The Big Bang Theory

"There are so many things false in this first sentence I don't even know where to begin! Scientists have proved that the beginning of the universe was in fact much, much, much, much, much, much smaller than a sugar cube. It simply sprang into existence as a sigularity, a zone which is commonly found at the core of black holes. Black holes have such intense pressure that finite matter can be squished into an infinite density, called a sigularity. I have proven my opponent incorrect on this term and thus the argument is void. " Really, because my extensive research tells me that they did theorize it was the size of a sugar cube. Additionally, my common sense tells me that saying that it was smaller, does not make it any more credible. "A common misconception about the Big Bang theory is that it was a large explosion, when experts say that it was, and continues to be, an expansion. This can be proven on many levels, such as using Hubble's Law to evaluate the continuous expansion of the universe. Again, my opponent's argument here can be rendered dead and meaningless." Again, this is not what they say, besides, if it held together for so long (according to them, it was like that since always) then why did it expand, wouldn"t it continue to implode, the mass is only becoming more dense. So let"s get this straight, first you say that it was ever imploding, now it is ever expanding, how, if this force which is expanding said matter is strong enough to pull that mass apart, stronger than the gravity of all the mass in the universe combine, how did it even form in the first place. "These questions are not related to the debate, and if you truly want to know the answer I suggest a quick google search or consulting a physics textbook." You are just avoiding my statement, this is relevant to the debate so drop it or give me a real rebuttal. "What would cause the hydrogen atoms to blow up? Hydrogen is one of the most flammable gases, but I recall learning in my elementary school on the three things a fire needs: Fuel, heat, and oxygen. Do tell, what could possibly cause these hydrogen atoms to explode in an endless vacuum, where there is no oxygen, and explain why wouldn't they form stars instead? I believe this argument is also invalid. " The Big Bang blew up, if it blew up they would be dispersed, this is a classic example of a straw man fallacy, besides, provided it expanded rather than blew up, said expansion force which is apparently stronger than the combine gravity of all the mass in the universe, how did said hydrogen atoms get together with such weak gravity? "As I said before, the only reason we know that the universe is expanding is because of Edwin Hubble, who, in 1929, found that galaxies appear to be moving away from us and each other at speeds proportional to their distance. This expansion phenomenon supports the idea that the universe was once tightly compacted, allegedly from a sigularity. " How do you know that it was not recording the earth moving in its orbit, ooh, it seems as if the sun is moving away, dude, it"s called the sunset. Of course I was not saying he was talking about the sun, it was an example. "In fact, my opponent's mention of Steven Hawking just harms their argument, as it is very clear that this supergenius supports the theory. He says (well, accurately, has a machine say for him), "The universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down." In case you missed it, he is very clear on what he believes, as has pages of work to back himself up. It goes unsaid that one can never argue with someone like Hawking." Steven Hawking, I could win an argument with that guy and win, a monkey could, the truth is, Steven hawking is not per-say the kind of guy I would base my physics on. The point is, you cannot support the big bang theory by saying that Steven hawking"s believes it, I find it quite unintelligent to believe something because "an authority figure" believes it. In fact I can cite numerous occasions when "the authority figure" turns out to be a wrong; The Jewish Holocaust The Salem witch trials The Bay of Pigs The Iran Contra deal "With over a century of science (and Stephen Hawking) to back me up, I feel very confident saying that the Big Bang theory is a valid and logical theory. I would like to thank my opponent early on for making this debate as I belive that it shall be LOTS of fun to participate in. Nice quote from Tesla, by the way. However, at the end of the day, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration." ~Thomas Edison" Thomas Edison, you think you can combat NIKOLA FREIKING TESLA with Thomas Edison, those two actually had disputes, and I will have you know that one, your quote is irrelevant it has nothing to do with this, 2, Edison thought that frying dogs would discredit tesla, yeah, that guy is smart. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...