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

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to Danmark]

I know what he said... but he cant point to a single misrepresentation.

1) he was absolutely wrong about Guth and got busted for it

2) He was absolutely wrong when he said there was no such thing as Darwinism for Pete's sake, and got busted,

3) Misrepresentation was an offence the moderator never charged me with...

So there ya go... He conceded... he gave it up... he lost... that's what concede means and thats what concession does... you lose


.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to post 288 by Wolfbitn]

There is no "winning" a debate. You either made your point or you didn't. I can't say you did. After going through all your posts I am more skeptical about your theory than I was before I read them. This is not a good sign.

If you are still convinced that you "won" I for one would not boast about a hollow victory. If it was not the strength of your argument that "won" the debate but more the frustration of your opponent. that is pretty hollow in my eyes.

The poll results strongly indicate that DI made a more favorable impression on readers. Rather than "winning a debate" one might consider that the tread had 500 views by people capable of evaluating the merits of what was presented and that 68% of those who voiced an opinion indicated that DI had been more successful.

The "debate" and related comments demonstrate that over-inflated ego isn't very convincing.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

I know what he said... but he cant point to a single misrepresentation.

1) he was absolutely wrong about Guth and got busted for it

2) He was absolutely wrong when he said there was no such thing as Darwinism for Pete's sake, and got busted,

3) Misrepresentation was an offence the moderator never charged me with...

So there ya go... He conceded... he gave it up... he lost... that's what concede means and thats what concession does... you lose


.

I do have to commend you W, for your excellent imitation of Monty Python's Black Knight

I note you still can't even bring your self to use Divine's actual words, but translate them to 'concede', but then spelling has not been your strong suit.

You also never dealt with the many misrepresentations you made; e.g, those pointed out in posts 232 and 233.

If you are content with fooling yourself I suppose that is necessary for you. But you've fooled no one else.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 292 by Zzyzx]

Your problem is Divine conceded... gave up... quit... handed me the vioctory... So votes dont matter, he handed me the win after finding himself in a corner he couldnt dig out of... but if YOU would like to take his place and try for the win, i welcome it.

.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 292 by Zzyzx]

Your problem is Divine conceded... gave up... quit... handed me the vioctory... So votes dont matter, he handed me the win after finding himself in a corner he couldnt dig out of... but if YOU would like to take his place and try for the win, i welcome it.

.

Not sure this is really the spirit of a debate. Winning is a thing for sports. There is no score in a debate. If you really wanted to win a debate you and divine should have agreed to a voting panel at the end of each series of posts the panel votes on giving a point to either side. And limit the thread to 10 posts for each side. so a possible of 10 points the winner could then be declared.

However, that would be a farce for a debate. Honestly, I at one point thought it could be fun to have a debate with you. However after watching this display I can't say I am all that interested.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 292 by Zzyzx]

Your problem is Divine conceded... gave up... quit... handed me the vioctory... So votes dont matter, he handed me the win after finding himself in a corner he couldnt dig out of... but if YOU would like to take his place and try for the win, i welcome it.

.

I would be willing to have a head-to-head debate. But not on the same question. Here are a few questions I would entertain:

1. Were the writers of Genesis chapter 1 describing an extinction event and not the formation of the universe?
2. Does the fossil record support the creation and flood stories recorded in Genesis?
3. Did the writers of Genesis envision a much smaller universe than what we now know that it is? Did they really believe that the stars were in the firmament that divides the waters above from the waters below?
4. Has there been a world-wide flood since the appearance of humans on earth?

Once we have agreed on the terms of debate and the question we can proceed. I suggest the following terms:

• The opening post will be simply a statement of what is being debated and a few housekeeping details. No argument, for or against will be included in the OP. The entire text of the OP will be agreed on between the debaters before the debate commences.
• Whoever is arguing the affirmative will respond first, with each debater alternating responses until they mutually agree that all relevant points have been covered.
• There is no time limit or size limit for posting.
• A discussion thread will be created for other forum participants to make comments with regard to this debate. [a peanut gallery]
• Civility and the rules of debate will be adhered to.

[Divine Insight]

Now that it is over, I voted for inconclusive. The question in the OP was, in my opinion, not clear. The debaters should have invested a bit more time prior to beginning the debate making it clear just what it was that they were debating.

I tried my best to do that.

Here is what we were actually supposed to be debating:

[mrow][color=blue][b]Wolfbitn's Theology[/b][/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=blue][b]Big Bang Theory[/b][/color] [row][center][color=red][b]NO[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Published[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] YES[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]NO[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Peer Reviewed[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] YES[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]NO[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Uses Scientific Method[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] YES[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]NO[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Offers Testable Hypotheses[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] YES[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]NO[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Works Forward[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] YES[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=green][b] YES[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Requires Myth Interpretations[/center] [col][center][color=red][b]NO[/b][/color][/center]

Wolfbitn claimed to have a "scientific theory" concerning his theological interpretations of the Bible. And he wanted to test this theory against Big Bang Theory to see which has been better scientifically tested.

Well, duh?

Random speculations and guesses cannot be considered to be a "scientific theory" until they have at least been published for peer reviewed and tested independently by independent scientists.

Wolfbitn has never even published his ideas. Therefore he has no scientific theory to even debate or compare with anything.

The debate was over before it began and there was no need to even bother continuing from that point forward. From that point forward all that has occurred has been Wolfbitn refusing to acknowledge truth and to continually misrepresent everything that has been set out and well-established by his opponent.

It's been nothing but continual denial on his part, and a blatant continual breaking of his own Rule #5 repeatedly even after he had been corrected repeatedly.

And since he had never even published his "theory" he can randomly change it on the fly within the debate.

He began the debate by demanding that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event that he associated with the demise of the dinosaurs. But then later he introduces a brand new interpretation of Genesis 1 that he claims is describing a creation event of a single land mass called Pangea some 300 million years prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs.

This is no doubt why he has never published his "theory". He clearly doesn't even have one. All he has is random speculations that he dynamically changes along the way. Speculations that aren't even self-consistent.

He has no scientific theory. And therefore there is nothing to even debate. He lost before the debate even began.

[Divine Insight]

I would be willing to have a head-to-head debate.

I would love to see how you deal with this McCulloch. So I hope Wolfbitn agrees to debate you head-to-head.

Whoever is arguing the affirmative will respond first, with each debater alternating responses until they mutually agree that all relevant points have been covered.

I predict that you will never get a concession from Wolfbitn on anything. He will not only refuse to concede to relevant points, but he will continually misrepresent the points that you are making twisting them into something that you never even said. So beware of this tactic.

There is no time limit or size limit for posting.

Again, a grave mistake McCulloch. Wolfbitn will misrepresent your points and remain in denial refusing to concede to logic to the end of eternity. If you can't move forward until he agrees that all relevant points have been made you will never move forward. That's the problem. He will never agree that relevant points have been made.

A discussion thread will be created for other forum participants to make comments with regard to this debate. [a peanut gallery]

Well at least it will be entertaining.

Civility and the rules of debate will be adhered to.

Being a moderator yourself you might be able to at least have better luck in enforcing that one than I did.

But go ahead and go for it. It ought to be interesting. I'd like to see how you handle an opponent who refuses to concede to any relevant points and relentlessly twists your own points into something that you never even remotely said.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 286 by McCulloch]

And by the way... Divine conceded... meaning he GIVES me the win... nothing inconclusive about that

.

I didn't concede to anything. I simply refused to continue to debate with an unethical opponent. If you think that constitutes a "win" for you then you have only proven my point.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 299 by Divine Insight]

You concede the debate... end of story... Win for Genesis 1 major loss for the BB.

You know you werent misrepresented, you were simply caught in too many things you got wrong... Like saying there was no such thing as Darwinism, and Guth doesnt use string to define inflation. ... no big deal, lets just get it right...