Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions

[Divine Insight]

This thread is for both comments and voting on this debate. Comments may be posted here anytime. Please do not vote for a winner until the debate is officially closed. The debate is scheduled to run for no more than 36 posts.

The debate can be found here: My Theory Regarding "Genesis 1" vs "Big Bang - Which theory has been best verified? Wolfbitn Vs Divine

[McCulloch]

First off, I really do not like the OP. I believe that the OP for a debate should specify the question, introduce the debaters and the rules for debate. I believe that it should be as neutral as possible, not the statement of either side's position. But, I might be wrong on this.


Since I have been asked to moderate this debate, I will refrain from commenting on the posts here by either debater, except in reference to their adherence to their own rules.

[Danmark]

Divine Insight is the clear winner of this debate so far.
Wolfbin is advancing an ancient myth as if it were a scientific theory. As silly as that may be, Wolfbin makes his position even more impossible by misinterpreting the text he wants to use for his argument. He says:
"I am THEORIZING that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event,..."
Genesis 1 refers to no 'extinction event.' Genesis refers to a creation event, but there is no reference to an extinction event of any kind until we get to the passages about Noah and the flood.

So at the outset, Wolfbin sets out on an unsupportable premise by misinterpreting Genesis.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 2 by McCulloch]

Sounds good... I would like to ask Mac, if you would mind reminding Divine of rule 4 and rule 5. I have only asked for 5 things, and he states that they are irrelevant. Since he took the side defending the veracity of the BB, He needs to provide these things or concede that he cannot provide them... they are simply

1) what predictions have actually been made utilizing the BB as its basis?

2) how have they been tested, and how many times?

3) What were the parameters adjusted to in the WMAP tests, and did the adjusted parameters resemble ANY known observation?

4) The finished equation of the BB or simply acknowledging it does not exist.


Also I would like for you to address with him Rule 5, wherein it states that misrepresentation of one of the debaters is a disqualifying factor. In his last post, near the very bottom in blue you will find a list of conclusions. I challenge him to post a quote FROM ME, to back his so called conclusions. He is obviously and apparently intentionally attempting to misrepresent what i HAVE said very clearly.

Thank you
Wolfbitn

[Divine Insight]

Just for the record, I spent over an hour working on my post in the debate last night and due to computer problems I lost all my work before I could post it. So I'm going to need to redo it today.

This is actually good because I have a better idea of how to present the information in a more coherent and easily readable fashion. So it will actually end up being a much better post anyway.

But it's going to take quite a bit of time to type it all back in again. So I just thought I'd post the reason for the delay. I won't be able to even get started doing that until later tonight.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

No hurries at all. We have time. I would like for you to address rules 4 and 5 however in with the rest of your post.

I have been very upfront about what this debate is about. So lets drop the misrepresentations.

Other than this, i wish you continued luck

[Divine Insight]

I have been very upfront about what this debate is about. So lets drop the misrepresentations.

It is my understanding that the topic of our debate is to compare you supposed theory with Big Bang Theory.

Your theory VERSUS Big bang Theory

But thus far every time I have attempting to compare your so-called theory with Big Bang Theory you have objected proclaiming that the debate is not about comparing your theory with Big Bang Theory.

So I'm confused concerning precisely what you think our debate is supposed to be about?

Perhaps you could attempt to clarify this?

In your opening post in our debate you clearly stated:

So the debate...

1) WHICH of the 2 have been most tested?
2) Which of the 2 fared better in their respective tests?
3) Which is the BEST overall theory?

It seems to me that in order to address these debate questions we have no choice but to compare your theory directly with Big Bang Theory in a way that we can determine which fairs better.

That has been my focal point all along, but you have already chastised me for doing this proclaiming that the debate is not about comparing your theory with Big Bang Theory.

So I confess that I am thoroughly confused at this point.

In fact, my very next post to the debate is going to focus precisely on bringing attention to bear right back on this comparison between your theory and Big Bang Theory which I believe to be the very topic of the debate itself.

If this is not your understanding of what we are supposed to be debating please speak up and clarify what it is that you believe the debate is suppose to be about.

Thank you.

[Wolfbitn]

Dude...

In 4 threads before the debate thread we discussed this and i was ABSOLUTELY CLEAR I had nothing against BB i just believed it to be overhyped... But my theory does not conflict with the BB... I even stated i believed BB to be a distinct possibility.

Moreover, the subtitle of the thread and the information below was BOTH in the challenge thread, the negotiations, AND the opening post.

Not my fault if you want to assume anything mroe than I said when I was absolutely clear.

Which theory has been best verified? Wolfbitn Vs Divine

...To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.

Cycles of life and extinction are in fact verified in scripture, just as they are verified in stone. We see it here in Genesis 1, Jeremiah 4, Ecclesiastes, Revelation, and certainly implications are made elsewhere...

...If this theory is to be tested, then MUCH of the testing of this theory has already been done for the last hundred years or more... through geology, archeology, as well as the fossil record. All we need do to test this theory is to compare it to all these records that have literally been written in stone and CANNOT be changed. We will test the theory against these findings right here in this thread. ...

...So the debate...

1) WHICH of the 2 have been most tested?
2) Which of the 2 fared better in their respective tests?
3) Which is the BEST overall theory?


Of course I take the side and make the claim that the facts of my theory are better researched and tested and verified than the so called theory of the Big Bang. I believe I can demonstrate that my theory fares FAR better in positive verifiable results when tested. When compared to the testing and results regarding BB, the BB pales. And of course, I believe my theory hands down to be the superior theory between the 2. So we are comparing how each of the 2 theories stand stand when exposed to full light, and which of the 2 theories prove to be the most tested, the most verified, and therefore the most credible.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 7 by Divine Insight]

Dude...

In 4 threads before the debate thread we discussed this and i was ABSOLUTELY CLEAR I had nothing against BB i just believed it to be overhyped... But my theory does not conflict with the BB... I even stated i believed BB to be a distinct possibility.

Moreover, the subtitle of the thread and the information below was BOTH in the challenge thread, the negotiations, AND the opening post.

Not my fault if you want to assume anything mroe than I said when I was absolutely clear.

Which theory has been best verified? Wolfbitn Vs Divine <<<Thats the subtitle.

...To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.

Cycles of life and extinction are in fact verified in scripture, just as they are verified in stone. We see it here in Genesis 1, Jeremiah 4, Ecclesiastes, Revelation, and certainly implications are made elsewhere...

...If this theory is to be tested, then MUCH of the testing of this theory has already been done for the last hundred years or more... through geology, archeology, as well as the fossil record. All we need do to test this theory is to compare it to all these records that have literally been written in stone and CANNOT be changed. We will test the theory against these findings right here in this thread. ...

...So the debate...

1) WHICH of the 2 have been most tested?
2) Which of the 2 fared better in their respective tests?
3) Which is the BEST overall theory?


Of course I take the side and make the claim that the facts of my theory are better researched and tested and verified than the so called theory of the Big Bang. I believe I can demonstrate that my theory fares FAR better in positive verifiable results when tested. When compared to the testing and results regarding BB, the BB pales. And of course, I believe my theory hands down to be the superior theory between the 2. So we are comparing how each of the 2 theories stand stand when exposed to full light, and which of the 2 theories prove to be the most tested, the most verified, and therefore the most credible.

.

[Divine Insight]

Which theory has been best verified? Wolfbitn Vs Divine <<<Thats the subtitle.

Isn't that what I had just said?