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

[WinePusher]

WP, tho' I agree with much of what you've written here, it's unfair in the extreme to throw both participants into the same barrel.

I blame Wolfbitn for creating this poorly thought out debate, and I blame Divine Insight for agreeing to the terms of the debate. I agree that Divine Insight is a capable debater, and had it been a better topic or a better Christian debater the debate itself would have turned out far better. Besides, Wolfbitn is fairly new here and still needs time to learn the ropes. Obviously a lot of you nonbelievers here don't like his debating style, so if you don't like the way he debates then simply don't bother with him. There are numerous non-theist debaters on here who I consider to be terrible debaters whom I ignore because it'd be a waste of my time to engage them.

Some of those discussions make me think one of the participants must be about 13 years old, and an immature 13 at that. A reasonable debater simply cannot engage with someone like that successfully.

I agree, but I would go further and say that these types of people exist on both sides of the aisle. There are tons of horrible non-theist debaters on here, just as there are tons of horrible Christian debaters. I would simply like to see someone from your side admit to this.

[Divine Insight]

I hate to say it Divine while you are knowledgeable and passionate I think you got caught up a bit with what wolf was saying. I understand it can be frustrating but sometimes you got to let these things be like water on a ducks back and let them roll off. Otherwise for your first head to head I thought you did pretty good given the parameters of this debate.

That being said given the animosity between both parties this was an expected result.

I agree that this has ended up not being a legitimate "debate" at all. It is indeed nothing more than a silly war of animosity at this point.

There is nothing to debate here really. Wolfbitn doesn't have a "scientific theory" and everyone knows this. There was never any question about that from the very beginning.

Also, Wolfbitn wanted to originally debate to "Last Man Standing". In other words, he wants to force a win or lose and so that was his goal from the get go. I confess that I played into that by agreeing to a post-limited debate with a vote at the end instead. Since he wants to see someone proclaimed to have won or lost the debate.

But the other thing also is that Wolfbitn originally demanded 2 moderators for the debate, one Christian and the other Atheist.

So clearly Wolfbitn sees this debate as being one of Christianity versus Atheism.

I don't view it that way in the slightest.

Big Bang Theory does not demand an atheistic view of reality and has absolutely nothing at all to do with atheism.

Similarly Wolfbitn's personal views on biblical theology do not represent Christianity and therefore really has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

Finally, I have since realized from Wolfbitn's posts in other threads that he feels that "Christians" are being attacked by atheists. And so he basically views anyone who doesn't support Christianity to be an atheist who is "the enemy" of Christians and Christianity.

So Wolfbitn isn't truly arguing with me, or against science, but instead he's attempting to have a Holy War against what he perceives to be "the enemy" against his religion.

I can't for the life of me understand why he is so passionate about trying to even shoot down Big Bang Theory. Big Bang Theory actually fits right in with Genesis.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

The Big Bang actually supports that there was a beginning to the universe some 13.7 billion years ago. Prior to Big Bang Theory it was believed that the universe was eternal.

So why he is so passionately arguing against the Big Bang Theory I have no clue.

I would think that he would want to claim the Big Bang Theory as support for Genesis 1.

Clearly he must have gotten the picture that science in general, and Big Bang Theory in particular, are somehow a threat to his religious beliefs and stand as a symbol of atheism.

I don't personally even bother with trying to use science to argue against the Bible. If I were going to argue against the Bible I would just use the Bible itself. No science required.

So I think that for Wolfbitn this debate is a highly passionate religious debate, whereas for me it's just a debate against someone who is claiming to use the scientific method where it cannot even remotely be applied.

This debate really has absolutely nothing at all to do with religion for me.

[Danmark]

WP, tho' I agree with much of what you've written here, it's unfair in the extreme to throw both participants into the same barrel.

I blame Wolfbitn for creating this poorly thought out debate, and I blame Divine Insight for agreeing to the terms of the debate. I agree that Divine Insight is a capable debater, and had it been a better topic or a better Christian debater the debate itself would have turned out far better. Besides, Wolfbitn is fairly new here and still needs time to learn the ropes. Obviously a lot of you nonbelievers here don't like his debating style, so if you don't like the way he debates then simply don't bother with him. There are numerous non-theist debaters on here who I consider to be terrible debaters whom I ignore because it'd be a waste of my time to engage them.

Some of those discussions make me think one of the participants must be about 13 years old, and an immature 13 at that. A reasonable debater simply cannot engage with someone like that successfully.

I agree, but I would go further and say that these types of people exist on both sides of the aisle. There are tons of horrible non-theist debaters on here, just as there are tons of horrible Christian debaters. I would simply like to see someone from your side admit to this.

Your wish is granted.

There indeed are, or have been, absolutely horrible anti theist debaters. I have personally taken several of them on because of their methods and their attitudes. Most were put on probation and later banned with justification.

When someone joins this forum and has a name like "Destroyer of Religion" for example, my hackles go up just as quickly as if he or she used a name like "I Speak for God."

I know that when a debater who might generally be in the 'same camp' as myself is critical of a post of mine, I take that criticism more seriously because I have to admit he is less likely to be critical for ideological or personal reasons. From that I deduce that we have a greater duty to criticize those inside our tents, than those outside, because we have a chance to be more effective with constructive criticism. Just as you imply about non theist debaters, it is rare to see advocates of theism [particularly if they are adherents of the same religion] be critical of each other.

We are in complete agreement that poor debaters, dishonest or arrogant debaters, and debaters who insist on personalizing the issues should be vigorously dealt with and criticized without regard to which 'side' they are on. I'll go farther. We should be even more critical of those who are in the same 'camp' because being criticized by fellow 'club members' is more effective.

The real enemies are ignorance, lack of critical thinking, intellectual dishonesty, fuzzing thinking, and sloppy writing.

[Wolfbitn]

LOL ok...

Well youve got another one waiting for you Divine... I do hope this doesnt take another week? Should be easy its half concessions this time and half questions.

Sorry about destroying string, but not really Gotta wonder whats going to hold up the BB now? And i know i havent even gotten to the BB yet... thats for next post.... or the post after.

[Divine Insight]

I agree, but I would go further and say that these types of people exist on both sides of the aisle. There are tons of horrible non-theist debaters on here, just as there are tons of horrible Christian debaters. I would simply like to see someone from your side admit to this.

I'm not on a side.

To the Christians I'm an atheist.

To the Atheists I'm a nut case who believes in quantum pixies.

The only people who understand me are the agnostics.

So I'm not on a "side", I'm living in the limbo of the isle.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 192 by Divine Insight]

You confuse me for someone who is insecure in his belief? Ask anyone who knows me, and they will tell you there is nothing insecure or afraid about me.

No, i was offended for the prejudiced remarks regarding christians here, and iv decided to take you to ask on it. So no, consider this debate a spanking with the rod of things you didnt know... like the fact string has been falsified REPEATEDLY and eternal inflation is only one form of string theory.

.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 191 by WinePusher]

Im sure it appears my side is all over the place with various facts and topics, but it is entirely necessary, and each post has parts to both puzzles. There is entirely too much information to lay out at once. I will lay it all out in each consecutive post, and then draw both together in my conclusions

[Divine Insight]

So no, consider this debate a spanking with the rod of things you didnt know... like the fact string has been falsified REPEATEDLY and eternal inflation is only one form of string theory.

Inflation theory doesn't even have anything to do with String Theory.

So I won't be looking to you for any lessons on anything scientific.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 191 by WinePusher]

Im sure it appears my side is all over the place with various facts and topics, but it is entirely necessary, and each post has parts to both puzzles. There is entirely too much information to lay out at once. I will lay it all out in each consecutive post, and then draw both together in my conclusions

Wolf, this is precisely the problem. It does indeed appear you are 'all over the place.' Your explanation is that there is 'too much information to lay out all at once.'

Your announced plan is that you will 'lay it all out in consecutive posts' and then sometime in the future 'draw it together.' Ideology and belief systems aside, this is a poor plan as a rhetorical device. It is not and has not been persuasive. You've been at this now for dozens if not hundreds of posts and you still have not 'drawn it together.'

I agree that not every idea is susceptible to a simple summary and a clear descriptive statement. But your approach has thus far yielded very little. What little you have said has been neatly eviscerated by succinct criticism.

When anyone wants to establish a novel, or a revolutionary approach such as your idea that Genesis 1 speaks to an extinction event, the advocate must have a quick, tightly targeted approach to get past the inevitable and obvious criticisms. You have failed to do this.

What we're left with is a meandering, vague, and seemingly disorganized unbalanced edifice teetering on collapse that is going no where and in your own words is 'all over the place with various facts and topics.'

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to Danmark]

Criticism accepted... it really is way too much info however to lay out at once.

The post would be a book. So i am forced to bring out just a few points at a time. The theory of evolution took a book for Darwin. String has taken many books by itself. I was certainly able to give a brief description, namely that I am theorizing that Genesis 1 refers to an extinction event, but then to draw it out with evidence takes many pages, hence i could not accept a 10 post limit... And new aspects are yet to even be brought up. My next post however will be adding more interesting items.

If you check out the new post youll see that string itself and dark matter is already basically dead, and these were needed by the BB to explain a LOT of discrepancy.

So we are really as far as we can logically be at the moment.