Instigator / Pro

RandomChristian6395

1500

rating

debates

0.0%

won

Topic

#5957

The Big Bang didn’t happen

Status

Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

Mall

Tags

Christian

atheist

Creation

BigBang

Parameters

Publication date: 02.16.2025 10:06PM
Last updated date: 03.13.2025 02:27PM
Type: Standard
Number of rounds: 3
Time for argument: Three days
Max argument characters: 10,000
Voting period: Two weeks
Point system: Multiple criterions
Voting system: Open

Contender / Con

Mall

1389

rating

413

debates

44.55%

won

Description

The big band and evolution are messed up propagandas the world tries to shove down our throats without enough evidence.

Round 1

RandomChristian6395

02.17.2025 04:24AM

Pro

Hi! Thanks for agreeing to debate with me!

People take the Big Bang theory for a fact while it remains as really just a theory. And most facts don’t match up with it, such as:

The odds:

The complexity of cells:

The Big Bang theory claims that essentially gas and particles were basically the only things in existence and they somehow made a big band that created life and matter.

I had a section in pages 70-81 in my book, “It couldn’t just happen” by Lawrence O Richards,

About the complexity of cells but I looked it up and found this online: http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Complexity-of-the-Cell.pdf it’s long and I didn’t read much of it, I’m not asking you to read it either it looks extensive but educational and I’ll probably read it eventually (it’s 24 pages).

But I couldn’t find a copy of my book’s text so I’ll quote some. In summary:

A lot goes into a living cell:

A living cell needs 29 different kinds of amino acid for the protein. Scientists have tried to replicate those acids and have succeeded, but after 30+ years of experiments, 3 amino acids had not been made chemically-even in experiments designed to produce them! Also the way some of the acids must be made in a test tube, (using heat, gases, electricity, or ultraviolet rays) would destroy other amino acids (via the heat or other acids usually). So the chances of all 29 existing and surviving in the same place outside of a cell to create a cell is slim.
Lipids: Cells need some “essential fatty acids” that cannot be produced in the body from other compounds but must come from eating proteins that already contain them.
Porphyrin: An important molecule in hemoglobin, the element in red blood cells that carries oxygen. There must’ve been porphyrins for life to survive, without them oxygen breaks down the other chemicals in a cell. But porphyrin-like chemicals can only be made when there is free oxygen available. Amino acids can only be made where there’s no free oxygen, but Porphyrin is the opposite, so these two things could not have existed together to form the first cell. What’s more, many of these compounds will combine to destroy each other anywhere except within the living cell!
DNA: To make DNA, you need DNA and all cells have it, where’d the first get it?

My book goes on to talk about proteins are chains of amino acids, with between 100 and 50,000 different amino links in each chain. There are an average of 400 amino acid links in the smallest living things. These acids have side groups, all in living things are on the “left side,” but half of the ones scientists produced were on the “right handed,” etc. I don’t understand it all. 😅

Using the probability theory, the chances of the smallest possible living thing just happening to have only left handed amino acids would be one in ten-followed by 123 zeros!

These chance of an amino acid chain with 400 units long happening by chance would be one in 10-followed by 240 zeros.

One mathematician figured that even if chemicals combined 150-thousand trillion times faster than they do in living things, and used all the chemical atoms on earth, there would only be one chance in the history of the earth!

If all the atoms in the universe were made into the chemicals from which DNA was formed, and were put together again and again at 8-trillion chains a second, the chance of a single DNA gene being formed would be ten-followed by 147 zeros years. To calculate that time another person imagined a snail moving so slowly that it took 3,810,000,000,000,000,000, years to travel one inch, if the snail carried one atom across the 30-billion light yeof our universe, it would take him about 4x10-followed by 125 zeros-years to produce a gene! Dr James F. Coppedge explains some of these in his book “Evolution: Possible or Impossible?”

Looking at the article I linked above it goes into detail on some things and adds a few I didn’t mention, if you want to check it out, here’s a little table of contents:

“left handed cells” -pg. 5
More odds: pg. 6-8
DNA- pg. 15-17

Around 1953 Stanley Miller tried to create life in his lab and couldn’t, the details of his experiment are on pg. 10-13.

Placement and order

The second law of Thermodynamics or the law of entropy says that anything that is organized tends to become disorganized and has been found to really apply to every physical process. The orderly world couldn’t have developed from chaos!
If the world had been slightly closer or farther to the sun, bigger or smaller, we couldn’t exist, the settings are too perfect! The earth also ended up being the planet with all the resources to have everything we have today! Jupiter stops lots of asteroids from hitting us, etc.
All humans, animals, and plants are interconnected to balance, feed, and support the ecosystems and each other, like in animals mutualism, when animals team up to help each other, etc.

Conclusion: It all points to a Creator

Life can only produce life
Such fine tuning isn’t an accident, there’s nothing that affects our living conditions on earth except death and sin. Even if the Big Bang was real, we’d probably be living in a harsh, hard to live in environment and the chances that we’d make it are so slim.
The Bible points to God as the creator and sustainer of life.

It seems like Science is always changing, and making generalizations, what’s fact one second is proven wrong the next, it’s not a reliable source. However, the Bible has been unchanging for over 20 centuries.

Anyway What do you think?

(The “it couldn’t just happen book”, the Bible, and the link are the main sources I used I believe those are about it.)

Mall

02.19.2025 04:19PM

Con

"Anyway What do you think?"

I think there is no proof known that the "big bang" didn't happen.

Hence we're here and not just here but here in a parlay of it.

There is no proof broached and none presented by you.

So an assertive statement of it not happening is fallacious.

If you are going to argue a creator, an individual supernatural or Almighty entity is the cause of all existing, it still doesn't have to mean a bang didn't happen.

This entity could have done what people can refer to as a bang such as a bang of light and there was light.

So the two ideas don't have to contradict but can coincide, parallel, etc .

That's as about as far as it goes. If you say it can't, feel free to argue that next round.

Then there's the idea of parallel universes or multiple worlds and universes and the notion that everything always was.

You can explore that as well.

Round 2

RandomChristian6395

02.19.2025 07:38PM

Pro

“I think there is no proof known that the "big bang" didn't happen”

Yes, the truth is none of us can for sure stand with certainty and say they know what happened because yeah, we weren’t there. And I certainly don’t know for sure, and there’s no concrete ‘proof,’ what I meant was that the odds are slim and the world is shaped with such intentionality that it’s hard to believe it happened by mere chance.

“If you are going to argue a creator, an individual supernatural or Almighty entity is the cause of all existing, it still doesn't have to mean a bang didn't happen.
This entity could have done what people can refer to as a bang such as a bang of light and there was light.”

Yeah everything is made to fit together in such a way that you can tell it’s intentional. Everything’s TOO precise to be an accident!

Fun fact: The Bible says “the heavens declare the glory of God,” and scientists have found stars singing!!

No, people try to justify the Big Bang around God but the Bible says that God spoke and there was light, If he’d wanted a big bang, he could’ve made it that way, but all he indicates is that he spoke. The Bible also says he commanded everything to produce after its own kind and that there was evening and there was morning, seven actual days. Refuting evolution. The Bible has been historically accurate, archaeologically accurate, translationally accurate, and more for more than 2,000 years!

Answers in Genesis is a great site full of answers to questions about creation, here’s one I just found, whether you believe in the Bible or not it has some ways that the Big Bang theory errors scientifically, just if you’d like to check it out: https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/

“Then there's the idea of parallel universes or multiple worlds and universes and the notion that everything always was. You can explore that as well.”

Well, I’m here to talk about the Big Bang mostly, that whole way of thinking is strange, I don’t believe it but idk any out of pocket facts to support or deny and idk what you believe and would like me to say. I’ll leave it there.

But really aren’t debates supposed to be two sided? What other facts/opinions/ect to you have to support your claim that the Big Bang happened or multiple universes exist? (If you’re on board with the multi-universe thing)

Mall

02.22.2025 02:04PM

Con

"what I meant was that the odds are slim and the world is shaped with such intentionality that it’s hard to believe it happened by mere chance."

This is different from the topic statement. The topic statement is presented and asserted as a matter of fact.

"No, people try to justify the Big Bang around God but the Bible says that God spoke and there was light, If he’d wanted a big bang, he could’ve made it that way, but all he indicates is that he spoke. "

Still doesn't mean when the light came it wasn't a bang . Scripture is not going to detail every single detail of everything.

"But really aren’t debates supposed to be two sided? What other facts/opinions/ect to you have to support your claim that the Big Bang happened or multiple universes exist? "

It depends on the terms of the debate. I see no where it was stated I had to prove anything. On top of that, I haven't made any assertive absolute statements to prove. However, you have in your short description and title. Now you're backpedaling on that.

So you haven't disproven the big bang. I have however demonstrated that the biblically account and an event called the "big bang" don't necessarily have to contradict.

Round 3

RandomChristian6395

02.25.2025 12:03AM

Pro

“Still doesn't mean when the light came it wasn't a bang . Scripture is not going to detail every single detail of everything“

I linked an article last time talking about how the Big Bang and the Bible don’t fit together. It doesn’t even match up scientifically.

“what I meant was that the odds are slim and the world is shaped with such intentionality that it’s hard to believe it happened by mere chance."
This is different from the topic statement. The topic statement is presented and asserted as a matter of fact

I was borrowing from your perspective.

Idk what you mean by “topic statement” like I said before I believe the Big Bang didn’t happen, you’re con, you believe it did.

From your perspective in my words: If the Big Bang happened the chances would be slim.

From my perspective: The Big Bang didn’t happen.

One reason I said what I said is I began to act in round one like I knew for a fact that it didn’t happen, which I don’t that’s what I meant. Idk for a fact, you don’t know for a fact, we weren’t there but the evidence stacks up against it and if you pick it apart. the theory’s hollow on the inside and collapses.

Pls read this article that gives evidence against the big bang using science and the Bible: https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/

It depends on the terms of the debate. I see no where it was stated I had to prove anything. On top of that, I haven't made any assertive absolute statements to prove. However, you have in your short description and title. Now you're backpedaling on that.

I’m brand new to this site and debating, I didn’t mean I wanted someone to critique me, I wanted someone to DEBATE me. If I was supposed to word it differently or say “debate me” in the description I’m sorry, I’m unfamiliar with this website, I’ll be more clear next time. I figured because it was debate art I didn’t need to specify.

I made my point clear in round two that if you had facts you could state them and you’re still silent. Nobody can give video evidence for whether or not the Big Bang happened, I added my evidence against, do you have any evidence to support? Why’d you sign up for this conversation?

And I was asking you to give reasons because it was supposed to be a debate, if you don’t want to debate, okay, we can come to that conclusion and be done.

Yeah, you haven’t made any statements, how come?

I have what in my description and title? I believe my statement. I never said I didn’t, I’ve linked resources, I’ve given evidence against the Big Bang, what more do you want? Just because I borrowed from your perspective doesn’t mean anything, debaters use it all the time. If I muttered that I know for a fact and God told me personally that it didn’t happen then I’d be lying. But it’s my belief that it didn’t happen, there’s evidence, there you go, I wasn’t there but I have evidence. You weren’t there but where’s yours? Did you come to take advantage of me because I’m a beginner?? Other people don’t specify and put in their descriptions in bold print “I want a debate or why don’t you critique my debating skills?

So you haven't disproven the big bang. I have however demonstrated that the biblically account and an event called the "big bang" don't necessarily have to contradict

I’ve given facts against it, but I’m not a scientist, I can’t pull out my math and diagrams and solidly PROVE anything. I can only give facts and evidence, if that doesn’t satisfy you, what will? Whereas you’ve just made a claim that they might agree, I gave you a good link to an article against it, but now you almost seem to be awarding yourself as the winner for a statement of opinion, I can say “the big bang didn’t happen,” but where’s my evidence? I gave facts and info from professionals who’ve spent their life studying this. You say “the big bang and the Bible could agree,” but where’s your facts and evidence? You haven’t given any. And you’re praising yourself for your opinion?

Sorry if I come across as frustrated idk how to word it, I’m just confused.

Anyway thanks for debating with me, have a great day!

Mall

02.27.2025 02:27PM

Con

I'm"I linked an article last time talking about how the Big Bang and the Bible don’t fit together. It doesn’t even match up scientifically."

Still does not prove that when the scripture said"and there was light ", an actual bang didn't occur.

You have not disproven that and can't really because you didn't observe it. Whom wrote the article didn't observe it. See, I'm sure you will select material that will support your position but the other material that exists and literature that reconciles things, you will reject but would be just as creditable and sound.

"Idk what you mean by “topic statement” like I said before I believe the Big Bang didn’t happen, you’re con, you believe it did."

The topic statement is presented as a matter of fact. I understand you recant that . Me being con is that I'm opposed to the presented "matter of fact" statement.

When you say something didn't happen and it hasn't been proven it has not happened, that's a fallacious statement in and of itself. It's like saying the afterlife doesn't itself. You don't know so how can you correctly say it doesn't?

So I'm against the statement you made. Just because I'm against it, it doesn't mean I'm saying a matter of fact the so called big bang did occur.

Your position: the big bang didn't happen.

My position: inconclusive

Your statement is presented in a conclusive fashion.

So if you want to communicate your beliefs properly, in this case, the topic could of read instead, something among those lines of "my arguments against the bang, big bang are solid or irrefutable".

There in that statement, you're not saying it didn't happen.

From what I'm getting, you just believe it didn't happen, you're not saying it didn't.

But that is what the topic is saying. It's saying it didn't.

I hope you have better understanding of how you're communicating all this and what I'm saying.

"From your perspective in my words: If the Big Bang happened the chances would be slim. "

Incorrect. My position is inconclusive or unknown.

"From my perspective: The Big Bang didn’t happen."

This is not considered nor consistent. You believe it didn't happen. It's not flat out in an absolute statement.

"but the evidence stacks up against it and if you pick it apart. the theory’s hollow on the inside and collapses."

There is no evidence. Only arguments. I want you to make this distinction. You are arguing for what you say it is . If we had evidence, there be nothing to argue about. It would be what it is with no contest unless just denial of the truth.

"Pls read this article that gives evidence against the big bang using science and the Bible: https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/ "

This is no evidence unless whom wrote this was actually there when the event happened. This is again, argumentation. Which is different from evidence.

So get me somebody that was there to actually prove it, not argue about it.

"I’m brand new to this site and debating, I didn’t mean I wanted someone to critique me, I wanted someone to DEBATE me. If I was supposed to word it differently or say “debate me” in the description I’m sorry, I’m unfamiliar with this website, I’ll be more clear next time. I figured because it was debate art I didn’t need to specify."

My critique as you call it is my debate. Now , you are to always specify and be specific as possible. Especially debating. Words are very, very,very, very important and are the building components of an argument.

"I made my point clear in round two that if you had facts you could state them and you’re still silent."

Here's the fact I can state. You have not proven the big bang as it's called did not happen. It's also another fact that it occuring doesn't necessarily contradict the biblical account. You not accepting that doesn't disprove it

"Nobody can give video evidence for whether or not the Big Bang happened, I added my evidence against, do you have any evidence to support?"

There is no evidence for it happening or not, only argumentations.

"Why’d you sign up for this conversation?"

To challenge your matter of fact statement. To prove that you really don't have evidence but argumentation and your argumentation fails.

"And I was asking you to give reasons because it was supposed to be a debate, if you don’t want to debate, okay, we can come to that conclusion and be done."

Are we not opposing, disputing and disagreeing?

Is this not what this back and forth is? It's debating.

A debate doesn't have to go the way you want it to go for it to debate. You just need constant opposing and attempts of each one contradicting the other which has been going on since round one my friend.

"Yeah, you haven’t made any statements, how come?"

That's a lie. Every where you see a period I've placed would be a statement I've made.

"I’ve given evidence against the Big Bang, what more do you want? "

Concede that you've given no evidence but argumentation.

"But it’s my belief that it didn’t happen, there’s evidence, there you go, I wasn’t there but I have evidence. You weren’t there but where’s yours?

Neither of us witnessed the event so neither of us have evidence. Any article you read , the person who published it wasn't there , that person has no evidence. He or she has their thought process, idea, theory, suggestion. None of this is evidence. Don't conflate it.

"Did you come to take advantage of me because I’m a beginner?? Other people don’t specify and put in their descriptions in bold print “I want a debate or why don’t you critique my debating skills?"

You can look at it as critique. I'm just participating in a debate comrade.

" I’ve given facts against it, but I’m not a scientist, I can’t pull out my math and diagrams and solidly PROVE anything. "

Ok now I got your conceding. Behold audience. Don't be bias this time. Just once, the opposing side has admitted the opposing case cannot be proven. So this contradicts every instance you said you have evidence, thanks.

This also demonstrates the error in making the topic statement. Saying something didn't happen and you can't prove it.

Also, don't take these discussions harshly. You make sure your skin is thicker than rump roast when you're in here . Take note of that with you along the way .

"I can only give facts and evidence, if that doesn’t satisfy you, what will?"

This contradiction does. You just said "I can’t pull out my math and diagrams and solidly PROVE anything. "

You either prove or you don't. No fussing with the so called"solidly " or not.

" I can say “the big bang didn’t happen,” but where’s my evidence? I gave facts and info from professionals who’ve spent their life studying this. You say “the big bang and the Bible could agree,” but where’s your facts and evidence? You haven’t given any. And you’re praising yourself for your opinion?

Sorry if I come across as frustrated idk how to word it, I’m just confused.

Anyway thanks for debating with me, have a great day!"

My facts and evidence is your admittance to fail at proving the topic statement.

The following you said: You just said "I can’t pull out my math and diagrams and solidly PROVE anything. "

fauxlaw

03.11.2025 10:27PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

The Resolution offered by Pro, is an emphatic negation of Big Bang theory, as describes its alternative by description as creation by God, then launches R1 wit a discussion oof cellular complexity and DNA, as if these can only be existent due to creation by God, putting the Big Bang into the category of non-cause of cellular activity and presence of DNA. Pro then buries their entires argument by acknowledgment in R2 that no one was around at the alleged Big Bang, so we don't know for sure whether it happened, or not. pro never recovered from that admission. Con's argument that though the creation by God was possible, it did not discount that creation may have occurred by tree Big Bang. Pro failed to discount that explanation. Argument to Con.
Sourcing was a problem for both participants.pro seems to have written a book on the subject [?], but was unable to "find a copy" to cite from, and it's subject of cellar activity and DNA seems to have been off-topic relative to supporting the Resolution, so it is of little value. Con's reference to a website offering a biblical rather than Big Bang explanation was never cited specifically other than referencing the website, so failed to be supportive of the Con argument. Tie on sourcing.
Con's argument was more scarified than Pro's. Point to Con.
Both participants demonstrated good conduct.

Moozer325

03.07.2025 04:09PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

As much as I hate to give the win to Mall due to his complete lack of participation in the debate, Pro kinda ranked themselves with their resolution.

Burden of proof rests with Pro unless specified otherwise, and Prop failed to prove beyond any doubt that the Big Bang did not and could not happen. A better resolution would be “the Big Bang is unlikely to have happened”

Pro had better sources though, so Kudos on that one. Many people on this site ignore the sources point.

On a more personal note, I hope that your debate with Mall didn’t completely turn you off from this site Pro. There’s a lot of really good debaters here, and Mall is not one of them. My advice is to just not accept his debates in the future. If no one else has yet, let me also be the first to welcome you to the site!