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
Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions
Moderator: Moderators
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Genesis 1 vs BBT debate 1 conclusions
Post #1[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #341
[Replying to post 338 by Wolfbitn]
Your continual misrepresentations aren't helping your case.
Your post starts off with a gross misrepresentation:
Well-established is not the same as "verified". We have no way to verify that inflation had actually occurred. But the theory is still well-established in that it is built upon sound physical principles.
Moreover, you aren't merely attempting to misrepresent my position on things here, but you are still talking about Inflation theory like as if it is a relevant issue to Big Bang Theory when in fact it is not, and this has already been well-establised.
The mere fact that you continually bring up Inflation Theory and String Theory long after it has been well-established that Big Bang Theory is not dependent on either one of these is your gross misrepresentation of Big Bang Theory.
I told you way back in a very early post in the debate that both Inflation Theory and String Theory are OFF-TOPIC. Big Bang Theory is not dependent on either one of these. Yet that has been your sole focus ever since.
You flat out refuse to discuss Big Bang Theory without continually attempting to divert attention away from Big Bang Theory and bring attention to bear onto Inflation Theory and String Theory (two totally different theories) neither of which is important to Big Bang Theory.
In fact, you even proved this yourself when you linked to the article by Paul Steinhardt who rejected Inflation Theory and instead proposed a cyclic universe that continually contracts, bounces, and re-expands.
Paul Steinhardt's cyclic theory totally rejects Inflation Theory, yet at the very same time totally embraces Big Bang Theory.
Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt the Big Bang Theory is not dependent upon Inflation Theory.
So you LOSE!
You have nothing but false misrepresentations about science Wolfbitn. And you have even provided overwhelming evidence for this yourself with every article you point to.
You have NOTHING.
You have no theory of your own to offer.
And you clearly do not understand what Big Bang Theory is even saying.
You are totally obsessed with Inflation Theory, and String Theory, neither of which are required for Big Bang Theory.
I was attempting to debate Big Bang Theory, but you refuse to address Big Bang Theory at all.
You have flatly refused to address the topic of debate without introducing totally false and misrepresented information.
And this is why I refuse to continue to debate with you.
You refuse to address the truth.
Your continual misrepresentations aren't helping your case.
Your post starts off with a gross misrepresentation:
There is nothing conflicting in the above two statements. In one statement I was speaking about "verified theories", in the second statement I was referring to a "well-established" theory.Divine states in his last post (#18):
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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...
Well-established is not the same as "verified". We have no way to verify that inflation had actually occurred. But the theory is still well-established in that it is built upon sound physical principles.
Moreover, you aren't merely attempting to misrepresent my position on things here, but you are still talking about Inflation theory like as if it is a relevant issue to Big Bang Theory when in fact it is not, and this has already been well-establised.
The mere fact that you continually bring up Inflation Theory and String Theory long after it has been well-established that Big Bang Theory is not dependent on either one of these is your gross misrepresentation of Big Bang Theory.
I told you way back in a very early post in the debate that both Inflation Theory and String Theory are OFF-TOPIC. Big Bang Theory is not dependent on either one of these. Yet that has been your sole focus ever since.
You flat out refuse to discuss Big Bang Theory without continually attempting to divert attention away from Big Bang Theory and bring attention to bear onto Inflation Theory and String Theory (two totally different theories) neither of which is important to Big Bang Theory.
In fact, you even proved this yourself when you linked to the article by Paul Steinhardt who rejected Inflation Theory and instead proposed a cyclic universe that continually contracts, bounces, and re-expands.
Paul Steinhardt's cyclic theory totally rejects Inflation Theory, yet at the very same time totally embraces Big Bang Theory.
Thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt the Big Bang Theory is not dependent upon Inflation Theory.
So you LOSE!
You have nothing but false misrepresentations about science Wolfbitn. And you have even provided overwhelming evidence for this yourself with every article you point to.
You have NOTHING.
You have no theory of your own to offer.
And you clearly do not understand what Big Bang Theory is even saying.
You are totally obsessed with Inflation Theory, and String Theory, neither of which are required for Big Bang Theory.
I was attempting to debate Big Bang Theory, but you refuse to address Big Bang Theory at all.
You have flatly refused to address the topic of debate without introducing totally false and misrepresented information.
And this is why I refuse to continue to debate with you.
You refuse to address the truth.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Post #342
[Replying to post 341 by Divine Insight]
Theres really no need to speak to me about this again, until you are answering post 19 point by point... Thats where YOU are
If you cant do it I will take your replacement into the head to head and THEY can deal with it..
.
Theres really no need to speak to me about this again, until you are answering post 19 point by point... Thats where YOU are
If you cant do it I will take your replacement into the head to head and THEY can deal with it..
.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous
Morpheous
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #343
[Replying to post 342 by Wolfbitn]
You are free to do whatever you so desire Wolfbitn.
I'm not sure who you think "they" are, but I seriously doubt that you have anyone buying into your misrepresentations. Anyone who has actually been reading my posts, watched the video by Alan Guth, or have read the links you yourself have provided to other articles can clearly see that you have been misrepresenting all of these.
Also anyone who has been reading the debate is also aware that you have never published your own theological speculations. And they are also aware by now that you have two entirely different self-contradictory speculations about Genesis.
You began by demanding that Genesis 1 describes the extinction event at the time of the dinosaurs. And then you changed your tune later and demanded that Genesis 1 describes a brand new creation event of a single land mass called Pangea some 300 million years earlier.
So I seriously doubt that anyone is convinced by much of anything you have to say. So by all means, post away.
The Debate is over, and I won't be responding to that thread any further.
You are free to do whatever you so desire Wolfbitn.
I'm not sure who you think "they" are, but I seriously doubt that you have anyone buying into your misrepresentations. Anyone who has actually been reading my posts, watched the video by Alan Guth, or have read the links you yourself have provided to other articles can clearly see that you have been misrepresenting all of these.
Also anyone who has been reading the debate is also aware that you have never published your own theological speculations. And they are also aware by now that you have two entirely different self-contradictory speculations about Genesis.
You began by demanding that Genesis 1 describes the extinction event at the time of the dinosaurs. And then you changed your tune later and demanded that Genesis 1 describes a brand new creation event of a single land mass called Pangea some 300 million years earlier.
So I seriously doubt that anyone is convinced by much of anything you have to say. So by all means, post away.
The Debate is over, and I won't be responding to that thread any further.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #344
[Replying to post 343 by Divine Insight]
Divine Insight won lol end of story. He didn't want to make you look bad so he ended the debate early.
Divine Insight won lol end of story. He didn't want to make you look bad so he ended the debate early.
Post #345
[Replying to Divine Insight]
Divine HAD to quit because he ALREADY looked so bad it was sad for him... He didnt even know there was such a thing as Darwinism, he didnt know eternal inflation is now STRING theory, he didnt know GUTH was a string theorist.... there wasnt much he DID KNOW... You guys are hilarious... He had to quit because I put him in a corner causing him to have to concede nearly every point brought out thus far... He even got everything regarding the sciences wrong and was openly and publicly corrected and completely embarrassed.
And NO ONE HERE has the guts to take it up where he left off, You cant even do it combined.... Until someone develops those guts, take your childish games off my thread.
Divine is a QUITTER. A loser... one who conceded because he had no answer. In his embarrassment and shame he tried to say he was misrepresented, but then alas he couldnt post any such misrepresentation, so he has his friends come in and try to bury the fact he was so embarrassed... but the embarrassing thing for all of you is that none of you, nor ALL of you combined can take this one christian out.
So be embarrassed, be less than noble, be childish, and be a quitter... run run run.
You forfeit.
Have a nice day
.
Divine HAD to quit because he ALREADY looked so bad it was sad for him... He didnt even know there was such a thing as Darwinism, he didnt know eternal inflation is now STRING theory, he didnt know GUTH was a string theorist.... there wasnt much he DID KNOW... You guys are hilarious... He had to quit because I put him in a corner causing him to have to concede nearly every point brought out thus far... He even got everything regarding the sciences wrong and was openly and publicly corrected and completely embarrassed.
And NO ONE HERE has the guts to take it up where he left off, You cant even do it combined.... Until someone develops those guts, take your childish games off my thread.
Divine is a QUITTER. A loser... one who conceded because he had no answer. In his embarrassment and shame he tried to say he was misrepresented, but then alas he couldnt post any such misrepresentation, so he has his friends come in and try to bury the fact he was so embarrassed... but the embarrassing thing for all of you is that none of you, nor ALL of you combined can take this one christian out.
So be embarrassed, be less than noble, be childish, and be a quitter... run run run.
You forfeit.
Have a nice day
.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous
Morpheous
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #346
I was actually going to give nice college-level lecture describing the overwhelming evidence for Big Bang Theory and why cosmologists are all convinced of its truth.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 343 by Divine Insight]
Divine Insight won lol end of story. He didn't want to make you look bad so he ended the debate early.
But Wolfbitn refused to allow that and instead kept demanding that I focus all of my attention on his endless barrage of totally false misrepresentations of Big Bang Theory, demanding that I totally justify all of these unrelated false accusations whilst he pretends to have a consistent theory about Genesis 1.
I think that pointing out the inconsistency and contradictory nature of his own unpublished theological speculations is sufficient. He doesn't even have a meaningful theory of Genesis 1 to compare with anything anyway. So the whole debate is a moot point.
Besides, Big Bang Theory is already available in textbooks and colleges around the world for anyone who's genuinely interested. Not to mention on the Internet.
And where is Wolfbitn's "theory"?
Purely in his head. And it's not even well-organized or consistent in that form. He can't even make up his mind whether Genesis 1 describes an extinction event at the time of the dinosaurs or a creation event of Pangea some 300 million years earlier.
I think he should have sorted that out first. This is why he needs to publish his hypothesis first and have it peer-reviewed.
As he currently describes it I can't even imagine other Christian theologians accepting it. I think they too would point out the extreme contradictions in his claims.
So let him publish his theory, have it at least peer reviewed by theologians. And then, if it passes that test, he could try to get the scientific community to take a look at it.
That's the advice I have to offer.
Publish, publish, publish! That's the first step.
Until he does that he has nothing but random conflicting ideas that he can change on the fly.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Post #347
[Replying to post 346 by Divine Insight]
Divine if you are going to continue to dribble, get yourself back in that debate and answer post 19... yeah the one that made you quit..
Quitters have no right to parade... quitters only have the right to slink and crawl away from what they forfeited n shame.
So if you have ANYTHING to say and want to pretend you did something to be proud of, say it in the debate or shut it down.
.
Divine if you are going to continue to dribble, get yourself back in that debate and answer post 19... yeah the one that made you quit..
Quitters have no right to parade... quitters only have the right to slink and crawl away from what they forfeited n shame.
So if you have ANYTHING to say and want to pretend you did something to be proud of, say it in the debate or shut it down.
.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous
Morpheous
-
Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Post #348
[Replying to post 347 by Wolfbitn]
The debate is over.
What part of that are you not understanding?
There was no winner, or loser.
The debate was a sham from the get go.
You don't even have a published theory to offer.
All you have is confused and conflicting ideas in your own mind concerning both your own theological speculations and on what science actually knows. You don't even understand what Big Bang Theory is even about. You are not in a position to be debating it.
The debate is over.
What part of that are you not understanding?
There was no winner, or loser.
The debate was a sham from the get go.
You don't even have a published theory to offer.
All you have is confused and conflicting ideas in your own mind concerning both your own theological speculations and on what science actually knows. You don't even understand what Big Bang Theory is even about. You are not in a position to be debating it.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Post #349
[Replying to post 348 by Divine Insight]
Wrong... you are a quitter, you are a loser, you forfeited, you concede, because you cant answer post 19 without losing. QUIT QUIT QUIT... QUITTER.
Whats more the few little friends you have here cant even help you win even after I offered to allow you ALL to answer 19.
Now move along... you want to quit, stop crying about it and just slink away. You couldnt beat me and quit in shame seeing how badly you had beat YOURSELF in that debate...
Even Forrest Gumps mom taught him that quitters never win, so leave this thread to the victor please
.
Wrong... you are a quitter, you are a loser, you forfeited, you concede, because you cant answer post 19 without losing. QUIT QUIT QUIT... QUITTER.
Whats more the few little friends you have here cant even help you win even after I offered to allow you ALL to answer 19.
Now move along... you want to quit, stop crying about it and just slink away. You couldnt beat me and quit in shame seeing how badly you had beat YOURSELF in that debate...
Even Forrest Gumps mom taught him that quitters never win, so leave this thread to the victor please
.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous
Morpheous
-
dianaiad
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 10220
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
- Location: Southern California
Post #350
Wolfbitn wrote: [Replying to post 348 by Divine Insight]
Wrong... you are a quitter, you are a loser, you forfeited, you concede, because you cant answer post 19 without losing. QUIT QUIT QUIT... QUITTER.
Whats more the few little friends you have here cant even help you win even after I offered to allow you ALL to answer 19.
Now move along... you want to quit, stop crying about it and just slink away. You couldnt beat me and quit in shame seeing how badly you had beat YOURSELF in that debate...
Even Forrest Gumps mom taught him that quitters never win, so leave this thread to the victor please
.
Moderator WarningThis post is uncivil, a personal attack, and unacceptable. Do not make personal comments about other posters.
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.
