CreateDebate


Debate Info

56
93
Agree. Disagree.
Debate Score:149
Arguments:87
Total Votes:171
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree. (31)
 
 Disagree. (45)

Debate Creator

AsiaGirl(12) pic



The Big Bang Theory is false.

The Big Bang Theory is false. In the name, it already shows it. The Big Bang THEORY. A theory is something that isn't scientifically proven. The Big Bang Theory started out as a singularity and it got so dense it exploded, and we all know the rest. The question is, what created that singularity? It did not just magically appear one day. How do you think that singularity got there, other than from God?

Agree.

Side Score: 56
VS.

Disagree.

Side Score: 93
1 point

some of the young people today need to red the bible it is proved that god made the eirth

Side: Agree.
marcos(74) Disputed
4 points

almost all of you religious people need to read a science book.

Side: Disagree.
nummi(1435) Clarified
3 points

Reading is one thing but not ignoring is another. The religious ones here (can't recall who hasn't... it's that bad), on this site, are given plenty of evidence, logic, thinking material, and they ignore all of it.

Side: Agree.
ahmedp(1) Disputed
2 points

Almost all of you science people need to pick up a religious book.

Side: Disagree.
andybar98(124) Disputed
1 point

I have . Several, actually.

Side: Agree.

I don't know if you're joking or not but you made me laugh, thank you :)

Side: Agree.
GODISFAKE(1) Disputed
1 point

The Bible is just another reason to believe in something if God was really alive magic would have been all around the world, and everyone's dream would have been answered.

Side: Disagree.
nummi(1435) Disputed
0 points

Trolling much?

Side: Disagree.
Micmacmoc(2260) Disputed
1 point

No, there really is a lot of evidence for some things in the Bible. For example, there is evidence that there was the great flood, there is evidence for how the universe was created, there is evidence for several other things that science cannot prove. The fact is, that there are some things that neither can prove, some things that one can prove, but they very rarely both support different things entirely.

Side: Agree.
1 point

How could you possibly believe that a ball of matter the size of a football could explode and release so much energy that it would form the universe as we know it. Even if somehow this did happen, where would be the location it occurred at. We believe that the universe is everything in existence, and if the big bang theory created the universe, where did the big bang theory happen? Exactly! It didn't happen! Nobody will be convinced that the big bang theory actually occurred until we the exact coordinates are revealed to us.

Side: Agree.
1 point

Exact coordinates? That's nonsense. There is no specific spot that the big bang occurred.

Side: Disagree.
andybar98(124) Clarified
1 point

There is no specific spot that the big bang occurred

Why is that? Because there was no big bang!

Side: Agree.
1 point

Actually, according to big bang theorists the size of the big bang was that of a pin, not a football field.

Side: Agree.
1 point

Why does everyone think you have to be a christian or belong to a offical religious astablishment to belief in god?

Side: Agree.
1 point

Even Hubble did not posit the cause of red-shift as expansion until he was quite old. His mule driver who worked his way up to a technical position, eventually taking over the operation of Mt. Wilson Observatory, Milton Humason, was a student of the Belgian priest Georges Lamaitre who proposed BB theory, and Humason denied use of the observatory to anyone in opposition to the theory. Also, numerous other mechanisms (gravitational lensing, absorption/reradiation) can account for the red shift. BB theory also puts an artificial limit on the age of the universe which most certainly took almost an eternity to build up to the current complexity utilizing pair-formation (the "creation" process of physics ) to provide the material building blocks, e+,e-, of the universe. The contridictions associated with dark matter and dark energy are exemplifications of the difficulties inherent in BB theory.

Supporting Evidence: Big Bang by Vernon Brown (www.photontheory.com)
Side: Agree.
1 point

It is false.. because our Universe exists forever, I mean there was no any Big Bang theory. It is stupidity of modern scientists, who have no ideas in order to prove our Universe existing. This theory was created because scientists can't explain what happens in the universe. They know nothing about our environment, especially about Universe.

Side: Agree.

THE BIG BANG THEORY:

Theorizes that a large quantity of NOTHINGNESS decided to pack tightly together, ----and EXPLODE outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space ("frictionless ", so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets, and moons.

According to this theory, in the beginning, there was no matter, just nothingness. Then this nothingness condensed by gravity into a single, tiny spot; and it decided to explode! This produced protons, neutrons, and electrons which flowed outward at incredible speed throughout empty space; for there was no other matter in the universe.

As these protons, neutrons, and electrons hurled themselves outward at supersonic speed, they are said to have formed themselves into typical atomic structures of mutually orbiting hydrogen and helium atoms.

Gradually, the outward-racing atoms are said to have begun circling one another, producing gas clouds which then pushed together into stars. These first stars only contained lighter elements (hydrogen and helium). Then all of the stars repeatedly exploded. It took at least two explosions of each star to produce our heavier elements. Gamow describe it like this "In violation of physical law, emptiness fled from the vacuum of space and rushed into a superdense core, that had a density of 10 94 gm/cm2 and a temperature in exess of 10/39 degrees absolute. (That is a lot of heat for a gigantic pile of nothingness, especially when it is impossible for nothing to get hot).

This theory stands in clear violation of physical laws, celestial mechanics, and common sense. Here are a number of scientific reasons why the BIG BANG THEORY is unworkable and fallacious.

1. Nothingness can not pack together

2. a Vacuum has no density

3. There would be no ignition to explode nothingness

4. How do you expand what isn't there.

5. Nothingness cannot produce heat

6. The anti-matter would have destroyed all the regular matter.

Now lets look at the outward pushing particles

1. There is no way to unite the particles. As the particles rush outward from the central explosion, tehy would keep getting farther apart.

2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles.

3. The particles would maintain the same vector (speed and direction) forever. They could not get together and begin circling one another.

4. No way to change the direction of even one particle

Now look at the gases (lets imagine the particles could get together)

1. Gas molecules in outer space are widely separated

2. Neither hydrogen nor helium in outer space would clump together

Look at "Push themselves into stars"

1. Because gas in outer space does not clump, the gas could not build enough mutual gravity to bring it together

2. Careful analysis has revealed that there is not enough matter in gas clouds to produce stars

3. There would not be enough time for the gas to reach the currently know expanse of the universe, so it could form itself into stars.

4. Gas clouds in outer space to not contract.

We could go on and on.

This information came from "The evolution handbook" by Vance Ferrell

this book has over 3,000 facts which annihilate evolutionary theory

Side: Agree.
Disagreeable Disputed
1 point

but how did Vance Harewell made this? also back then technology was new and very bad so how can they know vast thing such as the big bang theory.. i believe this is a fiction book.

Side: Disagree.
-1 points

I agree that the Big Bang Theory is false but the point about it being a "theory" is incorrect. Theories are considered as strong as laws just in a different way.

Side: Agree.
AsiaGirl(12) Clarified
2 points

People use the big bang as an argument of evolution, or against Creationism. My point is that by it's very name "The Big Bang Theory" is just a theory. You are incorrect that in Science a Theory is something that does not have enough proof to be a Law. Hence, You would have to believe the Big Bang Theory based on Faith. Faith is what Creationists use....so the real question is which to have Faith in.

Side: Agree.
Cynical(1948) Disputed
4 points

No... A theory, in the scientific community, is a hypothesis that has gained a sufficient amount of evidence to support it. A scientific theory is significantly different from the commonly used definition of theory.

Side: Disagree.
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

You can't have laws in science. Theory is the highest level of proof. You can only get "laws" in mathematics.

Side: Disagree.
1 point

Just a theory? You don't know what the word theory means in science. In science, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". Faith is not exclusive to religion. Religion requires faith. Faith does not require religion.

Side: Disagree.
11 points

So is religious nonsense, as that doesn't even have logic supporting it.

Side: Disagree.
hmmm12345(2) Disputed
1 point

If you don't believe in God that is your choice. But the big theory is false. It can be proved wrong by science. The argument of this debate is that the big bang theory is false not "God created the world"

Side: Disagree.
hmmm12345(2) Disputed
1 point

If you don't believe in God that is your choice. But the big theory is false. It can be proved wrong by science. The argument of this debate is that the big bang theory is false not "God created the world"

Side: Disagree.
AsiaGirl(12) Clarified
-2 points
nummi(1435) Disputed
5 points

Actually there is logic supporting it....you just have not studied enough to know what it is

How exactly are contradictions logical? I don't have to study religion, I know more than enough about it as it is. Studying religion is almost the biggest waste of time there is. A short review will do just well.

Scientists have said that the order of the universe is as unlikely to have happened as a printing shop exploding and letters landing in a Book in such an organized fashion as to create a Webster's Dictionary.

Order? Do you even know how our universe works (what is currently known about it, anyway)? There is no need for a creator.

Care to clarify which scientists, and whether they were religious or not?

Side: Agree.
8 points

Theory doesn't equate false...

As for what created the singularity... why is lack of knowledge on the matter grounds for automatic dismissal of an entire Theory?

"Hey, after decades of research we've been able to formulate a theory on the origins of the Universe."

"Yeah, but what created the singularity."

"Well, we don't know yet."

"Then your theory can go fuck itself."

Side: Disagree.
AsiaGirl(12) Clarified
2 points

So there are people who have claimed to have a Heavenly Visit from God...because there is not sufficient evidence to prove all aspects of God you should agree with Creationism based on "some evidence"

What about Pascal's wager?

Side: Agree.
Conro(767) Disputed
3 points

"So there are people who have claimed to have a Heavenly Visit from God"

Anecdotal evidence does not an argument make. If you could conclusively prove "person A exists, therefore person A will receive at some point in their life a 'heavenly visit from god,'" then that would be conclusive evidence. However, that does not exist, and we cannot say with certainty that God exists.

"What about Pascal's wager?"

Seems like a coward's way of accepting god. I'm sure if there were a God, he wouldn't appreciate being betted upon. Additionally, Pascal's wager is irrelevant towards living a happy and fulfilling life. Say you don't believe in God, but you go through your days, have children, raise them well, and live as basically a good person. I cannot believe God would punish you with eternal life in Hell because you don't believe in Him. I think He would care more about you actually living your life in a way that is compatible with the ideals of a Heaven than some petty need for validation by necessitating belief in Him.

Also, God is irrelevant from a debate on the Big Bang Theory because nowhere in the Big Bang Theory does it posit the existence of a God.

Side: Agree.
riahlize(1573) Disputed
2 points

What about Pascal's Wager?

Aside from what Conro has already posted in refutation (since I agree with it all), I have one more thing to add.

Why is this wager only about the Judeo-Christian god? If Blaise Pascal's Wager is true, we should believe in every god believed to be real, for only believing in one or a couple means that we still have something to lose if we are wrong in our pick of which god(s) may be real.

You, only choosing one religion, one god to believe in means you are setting yourself up to lose everything if you are wrong about which god is real. You could possibly go to their hell.

Side: Agree.
anachronist(889) Disputed
1 point

What about the atheist's wager? What if there is a god, and he punishes people who believe in him and rewards those that don't.

What if?

Side: Agree.
5 points

The Big Bang Theory is false. In the name, it already shows it. The Big Bang THEORY. A theory is something that isn't scientifically proven. The Big Bang Theory started out as a singularity and it got so dense it exploded, and we all know the rest.

Theory is something that has no absolute evidence, but everything that is known supports it being real. If a more conclusive one will be cooked up then the current theory will either be improved or replaced. There's none of that when it comes to religions.

Science approves the Big Bang.

What you think a god farted and thus came the Bang?

The question is, what created that singularity? It did not just magically appear one day. How do you think that singularity got there, other than from God?

What was before the bang is at this point all fantasy. As I've said in a previous debate, three different energies clashed together, a reaction occurred, all that energy was pulled into one point, then they combined and expanded rapidly. All fantasy at this point, yet it makes far more sense then your precious "God theory". See that? A theory, and a weak one at that.

Side: Disagree.
mrsci999(41) Disputed
2 points

Like somebody wrote energy can't be created or destroyed its just something that must exist. So this already proves that their are some things that can't be disected any further. Although god for moment seem beyond scientific explaination god is not beyond reason. What happen if the reason for god's existant was that if god didn't exist nothing would which is impossible. So explain to me how nothing can exist if you disagree or tell me something else that would prove me wrong.

I must warn you I'm a man of science as well. So try me, please i dare you.

Side: Disagree.
nummi(1435) Disputed
0 points

Like somebody wrote energy can't be created or destroyed its just something that must exist. So this already proves that their are some things that can't be disected any further.

Energy can go from one state to another, probably as a result of some other energy affecting it. But it cannot just go out of existence.

Very possible that some things cannot be dissected any further, if we were to advance to that level. Currently we cannot know for sure.

Would be nice to know where all the energy came from, or how it began. It's weird, it's as if existence is eternal and infinite, although it changes states.

Although god for moment seem beyond scientific explaination god is not beyond reason.

Energy does not have sentience. If you are referring to a Christian or similar God then that does not exist, its definition itself proves it not existing. Omnipotence, omniscience, and all that, according to that God should have the power to take itself out of existence but God is supposed to be eternal and infinite... a huge contradiction, and that's not the only one.

What happen if the reason for god's existant was that if god didn't exist nothing would which is impossible.

Where everything came from (before our universe) is at this point all fantasy, there's no evidence of any kind.

Let's say some very powerful being messed with some energies and that caused our universe. If that being had not existed then we would very probably also not exist. But the energy that we are currently made of would still be somewhere, in some state.

So explain to me how nothing can exist if you disagree or tell me something else that would prove me wrong.

I never said nothing can exist. We both obviously do exist...

Side: Agree.
AsiaGirl(12) Clarified
0 points

what created those 3 energies? People like to come with complex ideas about more anti-matter than matter...blah blah blah.....but they can never answer what created those energies. You state Religion is all fantasy - but it sounds like science fiction to state that all of the sudden 3 energies collided

Side: Agree.
nummi(1435) Disputed
5 points

what created those 3 energies?

Some other energies. Those again from some other energies. By interacting with each other they change their states, etc.

What created God? Care to clarify?

People like to come with complex ideas about more anti-matter than matter...blah blah blah.....but they can never answer what created those energies.

All that exists in this universe comes from the bang. What created the bang? Want some more fantasy? I could bring in the "Great and Magnificent Unicorn of Purple Rainbows of Yellow-land", something like that... Or you want good old Orcs? And Elves? They're kinda overused...

You state Religion is all fantasy - but it sounds like science fiction to state that all of the sudden 3 energies collided

It is fantasy as there is no evidence at all, but, yes, it could and I do also consider it as science fiction. (as I'm working toward becoming a writer one day, science fiction and fantasy more specifically) I could come up with many more versions of the "beginning" and where they came from, and so on.

Side: Agree.
Cuaroc(8840) Disputed
2 points

What created God? How can you argue that an all powerful all knowing and all good being has always exsisted but it's impossible for 3 energies to always exsist?

Side: Agree.
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
2 points

As far as we can tell, energy cannot be created or destroyed, just transferred and sometimes changing characteristics. Every thing we know about energy indicates that it is beyond the rule of having to be created. You might claim that God is beyond those rules too. The difference here is we can observe and test energy. God seems rather shy...

Side: Agree.
5 points

Wrong. A scientific theory is something that has been proven to be true, at least to the extent that there is no contradictory evidence. To this date, all evidence either points towards the BBT, or at least doesn't directly contradict it.

The only reason why we don't call it the 'Big Bang Law' is that "laws" are descriptions of observed phenomenon while theories are explanations of phenomenons. Also, Laws require predictive capabilities.

Acknowledging that the BBT is a theory does not disprove it. That's a foolish and entirely semantics-based argument. It also shows an embarrassing ignorance on your part on just how significant the implications of something being labelled as a 'theory' in the scientific community are.

Side: Disagree.
ryuukyuzo(607) Clarified
1 point

Furthermore, Modern theoretical physics suggests the existence of additional spatial-dimensions. This means that the 'stuff' needed to ignite the big bang can and certainly did exist somewhere else prior to the antiquity of our universe.

Side: Agree.
3 points

As I see it, Big Bang Theory only accounts for the Universe's formation from a singularity to its current state. All testable and verifiable evidence found thus far supports its conclusions.

The Big Bang Theory does not account for the creation of the singularity itself. There is no testable or verifiable evidence from which to draw conclusions as of yet. Without such evidence, any explanation is the result of hypothetical speculation and conjecture.

Because of this, postulating that God created the singularity is, in my opinion, on equal grounds with postulating a multi-verse, or any other explanation offered up so far. Until we have evidence, they're all just shots in the dark. Not even strong enough to be called theories.

It seems to me that your argument is not against the Big Bang, but against these other "shots in the dark" preceding the Big Bang.

Side: Disagree.
2 points

Interesting. So while everyones talking about the big bang what happen to the steady state theory? It's claim that the evidence of the background radiant killed the theory but i personal feel that the evidence actually proves the steady state theory more. What do everyone else think.

Side: Disagree.
2 points

OK so what theories do you have? None. you have no eligible theories. And don't give me any religious crap because then everyone else will just call you a hypocrite because of what you said " How did this singularity get there, magic?" Yep, well how did God get there. You don't have any better theory than this one, and though just a theory, it's the best we've got. You can criticise it when you have something better.

Side: Disagree.
2 points

Can i just add, as human beings our minds only go so far. We rely on Einsteins theory of relativity, however deciphering the universe is much more complex. A little while back you put "and how did those three energys get there?" Well, everyone has the same idea that the universe came to being at once. Well, yes thats what the theory says. However, that's what you call the universe. These energy's might always have been there, but nothing else. It's hard for a 14yo to explain, but we all have different misconceptions on what the universe exactly is, and though everyone is fighting to say the 'Big Bang Theory' is correct, no one knows exactly that. Yes there may have been a singularity, but before that there could have been the energy's' you were talking about. Hard to explain as it is, you can't always rely on what others are talking about. I think, given it's the best we've got, the Big Bang Theory is probably the one to listen to. But you don't have to go in to depth, You can try and alter it and find out for your self..!

Side: Disagree.
1 point

Really? Big bang is false because it's a theory? Gravity is also a theory but I don't see any of you religious people jumping off of buildings.

Side: Disagree.
Cynical(1948) Clarified
2 points

This entire debate was based on semantic confusion of Asiagirl.

Side: Agree.
1 point

To be honest , there had to be something before the big bang. There couldn't be just nothing, could it? Scientists say the 'Big Bang Theory' started the entire universe. But if they're so smart why don't they tell us what happened before that?

Side: Disagree.
MuckaMcCaw(1968) Disputed
1 point

The have. It is called the singularity. The Big Bang may have started the universe as we know it but "before" that (if you can use that word in any respect prior to the arrival of time), the universe was simply a VERY different place.

Side: Agree.
1 point

there is no proof the big bang is false nor true. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR;=1&v;=7bAHEsZ1Dlg watch the link although the universe had to have started from somewhere. There is no actual evidence of the big bang apart from theory and scepticism.

Furthermore there is not evidence the big bang did start or at least trigger a chain reaction to give us our current universe.

Side: Disagree.
1 point

Chuck Norris created the universe. Everybody knows that.

Side: Disagree.
2 points

Hey. Everybody knows it was really Elvis. Nobody disrespects the king.

Side: Disagree.
1 point

You're right, the big bang theory is just a theory, but that doesn't make it false, and even if it were false, it wouldn't necessarily follow that some mythology invented thousands of years ago would then have to be true. Whether or not the big bang theory is true does nothing to distinguish the possibility that god created the universe from the possibility that the earth was created from the body of the dead frost giant Ymir, or any of a thousand other creation myths.

Side: Disagree.

The big bang theory is not likely to be false, at least not by our current understanding. Science at the moment does not know what created the singularity. I don't understand why you think that because science does not know the answer, it just HAS to be God. Why is that?

Side: Disagree.
1 point

Everything in science is a theory. Ex. Gravity is a theory......would you say we can fly based on this?

Side: Disagree.
1 point

Well, given all the posts on here are 48 days old, i'm not sure as to how this debate got on here, but oh well! It's one thing to call the Big Bang Theory false. After all, it is only a theory, and it's the best one we have. But saying, it's false, because God is more logical, is simply beyond me. You said that this singularity couldn't have appeared out of no where. If you look in depth at an atom, and look at all the components of a sub-atomic particle, you'll find they're pretty small. Things get a whole lot smaller! And there has to be a point somehow, somewhere where it is infinatly small! However this random cosmic being, who came out of nowhere, created the universe. How God created himself, before creating space and time is also beyond me. He then proceed to create the heavens and the earth in just 6 days ( i don't see how days existed before the sun, but we'll let that pass!) He then created the first humans, completely skipping the millions of years of earth story that has been proven to have happened before humans walked the earth, and suddenly these two meager humans somehow multiplied without any signs of inbreeding! Then we skip on a bit more to Jesus Christ. Who somehow was conceived in the Virgin Mary ( I don't know why being a virgin is so sacred to the Christians, after God supposedly told them to "Go forth and multiply" but again, oh well. This man was born and helped a very small amount of people before then allowing himself to be murdered. I still don't know why, him being the son of God, with such divine powers he must have had, he didn't help more serious issues in the world. or at least, more people. And after going through all the hassle of being killed, he then decided "Nope, i like it here" and then three days later he woke up in some cave, and that;s the end. Oh, but that's completely disregarding all other religions, and multiply contradictions in the Bible! And you say all that, is what happened, instead of a perfectly plausible ( don't say it isn't, because after all, this is the one theory we are most confident in) theory. Well, good luck with that! By the way, what actual proof do you have of this religion of yours? A Multiply translated book written thousands of years ago, and long after the events it describes? Maybe, piece of fried chicken that has the face of Jesus on it?? Not much else! Scientists have found loads of background radiation left over from the beginning of the universe! Which is more than enough proof to match your silly superstitions!

Side: Disagree.
Jungelson(3954) Clarified
1 point

And I have just realised i have posted on here before, 48 days ago. And in all that time, no one has proved me wrong. Thankyou Christians, thankyou!

Side: Agree.
1 point

It amazes me that people who have some sort of a affiliation religion are some how offended by the big bang theory just because it goes against a their 2000 year old belief. There are a lot of theories you religious people can go bother but just because theories such as the evolution and the big bang explains how we are here gives you the right to judge, I am all for being critical but when your only evidence is your religious text book...go bother with control theory, something you religious nut jobs should be experts on, you been doing it since you were born.

Side: Disagree.

The Big Bang Theory is what the definition implies.....just a theory.

Side: Disagree.
1 point

i disagree because theres almost no evidences and facts that agrees with the theory.

also a THEORY is only a theory. its not a fact yet. if the big bang theory expanded where did it all start? the researchers says it all starts everywhere and the theory says a big bang started everything

Side: Disagree.