The Big-bang is a good theory

CON cites two sources claiming that the BBT is "an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe" and a theory that says the "universe began with a super-powerful explosion." Both statements are true (more or less), but neither contradict my opening thesis. Yes, the BBT seeks to explain what happened at the origin of the universe; no, it does *not* seek to explain what happened *before* that. There are, however, numerous hypotheses, including the possibility that God caused the Big Bang. ========= REBUTTALS ========= C1 - Conservation of angular momentum My opponent is correct that if the Big Bang began with a spinning ball of mass, angular momentum must be conserved, however the conclusion he draws from it is unsupported by this initial claim. The law of conservation of angular momentum merely states that momentum must be conserved in the system *as a whole.*[1] It is not necessary that the various components of the system always be moving in the same direction for this to be true. To illustrate this, imagine two billiard balls. Two balls moving in the same direction at a different rate strike each other. The angle at which they collide will cause them to move apart in different directions. The obvious objection is that the balls should be moving at the same rate, therefore a collision should be impossible, but this is not the case. Once we account for gravitational interaction between celestial bodies, it is not only the *rate* at which they move that will be affected, but *direction* as well. When we introduce more objects to the model and additional factors like supernovae and co-orbital bodies, the system grows in both complexity and variance of motion. C2 - The incredible shrinking sun To begin with, just because the universe is 13.75 billion years old does not mean that the sun is. The sun is believed to be 4.57 billion years old -- slightly older than the earth.[2] Of course, that doesn't help much when my opponent claims that the surface of the sun would be touching earth 20 million years ago! This argument suffers from two significant errors. I'll begin with the most egregious one. The five feet per hour figure comes from Hermann von Helmholtz's theory that the sun's energy derives from solar contraction.[3] It's important to realize that this theory was first put forward in *drumroll* 1869! Today we know that the sun's energy comes from the nuclear fusion of lighter elements into heavier elements -- mainly hydrogen into helium.[4] Of course, in 1869, neither the nuclear strong force nor the weak force had been discovered yet, so it was impossible for Helmholtz to realize this. Second, there is only one study, done in 1980, that shows the sun is shrinking. These discrepancies can be accounted for by different measuring techniques used over the decades.[5] Current studies show that the size of the sun is more or less constant, however, it may expand and contract in cycles.[6] Taking a measurement of the sun at any two given points and assuming a constant rate of change is like looking at the ocean as the tide goes out and concluding that 10,000 years ago, the sea level must have been somewhere in the stratosphere. ========= CASE PRO ========= C1 - Evolution of galaxies Because gravity has negligible effects on far away bodies, distant objects move away from us faster than closer objects. As objects move away, the light waves they emit appear to the viewer to increase in wavelength while decreasing in frequency, causing them to become shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Knowing this, we can measure the distance of a star, galaxy, or other celestial object.[7] Because the speed of light is finite, it takes time for distant events to become visible from our vantage point. When we look at far away galaxies, we are essentially seeing the past. Using the red shift to determine how far away a galaxy or other object is, we can know exactly *how far* into the past we are looking. The formation of galaxies is cumulative. Smaller bodies join together with larger bodies as time goes on. For example, the Milky Way is currently in the process of assimilating the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy.[8] If this is true, then we can expect that over time, galaxies will become larger and farther apart. Not surprisingly, this is precisely what we observe. By looking into the past at distant galaxies, we see that they are, in fact, much smaller. Young, blue stars and quasars are much more common as well.[9] C2 - Cosmic microwave background Up until about 400,000 years after the Big Bang, atoms still did not exist. The universe was composed of a hot dense plasma containing free protons, neutrons, and electrons. Under these conditions, photons - light particles - can't travel freely because they scatter off the free floating ions. As the universe cooled, the ionized matter combined into neutral atoms and photons could travel unimpeded. If predictions based on the BBT are true, we should expect to find a drastically redshifted (due to cosmic expansion), fairly homogeneous background array of light particles. Again, this is exactly what we observe.[10] C3 - Radiometric dating Although radiometric dating can't prove that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, it can prove that the earth is several billion years old, which effectively negates the young earth hypothesis. Certain isotopes of various chemical elements are known to be unstable. This means that at some point, an atom may spontaneously transform into a different isotope. Due to quantum uncertainty, it's impossible to predict when a particular atom will do this, but given a large enough quantity, we can measure the probability that any given atom will transform at any given time. An isotope's half life is the amount of time it takes for half of the original material to decay into another isotope. With this knowledge, by measuring the ratio of parent isotope to daughter isotope found in a sample, we can determine the sample's age. The oldest dated rock formation, located in northern Canada, is roughly 4 billion years old.[11] == CONCLUSION == I have provided powerful evidence for both an old earth and an old universe. The only way to reconcile this with a young earth creationist view would be to claim that God created the universe with evidence that was older than it actually is. This is, of course, unfalsifiable, unscientific, and "not even wrong." The resolution is affirmed. -- References -- 1. http://www.astronomynotes.com... 2. Zirker, Jack B. Journey from the Center of the Sun. Princeton University Press, 2002. pp. 7-8 3. http://www.talkorigins.org... 4. http://www.nasa.gov... 5. Van Till, Howard J., "The legend of the shrinking sun -- A case study comparing professional science and 'creation science' in action." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 38(3): 164-174. 1986. 6. http://www.talkorigins.org... 7. http://www.physics.uq.edu.au... 8. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au... 9. http://www.talkorigins.org... 10. http://www.talkorigins.org... 11. Bowring, Samuel A. "Priscoan (4.00-4.03 Ga) orthogneisses from northwestern Canada." Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 1999. 134: 3.