The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

I. Correlation Without Causation Before I go into my opponent's arguments themselves, I'd like to mention two things. One, my opponent can't decide which arguments I use. He can argue against them, but he can not ban their usage. I haven't banned my opponent from using the arguments he has. And two, I have provided a lot more evidence (i. e. showing why such observations suggest the BBT) than my opponent claims I have, as I'll explain more in my argument. To begin, my opponent has restricted what I have actually argued. In addition to what my opponent listed, I also covered the homogeneity of the universe itself (separate from the CMBR), the apparent evolution of galaxies, the abundance of light elements and the asymptotic decreasing abundance of elements themselves, and the distribution of star populations within galaxies. There's also the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, which my opponent doesn't consider either in his arguments. All of these arguments should be considered dropped. On top of this my opponent has claimed that I have committed the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy by using observational evidence. Now I will get into the accepted use of observational evidence later on in my argument, but I would like to point out now that I not only showed the observations that the BBT predicts, but how they fit into the BBT model and the BBT model only. In every argument, I showed the correlation, established causation, and showed how only the BBT is the only model that could explain it. For example, take the CMBR: "In the absence of BBT, there would be no reason to expect a uniform, long-wavelength background radiation in the universe. " There are other parts of my argument like this that show that only the BBT can explain such observations in my first argument with all of my arguments. [1] The alternative models my opponent presents aren't refutations of the BBT at all. The Quasi-Equilibrium theory doesn't even deal with the evolution of the universe, but rather with mass spectroscopy. The Ekpyrotic Universe theory doesn't eliminate the BBT " it simply amends how the earliest moments happened, which the BBT doesn't even consider. "The rest of the story is as the Big Bang model would have it, but the beginning is different. " The article my opponent presents on the Carroll-Chen Model actually refutes it - "I argue that the Carroll-Chen cosmogenic model does not provide a plausible explanation of our universe's initial low-entropy state" And Shu's Universe Model can't even explain the CMBR - "One of the biggest problems he faces is explaining the existence and structure of the cosmic microwave background. " Overall, none of these models either replace or are intended to replace the BBT model. [2][3][4] The arguments for the BBT are pretty much the same. My arguments are similar, but not exactly like Wikipedia's, and I actually drew more inspiration from the TalkOrigins article (source 1 in round 2). Regardless, the arguments for the BBT are rather unanimous. II. The Expansion of the Universe My opponent's argument here doesn't make any sense. He doesn't explain what he means with his claim, and he doesn't provide any evidence for his claim. "As you know, most of the galaxies in the Universe are expanding away from us because of the Big Bang. .. " I'm not sure what the point is here. [5] This follows the predictions put forth by the BBT. Space is expanding, and the distances between galaxies are increasing as time goes on. [6] My opponent quotes none of the article, and by rule 3 (All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate), none of the arguments made in them should be considered. III. Definition of Theory and Fact and the Use of Observational Evidence The BBT is the standard cosmological model for the evolution of the universe for a reason. Let's look at how the scientific method works: "1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation. "[7] By this way, the BBT follows how a successful theory should work. My opponent's arguments here are partially correct. No, the BBT is not a fact, but it was never meant to be. However, they leave out how strongly the BBT is supported under the current scientific testing system. I will myself define the theory as, "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. " It would be quite hard to experiment with cosmological theories, so drawing together observational evidence is the best way to make theories in cosmology. If we look at that definition, I have already shown the BBT to be valid " it has been established by observation, it accounts for known facts, and is the general principle for universal evolution. [8] What all this means is that my arguments for the BBT are how theories, and cosmological theories especially, are to be considered valid. Theories are never true, and it is possible that the BBT will be replaced as the dominant theory for the evolution of the universe at a later date, but right now, according to all of the evidence, it is the dominant theory, and should thus be considered currently valid. Further, tests on other cosmological models find the Lambda-CDM model of the BBT to be the best fit among other theories. "These statistics favor models that give a good fit with fewer parameters. Based on this analysis, the preferred cosmological model is the flat cosmological constant model [Lambda-CDM model] where the expansion history of the universe can be adequately described with only one free parameter describing the energy content of the universe [The BBT's cosmological constant]. "[9] Here is a chart showing the change in AIC (Akaike information criterion) and BIC (Bayesian information criterion) that considers various cosmological models: Flat cosmological constant . .. .. .. .. .. .. 194.5/192 43.7 0 0 Flat general Chaplygin . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 193.9/191 42.7 1 5 Cosmological constant. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 194.3/191 42.0 2 5 Flat constant w. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 194.5/191 41.7 2 5 Flat w(a) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 193.8/190 41.0 3 10 Constant w. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 193.9/190 40.8 3 10 General Chaplygin . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 193.9/190 40.7 3 10 Cardassian . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 194.1/190 40.4 4 10 DGP. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 207.4/191 19.8 15 18 Flat DGP . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 210.1/192 17.6 16 16 Chaplygin. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 220.4/191 7.1 28 30 Flat Chaplygin . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 301.0/192 0.0 30 30 Notice how the flat cosmological constant is the least change (0 in both AIC and BIC) of any other model, which indicates that the Lambda-CDM model is the most valid model of all cosmological theories for the evolution of the universe. This shows the BBT also has validity in this aspect. [9] In conclusion, the correlation without causation argument is incorrect. I have shown correlation, causation, and strict causation (in other words, I showed that such observations were only valid under the BBT). Each argument I have presented shows why the BBT makes such predictions, show how such predictions are true, and show how they are only explainable with the BBT. My opponent has not even touched the majority of my arguments (i. e. galactic evolution), and my opponent has provided no model that explains every single observation I put forth in a logically and scientifically valid way. Overall, here, the BBT is affirmed, and I have not committed such fallacy. Conclusion Overall, my opponent has put forth a rather poor performance in this debate. He has made wildly invalid and incorrect arguments, misrepresented my own arguments, consistently leaves his arguments unsubstantiated (he only substantiates facts; the claims he makes are completely unsupported), and has never even been close to throwing enough doubt on the resolution to negate it. All he has done is made unsubstantiated, and oftentimes completely false claims without actually arguing against the BBT, and his refutations are very off-point and his drops a number of my arguments. I have made a number of arguments that show that the BBT is the most valid of current cosmological theories for the evolution of the universe with ample sourcing and logical validity. Overall, it is very easy to see that con has not refuted my arguments and that my BoP has been upheld Sources [1]: . http://www.talkorigins.org... [2]: . http://wwwphy.princeton.edu... [3]: . http://arxiv.org... [4]: . http://www.technologyreview.com... [5]: . http://www.universetoday.com... [6]: . http://onlinephys.com... [7]: . http://science.kennesaw.edu... [8]: . http://physics.ucr.edu... [9]: . http://iopscience.iop.org...