Evidence supports the Big Bang Theory

I recognize that my opponent desires no apology from me, yet I still feel the need to express an apology for my rude response, without all the facts. It is most humiliating.I will now make my case, with the request that, while my opponent is welcome to do as he pleases, I not be expected to debate in prose, which will put me at quite an inconvenience.CMBR DataThe Horizon ProblemI'm afraid that I do not understand what you've said, here. Please explain.Inflation HypothesisActually, you're mistaken that there's no evidence. Either that or you're using outdated information. The universe around us can be actively perceived as it rapidly expands, everything moving away from a central point. Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the universe is expanding, revolutionizing the perception of the universe, and, naturally, rallying much anger from parts of the establishment [1].You are quite right, about the problems of the theory; there's no way to know, as of yet, what caused the Big Bang, exactly how it happened, and, well, most of it. The theory is very empty, as of now, due to sheer lack of data. Because there's so little data, partly because of the extreme recency of the theory, much conjecture and supposition must be used to fill in the gaps. This unfortunately makes it look rather bad.Untenable Assumptions and Bad DataIs my opponent suggesting that currently untestable theories and hypotheses should be rejected? Were this suggestion heeded, science could be set back significantly.Before ContinuingBefore I continue with the debate, I feel obligated to point out that you (my opponent) have been making arguments with sources. For example, "Furthermore, WMAP data does not pass even the most lax of radiological standards [3]." Now, I think it should be pretty obvious that it should not be necessary for me to Robitaille's entire paper to competently understand what point you're trying to make here. You can't make an argument by posting a link to a paper written by somebody else. Given this, I shall be simply quoting such arguments that you make, and otherwise ignoring them as invalid (no offense).CMBR Can Be Explained as Due to Local RadiationThe study that you quote is six years old, and severely outdated. Allow me to quote the abstract of a 2012 analysis by Davide Pietrobon:We perform a joint analysis of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and Galactic emission from the WMAP 7 year temperature data. Using the Commander code, based on Gibbs sampling, we simultaneously derive the CMB and Galactic components on scales larger than 1° with improved sensitivity over previous work. We conduct a detailed study of the low-frequency Galactic foreground, focusing on the "microwave haze" emission around the Galactic center. We demonstrate improved performance in quantifying the diffuse Galactic emission when including Haslam 408 MHz data and when jointly modeling the spinning and thermal dust emission. We examine whether the hypothetical Galactic haze can be explained by a spatial variation of the synchrotron spectral index, and find that the excess of emission around the Galactic center is stable with respect to variations of the foreground model. Our results demonstrate that the new Galactic foreground component—the microwave haze—is indeed present. [2]Furthermore, I am not sure my opponent is entirely clear about what the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect is. Allow me to make a quick explanation, for the sake of the laymen who are basically unfamiliar with SZE. To put it in simple terms, SZE is occurs when high energy electrons provide ambient photons with an energy boost, distorting the pattern of Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation [3] [4]. Understand that without CMBR, there is no SZE. SZE is itself an effect that only affects CMBR, so claiming that "Either it is totally CMBR, or totally SZE. Therefore, CMBR data can be explained wholly by SZE or no SZE. We know however, that there is always SZE, so it logically must be due to the result of SZE on local radiation alone" is a total fallacy. Your own explanation of the SZE, which occurs well after you've tried to make a semantics point based on it, disproves your own flimsy argument.Time Dilation in QuasarsYou have stated that time dilation and quasars don't add up to current understanding of the universe, and taken the opportunity to list four sources for elementary information (only one of which was worthwhile). However, I do not see any explanation of how this is relevant.On a sidenote, your use of "blya" shocked me, because I accidentally skipped over your explanation of it as an abbreviation for 'billion light years away,' and 'blya' in Russian loosely means 'bitch,' and certainly wasn't something I expected to see in this debate!Physical Interaction of Quasars and Galaxies with Different RedshiftsYour argument here is based on unfounded conjecture, made to explain a mysterious observation by Halton Arp (by the way, you're doing that arguing with sources thing again). This is not testable, and, according to you, should be rejected.Rotation Graphs"This is an easy one. From [13], it is clear that standard Big bang models fail to account for the radius from center-rotation speed graph. What is most interesting is the remarkable flatness seen after a very rapid rise. This entirely contradicts prediction. This brings us to the most hypothetical explanation ever invented. Dark Matter (Which I think is a most fantastic idea)."Dark MatterSeveral of your arguments seem to be based on 2006 information. To explain quickly, both to my opponent and to the audience, current understanding of dark matter, here's a not-so-brief definition:We are much more certain what dark matter is not than we are what it is. First, it is dark, meaning that it is not in the form of stars and planets that we see. Observations show that there is far too little visible matter in the Universe to make up the 25% required by the observations. Second, it is not in the form of dark clouds of normal matter, matter made up of particles called baryons. We know this because we would be able to detect baryonic clouds by their absorption of radiation passing through them. Third, dark matter is not antimatter, because we do not see the unique gamma rays that are produced when antimatter annihilates with matter. Finally, we can rule out large galaxy-sized black holes on the basis of how many gravitational lenses we see. High concentrations of matter bend light passing near them from objects further away, but we do not see enough lensing events to suggest that such objects to make up the required 25% dark matter contribution. [5]Now, the first hint for the existence of dark matter was discovered by Jan Oort, in 1932, who found that the mass of the galaxy must be more that can be seen. Fritz Zwicky then made a further discovery, in '33, that agreed with the observations of Oort. [6] Some scientists opposed to the concept of dark matter have proposed that the perceived effects of dark matter are caused by gravity of normal matter, and that Newton and Einstein simply failed to fully predict its effects on an intergalactic scale. However, this proposition fails to explain the massive collision of the galaxy cluster 1E0657-56 observed by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, and dark matter can successfully do so, without creating necessity to overthrow Newtonian mechanics and relativity. [7]Sources[1] http://skyserver.sdss.org...[2] Analysis of WMAP 7 Year Temperature Data: Astrophysics of the Galactic Haze, Davide Pietrobon, The Astrophysical Journal[3] https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'dovich_effect[5] http://science.nasa.gov...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://www.nasa.gov...