The Big Bang Theory

I accept the debate and will be arguing in favor of the Big Bang theory. --Critique of harrytruman's arguments--Contention 1: A: "The Big Bang theory says that there was a piece of matter the size of a sugar cube..." 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. B: "...and it blew up..." 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. Contention 2: A: " Why are all the particles exactly even to all like particles, an up quark is equal to all the trillions of up quarks in existence, a down quark is equal to all the down quarks in existence, why?"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. Contention 3: A: "So, consider the next part, hydrogen atoms are too small to pull together to form nebulas, remember here, these were the biggest particles at the time, and if it all blew up they would all be dispersed."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. --In defense of the Big Bang theory--Contention 1: 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. Contention 2: A: "So then this guy Steven hawking"s, as intelligent as he is, decided to form an entirely new theory..."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. --Conclusion--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--Resources--http://www.big-bang-theory.com...http://www.hawking.org.uk...;