It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
U.S. accuses China of reckless action in South China Sea incident
As the Philippines accuses China of ramming a ship, the White House warns something "much more violent" could happen in the South China...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
From the Gemini chatbot:
There's a wealth of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, fitting together like pieces of a puzzle. Here are some key areas:
1. Expanding Universe:
2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB):
3. Abundance of Light Elements:
4. Evolution of Galaxies and Large Structures:
These are the main pillars of evidence, but further observations continue to strengthen the Big Bang theory. For instance, the cosmic microwave background anisotropies (tiny temperature variations) align with predictions about the early universe's density fluctuations.
The Big Bang theory isn't perfect, and it doesn't explain everything. However, the vast amount of evidence across multiple areas of observation makes it the leading cosmological model for our universe's origin and evolution.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
As it is, your statement sounds similar to, "I don't believe in engineering", or "I don't believe in marriage". It is far too ambiguous to lead to a meaningful conversation without further clarification.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) The singularity problem. Simply put the math breaks down at the big bang. That's a serious problem for a scientific theory. There is no explanation for how the big bang could have begun. There is no known scientific explanation that triggers inflation. A beginning without a cause is a serious scientific problem. What often happens is atheists appeal to magic (ie - quantum physics - which conveniently offers no math or proofs to show it is real).
2) The wrong kind of galaxies in the early universe - Since the initial conditions would have only had helium, hydrogen and some trace amounts of lithium - we should find these at the furthest edges of the universe - we don't.
3) The monopole problem - The intense heat of the initial conditions of the big bang should have created lots and lots of monopole particles/objects. We haven't found them.
4) The size of the earliest galaxies are too large. The theoretical calculations for the size of the earliest galaxies don't match reality. The earliest galaxies and quasars are too massive and too bright to fit the theory.
5) We can't find 96% of the stuff of the universe according to BB cosmology. Dark matter and energy (CDM) is needed for observed rotation of galaxies, but we can't find it anywhere.
6) Even if we found the missing 96% of stuff theorized, the mass of the universe is way too small to fit with the calculations of inflation and the flatness problem of the universe. This deals more with the theory of inflation that is often closely associated with the big bang theory.
7) Missing antimatter. Theoretical models of the big bang produce equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. A lot of anti-matter is missing.
These are just a few of the dozens and dozens of known problems and inconsistencies with the big bang theory. The big bang theory may prove to be true, but it will have to go through significant changes in the basic assumptions of the theory to fit with the evidence.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@MayCaesar
Maybe they even meant this:
I mean the sitcom. They may not believe in Sheldon Cooper lmao.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Let me do a Zeus and quote an AI on the subject:
The Big Bang theory is a widely accepted scientific model explaining the origin and evolution of the universe. However, like any scientific theory, it is not without its limitations and areas of ongoing research and debate. Some of the key challenges and open questions associated with the Big Bang theory include:
Singularity Problem: The Big Bang theory describes the universe as originating from a singularity—a point of infinite density and temperature. However, the concept of a singularity is problematic because it suggests that our current laws of physics break down under such extreme conditions. Resolving this issue requires a theory of quantum gravity, which would unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Initial Conditions: The Big Bang theory does not explain what caused the initial singularity or what conditions prevailed before it. Understanding the initial conditions of the universe remains a major challenge in cosmology.
Horizon Problem: The universe appears to be uniform on large scales, with the same basic properties in all directions. However, regions of the universe that are now very distant from each other were never in causal contact (they couldn't have interacted or exchanged information due to the finite speed of light). This raises the question of how such uniformity arose without communication between these distant regions.
Flatness Problem: Observations indicate that the universe is very close to flat, meaning that parallel lines will never meet and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe's curvature should evolve over time, but it remains remarkably close to flat. This fine-tuning of the universe's geometry requires explanation.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The Big Bang theory relies on the existence of dark matter and dark energy to explain various observations, such as the rotation curves of galaxies and the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the nature of dark matter and dark energy remains mysterious, and their existence has not been directly confirmed through laboratory experiments.
Inflation: To address some of the issues mentioned above, cosmologists have proposed the theory of cosmic inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a rapid exponential expansion in the early moments after the Big Bang. While inflation has been successful in explaining several cosmological observations, the details of how inflation occurred and what drove it are still not fully understood.
These challenges and unanswered questions drive ongoing research in cosmology and theoretical physics, with scientists continually seeking to refine and extend our understanding of the universe's origins and evolution.
It appears your AI is indeed more informed than you and @MayCaesar. Good to know.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
- I have only posted a satirical comment about the Big Bang Theory sitcom in this thread.
- What MayCaesar did was post genuine scientific inquiry—he nor I made any arguments about the Big Bang theory.
- I haven't used AI here for a while, and when I have, I have admitted it. I also do not use the format that just-saying has suggested. Juleskorngold does use that format quite often, though (perhaps he thinks we are twins). As for me, in most cases, it has taken some human effort to get the AI to do what I want it to do, as opposed to just asking a question and then posting the output.
- Just_saying also uses AI, by the way, but he will not admit it. He rewords some passages to evade detection and assumes no one will notice (perhaps he also believes he is the only one around here with this level of computer literacy). Moreover, after playing around with free and premium AI detectors (with deep scanning), I noticed that this can be detected at least among a few. But there is also, of course, a manual way to do this. It wouldn't be prudent to rely solely on automatic tools (AKA automation bias).
- Later, I will create a thread about how to detect AI content manually and a post in which everything I do will be my sole wording but designed deliberately to be detected as AI content by AI detectors. Hence, manual detection is probably also a good idea. PS: Humanizers are sh!t and a waste of money!
- Lastly, I mostly use AI for grammar and spelling checking, factual accuracy, logical validity, etc. But I don't just stop at AI; I also cross-reference with other sources depending on whether I want a formally casual or purely formal debate. If it's just casual, though, who cares?!
Note: If anyone feels the need to verify the above for AI content (it appears that just_saying now thinks I use AI in almost all of my posts) using AI detection, check out one or more of the following tools (it's usually a good idea to use more than one in case the others miss something):- https://gptzero.me/
- https://copyleaks.com/it/
- https://www.zerogpt.com/
- https://detecting-ai.com/de/
I have left it to these four because while there are loads more, these are the three I have found to be the most robust in my recent personal experimentation with them. The premium versions, of course, will offer the most in-depth scanning. But you get what you pay for!Finally, even if someone has posted AI content, that is irrelevant to the validity of the content. Generally, dismissing or discrediting the validity of content predicated on its mere source is foolish.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
After both @MayCaesar and Zeus posted memes laughing at the claim that there are some problems with the big bang theory as we know it, I posted an AI response tot he question Are there any problems with the big bang theory. Zeus claimed this was a 'poisoning of the well'. And accused me of somehow trying to undermine the use of AI. This is an obvious strawman argument to divert attention that there are issues with the current big bang theory.
Zeus, you get, I just used AI, to confirm my point that there are several known problems with the big bang theory, and the fact is that in the last 2 years the number of findings that do not fit the predictions of the BB has grown exponentially. Now solutions to these problems may or may not be found. I don't really care, as it does not alter my view that God initiated the creation of the universe. The method used does not matter to me. So, I'm not anti-big bang, nor am I anti-AI. What I am opposed to is when someone posts AI generated content that does not advance the debate.
MayCaesar did NOT post genuine scientific inquiry. His meme said 'Hahaha U serious?" PUH-lease. That's not genuine scientific inquiry. it is a dismissive meme.
Zeus said "Just_saying also uses AI, by the way, but he will not admit it. He rewords some passages to evade detection and assumes no one will notice (perhaps he also believes he is the only one around here with this level of computer literacy). " Well, I did just use AI to show you that the points I made about problems with the big bang are being made by others. That much is true. I don't use AI often though, because as I point out, it gives way too generic responses. I freely quote from other authoritative websites all the time though - if you accused me of that - I would indeed be guilty - but not 'disguising' AI content. My exposure to AI computing is an introductory course in Watsonx - that's it. That's not the area of IT I work in. Definitely an interesting and growing field though.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
In hindsight I guess some of the way I acted in retaliation to the smear tactics was a bit childish. I should have just left it at pointing out the smear tactics, the fact that I haven't used ai in this thread, the fact that I have made no arguments in this thread yet, the fact that most of the time I don't us ai on this site (such as what was implied) and the fact that maycaesr made no arguments here either.
In any case, this is/was a digression from being on topic.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
just_sayin, THE RUNAWAY from his primitive Bronze and Iron Age Bible's creation narratives,
What part of when I told you that before you disparage the Big Bang Theory, or any other notion to the existence of the Universe, earth, and creation of man 6000 years ago as your bible so states, didn't you understand when you are to explain your comical Creation narratives by your serial killer God Jesus first and formost?! Remember BIBLE FOOL? Huh?
I answered your ever so wanting, and embarrassing for you, child-like refutations as shown in the links below, THAT YOU ARE STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM TO THIS DAY IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP!
Therefore, answer EACH AND EVERY ONE of the links below showing your primitive Bible's rendition of Creation!
BEGIN:
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178994/#Comment_178994
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178995/#Comment_178995
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178997/#Comment_178997
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178998/#Comment_178998
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/178999/#Comment_178999
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/179002/#Comment_179002
Lets see if the Bible STU-PID FOOL "just-saying" continues to RUN AWAY from these godly inspired links shown above where he has to answer them FIRST, before he questions scientific knowledge at this time of the universe and creation of man!
TICKING CLOCK IN WAITING FOR "JUST_SAYIN" TO ANSWER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsq0FiXjGHg
.  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Furthermore, scientific measurements reveal that all galaxies are moving away from us. Is that because we are at the centre of the Universe? No - it's because the Universe is expanding. Galaxies that are further away are moving faster, confirming this theory. If you trace back this motion far enough in time, you reach a single point - the Big Bang.
Note that this is not incompatible with all forms of god - there could be a deistic god who does not interfere with the Universe, or used the Big Bang as a tool to achieve its aims. But to believe in young-earth creationism, you have to ignore all scientific evidence to the contrary.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Young creationists would say that the universe is the product of a miracle. Miracles by definition do not follow scientific processes, so you could not disprove them by standard scientific observation.
There are several huge problems with the current big bang model - it can explain the singularity issue - how everything came from zero space, it can't explain what triggered inflation, it can't explain the missing needed 96% of dark matter and energy, it can't explain the variation in the expansion rates observed by Hubble in the past few months, and it can't explain the fine tuning and flatness issues of the universe.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I would agree with you that the cosmic microwave background fits best with the big bang model. However, several other cosmogenic models claim that it fits with their model also. For example a steady state model would claim that the CMB is there because the universe is eternal and the expanding of our region of the universe is because universes are always being created so there will be some areas where expansion is observed. Roger Penrose has a hybrid model that incorporates parts of the big bang model. There are several other models which appeal to the same evidence.
Let's know when you worrk it out.
Young creationists would say that the universe is the product of a miracle.
Of course they would does anyone take them seriously?
Miracles by definition do not follow scientific processes
Correct
, so you could not disprove them by standard scientific observation.
Yes an entirely worthless process.
There are several huge problems with the current big bang model - it can explain the singularity issue - how everything came from zero space, it can't explain what triggered inflation, it can't explain the missing needed 96% of dark matter and energy, it can't expl
Why not just say " we don't know"?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Young creationists would say that the universe is the product of a miracle. Miracles by definition do not follow scientific processes, so you could not disprove them by standard scientific observation.
When you break down your arguments this is exactly what you get. So why do you falsely make claims of bringing science to the table that somehow was supposed to back up what you posit?
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
B- It is you that has consistently ignored evidence, medical records, and sworn testimony by eye witnesses and the top medical professionals. You are the one with the problem with facts and evidence. You are the denier. I have always been comfortable looking at the facts when it comes to discussing the origins of the universe, the origin of life, the evidence of miracles, and the resurrection of Jesus. It is you that always denies the evidence.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
B. I've examined what qualifies as evidence. Your ignorance in what evidence actually is doesn't fly in reality.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra