The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

IntroductionSpreading is a well known American debating tactic consisting of making many arguments in as short a period of time rather than make the arguments sound convincing. That is, a focus on matter rather than method. It is a good tactic in debating. However, the internet as with many things seems to have catched on to it, and has its own, less affectionately known form: the gish gallop[1]. The tactic is known as spewing multiple arguments terse and brusque format, with little to no evidence actually being made clear. In live debates (or in-real-life debates) when one gives a source, it should simply repeat what is being said, not be an additional argument unto itself. This is another sign of a gish gallop tactic. Finally, there is the fact that an argument will be dropped after it being presented. Though my opponent has not done this yet, the claim "once I have referenced something, I will not do so again" highlights something which seasoned debaters shake their heads at. In short, what I am trying to say here is that the arguments are not presented in a lot of cases, instead they are shrank to such a point that they no longer actually work.Dark MatterYes it has, like this says so[2]. I'll explain so in the next round.This is more or less what my opponent has just said inversed. Claiming that it makes predictions contradictory to X, Y and Z by linking a broken website isn't an argument. In fact, even if the link worked, I wouldn't bother addressing it. A source is to make an argument stronger, not to present the argument. No premise has been proven in this contention.Fudge Factors"the big band relies [on] fudge factors such as this. Without these fudges..."Remember how I said sources should strengthen, not make an argument? Well, what is the argument here? There are fudge factors (an unprofessional term), supposedly, but no reference to what they are. But the argument will undoubtedly continue, so let me put it to rest. Firstly we know the universe is inflating, contrary to both the source, contrary to the claim of a lack of verifiable predictions, and contrary to it being able to fit data into any model. The evidence ranges from the middle-school level[3] of cosmological redshift[4] to undergraduate level[5] of the astronomical position of a 1A supernova being further away than a stationary (or even a linear-increasing) model of the big bang is false. Note how this is a turn as this is evidence for the Big Bang, due to the existence of an inflating universe.Quantized RedshiftsThis seems to be an exercise in nonsense. Nowhere does it link back to the big bang. I'm not sure what to do. The scientist in me says I should address the scientific inaccuracies in the statements, but the debater says ignore the non-sequitur. As this is a debate, I'm forced to do the latter.Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, or CMBRNone of this seems to link to the big bang theory again. The Big Bang Theory, to fill in the gaping gaps of my opponent's argument, predicts that there will be leftover radioactive heat from the big bang. The fact that there is this provides evidence. The fact that my opponent is baffled how this happened is in fact a criticism of his own argument: the radiation temperature is a landmark test and proof of the big bang theory. SuperstructuresThe Big Bang predicts superstructures, unlike its competitors. What more should I say to this? Population 3 Stars.The evidence of Population 3 stars would indeed help the big bang theory prove itself again to be true. However, the lack of their observed existence isn't evidence that the big bang theory is wrong. A good example is if you look at a statue, you can date it in many ways: you can use metal dating, check historical records, or the favourite: look at the plaque saying when it was built. But if the plaque is faded and the writing is no longer there, does that mean the statue was always there? Of course not. It would be nice if the plaque was there, but it isn't necessary. Similarly, it would be nice to see population 3 stars, but it is not necessary. The reason behind the stars not being there is simple. Pop. 3 Stars were the very first generation of stars and hence they formed with practically no metals at all. As such, their mass is astonishingly high. This means while most stars hang about for billions of years at the least, the Pop. 3 stars last only a few million, a mere instant. Therefore, we must look at regions of universe where the light we observe was first emitted near the time when these stars shone. This means that the light will be both dim and highly redshifted (z ~ 20). The combination of these two effects makes observations from the ground largely unfeasible[7]. However, the Spitzer telescope is doing very well in finding more and more evidence of their existence[6].For reference, note how long my opponent's criticism was, and how long I had to spend to make a complete rebuttal. This is the problem of gish gallop arguments: to rebut, one must spend vastly more time than one's opponent constructing a complete refutal.Time Dilation in QuasarsThis is again something which has no actual conclusion. There's no reason to accept either the big bang expects no time dilation, time dilation exists, or that this falsifies the big bang theory.Evidence in favour of the Big BangStar CompositionThis is a simple one. Stars create the denser materials. If so, then the stars in the 13-billion year old cluster close to would produce high-metallicites, i.e. be population I stars, while stars further out would contain less metals, i.e. be population II stars. And when we look at the composition of stars in the universe, we see this: This is obvious evidence in favour of the Big Bang Model making one of many correct predictions.Amount of resources availableAnother simple one. In the beginning, the big band model assumes the big bang created an abundance of basic materials such as hydrogen with very little heavier materials. Stars instead produce the heavier materials. So the cosmic abundance of hydrogen would be more than all other materials. Further, due to the way the big bang prediction that stars produce more iron than other materials in its later life especially, we'd expect a spike of iron. When we look at the actual state of things, we see this: This again is obvious evidence in favour of the big bang.I'll leave my argument here for now, and shall continue my case into the next round. For reference, any arguments dropped I shall consider conceded. With that, I'll wait for the next round.1 - http://rationalwiki.org...2 - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com...3 - http://www2.glos.ac.uk...4 - http://www2.glos.ac.uk...5 - http://physicsworld.com...6 - http://www.nasa.gov...7 - http://www.talkorigins.org...