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

The big bang theory is false

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
xvyz has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 616 times Debate No: 96365
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




I will be arguing against the big ban theory and attempting to disprove it also redeeming myself for past debates


I accept.


It is necessary to note that there are many big-bang cosmological models, none of which are necessarily finite or eternal, and all of which assert to explain certain phenomena.

It is also noteworthy that the big-bang was not actually a big-bang at any single point in, per NASA, it is rather" the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe."

Also, I would like to note that the inquiry of "what caused the big-bang?" is also not a valid criticism of cosmological models, because descriptions of general relativity break down in the early universe.

I'm going to give pro the benefit of the doubt and assume he/she is well versed in cosmology, and not make anymore potentially obvious or tiresome qualifications.


In order to establish the models as false, pro would need to refute the foundations of the models-- general relativity and the cosmological principle, or establish that big-bang models do not adequately explain the phenomena they assert to. While the onus is technically on pro, I am going to assume a part of the BoP, and argue why big-bang cosmology is a sound foundation for cosmological models.

I look forward to a rigorous scientific debate.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate and I hope to have an enjoyable debate

The Big Bang is a theory that sounds impressive on the surface, but simply does not hold up to extensive examination.

Here is how the Big Bang is often presented:

Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.

There are many problems with this theory. And the theory itself still does not answer many important questions - Such as where did all the matter in the universe come from?

If all the matter in the universe was compressed into a small dot, what caused this to happen? Where did gravity come from that held it together?

If this "dot" spun rapidly until it exploded., then where did the energy come from to start the spinning?

Also, in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.

This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
"matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says:
"Everything tends towards disorder"

And the list goes on and on about the problems with the big bang theory but I'm sure my opponent shouldn't have any problems answering any of my questions.

Your Turn :)
This round has not been posted yet.
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Thiest_1998 2 years ago
I think he's against it
Posted by Zaephou 2 years ago
Is casey for or against the big bang model here?
Posted by xvyz 2 years ago
As I said, general relativity breaks down in the early universe, which informs our general notion of causality. This is the consensus amongst most physicist, discussing the early universe in such term isn't meaningful. You also appear to have no knowledge of quantum mechanics @Casey1
Posted by Casey1 2 years ago
Quote -
I would like to note that the inquiry of "what caused the big-bang?" is also not a valid criticism of cosmological models
Con's argument-
I can't explain it so it isn't a valid criticism and no one queston me.
I can't explain -
What Banged
Why it Banged
What powered the Bang
What started the Bang
What stopped the Bang

So don't ask me any questions about it.

It's funny, the laughably called "Big Bang Detector" now lies in a self titled "Nightmare Scenario"
WIth the most repected Physist at CERN making statements like this -
"It"s striking that we"ve thought about these things for 30 years and we have not made one correct prediction that they have seen," said Nima Arkani-Hamed,
And Other CERN physists making statements like this -
During my professional career, all I have seen is failure..
The cosmological constant isn"t natural. The Higgs mass isn"t natural. The standard model isn"t pretty, and the concordance model isn"t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven"t drawn any consequences from this:
The Star formation Theory has failed -
The Big Problems in Star Formation: the Star Formation Rate, Stellar Clustering, and the Initial Mass Function
The Planet Formation Theory has failed -
The field in its current state "doesn't make much sense", says Norm Murray of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics in Toronto.
The Moon Formation Theory has failed -
'Giant Impact Theory' of Moon's Origin --Nixed by New Research
This debate has 6 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.