My Theory Regarding "Genesis 1" vs "Big Bang&

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

My Theory Regarding "Genesis 1" vs "Big Bang&

Post #1

Post by Wolfbitn »

I would like to welcome everyone to this debate between myself and Divine Insight. We may actually have 2 debates going on simultaneously if Nick is still wanting to participate.

This One on One, Head to Head debate is based upon the thread "Is Genesis 1 More Accurate than Big Bang Cosmology?" This is located in the science and religion forum.

The title of that thread was a bit misleading, but Haven, in all fairness had no idea where I was going to take the debate when he named it. It was certainly not intentional on his part but based on my statement: "I can demonstrate that Genesis 1 IS more scientifically valid and better tested than string theory/Big Bang in regards to it's relation to my theory."

In THIS thread this is what will be examined.


I would like to introduce also and thank Divine Insight, my opponent, for accepting the challenge, and To you Divine, I wish you sincerely the very best of luck, and I thank you sincerely for accepting it. But don't expect this to be a cakewalk. I am going to challenge you, hold you to standards, and make you present actual findings on the reported results on these tests that claim to verify BB prediction.

At any rate, good luck.


To everyone again...

The first thing everyone found in that original debate, was that I am not Ken Ham nor do I believe as he does. As is so very common in Christianity and Judaism we have MANY sects among us, each one choosing to believe scripture usually according to various more popular belief systems. For instance, As you know you have Young Earth Creationists, and you have OLD Earth Creationists. I am obviously an old earth creationist. Ken Hams are a minority within the church.

The OEC stance is (among those who actually study the issue in the church... too many do not study it at all) the most popular stance in Christianity today easily, as nearly everyone I know is OEC as opposed to YEC, if they even have a stance. In the OEC belief it is widely held that the days of creation equal ages, which is backed by the fact that the word translated day is also just as properly translated as age. These ages represent very long time periods. The most extensive time period most likely between the Genesis 1:1, and Genesis 1:2. We propose a wide gap of time between the 2 verses hence the name of this thought is "Gap Theory". So between verse 1, When God creates the heavens and earth, and verse 2, we are talking an extremely long and yet undetermined about of time.

I believe that nearly every Christian here would agree with me that if there was one unfortunate fact today within the church, it would be that many many people in the church, are only vaguely aware of what scripture teaches in nearly any subject area. They cant even agree on salvation issues. In my opinion this is one reason why the church is presently in such a mess. The church itself needs educated in its own book. For these reasons I believe men like Ken Ham can even hope to hold any esteem at all in the church, and my personal feeling is that he has done more to make the church look idiotic than anything else. He is a VAST minority among those in the church who actually study the theology back to early sources, and who are also any kind of science buff. What WE see is that what we find in scripture and what we find written in unchanging stone record, they are an AMAZINGLY similar account. Neither record cancels out the other at any point. They ALL agree.

I am here to give you something else. A REAL debate as to what we find in both Genesis 1 AND current studies regarding the BB.

My THEORY regarding Genesis 1 is this:


To put this in the simplest form, after Genesis 1:1, We have before us, from verse 2 and to the end of the chapter, an "Extinction Event", and then the subsequent healing of the earth and the renewal of life.

Cycles of life and extinction are in fact verified in scripture, just as they are verified in stone. We see it here in Genesis 1, Jeremiah 4, Ecclesiastes, Revelation, and certainly implications are made elsewhere.

Ecclesiastes 1
9 What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new�?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them.


Revelation ends with the destruction of this current civilization and then the subsequent healing of the earth, just as it began in Genesis 1:

Rev. 16
3 The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

4 The third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. 5 Then I heard the angel in charge of the waters say:

“You are just in these judgments, O Holy One,
you who are and who were;
6 for they have shed the blood of your holy people and your prophets,
and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve.�
7 And I heard the altar respond:

“Yes, Lord God Almighty,
true and just are your judgments.�
8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

12 The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13 Then I saw three impure spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14 They are demonic spirits that perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.

15 “Look, I come like a thief! Blessed is the one who stays awake and remains clothed, so as not to go naked and be shamefully exposed.�

16 Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.

17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!� 18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since mankind has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed... 20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21 From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds,[a] fell on people. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

Rev. 21:1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,�[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.


Elsewhere we are shown the killing of of grasses and herbs and trees apparently during the events unfolding above...

Today, many many many people in the OEC movement believe this very thing. This belief can be easily traced back over 2000 years, and we believe it is the original intent in the earliest manuscripts. I am in very good company with SO many PHD's in various fields related to the subject, and it seems the more learned they are in the subject, both Theologically and scientifically, the more apt they are to believe this. We believe that even before the first age, Genesis 1 indicates that, "In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth", but then goes on to indicate in the Hebrew that the earth then became laid waste and emptied.. The Hebrew wording can certainly literally and specifically be interpreted in this manner. We believe that when though, it states He created the heavenS...PLURAL... He is speaking of the heavens thin the same respect as when He speaks of the heavenS later as being inhabited with planets and stars. The heavenS as it states in the Hebrew AND the translations, are created on the first day.

Genesis is one of the most poetic books in all of scripture and is valued as extremely sacred by more than one religion. I suggest that this is for good reason. It actually shows extinction, and then the restoration of the earth... it shows both EVOLUTION and special creation.

THESE are the things I too will demonstrate..

If this theory is to be tested, then MUCH of the testing of this theory has already been done for the last hundred years or more... through geology, archeology, as well as the fossil record. All we need do to test this theory is to compare it to all these records that have literally been written in stone and CANNOT be changed. We will test the theory against these findings right here in this thread.



Now regarding the Big Bang. I think it has been made pretty clear that the Big Bang is an unfinished equation as my esteemed debating friend (In another thread) Haven has pointed out. An unfinished product is useless if it ultimately CANNOT be justified mathematically... ONLY predictions can be tested in this case. Certainly the Big Bang is an interesting thought. The fact that we simply cannot finish the math has been admitted by greats like Hawking and Guth.
I frankly and personally believe the entire thing is possible. God DOES state so poetically that He flung out the stars with His hand. But at thw same time the Big Bang has major issues. I frankly also believe MY theory has been tested in more ways and a hundred thousand times more times than the Big Bang (Likely not even a slight exaggeration). I believe my theory is more easily tested than the Big Bang. I believe some of the testing addressing the predictions of the BB, have been fudged. I therefore only regard it as a hypothesis, and I had prior agreement on this point by someone here not of my belief system.

So the debate...

1) WHICH of the 2 have been most tested?
2) Which of the 2 fared better in their respective tests?
3) Which is the BEST overall theory?


Of course I take the side and make the claim that the facts of my theory are better researched and tested and verified than the so called theory of the Big Bang. I believe I can demonstrate that my theory fares FAR better in positive verifiable results when tested. When compared to the testing and results regarding BB, the BB pales. And of course, I believe my theory hands down to be the superior theory between the 2. So we are comparing how each of the 2 theories stand stand when exposed to full light, and which of the 2 theories prove to be the most tested, the most verified, and therefore the most credible.


THIS is the debate.


The Rules:
1) Peer-reviewed sources only.
2) Theological sources old and new can be used, recognizing that just as in science, theologians disagree.
3) No empty, unsupported claims may be made; back up all positive statements with evidence.
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.


15 posts each, with each player posting in turn, and then 2 closing posts, wherein no new arguments may be introduced... only summaries and conclusions regarding the evidences brought forth by both debaters. These summaries may be referenced.


Now regarding the Big Bang, I would like for my opponent Divine, to provide 4 things within Divine's first 4 posts, Beginning with the opening post... one at a time after this in the next successive 3 posts is fine if you find so much information it takes a while to tackle a subject:



And at this point I will invoke rule 4, and bring it into play. Divine, I do not want a blanket statement that BB has been tested, I am challenging you to prove to what extent it has been tested... I am asking you Directly to provide the following:


1) I want the mathematical equation for the big bang, which leads us back to the moment of the event. If this cannot be provided I would like Divine's concession that this finished equation simply does not exist. Does such a thing exist? According to all of our more credible scientists, like Guth and Hawking, no this formula does not exist.


2) My esteemed adversary here will claim that a number of predictions have been tested that verify the BB. I want my opponent to provide a list of all of the predictions that have been made in regards to the BBT. The more prediction you can provide the better your argument. Without these predictions you are left with very little, because predictions have been the ONLY tests performed in regards to the BB. Peer reviewed sources please. How many predictions can you dig up? How many of them were even credible?


3) I expect my opponent to provide a list of tests that have actually been performed in an attempt to verify these predictions that were made regarding the BB. I would like with this a conclusion giving the percentage of resemblance between the predicted model and the actual end results of these tests. In other words, the results were within what percentage point of the predicted model? Do you have any that rise to a 10 percent match even after adjusting the parameters?


4) I challenge my opponent to list the parameters of these tests which were adjustable, and tell us after the adjustments were made, did the adjusted parameters themselves resemble ANY current observations. Were the original parameters representative of what was observed or the adjusted?



***** AND really a 5th... It goes without saying that we should both give a very short and simple laymens description of the big bang and relativity. I will serve mine first with a twist of lemon if you dont mind.


The Big Bang and Relativity.

To put this as absolutely as simply as possible, and in laymens terms, IF space is relative to time, is time relative to density? And If time is relative to space, is space relative to density?


Consider the theory of the BB. Observe expansion. Observe time. Observe density.


We hypothesize that there was once a pinpoint or a basketball or baseball or beach-ball or marble sized mass of energy/matter. We hypothesize that suddenly for some unknown reason, This point of singularity experienced a nearly unimaginably massive and sudden expansion that THRUST its entire mass, along with SPACE itself, outward. The universe expanded WITH time. We further speculate that at this moment of the singularity's sudden expansion, time became relative to space.

I would like to further speculate that time and space are also relative to density..


Consider our earth and everything on it and within it. imagine yourself on this earth looking outward. Lets say an event takes place that in some weird distorted way, distorts all known laws and shrinks the entire universe back again, to the size of this marble or basketball. A reverse big bang, a big crunch...to the size now of a marble. If it were to then suddenly expand, then the time that this expansion occurred could be observed, and the time it took to expand to any given point could be measured, relative to the observer. Whether in a more compacted state than today, or an even more expanded state, time is still relative to space and therefore it is also relative to density because the further space continues to expand, the less dense it becomes. And since space is relative to density, and we know that time is relative to space, time is also relative to density. Think of the density of a balloon. The more it expands the less dense the skin becomes until it POPs!!! Expansion spreads the density thinner throughout the universe. Of course a reversal would cause density to become greater as space became more condensed.

But... The same can be said for gravity... and possibly even magnetic fields. All of these things seem to be relative to the other. But what is the significance of this in arriving to the conclusion to the BB theory? Science has a huge problem in explaining how relativity is working within a singularity before the actual event.

But If space were to expand or contract infinitely, would time ever reach "an end" to either extreme, or does infinite lesser density relate to infinitely faster time and infinitely greater density relate to infinitely slower time? I bet on relativity.


This being said, VERY simply put it is hypothesized that this universe began as a point of singularity that suddenly expanded and continues to expand to this day. It is proposed that the initial expansion was phenomenal in its scope of acceleration and brute force.... this is the BB.

I would finish this by asking, who is to say that we aren't someone else's observable marble? What happened to cause this singularity to suddenly do ANYTHING? Does Genesis 1 explain events occurring on this earth AFTER the creation of all that is?



I look forward to a great debate, and I would like to see this addressed in a coherent condensed manner if possible, and I hope I can do the same for you.

Very good luck to you

and Thank you


.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #11

Post by Divine Insight »

Wolfbitn wrote: I will address Divine simply because I agreed to, but as you can see he does not take this seriously at all and is unable to mount any effective defenses OR attacks, except to say BB is not a theory
Please refrain from using ill-defined abbreviation. I have no clue what BB stands for.

It could stand for any number of things. You could be attempting to refer to a Big Bang Event, or you could be referring to the Big Bang Theory, or you could be referring to Big Bang Cosmology. I have no idea what you mean by BB. So quit hiding behind ambiguous abbreviations.

The Big Bang Event is not a theory, it has never been a theory.
So what relevance would that have to this debate? Please explain.

The Big Bang Theory is clearly a well-known theory. It is a well-tested and scientifically verified and peer-reviewed theory. And it was my understanding that you would like to somehow compare your theological speculations with Big Bang Theory in some way.

I do not, nor have I ever suggested that Big Bang Theory is not a theory, that would be silly.

Big Bang Cosmology is the field of study that exams neculosysthensis in the early universe.

I have already gone through all this in detail earlier, and IMHO, you are deceitfully and dishonestly attempting to misrepresent my position.

So give it up Wolfbitn, you aren't fooling anyone with your games.

Clearly you are the one who refuses to debate seriously and it's pretty clear why. You have nothing worthy of debate.
Wolfbitn wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
Wolfbitn wrote: If the Moderator is confusing "genesis 1 is a theory" with "my theory regarding Genesis 1", I have already made it very clear that I do not regard Genesis 1 to be a theory, I am THEORIZING that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event, and I have also OBVIOUSLY set it's statements side by side with the fossil evidence... THIS is a testable theory simply because it is ALREADY being tested AND WITHSTANDS the test.
So in other words, you confess that you do not have a scientific theory of Genesis 1, but instead you are merely "theorizing" in a very informal non-scientific layman sort of way using nothing more than opinionated theological speculations.

I have no problem with this. If you would have made this clear at the onset you would have saved us all a lot of trouble.

So apparently what you would like to "debate" is how your non-scientific layman speculations about biblical texts compare with something about the Big Bang Theory?

Is that correct? :-k
This appears to be a a childish display of disregard for rule number 5...
5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.
But though this is a disqualifying factor I am going to keep you around and just continue to roll on over your non-debate.
Excuse me? :-k

You have clearly stated "I am THEORIZING that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event".

If that's your "theory" then that's what I have been asking you to provide peer-reviewed publications on.

Are you then confessing that you have no actual "scientific theory" and that you are just using the term "theorizing" in a very loose informal and layman way?

If you confess to this then your "theory" already fails in comparison with Big Bang Theory, and this debate is over, unless you can point to a peer-reviewed publications of your "theory". I don't care what your theory is about. I'm asking you to produce your "theory" whatever it might be.

So far all you have offered is very vague and opinionated theological ramblings. And even they haven't been peer-reviewed by theologians.

Wolfbitn wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: I'm not going to debate the validity of Big Bang Theory in general. That is not the topic of debate here.
All I can give you here is a "LOL, very sad attempt". Everyone who read the title of this thread is laughing.
I don't think anyone is laughing other then you, and if you are its futile laughter.

I did not agree to debate the scientific validity of Big Bang Theory in general. What I agreed to debate was to compare your supposed theory with Big Bang Theory. And so far I haven't seen anything to even compare.

You haven't even offered anything specific to compare yet. When do you plan on doing that? After the debate is over? :-k

Wolfbitn wrote: So, a theory being testable hypothesis, the testing has already begun, comparing these statements first theologically to make sure that these passages may indeed be taken this way. Testing shows yes indeed and the history of this line of thinking goes back at least 2000 years.

So it passes thus far the theological testing.
I thought this was supposed to be debatable? :-k

Don't I get to offer arguments on whether or not I feel that this has passed "theological testing"?

What exactly is it that we are even "testing" here?
It was debatable, you just cant debate it remember? :)
Its not my fault youre wasting both your time and your posts :)
[/quote]

How can it be debatable when you haven't even explained yet how your theory was constructed from hypothesis to finished tested product?

You haven't offered any information on that yet at all.

What's to debate when all you are doing is spewing out personal opinionated theological speculations and just randomly proclaiming that they have been well-tested without demonstrating how this was done? ;)

I would be more then happy to debate you on that topic if you will simply provide an explanation of how you developed your theory from the very beginning.

You can't expect me to jump into the middle of your "theory" and have a clue what you are talking about. You need to start from the beginning. What give birth to your theory and how did you develop it.

I can only debate it if you can describe it in a comprehensible way. Otherwise all you are presenting to me is a bunch of random unsubstantiated opinionated claims.

So I'm still waiting for you to get started. Do you want to debate your theory or not? :-k

My Single Question to Wolfbitn

What was your first observation and hypothesis that led you to your theory and how did you go about testing that hypothesis?



Wolfbitn wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: Historically the Big Bang Theory began with Edwin Hubble's observation that the universe is expanding. From this a hypothesis was offered that the universe must have then been smaller and the galaxies were closer together in the past. Because of the fact that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time it was actually possible to confirm this hypothesis.
You must have missed Hubble's quote in my last post :)
“..if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.�
— Edwin Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford 1937
So what? Edwin Hubble died in 1953. Since that quote new measurement have been taken and today there is no doubt that the universe is indeed expanding.

You are in seriously bad shape if you need to used outdated quotes to support your theological speculations.
Wolfbitn wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: In your above quote you are talking about an "Extinction Event" and the subsequent healing and renewal of life. Was this the beginning hypothesis of your "theory"? If so then please elaborate on what led you to this hypothesis and how you went about testing it (as succinctly as possible please)

Thats exactly what my posts have been doing... every single one

Laying this evidence side by side with science. OEC, scientific education, theological education, laying the evidence of BOTH theories out here... you might want to catch up and actually attempt debunking something because the MODS ARE NOT SIDING WITH YOU TO SHUT THIS DOWN.... you might as well deal with this, and stand up to what you agreed to.
No you have not answered my question. I asked you to explain your initial hypothesis that lead to your supposed theory and what tests you have conducted to verify the truth of your original hypothesis.

I have not seen you offer any such thing yet.

My Single Question to Wolfbitn

What was your first observation and hypothesis that led you to your theory and how did you go about testing that hypothesis?


I can't compare your theory with anything until you describe your theory in detail, especially concerning how it began and got off the ground to begin with.

You don't start an airplane flight in mid air at 20,000 feet. You begin by taking off on a runway. And the same is true of theories. They must begin with some initial idea, or observation which becomes the initial hypothesis and then that hypothesis is test and things are moved forward from there.

I'm trying to get a handle on your theory so I can understand where it begins.

You mentioned an "Extinction Event". Was that the beginning of your theory? Or the conclusion? I have no clue. Please explain how your theory was born and developed. I can't compare it with anything until you do this.
Wolfbitn wrote: They know they cant just disallow a Christian utilizing scientific methodology just because he is applying it to Genesis and our scientific findings that are written in stone.
I don't know who "they" are, but I'm more than willing to allow you to use scientific methodology on your theory. In fact, I highly encourage it. And this is precisely why I am asking you to describe your initial hypothesis and how it was tested. Your theory had to start somewhere so I'm just asking you to describe how it began.

This should be an extremely easy question for you to answer and explain.

Wolfbitn wrote: Rule 4 of this debate, from the opening post, and this was agreed to by both parties at the beginning before this thread even began:
4) Direct questions MUST be answered in an intelligent way, with supporting evidence, or a simple "I dont know" will work.
This rule only makes sense within reason. The questions you ask must be relevant to the debate topic.

You can't just ramble on aimlessly demanding that I justify Big Bang Theory in its entire. Like I say that is NOT the topic of this debate.

yes lets see how we were rambling and what you believe to be so unreasonable lol..

From post 1:

Quote:
And at this point I will invoke rule 4, and bring it into play. Divine, I do not want a blanket statement that BB has been tested, I am challenging you to prove to what extent it has been tested... I am asking you Directly to provide the following:
I do not need to prove that Big Bang Theory has been extensively tested in general. Big Bang Theory is a well-established scientific theory.

This is NOT a debate about the credibility of Big Bang Theory.

This is supposed to be a debate about how your so-called "theory" compares with the Big Bang Theory. And thus far you have not even provided anything specific to compare. What is it that you would like to compare? In what way does Big Bang Theory conflict or contradict your theory? If you can bring that to the table then we can exam and compare that specific issue.

Otherwise I have no idea what it is that you are attempting to compare with Big Bang Theory. As I had already stated at the very beginning of this thread, if you are attempting to compare your entire theological speculations with Big Bang Theory they you lost before we even started this debate.

So stop this foolishness and try to bring something concrete to the table.


1) I want the mathematical equation for the big bang, which leads us back to the moment of the event. If this cannot be provided I would like Divine's concession that this finished equation simply does not exist. Does such a thing exist? According to all of our more credible scientists, like Guth and Hawking, no this formula does not exist.
I am not aware of any single accepted equation that describes the actual Big Bang Event.

But so what? That is totally irrelevant to Big Bang Theory. And I had already made that crystal clear several posts ago.

So this question is totally irrelevant to our debate here. But I answered it anyway.

It certainly doesn't help your case. And it doesn't belittle Big Bang Theory either.

So it's a totally irrelevant question being asked by someone who clearly has not clue about Big Bang Theory at all.

All you've done here is display your own ignorance of Big Bang Theory.

Are you happy now?
2) My esteemed adversary here will claim that a number of predictions have been tested that verify the BB. I want my opponent to provide a list of all of the predictions that have been made in regards to the BBT. The more prediction you can provide the better your argument. Without these predictions you are left with very little, because predictions have been the ONLY tests performed in regards to the BB. Peer reviewed sources please. How many predictions can you dig up? How many of them were even credible?
This is a totally irrelevant question to our debate.

We are NOT debating the credibility or success of Big Bang Theory. We are supposed to be comparing how your with Big Bang Theory.

If you want to do that then you need to do it in a side-by-side fashion. In other words, show where your theory makes some sort of "prediction" and then show how Big Bang Theory either makes a contradicting prediction or an incorrect prediction.

But up to this point in our debate you have not offered anything to compare.

So until you do that, this question is irrelevant to our debate.

This is why I am desperately trying to get you to bring your actual theory to the table so we can be in a position to make comparisons and then we'll have something relevant to our debate.

And I've already requested a very straight-forward and easy place to start.

It's just ONE question Wolfbitn. Can you handle ONE question? :-k

My Single Question to Wolfbitn

What was your first observation and hypothesis that led you to your theory and how did you go about testing that hypothesis?

3) I expect my opponent to provide a list of tests that have actually been performed in an attempt to verify these predictions that were made regarding the BB. I would like with this a conclusion giving the percentage of resemblance between the predicted model and the actual end results of these tests. In other words, the results were within what percentage point of the predicted model? Do you have any that rise to a 10 percent match even after adjusting the parameters?
Again this is a totally irrelevant question.

We are NOT debating the scientific validity of Big Bang Theory.

We are debating how your theological speculation compares with Big Bang Theory.

Why all these questions about tests, etc. It has already been well-established that your theological speculations do not even constitute a valid scientific theory. Therefore if we are supposed to be comparing your theory with the Big Bang Theory on merit, you lost before this debate even started. Your theological speculations don't even qualify as a scientific theory at all. Period.

So you lose.

If that's the debate Wolfbitn, then you have already lost.
4) I challenge my opponent to list the parameters of these tests which were adjustable, and tell us after the adjustments were made, did the adjusted parameters themselves resemble ANY current observations. Were the original parameters representative of what was observed or the adjusted?
Again, this question is totally irrelevant to this debate.

We did NOT agree to debate the scientific validity of Big Bang Theory on it's own individual merit. What we are supposed to be debating is how your so-called theory compares with the Big Bang Theory.

But you don't even have a peer-reviewed scientific theory to compare with the Big Bang Theory.

So if that's what you are hoping to do, then clearly you lost way back in post 1.

The theological speculation you posted in your opening post does NOT constitute a scientific theory. If that is all you have and you want to compare that with Big Bang Theory then you automatically lose by default because your theological speculation is not a valid theory. Period.

And you have just wasted everyone's time.

But if you would like to compare some particular conflicts that your theological speculations might have with Big Bang Theory now's your chance!

I'm here and open to discussing this with you if you care to ever move onto that.
Wolfbitn wrote: From post 2

Quote:
DIVINE... more direct questioning...
Ok, let's take a look at what you got.


1) Can you produce any ancient literature that verifies evolution or even refers to it?
No I cannot. I don't see the relevance of this question to our debate. If this question has relevancy to your arguments could you please reveal why you think this is relevant so I'm not standing here clueless as to why you are asking this question.
2) Also, can you tell me genetically what makes man so much different than all the other primates? How many chromosomes and how many base pairs do we find in ALL primates?
IMHO a man isn't all that much different from the other primates. We our just arrogant about the small differences that exist. I actually view humans as basically being hairless apes, and unfortunately many humans behave in a way that is quite convincing of that view.

To the best of my knowledge the very small differences between humans and other primates is simply in the informational arrangement of the DNA code and sequences.

Again, you have not provided any foundation for this question. I have no clue why you think this is relevant to our debate because you have not built a foundation upon which to make it meaningful.

Moreover, what in the world could this do with Big Bang Theory or how your theological speculations compare with Big Bang Theory?

I don't see the relevancy of this question, and therefore I have no clue how you might think this would further our debate or help your case.

And PLEASE do not get side-tracked into belaboring meaninglessly on this irrelevant question until you first answer my only question to you:

My Single Question to Wolfbitn

What was your first observation and hypothesis that led you to your theory and how did you go about testing that hypothesis?

3) when do you propose relativity became first existed?
I'm sorry I simply don't understand the question. Could you please rephrase it?

I also can't even begin to imagine what it has to do with our current debate thus far. You have not set any groundwork for why any of these questions are relevant in our debate.

So I have no clue why you are even asking these questions.

Wolfbitn wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: Just describe the FIRST observation and Hypothesis that led you down the road to the development of your theory, and explain how you tested that SINGLE hypothesis. (just as I had described for Big Bang Theory above)

In the 5th age described in Genesis 1, we see the eventual evolution of fish into birds... AND EVERY living creature that moveth PLAINLY stated. NO misunderstanding.

We know historically this occurred after an extinction event, and Verse 2 can be understood to mean that the earth was laid waste and desolate.

Genesis 1 tells us plainly LIFE began in the seas, and fish evolved into birds and mammals 3500 years before ANY OTHER DOCUMENT on earth... 3500 years before Darwin

Test THAT against the fossil record and tell me what you get.
Genesis 1:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
So that's your answer?

All your theory amounts to is an attempt to twist ancient fables to match the facts of modern science?

I could have done that in the shower. :roll:

That's not a hypothesis and a theory. All you are doing is taking known facts about the world and an ancient fable and pretending that you can match them up. I think Nickman wanted to debate you on that point in the other debate thread. But you'll never get there with Nickman if you keep screaming about Big Bang Theory.

Why even bring Big Bang Theory into the debate when what you seem to actually want to debate is your theological speculations?

I don't see where you have an actual hypothesis. All you seem to be doing is pretending that the Bible could support evolution instead of creation.

I think most theologians would disagree with you big time on that one. I certainly would.

Here's what my Bible says:
Genesis:
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


The earth was without form and void.

That does not describe an "Extinction Event". On the contrary it clearly states that the entire earth was without form.

So you need to severely twist these ancient fables to pretend that they represent and extinction event.

Wolfbitn wrote: Now... lets move on.

Move on from where? You make it sound like as if you had actually established something. If you would like to debate theological interpretations of Genesis 1, let's do that.

You've been screaming about the Big Bang Theory so much that you have totally distracted away from Genesis 1. If you want to debate Genesis 1, we can surely do that.

But as it stands right now as far as I can see you have no actual hypothesis. Therefore when you had proclaimed that you were going to use scientific methodology you obliviously weren't sincere.

What you seem to want to do is just argue opinionated theological interpretations.

How Big Bang Theory comes into the picture is totally beyond me.

Why are we comparing your theology with the Big Bang Theory? :-k

I don't understand what you are attempting to compare, or why you are attempting to compare it. Big Bang Theory does not even seem to be in competition with Genesis 1 in any case.

Can you explain to me what it is about Big Bang Theory that is such a threat to your theology?
Wolfbitn wrote: We have before us the 2nd chromosome... a true wonder of nature.

Edited from a prior post)

Now comes man

Genesis 1 then goes on to tell us that the human being was special... he was to receive dominion over all the earth... how can this be done with no intelligence or just the intelligence we see in other primates?

Impossible... look at our culture today we are CERTAINLY above the animals and our dominion has been a destructive one because we are now sinful creatures in rebellion against our creator.
You seem to be answering your own questions here. Are you now debating with yourself?

I don't see why this is impossible as you proclaim.
Wolfbitn wrote: Look at the great feats of engineering we have pulled off... space flight.. computational advances that are staggering. Do we even know the limits to our potential... we arent just "above" the animals... we are WAY above the other animals around us.
I see no reason to get overly arrogant about being human. :roll:

This is totally subjective opinion at this point.

You're inability to accept that intelligence can evolve is not my problem.

It isn't proof of anything other than you seem to be overly impressed by it. That's really all you have demonstrated here.
Wolfbitn wrote: The odd thing about us biologically however, are our chromosomes, Our chromosomes do indeed show us to be different, as primates have 48 in 24 pairs chromosomes and we have 46 in 23 pairs...

HOW did this happen?

The second chromosome some think, is FUSED with another, in a way NOT found to naturally occur anywhere else in the animal world. This chromosome also just happens to be one involving intelligence.
So what? Again, you are just offering subjective opinions here.

What does that have to do with any testable theories?

And more importantly what in the world does it have to do with Big Bang Theory?

I don't believe there is anything at all in Big Bang Theory about DNA.

Wolfbitn wrote:
Human and chimpanzee chromosomes are very similar.
Note that human chromosome 2 is very similar to a
fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes.

For the last few weeks I have been corresponding with someone about intelligent design (ID). More specifically, we have been chatting about why humans have 46 chromosomes and most of the great apes have 48.
He goes on to say...
The ends of a chromosome have a defined sequence of DNA repeats called a telomere. The DNA at the fusion point looks very similar to a string of telomeres (as we would expect from a fusion) but it isn't perfect.
Again, where does Big Bang Theory come into the picture here?

What are we supposed to be comparing with Big Bang Theory here? :-k

This is supposed to be a debate on comparing your theory with Big Bang Theory.

But now you're talking about Genetics. I don't know how to tell you this but Big Bang Theory has nothing at all to do with Genetics.

So you're not even remotely close to staying on topic here.
Wolfbitn wrote: 2 Chromosome is the second largest human chromosome. It represents almost 8% of DNA in cells. People normally have two copies of this chromosome as all other non-sex chromosomes. Chromosome two spans about 243 million base pairs. Base Pairs are two molecules (nucleotides) on opposite DNA strands that are connected. Adenine (A) forms a base pair with thymine (T), as does guanine (G) with cytosine (C) in DNA. Base pairs is how DNA is measured. There are about 1,888 genes in this chromosome.

Recent studies suggest that genes on chromosome two may play an important role in human intelligence.
And how does Big Bang Theory conflict or threaten this please? :-k
Wolfbitn wrote: Also evolution presupposes that life evolves from the simplest to the most complex... YET HERE in the case of humanity we seem to have a miracle taking place on the chromosomal level where our chromosomes actually take a step TOWARD THE MORE SIMPLISTIC in number. How is it that biologically speaking we DEvolved to 46 chromosomes from 48 as the great apes have? How is it that in spite of DEvolving, we Evolved so tremendously.


Then science too has SO much inconsistency to deal with when considering a Godless point of view.

First neanderthal was in our supposed to be our ancestor... then one day someone points out that their brain cavity was actually LARGER than that of modern man, and then DNA evidence falsified it... so now they are no longer part of our family tree lol... OOPS

The differences in cro magnon and the modern skull are MAJOR, and on the one hand the atheistic argument on evolution is that these changes take HUNDREDS of thousands of years yet we are supposed to believe these changes occurred in 10 thousand...

No... Genesis 1 shows man to be a unique creation, set apart to take dominion over the earth, and science itself shows we are specially equipped to do this. Again. Genesis 1 hits the nail on the head and now it can be shown genetically.



So we can see there's NOTHING inconsistent with Gen 1 when we look at the actual Hebrew, much to the dismay of the atheistic mindset im sure, with what we see in geology, and NOW with what we see biology speaking to us.

In summary now... I ask the moderators to rule that Divine answer the direct questions already asked and summarized near the end of my last post, and also listed above in THIS thread.

I would like to add that thus far the testing of every age with fossils and geology, gives us EXACTLY what mainstream science takes for grated as being true and verified by evidence.
Ok, the end of your post here is clearly just a mindless rant against science in general, totally unrelated to the topic of comparing anything with Big Bang Theory.

~~~~~

Summary of Post

1: Wolfbitn confesses that his theological "theorizing" does not constitute a scientific theory but rather it is just informal "theorizing" in a common laymen sense.

2. Wolfbitn does not have a well-structured theory even in layman's terms since he has no actual testable hypothesis. Instead all he has is twisted interpretations of ancient fables that he claims can be twisted to fit known scientific facts.

3. Wolfbitn needs for Genesis 1 to be describing an "Extinction Event". But Genesis 1:2 clearly states that the Earth was without form and void. There could hardly be plants and animals living on an Earth that is without form. So his speculation that this could be twisted into an "Extinction Event" to match scientific knowledge is without merit.

4. Wolfbitn puts down all of science from Big Bang Theory to Genetics as being without merit, yet he uses the scientific knowledge of an Extinction Event to go back and twist the Biblical story into something to match up with scientific observations.

5. Wolfbitn has never even established why his theology conflicts with Big Bang Theory, or why Big Bang Theory poses such a great threat to his theology. I'm still at a loss as to why they couldn't potentially both be true?


So I'm at a loss of why we are even attempting to compare Wolfbitn's theology with Big Bang Theory.

Maybe he'll clear up where the conflict lies in his next post.

In fact since he has already answered my question about his hypothesis (i.e. He doesn't have one), Perhaps I can ask him a second new question.

New Question for Wolfbitn: (since you seem to have already answered the hypothesis question near the end of your last post)

In what way does Big Bang Theory conflict with or threaten your theology?


Maybe if we could figure that out we could address the conflict directly?
[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]3[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]3[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
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]

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #12

Post by Wolfbitn »

It has become evident that the following is true:

1) My adversary seems to admit the BB is not a proper theory by definition.
2) He He then goes on to apparently misunderstand what he is even debating. He apparently think I believe there is some sort of conflict between the BB and my theory regarding Genesis 1. He is assuming them to be competing theories. This was of course never said or implied. We have defined this debate in threads talking terms, as well as right here in this thread in the very first post... How he misunderstands this? ...I dont know.
1) WHICH of the 2 have been most tested?
2) Which of the 2 fared better in their respective tests?
3) Which is the BEST overall theory?


Of course I take the side and make the claim that the facts of my theory are better researched and tested and verified than the so called theory of the Big Bang. I believe I can demonstrate that my theory fares FAR better in positive verifiable results when tested. When compared to the testing and results regarding BB, the BB pales. And of course, I believe my theory hands down to be the superior theory between the 2. So we are comparing how each of the 2 theories stand stand when exposed to full light, and which of the 2 theories prove to be the most tested, the most verified, and therefore the most credible.
So... we are looking at both theories, and examining their veracity as theories alone, to determine WHICH theory has been most tested, and to determine which fared better in their respective testing, and to also determine then WHICH IS the superior theory.

I would rather apologize for his apparent misunderstanding, than to accuse him of intentional misrepresentation.

3) I am reminded of Jethro Bodine, who does not quite understand the concept of what he calls "a SCIENTIFIC THEORY".

We observe for instance, test results that Hubble thought proved nothing in regards to an "expanding universe", however others have gone on to interpret these results as indicating expansion. So if they think they observe an expanding universe, in spite of what Hubble said, they can at least make predictions and test to see whether or not their observation and subsequent hypothesis works out. By testing it, we then have a theory which is either falsified or perhaps it passes this test and the veracity of the theory begins to hold water.

In this exact same way, we can look at the indicating key words of Hebrew phraseology in Genesis 1, observe that it claims 3500 years before Darwin that EVOLUTION took place, then see that in verses prior to this it also indicates a possible extinction event, then we can of course test this observation with:

a) First, testing against the rest of scripture to see if there is consistency... and of course we saw consistency.
b) We can lay this observation of Genesis 1 side by side with evidence from within rock strata, and determine this world has seen extinction events.
c) The crater at Yucatan proves a prior extinction event, and in conjunction with volcanic activity at that.
d) Since Genesis 1 also declares EVOLUTION 3500 YEARS BEFORE anyone else, we can lay this claim side by side with EVERY FOSSIL WE FIND and the consensus result is that YES evolution is WELL established.
e) Genesis 1 goes on to declare that man is unique among the rest of the animal kingdom. We find that this is true even on a genetic level and we are unique because of our 2nd chromosome, which deals with intelligence. This adds to the credibility of the biblical claim that this world has seen extinction events, and that we see restoration FROM an extinction event taking place in Genesis 1.


So yes... I have gone about to demonstrate that MY theory is better tested, tested in more ways, and MANY MORE TIMES, than the BB... My theory is certainly therefore superior in its gravity and weight as a theory. Divine on the other hand seems to not understand that a Christian can observe, hypothesize, test and verify and theory using scientific methodology. His definition of "GOLLL-LY its a BONEFIED scinetific theory" LACKS. Any hypothesis regarding any observed event can undergo scientific scrutiny using scientific method.

Divine Insight wrote:
Historically the Big Bang Theory began with Edwin Hubble's observation that the universe is expanding. From this a hypothesis was offered that the universe must have then been smaller and the galaxies were closer together in the past. Because of the fact that when we look out into the universe we are also looking back in time it was actually possible to confirm this hypothesis.

I answered:
You must have missed Hubble's quote in my last post Smile
Quote:
“..if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.�
— Edwin Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford 1937

Then you said:
So what? Edwin Hubble died in 1953. Since that quote new measurement have been taken and today there is no doubt that the universe is indeed expanding.

You are in seriously bad shape if you need to used outdated quotes to support your theological speculations.
This is another DOH (forehead slap) #-o moment for you I'm afraid... I only corrected your errant comment. You stated Hubble theorized expansion of the universe, when in fact he said there was no evidence OF IT.



you said:
This is NOT a debate about the credibility of Big Bang Theory.
You do if you want to win this debate because this is the side you agreed to take. You are trying to show BB more credible than my theory, I am proving my theory however, to be better tested and therefore the more credible of the 2... I would apologize for your misunderstanding but this is on you, not me, so I dont care whether you debate it at this point or not. Matter of fact THANK YOU for making my job so easy.

you went on to say:
Otherwise I have no idea ...
This is apparent to everyone reading by now. Apparently too the Mods think your claims are lame. They apparently understand the nature of the thread, they are siding with me that we can indeed apply scientific method to this theory, so youre forced to debate unfortunately for you. Of course it would look really bad if ANYONE said here that a christian cannot apply scientific method to a proper theory, and the moderators are not going to appear to be biased and non objective. They even admonished you to answer the direct questions, which of course you still haven't.

Direct question 1:
1) I want the mathematical equation for the big bang, which leads us back to the moment of the event. If this cannot be provided I would like Divine's concession that this finished equation simply does not exist. Does such a thing exist? According to all of our more credible scientists, like Guth and Hawking, no this formula does not exist.
Your ANSWER?
This is a totally irrelevant question to our debate.
Of course if you think the mathematics of the big bang are irrelevant to the BB theory, you are again so very wrong. You would be laughed out of a building for saying this in public.

You go on to say NONE of the questions were relevant, but this is not what the moderators are saying... they state you MUST ANSWER ALL relevant questions.

AGAIN I appeal to Mac the mod, Would you ask Divine to please answer these direct questions with more than "they are irrelevant", simply because as you can see they ARE relevant to the debate at hand, whether he is able to produce said items or not. I will accept a simple "I dont know".


You DID answer this

1) Can you produce any ancient literature that verifies evolution or even refers to it?

Divine's answer:
No I cannot. I don't see the relevance of this question to our debate. If this question has relevancy to your arguments could you please reveal why you think this is relevant so I'm not standing here clueless as to why you are asking this question.
Exactly... you CANNOT find ANY ancient literature that declares evolution is factual... EXCEPT for Genesis chapter 1 which states it 3500 years before Darwin or anyone else. This makes Genesis 1's account even more compelling as it differs with EVERY OTHER story of creation in this regard. It is the only account that can be verified through geological and fossil records. So we have an ancient document, advising us that the animals ALL EVOLVED FROM THE SEA... 3500 years before ANYONE else. while the ENTIRE WORLD believed entirely differently. How do we know? Because you cannot produce anything proving otherwise. You are correct in that Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient manuscripts


MODERATORS... please grant me this direct appeal.

I refer you to his conclusions, posted in his last post in blue. I am not taking the space to post them here, I simply want an official ruling...

His conclusion breaks rule 5, misrepresenting nearly everything I have posted in these posts thus far. I ask the moderators to rebuke him and his efforts to misrepresent as he agreed prior to debate, and the rules are found in the first post. This is an issue that would disqualify him from the debate, but I DO ASK that you not kick him out... Just demand he answer the direct questions and point out and acknowledge the fact that he misrepresenting my statements.




Now lets move on.

So far we can conclude:

1) The verbiage of Genesis 1 allows us to reference verse 2 to a time after the creation of the heavens, that the earth was laid waste and emptied. This checks with the fossil and geological records.

2) In extinction events that have spewed ash, debris, earth, and water into the atmosphere, the first thing necessary to occur for life again to flourish is for the atmosphere to clear. Genesis 1, on the first day or age, stated that the special event occurring in the first age was the clearing of the atmosphere, to allow the rays of the sun to filter through. This checks with the fossil and geological records.

3) We see in Genesis 1 that waters and atmosphere were in a chaotic state and that eventual settling allowed some water to settle back down to the earth, while some water was left trapped within the atmosphere. We can see from the various geological records, that we have certainly seen times when the water levels of the earth have varied drastically, and polar caps do not always explain this. This checks with the fossil and geological records.

4) Genesis 1 refers to EVOLUTION and was the ONLY ancient document to declare Evolution of the animals of the earth. It states evolution AS A FACT 3500 years before Darwin. This CERTAINLY checks with the fossil and geological records.

5) Genesis 1 goes on to state that ALL animals were eventually evolved from the seas. This checks with the fossil and geological records.

6) It states that MAN is a special creature, specially designed and suited to subdue the earth in this new age of the earth. This checks with the DNA evidence, and the fact that our 2nd chromosome suits us for just this task... subduing the earth and taking dominion over all the earth.


We have at least a couple hundred years of work already done by scientists in various fields who have ALL verified by their work, that what we find in Genesis 1, tests positivly when placed next to geological tables and fossil records. Literally tens of thousands of fossil finds verify the veracity of the theory that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event and the subsequent healing of the earth. This is certainly superior to ANY testing done for the BB.






And we summarize a few glaring inconsistencies with the Big Bang.

1) Since it is an unfinished hypothesis mathematically, as Haven, who is studying for his phd has pointed out, after a century of trying to come to an answer and failing, it is obvious there are major issues with the BB.

2) Despite claims made by those who regard BB, that the BB has been so well tested, we see not a single test provided by Divine.

3) Despite the claim made by those who reg
gard BB that many predictions have been made and tested, Divine has not provided a single prediction.

4) What are "changing" or Adjustable parameters"?

5) Horizon problems... Jason Lisle (Lisle, Jason, Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang, Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003) states that even assuming the time scale of the BB, we have not had sufficient time for light to travel throughout the widely separated areas of the universe.

6) The BB has to deal with gravity, density, and space time. It is completely unable to account for gravity.

7) The BB in no way explains how matter exists.

8) The BB in no way helps us to understand how consciousness comes from this process.

9) The law of Conservation of Angular Momentum indicated that everything should be spinning in the same direction... this however is not the case, and those who hold to the BB have no way to explain this.

10) We do not see even distributions of matter and energy.

11) Dr. Alan Guth, former professor at MIT attempted to solve the flatness and horizon problems associated with the BB, utilizing string theory. Since string was falsified however, these issues still remain.


Not even the noted Edwin Hubble believed that this universe is still expanding. He stated:
Quote:
“..if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.�
— Edwin Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford 1937.



BB has a lot to explain, and Divine is quickly losing time and space to address these issues.




So far in this debate:

1) Divine takes the big bang off the table declaring it is not even a theory and gives this debate up by default though not really realizing it.

2) There are no tests here to verify any predictions that might have been made.

3) He could not even provide any predictions that were made in regard to the BB.

4) He doesn't know any of the adjusted parameters done in any possible testing.

5) He does not understand that these are NOT competing theories, we are simply debating which has been tested most, and which has held up better under testing, and therefore which is the superior theory.

6) He does not understand that one can make observation regarding almost ANYTHING and test it with scientific method and "yup he haz himself a bonafied scientific theory".



I have sent the following communication personally to several moderators:

So MODS... I would like to ask that you

1) enforce rule 4, having him to answer direct pertinent questions

2) enforce rule 5 ONLY TO AN EXTENT... please do not DISQUALIFY him from the debate, but reprimand him for apparently intentional misrepresentation of everything I'v said in his last post, in his so called summary ... in blue at the bottom of his post.



Now... more bad news for the BBT.


http://www.spacetravel.org/space-travel ... -bang.html
Did the Big Bang really happen? In June 2005, researchers met at the first ever Crisis in Cosmology conference in Monção, Portugal to try to answer this question. The researchers argued that Big Bang theory fails to explain certain important cosmological observations. They have suggested that we should not simply accept Big Bang theory, but investigate its validity and search for alternative explanations of how the Universe came to be.


Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile, says Big Bang theory fails to predict three things that we observe in the Universe today: the temperature of the Universe, the expansion of the Universe, and the presence of galaxies. Scarpa says, “Every time the basic Big Bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new—inflation, dark matter, dark energy.”

...Scarpa is concerned about inconsistencies in the theory of dark matter. Big Bang theory fails to explain how galaxies could have congealed from the matter created shortly after the UniverseÂ’s birth. The gas and dust made from normal matter were spread too evenly for galaxies to clump together in only 13.7 billion years. Cosmologists resolve this problem by adding invisible dark matter to the Universe, which adds the extra gravitational pull to help speed up galaxy formation.

...The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MWAP) also appears to show that there is something wrong with the standard model of cosmology. Since it was launched in 2001, WMAP has been taking the temperature of the Universe from its vantage point 1.5 million kilometers out in space. WMAP measures the way the temperature of the cosmic microwave background varies across the sky. Cosmologists think that the tiny variations from one place to another are an imprint of the state of the Universe about 300,000 years ago, when matter began to clump together under gravity. Hotter patches correspond to denser regions, while cooler patches correspond to areas that are less dense. These density variations began life as quantum fluctuations in the vacuum in the first split second of the universeÂ’s existence; they were subsequently amplified by inflation, a brief period of extremely fast expansion.

These quantum variations should have popped up at random, so the hot and cold spots observed in one part of the sky should be like those in any other part. In addition, because the cosmic background radiation is a feature of the Universe as a whole, not of any particular object in it, none of the hot or cold regions should be aligned with structures in our part of the Universe. However, in early 2005, João Magueijo and Kate Land of Imperial College London reported that they had found an alignment in the cosmic microwave background. When analyzing hot and cold spots as a blend of patterns of different spatial frequencies, Magueijo and Land noticed a striking similarity between the individual patterns. The spots in each pattern seemed to line up along the same direction, instead of being scattered randomly across the sky. Magueijo called this alignment “the axis of evil.”

Charles Bennett, leader of the WMAP mission at NASAÂ’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, does not think that the appearance of the axis of evil could be caused a problem with the WMAP satellite. Bennett believes it is possible that the heat given off by the Milky Way has not properly been subtracted from the WMAP signals, and this is mimicking the axis of evil. Others have pointed out that Magueijo and LandÂ’s conclusions are based on only one yearÂ’s worth of WMAP signals, and more confirmatory data is needed.

...Lerner says that a large part of the problem is that cosmology is bankrolled by only a few sources. The committees that control funding are dominated by supporters of Big Bang theory. Last year, conference members wrote an open letter with over 30 signatories, warning that failure to fund research on alternative theories to the Big Bang suppressed free debate in the field of cosmology.
#-o


So once again...

1) enforce rule 4, having him to answer direct pertinent questions

2) enforce rule 5 ONLY TO AN EXTENT... please do not DISQUALIFY him from the debate, but reprimand him for apparently intentional misrepresentation of everything I'v said in his last post, in his so called summary ... in blue at the bottom of his post.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #13

Post by Divine Insight »

Greetings everyone,

I realize this debate is already underway but I feel that a new secondary greeting is in order. My debate partner and I have been having difficulty agreeing on the topic we are supposed to be debating. And there have even been a few hostilities exchanged over this disagreement. And so today I would like to take some time to clarify what I believe our debate is suppose to be about, and why I am presenting information and asking questions that serve to further that debate. I would also like to use this opportunity to attempt to explain why I feel that many of my opponents questions and demands are not in harmony with the topic of our debate.

To begin with I would like to share my perspective and understanding of what I believe we are supposed to be debating:

The topic of the Debate is "My Theory Regarding "Genesis 1" vs "Big Bang&"

"My Theory" actually refers to Wolfbitn's theory of Genesis 1. He posted the thread and created the title. It is my understanding that vs stands for versus, (or to compete with). And what he would like to compare with Big Bang Theory is of course his very own theory of Genesis 1. I have no clue what the amersand at the end of the title means, I believe it to simply be a typo.

So it is my understand that he wants to compare his theory with Big Bang Theory.

In his opening post he also posted the following:

So the debate...

1) WHICH of the 2 have been most tested?
2) Which of the 2 fared better in their respective tests?
3) Which is the BEST overall theory?

It seems to me that in order to answer these questions we much compare how these two theories stack up against each other.

Thus far in this debate I believe that we have already established the following comparisons:

[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]
For clarification I will comment on each of these items below giving a short history of how they have already been established in the debate thus far.

Published - It is well known that Big Bang Theory is well-published in many scientific journals all around the world. Wolfbitn was unable to provide a link to his published theory, and therefore we have no reason to believe that it has ever been published. So unless he would like to challenge this and produce a published theory, then this comparison stands.

Peer Reviewed - Again it is well known that Big Bang Theory as enormous peer reviews, and that the overwhelming majority of these reviews have been positive. Big Bang Theory is well-accepted in the scientific community as being a very credible peer-reviewed theory. On the other hand, Wolfbitn doesn't even have a published theory. Therefore it cannot even be peer reviewed at all. If he would like to contest this he certainly may do that, but for not this appears to be obvious since he can't even point to publication of his theory.

Uses Scientific Method - Again it is obvious that the Big Bang Theory uses well-established scientific method because it has passed scientific peer review overwhelmingly. I hold that Wolfbitn has already demonstrated that his theory does not use the scientific method. And I will be addressing that very issue later in this post. He is more than welcome to contest this, and we can focus on that issue if he likes.

Uses Scientific Method - Big Bang Theory offers many testable hypotheses and I have already described one of these in my previous posts. I hold that Wolfbitn theological ponders do not offer testable hypotheses. Instead what he is actually doing is looking at the physical evidence that he would like for his theology to predict and then going back to his theology and twisting it to conform to known results.

Works Forward - This is actually very similar to the previous issue. In science a theory must predict something that can then be observationally or experimentally verified. Wolfbitn works in completely the opposite direction. Wolfbitn takes known scientific observations and then runs backwards to his theological myths reinterpreting them to match the observed phenomenon. So Wolfbitn's theorizing works backwards from scientific theories.

Requires Myth Interpretations - Big Bang Theory does not rely upon any mythological stories of creation. Wolfbitn' entire "theory" is based on nothing other than viewing reality and then running backwards to fix up a mythology pretending that it could be reinterpreted to match the results he would like for it to "predict". That's neither science nor theology.

========

And so this is where we currently stand with our comparison between Wolfbitn's opinionated non-published non-peer-reviewed theological speculations versus Big Bang Theory.

At this point I would like to move forward keeping the debate focused on the debate topic which is to compare these two theories side-by-side to see which fairs better and is more tested.

========

Wolfbitn wrote:Of course I take the side and make the claim that the facts of my theory are better researched and tested and verified than the so called theory of the Big Bang. I believe I can demonstrate that my theory fares FAR better in positive verifiable results when tested. When compared to the testing and results regarding BB, the BB pales. And of course, I believe my theory hands down to be the superior theory between the 2. So we are comparing how each of the 2 theories stand stand when exposed to full light, and which of the 2 theories prove to be the most tested, the most verified, and therefore the most credible.

So... we are looking at both theories, and examining their veracity as theories alone, to determine WHICH theory has been most tested, and to determine which fared better in their respective testing, and to also determine then WHICH IS the superior theory.
I would like to thank Wolfbitn for the above statements. He has clearly verified here that the purpose of this debate is indeed to compare how these two theories stand next to each other when exposed to full light.

Although, in truth, clearly Big Bang Theory already wins hands down in the real world because it has been publihsed, peer-reviewed, and independently tested by scientists around the world.

In the meantime, he has not even published his theory, and therefore it has not been tested at all other than by himself. So apparently he expects me to test it for him in this debate.

I would now like to shine the light upon come claims he makes in his theory.
Wolfbitn wrote: 3) I am reminded of Jethro Bodine, who does not quite understand the concept of what he calls "a SCIENTIFIC THEORY".

We observe for instance, test results that Hubble thought proved nothing in regards to an "expanding universe", however others have gone on to interpret these results as indicating expansion. So if they think they observe an expanding universe, in spite of what Hubble said, they can at least make predictions and test to see whether or not their observation and subsequent hypothesis works out. By testing it, we then have a theory which is either falsified or perhaps it passes this test and the veracity of the theory begins to hold water.
And that has been done and it holds water. So chalk one up for Big Bang Theory.
Wolfbitn wrote: In this exact same way, we can look at the indicating key words of Hebrew phraseology in Genesis 1, observe that it claims 3500 years before Darwin that EVOLUTION took place, then see that in verses prior to this it also indicates a possible extinction event, then we can of course test this observation
Let's first look at this from a theological perspective:

Here is what the Bible actually says in Genesis 1.

Gen.1
[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[2]
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Well, it clearly states that the earth was without form and void. That doesn't sound like an extinction event to me. On the contrary that sounds like its describing a creation event from pure scratch.

Moreover, as a theologian where is there any incentive to interpret this to be an extinction event? This is suppose to be the beginning of creation. It even says in verse one "In the Beginning".

From a purely theological point of view I see absolutely no reason to interpret this to mean an extinction event. So where is there any motivation for this strange non-literal interpretation? As a theology it works just fine as a pure creation event. There is no need to think that it means anything else.

So I suggest that even from a pure theological perspective Wolfbitn's interpretation is not only far from the literal scriptures, but it's also totally unnecessary. There is nothing to even be gained by such an interpretation.

What's to be gained by this strange interpretation? :-k

Well, obviously Wolfbitn is aware of the scientific fossil record of an extinction event on earth, so he is trying to work backwards in an effort to twist the Holy Scriptures to fit what he knows to be true.

Is this the Scientific Method?

Clearly this is not the scientific method. You don't take observations of reality that you know are true and then run back to rewrite your theory (or in this case your theology) in an effort to proclaim that your theory (or theology) was then successful in predicting this observed truth.

So there isn't even anything to "test" here. Other than perhaps your claim that your "theory" or "theology" had supposed predicted an observed truth of reality. But clearly that's not what happened here. You simply took a known truth and then ran back to your theology proclaiming that you could twist it to match up with known reality.

That is not science. In fact, it's not even good theology.

Moreover, what would even be the purpose for doing that?

What's wrong with the original scriptures that describe a creation event? :-k

Are you suggesting that the Bible would be clearly false if it had actually been describing a creation event? Why wouldn't that also work out to match up with reality? What do you hope to gain by twisting a creation event into an extinction event? Other then the idea that you can claim to have predicted something that you clearly knew about BEFORE you twisted the scripture?

I suggest that this "test" of your theory FAILS

So how do we keep track of these failures? Where in the table at the beginning of this post should we mark down that your theory failed here? Do we need to add a new row?
[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]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts an Extinction Event[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] N/A[/b][/color][/center]
Wolfbitn wrote: d) Since Genesis 1 also declares EVOLUTION 3500 YEARS BEFORE anyone else, we can lay this claim side by side with EVERY FOSSIL WE FIND and the consensus result is that YES evolution is WELL established.
Again let's first look at this from a theological perspective:

Here is what the Bible actually says in Genesis 1.
Genesis 1:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
From a purely theological point of view I would argue that this doesn't say anything at all about any evolving. On the contrary the part highlighted in indigo in verse 21 clearly sates that God created great whales and every living creature than moveth. That doesn't suggest that anything evolved.

And then the parts I highlighted in red verify that all these animals only procreated after their own kind. That also does suggest evolution, on the contrary it suggests just the opposite. Each animals only procreates its own kind.

And again, from the perspective of theology I must ask you why you are attempting to twist these scriptures into something that describes evolution rather than something that is describing a creator God creating these animals just as the Holy Scriptures say. Are you trying to commit religious heresy?

There is no theological reason to try to twist a creation story into a story about evolution. What could possibly be your motivation to want to do that?

Let's Bring Science into the Picture

Science has indeed discovered through fossil records as you often point to, that life on earth has indeed evolved from one species into another, and from one kind into another. This actually directly conflicts with Biblical theology and many theists hotly contest evolution precisely because of this.

Yet here you are attempting to proclaim that the Bible actually predicts what science has already discovered and is widely known to be a fact.

Could it be possible that you are working backwards again? You are taking known observed truths of scientific discovery and then running back to the Bible pretending that you can twist those scriptures to agree with known truths.

This not the scientific method, it's precisely the opposite of the scientific method. All you are doing is recognizing known truths of reality and then running back to your theology in a desperate attempt to twist what the scriptures actually say into something that appears to predict reality.

That's the oldest trick in the book. It doesn't fly as science.

You can't go doctor your theory up to match up with reality, and then proclaim that your theory predicted reality.

So once again, your "theory" fails.

Do we tack this onto our table as well?
[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]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts Evolution[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] N/A[/b][/color][/center]
In this particular case we could actually mark a YES in there for Big Bang Theory, but since that hasn't yet been established I just marked it N/A for now.

6) Genesis states that MAN is a special creature, specially designed and suited to subdue the earth in this new age of the earth. This checks with the DNA evidence, and the fact that our 2nd chromosome suits us for just this task... subduing the earth and taking dominion over all the earth.
There are thousands of creation stories throughout the world Wolfbitn, and in every single one of them Humans are claimed to be special. This should come as no surprise since humans are the ones who write up these fables.

So this is just plain nonsense to proclaim that this actually predicts something. Every creation story written by mankind proclaims a very similar special status for humans. It's not "proof" of anything, and it's certainly not a prediction since the unique humans were the ones who actually wrote these stories making these claims.

So again this is not science or the scientific method and therefore cannot be counted as a valid prediction
[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]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts Humans are Unique[/center] [col][center][color=green][b] N/A[/b][/color][/center]
Wolfbitn wrote:So yes... I have gone about to demonstrate that MY theory is better tested, tested in more ways, and MANY MORE TIMES, than the BB... My theory is certainly therefore superior in its gravity and weight as a theory. Divine on the other hand seems to not understand that a Christian can observe, hypothesize, test and verify and theory using scientific methodology. His definition of "GOLLL-LY its a BONEFIED scinetific theory" LACKS. Any hypothesis regarding any observed event can undergo scientific scrutiny using scientific method.
Do you have a melody for that song? I'm afraid to disappoint you Wolf but your methods are not even remotely scientific. All you are doing is going around finding know scientific truths of reality and then going back to Genesis and twisting the interpretations there tryting to argue that they had "predicted" the truths.

That's about as unscientific as anything can be.
Wolfbitn wrote:We have at least a couple hundred years of work already done by scientists in various fields who have ALL verified by their work, that what we find in Genesis 1, tests positivly when placed next to geological tables and fossil records. Literally tens of thousands of fossil finds verify the veracity of the theory that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event and the subsequent healing of the earth. This is certainly superior to ANY testing done for the BB
In other words, you are willing to go back and distort Genesis 1 in any way required to pretend that it matches up with Darwin's Orgin of the Species, Genetics, and the modern discoveries in evolution?

That makes no sense even from a theological point of view. And it's certainly meaningless from any scientific perspective. I seriously can't help but ask why you are doing this Woftbitn. Are you truly this ignorant of the scientific method? Or did you just offer to have this debate as some sort of comedy show?

I mean no offsense by that, but seriously, everything you have presented thus far is not even remotely close to representing scientific inquirey or methodology.

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

Ok, now let's move on to discussing the the questions you put to me and the accusations you are making toward Big Bang Theory:
Wolfbitn wrote:And we summarize a few glaring inconsistencies with the Big Bang.

1) Since it is an unfinished hypothesis mathematically, as Haven, who is studying for his phd has pointed out, after a century of trying to come to an answer and failing, it is obvious there are major issues with the BB.
Your accusation against Big Bang Theory is false. And that is that you accuse Big Bang theory of having major issues simply because it has not yet been determined what had actually banged.

The original Big Band Hypothesis initially arose from the observation that the universe is currently expanding, thus it is reasonable to predict that in the past the universe was much more dense and compacted. That prediction has indeed been confirmed via cosmological observations, so we can actually add that to our comparison table that prediction was made by Big Bang Theory, then tested and confirmed:
[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=green][b] N/A[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicted a Compacted Universe[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
If we take this prediction of an expanding universe to the ultimate limit backward in time this then leads to an ultimate situation when everything must have been infinitely dense and had exploded to become the universe.

However, Big Bang Theory does not specifically predict that this necessarily needs to be the case. In other words, Big Bang Theory doesn't claim to make any predictions at all concerning what might have actually banged or caused this initial situation. And therefore Big Bang Theory cannot be said to have been wrong or to have made a failed prediction concerning the actual origin of the Big Bang Event. Big Bang Theory simply doesn't claim to know, nor does it claim to even predict those details.

Therefore, Big Bang Theory cannot be said to have 'failed' or to even be in any trouble at all simply because the Big Bang Event has not yet been resolved.

Therefore, your charge that these are "major issues" with Big Bang theory are simply false and without merit. So you have not yet established any "failure" on the part of Big Bang Theory.
Wolfbitn wrote: 3) Despite the claim made by those who regard BB that many predictions have been made and tested, Divine has not provided a single prediction.
This is simply not true. I have already established the Big Bang Theory has successfully predicted that the universe was more dense and galaxies were closer together in the past. This has been confirmed by cosmological observations.

When we look out into the universe we are not only looking far away, but we are also looking back in time. And those cosmological observations have indeed shown that galaxies were indeed closer together in the past then they are today. In other words galaxies that are far away from us are closer to each other than the galaxies that are nearer to us. So this is a prediction made by Big Bang Theory that has been consistently verified via countless observations made in every direction of our universe.

Thus we have verified the success of Big Bang Theory in this prediction twice over.
[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=green][b] N/A[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicted a Compacted Universe[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
This is why I would like to start keeping track of these things. I had already made this point in previous posts but my opponent is in denial that these points have already been addressed.

If he would like a second prediction and observation I would simply point to the discovery of the background radiation or CMBR made by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 in which it was verified that in the very distance past our universe was indeed a very dense fireball.

So this is yet a second prediction of Big Bang Theory that has been tested and confirmed:
[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=green][b] N/A[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicted a Hot Big Bang[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
Wolfbitn wrote: 4) What are "changing" or Adjustable parameters"?
I'll take a moment to answer this question. However this question has nothing to do with the topic at hand. In other words, this question, nor its answer, contributes to determining which theory has been better tested. And for this reason is it not relevant to this debate.

However, my opponent appear to be seeking some education on these concepts so I'll take a brief moment here provide him with just that.

Adjustable parameters, are used when creating models for various theories. These are parameters within the model that have not yet been well-established. In other words, they have neither been physically determined by direct measurement, nor have they been specifically predicted by the theory. For this reason they are still open to being adjusted within the model.

This does not constitute a "failure" on the part of a theory. On the contrary if there are adjustable parameters available this clearly shows that theory itself has not predicted precisely what values those particular parameters must have. Thus the theory cannot be said to have failed simply because these parameters have not yet been established.

For this reason, this question is irrelevant to our debate. The existence, or use of adjustable parameters does not in any way represent either success or failure for Big Bang Theory, and therefore cannot count against its testability. The only thing that can be "tested" in Big Bang Theory are things that the theory is actually predicting. Since Big Bang Theory does not predict specific values for every possible physical constant of the universe, the fact that these constants are not yest fully not does not count against the theory.

So this question is irrelevant in our comparison of which theory has been better tested.
5) Horizon problems... Jason Lisle (Lisle, Jason, Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang, Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003) states that even assuming the time scale of the BB, we have not had sufficient time for light to travel throughout the widely separated areas of the universe.
This problem that you have offered is dated September 2003. Since that time this problem has been resolved by Alan Guth's Inflation hypothesis .

Moreover, even if this problem had not yet been resolved this still would not count against Big Bang Theory. There is nothing in Big Bang Theory that predicts, or demands, that the universe began from a singularity. The horizon problem only exists if we postulate that the Big Bang had begun as a singularity and expanded outward from that point in a linear fashion.

Alan Guth's Inflation hypothesis actually provides a resolution to that particular postulate. In other words, using Alan Guth's Inflation hypothesis the universe could very well have begun from a dimensionless point (a singularity) and have rapidly inflated to a gargantuan size before slowing to a more linear expansion rate. This resolves the "Horizon Problem" associated with the postulate that the universe might have begun as a singularity or even a quantum fluctuation.

So this does not count for or against Big Bang Theory. It's simply irrelevant to Big Bang Theory entirely since Big Bang Theory itself does not describe or predict what might have banged.

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 do to many other predictions that it has made. It also appears to support a secondary hypothesis that our universe may very well have begun as a quantum fluctuation.

So this in no way counts against Big Bang Theory, and may actually provide a scientifically testable theory of what had actually banged.

So in conclusion the "Horizon Problem" is no longer a problem, and it wouldn't count against Big Bang Theory even if it was still unresolved at this time.
6) The BB has to deal with gravity, density, and space time. It is completely unable to account for gravity
I'm afraid you'll need to be more specific on this charge. I have no clue what issues you are imagining here.

In Big Bang Theory gravity is accepted to exist as a given. We experience gravity every day of our lives. Einstein has described this phenomenon in his theory on General Relativity quite accurately.

If you are talking about problems associated with Quantum Gravity, this again would not count against Big Bang Theory. Big Bang Theory has never predicted that gravity must behave consistently clear back to some singular point of origin.

Therefore it cannot be said that Big Bang Theory has "failed" simply because gravity itself may have behaved differently in the very early moments of the Big Bang.

Big Bang Theory has never claimed to be a "Theory of Everything", which seems to be the standard which you are attempting to hold it to.

So again, I disagree that this counts against Big Bang Theory. It's does not constitute an incorrect prediction of Big Bang Theory because Big Bang Theory never predicted or even remotely suggested that gravity must not behave differently during extreme condition of the early universe.

So once again, your objections to Big Bang Theory are without merit. Evidently you are thinking that Big Bang Theory must explain everything. That is an unwarranted demand on your part.
7) The BB in no way explains how matter exists.
Once again, Big Bang Theory never claimed to explain that. Therefore you cannot count this against Big Bang Theory.

You have the grossly mistaken idea that Big Bang Theory is claiming to be a "Theory of Everything". That is an error on your part.

You need to show were it has failed in predictions that it has actually made.
8) The BB in no way helps us to understand how consciousness comes from this process
Big Bang Theory never claimed to be a "Theory of Everything".

Obviously this is a gross misunderstanding on your part.

Perhaps we should end the debate right here since you are clearly attempting to hold Big Bang Theory accountable for things that it has never claimed to be able to predict.
9) The law of Conservation of Angular Momentum indicated that everything should be spinning in the same direction... this however is not the case, and those who hold to the BB have no way to explain this.
I've heard this argument before and insofar as I am aware it is totally without grounds. You would need to make a sound case for this.

Here is my argument against it:

If whatever had banged was spinning initially then it may make some sense to demand that everything in the universe conserve that initial spin momentum.

However, if the whatever had banged was not spinning then the fact that things are spinning in different directions now is actually in perfect harmony with the conservation of the law of Angular momentum. In order for the total sum of spin momentum of the universe to equal zero, then clearly many things are going to need to be spinning in opposite directions.

So I see no argument in #9 against Big Bang Theory.
10) We do not see even distributions of matter and energy.
This is not true. On the contrary it has been confirmed that on large scale the universe is extremely smooth and evenly distributed. It's only on small scales (of galaxies, solar systems, and planets that we see clumping.

I might add also that this is actually supported by Alan Guth's Inflation theory coupled with the hypothesis that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation. When the universe underwent inflation those quantum fluctuations were enlarged to produce precisely the non-universe distribution we see on small scales (i.e galaxies, etc.)

All of this has been addressed and resolved. You are clearly just not keeping up on Big Bang Theory or Cosmology in general.
11) Dr. Alan Guth, former professor at MIT attempted to solve the flatness and horizon problems associated with the BB, utilizing string theory. Since string was falsified however, these issues still remain
Dr. Alan Guth did not fail to solve the flatness or horizon problems. He also did not use string theory do solve those issues. And finally I am totally unaware of the scientific community having ever claimed that string theory has been falsified.

In short, I don't even see where what you have said here has any merit at all.

Who made these claims? Some religious fanatic? :-k

I don't believe that the scientific community agrees with anything you have stated in #11.
I'll be more than glad to provide you with peer-reviewed tests made on Big Bang theory on these topics if you so desire.


Peer reviewed by whom? :-k

Also, many of the things that you have objected to don't even apply to Big Bang Theory because you are clearly attempting to hold Big Bang Theory responsible for things that it never even claimed to predict or even be associated with.

Big Bang Theory is NOT a theory of everything nor has it ever claimed to be.

Besides, don't you think you need to provide something that has been "peer-reviewed" concerning your theory first? :-k
1) Divine takes the big bang off the table declaring it is not even a theory and gives this debate up by default though not really realizing it.
I've done no such thing. On the contrary you have been correct over this false malicious accusation repeatedly.
Wolfbitn wrote:2) There are no tests here to verify any predictions that might have been made.
I can only assume you are talking about your own theological speculations here.
3) He could not even provide any predictions that were made in regard to the BB
I already have at least two that have been tested and confirmed thousands of times by independent scientists.

You have provided absolute NONE for your theory at all.

4) He doesn't know any of the adjusted parameters done in any possible testing
I don't recall having ever said any such thing.

On the contrary I answered your question about adjustable parameters above, and I have shown how they cannot be used to belittle or degrade Big Bang Theory.
5) He does not understand that these are NOT competing theories, we are simply debating which has been tested most, and which has held up better under testing, and therefore which is the superior theory.
Are you kidding me?

Of course I know that Big Bang Theory is not in competition with your personal opinionated theological ramblings.

But in this debate you want to compare your theological ramblings against Big Bang Theory to see which is the better tested theory. And so this is what we need to do in this debate.
6) He does not understand that one can make observation regarding almost ANYTHING and test it with scientific method and "yup he haz himself a bonafied scientific theory".
I agree that anyone can use the scientific method to produce a scientific theory. But I have already shown that you are not using the scientific method. And I hope to recap that again if I ever get to the end of this post.

=========

OMG! Hallelujah! We're at the end right now! I can't believe it.

=========

Ok, there are a few things I would like to make clear before closing out this post.

1. Wolfbitn clearly does not understand the scientific method.
2. He also doesn't understand Big Bang Theory and seems to think that it is claiming to be a "Theory of Everything".

Let's begin by comparing Wolfbitn's theological speculations, with Big Bang Theory directly:
[mrow][color=blue][b]Wolfbitn's Theology[/b][/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=blue][b]Big Bang Theory[/b][/color] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts an Extinction Event[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Compacted Universe[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
Let's begin with Big Bang Theory.

Big Bang Theory predicts that at previous times galaxies had been closer together. This was a prediction that had not yet been observed or known to be true. However countless thousands of tests have since been made verifying this prediction is indeed true. So this prediction of Big Bang Theory has been well-tested and well-verified by thousands of independent scientists from around the world.

Now let's look at the prediction being made by Wolfbitn's so-called "theory".

Wolfbitn observes that science has already established that there has been an extinction event in past history. So he then runs off and grabs a Bible and proclaims to be able to predict that the Bible had actually described a extinction event rather than a creation event.

So his actual prediction is that the bible can be shown to have described a extinction even rather than a creation event.

But has his prediction been well tested? Well, no, it hasn't. In fact there really is no scientific way to even test his prediction because the biblical scriptures have already been proven by theologians to be ambiguous and wide-open to subjective opinionated speculations.

In fact, he hasn't even published his theological speculations or have them peer-reviewed by other theologian. Yet he wants to claim that his prediction has been well-tested and verified to be true.

But what he is actually doing is pretending that his claim that the Bible describes an extinction even has somehow been vindicated and that the thousands of scientific experiments that show that there has been an extinction even count as verifications and tests that his "theory" is true.

But his entire process it totally backwards, and does not even remotely amount to the scientific method.

On the contrary his actual prediction was that the Bible actually describes an extinction event rather than a creation event. So that is the claim that he must test and show to be true. But there is no way to scientifically test theological subjective interpretations of ancient fables.

So Wolfbitn's claim to have a well-tested prediction FAILS.

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

Let's try this again:
[mrow][color=blue][b]Wolfbitn's Theology[/b][/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=blue][b]Big Bang Theory[/b][/color] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts Evolution[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Hot Big Bang[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
Again let's start with Big Bang Theory

Big Band Theory predicts that there was a Hot Big Bang that gave rise to the existence of the universe. This was a prediction about something that had not yet been observed. In fact, for many years there was no confirmed observation of this at all. But then in 1964 Penzias and Wilson discovered the evidence for this. Since that time the background radiation of the Big Bang has been tested thousands of times, in fact, special satellites have even been built to record this evidence in every direction in the sky in great detail.

So once again we have a theory that predicted something that had not yet been known and the prediction

And now we compare this with Wolfbitn's "theory"

Wolfbitn looks at the overwhelming scientific evidence and fossil record for evolution and Dawin's Origin of the Species, and then predicts the Biblical scriptures could be reinterpreted to be describing evolution. He then runs back to the Bible and make a really weak case for this, which is doesn't even publish or get any peer-reviews at all from other theologians, and he proclaims that his prediction is rock-solid and has been vindicated.

Then he wants to lay claim that all of the thousands of tests that have verified evolution and Dawin's Origin of the Species belongs to his theory. Thus proclaiming that his theory has been the most well-tested theory in the world and has been proven by the fossil record written in stone.

But this is not what Wolfbitn had actually predicted, what he had actually predicted was that he could go back and reinterpret the Bible in an attempt to make it appear to be describing evolution and the origin of species.

This is not science Wolf. It's not even good theology.

Your claim to be using the "scientific method" is simply a false claim.

All you have done is demonstrate your total inability to even understand how the scientific method actually works.


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


Before I turn the floor back over to you, I would just like to repeat a view major important points.

Big Bang Theory is not a "Theory of Everything" and has never claimed to be a "Theory of Everything". Many of the reasons you give for dismissing Big Bang Theory aren't even applicable. Moreover it wouldn't help your case anyway because your so-called "theory" is not scientific and it has no scientific merit no matter what you compare it with.

Your "theory" loses all by itself. All your theory amounts to is you proclaiming that your biblical interpretations should trump all other theologian's interpretations. You don't even have popular theological support for your personal interpretations that the Bible describes an extinction event, or evolution.

All you are really attempting to argue for is a theological interpretation of the Bible that does not conflict with any known scientific facts.

You should actually be debating your "theory of theology" with other theologians, not with scientists. You need to make a case for you scriptural interpretations to them, not to scientists.

You are not using the "Scientific Method" at all. That is a totally incorrect claim on your part.

==================
[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]4[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]4[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
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]

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #14

Post by Wolfbitn »

OK, Rebuttals to Divine's post (post 12)

1) As I have made clear the only way these 2 theories are competing, is in determining which is the best overall theory... my theory or BB We do this by examining which has been most tested, and which fares better in their respective testing. Then which theory is more credible... otherwise these are no competing theories.

2) No one said this theory is published, but I have given him 2000 years of history regarding the OEC position, all from peer reviewed sources.

3) It is not necessary to publish this theory at this point... I can do this after the debate when the testing is complete. On the other hand I have identified issues with the BB that he is still neglecting, and even getting his facts wrong... but we will come to this.

4) Divine states:
I hold that Wolfbitn has already demonstrated that his theory does not use the scientific method. And I will be addressing that very issue later in this post. He is more than welcome to contest this, and we can focus on that issue if he likes.
Evidently he has missed (in every one of my posts thus far) how we have
been setting the facts found in Genesis 1, side by side with the fossil record and the geological record before us... He has not so much as attempted to refute them so thus far they still stand as verified.

5) He states that he has mentioned one test done regarding a big bang prediction, but then he does not state what that test was.

6) He states
Wolfbitn takes known scientific observations and then runs
backwards to his theological myths reinterpreting them to match the observed phenomenon.
Which of course is wrong again. As stated, I observed that Genesis 1
blatantly claims that evolution occurred, It can be understood to say in verse 2 that the earth became laid waste and emptied, and decided to see how this claim stood, in conjunction with the events stated in the rest of the chapter, to the fossil and geological record... and Divine has still failed to address this in any way to refute it, meaning it still stands.

7) I will show his accusation that Genesis 1 is not myth, but that current so-called scientific dogmas are.

8) He makes the claim in regards to testing BB...
And that has been done and it holds water. So chalk one up for Big Bang Theory.
But what test was this? Is this the test that had 7 parameters that were adjusted to the point they no longer resembled ANYTHING observable? The truth is BB has many detractors who are very brilliant men... So again Divine needs to put this testing before us...


9) In regards to his poorly done rebuttal of Genesis 1, He provides us with no evidence to refute my claim that Genesis 1:2 can be interpreted to mean "The earth BECAME laid waste and emptied. Every Decent Hebrew lexicon and every knowledgeable Jew will tell you this is so.
I offered 2 credible sources.
http://ucg-canada.org/booklets/BT/versesofgenesis.asp

Quote:
: The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

Yet this interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years,
as pointed out by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2.

The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, rendered Genesis 1:2 with an Aramaic expression Dr. Custance translates as "and the earth was laid waste" (1988, p. 15). The original language evidently led them to understand that something had occurred which had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2, "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering...of it was taken in hand?' (De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, part 1, chapter 6). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology embraced an ancient origin for the earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless.
And
http://www.scripture4all.org/ ,,, then go to "Hebrew intelinear" and then click Genesis 1

Then by going here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cf ... t=KJV&ss=1
You can see the corresponding number for the words "Was" "without form" and "void".


Here you see the word translated "was" is also properly understood to mean:
to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
We see "without form is also properly understood as
wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
and void we see is also properly understood as
emptiness, void, waste

So he obviously cannot refute that Genesis 1:2 can certainly be understood to mean that the earth became laid waste and emptied.

From here:
http://classic.studylight.org/isb/bible ... &sr=1&l=en We see the same thing.
With the Qal, Was = to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
to come about, come to pass
to come into being, become
to arise, appear, come
to become
to become
to become like

Without form = wasteland, wilderness (of solitary places)
place of chaos

Void = emptiness, void, waste


So let him refute that these things are properly understood as "became wasted and emptied", of let it stand.


Then he states we cannot apply scientific method to these observations, testing them against the geological and fossil records... AGAIN just not quite understanding.

If Divine were to speculate that the aurora borealis was caused by fairies, sprinkling fairy dust into ice crystals using a tiny magical wand, he could certainly test this hypothesis... Just as if I were to speculate that Carbide + water might create acetelyne and test this. One of course would be shot down immediately, but thus far the hebrew language and the consistancy with doctrine AND the fossil and geological records indicate that Genesis just may in fact be giving us a short history of an extinction event and then life subsequently being renewed upon the earth...

It DOES declare evolution.

So let Divine refute this from the hebrew language, or he wasted all this time to point out not a single thing that helps him.


Regarding the 2nd chromosome, he agrees this makes us different from the other animals, yet he cannot account for the fact that Genesis says we are specially suited to take over the earth and put everything under our dominion. The 2nd chromosome shows us HOW we were suited.

When he gets to this
And we summarize a few glaring inconsistencies with the Big Bang.

1) Since it is an unfinished hypothesis mathematically, as Haven, who is studying for his phd has pointed out, after a century of trying to come to an answer and failing, it is obvious there are major issues with the BB.
He writes 6 paragraph excusing why he cannot provide the equation, but then he doesnt go on to concede that this finished equation simply does not exist.

Divine... we want that finished equation or the concession that it does not exist please.

He also states we observe expansion... But Edwin Hubble himself disagreed with this.


He also completely leaves out the 2nd question, going to the 3rd:
3) Despite the claim made by those who regard BB that many predictions have been made and tested, Divine has provided but a single prediction.

He states:
This is simply not true. I have already established the Big Bang Theory has successfully predicted that the universe was more dense and galaxies were closer together in the past. This has been confirmed by cosmological observations.
But I submit that NO ONE has EVER observed a time by that the galexies were closer together... NEITHER did he provide us with ANY material verifying this testing was ever done... I'd love to see this but he cannot provide it. His opinion, misinformed as it is, has no bearing on this issue... give us the actual predictions made and show us the test results please. He may SPECULATE that IF the BB were true, there would be a time where matter was space and matter is denser, but no, this has CERTAINLY NEVER been physically observed, so there agiain, we have a few problems with his understanding of the BB and anything that has actually been "observed". The fact is, he cannot even "prove" that the universe is actually expanding.

Not being able to provide evidence for his side of the debate is becoming a very bad pattern.


Divine then asks, in regard to the bible declaring evolution as a fact 3500 years before Darwin:
What's wrong with the original scriptures that describe a creation event?
1) You are preferring a version translated from a translation of a translation over the original language. Scientifically speaking it is unethical to not go to the oldest ORIGINAL actual words and understandings of those words.

2) Of course you would prefer to use poor translations over the original words and meaning if you dont have to look at the actual implications of the original wording.

3) In case you didnt notice... I AM using the "original scriptures".

4) pick a version... they all say life evolved from the sea.

What is a "Qal"?


So direct questions... are you saying we cannot use the original language? Are you saying a translation is superior to an original? Are you saying we cannot see that it plainly says "every living thing that moveth" came form the seas, and then test this against the fossil record? You even quoted it yourself:
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good
Direct answers please.



The Divine says:
This actually directly conflicts with Biblical theology and many theists hotly contest evolution precisely because of this.
I find that I must chuckle (LOL). No... people ignorant of their own bible hotly contest it... the ken hams... i am no ken ham as I corrected earlier.

You quoted it yourself... "EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH" came about by evolving from the seas. What does EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH mean to anyone and everyone? So no it conflicts with people, but it certainly does not conflict with the written word OR the fossil record.

He states:
There are thousands of creation stories throughout the world

And yet Genesis 1 is ALONE in ALL of ancient literature and these thousands of creation stories, in declaring evolution as a fact 3500 years before Darwin.


Hmmmm.

Then Divine again...
In other words, you are willing to go back and distort Genesis 1 in any way required to pretend that it matches up with Darwin's Orgin of the Species, Genetics, and the modern discoveries in evolution?

I would NEVER do this because Darwin got it wrong and Genesis 1 got it right... as you will soon see.

He states:
Therefore, Big Bang Theory cannot be said to have 'failed' or to even be in any trouble at all simply because the Big Bang Event has not yet been resolved.
You have had over a century to be able to bring me a finished mathematical equation... you still cant.


Then you said:
There is nothing in Big Bang Theory that predicts, or demands, that the universe began from a singularity. The horizon problem only exists if we postulate that the Big Bang had begun as a singularity and expanded outward from that point in a linear fashion.

Pardon me but the theory IS that this universe is as it is ow simply because of a singularity that suddenly began to expand.
Alan Guth's Inflation hypothesis actually provides a resolution to that particular postulate.
Your only problem here is that Alan Guth HOPED to do this with his brand of a sort of a chaotic string theory... string theory has been REPEATEDLY falsified... you honestly didnt know this? So no, the problems of flatness and horizon are still there with nothing at all left to answer it.

Divine says:
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

I would LOVE for him to explain this... HOW has string become "a well established theory" when it has been "REPEATEDLY FALSIFIED"?


So...

1)In Genesis chapter one, we get the idea that there was an extinction event with "And the earth became laid waste and emptied."

2) We get the idea that this extinction, exploded into the atmosphere a chaos of earth, ash, water, steam, debris from vegetation and rock. This of course darkened the atmosphere to the point that the plants die... plant eaters die... predators die. We see this scenario several times in the geological and fossil records.

3) We see then evolution begins to occur in the oceans, just as stated in Genesis 1 and just as we see in the fossil record.

4) So there is no problem with evolution itself. The problem is with Darwinism and Huxleyisms... who all state that we should have found life ever so gradually, slowly, and steadily evolving and flourishing. But this is not what we see at all in our fossil records. So though evolution itself ... the idea holds water, the Darwinism brand has been falsified.


Problems with evolution.




http://www.livescience.com/7826-oldest- ... ceans.html

For some 3 billion years, single-celled life forms such as bacteria dominated the planet. Then, roughly 600 million years ago, the first multi-cellular animals appeared on the scene, diversifying rapidly.

The oldest known animal fossils in the world are preserved in South China's Doushantuo Formation. These fossil beds have no adult specimens — instead, many of the fossils appear to be microscopic embryos.

THIS was extremely interesting. multicellular animals, microscopic embryos and juveniles, beds and beds of them... And not an adult specimen among them. What happened? Evolution obviously has some merit. We certainly do see it occur in a "micro-evolution" manner when we observe one species divide or transform into another. Genesis 1 makes the very bold claim that "EVERYTHING THAT MOVETH" originated in the seas. But how do we explain the SUDDEN EXPLOSIONS of life that we observe, such as we observe during the Cambrian age.
This explosion was unprecedented. Entire fully developed lifeforms such
as trillobites and MYRIADS more animals that would one day complete the animal kingdom... just all of a sudden APPEARED.. No explanation. No hints of prior evolution... they just APPEARED and then their populations EXPLODED. Evolution as taught by Huxley then cannot explain this.

Gerald Schroeder, an orthodox Jew, received his PhD in Nuclear Physics, and earth and planetary sciences in 1965. During his lifetime he too noted the similarities of Genesis 1 with extinction events and subsequent restoration of life... over and over again. He has written extensively on the issue, and his Lectures have taken him worldwide.

He says:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx
Nature, molecular biology and the Cambrian explosion of animal life have given us the opportunity to study rigorously the potential for randomness as a source of development in evolution. If the fossil record is an accurate description of the flow of life, then the 34 basic body plans that burst into being at the Cambrian, 530 million years ago, comprise all of animal life till today. The tree of life which envisioned a gradual progression of phyla from simple forms such as sponges, on to more complex life such as worms and then on to shelled creatures such as mollusks has been replaced by the bush of life in which sponges and worms and mollusks and all the other of the 34 phyla appeared simultaneously. Each of these bush lines then developed (evolved) a myriad of variations, but the variations always remained within the basic body plan.

Among the structures that appeared in the Cambrian were limbs, claws, eyes with optically perfect lenses, intestines. These exploded into being with no underlying hint in the fossil record that they were coming. Below them in the rock strata (i.e., older than them) are fossils of one-celled bacteria, algae, protozoans, and clumps known as the essentially
structureless Ediacaran fossils of uncertain identity.
How such
complexities could form suddenly by random processes is an unanswered question. It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory. Abrupt morphological changes are contrary to Darwin's oft repeated statement that nature does not make jumps. Darwin based his theory on animal husbandry rather than fossils. If in a few generations of selective breeding a farmer could produce a robust sheep from a skinny one, then, Darwin reasoned, in a few million or billion generations a sponge might evolve into an ape. The fossil record did not then nor does it now support this theory. That life developed from the simple to the complex is, in my opinion true. What drove that
development is the debate: random mutations or teleology?

The abrupt appearance in the fossil record of new species is so common that the journal Science, the bastion of pure scientific thinking, featured the title, "Did Darwin get it all right?" And answered the question: no. The appearance of wings is a classic example. There is no hint in the fossil record that wings are about to come into existence. And they do, fully formed. We may have to change our concept of evolution to accommodate a reality that the development of life has within it something exotic at work, some process totally unexpected that produces these sudden developments. The change in paradigm would be similar to the era in physics when classical logical Newtonian physics was modified by the totally illogical (illogical by human standards of logic) phenomena observed in quantum physics, including the quantized, stepwise changes in the emission of radiation by a body even as the temperature of the body increases smoothly. With the advent of molecular biology's ability to discern the structure of proteins and genes, statistical comparison of the similarity of these structures among animals has become possible. The gene that controls the development of the eye is the same in all mammals. That is not surprising. The fossil record implies a common branch for all mammals. But what is surprising, even astounding, is the similarity of the mammal gene the gene that controls the development of eyes in mollusks and in insects. The same can be said for the gene that controls the expression of limbs in insects and in humans. In fact so similar is this gene, that pieces of the mammalian gene, when spliced into a fruit fly cell, will cause a fruit fly eye to appear at the site of the 'splice' . This would make sense if life's development were described as a tree. But the bush of life means that just above the level of one-celled life, insects and mammals and worms and mollusks separated.

The reality of this explosion of life was discovered long before it was
revealed. In 1909, Charles D. Walcott, while searching for fossils in the Canadian Rocky Mountains, came upon a strata of shale near the Burgess Pass, rich in that for which he had been seeking, fossils from the era known as the Cambrian. Over the following four years Walcott collected between 60,000 and 80,000 fossils from the Burgess Shale. These fossils contained representatives from every phylum except one of the phyla that exist today. Walcott recorded his findings meticulously in his notebooks. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion. These fossils could have changed the entire concept of evolution from a tree of life to a bush of life. And they did, but not in 1909. Walcott knew he had discovered something very important. That is why he collected the vast number of samples. But he could not believe that evolution could have occurred in such a burst of life forms, "simultaneously" to use the words of Scientific American. This was totally against the theory of Darwin in which he and his colleagues were steeped. And so Walcott reburied the fossils, all 60,000 of them, this time in the drawers of his laboratory. Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C., the largest array of museums in the world. It was not until 1985 that they were rediscovered (in the draws of the Smithsonian). Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil
representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, but an example for which we have all paid a severe price.

At this point we must ask the question, what has produced the wonders of life that surround us? The answer may be implied by those very
surroundings. In that case the medium would be the message!


http://www.economist.com/news/science-a ... ngdom-come
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
.

Again... NOBODY KNOWS what detonated this Cambrian explosion. Now we must reason that when theory departs from unchanging stone records, we need to begin to reconsider certain dogmas. The fossil record is our WITNESS... to what really occurred. WHERE did this sudden explosion of life come from?


Now lets look at Genesis 1 again:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
NOTE the word ABUNDANTLY. Not only is Genesis 1 the ONLY ANCIENT DOCUMENT IN HISTORY, until Darwin, to declare life evolves, and not only did it teach as we know today, that life began in the seas, It DECLARES sudden explosions of life. DARWIN did NOT do this and this was where he and Huxley failed. They postulated a very very long and very very slow process of life evolving over hundreds of millions of years. This SIMPLY IS NOT what we find written in the fossil record. Sure life evolved, and sure it took time, but for some unexplained by science reason, life EXPLODED before it "evolved". Genesis 1 nails this on the head. 3500 years before Darwin and Huxley... and the fossil records prove Genesis 1 to be correct about the sudden explosion of life... Darwin and huxley, falsified in this aspect of the theory, Genesis 1, Verified.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -life.html
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.


http://www.csun.edu/~dgray/Evol322/Chapter18.pdf
Darwin was a gradualist
• Expected evolutionary change to be slow
and continuous
– Predicts many many intermediate forms
• Many of course have been found in major groups
– But many fossil morphological species
• Appear suddenly in fossil record

• Fewer transitional forms than you might expect
• Darwin attributed stasis to incomplete fossil
record




http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-prob ... evolution/


John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Even though the gaps in the fossil record are found between each basic animal type, there are two huge gaps in particular that should be emphasized. The evolutionary distance between single-cell organisms and the vast array of multicellular, highly complex marine invertebrates precludes even rapid evolution. In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (which contain the first appearance of varied multi-cell life), sponges, clams, trilobites, starfish, etc., are found without the required evolutionary ancestors.

The gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, which insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.




http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/probl ... record.htm

The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials, Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:


...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.


David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for
evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them
… 3


N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:

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. 4

Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine (Is Man a Subtle Accident," Newsweek, November 3, 1980.):
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.



So we see that Darwin/Huxleyism sect of evolutionist has it wrong. We see that Genesis 1 is STILL ahead of its time. Genesis 1, verified again.

The Cambrian EXPLODED out of nowhere. Darwinism did not predict this... Darwinism predicted a much slower rate of evolution. The wording of Genesis 1 shows however that this is exactly what we should find in the fossil record. If one were to predict that Genesis 1 is an actual history, then they could predict this is exactly what we would find in the fossil record. And this is certainly what we then observe. Genesis is verified and Darwinism swings and misses when it comes to the Cambrian.




So direct questions for Divine:

1) Are you REALLY unaware that string theory has REPEATEDLY been falsified and all the colliders and all the kings men couldnt verify string again?

2) Provide for me a concise list of predictions that have been tested regarding the BB

3) When the WMAP tests were performed the original parameters were adjusted. After they were adjusted isnt it true that they did not resemble anything previously observed?

4) Explain why Darwinism is in conflict with the Cambrian explosion.

5) The BB is still just a hypothesis. String failed to resolve it as was hoped. Hubble Himself states the evidence does not indicate expansion and there are still those PhD's who believe BB to no longer be viable. So what if Hubble is right and there is no evidence of an expanding universe? If the universe is not really expanding then you are not looking at denser galaxies than what currently exist. Is this not true?

6) And just a few weeks ago isnt it true you felt the BB was not to be taken very seriously at all?

.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #15

Post by Divine Insight »

Hello to everyone. I apologize for both the delay required to respond to Wolfbitn' massive last post, as well as the necessarily massive length of this post required to respond to all his claims, charges, and accusations.

I have done my very best to keep this post as short and to the point as possible. Although when debating two topics simultaneously this is extremely difficult. In order to keep things somewhat manageable I have divided this post into sections with large print titles in dark red at the beginning of each section so that information can be more easily found and recognized. Below I offer a "table of contexts" for these sections to help readers navigate this post. I am hoping that in future posts I can just refer back to this post stating that paritulcar issues have already been resolved, because my opponent seems to be just rehashing the same things over and over again anyway.

Section 1. Misrepresentations and Contradictions.
Section 2. What Has Actually Been Predicted?
Section 3. Consensus on Life Evolved from the Sea
Section 4. False Accusations Against Big Bang Theory
Section 5. Problems with Evolution
Section 6. Answer to Direct Questions


Section 1. Misrepresentations and Contradictions.

In this section I would like to address several misrepresentations contradictions that my opponent has been consistently presenting.

1. Wolfbitn continually misrepresents what his own "theory" is about.
2. He also clearly demands contradictions within his own claims.
3. And finally he grossly misrepresents what Big Bang Theory is about.



Allow me first to elaborate on these three misrepresentations:

1. Wolfbitn continually misrepresents what his own "theory" is about.

Wolfbitn's "theory" is that the Biblical Genesis can be reinterpreted to be describing a regeneration event and evolution of all animal from the sea instead of a creation event.

But then, instead of addressing how well his theological speculations have been "scientifically tested" he simply points to the scientific evidence for an extinction event and evolution, and claims that this scientific evidence represents "thousands of tests" to support his theory that the Bible can be reinterpreted to predict this.

But this is a totally misguided notion. The only reason that he had suggested that the Bible should be reinterpreted in this way in the first place is because he was already aware of the overwhelming evidence for an extinction event and evolution. He can't now claim that the very evidence that caused him to want to reinterpret the Bible is "tested proof" of his theory that the Bible can be reinterpreted.

His actual "theory" is that the Bible can be reinterpreted to predict what science has already discovered. And that is what he needs to show can be scientifically "tested". And of course that's impossible. It's impossible to scientifically verify opinionated interpretations of ancient stories. So for him to even claim that his "theory" has been scientifically tested is a gross misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the scientific method itself.

And I also must add at this point that Wolfbitn doesn't even have theological consensus for his theological speculations, much less any support that they have been independently scientifically tested.

2. He also clearly demands contradictions within his own claims.

He claims that the bible describes evolution of all creatures from the sea, but then simultaneously claims support for his theory by pointing to peer-reviewed articles on OEC. But OEC stands for Old-Earth Creationism. It doesn't stand for Old-Earth Evolutionism.

In other words, Wolfbitn is being inconsistent concerning what he even points to as supposed support for his "theory".

His theory is to claim that the Bible describes evolution, not creationism. Therefore he cannot point to OEC articles as support for his theory. Nor can he reject Darwin's Origin of the Species. Wolfbitn needs Darwin's Origin of the Species if he's going to end up getting a lion or a bird from a fish. So his "theory" isn't even self-consistent.

2. He also misrepresents what Big Bang Theory is about.

When it comes to Big Bang Theory he makes demands on the theory that the theory itself has never claimed to have predicted.

For example, he repeatedly brings up the idea that there is no single equation to describe how the Big Bang Event had actually begun. But the problem with his objection is that Big Bang Theory never predicted any specific mechanism for the origin of the Big Bang Explosion. All that Big Bang Theory suggests is that something must have exploded.

Therefore it is incorrect of Wolfbitn to claim that because we don't yet know what had actually exploded and we cannot yet described it, that this invalidates Big Bang Theory or counts against it in any way. That is a gross misrepresentation on Wolfbitn's part. One that he has already been corrected on repeatedly but continues to use as fodder against Big Bang Theory.

Wofbitn is demanding that Big Bang Theory must be a "Theory of Everything". He even stated in a previous post that Big Bang Theory can't explain consciousness. But Big Bang Theory never claimed to be able to do that. So clearly Wolfbitn is holding Big Bang Theory up as a "Theory of Everything" when in fact, that is simply an unrealistic demand on Wolfbitn's part.

What Wolfbitn is attempting to do is create unrealistic strawmen accusations that he can easily shoot down thus giving the illusion that he has shot down Big Bang Theory, when in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

So he is misrepresenting Big Bang Theory as much as he is misrepresenting his own so-called "theory". He has also repeated brought up String Theory as if it has something to do with Big Bang Theory. It doesn't. Big Bang Theory is a theory about how the macro cosmos has evolved. String Theory is a theory about subatomic particles. These two theories couldn't be further apart.

Section 2. What Has Actually Been Predicted?
Wolfbitn wrote:1) As I have made clear the only way these 2 theories are competing, is in determining which is the best overall theory... my theory or BB We do this by examining which has been most tested, and which fares better in their respective testing. Then which theory is more credible... otherwise these are no competing theories.
This is exactly what I intend to do. And in order to do this we must compare what these two "theories" are predicting. Only then can we have a clear idea of what needs to be shown to have been "tested".
Wolfbitn wrote: 3) Despite the claim made by those who regard BB that many predictions have been made and tested, Divine has provided but a single prediction.
This is not true. I have offered two predictions, and I have even compared those two predictions directly with the predictions that Wolfbitn has made in his claims.
I have even placed these in a nice table so we can better keep track of how these two "theories" compare. And since Wolfbitn had offered a third prediction for his "theory", we can actually offer a third prediction for Big Bang Theory as well:
[mrow][color=blue][b]Wolfbitn's Theology[/b][/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=blue][b]Big Bang Theory[/b][/color] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts an Extinction Event[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Compacted Universe[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Evolution[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Hot Big Bang[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts Man is Superior to Animals[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts the Ratios of Elements[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
Let's exam each of these predictions in detail.

Wolfbitn claims that the Bible predicts an extinction event.

Wolfbitn is not claiming to have predicted an extinction event. He was well aware of the scientific evidence for an extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs. So Wolfbitn's "theory" does not predict an extinction event.

Instead Wolfbitn claims that the Bible had predicted an extinction event if we allow for Wolfbitn's opinionated theological interpretations of ancient Hebrew texts.

So what Wolfbitn is actually predicting is that the Bible describes an extinction event instead of a creation event. But is that prediction testable by any scientific method? No it's not. Therefore Wolfbitn doesn't have a scientifically testable prediction. No scientifically testable hypothesis is offered, and therefore Wolfbitn does not have a scientific theory. What he has is theological speculation twisted to match known scientific knowledge .

Big Bang Theory predicts a compacted universe.

Big Bang Theory actually predicts something that was not yet know to be true yet was indeed testable. Tests have been made on this prediction and these tests have verified this prediction. So we clearly have success.

These tests are very well known and widely publicized, and we can look at these actual tests in another post later. Right now I simply want to make it clear what was being predicted and what we need to then verify has been tested.

Wolfbitn claims that the Bible predicts a evolution.

For the same reason given for his first claim this also fails. He's not predicting that evolution has occurred. He already knew that this has been well-established by the scientific community already. What Wolfbitn is actually claiming is that the Bible has predicted evolution. But this fails for numerous reasons.

The Bible is a creation story, and it's a story of a God who created all the animals individually that then procreated after their own kind. Wolfbitn claims that the Bible describes that all animals have evolved from the sea. This personal opinionated theological interpretation cannot be tested or verified by science. Even most biblical theologians would passionately disagree with Wolfbitn's interpretations.

Moreover, Wolfbitn contradicts himself later by rejecting Darwin's Origin of the Species and trying to claim that God did indeed create each species of animal individually. But this flies in the face of the biblical scriptures that state clearly that these animals procreated after their own kind.

So Wolfbitn's theological interpretations make no sense, and most certainly cannot be scientifically verified to be true.

Big Bang Theory predicts a Hot Big Bang.

The natural conclusion of Big Bang theory predicts that our universe began as a hot fireball commonly called the Big Bang. So this too represents something that was previously unknown, yet it is a prediction that can be tested. The test for this prediction is to observe the afterglow of this big bang fireball. In the mid 1960's this test was made by accident by Penzias and Wilson when they discovered this cosmic afterglow when trying to get a static hiss out of a communications antenna.

Since that time many further tests have been made on this cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMBR, and it has been verified by thousands, and even millions of tests and measurements since. And we can look at those tests in future posts.

We can discuss these actual tests in future posts. Right now I'm just laying out what predictions have actually been made. We need to make a clear distinction between what constitutes a prediction versus what constitutes a test.

Wolfbitn claims that the Bible predicts mankind is unique.

Again, this is hardly an impressive prediction. Every culture who has ever written a creation fable has always placed humans at the center of attention of their deities and above all other animals. So this is a prediction that is so commonplace that it doesn't even count as a prediction at all. On the contrary it's obvious that humans wrote these ancient fables, and so they naturally placed themselves as the most important creatures on Earth. This is the whole idea behind human creation stories.

So there's nothing to "test" here. Human's write myths that hold humans to be above all other animals, and this is just what humans do. A person would be very hard-pressed to find a creation story written by humans who are placing Chimpanzees above themselves. So Wolfbitn's claim that this represents a meaningful scientifically testable prediction fails.

Big Bang Theory predicts the Ratios of the Elements.

This wasn't actually among the original predictions of Big Bang Theory. However, this actually came out of discovery and conclusion that a Hot Big Bang Fireball had actually occurred. Using the well known physics of nuclear reactions it was shown that if the Big Bang Theory is true then universe should have been born with a ratio of 75% Hydrogen and 25% Nitrogen. And this is indeed what we see as constituting the actual proportions of elements in the universe.

So this can actually be counted as a third prediction of Big Bang Theory that has been successfully tested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have merely illustrated above what Wolfbitn's "theory" is predicting verses what Big Bang Theory has predicted.

I have also shown that Big Bang Theory had predicted unknown facts about our universe. And that these predictions were easily tested

Wolfbitn hasn't predicted anything that hasn't already been known. On the contrary Wolfbitn is predicting that the Biblical scriptures can be reinterpreted to match up with what scientific observations have already verified to be true.

So what Wolfbitn needs to show is his opinionated theological interpretations can be scientifically verified to be true. I can't imagine how he intends on doing that. I'm quite sure that even theologians would concede that this is absolutely impossible.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Section 3. Consensus on Life Evolved from the Sea
Wolfbitn wrote: Divine then asks, in regard to the bible declaring evolution as a fact 3500 years before Darwin:
What's wrong with the original scriptures that describe a creation event?
1) You are preferring a version translated from a translation of a translation over the original language. Scientifically speaking it is unethical to not go to the oldest ORIGINAL actual words and understandings of those words.

2) Of course you would prefer to use poor translations over the original words and meaning if you dont have to look at the actual implications of the original wording.

3) In case you didnt notice... I AM using the "original scriptures".

4) pick a version... they all say life evolved from the sea.
I agree that life evolved from the sea. I do not agree that any of the Biblical scriptures made any statements about evolution at all.

Moreover, this is not support for your "theory" anyway. That fact that all life on Earth has evolved from the sea is not scientific evidence for your biblical interpretations. On the contrary you already knew that life evolved from the sea, and this is why you are attempting to argue for this interpretation from ancient myths.

However, you then later reject the Origin of the Species, which would be impossible to reject if all life evolved from the sea. For example a Lion could not have even lived in the sea. It's a land animal. Therefore if a lion evolved from the sea it would have needed to be a totally different animal prior to having evolved into a lion. So you need evolution of the species to complete your theological speculations.

I am not arguing with you over theology. If you would like to believe that the Bible describes evolution as a matter of your faith, by all means, please be my guest.

But that is not the subject of this debate.

In this debate you are attempting to claim that that your theological speculations and interpretations that the Bible describes evolution can be "scientifically tested and verified".

But how in the world would you do that? How could you possibly "test" your theological speculations using the scientific method?

You can't just point to scientific evidence for evolution and say, "Look! My biblical interpretations have been scientifically tested and verified by science!"

That is utterly absurd Wolfbitn. You have actually gone back to the Bible and reinterpreted what you see there proclaiming it to match up with what you already know to be scientifically proven fact.

That is NOT SCIENCE Wolfbitn. All you are doing is making an attempt to interpret a religious myth that you believe in by imagining that it could be describing what we already know to be true.

There is no way to scientifically test or verify that your interpretations are correct. Moreover, the biblical fables fall all apart in the next couple chapters of Genesis anyway. So you wouldn't have gained much at all even if you managed to twist Genesis 1 into something that appears to match known science.

I concede that life evolved from the sea.

I do not concede that rejection of Darwin's Origin of the Species is compatible with your theory.

So I reject your theological speculations as being self-contradictory anyway.
Wolfbitn wrote: So direct questions... are you saying we cannot use the original language? Are you saying a translation is superior to an original? Are you saying we cannot see that it plainly says "every living thing that moveth" came form the seas, and then test this against the fossil record? You even quoted it yourself:
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good
Direct answers please.
You are more than free to use whatever languages and interpretaions you so desire. Theology allows you that option. Religion is a faith-based belief system. You are free to believe whatever you like and state whatever opinions you so desire.

What you cannot do is claim that your choice of language and interpretations can be "scientifically tested and verified". It is well known that ancient Hebrew language was quite ambiguous, even in its own time. Many of the Hebrew letters and words had multiple meanings that could only be understood within a larger context.

In fact, our modern English is a far more sophisticated and highly developed language than ancient Hebrew was. Yet we even have arguments over what sentences and statements written in English might actually mean. Often times we need to ask the actual author, or if the author is no longer living we often guess what the author might have actually meant. This is common with all languages and ancient Hebrew is no exception.

For you to proclaim to have "The Ultimate Interpretation of the Bible" is the most absurd thing I can imagine.

Such a claim cannot be scientifically tested or verified. It's just your opinion Wolfbitn. And you are most certainly welcome to have an opinion. But to proclaim that your opinion has been scientifically verified and tested to be true is utter nonsense.

You knew full well that science had already discovered evolution before you made these biblical interpretations. In fact, you are still trying to deny the Darwin's Origin of the Species which has indeed been scientifically well tested and verified by the fossil records. As well as in actual live tests in laboratories done on bacteria, viruses and even fruit flies.

You are attempting to pretend to accept evolution whilst simultaneously rejecting it. IMHO, your claim that all animals evolved from the sea without there having been any transformation of species is simply a self-contradictory claim.

Therefore I reject your theological speculations on the whole simply because they are self-contradictory in the big picture.

So I concede that life evolved from the sea as science has already discovered. I do not accept your theological speculations that the Bible had described evolution.

And that is your "theory".

Your theory fails as having been scientifically tested, IMHO. There is simply no way to "scientifically test" your theological opinions.

~~~~~~~~~

Section 4. False Accusations Against Big Bang Theory
Wolfbitn wrote:Then you said:
There is nothing in Big Bang Theory that predicts, or demands, that the universe began from a singularity. The horizon problem only exists if we postulate that the Big Bang had begun as a singularity and expanded outward from that point in a linear fashion.
Pardon me but the theory IS that this universe is as it is now simply because of a singularity that suddenly began to expand.
No, this is not Big Bang Theory at all. This is nothing more than your extreme misunderstanding of Big Bang Theory. Big Bang theory began because of observations that our universes is currently expanding, and that galaxies are moving away from us and each other at increasing speeds with distacnce from us, that can only be explained by an expanding universe. This was the original observaiton that gave rise to the theory.

The theory was then proposed that the universe must have been smaller in the past and that galaxies must have been closer together. So this is a prediction of the theory. The theory then also suggested that there is no known reason why this shouldn't have been the case clear back in time until all of the galaxies were right on top of each other in a hot fire ball.

That hot fireball was dubed "The Big Bang". This is where the Big Bang Theory ends.

There was never any credible prediction that this necessarily had to continue on to become a singularity. However, there did exist speculations that this might be the case. However, those extreme speculations were never considered to be part of Big Bang theory.

So you are wrong to demand that Big Bang Theory IS that the unvierse began as a singularity. That is not a preiction of Big Bang Theory. Big Bang Theory does not predict what might have caused the original hot fireball that we have dubed "The Big Bang".

So you are wrong to demand that Big Bang theory must prove that the universe began from singularity. It never made that claim, and therefore it is under no pressure to prove that claim.
Wolfbitn wrote:
Alan Guth's Inflation hypothesis actually provides a resolution to that particular postulate.
Your only problem here is that Alan Guth HOPED to do this with his brand of a sort of a chaotic string theory... string theory has been REPEATEDLY falsified... you honestly didnt know this? So no, the problems of flatness and horizon are still there with nothing at all left to answer it.
There are three problems with your strawman claims here. The first one being that Alan Guth's Inflation theory is not dependent upon String Theory. The second one being that String Theory has not be falsified. And the third strawman claim is that any of this has anything at all to do with the original Big Bang Theory.

So all of this is OFF-TOPIC from our debate and therefore irrelevant.

Here is Alan Guth himself confirming this:

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

[youtube][/youtube]

Guth's Inflation Theory is not part of Big Bang Theory and never was. Guth's Inflation Theory is a proposed launching mechanism for what might have given rise to the Big Bang Fireball.

Moreover, Guth's Inflation Theory is not dependent upon String Theory as you have claimed. It is also still considered to be a very plausible explanation for how the universe might have begun. It has many strong points and has actually been verified and supported by evidence in many areas.

But we are not debating Inflation Theory. That is NOT Big Bang Theory. It's a different theory entirely. So it's OFF-LIMITS for this debate. It's irrelevant to Big Bang Theory and only serves to unnecessarily distract from our debate.

The same goes for String Theory. String Theory is a highly mathematical theory that attempts to describe subatomic particle physics. It has also given way to M-Theory. Which is the successor to String Theory. But again, this has nothing to do with our debate because String Theory has absolutely nothing at all to do with Big Bang Theory.

You ignorance of science cannot be used as an excuse for this.

In fact, if you insist on this kind of continued misrepresentation of Big Bang theory then we can only conclude that you don't even know enough about it to be debating it in the first place.

I should have guessed as much.

So Inflation Theory and String Theory are both OFF-LIMITS to this debate.

If you bring them up again I will refuse to discuss them because they are nothing more than false strawmen being introduced by you to clutter up a debate that is supposed to be about Big Bang Theory versus your theological speculations.

I am not here to defend every scientific theory imaginable. I did not agree to that.

You heard it in the video above in Guth's own words. Big Bang Theory ends with the primordial fireball just as I have already described.

~~~~~~

Section 5. Problems with Evolution
Wolfbitn wrote:Problems with Evolution
A very large part of Wolfbitn's previous post contained quotes and links to websites where creationists have problems with evolution.

I see no point in addressing any of those.

Wolfbitn has already proclaimed that the Bible predicts evolution. Yet here he is making all manner of arguments against evolution using material from websites that are clearly advocating creationism.

Therefore I see no point in me arguing with any of these claims. I have already conceded that evolution and creationism are not compatible with each other.

So this is Wolfbitn's problem, not mine.

I concede that he has extreme problems with evolution, and therefore his theory that the Bible describes evolutions is an oxymoron.

I really have nothing further to say on this other than I agree that Wolfbitn has a problem with evolution.

I have no problem with evolution. ;)

And I don't understand why Wolfbitn should have a problem with evolution since it's his "Theory" that the Bible describes evolution.

I just don't know what to even make of all this. It seems to me that Wolfbitn has just conceded that he has problems with his own claim that the Bible describes evolution.

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 6. Answers to Direct Questions
Wolfbitn wrote:1) Are you REALLY unaware that string theory has REPEATEDLY been falsified and all the colliders and all the kings men couldnt verify string again?
This is an irrelevant question since we aren't debating String Theory. String Theory has nothing at all to do with Big Bang Theory and therefore is irreverent to our debate.
Wolfbitn wrote:2) Provide for me a concise list of predictions that have been tested regarding the BB
I already have done this above, and even in my previous post. Have you not been reading my posts? :-k
Wolfbitn wrote:3) When the WMAP tests were performed the original parameters were adjusted. After they were adjusted isnt it true that they did not resemble anything previously observed?
I have no clue what you are talking about. The data collected by the WMAP is extremely accurate to incredible precision. We can talk about these tests later when we actually get to comparing tests. Right now it appears from your previous question that you are still unclear of what Big Bang Theory has predicted. I think we need to clear that up before we can speak about any tests in a meaningful way.
Wolfbitn wrote:4) Explain why Darwinism is in conflict with the Cambrian explosion.
It's not. That is a myth created by radical religious fanatics. Scientists do not have a problem with Darwin's Origin of the Species.

In fact, scientists don't even use the term "Darwinism" . This is a term that is typically used by religious fanatics in an atempt to belittle the evolution of species.

You are the one who needs Darwin's Origin of the Species if you want to claim that the Bible describes that all animals evolved from the sea. So if there is a conflict that would be on your head, not on mine.
Wolfbitn wrote:5) The BB is still just a hypothesis. String failed to resolve it as was hoped. Hubble Himself states the evidence does not indicate expansion and there are still those PhD's who believe BB to no longer be viable. So what if Hubble is right and there is no evidence of an expanding universe? If the universe is not really expanding then you are not looking at denser galaxies than what currently exist. Is this not true?
The expansion of the universe has been verified beyond any shadow of a doubt. Edwin Hubble's opinions from 1937 wouldn't change that.

You are giving extremely outdated and clearly religiously biased false information concerning what has actually been measured and known. You clearly have no knowledge of modern science at all. You don't even realize that String Theory has absolutely nothing at all to do with Big Bang Theory. You keep bringing it up like as if it has something to do with Big Bang Theory. That's absurd. It has nothing at all to do with Big Bang Theory.
Wolfbitn wrote:6) And just a few weeks ago isnt it true you felt the BB was not to be taken very seriously at all?
Not that I'm aware of, unless it was in a philosophical context, but that would be a whole different ballgame.

~~~~~~~~~

Since you clearly do not know what constitutes Big Bang Theory I'll leave you with this video.

[youtube][/youtube]


Summary:

Here's where we stand to date:
[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]
What the theories we are currently debating actually predict.
[mrow][color=blue][b]Wolfbitn's Theology[/b][/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=blue][b]Big Bang Theory[/b][/color] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts an Extinction Event[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Compacted Universe[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Evolution[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts a Hot Big Bang[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]FAIL[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts Man is Superior to Animals[/center] [col][center]Convincingly Predicts the Ratios of Elements[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
I have no questions for Wolfbitn at this time.
[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]5[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]5[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
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]

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #16

Post by Wolfbitn »

Once again, my opponent seems to try to get out of this debate by saying He was unclear what this debate is even about, and then of course he goes on to say I have misrepresented myself. I will NOT in this post, point out ALL THE VARIOUS times in ALL THE VARIOUS threads, I have made clear what this debate is about. It of course is even stated throughout this debate, so at this point if he does not understand the nature of this debate, it certainly cannot be attributed to my lack of expressing it. So we will disregard his attempt to quit the debate on this ground.

1) IF I have to post in the next post the numerous references, Though it will be embarrassing to him and take up valuable reading space, I will.

2) I do not need to point to any other reference to declare that Gen 1 refers to "every living thing that moveth" evolves from the sea, because this is undisputedly the plain wording used. I simply pointed out that others in the Christian and Jewish community recognize this, and the more educated they are int he field, the more likely they are to follow this view. He cannot dispute the wording in Genesis 1, as it is clearly saying all life evolved from the sea.
Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
So there you have it. He has no problem with translation here, he simply is amazed that Genesis 1 declares evolution as a fact 3500 years before Darwin, and it is the only such ancient document or creation story doing so... So Genesis 1 stands alone.



3) Now regarding the supposed predictions and tests he offers:


a)He stated that the BB has predicted the ratio of elements, but alas we have no need for a BB to see this occur. We can predict there is a ratio of elements in ANY given situation.. ridiculous

b) He states when we look through a telescope we are viewing 500.000
years into the past and that we are observing a more condensed version of the universe because it has expanded since then... and this is no test. This is making an observation as to what would occur IF the universe is expanding. They are making a conclusion and stating it verified the BB. It is not even a test. If the universe is NOT expanding then he falls on his face here too.


c) He said:
Convincinly predicts a hot big bang
He would like to make the claim this is another test... this is simply what the WMAP tests were all about, and the parameters were changed there... but is the BB the sole explanation?? No, it isnt. There are myriads of possible causes for background radiation.

Also it needs to be said here that the background radiation tests, were fudged. The parameters of the test, as earlier shown, were "adjusted" away from the observed parameter, and no longer resembled ANY observation. So no, this proves nothing. Here is the information that nullifies this experiment:

From http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
"IV. The Cosmic Background Radiation

Recent measurements of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination these claims of an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of which could not be checked by other observations[40]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free
parameters, the fit was not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the data being under 5%, a rejection
at the 2 s level. Significantly ,even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the Big Bang model's prediction for the angular correlation function did not at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR."

The report this is based upon is here:
40. D. N. Spergel "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters",
arXiv:astro-ph/0302209 11 Feb 2003

When asked,
3) When the WMAP tests were performed the original parameters were adjusted. After they were adjusted isnt it true that they did not resemble anything previously observed?

Divine stated :
I have no clue what you are talking about. The data collected by the WMAP is extremely accurate to incredible precision. We can talk about these tests later when we actually get to comparing tests. Right now it appears from your previous question that you are still unclear of what Big Bang Theory has predicted. I think we need to clear that up before we can speak about any tests in a meaningful way.

He is absolutely correct, he didnt know about what I was talking about and he knew nothing about these tests. He had no idea how these parameters were adjusted. Now we ALL do. They were adjusted away from observation to fit the test result. The information above shows the parameters were adjusted and then STILL a poor match at only 5 percent. The information below shows the actual parameters.


From the actual WMAP 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...
(emphasis mine)


So he provides 4 so called predictions, 3 of which certainly do not need a Big Bang to explain them, only 2 of which were actually tested, and one of the 2 that was virtually falsified in that the parameters had to be changed away from known observations to make it fit the results, but as we saw, the changes parameter resembled nothing observed.

Add to this that the event itself cannot be tested, nor can they even finish the math, there were SO many inconsistencies with the BB, string hoped to fix all this, and scientists have spent their entire careers betting on it... and selling books and lectures etc, so yeah they have a reason to resist the truth coming out.



4) He then goes on to say I PREDICTED an extinction event, once again misrepresenting anything that is said. It has been made abundantly clear I am theorizing not predicting, that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event. I am PREDICTING that if this is so it should be verified by fossil record, and we have gone on to show it is indeed verified.



Then Divine stated:
I agree that life evolved from the sea. I do not agree that any of the Biblical scriptures made any statements about evolution at all.

Hmm... how did he miss the several times I bolded the scripture? Here it is once more:

Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open
firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.



Then he states:
I concede that life evolved from the sea.

I do not concede that rejection of Darwin's Origin of the Species is compatible with your theory.
So he conceded life evolved from the sea, he must therefore concede that Genesis 1 makes this very statement. I totally agree my theory is not in agreement with Darwinism, but then neither is the fossil record in agreement with Darwinism.

Darwin predicted NO JUMPS... a very long slow methodical evolution with. The Cambrian itself disagrees with Darwinism.

Again from my last post:

Gerald Schroeder, an orthodox Jew, received his PhD in Nuclear Physics, and earth and planetary sciences in 1965. During his lifetime he too noted the similarities of Genesis 1 with extinction events and subsequent restoration of life... over and over again. He has written extensively on the issue, and his Lectures have taken him worldwide.

He says:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx
It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory.

...the Journal Science, the bastion of pure scientific thinking, featured the title, "Did Darwin get it all right?" And answered the question: NO.

and lets just get the other references while we are at it.
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.


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

Quote:
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.




http://www.csun.edu/~dgray/Evol322/Chapter18.pdf

Quote:
Darwin was a gradualist
• Expected evolutionary change to be slow
and continuous
– Predicts many many intermediate forms

• Many of course have been found in major groups
– But many fossil morphological species
• Appear suddenly in fossil record
• Fewer transitional forms than you might expect
• Darwin attributed stasis to incomplete fossil
record





http://www.icr.org/article/biggest-prob ... evolution/


John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Quote:
In the supposedly 600-million-year-old layers of rock designated as Cambrian (which contain the first appearance of varied multi-cell life), sponges, clams, trilobites, starfish, etc., are found without the required evolutionary ancestors.

The gap from marine invertebrates to the vertebrate fish is likewise immense. To make matters worse for the evolutionists, fish fossils are also found in Cambrian strata. If evolution is true, fish must have evolved from something, and invertebrates must also have evolved from something. Evolution has no ancestor to propose, but the evidence exactly fits the creation model, which insists that each animal type was created fully formed, with no evolutionary transition.


Quote:
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/probl ... record.htm


Quote:
The British Museum of Natural History boasts the largest collection of fossils in the world. Among the five respected museum officials,
Sunderland interviewed Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He was unable to give a single example of Macro-Evolutionary transition. In fact, Patterson wrote a book for the British Museum of Natural History entitled, "Evolution". When asked why he had not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, Patterson responded:


...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. ... I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.



David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology) is Head Curator of the Department of Geology at the Stoval Museum. In an evolutionary trade journal, he wrote:


Quote:
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…



N. Heribert Nilsson, a famous botanist, evolutionist and professor at Lund University in Sweden, continues:


Quote:
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.


Even the popular press is catching on. This is from an article in Newsweek magazine (Is Man a Subtle Accident," Newsweek, November 3, 1980.):

Quote:
The missing link between man and apes, whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures … The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated.

Now for Divine to say I cannot use evolution in my theory, that Genesis 1 is referring to an extinction event and the subsequent restoration of life, I will simply point to how ridiculous this statement is... If Genesis 1 states evolution occurred after this extinction event, then of course he cannot like it because we KNOW from the fossil record that THIS statement from Genesis 1 is then verified, even though it is 3500 years before Darwin.


Now... Divine makes an incredibly inaccurate statement when he states:
The first one being that Alan Guth's Inflation theory is not dependent upon String Theory.
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 ... interview/
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. It’s certainly speculative physics so far — unfortunately, it’s working in a regime where there’s no direct experimental test.


So yes, Divine is absolutely wrong... again. Divine did not even know that "eternal inflation" was just another "string" theory He doesnt know that nothing at all is holding up the BB now. "The theory of everything" is dead. Does he know what "the theory of everything" is? Let me clarify this is the name given to string because it was supposedly answering all the questions which worked against the BB... so now all those detractors stand bolder then ever, and BB is in serious trouble in the academic community among MANY noted Physicists.



Now lets talk about what holds the BB together.

The BB is a hypothesis that has actually undergone EXTREMELY little testing. The hypothesis itself breaks down mathematically and over 100 years of our brightest minds working together and untold modern computing power... we STILL cannot even do the math. We cant come to a beginning moment. There are also many many issues with the BB.

We have heard lots of claims of testing, but as you can see Divine is very hard pressed to produce more than one credible test... and that one was questionable. We dont test a hypothesis by simply assuming an expansion. This is so called scientific double speak at its very best.



Divine, I would be interested in knowing what other predictions and tests have been done? Is this IT? 4 very vague predictions and 2 tests, 1 of which was fudged?? The BB, in reality then, is an unfinished speculation clinging desperately onto so little to hold itself up?


As stated earlier the BB had problems it could not resolve, such as flatness, horizon, and string theory was proposed, and eternal inflation and bubbling universes. We will go more into those problems in the next post... but Hopes were EXPLODING across the globe by those who had been staunch supporters of BB when Guth's string and eternal inflation came into view.

There are 2 problems with this...

!) we are creating another unfinished baseless untestable in many ways, hypothesis, to help explain another unfinished, baseless untestable in many ways hypothesis. We cant even get BB to a proper THEORY and we are now just MADLY formulating just one unfinished unworkable, problematic, highly speculative, and in some cases already falsified hypothesis after another to help fill in BB's holes, and these side-hypotheses themselves are full of holes.

2) Several of string/expansion's strongest proponents, Physicists who actually worked for well over 2 decades and more on it, have now turned their backs on string, and falsified it themselves, saying, its time to move on.

There is now a loud voice beginning to emerge, demanding that the "science" community HAS TO begin to facing facts and open the doors for alternative theories.

Originally published in "New Scientist":

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf
Paul J. Steinhardt is director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and received the P.A.M. Dirac Medal from the International Center for Theoretical Physics in 2002 for his contributions to inflationary theory. Steinhardt is also known for postulating a new state of matter known as quasicrystals.
He states..
Thirty years ago alan h. guth, then a struggling physics postdoc at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, gave a series of seminars in which he introduced “inflation� into the lexicon of cosmology. The term refers to a brief burst of hyperaccelerated expansion that, he argued, may have occurred during the first instants after the big bang. One of these seminars took place at Harvard University, where I myself was a postdoc. I was immediately captivated by the idea, and I have been thinking about it almost every day since. Many of my colleagues working in astrophysics, gravitational physics and particle physics have been similarly engrossed. To this day the development and testing of the inflationary theory of the universe is one of the most active and successful areas of scientific investigation.

...the first signs that a theory is failing are usually small discrepancies between observations and predictions. That is not the situation here: the data are in exquisite accord with the inflationary predictions set down in the early 1980s. Instead the case against inflation challenges the logical foundations of the theory. Does the theory really work as advertised? Are the predictions made in the early 1980s still the predictions of the inflationary model as we understand it today? There is an argument to be made that the answer to both questions is no.


...Its raison d’être is to fill a gap in the original big bang theory.
The basic idea of the big bang is that the universe has been slowly
expanding and cooling ever since it began some 13.7 billion years
ago. This process of expansion and cooling explains many of the
detailed features of the universe seen today, but with a catch: the
universe had to start off with certain properties. For instance, it
had to be extremely uniform, with only extremely tiny variations
in the distribution of matter and energy. Also, the universe had to
be geometrically flat, meaning that curves and warps in the fabric
of space did not bend the paths of light rays and moving objects.

...Yet something peculiar has happened to inflationary theory in the 30 years since Guth introduced it. As the case for inflation has grown stronger, so has the case against.

...The first dictum holds that inflation is inevitable. But if it is,
there is an awkward corollary: bad inflation is more likely than
good inflation. “Bad inflation� means a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with what we observe.

Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. University of Oxford physicist Roger Penrose first made this point in the 1980s. He applied thermodynamic principles, similar to those used to describe configurations of atoms and molecules in a gas, to count the possible starting configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation and
thence to a nearly uniform, flat distribution of matter and a geometrically flat shape. Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly—without inflation. Both sets of configurations are rare, so obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation—by a factor of 10 to the googol power.
***Wolfbitns note:
1 Google is a 1 with 100 zeros following it... This is a factor of 10 to the Googol power... wow This would be considered in science as an impossibility.
Wiki says: To give a sense of how big a googol really is, the mass of an electron, just under 1×10-30 kg, can be compared to the mass of the visible universe, estimated at between 1×1050kg and 1×1060 kg.[4] It is a ratio in the order of about 1080 to 1090, still much smaller than the value of a googol.

This is recognized as a mathematical impossibility. 10 to the GOOGOL power... WOW.


Steinhardt goes on to say...
...But the strange twist to this story is that the predictions of the early 1980s were based on a naive understanding of how inflation actually works— a picture that has turned out to be dead wrong.

The change in view began with the realization that inflation is eternal: once begun, it never ends...

...The true outcome of inflation was best summarized by Guth: “In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times.�

...Now you should be disturbed. What does it mean to say that inflation makes certain predictions—that, for example, the universe is uniform or has scale-invariant fluctuations—if anything that can happen will happen an infinite number of times? And if the theory does not make testable predictions, how can cosmologists claim that the theory agrees with observations, as they routinely do?

Some suggest trying to construct theories of inflation that are not eternal, to nip the infinity of universes in the bud. But eternality is a natural consequence of inflation plus quantum physics. To avoid it, the universe would have to start off in a very special initial state and with a special form of inflationary energy, so that inflation ended everywhere in space before quantum fluctuations had a chance to reignite it. In this scenario, though, the observed outcome depends sensitively on what the initial state is. That defeats the entire purpose of inflation: to explain the outcome no matter what conditions existed beforehand.
So we see that Steinhardt and many other notable scientists have simply had it with present day widely touted non-theories that have SIMPLY NOT worked out.

As already noted, Steinhardt is not alone:


From New Scientist: http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/ ... 6288).html
What kind of a Bang was the Big Bang?
Press clipping: Research

Publication date 2/07/12
Dr Anupam Mazumdar


"YOU know how sometimes you meet somebody and they're really nice, so you invite them over to your house and you keep talking with them and they keep telling you more and more cool stuff? But then at some point you're like, maybe we should we call it a day, but they just won't leave and they keep talking and as more stuff comes up it becomes more and more disturbing and you're like, just stop already? That's kind of what happened with inflation."

The theory of cosmic inflation states that in the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the universe's fabric expanded faster than light. Without a trick like that, we have difficulty squaring some crucial features of today's cosmos with a universe that began as a hot, dense soup and has been growing and cooling since.

Yet Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is not the only person asking whether inflation has outstayed its welcome. For all its attractions, the theory has unpalatable consequences - so unpalatable that they threaten to undermine our entire understanding of the cosmos. Debate has been reopened on a question many thought had been settled: what kind of a bang was the big bang?

When inflation was proposed in 1980 by Alan Guth, then a young postdoc at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, it was a godsend. Studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation were causing serious headaches among proponents of the BIG BANG.

... Every conceivable value of dark energy or anything else will exist an infinite number of times among the infinite number of universes, and any universal theory of physics valid throughout the multiverse must reproduce all those values. That makes the odds of observing any particular value infinity divided by infinity: a nonsense that mathematicians call "undefined".

...At first, cosmologists hoped to make sense of these infinities by taking a finite snapshot of the multiverse at some particular time, and then extrapolating the relative probabilities of various observations out to later and later times and an ever larger number of universes. Einstein stymied that approach. His relativity means there is no single clock ticking away the seconds of the multiverse, and there is an infinite number of ways to take snapshots of it, each giving a different set of probabilities. This "measure problem" destroys inflation's ability to make predictions about anything at all, including the smoothness of the cosmic background, the curvature of space, or anything else that made us believe in the theory in the first place.

..."We thought that inflation predicted a smooth, flat universe," says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, a pioneer of inflation who has become a vocal detractor. "Instead, it predicts every possibility an infinite number of times. We're back to square one." Tegmark agrees: "Inflation has destroyed itself. It logically self-destructed."

...In 2001, Steinhardt was one of the first to suggest an alternative, together with his colleagues Justin Khoury, Burt Ovrut and Neil Turok. Their idea was to revisit our interpretation of the big bang. Rather than marking a singularity at the absolute beginning of space and time, it was just a recent event in a much longer history. The inspiration for this idea came from string theory, the most widespread approach to get Einstein's general theory of relativity, which best describes space and time, to play nicely with quantum mechanics, which best describes everything else.
String theory proposes that the various particles that make up matter and transmit forces are vibrations of tiny quantum-mechanical strings, including one that produces a "graviton", an as-yet-undetected particle that transmits gravity. It also predicts the existence of extra dimensions beyond the four of space and time we see.

...And of course even more:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 81655.html
Tegmark's answer is Alan Guth's cosmological theory of Inflation, an extrapolation of Einsteinian ideas of space-time and gravity, coupled with our knowledge of the cosmic background radiation – on which Tegmark has done groundbreaking work. All this adds up to the apparent creation of something from nothing by borrowing energy from the quantum vacuum. This free-lunch theory of creation is, he admits, superficially like the kind of Ponzi-scheme financial trickery of Bernie Madoff – a pyramid-selling operation heading for one almighty collapse, which, of course, is what might well happen to the universe one day.

What's going on here? Basically a slick bait and switch. String hypothesis own men of faith have lost faith. They themselves falsify it by revealing that today's models of string is a completely different brand than was introduced in the 80s, and it was the 80s model that was based on SOME observations and predicted a flatness and a possible solution to horizon issues. However today's model is based upon no observation WHATSOEVER and it is completely incapable of making any coherent prediction. Simple bait and switch to sell the BB. Of course the prestigious scientists who are holding forth string today are making huge money from book sales and the lecture circuit... so its not like they dont have a personal agenda beyond that of objective science...


Now in post number 12 of this debate, on this page, Divine stated so enthusiastically:
Alan Guth's Inflation hypothesis actually provides a resolution to that particular postulate. In other words, using Alan Guth's Inflation hypothesis the universe could very well have begun from a dimensionless point (a singularity) and have rapidly inflated to a gargantuan size before slowing to a more linear expansion rate. This resolves the "Horizon Problem" associated with the postulate that the universe might have begun as a singularity or even a quantum fluctuation.

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 do to many other predictions that it has made. It also appears to support a secondary hypothesis that our universe may very well have begun as a quantum fluctuation.

So this in no way counts against Big Bang Theory, and may actually provide a scientifically testable theory of what had actually banged.

So in conclusion the "Horizon Problem" is no longer a problem,
and it wouldn't count against Big Bang Theory even if it was still unresolved at this time.

... As if we havent already seen enough bad news for the BB and string, now we get to the VERY VERY bad news for Divine.

The few predictions that HAVE been made? Yeah the ones that were actually testable were falsified.


From http://io9.com/5714210/string-theory-fa ... ental-test
String theory fails first major experimental test

From: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... sts-report
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.

And again... Another failure:


http://www.science.slashdot.org/story/1 ... ang-theory
"Paul Steinhardt, an astrophysicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, and colleagues have posted a controversial paper on ArXiv arguing, based on the latest Higgs data and the cosmic microwave background map from the Planck mission, that the leading theory explaining the first moments of the Big Bang ('inflation') is fatally flawed. In short, Steinhardt says that the models that best fit the Planck data — known as 'plateau models' because their potential-energy profiles level off at relatively low energies — are far less likely to occur naturally than the models that Planck ruled out. Secondly, he says, the news for these plateau models gets dramatically worse when the results are analyzed in conjunction with the latest results about the Higgs field coming from CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Particle physicists working at the LHC have calculated that the Higgs field is likely to have started out in a high-energy, 'metastable' state rather than in a stable, low-energy configuration. Steinhardt likens the odds of the Higgs field initially being perched in the precarious metastable state as to those of dropping out of the sky over the Matterhorn and conveniently landing in a 'dimple near the top,' rather than crashing down to the mountain's base."

In other words, the Higgs data doesnt resemble standard predictions made by inflation. The data, more resemble plateau models... but then the Particle Physicists at CERN have noted that plateau models have problems of their own that prevent them from being verified... In other words again, the predicted models do not fit the observations... they are totally failing in every test in every respect.

And yet again:

Remember that string touted itself as "The theory of everything", by greats like Alan Guth and Michio Kako. They amazed the word with their claims, yet Kako admits that string followed no scientific method whatsoever. It claimed to answer the mystery of what banged in the big bang... it claimed to answer several of the big bang's inconsistencies.

But... we can bury the theory of everything now... and BB has lost any hope of answering these problems... as Guth and Kako both admit, String is the only game in town trying to answer these inconsistencies... and now string as you can see, has not just one, but REPEATEDLY been falsified..


http://planetsave.com/2012/12/03/super- ... everthing/
‘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

According to physicist Mikhail Shifman, a once enthusiastic advocate of SUSY and author of an essay published on arXiv.org,, “…nature apparently doesn’t want it. At least, not in its original form.�


So yes, String has been repeatedly falsified, and whats worse, Great notable scholars who were for decades proponents of string, are now it's biggest detractors and skeptics.

It gets worse for BB and string... Because of certain observational inconsistencies with both hypotheses, they had to assume that there were obviously differences between the model and what is actually observed. To fill in THIS gap the pull out another untestable hypothesis from their bag of endless imagination that just keeps failing... Dark matter and dark energy.


In order for the BBT to survive, it now has to invent "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy". Dark matter and "dark energy", it is hypothesized, make up the vast majority of the universe... but we just cant see it... it is hypothesized... it's invisible, but it has a gravitational effect on EVERY heavenly body. Dark matter and dark energy are said to make up approximately 95 percent of the universe... in other words it is supposed to make up nearly everything we do NOT see, nor can it be measured or observed, except hypothetically.

The BB and string need for Dark Matter and Dark Energy to exist at the moment... and as you already saw string needs a lot more than this... it is already falsified. But there unpredicted movement is occurring within our universe. Unpredicted by both string AND BB. So to fill this hole, we hypothesize YET ANOTHER unfinished, untestable, baseless guess to throw at it. It is speculated that heavenly bodies are shrouded by an invisible energy, and invisible matter as well. It is further speculated that we cannot see this dark matter or dark energy because it neither repels nor absorbs light.


http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/03/ ... teresting/

By comparing theoretical models to the real CMB, cosmologists determined that dark energy—the mysterious substance driving cosmic acceleration—comprises 68.3 percent of the energy content of the Universe, down slightly from earlier estimates of 72.8 percent. Similarly, dark matter's contribution was boosted from 22.7 percent to 26.8 percent, while ordinary matter's share went from 4.5 percent to 4.9 percent.


From: http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/04/20 ... -you-dont/

Christoph Weniger has put out a preprint (not yet peer-reviewed) in which he uses data collected by the Fermi Large Area Telescope (a satellite experiment that measures gamma-rays, i.e. high energy photons). He looks at their data in particular regions of the galaxy, of various sizes, that include its center. These are regions where he calculates (based on certain assumptions) that a photon signal from dark matter would most easily be detected.

...As Weniger himself emphasizes in his title, this is at best a tentative detection, and as he points out in his abstract, it will be several years before we have enough data to be sure whether this is a fluke or a real signal. So I am afraid that even if Weniger has identified a real effect, we may have no choice but to be patient for two to four years and hope nothing goes wrong with the Fermi satellite… unless someone can put up a competing experiment in the meantime, or find corroborating evidence in some other way.

...The second paper in question (peer-reviewed; here’s a pdf) is by Moni Bidin, Carraro, Menendez and Smith. They claim that there is no sign of any dark matter within a region around the sun of about ten thousand or so light years in radius. [A light year is the distance light travels in a year; for comparison, it takes light less than three seconds to travel to the moon and back.] The Milky Way’s center, where dark matter is expected to be most abundant and where Weniger is looking for photons from dark matter annihilation, is about twenty-five thousand light years away from the Sun, so the region that this group is studying lies far from the center

...Their approach is to study the gravitational effects of nearby matter, as reflected by the motions of a small sample of the stars that lie within a few thousand light years of the sun

...And they claim that the motions of those stars suggest that the only matter nearby is the ordinary matter we can see around us, with no dark matter in addition. They claim their results rule out almost all existing guesses/models for how the dark matter in the galaxy is distributed.
So Dark Matter/Energy hasnt even fared as good as BB or string thus far... and string was falsified.

This is ALL that is currently holding up BB even as a hypothesis now... and it isnt faring well even as a hypothesis.


Further and more importantly, We see that Divine's claim that Guth's, inflation and string has been verified by testing and stands as a legitimate theory, is simply misinformed. I dont blame Divine though for not knowing this... I blame what appears to be a somewhat biased hierarchy within various fields of the scientific community for not properly publicizing the failures. It has been falsified and in many circles, utterly abandoned. Of course I understand that Guth would want to sell the idea, but it's present status is "falsified".

So now you know the truth about BB and String and Inflation


So Divine... your next direct questions:

1) You saw that the parameters were changed regarding the wmap testing, and that the adjusted parameter did not resemble the original observed parameter. You saw it 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.

2) I will accept your concession that String was hoped to work out many of the problems with the Big Bang.

3) I will accept your concession that despite thinking it was a validated theory, you now know it has literally been falsified REPEATEDLY.

4) I will accept your concession that Genesis chapter 1 outright states that EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH originated form the sea.

5) I will accept your concession that the fossil record agrees with this.

6) I will accept your concession that Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient document, and the ONLY ancient creation story, declaring that life evolved from the sea.

7) I will accept your concession that this earth has seen extinction events.

8) I will accept your concession that Genesis 1:2 can certainly be understood to say that the earth became laid waste and emptied, accepting the original Hebrew wording for its common meanings.


I WANT these concessions or prove them wrong in your next post with well respected theological sources. "Christians cant do that" is not a reasonable or well thought out rebuttal.


Now... Pangea

Direct questions:

1) What can you tell us about Pangea?

2) How mant 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?


Every one of these questions and concessions are pertinent and relative to this discussion, dont even try blowing off one thing.

.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #17

Post by Divine Insight »

Table of Contents for easy reference:

Section 1: Opinionated Theological Interpretations Cannot be Scientifically Tested
Section 2: On Predictions of the Big Bang Theory
Section 3: An Open Confession by Wolfbitn Himself
Section 4: Why Creationism Fails.
Section 5: False Claims about Alan Guth, String Theory, and Big Bang Theory Again.
Section 6: Answers to Direct Questions.
Section 7: Direct Questions to Wolfbitn.
Section 8: Summary.

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 1: Opinionated Theological Interpretations Cannot be Scientifically Tested
Wolfbitn wrote: 2) I do not need to point to any other reference to declare that Gen 1 refers to "every living thing that moveth" evolves from the sea, because this is undisputedly the plain wording used. I simply pointed out that others in the Christian and Jewish community recognize this, and the more educated they are int he field, the more likely they are to follow this view. He cannot dispute the wording in Genesis 1, as it is clearly saying all life evolved from the sea.
I disagree with your non-scientific opinionated theological interpretations. It doesn't use the term "evolved" On the contrary it clearly states, "God Created". So I disagree with your opinionated theological interpretations here and you cannot provide a "scientific test" to support your opinionated theological interpretations.
Wolfbitn wrote:
Genesis 1
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And this specifically refutes "evolution" when it states "every living creature after their kind" and "every winged fowl after his kind".

So I disagree with your opinionated theological interpretations and you cannot provide a "scientific test" to support your opinionated theological interpretations over mine.

Opinionated theological interpretations cannot be scientifically tested or verified.

What part of this are you not understanding?
:-k

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 2: On Predictions of the Big Bang Theory
Wolfbitn wrote: a)He stated that the BB has predicted the ratio of elements, but alas we have no need for a BB to see this occur. We can predict there is a ratio of elements in ANY given situation.. ridiculous
The thing that you don't seem to be understanding here is that the precise ratio of elements that are actually observed is explained by the Big Bang Theory. I agree that this is not exactly a prediction, it's more of a confirmation that the theory makes sense. So I'll be glad that we drop it as a "prediction" of the Big Bang Theory.

And of course, similarly then we need to drop your claim that that the Bible "predicts" that men are unique among the animals since that to was obvious to the men who wrote the biblical fables.

This will work out well to keep our debate smaller. Now we only have 2-predictions each to scientifically test and verify.

Wolfbitn wrote: b) He states when we look through a telescope we are viewing 500.000
years into the past and that we are observing a more condensed version of the universe because it has expanded since then... and this is no test. This is making an observation as to what would occur IF the universe is expanding. They are making a conclusion and stating it verified the BB. It is not even a test. If the universe is NOT expanding then he falls on his face here too.
1. I never said anything about 500,000 years. On the contrary when we look using the Hubble Space Telescope we can actually look back in time almost the entire 13.7 billion years. Not quite that far, but pretty darn close.

2. The universe is expanding, there is no question about this at all. Why you are bothering to deny this is beyond me. You're just getting yourself into deeper hot water here.

3. Just because you personally claim that this is "no test" does not make it so Wolfbitn. You represent a single individual who clearly has an extremely hostile, and highly biased opinion, against Big Bang Theory. But thousands upon thousands of credible cosmologists disagree with you. So your personal biased opinions don't hold up very well well.

You are basically just saying that you personally reject the conclusions arrived at by countless scientists. So all you are saying is that all of science is wrong "because Wolfbitn says so".

I'm afraid you're going to need to do better than that.
Wolfbitn wrote: c) He said:
Convincinly predicts a hot big bang
He would like to make the claim this is another test... this is simply what the WMAP tests were all about, and the parameters were changed there... but is the BB the sole explanation?? No, it isnt. There are myriads of possible causes for background radiation.
You have just made a claim. Please back it up with credible explanations for the source of the background radiation. Along with convincing scientific tests to verify your claims.
Wolfbitn wrote: Also it needs to be said here that the background radiation tests, were fudged. The parameters of the test, as earlier shown, were "adjusted" away from the observed parameter, and no longer resembled ANY observation. So no, this proves nothing. Here is the information that nullifies this experiment:

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
You forgot to check your biased sources Wolfbitn.

Eric J. Lerner is simply one man who is proposing an untested hypothesis. This doesn't trump the overwhelming consensus by the cosmological community.

I did a very simple search on Eric J. Lerner and came up with the following report on Wiki immediately: Eric_Lerner

"Physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have generally dismissed it."

AND

"In particular, Edward L. Wright, the American astrophysicist and cosmologist, was critical of Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation and criticized specifics of Lerner's alternative cosmology, claiming that:

1. Lerner's alternative model for Hubble's Law is dynamically unstable
2. The number density of distant radio sources falsifies Lerner's explanation for the cosmic microwave background
3. Lerner's explanation that the helium abundance is due to stellar nucleosynthesis fails because of the small observed abundance of heavier elements"


source: Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened"

So this has already been well debunked.

Your single biased source does not trump the overwhelming majority of cosmologists. You are clearly just grasping at straws and wasting everyone's time here and not convincing anyone of anything. So the scientific community still stands strong in their conclusions and your personal bias against them fails to convince anyone.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Section 3: An Open Confession by Wolfbitn Himself
Wolfbitn wrote: 4) He then goes on to say I PREDICTED an extinction event, once again misrepresenting anything that is said. It has been made abundantly clear I am theorizing not predicting, that Genesis 1 is describing an extinction event. I am PREDICTING that if this is so it should be verified by fossil record, and we have gone on to show it is indeed verified.[/b]
No I did not say that you had predicted an extinction event. I said that you are claiming that the Bible Convincing Predicts an Extinction Event. That is your "theory" and your prediction. I highlighted your theory, and thus your prediction, in bold red above.

You then go on to say, "I am PREDICTING that if this is so it should be verified by fossil record, and we have gone on to show it is indeed verified."

But this is utter nonsense Wolfbitn. You aren't predicting any such thing. On the contrary, you already knew from modern science that an extinction event had occurred. You can't claim to be predicting something that you already known is true.

What you are "theorizing" about is that Genesis 1 had actually predicted this. And therefore this is what you would need to scientifically test and show to be true.

But there is no way to do that Wolfbitn. Your opinionated theological interpretations have no more merit than anyone else's opinionated theological interpretations. There is no way to scientifically test your opinionated theological interpretations.

You can't point to the scientific evidence for an extinction event as "proof" or "evidence" that your opinionated theological interpretations are then necessarily true. That is utterly absurd Woflbitn.

Surely you can't honestly believe that anyone would fall for that one? :-k

You have gone to the Bible knowing full well that an extinction event has been scientifically been shown to have occurred. It was armed with this knowledge that you have decided to create your opinionated theological interpretations to match up with what you already know to be reality.

You can't then point to that scientific reality and say, "Hey Look! That proves my theory!"

I mean come on. Who do think is going to fall for that? :-k

You can't be serious.

What you would need to do to prove your "theory" scientifically is to provide objective scientifically testable evidence to show that your opinionated theological interpretations of scripture must be true.

But there is no way to do that. An this is why you do not even have a "scientific theory" at all. There is no way to test your opinionated theological interpretations of ancient scriptures.

This may work as fodder for your own personal faith-based beliefs. But it doesn't qualify as a "scientific theory". And this is why your claims fail as a scientifically testable claim.

Clearly you aren't fully grasping the depth of this since you seem to be continually claiming that by pointing to a scientifically proven extinction event this somehow scientifically vindicates your opinionated theological interpretations.

It most certainly doesn't. You knew the of the scientific evidence before you went back to reinterpret the Bible.

What part of this are you not understanding?

There is no scientist in the world who is going to agree with your flawed misunderstanding of the scientific method.

In fact, I can't even imagine theologians taking you seriously. I can give you purely theological arguments for why I reject your opinionated theological interpretations.

For one thing you contradict yourself later on as I have already shown when you reject the origin of the species.

~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 4: Why Creationism Fails.
Wolfbitn wrote: Again from my last post:

Gerald Schroeder, an orthodox Jew, received his PhD in Nuclear Physics, and earth and planetary sciences in 1965. During his lifetime he too noted the similarities of Genesis 1 with extinction events and subsequent restoration of life... over and over again. He has written extensively on the issue, and his Lectures have taken him worldwide.

He says: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Evolution.aspx
It is no wonder that Darwin himself, at seven locations in The Origin of Species, urged the reader to ignore the fossil record if he or she wanted to believe his theory.

...the Journal Science, the bastion of pure scientific thinking, featured the title, "Did Darwin get it all right?" And answered the question: NO.
Have you actually read this article that you have pointed to? Gerald Schroeder is actually rejecting the idea of evolution altogether. He's a creationist. So he's not going to agree with your theory that the bible had predicted evolution anyway. He's not on your side.

Moreover, Gerald Schroeder is obcessed with Darwin. Darwin was merely the first person to recognize that life evolved on Earth. Darwin is not the final word on evolution. In fact, Darwin himself was never even exposed to our modern understanding of evolution. Darwin died in 1882.

DNA wasn't even discovered until 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick. The actual mechanisms of evolution were not even known to Charles Darwin.

Creationists focus on Charles Darwin and what they pejoratively refer to as "Darwinism" as an easy strawman to shoot down. It's easy to shoot down many of Darwin's specific ideas because Darwin's ideas were not fully developed nor as sophisticated as our modern day understanding of evolution.
Wolfbitn wrote: and lets just get the other references while we are at it.

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

Darwin was a gradualist
• Expected evolutionary change to be slow
and continuous
– Predicts many many intermediate forms[/b]
• Many of course have been found in major groups
– But many fossil morphological species
• Appear suddenly in fossil record
• Fewer transitional forms than you might expect
• Darwin attributed stasis to incomplete fossil
record
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.

They all fail for the very same reason.

The fossil record shows a tree of life branching out as various species evolve from previous species.

It is impossible for a creationist to proclaim that a lion evolved directly from the sea, for example. A lion is clearly a land animal and to have ever lived in the sea would have required it to have been an extremely different type of animal before it became a lion anyway. So to even argue that a lion evolved directly from the sea without having every "changed species" is absurd. Yet his is what creationists who try to argue for an evolutionary creationism would need to argue.

They all fail, because they all require origin of the species anyway.

For example in the arguments of Gerald Schroeder, he's simply refusing random adaptation and demanding instead that the origin of the species was being controlled by a creator.

In other words Gerald Schroeder still needs an origin of the species he's just attempting to argue that it couldn't have been random. So Gerald Schroeder gives the origin of the species to a designing God who is baby-sitting the process of evolution.

However, in order for any of this to work the fossil record would need to point to straight lines from every existing type of animals clear back to a sea creature.

But that's not what we see. Instead what the fossil record produces is a fractal tree with many branches as species clearly evolved into more advanced forms.

Yes, yes Wolfbitn, I'm not just rejecting your personal theological speculations, I'm rejecting all your fellow creationists to. Absolutely.

All the articles your pointing to have the same flaws. And those flaws have been repeatedly pointed out be the scientific community.

The only people who continue to hold a "creationist view" are religious people who have a predetermined agendas to support religion over reality.

So no, the fossil record does not support creationism. And pointing to Darwin is nothing but strawman. Darwin does not represent our modern day understanding of evolution.

The study of the fossil records always produces a fractal phylogenetic tree.

Image

This is always the case.

In order for your "theory" to be true that every single species evolved directly from the sea, there would be no phylogenetic tree in the fossil records. Instead, every single species would need to have a direct straight line of ancestors directly back to the sea.

But that's not what is seen in the fossil record.

So the fossil record does not support creationism where each individual species evolved separately from the sea.

This is a huge problem for any theological creationist.

This has already been debunked by the scientific community.

This has already been ruled to be unscientific by the Supreme Court.

It has already been well-established that there is no basis for these religious arguments.


Why you are bothering to argue it here I have no clue. It's already been debunked.

~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 5: False Claims about Alan Guth, String Theory, and Big Bang Theory Again.
Wolfbitn wrote:Now... Divine makes an incredibly inaccurate statement when he states:
The first one being that Alan Guth's Inflation theory is not dependent upon String Theory.
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 ... interview/
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. It’s certainly speculative physics so far — unfortunately, it’s working in a regime where there’s no direct experimental test.
So yes, Divine is absolutely wrong... again.
Excuse me? :-k

Do you even bother to read the articles you post here?

Look at what Alan Guth said. I highlighted it above in your quote in bold red, but I'll print it here as well just for clarity:

"And there have been a number of attempts to describe inflation in that context. I think that is the future."

Alan Guth's original Inflation Theory has nothing at all to do with String Theory. His original theory was based on standard modern physics.

So you are misrepresenting Alan Guth and his Inflation Theory.

Moreover, I have already made it clear in my previous post that Big Bang Theory is in no way dependent upon Alan Guth's Inflation Theory anyway.

So you are clearly grasping at straws and failing to come up with anything.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Wolfbitn wrote: Now lets talk about what holds the BB together.

The BB is a hypothesis that has actually undergone EXTREMELY little testing. The hypothesis itself breaks down mathematically and over 100 years of our brightest minds working together and untold modern computing power... we STILL cannot even do the math. We cant come to a beginning moment. There are also many many issues with the BB.

We have heard lots of claims of testing, but as you can see Divine is very hard pressed to produce more than one credible test... and that one was questionable. We dont test a hypothesis by simply assuming an expansion. This is so called scientific double speak at its very best.
All of this has already been addressed Wolfbitn.

Big Bang Theory does not require an explanation of what caused the original Big Bang Fireball.

This represents nothing more than your gross misunderstanding of the theory.

You are demanding things from Big Bang Theory that the theory itself has never even remotely claimed to predict.

So this is all empty strawman on your part that has already been dismissed repeatedly.

Explanations have been given repeatedly. Big Bang Theory does not predict that the universe began from a singularity. It makes absolutely no predictions at all about what "banged". And therefore it is it under no obligations to be tested for predictions that it has never made.

You are attempting to hold Big Bang Theory responsible for things that it has simply never claimed or predicted.

So your arguments against Big Bang Theory are without merit.

~~~~~~~~~
Wolfbitn wrote: There is now a loud voice beginning to emerge, demanding that the "science" community HAS TO begin to facing facts and open the doors for alternative theories.
Wolfbitn is talking here about "alternative theories" to Inflation Theory. NOT alternative theories to Big Bang Theory.

And thus the vast bulk of his post was completely off-topic from Big Bang Theory.

Wolfbitn points to the following article by Paul J. Steinhardt
Wolfbitn wrote: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf
Paul J. Steinhardt is director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and received the P.A.M. Dirac Medal from the International Center for Theoretical Physics in 2002 for his contributions to inflationary theory. Steinhardt is also known for postulating a new state of matter known as quasicrystals.
I would like to draw your attention to the the closing statements made by Paul Steinhardt at the bottom of the last page of this article:

"An alternative to inflationary cosmology that my colleagues and I have proposed, known as the cyclic theory, has just this property. According to this picture, the big bang is not the beginning of space and time but rather a “bounce� from a preceding phase of contraction to a new phase of expansion, accompanied by the creation of matter and radiation." - Paul J. Steinhardt

So these articles that Wolfbitn is pointing to do not reject Big Bang Theory at all.

On the contrary they are merely offering alternative explanations for what might have caused the original bang.

So Wolfbitn has just wasted a lot of time posting all those articles.

Those are all totally irrelevant to Big Bang Theory and therefore irreverent to this debate.

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 6: Answers to Direct Questions.

1) What can you tell us about Pangea?

I'm sorry, you'll need to be more specific. What exactly would you like to know about Pangea and can you please make a case for what Pangea has to do with our debate.


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

Again, I see no relevance to our debate here. You'll need to make a case for why you think this is relevant to our debate before I am required to respond. Only relevant questions please.

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

Again, you haven't established the relevancy of these questions to our debate. Where is Pangea mentioned in Genesis 1? You haven't established anything on that and for this reason I do not see any relevancy to these questions.


4) When did Pangea break apart?

Again, you need to explain how this question is relevant to our debate. How does this relate to Genesis 1?

5) How old is modern man?

What kind of a question is this? What do you consider to be "modern"?

And again, where is the relevancy in our debate. You haven't established any relevance yet for this ill-defined question.

6) Are there any ancient records regarding Pangea?

You need to establish how Pangea relates to our debate and where it is mentioned in Genesis 1.

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

Again, you haven't established any relevancy for any of these questions. You need to establish relevancy for questions and show how they are relevant to our debate. Otherwise I have no clue why you are even asking these questions.

I don't see where any of these questions have anything at all to do with our debate at this time.

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 7: Direct Questions to Wolfbitn.


1. Why do you continually misrepresent Big Bang Theory?

2. Why do you continually insist that Inflation Theory is Big Bang Theory?

3. Why do you not actually read the articles that you post in this debate?

4. Why do continually speak of Darwin and "Darwinism" when Darwin died over 127 years ago?

5. Why do you reject evolution of the species when you actually need it for your own theory?

~~~~~~~~~~

Section 8: Summary


Here's where we stand to date:
[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]
What the theories we are comparing actually predict.
[mrow][color=blue][b]Wolfbitn's Theology[/b][/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=green] Items Compared [/color] [mcol][color=blue][b]Big Bang Theory[/b][/color] [row][center][color=red][b]FAILURE[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Wolfbitn Claims the Bible Convincingly Predicts an Extinction Event[/center] [col][center]Big Bang Theory Convincingly Predicts a Universe that Evolved from a Compacted Gas into Stars and Galaxies Over 13.7 Billlion Years[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center] [row][center][color=red][b]FAILURE[/b][/color][/center] [col][center]Wolfbitn Claims the Bible Convincingly Predicts Evolution[/center] [col][center]Big Bang Theory Convincingly Predicts that the Universe began as a Hot Big Bang Fireball[/center] [col][center][color=green][b]Success[/b][/color][/center]
[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]6[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]6[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
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]

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #18

Post by Wolfbitn »

I have three words for you Divine:
WRONG AGAIN and DUDE

As far as I am concerned Divine, this one thing refutes your entire last post (which was horribly wasted and apparently hostile), which by the way contained surprisingly few sources, and seemed almost entirely to simply express your unsourced opinion from beginning to end with almost no exception.... cute charts though...


You stated TRIUMPHANTLY:
Section 5: False Claims about Alan Guth, String Theory, and Big Bang Theory Again....

...Excuse me? Think

Do you even bother to read the articles you post here?

Look at what Alan Guth said. I highlighted it above in your quote in bold red, but I'll print it here as well just for clarity:

"And there have been a number of attempts to describe inflation in that context. I think that is the future."

Alan Guth's original Inflation Theory has nothing at all to do with String Theory. His original theory was based on standard modern physics.

So you are misrepresenting Alan Guth and his Inflation Theory.


Read it and weep Divine...


http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/s ... nflat.html
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 ... yD-7vmQywI
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. It goes into scalar fields and etc.


In your 2nd to last post you admitted you had no idea what I was talking about when I posted the VERY PARAMETERS from the ACTUAL WMAP document explaining the parameters for the testings... I quoted Lerner just because he points out the obvious FROM that page... The WMAP documents themselves posted in my last post certainly trump "your opinion".

You also swore string theory and eternal inflation were verified theories, only to be shown in fact string is falsified... let me post those sources again for you...


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

According to physicist Mikhail Shifman, a once enthusiastic advocate of SUSY and author of an essay published on arXiv.org,, “…nature apparently doesn’t want it. At least, not in its original form.�


And then you want to impugn the names of great doctors, with massive credentials, simply because they admit that the fossil record and Darwinism are not a match at all... not when it comes to the Cambrian explosion.


Pangea or Pangaea

From http://geology.com/pangea.htm

Here we get a blobbish like representation of approximate shapes of the continents, and in what order they broke up. Pangea as like the proposed supercontinents before it, broke apart in stages. One portion would break off from the super continent, and then the cracks reverberated through the supercontinent, and as the crust shifted, the plates began to separate and travel across the face of the earth.

Note the continent of Africa, from the figures representing the Jurrassic, through to the present day.

Now note that during the Cretaceous period, Saudi Arabia has not yet broken off and separated from north east Africa.

Present day of course we see and know that they have separated.

Now lets look at Genesis 1 again.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
And Genesis 10:
25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.
Note the word Divided... The Hebrew sheds a bit different light on the word:
6385

palag
paw-lag'

a primitive root; to split (literally or figuratively):--divide.
So we can properly understand this to mean that in the days of Peleg, which literally means "split" the earth was "split", hence his name was a commemoration to an event.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pange ... ion_03.gif

Now looking at this^^^ simulation of the splitting and traveling of the continents, note that first, this split off of Saudi Arabia from the continent of Africa as noted in the previous illustrations, occur in the latter ages of continental drift. In this illustration we see it splitting as "the middle eastern region" is formed.

So we also have the implication of continental drift within these passages of scripture. We see the waters in Genesis gathered into one place... in other words dry land was an island, we didnt have separated oceans.

Then we have life evolving on earth... after evolving first form the sea. And then in the days of Peleg we have a "split" of the earth.

Note now that the continents began breaking apart about 200 million years ago, but the breakup was not all at once. The complete breakup of the supercontinent didnt occur until present day as you see in the previous illustrations. We have Saudi Arabia breaking off from Africa just as the middle east is coming together... Roughly the very area that is considered the cradle of civilization.

This being the case early man may have actually been alive during this split of the earth, and orally the tradition was passed down for many many generations.

At any rate, this certainly can imply Pangea in Genesis 1, and then a time when man may have seen one of the very last major splits to occur in Genesis 10. The split is certainly taking place at the right time and the right place.




Facts that remain unrefuted:

1) Genesis 1:2 certainly can be read and understood from the Hebrew as stating that the earth BECAME laid waste and emptied.

2) It is undisputed that this has in fact occurred.

3) Genesis 1 presents events in the exact order we find verified by fossil and geological records.

4) Genesis 1 plainly and correctly states that life began to flourish in and evolved from the water.

5) Genesis 1 is the ONLY document from all of our ancient records, and the ONLY ancient creation story to make this claim.

6) The Cambrian suggests a HUGE explosion of complicated life forms that seemingly pop out of nowhere after 4 billion years of mostly bacterial life. This sudden explosion of life can be insinuated in Genesis 1 where we see "the waters" bring forth "every living creature that moveth" in "abundance". Genesis 1 therefore is superior to Darwinism which claims there should be no such leaps, and that evolution was ALWAYS long and slow and methodical... this according to Darwin himself.


So once again Divine... your next direct questions:

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.

2) I will accept your concession that String was hoped to work out many of the problems with the Big Bang.

3) I will accept your concession that despite thinking it was a validated theory, you now know it has literally been falsified REPEATEDLY.

4) I will accept your concession that Genesis chapter 1 outright states that EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH originated form the sea.

5) I will accept your concession that the fossil record agrees with this.

6) I will accept your concession that Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient document, and the ONLY ancient creation story, declaring that life evolved from the sea.

7) I will accept your concession that this earth has seen extinction events.

8) I will accept your concession that Genesis 1:2 can certainly be understood to say that the earth became laid waste and emptied, accepting the original Hebrew wording for its common meanings.

9) I will accept your concession that eternal inflation IS string as defined in science today.

If you cant refute these things with sources, whether you concede or not they will remain unrefuted.


Now... Pangea

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?

NOW you know the relevance...

Every one of these questions and concessions are pertinent and relative to this discussion.

.[/img]
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Post #19

Post by Divine Insight »

Wolfbitn wrote: Read it and weep Divine...


http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/s ... nflat.html
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...
There is nothing for me to weep about here Wolfbitn.

Alan Guth clearly stated that String Theorists are indeed trying to work String Theory into his Inflation theory.

So what is there for me to weep about? :-k

Alan Guth original Inflation Theory is not itself a "string theory".

So you are still wrong. You're just confused about these different scientific theories.

Wolfbitn wrote: You also swore string theory and eternal inflation were verified theories, only to be shown in fact string is falsified... let me post those sources again for you...
I did no such thing. I have never claimed that either String Theory or Inflation Theory are "verified theories".

So now you are misrepresenting me once again and violating your own Rule #5 that demands that you are to be disqualified from this debate.
Did you even read this article Wolfbitn?

It states right in the article, "Now, let's back up a bit. This isn't good news for string theorists, but it doesn't invalidate string theory either."

You should try to actually reading some of the articles that you point to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~


Wolfbitn wrote: Facts that remain unrefuted:

1) Genesis 1:2 certainly can be read and understood from the Hebrew as stating that the earth BECAME laid waste and emptied.

2) It is undisputed that this has in fact occurred.

3) Genesis 1 presents events in the exact order we find verified by fossil and geological records.

4) Genesis 1 plainly and correctly states that life began to flourish in and evolved from the water.

5) Genesis 1 is the ONLY document from all of our ancient records, and the ONLY ancient creation story to make this claim.

6) The Cambrian suggests a HUGE explosion of complicated life forms that seemingly pop out of nowhere after 4 billion years of mostly bacterial life. This sudden explosion of life can be insinuated in Genesis 1 where we see "the waters" bring forth "every living creature that moveth" in "abundance". Genesis 1 therefore is superior to Darwinism which claims there should be no such leaps, and that evolution was ALWAYS long and slow and methodical... this according to Darwin himself.
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.

I am also in disagreement with your opinionated theological interpretations for points, 1, 3, and 4 above. The term evolution is not used in the Biblical scriptures. On the contrary Genesis clearly stays that "God Created" the animals. So these things you are calling "facts" are nothing more than your own opinionated theological interpretations.

How many times do you need to be told that opinionated theological interpretations do not amount to science?

And this is especially true when you already have scientific knowledge that you are attempting to take back and work into your opinionated theological interpretations of the Bible.
Wolfbitn wrote: So once again Divine... your next direct questions:

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.

2) I will accept your concession that String was hoped to work out many of the problems with the Big Bang.

3) I will accept your concession that despite thinking it was a validated theory, you now know it has literally been falsified REPEATEDLY.

4) I will accept your concession that Genesis chapter 1 outright states that EVERY LIVING THING THAT MOVETH originated form the sea.

5) I will accept your concession that the fossil record agrees with this.

6) I will accept your concession that Genesis 1 is the ONLY ancient document, and the ONLY ancient creation story, declaring that life evolved from the sea.

7) I will accept your concession that this earth has seen extinction events.

8) I will accept your concession that Genesis 1:2 can certainly be understood to say that the earth became laid waste and emptied, accepting the original Hebrew wording for its common meanings.

9) I will accept your concession that eternal inflation IS string as defined in science today.

If you cant refute these things with sources, whether you concede or not they will remain unrefuted.
1. The measurements of WMAP have been confirmed to be accurate.

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.

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.

4. I have already conceded #4 many posts back. Having you been paying attention? It also says that when the earth was without form and void the spirit of God moved on the face of the water. It clearly wasn't talking about H2O. So when it says that the waters brought forth life it most likely wasn't referring to the oceans anyway. You can see that this was a mystical fairytale.

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

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.

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.

The Bible is a creation myth not and extinction myth.

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.

So again, I disagree with your opinionated theological interpretations.

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.
Wolfbitn wrote: Now... Pangea

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?

NOW you know the relevance...

Every one of these questions and concessions are pertinent and relative to this discussion.
These are not pertinent questions because I don't accept your opinionated theological interpretations of the Bible. You have not established that anything in Genesis is actually referring to the land mass that has been called Pangea.

What you need to make a case for is your opinionated theological interpretations of the Bible. You can't look at known science and then run back to the Bible pretending to interpret everything there to be to be referring to known science and then come back and say, "Hey Look! My interpretations of the Bible match what we actually see!" That simply doesn't hold water Wolfbitn.

I have already pointed out that the Bible does not refer to evolution. It clearly states right in Genesis that God created the animals and that they procreated after their own kind. That blows away any claim that it was describing evolution.

So what I am in disagreement with is your opinionated theological interpretations. And that is what you need to make a case for. And you haven't been able to do that, and you never will be able to do that because it's simply not possible. You are attempting the impossible.

At best all you can do is convince yourself that you can interpret the bible in a way that works for you. You cannot scientifically test or prove that your opinionated theological interpretations are true in any objective way.

And that is what you have come here to claim you could do. But you aren't succeeding. You haven't even bothered to publish your speculations to have them reviewed by other theologians.
[mrow]Post Counter[mcol]Allotted[mcol]Current [row]Wolfbit'n Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Opening[col]1[col][color=red][b]1[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]7[/b][/color] [row]D. I. Debate[col]15[col][color=red][b]7[/b][/color] [row]Wolfbit'n Closing[col]2[col] [row]D. I. Closing[col]2[col]
[center]Image
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]

Wolfbitn
Banned
Banned
Posts: 646
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:26 pm

Post #20

Post by Wolfbitn »

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 Großen Hörsaal für Experimentalphysik hielt. Den Inhalt seiner Präsentation beschreibt der Erfinder der Theorie vom inflationären 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, Occam’s 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, it’s 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 (12±2 Gyr) still do not quite overlap
the error bars on the oldest globular clusters (16±2 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, Milgrom’s 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 don’t 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.�[/quote]



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 theoriests 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 didnt even think the BB qualified as a valid theory at all.

...maybe this wil 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.


.

.
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

Post Reply