The Instigator
Pro (for)
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/2/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,224 times Debate No: 41582
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




I would like to thank abyteofbrain for proposing this debate.

Full Resolution

The Big Bang Theory is probably valid.

BoP is on pro.


The Big Bang Theory: "A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature."[1]

Probably: "Most likely; presumably."[2]

Valid: "Having some foundation; based on truth."[3]


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.

Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)




Thank you for the challenge!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank abyteofbrain for accepting this debate.

I. The Homogeneity of the Universe

"A major prediction of the Big Bang is that the universe is homogeneous. At small scales, just as in the solar system, this is obviously not true, but if we look at the largest scales of the universe, this is true. As an example, consider the plot below showing galaxies from the Las Campanas Redshift Survey. Each dot represents a galaxy (about 20,000 in the total survey) where they have measured both the position on the sky and the redshift and translated that into a location in the universe":

The visualization of the homogeneity of the universe - From my various big bang debates.

An even stronger case for the homogeneity of the universe can be made in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), in that it is virtually homogeneous and isotropic:

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radition - From my various big bang debates.

The CMBR is isotropic (the same) to roughly one part in 100,000, further confirming universial homogeneity. This spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K.[3][4]

II. Galatic Evolution

The above information leads into my second point. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, meaning that distant galaxies appear very different from nearby galaxies because of the effects of the speed of light. Further, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances from Earth but shortly after the Big Bang. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe.[5][6]

III. Abundance of Elements

"Using the Big Bang model, it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium, and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen.The relative abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and off by a factor of two 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to “tune” the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium. Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too."[7][8][9]

Here is a graph showing the abundance of elements in the universe (abundance versus atomic number):

The abundance of elements in the universe plotted by atomic number - From my various big bang debates.

Notice how the abundancies roughly decrease asymptotically as the atomic numbers of the various elements go up. This further confirms the predictions of the Big Bang Theory with regards to the abundance of elements in the universe.

IV. The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe Effect

"In addition to the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect, photons from the CMBR can also be subtly affected by the Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. The basis for this effect is gravitational redshift, one of the most basic predictions from GR and first demonstrated experimentally by Pound and Rebka in 1960. The basic idea is that, as photons enter a gravitational potential well, they pick up extra energy and when they exit they lose energy. Hence, scientists refer to photons “falling into” and “climbing out of” gravitational wells.

As CMBR photons pass through the foreground large scale structure, they pass through many such gravitational wells. If the depth of the well is static (or rather if the depth of the well is increasing at the same rate as the expansion of the universe), then the net energy change is zero. All of the energy they gained falling in is lost climbing out. However, if the universe contains dark energy (or has an open geometry), then the universe expands faster than the gravitational wells around massive objects can grow. As a result, the CMBR photons do not lose all of the energy they gained falling into the potentials. This makes the CMBR look very slightly hotter in the direction of these potentials, which also contain the highest concentrations of galaxies.

Following the release of the WMAP data, studies measured this effect using galaxies selected in a number of different ways. The signal-to-noise in any one of the measurements was not very large. However, taken together (and combined with the WMAP observation that the geometry of the universe was best fit by a flat universe), they provide significant evidence that this effect is real and is best explained by the standard Lambda CMD model of BBT."[1][11][12]

V. Hubble's Law

Hubble's Law states that v = H0D where

  • v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object,
  • D is the comoving distance to the object,
  • H0 is Hubble's Constant, measured to be 70.4 (errors +1.3, -1.4) km/s/Mpc
The only plausible explanation for this is the expansion of the universe, which we are currently experiencing. It is one of the cornerstones of the Big Bang Theory, and very much helps prove it.[13][14][7]

VI. Stellar Age

These last two points grow out of previous points.

If the BBT were to be true, there should be no stars older than approximately 13.5 billion years. The oldest stars known fit nicely into this model: "The globular cluster NGC 6397, Panquini found an age of 13.4 billion years, plus or minus 800 million years. Other studies like Krauss and Hansen obtained similar results with related methods: 12.2 and 12.1 billion years, respectively, with errors on order 1 to 2 billion years."[1][15][16]

In addition, we should see differeniations in different stellar generations. Stars create the denser materials. If so, newer stars should have more metallicity the younger they are. This is indeed observed.[17]

Generally, the youngest stars, the extreme Population I, are found farther in and intermediate Population I stars are farther out, etc, as shown here:

The distribution of star groups in the various galaxies of the universe - From my various big bang debates.

This organization is observed in galaxies throughout the universe, and is another important proof of the BBT.

VII. Time Dilation in Supernova Brightness Curves

The basic idea of an expanding universe is the notion that the distance between any two points increases over time. One of the consequences of this effect is that, as light travels through this expanding space, its wavelength is stretched as well. In the optical part of the electromagnetic spectrum, red light has a longer wavelength than blue light, or redshifting. The longer light travels through expanding space, the more redshifting it experiences. Therefore, since light travels at a fixed speed, BBT tells us that the redshift we observe for light from a distant object should be related to the distance to that object. Since the wavelength and frequency for a given photon are related inversely through the speed of light, which is a constant, it is obvious that as the wavelength increases the frequency must decrease. Likewise, if light from a distant galaxy varies with time (like we would expect for Cepheid variable stars or pulsars), then the time between these events is stretched (remember, frequency is inversely related to time). Thus, if we observe this galaxy from Earth, we will see a slower variation than an observer in that distant galaxy and the ratio between those times will be exactly equal to one plus the redshift of the galaxy.[1]

"While observing this time dilation with stars in distant galaxies is difficult, we can test it using supernova in those galaxies. Type Ia supernovae, in particular, are known to have a characteristic signature, increasing in brightness rapidly and then slowly fading away over the course of several weeks. This signature varies somewhat depending on the exact chemical composition of the star before it undergoes its supernova explosion, but with careful monitoring we can compensate for this effect. This aspect was key to the supernovae measurements that gave the earliest indication of the existence of dark energy and has been the subject of many papers. These papers make it clear that correcting for the effects of redshift time dilation is critical for understanding the data. In particular, Goldhaber rules out a "no time dilation" model at 18 standard deviations."[1][19]

Here is a plot of the findings:


Overall, this time dilation helps prove the expanding universe, and therefore the Big Bang Theory.


[2]: Weinburg, S. The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe.
[3]: Spergel, D.N. et al. (2006). "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology."
[6]: Bertschinger, E. (1998). "Simulations of Structure Formation in the Universe".
[8]: Kolb, E.; Turner, M. (1988). The Early Universe.
[10]: Croswell, Ken (February 1996). Alchemy of the Heavens.
[12]: S. Boughn and R. Crittenden, A Correlation Between the Cosmic Microwave Background and Large-scale Structure in the Universe.Nature 427 (2004) pp. 45.
[16]: L. M. Krauss and B. Chaboyer, Age Estimates of Globular Clusters in the Milky Way: Constraints on Cosmology. Science 299 (2003) pp. 65


I'll start with my simplest of arguments. Many people think that the big bang theory solves the issue of the origin of the universe, however, it does not, for the simple reason that the material that would have exploded and the nature of things would have had to come from something else, or would have had to always exist.

First of all, there are a lot of physics problems with this idea. An astounding amount of energy would have had to exist for the mass to explode. Remember that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Because there is nearly no resistance in outer space, the pieces would just keep flying away from each other at incredible speeds. Any pieces that collided, would cause more collisions, which would probably cause the pieces of mass to accumulate in a few lumps.

Our universe consists of extremely precise orbits, which would be nearly impossible to form by a random explosion. Minor variances in distance or gravitational force, and the planets of our solar system could collide and go flying into space, eventually destroying more and more solar systems. There should be many loose planets and such traveling at incredible rates, even if some orbits did happen to originate in perfection.

Also, energy is never used up, it's only converted. Where has all of he energy from the explosion gone? I can't prove that the necessary amount of energy doesn't exist, but I'd expect to see massive amounts of radioactivity everywhere, due to extreme amounts of atomic collision during the explosion.

Maybe I don't understand the big bang idea of the origin of stars, but gas doesn't fly together in a lump. If I were to cause an explosion in the midst of a gas cloud, would it fly away in lumps? No, it would fly in all directions. If you say that the stars formed by expansion of dense chemicals, then I would bring up the issue of how that could have happened.

There has to be a big banger. What caused the explosion to happen all at once? If you say that the matter always existed, then what sudden change caused the energy to turn into motion all at once? I know of no possible cause.

After skimming your argument, I see that I'm going to get more detailed arguments than I bargained for. I suddenly wish that I was more of an astronomer.

I'm sure that I've got misconceptions on the big bang theory, so feel free to correct any of them
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank abyteofbrain for presenting his arguments. Because his arguments do not have titles, I will create titles to create some organization in my argument.

RI. The First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics basically states that you can't get something from nothing. What my opponent is trying to argue is that the Big Bang Theory is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics in his first set of arguments.

RIA. Matter

A consequence of the first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation of mass, which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Classically, this is true, but when quantum mechanics is considered, the rules can be "stretched" - this is where the idea of quantum fluctuations come from. During a quantum fluctuation, energy is created and two particles form - one particle and one antiparticle form. Now this leads to two difficult concepts to grasp - one, because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which in one form states that one cannot simultaneously know the energy and time, which allows for violations in the conservation of energy for short periods; and two, an antiparticle is the opposite of a regular particle, and adding the two leads to zero, which means that there is no apparent violation in the law of conservation of mass.

This quote explains it more in the context of the Big Bang Theory itself: "In the beginning, there was not yet any matter. However, there was a lot of energy in the form of light, which comes in discrete packets called photons. When photons have enough energy, they can spontaneously decay into a particle and an antiparticle. (An antiparticle is the exact opposite of the corresponding particle--for example, a proton has charge +e, so an antiproton has charge -e.) This is easily observed today, as gamma rays have enough energy to create measurable electron-antielectron pairs (the antielectron is usually called a positron). It turns out that the photon is just one of a class of particles, called the bosons, that decay in this manner. Many of the bosons around just after the big bang were so energetic that they could decay into much more massive particles such as protons (remember, E=mc^2, so to make a particle with a large mass m, you need a boson with a high energy E). The mass in the universe came from such decays."[1]

RIB. Energy

Another consequence of the first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. I already explained how this law can be "stretched" by using the energy/time uncertainty. Further, there are different types of energy, some of which are positive, and some of which are negative. In much the same way that particle-antiparticle pairs sum to net zero matter, the same idea can be extended to energy: "In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero."[2][5]

My opponent's other argument is that energy can only be converted, never used up. I will address this with two points - one, if the net energy of the universe is zero, there is no energy to be used up; and two, the positive energy made matter come into existence and the negative energy (i.e. the gravitiational energy) made it agglomerate - this is the universe we have today.

In conclusion, "[I]n the inflationary scenario, the mass-energy of matter was produced during that rapid initial inflation. The field responsible for inflation has negative pressure, allowing the universe to do work on itself as it expands. This is allowed by the first law of thermodynamics."[6]

RII. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy in an isolated system can never decrease - in other words, order cannot come from disorder. My opponent, in trying to argue that the "ordered" universe could not have come from an explosion, essentially cites this law.

However, not only is my opponent's idea flawed, his very assumptions are flawed. He assumes that the universe grew more organized as time has continued, but this are false. The entropy of the early universe has been shown to be very low – a lot lower than it is today. Take, for example, the CMBR; it is very ordered. Now compare this with what we see today- a universe filled with complicated, disorderly distributions of galaxies, stars and gas. Current universal entropy is enormous. Therefore, entropy has actually increased dramatically, not decreased.[3]

But what about the supposed orderliness of the current universe and the order of, say, the solar system? "Calculations done assuming ten planets per star, 100 billion stars per galaxy and 100 billion galaxies (which is what current estimates suggest it is) show that the ordering of the planets produces changes in entropy of only one part in 10^11 of the total current entropy." For those in math, that’s a ~0.00000000001% decrease in entropy over the course of every planet in the universe, which is basically nothing. Compare this with the vast increases in entropy of the course of the universe’s existence, and the planet’s alignment’s contribution to entropy is basically null.[4]

Esssentially, "...if we consider the universe to be a sphere of radius R that is increasing, the maximum allowable entropy increases as the square of R, while the actual entropy of the universe increases less rapidly, only linearly with R. Thus even if the initial universe was at maximum entropy for its size, as the universe expands its entropy can increase while still being easily able to accommodate the increasing order we see."[4]

Most of my opponent's argument is based around the idea that order could not have come from explosion, which witnessed matter flying in all directions. However, I've already explained how stars are actually very choatic instead of orderly. But there is still the question of where stars came from, and we must look no further than the law of universal gravitation - at sufficiently large scales, gravity outweighs the other three forces. Stars and galaxies are the inherent result of a large collection of matter to agglomerate into a smaller space because of gravitational forces. The law of universal gravitiation forces systems, such as solar systems, to operate in an orderly manner (in order words, forces systems to act in a repeating manner).

RIII. The "First Mover"

My opponent's conclusion to his arguments argues for the necessity of a "first mover" to cause something. However, I will simply reply this: "The assumption that every event has a cause, although common in our experience, is not necessarily universal. The apparent lack of cause for some events, such as radioactive decay, suggests that there might be exceptions. There are also hypotheses, such as alternate dimensions of time or an eternally oscillating universe, that allow a universe without a first cause. Further, by definition, a cause comes before an event. If time began with the universe, "before" does not even apply to it, and it is logically impossible that the universe be caused. Finally, this claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe."[7]

RIV. Misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory

I raised a probably very confusing point in my last argument - that time began with the Big Bang. It will be in this final argument that I explain that, and in addition, help to banish some misconcpetions my opponent has made about the Big Bang Theory.

Many have argued that the universe arose out of a black hole, which is very reasonable to argue because of the nature of the singularity. Becuase of relativity, time does not move inside a black hole, and therefore, there was no time before the big bang.[8]

There is one assumption my opponent makes - that the Big Bang Theory describes the origin of the universe; however, "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." In other words, it could be argued that most of my opponent's argument is irrelevant to the resolution, but it still needs to be addressed after the big bang itself.[3][9]


[5]: Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time.
[6]: Stenger, Victor. Has Science Found God?


A lot of your counter-arguments rely on ideas that are still in the hypothesis or theory stage. Also, you need to make your arguments clear. Use clear words that everyone can understand; an argument that can't be understood is not an argument. Use your own words, rather than taking nearly everything from other people.

I don't see why the universe would be homogeneous if the big bang were true. That seems likely to me, but no more than that. Also, we still don't know the boundaries of the universe, or even if there are any. For what we know, the makeup of the universe might change drastically immediately outside of the boundaries of our observations. What you showed is more clustered than homogeneous.

The material for explosion, and the energy for explosion, had to have either come from somewhere, or always existed. You haven't explained this yet. The same goes for the nature of things. You mentioned negative and positive energy, wouldn't this (unproven) negative energy neutralize positive energy? If energy makes equal matter and antimatter, then there should be equal amounts of both, which would react and turn back into energy. The only way that this could make sense, is if we happen to be in a cluster of matter, surrounded by antimatter, but there is no logical cause for this.

Our galaxy's plant's movements are not completely "orderly". There are wobbles, elliptical orbits, and more. It doesn't make sense to assume that after an explosion, the planets would just snap into orbit. It's also highly unlikely that most, or even any, spherical planets would result from such an explosion.
Where did the bosons and photons originate?

In your final paragraph, you mention: "'You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.'" the big bang theory, as you have previously stated, is about the beginning of the universe, nothing more (you didn't say the last part, but it's true). The big bang is also, as you also mentioned, about an explosion of matter. It would not have it's name if it was not about an explosion. For the universe to be as spread out as it is now, would have taken incredible amounts of time, even all masses moved at the speed of light. The sources I looked at seemed to be in slight disagreement with each other, but they all seemed to say that the known universe has a radius of about 10 billion light years. This means that even under the very slim chance that all masses were traveling at the speed of light, it would have taken ten billion years to reach the current expansion. (1)

I would expect to see specs and streaks of light and new stars, because of the light created during the big bang, and stars which light has not yet reached us.

You mentioned that not everything has to have a cause, this a great leap of faith. Radioactive decay does have a cause, it's known as the "instability" of the atom. (2)

I apologize that I am not able to make a more thorough response.

Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. Before I begin, I would like to comment on my opponent's objections that my arguments are not "clear". To begin, anyone with a rudimentary science background should understand my arguments, and second, I need to use complex words to make my argument. Also, my arguments made the point that they were only valid by the Big Bang Theory, and by no other cosmological theory, meaning that if such a proof is true, the Big Bang Theory is the only cosmological theory able to explain it, such as the abundance of light elements.

Beginning my argument, my opponent has a curious format - he tries to refute my first argument from round 2, and then proceeds in defending his own arguments for the rest of the argument, ignoring the other six arguments. Those last six should be considered drops. As for that one argument he attempted to refute, an expanding universe is a necessity for the Big Bang Theory to be valid, and a homogeneous universe is a consequence of such an expansion: "Since the expansion of space occurs evenly at every point in the universe, galaxies are separating from each other at about the same pace, giving the universe a nearly uniform density and structure. As a result, the universe appears smooth at large distance scales. In scientific terms." My opponent never gets to the root of this argument, only questioning the relevance of it to the Big Bang Theory's validity.[1]

The rest of my opponent's argument is a rehash of his original arguments, basically ignoring the refutations I made in the last round.

To begin, his arguments on energy ignore Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:

"In quantum mechanics we have an uncertainty relation between position and momentum:

(Δq) (Δp) ≥ h/2

Now, as you probably know, time is to energy as position is to momentum, so it's natural to hope for a similar uncertainty relation between time and energy. Something like this:

(ΔT) (ΔE) ≥ h/2"[2]

What this means is that there can be violations of the law of conservation of energy for short periods, which is all that was needed to make the big bang possible.

Next, he argues that gravitational potential energy cannot be negative. However, because gravity does positive work on an object, the energy itself is negative because the work equals the negative change in potential energy.

Finally on energy, my opponenet cites the baryonic asymmetry problem (that there is no antimatter; just matter). While still a question that has not been answered conclusively yet, there are several potential hypotheses that address the problem, meaning that it isn't an objection to the Big Bang Theory. For example, a popular hypothesis is that annihilation was not total in those first few seconds: somehow, matter and antimatter managed to escape each other's fatal grasp. Somewhere out there, in some mirror region of the cosmos, antimatter is lurking and has coalesced into anti-stars and anti-galaxies.[3]

My opponent's next argument goes back to the second law of thermodynamics problems mentioned earlier. Again, only net disorder must be greater as time moves on: "The total entropy of the universe at the start of the big bang was minimal, perhaps almost zero. Because it was so compact, it had considerably more order than the universe we are in now. The complexity we observe around us today can be produced from the ultimate order of the hot but cooling gas of the big bang." Because the early universe was so orderly, that allowed for orderly arrangements to be made in the universe. But again, the net entropy of the universe has increased dramatically over the 14 billion years of its existence.[4]

Next, my opponent asks a very good question: Where did the bosons and photons originate? For the former, bosons are simply force carriers. The origins of bosons are rather unknown at this point, but what is known is that they were all unified at the time of the big bang, and a grand unified theory would help explain this. There are explanations out there, such as string theory, making that objection not important. Photons are a type of boson - they are the carriers of the electromagnetic force, meaning that they make up light, which remember was already created because of the energy/time uncertainty. This could be a crucial point in developing a grand unified theory.

Finally, my opponent sticks with the two misconceptions I pointed out earlier - again, the Big Bang Theory does not explain how the universe was created, in the same way that the theory of universal gravitation doesn't explain where mass comes from. There are theories being introduced, but they don't concern this specific resolution. And second, the big bang theory not not an explosion. This is the hypothesis behind the Big Bang Theory: "Our universe began in a hot dense state which began, and still is expanding. In this initial event, all the matter in our universe was created with approximately 80% hydrogen and 20% helium." Note that the world "explosion" is not used; only "expansion". In fact, "...the matter is all actually standing still while space itself expands dragging the matter with it... galaxies hold still more or less (there are small movements due to gravitational interactions) while they are carried by the expanding universe."[5]

In conclusion, my opponent makes two final arguments. One, we cannot see the big bang itself because the first light able to reach us is the CMBR. "Photons could not travel freely, so no light escaped during those earlier times [before the recombination era]." And two, my opponent does not explain a casuality between atomic instability and radioactive decay, for what causes atomic instability?[6]

My opponent has not really raised any relevant objections to the Big Bang Theory, and even if they were, they still don't disprove the theory. Further, my opponent ignored six of the seven proofs I presented concerning the theory, all of which were very important to the resolution and should not be discounted.




If it is commonly accepted that there could be "violations of the law of conservation of energy", then it wouldn't be considered a law, as that would contradict the scientific method.

I see that it is important to restate that explosions don't push gas in clumps, but evenly in all directions. You have not yet explained how the stars could have formed. Also, what lit them on fire? We don't know of any stars that are not burning (large clumps of combustible gas).

There's no getting around the fact that our planets and stars are all round. For the big bang theory to make sense, an explanation for this would have to be added.

We've never seen anything that happened without cause. If such a thing did happen, science would have to drastically change, or disappear, for science may not be possible in such a world.

Sorry, I've got to go. I'll discuss this later if you want.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ESocialBookworm 5 years ago
Whoa. That was mindblowing...
Posted by abyteofbrain 5 years ago
Oops.. your right. :-/ My teacher's in for it.
Posted by Enji 5 years ago
Stars create light as a result of nuclear fusion, not because they are on fire.
Posted by abyteofbrain 5 years ago
The stars are burning, that's what makes light.
Posted by Enji 5 years ago
"What lit the stars on fire?" lol :P
More relevantly, how are stars burning in the first place? There's no oxygen in space! (answer: stars are not burning)
Posted by abyteofbrain 5 years ago
I appologze, something came up, and I couldn't comlete my argument.
Posted by Subutai 5 years ago
Why are you quoting Newton's first law of motion?
Posted by LawsofPhysics 5 years ago
Yes, indeed, everything in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by force.
Posted by Subutai 5 years ago
No matter how much I want to recode and change my argument's looks, I can't ever get it uniform. Parts of my argument are spaced differently than others, but I guess that's better than entirely different font sizes.
Posted by Jac0b.Barnett 5 years ago
There are two different types of when stars end. When the little stars die, it"s just like a small poof. They just turn into a planetary nebula. But the big ones, above 1.4 solar masses, blow up in one giant explosion, a supernova. What it does, is, in larger stars there is a larger mass, and it can fuse higher elements because it"s more dense.

So you get all the elements, all the different materials, from those bigger stars. The little stars, they just make hydrogen and helium, and when they blow up, all the carbon that remains in them is just in the white dwarf; it never really comes off.

So in the big-bang theory, what they do is, there is this big explosion and there is all this temperature going off and the temperature decreases really rapidly because it"s really big. The other day I calculated, they have this period where they suppose the hydrogen and helium were created, and, I don"t care about the hydrogen and helium, but I thought, wouldn"t there have to be some sort of carbon?

Otherwise, the carbon would have to be coming out of the stars and hence the Earth, made mostly of carbon, we wouldn"t be here. So I calculated, the time it would take to create 2 percent of the carbon in the universe, it would actually have to be several micro-seconds. Or a couple of nano-seconds, or something like that. An extremely small period of time. Like faster than a snap. That isn"t gonna happen.

Because of that, that means that the world would have never been created because none of the carbon would have been given 7 billion years to fuse together. We"d have to be 21 billion years old . . . and that would just screw everything up.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AndrewB686 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 Checkmark1 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: This debate was dominated asymmetrically by pro on all counts. Con entirely disregarded the last round with a superficial conclusion and weak representation of his opponents arguments. He loses conduct also due to the fact that he lacked any organization or formality. He skimmed his opponent's arguments, as he clearly stated in Rd. 2, a major flaw on his part. Pro had substantially more developed arguments that instilled a rudimentary understanding for anyone interested in big bang cosmology. Con had no answer for the majority of pro's arguments, which was transparently obvious. The sources utilized by pro provided an in depth and rigorous examination of BBT, compared to the paucity of cited sources used by con. Overall a good debate, however lopsided it may have been.
Vote Placed by solo 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con abandoned the last round. Conduct point to Pro. Con had weak arguments and tried to engage Pro in conversation as opposed to debating his case. Convincing argument point to Pro. Reliable sources point to Pro. Con used two sources in total? Seriously?