The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

I. Correlation without CausationMy opponent was required to bring forward a comphrehensive case for why the BBT is true for his opening arguments. All he did was bring up 4 observations, that don't prove in the slightest that the BBT is true. The BOP is already negated by this alone, as the opposition never proved the universe is expanding do to the big bang. Just that it's expanding. This essentially means he proved nothing whatsoever. In my acceptance round I clarified that 4 theories have no correlation with the BBT.1. Comsic Microwave observations2. Near-Far Hubble Telescope projections (V=HoD,)3. Formation of spacial resources in the universe4. Radiometric DataGuess what 4 observations my opponent assumed proved the BBT existed? These, and they don't in the slightest. These 4 observations only prove that the universe is expanding, and as I intend on proving, not in the way the BBT projected.Things the opposition did in R2- Showed 4 observations that prove the universe is expanding (I agree that it is)- Nothing elseThings the opposition failed to do in R2- Prove that expansion is a result of the BBTSince he failed to do the above, he failed to make a strong contention regarding the big bangs existence. Which is why I'm going to take a unorthodox route to debunking the oppositions arguments. I'm going to take every observation, and also show how it correlates with several other theories.Theories Cosmic Microwave Observations, V=HoD, and Spacial Allocations also Support - Quasi-equililbrium theory (QET)- Ekpyrotic proposal- Carron Chen Model- Shu's Universehttp://mass-spec.lsu.edu...http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...http://arxiv.org...http://phys.org...My opponent just went down the list of wikipedia, naming observations he didn't understand, and trying to convince us like he knew what he was talking about. Notice that if you read the wikipedia article for the big bang top to bottom, it sounds a hell of a lot like my opponents arguments. http://en.wikipedia.org...It has been 100% proven that the OP was just a loose paraphrase off of wikipedia. And much of it wasn't understood apparently.II. How V=HoD contradicts both the BBT and Spacial Allocation of ResourcesLMAO when I saw what the opposition wrote here. The Hubble Observations are used to debunk the big bang theory! In the big bang model, the cosmos project themselves forward. In the Hubble Observations, the cosmos recede. The only reliable evidence that proves the universe is expanding, contradicts the BBThttp://discovermagazine.com...Questions without answers- Do you support the Hubble Observations, although they debunk the big bang theory?- Do you deny the Hubble Observations, although they're the only proven evidence for a expanding universe. II. Why my rebuttals are so short Because I agree with all my opponents points. The universe is expanding. The problem? Not ONE of these observations proves that the expansion of the universe was a result of the big bang theory. The opposition has commited a correlation without causation fallacy. Here are a few examples.Examples of how the opposition commited correlation without causation- The Hubble observations show the universe is expanding therefore the BBT is true- Cosmic radiation background shows that there is lowering radiation, therefore the BBT is true.- Matter elements are spread out across the universe, therefore the BBT is true.III. The definition of theory and factTheoryan idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or eventsThe reason why the big bang theory is a "theory", and not a fact, is because it only explains the facts we already have. It supports current facts. It isn't supported itself by facts. If something has no facts to support it, then it is impossible to prove its probably true. What did the opposition do in R2? He proved that the BBT explains current facts. He didn't prove that current truisms support the BBT.Proofsomething which shows that something else is true or correcthttp://www.merriam-webster.com...The opposition hasn't shown proof for the BBT, just explanations for things we don't understand. A theory isn't a truth. Which is why the BOP is negated . Not one scientist has provided proof, just circumstantial evidence.IV. ConclusionThe oppositions opening arguments were weak and unsubstantial. Not the slightest bit of proof was brought forward for the existence of the BBT. Just circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence, always results in correlation without causation. The opposition attempted to prove his case on circumstantial evidence alone. This is frowned upon in debating, and a infamous fallacy. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...http://www.princeton.edu...If any of you affirm any thing in R2, then you would undoubtebly be setting a standard where fallacies are legitimate on DDO. I am intrested in seeing the opposition deny the claim that anything he said was more than "correlation without causation.