The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

What happens when you get evidence for the big bang? According to my opponent, it seems you cite it as evidence against it. Going through his arguments, it becomes obvious: supposedly rotational curves are evidenceagainstthe Big Bang, yet in actual fact they are argumentsforit. I criticised his claim that because the big bang does not predict X,Y, and my mother's maiden name, this makes the arguments false. Most of his arguments have this feature. The finite explanatory power of the big bang is not evidence against it. Then I go on to point out howrotational speeds(not rotation curve, which is where my opponent is confused) is evidence for the big bang. Note how he simply dismisses this evidence that glaringly contradicts his case precisely because it glaringly contradicts his case. What I am pointing out is my opponent is wrong. This is, frankly, the purpose of debate. What happens when you get an alternative theory? Accept it as fact, and no need to justify them, according to my opponent. Again, he has not justified any contending theory, even when I explicitly say he must do so, for the simple fact that it would i) take up more characters than he has and ii) would make his case actually able to be pinned down. To win this debate, my opponent must pose a counterplan to affirm the resolution. It is not my job to prove false theories: it is my opponent's to prove them right. Now, let's get to the cut and thrust of the debate. Does Dark Matter exist? Rotational Curvesprove that common newtonian physics is not enough. MOND for example is based on this observation. Picking on dark matter is cherry picking. Other theories do not explain rotational speed as well as dark matter. My point onType One Supernovaeis unrefuted and conceded, or my opponent simply did not read the graph. The standard model of the universe before contended cosmology is pointed out. The dashed line is the big bang cosmology. The full line is the big bang model, which is very close to the best line of best fit. The red dots are the type one supernova. The graph plots clearly show the by far most accurate prediction is that of the big bang. Moreover, thegravity lensargument has been dropped and conceded. Nowhere has my opponent referred to it in his argument inanyround. Do Quantized Redshifts exist? Let's just go through what my opponent said. He says both the sources are wrong, if one goes through the full pdf. I'll post it up, as he seems unwilling to[1]. It states the quotation there for anyone to search and see, explicit in the abstract as well as later in the article. This is true for both quotations. Second, quantized redshifts in short prove the existence of a galactocentric universe. This goes contrary to dozens of independent tests. Why is this important? Well, let's imagine we ask a man when a statue was built, he says "I built it, it was built last week". Then we use radio-dating to date the rock: indeed, it was made last week. Then we look at the plaque. It says "last week". Then we use quantum chronodynamocardiomagicography, a new type of testing which isn't too well accepted in the scientific community. It tells us the statue was made four hundred and seventry trillion years and four seconds ago. This disproves the quantum chronoblablabla technique. Similarly, if a theory predicts things that are blatantly, blatantly wrong, like galactocentricity, the theory can be dismissed. Then he claims my evidence is wrong because it was from a respected and documented scientist as it was uncited. Even though the citations are clear at the bottom of the page. There are other websites, equally cited, saying similar[2] (first thing when one googles the statement, so I do not understand the difficulty). If the only criticism is the lack of citation, then this should put the nails in. Redshifts in Quasars My opponent seems to ignore what I put, claiming it is a red herring. To make it explicit, what I contend is that "redshifts are caused primarily by a young object, not by its velocity". The evidence I presented showed very clearly this is false. The lack of engagement here when criticism is so explicit is evident. CMBR OK, let's make it simple here. The argument follows this form: P1 - The Big Bang predicts CMBR as an afterglow of the explosion. P2 - Rationalwiki says this is a former mystery. C1 - Therefore, this disproves the big bang. How does this at all follow? If it still is a mystery, then I addressed this type of argument already (arguments which help no case). If it isn't a mystery, then there is no criticism. Either way, there's no link to a criticism. Evidence for the Big Bang Resources:My opponent gives no evidence that the formation of stars by the well accepted, well documented method is false. I, on the other hand, explained the theory, showed how the evidence promoted the Big Bang, and then concluded. My opponent needs to refute the evidence, or propose a better explanation. Star Composition: See above. I gave averyexplicit explanation to the Big Bang star formation. My opponent must either dispute the fact that stars exist as they do, or give a competing theory. CMBR: See above (section about using evidence for the big bang and claiming that is evidence against it). I gave the primary table which the evidence can be derived from (and is derived from), which proves CMBR to be linked to cosmology. Disagreeing with this needs justification. I can disagree with my opponents evidence, for example, as it is a secondary source by a scientist invested against the Big Bang. The raw data has no such ideology. However, I'm going to exand on this, as the CMBR has many independent reasons for justifying the BBT. To quote Richard Carrier: "Not only did Big Bang Theory predict a microwave background glow, it exactly predicted its temperature. Though there are problems with the exact pattern of that radiation, and though there may yet be other causes for it,[4] no one has demonstrated any better explanation to be correct."[5] Conversly, analysis of the MBR as observed by independent tests confirm, with certainty, that the universe being in a superheated state ~14 billion years ago. The evidence comes from sound waves that pass through the early superheated universe, in such a way that it predicts the existence of roughly 4.5% baryonic matter, which is based on experimentally proven ratios in particle accelerators: exactly what we observe.[6] This is very strong evidence that the universe was once in a superheated state 14 billion years ago, again corroborating the basic elements of the Big Bang Theory. No other theory can explain this acoustic peak. Dark Matter:I made it explicit that I had only few characters left, but my opponent is right: sources don't make an argument. So with more characters left I will make it here. The Integrated Sachs-Wolf Effect has been used by scientists repeatedly to justify the existence of Dark Matter. To simply quote the paper: "[our] detection of the ISW effect provides independent physical evidence for the existence of dark energy"[article previously cited]. My opponent needs reason to discard ISW in order to go against it. Just to discuss the conclusion, my opponent criticises myself for using "non peer-reviews text sourcesas data". Firstly, it is only a single point my opponent disputes. Second, the point itself from the article is a conglomeration of peer-reviewed sources. My opponent claims I have cited from non-existent data, yet the statements are not just in the data I provided, but in the abstract no less. Also, it seems we are now playing the "who made more spelling errors" game. For reference: handidly, not handedly. Same criteria apply, or same criterion applies, notSame criteria applies. Taken the time, not took the time. Pro now goes, not Pro nows goes. With that, I'll pass over to my opponent. 1 -http://arxiv.org... 2 -http://www.ldolphin.org... 3 -http://news.discovery.com... 4 - Hoyle and Burbidge, "A Different Approach to Cosmology,"Physics Today, April 1999, pp. 38, 41 5 - http://www.infidels.org... 6 -http://www.infidels.org...