Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:23 am

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

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:34 pm

[Replying to post 50 by Divine Insight]

Thanks Divine, im on my way

.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 7:54 pm

Wolfbitn wrote:
Danmark wrote:
Wolfbitn wrote: [Replying to post 41 by Danmark]

In post 14 of this thread you quoted me as saying...
From post 14
BTW, I can't imagine how Divine Insight could be more exact in describing the debate. For proof, one only needs look at your opening of the One on one debate:
"I can demonstrate that Genesis 1 IS more scientifically valid and better tested than string theory/Big Bang in regards to it's relation to my theory."
In THIS thread this is what will be examined.

That is nowhere to be seen here... That is nowhere to be seen anywhere... so why are you saying I said this?
Here is where you said it:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 04&start=0

'"I can demonstrate that Genesis 1 IS more scientifically valid and better tested than string theory/Big Bang in regards to it's relation to my theory."
In THIS thread this is what will be examined.'

I see... so you are taking the quote out of context,

First you uncategorically deny saying it at all. When again you are exposed for having said it, you say it is 'taken out of context.'

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:08 pm

Dan,

If you could, I would very much appreciate it if you would take the time to read my latest post to the actual debate - Post #12

Post 12

It's a humongous post, but I think it's worth the read.

postroad · Post by **postroad** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 8:22 pm

Am I missing something here folks?

Because science has more actual evidence that earth experienced near extinction events than it does for the BB theory, then the Genesis account must be correct because it is so flexible in its interpretation that it can be shoehorned into the existing evidence for an extinction events which is more conclusive than the evidence for the BB theory?

Is that what it boils down to?

This must be more of a conflict in differing doctrines than a science vs. theism debate?

More of a Genesis is a story about an extinction event versus Genesis is a story of a creation event.

One noted theologian had this to say on the matter

3.Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:37 pm

Divine Insight wrote: Dan,

If you could, I would very much appreciate it if you would take the time to read my latest post to the actual debate - Post #12

Post 12

It's a humongous post, but I think it's worth the read.

I read it. I thought the 6 item box at the the beginning was a great and accurate summary. There's no contest.

The only difficulty is you are debating with someone who has no trouble denying what's he's said and has no compunction about about going back and forth with his views, denying the obvious, then insisting that once you've proved something you have to start over as if he's never heard it.

Toward the end you have a representative quote from him that proves the case:

Quoting Wolfbit:
"5) He does not understand that these are NOT competing theories, we are simply debating which has been tested most, and which has held up better under testing, and therefore which is the superior theory."

Here he denies the very essence of the debate. It's incredible.
As you say:

"Are you kidding me?

Of course I know that Big Bang Theory is not in competition with your personal opinionated theological ramblings.

But in this debate you want to compare your theological ramblings against Big Bang Theory to see which is the better tested theory. And so this is what we need to do in this debate."

The words of General Welch come to mind at the end of the McCarthy hearings, as he dealt with similar tactics from Joe McCarthy:

"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~lillsie/McCar ... nfall.html

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 10:07 pm

I just clicked on "view results" for the voting and noticed that people are voting for a winner already. I kind of suspected they would vote prematurely.

Two people have voted for Wolfbitn if you can believe that.

Come on people.

I'm sure there are many theists on here who will no doubt vote for Wolfbitn simply because they hate my guts.

I should have expected as much.

I think it's also true that a lot of people will see this as somehow being a debate between a "Christian" and an "Atheist" and just vote based on that bias as well.

So I'm not sure how meaningful this poll is actually going to be.

It's clearly already not meaningful since four people have voted and the debate isn't even over yet.

Oh well, if the poll ends up saying that I lost the debate at the end I'll guess I'll have to suck that up.

But this is ridiculous. Wolfbitn does not even have a theory, much less a credible one.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 11:56 pm

Divine Insight wrote: I just clicked on "view results" for the voting and noticed that people are voting for a winner already. I kind of suspected they would vote prematurely.

Two people have voted for Wolfbitn if you can believe that.

One of them must have been Wolfbit.

Obviously they aren't voting on the debate, but on affiliation. You and I should be embarrassed to ever even respond to him, let alone debate him. It's a symptom of how boring it's been here lately.

'I'm ready to retire undefeated.' Sound like anyone you know?

BTW, I had two middle aged men dressed in suits come by today. Obviously JW's. They were very nice and acknowledged I hadn't expected them. I was in a good mood. So I smiled and said it was only fair to tell them I was a 'non theist' and debating these issues was a hobby of mine; that I was happy to engage, but that they really didn't want to waste their time with someone like me. They smiled and asked what a 'non theist was.' I said, 'it's just a polite way of saying atheist.' They thanked me. We all smiled. They left.

This was better than the last time. It was a couple of young women JW's. When I told them I was an atheist and believed it with the same passion they had for their beliefs, one of them started to cry. I don't like to make people cry. W's prob'ly crying, but I can live with that.

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:07 am

postroad wrote: Am I missing something here folks?

Because science has more actual evidence that earth experienced near extinction events than it does for the BB theory, then the Genesis account must be correct because it is so flexible in its interpretation that it can be shoehorned into the existing evidence for an extinction events which is more conclusive than the evidence for the BB theory?

Is that what it boils down to?

This must be more of a conflict in differing doctrines than a science vs. theism debate?

More of a Genesis is a story about an extinction event versus Genesis is a story of a creation event.

One noted theologian had this to say on the matter

3.Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

And several more theologians have just the opposite to say about it.

The way the bible is run down on this site publically its about time someone pointed out what it really does say

AND its about time someone pointed out the facts of the BB and Evolution that conflict with what is observed and noted.

And its about time to show Genesis 1 is more scientifically sound in the events it DOES proclaim, than either the BB or Evolution.

It is MUCH more thoroughly tested when you put the entire fossil record beside it, than the BB, and it is obviously still standing. every earth science declares it is not falsified... it is therefore still verified to hold water.

It will be interesting to see divine actually note the WMAP testing and the effect changing parameters had.

So which is the superior theory... the BB or My theory regarding Genesis 1? Genesis 1 is even more accurate than Darwinian brand of evolution.

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:11 am

Danmark wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: I just clicked on "view results" for the voting and noticed that people are voting for a winner already. I kind of suspected they would vote prematurely.

Two people have voted for Wolfbitn if you can believe that.

... You and I should be embarrassed to... debate him.

I'm sure you would be... pick a subject, i'll meet you head to head

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Fri Mar 07, 2014 12:28 am

Danmark wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:

Quoting Wolfbit:
"5) He does not understand that these are NOT competing theories, we are simply debating which has been tested most, and which has held up better under testing, and therefore which is the superior theory."

Here he denies the very essence of the debate. It's incredible.
The very essence of the debate is which is superior or even worthy of the title of "Theory"... Whats incredible is that you keep missing this lol

Debating Christianity and Religion

Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions

Who won the debate?

Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions