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]

Did not Guths early inflation models fail?

You are already misrepresenting Big Bang Theory to even imply that that Guth's Inflation theory is required at all.

Big Bang Theory has never predicted or demanded that the original Big Bang Fireball had to have sprung from a singularity.

I had already answered to this false charge of yours way back very early in the debate in post #14 using Alan Guth himself to support my position.

I even stated this in bold red letters to be sure that you wouldn't miss it:

Pay very close attention to what Guth is saying between 1:25 and 2:50 in this video

[youtube][/youtube]

Yet you have been in denial of this ever since.

You have continually and repeatedly misrepresented what I have said.

You have continually and repeatedly misrepresented what Alan Guth has said.

You have continually and repeatedly misrepresented what Big Bang Theory is all about.

How can I expect to have a legitimate honest debate with you about Big Bang Theory when you refuse to even acknowledge what Big Bang Theory even has to say?

You continually, and falsely proclaim that Big Bang Theory is dependent upon Alan Guth's Inflation theory, which is total baloney.

You have been misrepresenting Big Bang Theory ever since, and you are still in denial of this to this very moment.

Not only have you misrepresented Big Bang Theory, but you are also misrepresenting Guth's Inflation Theory as well, demanding that it too is dependent upon String Theory which is another falsehood that you have fabricated.

And finally you do the same thing with evolution theory by attempting to reduce evolution theory to "Darwinism".

No scientists today is concerned with "Darwinism". That too is a strawman argument being continually held up by you after you have repeatedly been shown that it has no merit.

You clearly need to totally misrepresent the sciences in order to defeat them.

And you flatly refuse to be corrected on your continual misrepresentation of them. Even after having been corrected repeatedly.

We are even correcting you in this thread and you are in absolute total denial, refusing to accept correction.

No one is buying into your gross misrepresentations of the sciences here Wolfbitin.

You need to go out and find some truly gullible people if you expect to get away with that kind of shenanigan.

Alan Guth completely supports my position in the video above. And he clearly refutes your position entirely.

Don't ever mention Alan Guth's name again because you are grossly misrepresenting his position on things too.

There is no way that Alan Guth would agree to any of your claims about science, Big Bang Theory, his own theory of Inflation, or String Theory.

Alan Guth clearly does not support your claims Wolfbitn.

The video above clearly shows this.

So you are not only grossly misrepresenting me, your debate opponent, but you are also grossly misrepresenting Alan Guth.

You should not only be banned from the debate, but you should be banned from the Internet entirely.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 331 by Divine Insight]

Lets get straight who is misrepresenting what...

Tell me what this means 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..."

Tell me now... Can you see what the bolded part says? I believe that say STRING THEORY... and it is delving into the STRING THEORIST ASPECT of ETERNAL inflation... STRING... INFLATION... inflation... string... Guths brand of ETERNAL INFLATION? STRING THEORY.

Im not yelling Im just using big letters.
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."

ACCORDING TO STRING THEORY... the process is called eternal inflation... Guth ADMITTED several years ago:

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

I could say that I think cosmology is moving toward describing things in terms of string theory.

Here you have Guth in lecture explaining how inflation is now WOVEN INTO STRING...

http://www.zbp.univie.ac.at/ausstellung/guth/inflation/

Quote:
Inflation and the String Theory Landscape lautete der Titel des Vortrages, den Alan H. Guth vom Massachusetts Institute of Technology am Montag, dem 21. April 2008 um 17 Uhr im Groen Hrsaal fr Experimentalphysik hielt. Den Inhalt seiner Prsentation beschreibt der Erfinder der Theorie vom inflationren Universum mit folgenden Worten:

After a quick review of how inflation works, I will discuss some of the key features of our universe that suggest that it emerged from a period of inflation: its uniformity, its near-critical mass density, and the spectrum of density perturbations that is now observed in the cosmic microwave background radiation. I will then turn to the biggest outstanding mystery in cosmology: the value of the cosmological constant, or equivalently the energy density of the vacuum. Nobody understands why it is so small. One controversial explanation starts with the claim that string theory offers a colossal number of vacuum states, with varying energy densities. If inflation can populate all of these vacua, and life evolves only in vacua with small energy densities, then the mystery might be solved. I will argue that this explanation is logically sound, but I will stop short of claiming that it is right.

And the defining article:

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

Quote:
String Theory: Variations of the Inflation Model

By Andrew Zimmerman Jones and Daniel Robbins from String Theory For Dummies

Some variations and alternatives to the inflation model are posed by string theorists and other physicists...

In 1980, astrophysicist Alan Guth proposed the inflation theory to solve the horizon and flatness problems (although later refinements by Andrei Linde, Andreas Albrecht, Paul Steinhardt, and others were required to get it to work). In this model, the early universal expansion accelerated at a rate much faster than we see today.

So we see right here that string failed early on. Guth could not get the early inflation models to work... He began working closely with other string theorists (Guth himself is a string theorist). I reiterate that inflation did NOT work, and that he began working with other STRING THEORISTS to MAKE it work...

(although later refinements by Andrei Linde, Andreas Albrecht, Paul Steinhardt, and others were required to get it to work)

And this:

Theoretical Physicist (String Theorist) Leonard Susskind, viewed by some as the "father of string theory", here explains how string and eternal inflation were woven together...


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/marc ... 30205.html

Quote:
String theorist explores dark energy, 'pocket universes'

Do 'pocket universes' exist?
In recent years, some physicists have suggested that rather than having one universe with one set of physical laws, string theory may lay the foundation for the possibility of the existence of innumerable "pocket universes," each with its own landscape of physical laws.

"The word 'universe' is obviously not intended to have a plural, but science has evolved in such a way that we need a plural noun for something similar to what we ordinarily call our universe," Susskind explained. "Alan Guth coined the name 'pocket universe,' meaning a pocket of space, a region of space, over which the environment is uniform, the laws of nature are uniform, the constants of nature are uniform

So there ya go... o yeah here is Guths Quantixation of a scalar field from MIT:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-32 ... eory-i-spr...

Quote:
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Physics Department 8.323: Relativistic Quantum Field Theory I Quantization of the Free Scalar Field February 14, 2008 " Alan Guth Alan Guth Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8.323, February 14, 2008

There is no doubt whatsover, that the only workable accepted model today of inflation, is completely dependent and co-opted and woven into string theory... it was the ONLY WAY to MAKE it work, and even then all the predictions tested at CERN were falsified.

.

[Wolfbitn]

Tell ya what... give me a working model of Guth's inflation that is NOT woven into string... And tell me why for some reason you think he would be a string theorist that isnt theorizing in string?

I know you cant do the former, and the latter might be amusing.

.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 333 by Wolfbitn]

Please stop wolf I am begging you. This position you are holding is not tenable. I really enjoy your passion for debate it is nice to have an active participant in some of these forums but can we just drop it and move on to a different subject?

In this case you have not convinced anyone period. You are not going to convince anyone. It is starting to get monotonous. Not a single christian on this site has backed you. In fact they have by and large abstained from commenting on your threads. This is a sign, that you have not convinced anyone.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 334 by DanieltheDragon]

I dont expect to convert anyone here. I only mean to show their position on Genesis 1 is in error, and it is more scientifically sound than modern cosmology.

The fact Divine QUIT, i believe proved my position unassailable.,

[Divine Insight]

The fact Divine QUIT, i believe proved my position unassailable.,

You grossly misrepresent Big Bang Theory. And you refuse to be corrected on your blatant and continual misrepresentation of it.

I quit debating with you because you refuse to even discuss Big Bang Theory at all. Instead you insist on making totally false claims about String Theory which has nothing at all to do with Big Bang Theory.

There is no point in debating with you about Big Bang Theory when you have displayed a complete ignorance of what the theory even has to say. And you continually refuse to even be corrected on this despite the numerous corrections that have been made to your fallacious claims.

You lose by default.

You never had a theory to bring to the table anyway. All you ever had was random speculations about Genesis 1 that aren't even consistent.

I had proven that you don't have a theory in my very first post to the debate.

You have never even so much a published your random speculations. And so you don't even have a theory to point to.

You are just screaming and dancing here for no good reason. And you most certainly aren't making Christianity look good.

Moreover, I might add, that even if it were possible to defend Genesis 1 as having any scientific merit, that would also support Judaism and Islam, and not loan any credence to Christianity in particular anyway.

You'd still be faced with having to defend the entire biblical canon after that. And you'd run into extreme problems in the very next couple of chapters of Genesis anyway.

So even if you could make a case for Genesis 1 you wouldn't have gotten very far in terms of making a case for the overall biblical canon.

Also, proclaiming that Big Bang Theory is dependent upon String Theory and that Sting Theory has been falsified doesn't do anything to support your theological speculations about Genesis anyway.

Your entire scam doesn't work.

If you want to impress someone with your interpretations of Genesis one you need to do it directly, not by hiding behind false claims and false misrepresentations of science.

Science isn't in competition with religion, unless as a religion person you demand that war. And if you do demand that war, you will lose, for sure.

The gross misrepresentations that you try to slide by in your posts on here would never even begin to get anywhere in a real debate with scientists. Alan Guth would be the very first person to renounce your gross misrepresentations of both Big Bang Theory and his Inflation Theory I am sure.

In fact, he just did renounced your position in the video that I had just posted.

You remain in DENIAL.

[Nickman]

To Wolf,

You didn't reply to this.

If only it actually was a theory. Its not a theory. It is an interpretation of ancient texts that twists the literal meaning of Genesis to fit scientific findings. The same science that formed our understanding of our earliest past, you dismiss when it comes to the big bang. The evidence that supports the BB, you dismiss without any substance in return. You quoted from scientists that support the BB, such as Guth, and whom have made scientific findings that add to it, i.e. inflation. This further backed by WMAP. The Hubble exploration showed that the predictions made based on earlier research were true. It is a fact that the universe is expanding. If you deny that, you have not studied the evidence. Your "theory" doesn't explain how the universe came into existence and what happened during the first seconds of its birth. It assumes that an invisible creator god made everything. That is not an explanation. You are missing too much data. Your "theory" starts with god creating the universe and then fast forwards to an unknown time, where you then shoehorn an extinction event into an ancient text that doesn't support your interpretation. The BB explains how all the visible matter was created in superheated reactions deep inside supernovas. Then it explains how this matter collaborated to form the cosmos that we see today. Your "theory" says "god did it." The BB is scrutinized by leading scientists on a daily basis. Your "theory" has never seen the light of scientific peer-review. It is not even recognized by leading proponents for the authenticity of scripture. The peer-review that it has met here on the forum has already shown that your "theory" fails in comparison to BB cosmology.

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 336 by Divine Insight]

This is the post that made Divine CONCEDE the debate, and he cant answer it here.... post 19 from our head to head

And his hole gets deeper and deeper...


Divine states in his last post (#18):

I did no such thing. I have never claimed that either String Theory or Inflation Theory are "verified theories".

Yet in post 12 he states:

Finally I would like to also point out that Alan Guth's original Inflation Hypothesis has since become a full-blown and well-established "theory" in its own right...

No... as we established through several test results from CERN, that were shown to be published in various mainstream well respected publications, string theory has been repeatedly falsified, so if you didnt actually make the claim, you certainly strongly implied it... I will accept your concession then String's predictions have been repeatedly falsified at CERN.


Undisputable facts:

1) Yes Guth proposes a process called eternal inflation.

2) Yes several models of inflation exist, not just Guth's.

3) To explain Eternal Inflation Guth has utilized string theory and woven eternal infation INTO string. Because early inflation models failed, whereas string allowed for eternal expansion at such an accelerated rate, and then the just as sudden slow down to a much much slower constant speed.

4) Since string has been repeatedly falsified, eternal inflation has no basis, simply because the accepted version of inflation is by necessity woven into and has become a part of string theory.

5) Hence Guths statement that eternal inflation is described in terms of string.

6) Hence the 6 web sites I provided showing that eternal inflation is in fact simply one aspect of "string".

7) You went on to say there is no such thing as Darwinism???? I cant believe youd make this statement publicly.


Divine says from post 18:

There is no such thing as "Darwinism" in science. Darwinism is a derogatory term used by religious fanatics who are in denial of the modern evidence for evolution.

From Stanford:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/

Darwinism
First published Fri Aug 13, 2004; substantive revision Tue Jan 19, 2010
Darwinism designates a distinctive form of evolutionary explanation for the history and diversity of life on earth. Its original formulation is provided in the first edition of On the Origin of Species in 1859. This entry first formulates Darwin's Darwinism in terms of five philosophically distinctive themes: (i) probability and chance, (ii) the nature, power and scope of selection, (iii) adaptation and teleology, (iv) nominalism vs. essentialism about species and (v) the tempo and mode of evolutionary change. Both Darwin and his critics recognized that his approach to evolution was distinctive on each of these topics, and it remains true that, though Darwinism has developed in many ways unforeseen by Darwin, its proponents and critics continue to differentiate it from other approaches in evolutionary biology by focusing on these themes.

from new world encyclopedia

www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/[b]Darwinism[/b]

Since the time of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species (1859), Darwinism has confronted challenges from both the scientific and religious communities. Among persistent scientific challenges are the lack of evidences for natural selection as the causal agent of macroevolutionary change; the issue of whether evidences on the microevolutionary level can be extrapolated to the macroevolutionary level; and the surprisingly rapid rate of speciation and prolonged stasis seen in the fossil record (see macroevolution).

In his book Origins, Darwin speculates that life evolved in a very long very slow and methodical process with no jumps and no sudden spurts, and this just does not bear up in the fossil record. Darwin also explained these apparent jumps and sudden explosions as just an illusion of his present day, stating further that future finds would justify the long slow constant process... we know this didnt happen... so yeah Darwinism fails that one, but Genesis 1 leads us to predict then that we should see sudden appearances of a huge abundance of evolved life reflected in the fossil record... and we do.




Now regarding the other insistent statements you make insisting inflation is not just another facet of string, Despite quotes from Allan Guth, and showing you eternal inflation was described ONLY IN string with any success at all...

http://www.zbp.univie.ac.at/ausstellung/guth/inflation/

Inflation and the String Theory Landscape lautete der Titel des Vortrages, den Alan H. Guth vom Massachusetts Institute of Technology am Montag, dem 21. April 2008 um 17 Uhr im Groen Hrsaal fr Experimentalphysik hielt. Den Inhalt seiner Prsentation beschreibt der Erfinder der Theorie vom inflationren Universum mit folgenden Worten:

After a quick review of how inflation works, I will discuss some of the key features of our universe that suggest that it emerged from a period of inflation: its uniformity, its near-critical mass density, and the spectrum of density perturbations that is now observed in the cosmic microwave background radiation. I will then turn to the biggest outstanding mystery in cosmology: the value of the cosmological constant, or equivalently the energy density of the vacuum. Nobody understands why it is so small. One controversial explanation starts with the claim that string theory offers a colossal number of vacuum states, with varying energy densities. If inflation can populate all of these vacua, and life evolves only in vacua with small energy densities, then the mystery might be solved. I will argue that this explanation is logically sound, but I will stop short of claiming that it is right.

So Alan Guth himself states in lecture that he is using string to describe eternal inflation. He has used string to weave in his theory AND to describe it, and he shows this is the view he favors, and the view he is working on and the point of view he is coming from... when he states:

...string theory offers a colossal number of vacuum states, with varying energy densities. If inflation can populate all of these vacua, and life evolves only in vacua with small energy densities, then the mystery might be solved. I will argue that this explanation is logically sound, but I will stop short of claiming that it is right.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/s ... 11234.html

String Theory: Variations of the Inflation Model

By Andrew Zimmerman Jones and Daniel Robbins from String Theory For Dummies

Some variations and alternatives to the inflation model are posed by string theorists and other physicists...

In 1980, astrophysicist Alan Guth proposed the inflation theory to solve the horizon and flatness problems (although later refinements by Andrei Linde, Andreas Albrecht, Paul Steinhardt, and others were required to get it to work). In this model, the early universal expansion accelerated at a rate much faster than we see today.

So we see eternal inflation is a variation of string set forth by string theorists.


And from here

http://wikipedia.unicefuganda.org/lates ... -guth97-57

In the early proposal of Guth, it was thought that the inflaton was the Higgs field, the field which explains the mass of the elementary particles.[31] It is now known that the inflaton cannot be the Higgs field.[58] Other models of inflation relied on the properties of grand unified theories.[37] Since the simplest models of grand unification have failed, it is now thought by many physicists that inflation will be included in a supersymmetric theory like string theory or a supersymmetric grand unified theory.

And as we just saw earlier, from prestigious scientific publications ... SUSY... or super symmetry has been falsified at CERN.

Would you like to see Guth's quantization of a scalar field? In other words another aspect of string associated with inflation? I told you I follow his work closely, and this was something I studied last year.

Here ya go... from MIT:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-32 ... 1p1_08.pdf

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Physics Department 8.323: Relativistic Quantum Field Theory I Quantization of the Free Scalar Field February 14, 2008 " Alan Guth Alan Guth Massachusetts Institute of Technology 8.323, February 14, 2008

And of course the quantization of scalar fields is simply another necessary aspect of string theory:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2012/201856/

Research Article

Quantization of Free Scalar Fields in the Presence of Natural Cutoffs

K. Nozari, F. Moafi, and F. Rezaee Balef


Abstract

We construct a quantum theory of free scalar fields in (1+1)-dimensions based on the deformed Heisenberg algebra , that admits the existence of both a minimal measurable length and a maximal momentum, where is a deformation parameter. We consider both canonical and path integral formalisms of the scenario. Finally a higher dimensional extension is easily performed in the path integral formalism.

...By now, string theory is one of the most successful theoretical frameworks which overcomes the difficulty of ultraviolet divergences in quantum theory of gravity. Incorporation of gravity in quantum field theory leads naturally to an effective cutoff (a minimal measurable length) in the ultraviolet regime. Therefore, if we construct a field theory which captures some stringy nature and/or includes stringy corrections, then it would play a crucial role in investigation of physics at high energy scales towards the Planck scale.

...Since position and momentum are dual to each other, it is natural to argue that existence of a minimal measurable length naturally leads to the existence of a maximal momentum. This issue has not been considered in the mentioned studies of scalar field theory. It is obvious that existence of a cutoff on particles momentum affects considerably the formulation of the quantum field theory with just a minimal length cutoff. Based on this argument, our central task in this study is to construct a field theory for free scalar fields in the presence of quantum gravity effects encoded in a GUP that admits existence of a minimal measurable length and a maximal particles momentum. Following our recent work on Hilbert space representation of quantum mechanics in this case [36], we reformulate the main structure of a free scalar field theory in this setup. Our primary input is the following GUP [37"39]:

So no Divine, your charge that eternal inflation has nothing to do with string theory fails.


Theoretical Physicist (String Theorist) Leonard Susskind, viewed by some as the "father of string theory", here explains how string and eternal inflation were woven together...


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/marc ... 30205.html

String theorist explores dark energy, 'pocket universes'

Do 'pocket universes' exist?
In recent years, some physicists have suggested that rather than having one universe with one set of physical laws, string theory may lay the foundation for the possibility of the existence of innumerable "pocket universes," each with its own landscape of physical laws.

"The word 'universe' is obviously not intended to have a plural, but science has evolved in such a way that we need a plural noun for something similar to what we ordinarily call our universe," Susskind explained. "Alan Guth coined the name 'pocket universe,' meaning a pocket of space, a region of space, over which the environment is uniform, the laws of nature are uniform, the constants of nature are uniform

So yes indeed todays most widely accepted inflationary model depends entirely on string, even though string has been repeatedly falsified at CERN.

The standard accepted model of the BB depends COMPLETELY on string to prop it up and answer all of it's various inconsistencies that are actually observable... we will come to this.





Now lets go on to the answers to the questions I asked.

I asked:

1) You saw the ACTUAL wmap document describing the parameters, and that the adjusted parameter did not resemble the original observed parameter. You saw it was fit to the test. I will accept a concession that this detracts from any credibility it would have had, had it kept to observation and exact parameters.

You answered:

1. The measurements of WMAP have been confirmed to be accurate.

But you elude the real question which you must concede. The measurements were accurate, but then the model parameters were changed and did not resemble the original observation.

THIS IS... the official WMAP document "determination of cosmological parameters":
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302209

We then FIT the model parameters to a COMBINATION of WMAP data with other finer scale CMB experiments (ACBAR and CBI), 2dFGRS measurements and Lyman alpha forest data to find the model's best fit cosmological
parameters: h=0.71+0.04-0.03, Omega_b h^2=0.0224+-0.0009, Omega_m
h^2=0.135+0.008-0.009, tau=0.17+-0.06, n_s(0.05/Mpc)=0.93+-0.03, and sigma_8=0.84+-0.04. WMAP's best determination of tau=0.17+-0.04 arises directly from the TE data and NOT from this model fit...

So yes the results were accurate, but the fit was not a fit to any previous observation because the parameters were changed away from the observed parameter to CLOSER FIT the predicted model fit... there it is in black and white... from the very scientists who "adjusted away" the parameters, right in their own document.


I will take your concession that this is entirely true.



you said:

2. String Theory is designed to meld together Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, it's not the purpose of string theory to solve problems of Inflation.

But then you fail to admit that Guth himself is describing inflation with and through string, hence the proof added above.

you said:

3. String Theory has not been falsified. Besides it has nothing to do with this debate. So you are off-limits by continually bringing it up anyway.

In spite of proof otherwise from well respected scientific journals:

From http://io9.com/5714210/string-theory-fa ... ental-test

Quote:
String theory fails first major experimental test


From: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... c-physicis...

Quote:
Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists.

Researchers working on the Compact Muon Solenoid team have been crunching numbers to test a form of string theory that calls for the creation and instant evaporation of miniature black holes. They report that the telltale signs of these black holes are disappointingly absent, however.

http://planetsave.com/2012/12/03/super- ... tests-phys...

Quote:
Super Symmetry Theory Fails Collider Tests " Physicists Must Seek New Theories of Everything


...The theory posited super partner particles " exotic particles that accompany every known particles and what provide the symmetry in super symmetry " that would indirectly confirm such controversial New Physics theories as String Theory.

But with recent high energy collision experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) producing (most likely) the fabled Higgs Boson " but none of the partner particles expected to appear within the energies ranges utilized " physicists are now having to reconsider one of their most prized theoretical models of the universe.

SUSY Fails the Test

...Once again... super symmetry or SUSY was falsified at CERN... of course showing string to be at least consistently falsified every time Cern has a go at it.


POINT 4 you Conceded


for point 5 you answer:

5. The Fossil record does not agree with the claim of Genesis that every creature brought for its own kind. So no, I don't agree with #5

You DO HAVE to concede the point that Genesis 1 states the waters brought forth "the foul" and "Every creature that moveth".

You then state:

6. I do not conceded to #6. There are thousands of creation stories I have no clue how many of them suggest that life came from water but I imagine that many of them would likely make that claim it seems like a reasonable claim for a fairytale.

Of course you do... you know not a single one do or you would have provided it... so concede the point that to your knowledge Genesis 1 is stands alone in ancient documents which establish that "every creature that moveth" was brought forth from the sea.

7. Extinction events have been scientifically verified. And this is in fact what has caused you to go back and proclaim that the Bible describes an extinction event instead of a creation event. What I am in disagreement with here is your opinionated theological interpretations. and that is what you would need to prove are correct.

Then concede the point that The Hebrew language ALLOWS US to understand Genesis 1 as an extinction event and the subsequent restoration of life, or prove the language does not allow us to take it this way.

8. I disagree with this entirely. It clearly states in Genesis that the earth was without form and void. It does not state that God was erasing dinosaurs and decided to create humans to play with instead

I provided the breakdown of the hewbrew words WITH definitions proving it indeed CAN BE taken this way... you offer your opinion with no source whatsover, so provide this source to refute it, or concede it now.


Then you said...

9. I most certainly don't agree with this. String theorists are toying with attempting to bring string theory to bear upon Inflation. But Inflation theory itself was not originally a string theory. This is just you grossly misrepresenting science again.

BINGO... you said it right there... NOT ORIGINALLY was eternal inflation "string theory"... but now you know it is indeed dependent upon string and simply another aspect of modern string theory.


Divine goes on to try to refute noted scientists and scientific journals who say the fossil record disagreed with Darwinism's gradualism.

He offers not so much as a single source and states simply:

Again, all of your arguments are being made against Darwin. And all of the links you've pointed to also object to Darwin. And most, if not all, of the links you've pointed to are creationists trying to make a case for the Bible, they are not scientists looking at evidence without a preconceived theological agenda.

What is he talking about?

New Scientist is certainly not a creationist site, and they state:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... d-cambrian...


LIFE on Earth experienced a singular revolution just over 500 million years ago. In a geological blink of an eye, most groups of the animal kingdom appeared in the Earth's oceans and then diversified. The acquisition of skeletons, the advent of predation and the rise of complex ecosystems all occurred in what's known as the Cambrian explosion of marine animals.

Life took such a giant leap forward in abundance and complexity during the Cambrian that the rock record itself was indelibly changed. Long before geologists knew the precise age of the Earth, they could divide its history into two parts: the first 4 billion years, known simply as the Precambrian, followed by the Phanerozoic, meaning "visible life", which includes the Cambrian right up to today.

Evolutionary change isn't supposed to happen so abruptly, at least not according to Charles Darwin.

Live science is certainly not a creationist site, and they state:

http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... palaeontol...

Quote:
AMONG the mysteries of evolution, one of the most profound is what exactly happened at the beginning of the Cambrian period. Before that period, which started 541m years ago and ran on for 56m years, life was a modest thing. Bacteria had been around for about 3 billion years, but for most of this time they had had the Earth to themselves. Seaweeds,
jellyfish-like creatures, sponges and the odd worm do start to put in an appearance a few million years before the Cambrian begins. But red in tooth and claw the Precambrian was not"for neither teeth nor claws existed.

Then, in the 20m-year blink of a geological eye, animals arrived in force. Most of the main groups of the animal kingdom"arthropods, brachiopods, coelenterates, echinoderms, molluscs and even chordates, the branch from which vertebrates went on to develop"are found in the fossil beds of the Cambrian. The sudden evolution of this megafauna is known as the Cambrian explosion. But two centuries after it was noticed, in the mountains of Wales after which the Cambrian period is named, nobody knows what
detonated it.

Nils Heribert-Nilsson is no creationist but stated:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.

So no these are not creationist sites, they are well respected men and women within mainstream science.


Now lets consider some problems with the BB.


From: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V0 ... 9N2tvf.PDF

1. Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match
different tests. [2,3] Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occams razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters" the static universe model.


2. The microwave background makes more sense as
the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight
than as the remnant of a fireball.

3. Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang
require too many adjustable parameters to make
them work.

The universal abundances of most elements were predicted correctly by Hoyle in the context of the original Steady State cosmological model. This worked for all elements heavier than lithium. The Big Bang co-opted those results and concentrated on predicting the abundances of the light elements. Each such prediction requires at least one adjustable parameter unique to that element prediction. Often, its a question of figuring out why the element was either
created or destroyed or both to some degree following the Big Bang. When you take away these degrees of freedom, no genuine prediction remains.


4. The universe has too much large scale structure
(interspersed walls and voids) to form in a time as
short as 10-20 billion years.


5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease
with time in just the right way so that their average
apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts,
which is exceedingly unlikely.


6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the
universe.

Even though the data have been stretched in the direction toward resolving this since the top ten list first appeared, the error bars on the Hubble age of the universe (122 Gyr) still do not quite overlap
the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (162 Gyr). Astronomers have studied this for the past decade, but resist the observational error explanation because that would almost certainly push the Hubble age older (as Sandage has been arguing for years), which creates several new problems for the Big Bang.

7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high
for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for galaxies of a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The Big Bang interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of galaxies
relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130 Mpc. Earlier, the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a Great Attractor pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in newer studies, no backside infall was found on the other side of the
hypothetical feature. Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us out to 60-70 Mpc in a consistent direction relative to the microwave background. The only Big Bang alternative to the apparent result of
large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in 7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.


8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but nonbaryonic
nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

The Big Bang requires sprinkling galaxies, clusters, superclusters, and the universe with ever- increasing amounts of this invisible, not-yetdetected dark matter to keep the theory viable. Overall, over 90% of
the universe must be made of something we have never detected. By contrast, Milgroms model (the alternative to dark matter) provides a one-parameter explanation that works at all scales and requires no
dark matter to exist at any scale. (I exclude the additional 50%- 100% of invisible ordinary matter inferred to exist by, e.g., MACHO studies.) Some physicists dont like modifying the law of gravity in
this way, but a finite range for natural forces is a logical necessity (not just theory) spoken of since the 17th century. [29,30]


9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field
show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some
of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the
highest-redshift quasars.

The Big Bang requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be primitive, meaning mostly metal-free, because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. But the latest evidence suggests lots of metal in the earliest quasars and galaxies. [31,32,33] Moreover, we now have evidence for numerous ordinary galaxies in what the Big Bang expected to be the dark age of evolution of the universe, when the light of the few
primitive galaxies in existence would be blocked from view by hydrogen clouds. [34]


10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated
back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual
density of matter in the universe to the critical
density must differ from unity by just a part in 10 to the 59th power. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Inflation failed to achieve its goal when many observations went against it. To maintain consistency and salvage inflation, the Big Bang has now introduced two new adjustable parameters: (1) the cosmological constant, which has a major fine-tuning problem of its own because theory suggests it ought to be of order 10 to the 120th power, and observations suggest a value less than 1; and (2) quintessence or dark energy. [35,36] This latter theoretical substance solves the fine-tuning problem by introducing invisible, undetectable energy sprinkled at will as needed throughout the universe to keep consistency between theory and observations. It can therefore be accurately described as the ultimate fudge factor.

So:

Divine concedes number 4, that Genesis chapter 1 outright states that EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH originated from the sea.


Now I want the following concessions:

1) Yes Guth is a theoretical physicist who works with string theory although earlier in his career he developed inflationary theory... Concede this point now please.

2) When inflation failed in the early 80's Guth and a handful more theoretical physicists began to apply string theory to to inflation, thus changing the foundation for the original hypothesis.

3) Concede There IS SUCH A THING as "Darwinism".

4) Concede you stated there was no such thing as "Darwinism".

5) Concede that the gradualism of Darwinism is in contradiction to what we find in the Cambrian as was noted in those prestigious scientific publications I provided for you.

6) Concede that since Genesis 1 stated outright that birds and every living thing that moveth came from the waters, we have to assume it is admitting or informing us that the birds evolved eventually from the water.

7) Concede that you have not been able to produce a single other ancient document proclaiming that every living thing that moveth" evolved from the water.

8) Concede that Genesis 1 :2 can be read and understood as "the earth BECAME wasted and emptied", or produce scholarly peer reviewed material as to why it cannot be read or understood this way.

9) Concede that continental drift began approximately 200 million years ago by present theory, and that the breaking apart and separation of the super continent occurred over time.

10) Concede that the breaking off of Saudi Arabia from Africa occurred in the present age according to the charts you were provided.

11) Concede that predictions made by string theorists have been repeatedly falsified by Physicists at CERN.

12) Concede that the falsification of these tests done at CERN dismayed string theorists.

13) Concede that in the Hebrew, "echad" means one unit made up of more than one part... in the same way that "One" dollar is made up of 100 cents.

14) Concede that the official document explaining the parameters of the WMAP tests (that you were provided with) were adjusted away from the observed parameter to FIT the test results.

15) Concede that falsification of string's predictions preformed through testing at CERN, causes a LOT of problem for the BB because it is the only "theory of everything " out there to fix it's observed discrepancies such as flatness and horizon.

16) Concede that both Michio Kako and Guth admit string is the only theory out there before the public that attempts to resolve these problems with BB.

17) Concede that the prestigious publications refuting Darwinism, that I provided for in this thread you WERE NOT creationist publications but legitimate scientific publications.

18) Concede that before this debate you didn't even think the BB qualified as a valid theory at all.

...maybe this will refresh your memory:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=10

In post 11 you state this, and I quote:

To begin with you are arguing a fallacious argument. You are addressing the "Big Bang" as if the Big Bang itself is some sort of "theory". Actually it's not.

Then HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=20

in post 29 you said, and again I quote

As far as I'm concerned the Big Bang is not a "theory". It can be viewed as either a hypothesis, or as a conclusion from current observations.

So I think you made yourself pretty clear.


Now... once again, since pangea has suddenly become relevant, I ask you to answer the following questions:

Direct questions:

1) What can you tell us about Pangea?

2) How many times has this earth reformed into a super-continent?

3) Did it fit back together the same way every time?

4) When did Pangea break apart?

5) How old is modern man?

6) Are there any ancient records regarding Pangea?

7) Is continental drift constant and slow, or as we saw in evolution does it sometimes suddenly explode with movement?

8) Do you know of ANY OTHER ancient records referring to continental drift?


and...

9) Since string has been falsified over and over at CERN, what theory do you suppose rescues the BB's problems with flatness and horizon? Do you see ANY other accepted theory doing this?

10) And possibly most importantly... Without string theory, how do you resolve the 10 problems with the Big Bang that were provided above? How do you resolve flatness and horizon problems without string? Take each point and resolve it without string theory please or concede that there simply is no other theory before the public, given any credibility, that even comes close to resolving these issues aside from string.


.

.[/quote][/quote]


.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 338 by Wolfbitn]

Read post 337

[Wolfbitn]

[Replying to post 339 by Nickman]

no problem... as soon as someone addresses the points in post 19... the one that made Divine Concede... my last post before this one.

.