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

[Divine Insight]

[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?

I absolutely agree with you here Daniel.

I was trying to avoid the "group dynamics" from the get go. Especially in terms of the religious versus non-religious.

I stated at the outset that I don't even see this debate as being about Christianity versus Atheism. In fact it's not a religious debate at all. All I'm doing is aruging against the gross misrepresentations that Wolfbitn is making against science and the scientific method. And he's clearly making extreme false claims and accusations about how various scientific theories are related, or what they actually claim.

Religiously Wolfbitn is actually attacking the King James Version of Genesis 1 in favor of an interpretation that would more likely be acceptable to the Jews. So unbeknownst to him he's not actually arguing for Christianity anyway but instead he's giving an argument for Judaism. I also suspect that the Muslims could use Wolfbitn's arguments to support Islam as well. But Wolfbitn's arguments actually clash with the standard Christian interpretations anyway.

Wolfbitn is actually just rejecting the King James Bible as being grossly flawed and therefore fallible.

So ironically Wolfbitn is actually arguing against Christian Doctrine.

And in the meantime he's not doing himself any favors at all by making totally false and misrepresented claims toward the sciences. That isn't helping his theological case for his arguments for a Jewish interpretation of the original fables rather than a Christian interpretation.

He's actually making an argument against the Christian King James Bible. That's all he's really doing. And science really has nothing at all to do with it.

[Divine Insight]

[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

.

Wolfbitn, you are so hung-up on personal attacks, denial of the facts, and continually repeating total gross misrepresentations of the facts, that it's impossible to have an honest debate with you.

You have so grossly misrepresented your opponent repeatedly throughout this debate. And therefore by your own Rule#5 you have disqualified yourself from the debate.

Apparently the only arguments you have left at this point are constant denials and misrepresentations of truth.

You're not going to win any debate using those kinds of tactics.

Moreover, your theological arguments are actually an attack against Christianity and the King James Bible. All you are truly arguing for is that the King James Bible is in gross error. And I won't argue with that at all.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 241 by Divine Insight]

unfortunately in any religious debate in this case Gen1 you can't get away from it.

You would have to be behind closed doors where no one could possibly see what is going on to do that >.<

So long as his self-identity within the group is threatened it will intensify his need to be so defensive and ignore claims to the counter more vociferously.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 241 by Divine Insight]

unfortunately in any religious debate in this case Gen1 you can't get away from it.

You would have to be behind closed doors where no one could possibly see what is going on to do that >.<

So long as his self-identity within the group is threatened it will intensify his need to be so defensive and ignore claims to the counter more vociferously.

The problem of this debate is not confirmation bias, or being defensive about one's beliefs. We can expect that of anyone. The problem is that W consistently misrepresents his sources. He adds words to Genesis to get his extinction theory. He cites Gordon College, New Scientist, Scientific American, and articles from other sources for saying the opposite of what they say.* These are not nuanced differences. He claims they say the direct opposite of what they say. This is a much graver problem than mere 'confirmation bias.' He has disqualified himself as a debater.

__________________
*see posts 232, 233

[Goat]

[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

Your claiming it was 'falsified' does not make it so. Plus, a falisified theory is STILL more scientific than retrofitting religious symbolism into what we know. You don't seem to understand that. The fact that it could go through the process, and BE falsified shows it was a legitimize theory.. it just was found , through the scientific process, not to be accurate.

However, if you think you falsified string theory, please, publish your findings in peer reviewed scientific journals, and get the word out to all those theoretical physicists who haven't gotten the word about that yet.

I am also still waiting to see how 'genesis' is scientific at all. Retrofitting what we know into symbolism is not scientific.

[Divine Insight]

He adds words to Genesis to get his extinction theory.

Not only that, but he's totally contradicting his own theory.

I just now realizing how horribly off-track he has taken his own theory in this debate.

In his previous posts he has been grilling me with questions about Pangea. At first I was baffled and confused because this clearly has nothing to do with his claim that Genesis 1 was describing the extinction event at the time the dinosaurs were wiped out. I said that he would need to make a case that Genesis was actually describing Pangea before his questions would be relevant to our debate.

He has since proclaimed that Genesis is indeed describing a "Creation Event" of the very early land masses on the Earth.

But now he has himself in a pickle. He is attempting to simultaneously claim that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event rather than a creation event, and that it is describing a pristine creation event of Pangea rather than an extinction event at the time of the demise of the Dinosaurs.

So he has accomplished two things by doing this.

1. He has shown that his own theory is self-inconsistent.

2. He has demonstrated how easy it is to argue for self-contradictory interpretations of Genesis 1.

In other words, Genesis 1 can't be simultaneously describing an extinction event at the time of the dinosaurs and a creation event at the time of Pangea.

So he has exposed deep contradictions in his own theological speculations.

He has disqualified himself as a debater.

Yes he has by his own Rule #5. Not only has he been grossly misrepresenting his opponent's arguments repeatedly, but he has also been grossly misrepresenting his very own sources.

So he has disqualified himself from this debate repeatedly by violating his own Rule #5 where he himself demands disqualification:

5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.

Not only does he misrepresent his opponent continually and repeatedly but he has flatly ignored and refused to acknowledge repeated corrections concerning his relentless misrepresentations.

He has disqualified himself repeatedly based on his own Rule #5.

[Divine Insight]

I am also still waiting to see how 'genesis' is scientific at all. Retrofitting what we know into symbolism is not scientific.

Well, not only that, but Wolbitn originally argued that Genesis was describing an extinction event at the time of the demise of the dinosaurs.

But in his more recent posts to the debate he has been attempting to argue that Genesis was describing a new creation of a single land mass he claims was "Pangea".

So his own scriptural interpretations are inconsistent and self-conflicting.

Moreover, this clearly demonstrates that when interpreting ancient myths like this we can proposed many self-contradicting interpretations just as Wolfbitn himself has been proposing.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Daniel... what do you think he has refuted with any credible source at all?

Has he refuted fact that the hebrew allows for my interpretation of Gen 1 and that other notable men believe as i do?

Has he refuted that Guth employs string theory to come to todays version of eternal inflation?

Has he refuted that Genesis 1 outright states that everything that moveth evolved from the seas? The birds?

Has he refuted the fact that string has been falsified?

No to all of these... I would be happy to see where you think he has refuted any of this and more


And is he still trying to say i claim he is atheist? I wont put wirds in Divine's mouth but thats what it looks like to me
.

[Divine Insight]

Has he refuted the fact that string has been falsified?

For one thing, even if you were right in your claim that string theory has been falsified, then all you would have done is verified that String Theory was indeed a valid scientific theory because it was indeed falsifiable.

Your claims about the Bible are not falsifiable, and therefore they are not scientific claims.

Moreover you are simultaneously claiming that Genesis describes an extinction event at the time of the demise of the dinosaurs, plus you claim that Genesis simultaneously describes a brand new creation of a land mass called Pangea.

Can either of those interpretations be falsified? If not, then they aren't a valid scientific theory.

Morover, the mere fact that neither of them can be falsified only goes to show that either one could potentially be true. But they are conflicting interpretations. One describes an extinction event and the other describes a new creation event.

So your theological speculations cannot be scientifically tested because neither one can be falsified. They also can't both be simultaneously true. So you're stuck with contradicting opinionated theological speculations that cannot be scientifically determined to be true or false.

So even if String Theory were falsified that wouldn't help your case.

[dianaiad]

[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

[Replying to post 239 by Wolfbitn]

...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

.

Moderator Warning


Do not make personal comments about the posters: address the content of the posts, not the writers.


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.