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

[postroad]

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

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.

You did realise I quoted the Bible in which the author/s of Exodus showed their opinion of the Genesis text?

[Divine Insight]

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.

That's exactly what it was. I was bored and decided to do something fun.

But I just read Wolfbitn's reply to my post, and as you had predicted all he did was deny everything I had said and basically expects me to reprove everything all over again from scratch.

Of course I'm not going to do that.

Anyway, by looking at the amount of information in his post it's clearly going to take me quite some time to respond to it all. So I may not be able to post a reply for a week or so. Well, see how that goes.

He's clearly not responding to me directly in debate point-for-point. There is no way he could have typed up his current post that fast. Clearly he has just posted a BOOK that he had previously written for this post, with all manner of new assertions in it.

In the meantime I'm going to bed.

But you were wise not to debate him Dan, because his constant denials and demands to have everything constantly revisited is nonsense.

I confess that I'll be glad when this debate is finally over. I'm also extremely glad that I didn't agree to go beyond 36 posts. This is already far more than needed. He's already been defeated. Anything he posts from this point forward is going to be invalid for the very same reasons I have already shown to be true.

He's working BACKWARDS!

He takes the observed world that we know to be true, and just pretends that the Bible had predicted it.

That is what he is doing. I've already exposed the flaw of that method. And I've shown that it's not scientific.

Yet that is the only method he has. So it's just going to be more of the same, over and over, and over again.

That is ALWAYS going to be my reply over and over again, because that is indeed his FLAW.

He's not making any predictions at all. All he's arguing for is a reinterpretation of the Bible so that it fit in perfect harmony with all known science.

And that does not constitute the scientific method.

Do we really need another 30 posts of debate to keep pointing this out?

[postroad]

I would really like to hear some Christian responses to his theory. Are you all comfortable with the position? There does not seem to be a show of support for it?

[Danmark]

I would really like to hear some Christian responses to his theory. Are you all comfortable with the position? There does not seem to be a show of support for it?

They, or one person, will vote in secret; but there is no defense to mount, let alone support for this silliness.
* * *
Indeed, Divine, why respond further? It's just the same stuff recycled, spiced with denials of what's he's already written.

I predict the next tactic to be:
"Ha! I got you guys to argue with an obviously ridiculous argument. Thanks for playing." . . . or a variation on that theme.

[Divine Insight]

I predict the next tactic to be:
"Ha! I got you guys to argue with an obviously ridiculous argument. Thanks for playing." . . . or a variation on that theme.

Exactly.

It certainly won't be the first time I've heard that one.

[otseng]

Ahhh so now you accuse me of being a liar... and i dont expect any mods to correct you here, as it appears rather obvious that Christians are looked down on here...

Moderator Final Warning


Christians are not looked down on this forum, but people who violate the rules and are uncivil are. Danmark did not accuse you of lying, but simply said it was a false claim. Also, your tone of many of your posts are uncivil and disrespectful. You will need to tone down all rhetoric, posturing, and false accusations.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to Danmark]

It will certainly be interesting to see how Divine answers in the debate:

1) Stating that Guth's string theory has been verified when in fact he was falsified over and over

2) and I look forward to seeing how he explains Darwins error and the Cambrian

3) And i am looking forward to reading how he addresses the fact that when the parameters were changed during the WMAP, the resulting parameters resembled no known observation.

[Goat]

[Replying to Danmark]

It will certainly be interesting to see how Divine answers in the debate:

1) Stating that Guth's string theory has been verified when in fact he was falsified over and over

2) and I look forward to seeing how he explains Darwins error and the Cambrian

3) And i am looking forward to how he addresses the fact that when the parameters were changed during the WMAP, the resulting parameters resembled no known observation.

I see a vast number of errors in these few statements.

I don't see how evolution fits in with the BBT at all, for one. I also don't see any falsification of Guth's string theory. I do see a lot of misunderstanding of how the TOE has progressed, and about the Cambrian 'explosion' from just that simple statement. It's a fairly large misunderstanding.


I also don't see any 'Theory' presented what so ever from Genesis.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to Goat]

Hello goat... Guth Admitted that string does not work out, and every version of string tested has been falsified. Also the WMAP parameter, after being adjusted away from the observed model, resembled no observed model whatsoever... If he would like to dispute this I would be happy to provide the sources for this information.

Also Evolution has to do with Genesis 1, not the BB.


.

[Wolfbitn]

I would really like to hear some Christian responses to his theory. Are you all comfortable with the position? There does not seem to be a show of support for it?

So far the vote says differently... there is obvious support for it.