Instigator / Pro
1
1382
rating
61
debates
26.23%
won
Topic

Explosions can only destroy

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
0
2
Spelling and grammar points
0
1
Conduct points
1
0

With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...

Ramshutu
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Science
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
6
1758
rating
42
debates
94.05%
won
Description
~ 694 / 5,000

Scientist say that an explosion from nothing created life. Explosions can only destroy. the nuclear bomb can not create life. When America nuked japan we killed people. Nuking something can not cause life to start.

Con has to prove how an explosion can create life. I waive first round.

Fire can only burn

Explosions can only destroy.

This is like saying fire created water

if scientist say explosions can create life. Surely they have evidence for it. I mean why would our government promote propaganda like this.

If you go off topic you forfeit the debate. I don't want to hear how you believe other animals turned into other animals .I want to hear how an explosion can create life.

Round 1
Pro
Waive. This was made out of frustration. I hope you can tell me how an explosion can create life. Ramshutu Good luck
Con
0.) Resolution, terms and Burden

The following should be noted before we begin.

0.1.) “Scientist say that an explosion from nothing created life”

This is simply not true. No scientist say this at all. This statement is an over-simplistic and incredibly misleading misrepresentation on our scientific understanding of the 13.6bn years of cosmic existence.

The Big Bang is the origins of our universe, and life came indirectly from it due to natural processes within that universe.

0.2.) Interpretation of the Burden.

Working under the assumption that pros over simplistic description covered in 0.1 is not intended to be deliberately deceptive; what pro is demanding for this resolution is an explanation of how life can arise abiotically from the Big Bang.

This appears to be the intent of the debate, despite pros use of overly simplistic and loaded colloquial terms.

0.3.) Burden

My burden here is to provide a reasonable explanation of how life could originate naturally from the Big Bang. Due to the character count of 10,000 and the nature of modern knowledge, it’s not possible for me to prove the laws of cosmology, abiogenesis and evolution.

1.) How life came to exist - according to science

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MabLtuTpDw8

1.1.) The “Explosion”

The Big Bang refers to the initial expansion of the universe; during this time the universe was incredibly dense with all the energy that is in the universe in a single, imperceptibly small region of space where all 4 of the fundamental forces appear as manifestations of the same single force.[1]

The “explosion” refers to the expansion of this high energy, high density universe. It is not a chemical or nuclear explosion, as pro implies. The energy and matter in the universe were not propelled in every direction: but the space itself expanded.[2]

Measurements of the universe today indicate that the universe is expanding - meaning in the past it was much closer together.[3]

The evidence shows there was an “explosion” - we can even measure it.

1.2.) Matter, gravity and energy.

The high density and energy within universe produced matter and anti matter, - as through quantum fluctuations energy can be converted to matter -which due to a process called “Charge Parity Violation”, was created in very slightly different amounts, causing the early universe to be full of quarks, which then combined to form protons and electrons.[4][5]

As the initial universe was dense, and hot there was an initial period of cosmic fusion, where most of the observed helium and hydrogen, and some lithium was created. The observed quantities of primordial elements match the predictions of the Big Bang theory.[6]

As the expansion continued; the universe cooled from a hot dense plasma to the point where visible light could pass through without scattering and being absorbed. At this point, the hydrogen was emitting energy based upon its temperature - which we can still observe as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.[7]

The “explosion” leads to the existence of Matter.

1.3.) Coalescence of matter.

Due to minor quantum perturbations, the universe is not completely smooth, and clumps of hydrogen begin unbalancing the gravity in the massive universal cloud of gas: which starts attracting to form the first stars and galaxies.[8]

Through a process of fusion, these massive stars converted helium and hydrogen into elements up to iron - including vast quantities of carbon and oxygen.[9] 

Matter lead to formation of stars.

1.4.) supernovae and heavy elements

Once fusion fuel in the star starts to burn out; many large stars go through a process of going supernovae. Here the star begins to collapse as the energy from fusion no longer counter acts as a balance to the gravity trying to crush the star. The star collapses, but the collapse crushes the matter, producing heat and energy which blows away the top layers of the star, with a massive neutron flux from the core that is capable of breeding elements up to uranium from existing material. The explosion blows the material into space.[10]

The first Stars lead to the creation of heavy elements

1.5.) Clouds form solar systems 

Elemental rich nebulae and clouds formed by super novae begin coalescing due to gravity: in hydrogen rich locations these create new stats, with elemental rich planetary discs of elemental gas.

This gas - through gravity begins coalescing into small specs, then tiny asteroids, then planets of chemically rich make up.[11]

(We’ve observed these forming! [12]) 

Elemental clouds lead to planets.

1.6.) Planets form life

If a planet forms with a make up containing lots of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and many other common elements - and is at a distance from the sun that allows water to exist in liquid form: the energy from the sun can produce basic organic components, such as amino acids[13], nucleic bases[16], and lipids [14]

In conditions with high energy, such as deep sea vents of tidal pools, chemical conditions can produce lipids and produce lipid bilayers, [14] and self assemble chains of RNA [15]

The chemical behaviour of basic phospholipids, single nucleic bases can enter, but chains cannot leave: if a protocol encapsulated RNA, the RNA can grow, which through osmotic pressure will case the lipid bilayer to split in two: causing a primative type of division.[17]
 
As RNA can catalyze it’s own replication in the right structure[18]: if a phospholipid encapsulates a first self replicating RNA. Chain; it will replicate, expand, divide, replicate, expand, divide: producing the first form of proto life.[19]

At this point, the proto-organism becomes subject to selection pressure: the faster it replicates, the faster it can build its lipid structure - the more it can replicate and the more resources it can take: leading to a positive feedback loop of evolution that continues until this day, where these natural process can produce people who claim they owe their existence to magic.[20]

Planetary chemistry leads to life.

Conclusion:

TL;DR: There was a Bang... the energy in the Bang produced matter... matter and gravity produced galaxies and stars... Stars produce heavy elements during explosions... dust clouds with heavy elements produce planets... planets produce life.

Bonus refutations!
 
Fire can only burn”
Fire can be used in redox reactions to produce things like iron and steel.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LM4VOW6xZ5Y

Explosions can only destroy.
Nuclear bombs can produce new elements; both by fission and fusion.
https://theconversation.com/the-search-for-new-elements-on-the-periodic-table-started-with-a-blast-52862

This is like saying fire created water
Fire - literally - produces water. When you burn gas you produce co2 and water.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire


Sources:
[1] http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci/lectures/eraplanck.htm
[2]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/according-to-the-big-bang-1999-10-21/
[3] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/626-how-is-it-proved-that-the-universe-is-expanding-intermediate
[4] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ask-a-question/101-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/general-questions/570-where-did-the-matter-in-the-universe-come-from-intermediate
[5] https://www.britannica.com/science/CP-violation
[6] http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/bbn.html
[7] https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March03/Lineweaver/Lineweaver7_2.html
[8] http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec25.html
[9] https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~gk/A403/nucsyn.pdf
[10] http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ask-a-question/84-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/nuclear-burning/402-how-are-light-and-heavy-elements-formed-advanced
[11] http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/downloads/HET620-M09A01.pdf
[12] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/planets-still-forming-detected-in-a-protoplanetary-disk/
[13] https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/miller-urey-revisited/
[14] https://m.phys.org/news/2018-07-century-old-life-significant-substantiation.html
[15] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9ffd/315d2aacd2d2d50c6d44993d146c09039635.pdf
[16] https://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/
[17] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400067
[18] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/
[19] http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html
[20] https://answersingenesis.org

Round 2
Pro
Thanks ramshutu. I agree with the burden. I appreciate you trying but this makes no sense unless there is god. I don't want to argue how life was formed naturally over time. Which a lot of you points deal in that.



1.1.) The “Explosion”

The only point in this debate that says something is that they can measure that the universe is expanding and claims it can be measured. This and maybe the point below it is the only points that deal with the explosion itself the other is things forming naturally. If this did happen it is God who did it. he created life from nothing. But it make's sense because there is a cause. But Why would space expanded  itself create an explosion that creates chemicals. that create life.



The high density and energy within universe produced matter and anti matter,
Where did the high density and energy come from we are still  at the nothing stage and how did it create matter and anti matter.
You need to explain how an explosion can create something

The Big Bang refers to the initial expansion of the universe; during this time the universe was incredibly dense with all the energy that is in the universe in a single, imperceptibly small region of space where all 4 of the fundamental forces appear as manifestations of the same single force
If a bunch of energy existed. Then you are starting with something and not from nothing.




- as through quantum fluctuations energy can be converted to matter -which due to a process called “Charge Parity Violation”, was created in very slightly different amounts, causing the early universe to be full of quarks, which then combined to form protons and electrons.[4][5]
Who converted it. Who created the processes of charge parity violation. if The laws of the universe states that everything must be perfect stuff must always be proportionate or the same depending on what would logically make sense. clearly the one who wrote the laws is god because nothing can not wright laws. especially laws of physicists that state everything must be perfect.


Charge-Parity violations refer to a problem with something called symmetry in the universe. The term is used in reference to certain types of properties; if these are properties are changed to their opposite and the universe remains the same as it is now, they are said to be symmetric.
You remember what symmetry is with my god measured stuff debates.

As an example, a spatial transformation would mean moving the universe some distance in a certain direction. As the laws of physics are the same everywhere, moving the whole universe 3 miles to the left, for example, would not change anything about the universe – in fact there would be no way to tell anything had changed! We would say the universe is symmetric in terms of space




The Laws of Fundamental Forces in Physics have an EXTREMELY NARROW range of parameters that will result in a Universe that is Life-Sustaining
It is like some SUPERINTELLECT has monkeyed with the Laws of Physics, (as well as with chemistry and biology) so that the Universe WILL sustain Life....

    • will detail some interesting "coincidences" below.... there are just TOO MANY to list all of them

  • PRELUDE

    • But first, let me give you some preliminary information that help you understand/appreciate these findings

    • The four fundamental forces where discovered and measured EMPIRICALLY and INDEPENDENTLY

    • That means that:

      • There is NO OBVIOUS RELATIONSHIP between these four forces.

    • With the advent of powerful computers, Physicists studied the effect when the STRENGTH of some force is changed
    • The findings are nothing more than amazing....


  • Changing the Strength of the Gravitational force

    • The gravitational force pulls all matters together.

    • hydrogen atoms are compressed together under the tremendous gravitational pull and the outer electrons are stripped by the tremendous heath. The remaining protons are converted to alpha particals (He-4) in the proton-proton cycle: click here

    • The gravitational force is 1039 times weaker that electro-magnetic force.


    • Making gravitational force stronger:



  • Measuring the universe expanding


    Astronomers observed that light from distant objects in the universe is redshifted (shift in the frequency of light towards red color), which tells us that the objects are all receding away from us. This is true in whatever direction you look at: all the distant galaxies are going away from us. This can only be due to the fact that the Universe is expanding.
     The universe  expanding does not mean the big bang happened. Why did space decide to start expanding in the first place. What caused space to start expanding. why would space expanding cause life to start. plus all there really measuring  is objects are moving. And we conclude that must mean space is expanding.

    Conclusion

    the big bang happens and all he chemicals form because the laws of physics states everything must be perfect and constant. ????
    If this did happen it would be god. I might concede because it is god who did this.Mind you i don't think the natural process happened. i don't think it happened over millions of years.




    The stuff after the explosion created the chemicals is irrelevant to the topic. This debate is strictly how an explosion created stuff.

    These points irrelevant to debate


    1.3.) Coalescence of matter.


    supernovae and heavy elements


    ) Clouds form solar systems 


    Planets form life




    Explosions can only destroy.
    Nuclear bombs can produce new elements; both by fission and fusion.
    This is not what i meant but con meets the burden of proof explosion do not just destroy. What i was trying to get answered has not been answered.You have not proved the big bang is real but you proved that an nuke bomb had material for chemicals and the material turned into chemicals. Which meets the burden of proof that i have explosions can only destroy. note the bomb already had the material for the chemicals inside the bomb. It is not something coming from nothing.But it still counts


    plus the big bang would start expanding back on itself. If it happened like scientist say.


  • Density of WATER

    • The ONLY substance whose density is LOWER in the SOLID state than in the LIQUID state is WATER
      Consequently: Ice FLOATS on water

    • This very nature of water is vital to LIFE and is Unique among ALL molecules:

      If ice did not float on water, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up because ice - when frozen - will SINK to the bottom and CANNOT be MELTED by sun's rays !
      The earth would now be covered with solid ice.
      ---- Barrow and Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: OUP, 1988, pp143-144, 524-541.
      --- Also Cf. D. Wilkinson, Our Universes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp171-172.


    • Why is water unique in this respect ?
      The "scientific explanation" goes into the crystal structure of ice and so on.
      But what should the crystal structure of ice have this special property and all other crystal structures do not ???
      It is as if someone foresaw that without this property, there won't be life and DESIGNED this property into the Universe so that life CAN exist....

  • I can name a bunch of these coincidences. No relevance



    Con
    0.) Burden

    Pro accepts my burden, and dropsall other points. Pro agrees I do not have prove each intricate detail of modern cosmology. As pro does not challenge my interpretation of the resolution - this should stand.

    1.) How did...
    “You need to explain how an explosion can create something”
    “why would space expanding cause life to start”

    Pro asks this several times - I refer him back to points 1.1 -1.6 where this is covered in broad detail.

    Pro does not challenge the explanation by offering evidence that some aspect of my explanation impossible; instead Pro offers the three following types of argument:

    2.) Goddidit....
    “If this did happen it is God who did it. he created life from nothing. But it make's sense because there is a cause.”
    “You remember what symmetry is with my god measured stuff debates.”
    “If this did happen it would be god. I might concede because it is god who did this.Mind you i don't think the natural process happened.”

    In the last round, I provided six explained stages, combined with confirmatory evidence. Vehemently claiming that Goddidit, with no explanation, and no evidence can be dismissed as bare assertions.

    Whether or not God did it or not, is irrelevant to the resolution: that it is possible for the Big Bang “explosion” to create things.

    3.) But why did..
    “Why would space expanded itself create an explosion that creates chemicals. that create life.”
    “Where did the high density and energy come from we are still  at the nothing stage and how did it create matter and anti matter.”
    “Who converted it. Who created the processes of charge parity violation”

    As pro agrees at the start, I do not have the burden to prove the entire laws of physics; just to provide a reasonable explanation of how the big bang could lead to life. 

    What pro is doing here is moving the goal posts by demanding that I explain not just how the Big Bang could produce life, but also to explain why the laws of physics are the way they are. This should obviously be rejected as unrelated to the resolution.

    4.) Something from nothing.

    Pro seems incredulous at how something could come from nothing.

    This is again moving the goal posts and mostly irrelevant to the resolution. The “Explosion” was not “nothing”, it was the expansion of space and time, with vast quantities of energy. The resolution does not require me to explain where the explosion came from.

    Pros argument here is like demanding that I explain how a piece of metal could destroy a city; then when I explain the details of nuclear fission weaponry; then going on to demand that I explain where the metal came from.

    5.) The universe would have collapsed.

    Pro asserts that the universe would have collapsed by now if it the Big Bang happened.

    Pros source states : 
    IF the density of the matter is equal to 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,017 mg/cc, the Universe would have collapsed by now.
    It then goes on to explain the density of the universe is less than this: thus pros own source conflicts with his claim.

    Summary:

    • Pro agreed to the burden of proof, I provided my burden of proof.
    • Instead of responding pro instead tries to move the goal posts.
    • Pro offers no specific counter claims.
    • Pro simply asserts Goddidit

    Round 3
    Pro
    1.) How did...
    “You need to explain how an explosion can create something”
    “why would space expanding cause life to start”

    Pro asks this several times - I refer him back to points 1.1 -1.6 where this is covered in broad detail.

    Pro does not challenge the explanation by offering evidence that some aspect of my explanation impossible; instead Pro offers the three following types of argument:
    You did not explain how a bunch of chemicals can come from nothing.Given my last rebuttal



    ) Goddidit....
    “If this did happen it is God who did it. he created life from nothing. But it make's sense because there is a cause.”
    “You remember what symmetry is with my god measured stuff debates.”
    “If this did happen it would be god. I might concede because it is god who did this.Mind you i don't think the natural process happened.”

    In the last round, I provided six explained stages, combined with confirmatory evidence. Vehemently claiming that Goddidit, with no explanation, and no evidence can be dismissed as bare assertions.
    Whether or not God did it or not, is irrelevant to the resolution: that it is possible for the Big Bang “explosion” to create things.
    I stand by my i don't want to talk about how thing's came naturally.


    Something from nothing.

    Pro seems incredulous at how something could come from nothing.

    This is again moving the goal posts
    This is the entire reason why i created the debate. to find out how nothing can create life.


    The “Explosion” was not “nothing”, it was the expansion of space and time, with vast quantities of energy. The resolution does not require me to explain where the explosion came from.
    I am talking about the people who did say it came from nothing. i am aware they have changed it but i am specifically talking about people who say this


    That clip was from national geographic so.

    5.) The universe would have collapsed.

    My mistake.

    The universe would collapse at this number of matter

    447,225,917,218,507,401,284,017 mg/cc

    It has been  precisely dialed to be  right below the number above so life can happen
    447,225,917,218,507,401,284,015 mg/cc




    It has been precisely dialed it is only 2 mg off.

    HOWEVER, IF the density of the matter is equal to 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,017 mg/cc, the Universe would have collapsed by now.

  • AND FURTHERMORE, IF the density of the matter is equal to 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,015 mg/cc, the current density of the Universe (that we observe NOW) should be LESS than 10-20
  • Believe it or not, current observed density of the Universe is between 0.1 and 10.....
  • For THIS to happen, the density of the Universe must be set to PRECISELY 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,015 mg/cc - UPTO 24 DIGIT ACCURACY !!! - at 1 nsec after the Big Bang

  • Con provided my burden of proof. With the nuke explosion  thing.Though this has nothing to do with it. Con wins on technicality.


    Explosions can only destroy.
    Nuclear bombs can produce new elements; both by fission and fusion.


    Con
    0.) Resolution and Moving the goal posts.

    The debate resolution states:
    Explosions can only destroy
    In the description, pro listed cons burden as:

    Con has to prove how an explosion can create life. I waive first round.

    I want to hear how an explosion can create life.

    In round 1; I clarified the burden and resolution - pro dropped this point.

    Pros demands that in addition to showing the Big Bang can produce life - shown in R1 - I must show how the explosion can come from nothing - is moving the goal posts and not covered in the resolution. This should be rejected by voters.

    As a result, I have clearly satisfied my burden of proof.

    In terms of something coming from nothing - pro is asking a loaded question. No credible scientific theory postulates ex-nihilio creation. The Big Bang is a theory that is based upon assuming pre-existing energy exists[1], inflation and quantum fluctuation theories are based upon pre-existing physics and novel forms of energy that drive a transition[2]. Hawkins/Hartle model implies that there was no creation event at all (that there is no before the Big Bang).[3]

    All have a universe that has a starting point of something. Though explanations such as inflation allow most of the energy we see today be converted from the gravitational expansion [2].

    Even pros own source from the last round claims the universe came from an “infinitesimally small nugget of space” - which is not nothing.

    So in this respect, pro is really asking a nonsensical loaded question, being used as a straw man that should be rejected.

    5.) The universe would have collapsed

    Pros only technical objection to the claims of the Big Bang was that the universe would have collapsed. Pro agrees that he misunderstood his own source, and this is not what it says.

    Given this, he has rescinded his claim that  he universe would have collapsed and thus, has no remaining technical objection (his objection is now that the universe is simply balanced).

    Voting issues:

    Arguments: I have clearly provided a detailed explanation of how an explosion - namely the Big Bang - can be creative. I also showed his other claims in the description are false too.

    Pro has no counter argument to this other than attempts to move the debate to talking about something coming from nothing.

    Sources: I have provided excellent scientific sources throughout, pro has misquoted at least one of his poor religious sources.

    Conduct: pro has continually attempted to move the goal posts, change the debate resolution after the fact and by mentioning God has driven the debate off topic: which according to pros own rules should be treated as a forfeit.

    Sources: