The Big-Bang Story - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Big-Bang Story

Opening Argument


(I put this in "science" since it is falsely labeled, and even talked about as science. The proper place for this O.P. would be in: "Religions and the Fantastic Stories behind them")

For the O.P.
Prove that the so called "Cosmological Big-Bang Story" is actually a theory?

Here is the "story":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The claim: The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.

My friend Erfisflat showed me this:
https://cor.gsfc.nasa.gov/

  • We wish to understand when the first stars in the universe formed, and how they influenced the environments around them.
  • How did dark matter—which is pervasive, mysterious, and not at all understood—clump up in these very early times, pulling gas along with it into dense concentrations that eventually became galaxies?
  • How did galaxies evolve from the very first systems to the types we observe "in the here and now," such as the Milky Way in which we live?
  • Supermassive black holes are apparently pervasive in the universe, and we wish to understand when in the early universe they first formed and how they have affected the lives of galaxies in which they reside.

The story goes; that our second heaven(*1) where God put all the stars in is actually a cold, expanding vacuum of infinite size which they call the Universe, where we humans, including all the animals, plants and this whole Flat Earth which they call a globe/sphere is spinning and twirling through on a cosmic fabric.

Here is what they say how this "globe-earth" idea started:

- The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth


(*1) - first heaven for us who do observation (science) is where the birds fly, the air, and the second heaven is where we see all the stars of heaven.
ErfisflatSilverishGoldNovaVaulkBaconToesagsrDrCerealsomeone234PogueEmeryPearson
«1345678



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • OK, I'll start:

    Yes, the Big-Bang is a theory because NASA, and CERN who get trillions of dollars in funding says it is!
    AsianParliamentarianErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    They do not get get trillions. they get 20 billion a year

    ApplesauceEmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • edited February 4
    A magic explosion occurred out of nowhere creating everything, and we know this because my science book said that we detected radiation from nearly 100 billion light years away.
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 
  • SilverishGoldNovaEvidenceBaconToesPogueEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @Evidence

    I don’t think you understand how the basic scientific method actually works, nor how scientific conclusions are drawn, and how we assess their validity.

    PogueBaconToesErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • A magic explosion occurred out of nowhere creating everything, and we know this because my science book said that we detected radiation from nearly 100 billion light years away.
    Two mutually exclusive claims. If someone tested a hypothesis via experimentation them that is science, not magic. You can disagree or critique the science, but that involves actual valid criticism so I won't hold my breath.
    PogueErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • Pogue said:
    They do not get get trillions. they get 20 billion a year



    I meant over the life of NASA, .. so it's 20 billion a year? Is that tax-free?

    Hey @Erfisflat @SilverishGoldNova .. I change my mind about the Flat Earth, with all that money they rake in I want to be an Astronaut, .. I mean how can I loose:
    there is no BB-space, the rockets go up, turn and crash somewhere so I won't even have to take off in one. I would like to go in the NASA Zero-G plane though
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    I don’t think you understand how the basic scientific method actually works, nor how scientific conclusions are drawn, and how we assess their validity.



    Thank you @Gooberry so here we are, you can show us how the "scientific method actually works"? I'm serious my friend, show me how this story became a theory?

    Where would you like to start, how about with the Catholic Jesuit Priest who came up with the Big-Bang phrase, .. I mean right there, "Big Bang!" .. where did the "sudden expansion" take place in?

    Where are we "expanding in"? I believe this would be a good start, don't you?

    If not, I am listening. Just over a year ago I was spinning through space too, so let's prove @Erfisflat wrong, shall we?
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    I don’t think you understand how the basic scientific method actually works, nor how scientific conclusions are drawn, and how we assess their validity.



    Thank you @Gooberry so here we are, you can show us how the "scientific method actually works"? I'm serious my friend, show me how this story became a theory?

    Where would you like to start, how about with the Catholic Jesuit Priest who came up with the Big-Bang phrase, .. I mean right there, "Big Bang!" .. where did the "sudden expansion" take place in?

    Where are we "expanding in"? I believe this would be a good start, don't you?

    If not, I am listening. Just over a year ago I was spinning through space too, so let's prove @Erfisflat wrong, shall we?
    Okay, so let’s start at the beginning. Like, right at the beginning:

    do you think it’s reasonable to claim the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    if so, why?




    Erfisflat
  • How about this, (I just ran across this particular one and will watch it today) we can use Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing"!?




    EmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:
    How about this, (I just ran across this particular one and will watch it today) we can use Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing"!?




    I think we need to start at the beginning.  Like, right at the beginning:

    do you think it’s reasonable to claim the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    if so, why?
    ErfisflatEvidence
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    @Gooberry
    according to flat earthers, the sun doesn’t rise, it comes over head 
    ErfisflatEvidenceanonymousdebaterEmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • VaulkVaulk 434 Pts
    edited February 5
    Let me break it down:

    1. No one was around for the big bang, so we couldn't have observed it directly or indirectly...defeating the application of the Scientific Method for studying this alleged phenomenon for the requirement of observation.

    2. We don't know exactly when the big bang occurred, it cannot be pin pointed, so we can't replicate the controls for an experiment to test a hypothesis regarding the big bang.

    3. While I'm sure scientists agree that multiple events occurred during the big bang, since no one observed it, we have no idea exactly what these events were or what order they occurred in...defeating any chance of replicating it in any way.

    "So essentially, we're pretty sure some stuff happened, no idea where the cause originated from but that's not important.  What is important is that we're certain that it wasn't the result of any supernatural forces, it all just sprang forth from nothing, for no reason, against chance odds of 700 quintillion to one".
    EmeryPearson
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    1. No, we are able to test for the expected aftereffects of the big bang using the scientific method; such as background cosmic radiation - which has been found.

    2. You are just speaking nonsense. We aren't trying to replicate the big bang, which seems to be what you're referring to by controls. Were testing the expected phenomenon which should occur if the big bang happened.

    3. Actually the scientists have a lot of evidence for the specific order for how things happened from minute fractions of seconds following the big bang onwards. I suggest you wiki it.

    Also cause wouldn't really play into the big bang as causality wouldn't have existed.

    EmeryPearson
  • Ampersand said:
    A magic explosion occurred out of nowhere creating everything, and we know this because my science book said that we detected radiation from nearly 100 billion light years away.
    Two mutually exclusive claims. If someone tested a hypothesis via experimentation them that is science, not magic. You can disagree or critique the science, but that involves actual valid criticism so I won't hold my breath.
    well, I was wording it so even children could understand, but I guess I can reword it.

    The big bang theory states that, out of knowwhere, for no reason, a singularlity in the middle of nothingness exploded, and the only evidence we have for this hypothesis is the fact that we allegedly detected microwave radiation like what, 93 billion light years away (which is over 546 septillion miles, just so you know).
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 
  • AmpersandAmpersand 329 Pts
    edited February 5
    Ampersand said:
    A magic explosion occurred out of nowhere creating everything, and we know this because my science book said that we detected radiation from nearly 100 billion light years away.
    Two mutually exclusive claims. If someone tested a hypothesis via experimentation them that is science, not magic. You can disagree or critique the science, but that involves actual valid criticism so I won't hold my breath.
    well, I was wording it so even children could understand, but I guess I can reword it.

    The big bang theory states that, out of knowwhere, for no reason, a singularlity in the middle of nothingness exploded, and the only evidence we have for this hypothesis is the fact that we allegedly detected microwave radiation like what, 93 billion light years away (which is over 546 septillion miles, just so you know).
    Incorrect, we can detect the cosmic background radiation from here on earth and it is just one notable example, like this redshifts of galaxies showing that they are moving away from a single point.

    Also the issue with your previous post is not he simplistic reasoning but the contradictory positions. As you have now conceded, this is a matter of science rather than "magic".
    PogueSilverishGoldNovaErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • NopeNope 297 Pts
    PogueEmeryPearson
  • Ampersand said:
    Ampersand said:
    A magic explosion occurred out of nowhere creating everything, and we know this because my science book said that we detected radiation from nearly 100 billion light years away.
    Two mutually exclusive claims. If someone tested a hypothesis via experimentation them that is science, not magic. You can disagree or critique the science, but that involves actual valid criticism so I won't hold my breath.
    well, I was wording it so even children could understand, but I guess I can reword it.

    The big bang theory states that, out of knowwhere, for no reason, a singularlity in the middle of nothingness exploded, and the only evidence we have for this hypothesis is the fact that we allegedly detected microwave radiation like what, 93 billion light years away (which is over 546 septillion miles, just so you know).
    Incorrect, we can detect the cosmic background radiation from here on earth and it is just one notable example, like this redshifts of galaxies showing that they are moving away from a single point.

    Also the issue with your previous post is not he simplistic reasoning but the contradictory positions. As you have now conceded, this is a matter of science rather than "magic".
    So, because I reworded my argument a bit differently, I have "conceded" on my entire position? Same thing you did with Erfisflat... 
    EmeryPearson
    Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    @Ampersand
    Science and technology can seem like magic if sufficiently advanced (or the person refuses to accept it)
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    edited February 25
    A singularity got too dense so it expanded and the universe is still expanding so a logical conclusion is that it had to originate from a single point. Also, not 93 billion miles. The light could not reach us because the universe is not that old. 
    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflatEvidence
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    Also, religious figures like the pope stated that the big bang was real.
    SilverishGoldNovaErfisflatwith_all_humilityEmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • @SilverishGoldNova

    You have reverted to discussing scientific procedures and dropped any mention of magic. What is that if not conceding the point?
    SilverishGoldNovaEmeryPearson
  • Pogue said:
    Also, religious figures like the pope stated that the big bang was real.
    Yet, I'm not religious, I'm agnostic.

    Pogue said:
    A singularity got too dense so it exploded and the universe is still expanding so a logical conclusion is that it had to originate from a single point. Also, not 93 billion miles. The light could not reach us because the universe is not that old. 

    Yet, I thought it was an infinitely dense perfect singularity? 

    My point was, if the universe is really 13 billion years old, then how do we detect radiation and light from over 93 billion light years away?

    I guess you don't disagree with that.

    EmeryPearson
    Retired DebateIslander, Former Earth Science Community Moderator, and ex-Flat Earther. 
  • Also, religious figures like the pope stated that the big bang was real.
    Yet, I'm not religious, I'm agnostic.

    Pogue said:
    A singularity got too dense so it exploded and the universe is still expanding so a logical conclusion is that it had to originate from a single point. Also, not 93 billion miles. The light could not reach us because the universe is not that old. 

    Yet, I thought it was an infinitely dense perfect singularity? 

    My point was, if the universe is really 13 billion years old, then how do we detect radiation and light from over 93 billion light years away?

    I guess you don't disagree with that.

    Unless you want to provide a direct reference so we've some idea what you're talking about, we haven't.

    We can detect radiation from 43 billion light years away due to the expansion of the universe but not 93.
    EmeryPearson
  • @Evidence ;

    You don't actually seem to understand what a theory is. You need to read your dictionary more.

     Theories such as the Big Bang or God for example, can be as believable or unbelievable as you care to regard them.

    Theory is not or ever intended to be, proof of anything.

    A theory is merely a suggestion. No matter how complex or fanciful it might be.
    EmeryPearson
  • PoguePogue 492 Pts
    The Big Bang Theory is a theory but it is different in science. A scientific theory 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. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
    EmeryPearson
    I could either have the future pass me or l could create it. 

    “We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.” - Benjamin Franklin  So flat Earthers, man-made climate change deniers, and just science deniers.

    I friended myself! 
  • Vaulk said:
    Let me break it down:

    1. No one was around for the big bang, so we couldn't have observed it directly or indirectly...defeating the application of the Scientific Method for studying this alleged phenomenon for the requirement of observation.

    2. We don't know exactly when the big bang occurred, it cannot be pin pointed, so we can't replicate the controls for an experiment to test a hypothesis regarding the big bang.

    3. While I'm sure scientists agree that multiple events occurred during the big bang, since no one observed it, we have no idea exactly what these events were or what order they occurred in...defeating any chance of replicating it in any way.
    If you find a massive hole in the desert, you can work out what caused the hole even though you may not be able to test or observe the specific event that caused it.

    When an event in the past occurs, it may effect things in the future. This is called “cause and effect”.

    Now, with the hole in the desert, you can look at the evidence: you can estimate how much time has passed using weathering, and use it to rule out human cause.

    you can perform chemical analysis to determine whether it was a regular or nuclear explosion. 

    You can cross the explanations: if chemical results show it’s nuclear, but weathering tests show its 4bn years old, you may have got something wrong.

    Despite the implied claims here; the Big Bang was a theory put forward after the evidence was discovered.

    Everyone (even Einstein) thought the universe was static. This was until Edwin Hubble measured what stars were doing, and discovered they were all moving apart.

    If they are moving apart today; they must have been closer together yesterday. as looking further and further out to space is also looking further and further backwards in time, we can see that galaxies and stars are all moving apart from each other at every distance.

    As everything is moving apart, there must have been a time when they were closer together. How large was the universe when it started moving apart? And what accelerated everything in the first place?

    The answers to that, to the best of our understanding is “as close to 0 size as we can determine”, and “not entirely sure”.

    However, what happened at the start can affect what we see today: people dismiss the microwave background radiation without realizing that it was a prediction.

    The Big Bang theory stayed that if the universe was all at the same small space and expanded, it would be super hot and dense, and eventually give off radiation in all directions as it cooled; this radiation would be almost identical in every direction, and would be at a very specific frequency of microwaves.

    At this time no one had ever measured this radiation or knew it was there: it was predicted. That is a very big deal, were they just lucky? Was it just a coincidence?





    PogueErfisflatEvidenceEmeryPearson
  • ReadRead 17 Pts
    @Erfisflat
    You must not understand that recreating a universe by use of quantum mechanics has not been done yet.
  • Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    I don’t think you understand how the basic scientific method actually works, nor how scientific conclusions are drawn, and how we assess their validity.

    It's all in your head. None of it is based on the scientific method.
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Pogue said:
    @Gooberry
    according to flat earthers, the sun doesn’t rise, it comes over head 
    It appears to rise, due to perspective. The important part to note, though, is that both describe the motion of the sun, not the earth.

    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    @Evidence

    I don’t think you understand how the basic scientific method actually works, nor how scientific conclusions are drawn, and how we assess their validity.

    It's all in your head. None of it is based on the scientific method.
    I explained a few posts above a summary of how it is.
    EmeryPearson
  • Pogue said:
    Also, religious figures like the pope stated that the big bang was real.
    What dies this say to you?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Ampersand said:
    Also, religious figures like the pope stated that the big bang was real.
    Yet, I'm not religious, I'm agnostic.

    Pogue said:
    A singularity got too dense so it exploded and the universe is still expanding so a logical conclusion is that it had to originate from a single point. Also, not 93 billion miles. The light could not reach us because the universe is not that old. 

    Yet, I thought it was an infinitely dense perfect singularity? 

    My point was, if the universe is really 13 billion years old, then how do we detect radiation and light from over 93 billion light years away?

    I guess you don't disagree with that.

    Unless you want to provide a direct reference so we've some idea what you're talking about, we haven't.

    We can detect radiation from 43 billion light years away due to the expansion of the universe but not 93.
    How do you and I  (we) "detect radiation from 43 billion light years away due to the expansion of the universe but not 93"?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • @Evidence ;

    You don't actually seem to understand what a theory is. You need to read your dictionary more.

     Theories such as the Big Bang or God for example, can be as believable or unbelievable as you care to regard them.

    Theory is not or ever intended to be, proof of anything.

    A theory is merely a suggestion. No matter how complex or fanciful it might be.
    What if a theory starts with a false premise?
    EvidenceEmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • "If you find a massive hole in the desert, you can work out what caused the hole even though you may not be able to test or observe the specific event that caused it.

    When an event in the past occurs, it may effect things in the future. This is called “cause and effect”.

    Now, with the hole in the desert, you can look at the evidence: you can estimate how much time has passed using weathering, and use it to rule out human cause.

    you can perform chemical analysis to determine whether it was a regular or nuclear explosion. 

    You can cross the explanations: if chemical results show it’s nuclear, but weathering tests show its 4bn years old, you may have got something wrong."

    You really just compared a hole in the desert to an explosion millions of light years away? 

    "Despite the implied claims here; the Big Bang was a theory put forward after the evidence was discovered.

    Everyone (even Einstein) thought the universe was static. This was until Edwin Hubble measured what stars were doing, and discovered they were all moving apart."

    How did he do so? I don't think the constellations have changed throughout recorded history. I like Hubble, heard this quote?

    "If they are moving apart today; they must have been closer together yesterday. as looking further and further out to space is also looking further and further backwards in time, we can see that galaxies and stars are all moving apart from each other at every distance."

    Fascinating (sarc.)

    "As everything is moving apart, there must have been a time when they were closer together. How large was the universe when it started moving apart? And what accelerated everything in the first place?

    The answers to that, to the best of our understanding is “as close to 0 size as we can determine”, and “not entirely sure”.

    However, what happened at the start can affect what we see today: people dismiss the microwave background radiation without realizing that it was a prediction.

    The Big Bang theory stayed that if the universe was all at the same small space and expanded, it would be super hot and dense, and eventually give off radiation in all directions as it cooled; this radiation would be almost identical in every direction, and would be at a very specific frequency of microwaves.

    At this time no one had ever measured this radiation or knew it was there: it was predicted. That is a very big deal, were they just lucky? Was it just a coincidence?"

    I don't detect radiation. Are you referring to the æther?
    EmeryPearson
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • NopeNope 297 Pts
    Erfisflat
    "How did he do so?"
    Red shift.

    "I don't detect radiation"
    Your TV can. : )
    SilverishGoldNovaqipwbdeoEmeryPearson
  • Nope said:
    Erfisflat
    "How did he do so?"
    Red shift.

    "I don't detect radiation"
    Your TV can. : )
    Well that explains everything!
    SilverishGoldNovaEvidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat
  • Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    How about this, (I just ran across this particular one and will watch it today) we can use Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing"!?




    I think we need to start at the beginning.  Like, right at the beginning:

    do you think it’s reasonable to claim the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    if so, why?
    Thank you @Gooberry fine, let's start at the beginning; "light"

    Is the sun going to rise tomorrow?
    This is my, philosophical and scientific, from having observed the world around me over the 61 years, .. answer: "Gods willing", and ONLY Gods willing will the sun rise tomorrow.

    OK, so let's start with In The Beginning - "light", .. but from which perspective, and what "light"? This:


    The Unanswered Question

    The European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) works to help us better understand what comprises the fabric of our universe. At this French association, engineers and physicists use particle accelerators and detectors to gain insight into the fundamental properties of matter and the laws of nature. Now, CERN scientists may have found an answer to one of the most pressing mysteries in the Standard Model of Physics, and their research can be found in Nature Physics.

    According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe began with the production of equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since matter and antimatter cancel each other out, releasing light as they destroy each other, only a minuscule number of particles (mostly just radiation) should exist in the universe. But, clearly, we have more than just a few particles in our universe. So, what is the missing piece? Why is the amount of matter and the amount of antimatter so unbalanced?

    OR this:

    Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth. (KJV)

    How did God create the Heaven and the Earth?

    (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.)

    Here is how: .. John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Now let's skip to another moment/scene (not another time, because this was before solar time as we know time.)

    Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (NIV)

    Here is the first "light" referring to our earth, and the heaven where our stars are:

    .. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

    ___________________

    Here is what I mean, from a scientific perspective, we can ONLY go by what we observe, which is that physical light already exists, and that
    1. for our physical eyes, without light, nothing exists.
    2. For our ears, a radio playing in the dark will tell us that a radio exists. But that is only because "I know and seen a radio"
    3. touch, so if I went blind, and deaf, I could always "feel" the radio

    This is empirical-science, .. do you agree?

    OK, so what if I went completely deaf, dumb and blind, AND lost all sensing/feeling in my body (like being in an isolation chamber) I would start looking at all the things I recorded in my brains memory, and not only "look" at what I have recorded there, but could make up stuff, create, imagine me being on a beautiful tropical island fishing, .. whatever, but that is only because I have stored enough information in my brain from when I still had all my senses. So let's wipe everything I have in my ST, and LT memory,

    Q. Do you think I exist?
    ErfisflatEmeryPearson
  • Evidence said:
    Gooberry said:
    Evidence said:
    How about this, (I just ran across this particular one and will watch it today) we can use Lawrence Krauss "Universe from nothing"!?




    I think we need to start at the beginning.  Like, right at the beginning:

    do you think it’s reasonable to claim the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    if so, why?
    Thank you @Gooberry fine, let's start at the beginning; "light"

    Is the sun going to rise tomorrow?
    This is my, philosophical and scientific, from having observed the world around me over the 61 years, .. answer: "Gods willing", and ONLY Gods willing will the sun rise tomorrow.

    OK, so let's start with In The Beginning - "light", .. but from which perspective, and what "light"? This:


    The Unanswered Question

    The European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) works to help us better understand what comprises the fabric of our universe. At this French association, engineers and physicists use particle accelerators and detectors to gain insight into the fundamental properties of matter and the laws of nature. Now, CERN scientists may have found an answer to one of the most pressing mysteries in the Standard Model of Physics, and their research can be found in Nature Physics.

    According to the Big Bang Theory, the universe began with the production of equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since matter and antimatter cancel each other out, releasing light as they destroy each other, only a minuscule number of particles (mostly just radiation) should exist in the universe. But, clearly, we have more than just a few particles in our universe. So, what is the missing piece? Why is the amount of matter and the amount of antimatter so unbalanced?

    OR this:

    Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth. (KJV)

    How did God create the Heaven and the Earth?

    (John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.)

    Here is how: .. John 1:3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    Now let's skip to another moment/scene (not another time, because this was before solar time as we know time.)

    Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. (NIV)

    Here is the first "light" referring to our earth, and the heaven where our stars are:

    .. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

    ___________________

    Here is what I mean, from a scientific perspective, we can ONLY go by what we observe, which is that physical light already exists, and that
    1. for our physical eyes, without light, nothing exists.
    2. For our ears, a radio playing in the dark will tell us that a radio exists. But that is only because "I know and seen a radio"
    3. touch, so if I went blind, and deaf, I could always "feel" the radio

    This is empirical-science, .. do you agree?

    OK, so what if I went completely deaf, dumb and blind, AND lost all sensing/feeling in my body (like being in an isolation chamber) I would start looking at all the things I recorded in my brains memory, and not only "look" at what I have recorded there, but could make up stuff, create, imagine me being on a beautiful tropical island fishing, .. whatever, but that is only because I have stored enough information in my brain from when I still had all my senses. So let's wipe everything I have in my ST, and LT memory,

    Q. Do you think I exist?

    I do not know what that was. But it does not appear to be a reply to anything I just said.

    I asked you, specifically whether you thought the sun sould rise tommorow; and seemed to get what appeared to be a “yes”, though I’m not sure; followed by what appears to be a nonsensical rant.

    Can I ask again: do you think the sun is going to rise tomorrow?

    I think the answer is yes; but it’s not particularly clear.
  • Ampersand said:
    @Vaulk

    1. No, we are able to test for the expected aftereffects of the big bang using the scientific method; such as background cosmic radiation - which has been found.

    2. You are just speaking nonsense. We aren't trying to replicate the big bang, which seems to be what you're referring to by controls. Were testing the expected phenomenon which should occur if the big bang happened.

    3. Actually the scientists have a lot of evidence for the specific order for how things happened from minute fractions of seconds following the big bang onwards. I suggest you wiki it.

    Also cause wouldn't really play into the big bang as causality wouldn't have existed.

    Ampersand - 1. No, we are able to test for the expected aftereffects of the big bang using the scientific method; such as background cosmic radiation - which has been found.



    You mean the "red tint" in the Microwave/Radio telescope reading pointed at the "dome" that Tesla used to send electricity to the whole city? Or where HAARP is being bounced off of? What did they expect getting from a "Radio Telescope" being pointed up would get?

    And of course, like a pack of Lyon going after one pray, once this been documented they will continue reporting every Tom, and Harry observation with this single thought: "microwave background radiation". Yep, .. not HAARP, not the billions of TV, Radio, cell phone towers bouncing off the ionosphere/Dome, but "It is proof of the Big Bang!" sorry, just like the red-tint added to the pictures of the earth desert claimed as pictures of Mars, this proves nothing.
    EmeryPearson
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch