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]

There is no post 232 and 233 in our head to head... there are 20 posts... by all means post the exact quote from there where ANYTHING at all is misrepresented. We can talk about another thread in another thread or by pm... this regards our head to head debate, and you know perfectly well he was not misrepresented.

Note... no quote.

If i had misrepresented him I would have been disqualified by the moderator.

.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 316 by Divine Insight]

Quitting is conceding.

I gave my reasons. Your personal denial is meaningless.

In fact, all you have been doing ever since is confirming the unethical behavior that I had cited. You have been doing nothing but misrepresenting and denying my position on things ever since.

Do you honestly believe that there is anyone here other than yourself who buys into your false claims concerning the positions of others? Especially when those other people are clearly rejecting your false claims concerning their views?

I quit debating with you on the grounds that your debate tactics are relentlessly unethical even after they have already been clearly exposed as such. Even at that point you remained in denial and continued to blatant misrepresent my position on things.

By your very own Rule #5 you had disqualified yourself from the debate repeatedly.

You are wrong... the moderator knows I never misrepresented you which was why the debate went on.... until you quit... conceded.

and we all note you cant quote a singe misrepresentation, so your true reasoning is clear to me anyway... post 19 was too much... you HAD to quit or concede the entire debate point by point... you simply conceded all at once, no problem.

Nor can anyone here post a single thing in that debate that I misrepresented, nor can every non christian here combined and conferring together, beat post 19. I have a few friends that were very entertained. And i challenge anyone here and everyone here together to pick up where Divine quit.

If it was all misrepresentation you should win easily and get me disqualified from my own debate.
.

[Danmark]

[Replying to Danmark]

There is no post 232 and 233 in our head to head... there are 20 posts... by all means post the exact quote from there where ANYTHING at all is misrepresented. We can talk about another thread in another thread or by pm... this regards our head to head debate, and you know perfectly well he was not misrepresented.

Note... no quote.

If i had misrepresented him I would have been disqualified by the moderator.

.

Obviously posts 232 and 233 refer to this thread which is about the head to head You've been caught misrepresenting wherever you go. It's your M.O. You even misrepresent about misrepresenting.

You think you get a free pass for misrepresenting?
That makes as much sense as expecting me to read all the nonsense you've posted in the head to head 'non debate' which you lost by disqualification.

Here, again, answer the challenge or continue to avoid and 'concede' by 'quitting:

In the past, now 4 times at least. I've pointed out your misrepresentations. See Posts 232 and 233 of this very thread. Plus the fiasco of your post from Gordon College, which you finally 'conceded,' then claimed you'd done it on purpose to be 'fair,' tho' you only quoted the misleading part. Then there's your claim you'd read all the sources you hadn't, which would have required you to be fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, and Latin. But what does it matter? In a week or maybe a couple days, you'll issue the same challenge all over again. So when you stop getting responses you'll know it's because there is no point in wasting the time. Then of course you'll dance all over shouting "You've conceded! You've conceded!"

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to Danmark]

Aaahhhhh yes, where he himself misunderstands Guth and his work... No i did not misrepresent Guth, nor is there ANY WAY AT ALL you can show that I have. Post 19 in the head to head puts Divine in his place regarding Guth. Should I repost it here, or are you good with that? In what way do you say I misrepresented Guth?

show me, and i will point you to the correct information.

.

[Divine Insight]

No i did not misrepresent Guth

You have misrepresented Guth's Inflation theory by demanding that it is a string theory which it is not.

You have misrepresented cosmology in general by demanding that it is dependent upon string theory, which is totally false.

You have misrepresented string theory itself by claiming that it has been falsified when even the article you pointed to yourself did not support that claim.

You continually misrepresent Big Bang Theory itself by demanding that it's totally dependent upon string theory which is also totally false.

How is anyone supposed to debate with you about Big Bang Theory when you continually proclaim that it is something it's not and you continually misrepresent the information about it relentlessly whilst constantly refusing correction?

Everything you have claimed about science and the Big Bang Theory has been false.

And this is why I refuse to debate with you on a topic that you refuse to acknowledge.

All you are doing is continually posting totally false claims that have nothing at all to do with these theories. And constantly refusing to be corrected when called on your false claims.

You can't win a debate that way Wolfbitn, and there's no point in debating with you if you are going to do nothing but continually remain in denial and refuse to acknowledge correction.

That's not a debate. That's just you refusing to acknowledge the facts.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 325 by Divine Insight]

Then go answer post 19, make more claims like "Darwinsim doesnt exist", and be corrected again... and again,,, and again...

Yes by all means bury me if you can. lol

If i misrepresented ANYTHING show me where..

Did not Guths early inflation models fail?

Did string theorist not come together and incorporate it into string WITH Guth?

Does Guth not teach and utilize string?

Does he not himself describe inflation in terms of string?

Do you deny string was repeatedly falsified at CERN?

lets have a go at it... i'm ready.

.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 321 by Wolfbitn]

Since you refuse to own up to it and deal with it, here are just some of your misrepresentations as previously posted in 232 and 233, taken from the head to head:

[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.

===============

[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.

BTW, your claim is that string theory has been 'falsified.' That is clearly not the case. I am not defending superstring theory. I do not have the credentials to do so. I understand it is certainly under attack and like any theory always subject to modification. But what we are dealing with here is your persistent misrepresentation of what the articles in the websites you quote state. That is the point, your constant misrepresentation, not superstring theory itself.

That is probably why you almost never quote in your replies. You simply hit 'reply' so the fact that you are not directly dealing with what has been said is, in your view, less obvious. You're not fooling anyone . . . except possibly yourself

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 321 by Wolfbitn]

Since you refuse to own up to it and deal with it, here are just some of your misrepresentations as previously posted in 232 and 233, taken from the head to head:

[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.


Danmark says:

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.

I bolded a the important parts showing that you are misunderstanding the quotes. This ALL regards STRING THEORY and ETERNAL INFLATION WITHIN string theory... so no you simply misunderstand the article.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 327 by Danmark]

O and regarding scientific american, yes i should have chosen one of the several other publications I quoted for CERN's falsification of string... in the debate, I referred to scientific american as showing Guth describes inflation in terms of string... which he was forced to do when early versions failed without it....

In an interview for scientific American, Guth acknowledges that inflation is simply one more version of "string theory", as you can see here...

From
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/deg ... -guth-inte...

Quote:
Twenty-five years later, in the summer of 2004, I asked Guth"by then a full professor at MIT and a leading figure of cosmology" for his thoughts on his legacy and how it fit with the discovery of dark energy and the most recent ideas coming out of string theory.

...DC: Do you have your favorite version of inflation among the many that have been proposed?

AG: Not really, except that I could say that I think cosmology is moving toward describing things in terms of string theory. And there have been a number of attempts to describe inflation in that context. I think that is the future.

...DC: So you think that string theory will ultimately prove to be right?

AG: Yes, I do. I think it may evolve a fair amount from the way people think of it now, but I do think string theory definitely has a lot going for it.

DC: Is string theory physics or is it just fancy mathematics so far?

AG: I consider it physics. Its certainly speculative physics so far " unfortunately, its working in a regime where theres no direct experimental test.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 321 by Wolfbitn]

Since you refuse to own up to it and deal with it, here are just some of your misrepresentations as previously posted in 232 and 233, taken from the head to head:

[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.


Danmark says:

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.

I bolded a the important parts showing that you are misunderstanding the quotes. This ALL regards STRING THEORY and ETERNAL INFLATION WITHIN string theory... so no you simply misunderstand the article.

This is particularly amusing , since are taking things out of context, and misrepresenting what is said. I can tell that you actually didn't read and understand the article.

Somehow, the concept of 'context' seems to be missing quite often.

And, the interview with Guth says exactly the opposite you claim it says.

Let's quote exactly what he said in that interview.. and break it down.. so people can look at 'context. Remember context??

Not really, except that I could say that I think cosmology is moving toward describing things in terms of string theory. And there have been a number of attempts to describe inflation in that context. I think that is the future.

Ok. There have been a number of attempts to describe inflation in that context. That means.. if you can read and understand, that there are other ways to describe inflation. Guth think that string theory is the future.. 'thinks' but is not positive.

Now, let's look at what a rather layman's source says inflation is.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation is the extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 1036 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 1033 and 1032 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate.

The term "inflation" is used to refer to the hypothesis that inflation occurred, to the theory of inflation, or to the inflationary epoch. The inflationary hypothesis was originally proposed in 1980 by American physicist Alan Guth, who named it "inflation".[2]

As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally connected region. Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous, and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).[3]

While the detailed particle physics mechanism responsible for inflation is not known, the basic picture makes a number of predictions that have been confirmed by observation.[4] The hypothetical particle or field thought to be responsible for inflation is called the inflaton.[5][citation needed]

SO, we have the physical even that is called 'inflation'.. and then there are models that are trying to explain it. Some models trying to explain it use string theory. Other models that try to explain it do not. However, all the models have to take into account the data we have already that indicates inflation exists.