The Big Bang Theory

Firstly, I have to point out the hostility of Con's speech, which has to be taken into account during the voting period.Part 1 "That's ridiculous, for one, things don't just "always exist""A recognised christian saying that things don't just always exist is quite contradictory. Con believes that god always existed and no one created him. Why is illogical to think that the same could have happened with the Universe?I know must explain to Con what a force is. A force is the measure of the amount of interaction between two bodies. Nothing pulled the spec apart. What happened is that the spec had the necessary amount of energy for the little pieces of the spec to repel one another. The energy of the spec allowed the little pieces to apply forces to the other pieces, thus separating. "The gravity of this spec held itself together."Sorry to do this, but I must enter in a more complex level of science. Before the Big Bang there was no space, because space is created by energy and the energy was on the singularity. So the "spec" was held together because it hadn't nowhere else to go. Then energy appeared and space was created. And the expansion of the energy makes the expansion of the space possible, thus the expansion of the universe. "All the gravity in the universe, equivalent to trillions upon trillions of black holes"I'm not sure if this is totally right. However, gravity is still a weak force. If you compare gravity to the electromagnetic force you will see that the difference is of about 40 orders of magnitude. This means, if gravity is equal to 10 to the power of 18(trillions) of black holes the electromagnetic force is equal to 10 to the power of 58 black holes."If this force is powerful enough to hold off all the gravity in the universe, how is the earth not getting pulled into oblivion?"Con is not taking into account point of application. Gravity makes the earth hold together and the planets spinning around the sun and so on. The force that expands the universe is applied to the whole universe. Gravity is more "specific" while the force which expands the universe has to "cover" more space. This is rather complex and quite difficult to explain in a few words.Part 2 Con stated that Stephen Hawking isn't credible, but without any argument. The He proceeds to state that Nikola Tesla is the smartest man to ever exist. This is obviously subjective, and Con didn't argument this opinion, which makes it worst. "Why is it that the proton and the neutron attract to make a nucleus? By logic, if it just "happened", the proton and the electron would form the nucleus, but instead, it"s the proton and the neutron."This denotes the little to none experience of Con in Physics. If electromagnetism attracted protons and electrons the atom would collapse because of the clash of protons with electrons. Protons apply a force to the electrons called the "strong force", which prevents the collide thing. Summarizing, Protons and electrons attract each other but the strong force prevents them to collide, causing the electrons to spin around the protons."All you have done in this debate was cite un-credible "scientists", insult my intelligence, and try to "prove" your point with things that go against every law of physics."I quoted some of the best scientists, not only recognised by me, but by the whole scientific community. Also you didn't answer invitation: if you think the big bang is wrong then propose other system. The last statement is rather insulting and doesn't provides anything to the debate. This is the classic fallacy known by the name of ad hominem. You attack the person who makes the argument when you can't attack the argument itself. However I invite you to compare my statistics with your in both site and the think if I'm an incompetent debater and you are the best. (For the record: I have a 67% wining ration while Con has a 35% wining ratio at the moment of writing this speech)Arguments in favour of the Big Bang TheoryRed shift of GalaxiesWe can observe that galaxies are moving away from us, making logical to think that the universe is expanding. Then ff we go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang. Microwave Background When the Big Bang happened the Universe was very hot. If this is true, there must be some kind of radiation track left behind. This actually exists and is the microwave background, a sort of glow that fills the entire universe and is viewable by us.Looking into the pastRemember that light coming from far distant galaxies takes a long travel to reach us. So when we look at those star, we are looking at the past. And in doing so we can see that the universe has changed a lot, which fits the theory of the Big BangElements ProportionThe Big Bang Theory predicts the amount of each element that should exist. If we study the proportion of the elements here in Earth and in the other galaxies, we can confirm that the proportion is the same predicted by the Big Bang Theory.ConclusionThe Big Bang theory is empirically and rationally proved. As far as science is concerned, It is the most reliable cosmological system. Con wasn't successful in refuting the theory and I gave different arguments in favour of It.The resolution is confirmed.New sources http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk... - National Schools' Observatory (UK) http://www.nottingham.ac.uk... - Nottingham University