Refuting Theist_1998 on Big Bang Cosmogony

"I would firstly like to inform Spud that I have a life where I have to go to College, football, jogging to keep up my fitness and work on the occasion so if I don't reply to a comment for a few days its because I have priorities." That is fine. I would ask that there will be no forfeiting however. If you are unable to make a full reply due to stuff in life, please post that you are forfeiting 1 round as an argument, and I will do the same to keep things fair. I'll take a comment from the end of your argument and put it here: "Also you didn't refute my argument by posting it so what did you expect me to do try and refute my own argument that's like Peter Dinklage jumping over Peter Crouch and doing a slam dunk from a standing stalk." The point was to extend an olive branch here. Your copy and paste text is absolute nonsense, so I gave you the opportunity to find better arguments against the Big Bang theory, rather than the usual stuff you do. Unfortunately, you decided to not take my advice and instead want me to refute your plagiarised material. Now of course, I need to state where Con has plagiarised from. Con has given a source, but tracing all of his arguments back to their original source, we get to Kent Hovind (I'm unfortunately well acquainted with Kent Hovind's "arguments" and know them when I see them). Please look to source [1] as to the origin of these arguments - this seminar which Hovind did, occurred in 2001. Throughout this debate, I will be referencing time-stamps on this video to show where these arguments originate from, and their context. It doesn't matter if you haven't watched Hovind since 2016 either; these are where the arguments originated from, despite your source. So let's get started. No, it's not actually "usually" presented as that. I've been doing this stuff for 6 years, and nowhere in that expanse of time has the Big Bang been labelled as occurring 18-20 billion years ago. It occurred approx. 14 billion years ago, and even a basic Wikipedia search would be able to tell you this: "If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe" [2]. Going further than that, please look at source 3 also states the correct age of the universe. Source 4 gives a rough approximation of 12-14 billion years old. Of course, we need to know where you got this from. Please look @ time-stamp 6:55 of source [1]. As we can see this came from a low-level, outdated text book from 1992 - that was before I was even born. 25 years ago is when this text-book was published. 25 years ago. The information presented in this textbook is incorrect since that age is outdated and thus incorrect. All you had to do was type "What is the age of the Universe" into a Google search bar. That was all you had to do. But unfortunately, you would much rather use extremely outdated information for this. Moving onto your next statement of a spinning singularity, this comes from the time-stamp of 8:45 of source 1. @8:50 the text is unreadable, but thankfully, good old Hovind made my job easier for me. At the bottom of the page we see this, "The nebula begins to rotate." Since when is a nebula the singularity which started the Big Bang? But it gets worse. @ 8:55 "As the nebula shrank it spun faster and faster, gradually, the spinning nebula flattened into a huge disk almost 10 billion kilometers across. At the center of the disc a growing protosun, or new sun, began to take shape. As the gas cloud continued to collapse towards its centre, the protosun grew more and more massive. It became denser as well. In time perhaps after many millions of years, gravitational forces caused... Hydrogen in the protosun to fuse and... This fusion gave off energy in the... light. A star - our sun - was born." The periods in the above quote is where the image of the textbook cuts out the words. However, it's clear that this is discussing a spinning *nebula* and has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. What sort of person confuses the origin of the sun with the origin of the universe? Yes, that's a rhetorical question. Obviously Kent Hovind does. Another mistake is to think that the Big Bang was an explosion (@ time-stamp 5:33-5:42 of source 1; Kent asks what exploded). It wasn't an explosion. It needs to be pointed out that there is a very real difference between an explosion and an expansion. When talking about the Big Bang, we are not talking about mixing nitric acid with hydrazine. As a hypothetical, let's say that you have a balloon in your hands. You breathe into the balloon and the balloon expands in size, and the speed of which the balloon expands at, decreases as times goes further on (the more you breathe into it, the more breathless you become). Now imagine that you decide to pop the balloon with a pin, which results in the balloon exploding. The former of these two scenarios is analogous to the Big Bang. In an explosion, an object which is come into contract with this explosion will be moved away from the explosion. The objects themselves are intrinsically being moved because of the force of the explosion. In an expansion, objects themselves are not being moved intrinsically, but the space between an object and the point of expansion is stretched. There's the difference between an expansion and an explosion [5]. I made up my own analogy based off that source. As to where the energy came from, Krauss's work on quantum instabilities and virtual particles looks promising (A Universe from Nothing is a good read), but at this point in time, it is not formally reconciled with the Big Bang theory. We don't know what caused it to happen and we don't know about where the gravity came from either. These are hardly "major" problems with the theory; it's just that we don't know everything there is to know prior to the singularity. The singularity was not spinning; as shown above, that lie was based of Kent Hovind not even being able to correctly read low-level, outdated texts, as he conflated the singularity with a blasted nebula. Subsequently, all of your points about backwards spinning planets, and the law of conservation of angular momentum, is rendered moot. Also, if we look at time-stamp of 14:28 - 16:45 in source [1], Hovind also brings up this conversation of angular momentum nonsense with regards to the moons and planets spinning backwards. Yet you want to claim that you didn't get yoiur arguments from Kent Hovind on this specific issue? Funny that isn't it? Every single one of your points have been from Kent Hovind. Every single one. Doesn't matter if you found a website which repeats talking points from Kent Hovind, the fact remains that the original person who said this nonsense, is in fact Kent Hovind. This took a lot less time than expected, but I think I'll stop here regardless. We can discuss thermodynamics at a later point in time, as you already have a lot to respond to here, and like I said in the comments, thermodynamics is complex and needs some time to properly address it. We've got a large word count if we need to use it, but I think it's best for the both of us if we keep this debate to a manageable size initially. Sources: [1] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.skyandtelescope.com... [4] https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov... [5] https://profmattstrassler.com...