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

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:56 pm

What Wolf is missing is that Guth explained the inflation that occurred at the origin of the Universe. Guth explained why we see a uniform temperature and CMD throughout the universe. This is due to an immediate expansion of heat distribution that slowly cooled at the same rate. Wolf clearly doesn't understand this. Guth supported the big bang and his sole purpose was to explain the problem that the WMAP showed.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:07 am

[Replying to post 218 by Wolfbitn]

More of the same nonsense. To illustrate from your last in the head to head:

Read it and weep Divine...

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/s ... and-eterna...

Quote:
String Theory: Chaotic Inflation and Eternal Inflation
By Andrew Zimmerman Jones and Daniel Robbins from String Theory For Dummies

"The theories of eternal inflation and chaotic inflation in string theory can be quite confusing..."

...Apparently he was right

And this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... imit-space...

Quote:
"According to string theory, there may be a large number of universes. All of these universes are believed to come into existence through a process called eternal inflation, in which at least one universe continually expands at an incredible rate, while others form and grow within it like bubbles. This pool of universes has been dubbed the multiverse."

So yes Eternal Inflation and string are indeed one in the same except that string takes in more than just eternal inflation.

Once again you have quoted misleadingly. All you had to do was read the next sentence or two from the 'Dummies' article:

"The theories of eternal inflation and chaotic inflation in string theory can be quite confusing. Most people, even physicists, use them fairly interchangeably. This is an excellent example of how concepts on the cutting edge of science can get blurred, even between different experts in the field."

In other words, rather than equate string theory with eternal inflation and chaotic inflation, the article points out that it is error to do so, tho' understandable due to confusion and blurring of terms.

Then you quote from the New Scientist article which clearly does NOT say "Eternal Inflation and string are indeed one in the same...." Instead NS simply states a prediction from string theory, and that eternal inflation is the process that yields the multiverse.

Rather than state "string theory has been repeatedly falsified," [as you claim] that same article in NS goes on to state:
"The very idea of string theory and the multiverse is still controversial. It is often attacked for being overly complicated and difficult to prove. "

'Controversial' does not mean 'repeatedly falsified.'

Post after post of yours demonstrates you take sentences and give them a meaning opposite to what the authors wrote.

What makes it amusing is that you are constantly crowing your 'triumph' when what you have actually done is demonstrate you have once again got it backward. This process of yours leads to Alice in Wonderland rabbit holes that branch out indefinitely as you ask your reader to follow you down an infinity of false paths.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:24 am

Wolfbitn wrote: [Replying to post 223 by Divine Insight]

LOL, ok yeah scientific american says string is falsified and i misrepresented it..

Yes, you did misrepresent. Please give a citation that shows "Scientific American says string is falsified."

Once again you've made a claim that is the opposite of the truth:

"I mostly agree with Carrolls take, although others seem to be unhappier, mainly because Carroll seems to be postulating that lack of falsification should not really make a dent in ideas like the multiverse and string theory."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the ... red-thing/

The article is about falsification itself and how widely it should be employed, but this statement clearly shows you've got it backwards again because it implies string theory has not been falsified.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:27 am

Danmark wrote: Post after post of yours demonstrates you take sentences and give them a meaning opposite to what the authors wrote.

What makes it amusing is that you are constantly crowing your 'triumph' when what you have actually done is demonstrate you have once again got it backward. This process of yours leads to Alice in Wonderland rabbit holes that branch out indefinitely as you ask your reader to follow you down an infinity of false paths.

Fortunately this actually makes it easy for me. All I need to do is go directly to the articles that Wolfbitn links to and I can quickly find his misrepresentation right in the article. Then I can quote from the very same article showing that they had actually said just the opposite thing from what Wolfbitn had claimed they said.

The fact that he does this with such consistency does bring up questions though. Clearly he must be reading into articles things that he wants them to say rather than actually reading what they are actually saying.

Of course if this is how he reads everything then it's no wonder that has become so misinformed about science. He's actually reading into everything that he reads things that aren't even there.

I think it pretty clear that Wolfbitn has an extreme agenda for a particular conclusion. And that is exactly the opposite of how scientists work.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:42 am

Wolfbitn wrote: [Replying to post 215 by Goat]

Which theory did i misrepresent and where and how... ill gladly address a quote.

Did I not prove string is has repeatedly been falsified? Yes?

Have not I shown I am the ONLY one in the debate from my last past, that understands eternal inflation is a part of string?

So yes, one may certainly observe the Hebrew and test it against every record we have.

.

Well, about string theory, no , you did not. And, you have yet to even show you understand my point about symbolism at all.

Plus, even if string theory was falsified, that does not make 'genesis' into a scientific theory. Attacking other theories does not make making things up about an ancient story science.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:47 am

[Replying to post 234 by Divine Insight]

Well we all suffer from confirmation bias.

It is particularly tough for religious minded individuals in debates against no religiously minded folks. Because at this point you are going beyond the individual dynamics and enter group dynamics. I would be inclined to think but could be wrong; that in most debate settings with religious vs non-religious agendas involved that the religious aspect may feel under attack. With group dynamics we see that this may cause an abnormally high level of confirmation bias as they are trying to protect not just the idea but their identity especially within the group.

a quick primer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_dynamics

So it should not become a big surprise that this happens. It also gives a perfectly rational explanation of the behavior. Now the question is how to we get past this in order to communicate on equal terms?

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:47 am

[Replying to Nickman]

I have already demonstrated I know more about Guth and inflation than you or Divine... This is string theory and string has been falsified... i guess you didnt read the debate but just the comments here lol

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:52 am

[Replying to post 235 by Goat]

Goat if you didnt see me show string falsified repeatedly, you missed it because it is certainly shown to be falsified in my last 2 posts...

And as i said, i can prove my theory is better verified than BB... Divine is in serious trouble

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:54 am

[Replying to post 234 by Divine Insight]

by all means Divine do this.

Wolfbitn · Post by **Wolfbitn** » Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:29 am

[Replying to post 239 by Wolfbitn]

Divine... i am actually VERY surprised you posted that last post in our head to head and let it stand lol... That is SO MUCH in my favor im letting it stand for the day. You have sure exposed how much you DONT know about the subjects at hand.

If you dont know Guth is a string theorist, wow is all i can say lol. And if falsification of string repeatedly means nothing to cosmology in your opinion, my next post will show how lacking your opinion is, because string was the only gig in town propping BB up.

At any rate that last post.... very much appreciated lol

.

Debating Christianity and Religion

Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions

Who won the debate?

Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions