well, let's imagine we ask a man when a statue was built, he says "I built it, it was built last week". Then we use radio-dating to date the rock: indeed, it was made last week. Then we look at the plaque. It says "last week". Then we use quantum chronodynamocardiomagicography, a new type of testing which isn't too well accepted in the scientific community. It tells us the statue was made four hundred and seventry trillion years and four seconds ago. This disproves the quantum chronoblablabla technique. Similarly, if a theory predicts things that are blatantly, blatantly wrong, like galactocentricity, the theory can be dismissed.

Then he claims my evidence is wrong because it was from a respected and documented scientist as it was uncited. Even though the citations are clear at the bottom of the page. There are other websites, equally cited, saying similar[2] (first thing when one googles the statement, so I do not understand the difficulty). If the only criticism is the lack of citation, then this should put the nails in.

Redshifts in Quasars

My opponent seems to ignore what I put, claiming it is a red herring. To make it explicit, what I contend is that "redshifts are caused primarily by a young object, not by its velocity". The evidence I presented showed very clearly this is false. The lack of engagement here when criticism is so explicit is evident.


OK, let's make it simple here. The argument follows this form:

P1 - The Big Bang predicts CMBR as an afterglow of the explosion.
P2 - Rationalwiki says this is a former mystery.
C1 - Therefore, this disproves the big bang.

How does this at all follow? If it still is a mystery, then I addressed this type of argument already (arguments which help no case). If it isn't a mystery, then there is no criticism. Either way, there's no link to a criticism.

Evidence for the Big Bang

Resources:My opponent gives no evidence that the formation of stars by the well accepted, well documented method is false. I, on the other hand, explained the theory, showed how the evidence promoted the Big Bang, and then concluded. My opponent needs to refute the evidence, or propose a better explanation.

Star Composition: See above. I gave averyexplicit explanation to the Big Bang star formation. My opponent must either dispute the fact that stars exist as they do, or give a competing theory.

CMBR: See above (section about using evidence for the big bang and claiming that is evidence against it). I gave the primary table which the evidence can be derived from (and is derived from), which proves CMBR to be linked to cosmology. Disagreeing with this needs justification. I can disagree with my opponents evidence, for example, as it is a secondary source by a scientist invested against the Big Bang. The raw data has no such ideology.

However, I'm going to exand on this, as the CMBR has many independent reasons for justifying the BBT. To quote Richard Carrier:

"Not only did Big Bang Theory predict a microwave background glow, it exactly predicted its temperature. Though there are problems with the exact pattern of that radiation, and though there may yet be other causes for it,[4] no one has demonstrated any better explanation to be correct."[5] Conversly, analysis of the MBR as observed by independent tests confirm, with certainty, that the universe being in a superheated state ~14 billion years ago. The evidence comes from sound waves that pass through the early superheated universe, in such a way that it predicts the existence of roughly 4.5% baryonic matter, which is based on experimentally proven ratios in particle accelerators: exactly what we observe.[6] This is very strong evidence that the universe was once in a superheated state 14 billion years ago, again corroborating the basic elements of the Big Bang Theory. No other theory can explain this acoustic peak.

Dark Matter:I made it explicit that I had only few characters left, but my opponent is right: sources don't make an argument. So with more characters left I will make it here.

The Integrated Sachs-Wolf Effect has been used by scientists repeatedly to justify the existence of Dark Matter. To simply quote the paper: "[our] detection of the ISW effect provides independent physical evidence for the existence of dark energy"[article previously cited]. My opponent needs reason to discard ISW in order to go against it.

Just to discuss the conclusion, my opponent criticises myself for using "non peer-reviews text sourcesas data". Firstly, it is only a single point my opponent disputes. Second, the point itself from the article is a conglomeration of peer-reviewed sources. My opponent claims I have cited from non-existent data, yet the statements are not just in the data I provided, but in the abstract no less.

Also, it seems we are now playing the "who made more spelling errors" game. For reference:

handidly, not handedly.
Same criteria apply, or same criterion applies, notSame criteria applies.
Taken the time, not took the time.
Pro now goes, not Pro nows goes.

With that, I'll pass over to my opponent.

1 -
2 -
3 -
4 - Hoyle and Burbidge, "A Different Approach to Cosmology,"Physics Today, April 1999, pp. 38, 41
5 -
6 -
Debate Round No. 4


Pro now asks the question, "What happens when you get evidence for the Big Bang?" He says that I take evidence for the BB, reinterpret it to mean against the BB, and thus, my objections fail. I refuted his criticism that BB does not predict certain things. Rotational curves deals with the graph of the rotational speed versus distance from Earth. Pro evidently has not read my arguments. Pro now uses tautology to try to support his claims. When I point out his fallacies, he once again gives a Red Herring.

This is a debate about the BB. I was not showing how any other model was right/wrong. I was showing that there were other models in contention that does not invoke DM. Ridicule in non-peer-reviewed search hits is not equivalent to criticism in peer-reviewed journals. This is a Red Herring.
He claims I have to support a model other than BB. I stated in the second round, and he did not reply to that, that I would be supporting no other models.

Pro now accuses me of "cherry picking" when I critique DM. He claims other models do not explain rotation curves as well as DM. False. He evidently has neither read my arguments or researched the other models.

Pro has absolutely twisted my redshift arguments. I will not respond to straw men.

CMBR: Pro provides my "logic," and claim it is irrational. This is not the substance of my argument, which he does not address. Thus, Pro has twisted, distorted, and straw man-ed my arguments.

All other arguments by Pro distorts my arguments. I will not reply to those because he hasn"t actually responded to my arguments. All he has responded to are twisted and straw man-ed arguments of mine.

Pro does talk about the ISWE. The data from CMB, however, when interpreted with data from [7] of my R3 arguments, actually does not support Dark Energy. He apparently does not know the difference between dark energy and dark matter.

Conclusion: Pro has not provided a valid refutation of ANY of my arguments. He cites his reference [1] as though I"m too afraid to do so. Why would I cite something that he already has in the previous round?

When we view Pro"s [5] reference of R3, no such data appears. Not in the abstract, and certainly not in the body.

Pro uses non-peer-reviewed sources more than just once. I"m not talking about the NASA articles, by the way.

Grammar: Con
Con evidently have better grammar and spelling than Pro.

Conduct: Con
Pro twists Con"s arguments such that the arguments Pro refutes is no longer Con"s

Argument: Con
Pro does not refute my arguments, he refutes straw men.

Sources: Con
Pro uses non-peer-reviewed sources. In every case that Con sources, it is to something peer-reviewed or by an eminent scholar.


To go through this quickly, we have a series of the same tired objection to each of my argument, namely, that it is a strawman. No example is given, so I cannot do anything except point out how each argument has been a direct response to the criticism he levied. The fact that in some cases the evidence that is being posed against the theory in actual fact supports the theory would be an example of a rebuttal. The fact that the rebuttal disagrees with what my opponent put is not a "strawman" as they are rebuttals. For example, the fact that the existence of quantized redshifts imply a galactocentric universe (which is false, and my opponent agrees that galactocentricity is false) is a direct criticism, not a strawman, of quantized redshifts. It is known as modus tollens: quantized redshifts necessarily imply galactocentricity. If galactocentricity is false, then necessarily quantized redshifts are false. As galactrocentricity is false, the logical conclusion is quantized redshifts are false. Or, if X, Y. Thus, if ¬Y (not Y) then ¬X. ¬Y. Therefore ¬X.

Another case is the jumping back and forth. For example, saying things such as "other models such as the MOND and Carmelian Relativity, correctly fits the curve" and "Pro has made the a priori assumption that all other models other than variations of BB models are false" directly implies that my opponent thinks there is validity in these other models. Or at the least these other models are adequate rebuttals of the big bang theory. If so, then claiming similarly "I will advocate no other model" then directly after claiming "when compared with other models, it fails" implies an extreme dishonesty or inability to stick to what one says. It is the equivalent of saying "no dogs allowed in the hotel", then taking three terriers up the lift into your room. It's making a rule, then breaking it ten seconds later.

Maybe, though, my opponent was just pointing out that there are other theories which exist, and whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant (for if they are definitely true, then they are very good counterexamples, if false, then they should not have been brought up at all). May I suggest, then, supposing the universe was made last tuesday? This would completely destroy the big bang theory. The fact that it's wrong means nothing, of course, similar to the other models presented. This is the problem when claiming other theories are successful in X, Y and Z. If they are wrong, then these predictions do not matter. Marxist history predicted a gain of power and social mobility of the proletariat. The revolution, though, did not occur. But we cannot now point to Marxist history being correct because of the gain of power of the proletariat, because that is cherry picking. Similarly, claiming success of a theory in one field while ignoring the theory to be wrong is just bald-faced cherry-picking.

Arguments Dropped

1) Gravity Lenses prove Dark Matter to exist
2) Type One Supernovae prove dark matter to exist
3) Temperature distribution proves dark matter and the big bang theory as a whole to exist.

Arguments not even engaged

1) Resource distribution consistent with and only with the big bang
2) Star creation consistent with and only with the big bang
3) ZS-theory and ISW each independently justifying the big bang
4) The case for CMBR proving the big bang

With that in mind, I'd suggest that arguments go to PRO, for the fact that CON dropped almost all arguments in favour of the big bang or dark matter.

Grammar: "Con evidently have better grammar and spelling than Pro."
I think that says it, really. HAS, not have, there's only one of you.

Sources: My opponent points to no actual examples of non-peer-reviewed sources that I used. I'd maintain I used scholarly peer-reviewed material when making a contention, and highschool material when making any scientific point (e.g. explaining what a Population 1,2 & 3 star is). That is, I used appropriate sourcing throughout. If we are to "cut down" on non-peer-reviewed sources, these are some from my opponent's R3:;(non-peer-reviewed);(non-peer-reviewed student notes);(non-peer-reviewed)

And more. Moreover, my opponent has questioned my sources when there were clearly no fault, further refused to engage any of mine on a debate on matter, whilst I showed multiple sources of my opponent to be incorrect or broken links. With that in mind, I urge a vote PRO on this issue.

With that, I shall put the debate up to the decision of the voters on the issue. Thank you for managing to read this far into this debate, and hopefully one learned something from it.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
Interestingly, Hawkins, that does not address my contention at all. It does not refute the analysis showing that CMBR can be interpreted as local radiation "warped" due to SZE. All it does is to show that SZE affects CMBR, which I agree with, and dependent on cosmological effects, which, again, I agree with. You basically did not refute the idea that CMBR is due to local radiation.

That is why I am asking the voters to reconsider.

It is true that a debate is the exchange of ideas, but when one debater ignores the other debater's arguments which has relevance, what is to be done?

I am not going to the science forum to do that. The forums have a great possibility of causing confusion, and I want everything to be clearly stated.

I counted out my points. There were around eleven. Certainly nearer the ten mark than the twenty.

I would like to do this debate again, precisely because I feel you failed to respond adequately. In advance, I will pick three points only. CMBR data, Time dilation in quasars and its significance to the Big Bang, and Redshifts in quasars. Since there will only be three points, I think you will have enough characters to respond adequately.

I agree we should not have a debate in the comments section, so pending your agreement/disagreement, I will not post anything here.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
trying to use it to expound twenty ideas at once which the majority of the time do not link back to the original point, ignore contending arguments (the rebuttal to all of my arguments in favour of the BBT was woefully undeveloped) and in the end simply ignore contending points. Pick a specific criticism and take it to a scientific forum. Not over a dozen of them in a character limit.
Posted by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
"The Big Bang theory, as my opponent repeatedly says, claims the CMBR is a cosmological phenomenon. If we can prove so, this is strong evidence of the BBT. What does the evidence say? Well, thanks to SZ models (Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect models) we cacn see the SZ effect drastically effects the CMBR, showing it to be dependent on cosmological effects."

For reference, I'm not continuing to debate this in the comments section. A debate is an exchange of ideas, while you're trying to
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
It's alright to have other things, I just thought you were deliberately ignoring what I was saying.

Time dilation actually has a great implication for an expanding universe and the Big Bang is heavily based on the expansion. That's why I included it.
I agree that the Big Bang explains a lot of data. My opposition to it comes from the fact that there are other models which have less assumptions and still fit the data which are not being taught alongside Big Bang. I also view it as almost-un-falsifiable because new parameters are constantly added to fit the data.

In relation to SZE causing CMBR, that does not explain Pro's lack of a response and that is what I'm trying to get at.
Posted by mecap 5 years ago
"I find the lack of reply to my showing that Pro did not reply to my summary....interesting."
--Sorry, I was busy with things like family and life...

"time dilation is related to the Big Bang. See;
-- What I mean that it's not "related" is that the author clearly states that there is probably an explanation for the observation, even if it's "wacky"... irrelevant is probably a better term than not related. However, the Big Bang model explains a lot of the observed data. Even if it's not fully correct, it would be like the Theory of Relativity vs the Theory of Mechanics: although the theory of relativity (ToE) supersedes the theory of mechanics (ToM), the ToM can still be applied and it does account for a lot of observations.

Regarding the CMBR: again, the finding of Sunyaev-Zel'dovich are within the margin of error. What more can I say!?
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
@mecap, time dilation is related to the Big Bang. See

(I find the lack of reply to my showing that Pro did not reply to my summary....interesting.)
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
@mecap, I agree that Hawkins provided an explanation. However, even in his own words as cited in the reference, it was "wacky". I disagree with your assessment of "incorrectly interpreted information," I agree partially with your "out of date." Some of my sources were from the 1980s, some were from as recent as this year. Most were from the past decade.
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
As neither voters seem to want to admit that Pro did not refute my summary of an analysis of CMBR data, I will post it for them to see here so that they may not deny having seen it.

"Now to the afterglow. BB predicts that all galaxies would be in CMBR"s foreground. There is observational evidence to refute this. The ~70mK anisotropies, commonly regarded as proof, can be attributed to other effects such as the Sunyaev"Zel"dovich effect. [7] Analysis have found that the cooling due to the shadowing effect falls short of prediction by 100mK. On the average of 31 clusters, no shadow has been detected. This shows that CMBR has a higher possibility of being local radiation and radiation is not coming from behind the clusters, rather than BR."

(The [7] is an article from 2005)
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
@Heineken, although I don't agree with your assessment, I agree that we should not have a comment war.

@Mecap, I view that as akin to practicing chronological snobbery.
Posted by Heineken 5 years ago
Updated vote back to original. Mecap countered full vote.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Heineken 5 years ago
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: See Comments
Vote Placed by mecap 5 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Vote Bomb: The Big Bag Theory is correct.
Vote Placed by Like_a_Boss 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: The Big Bang Theory is wrong.