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 #21

Post by Divine Insight »

Wolfbitn wrote: And his hole gets deeper and deeper...
I officially resign from this debate for ethical reasons.

My opponent has just posted a huge page of extreme misrepresentations of things I have posted. And these are things that he has been repeatedly told that he has been misrepresenting yet he continually does this relentlessly.

I bring to his attention his own Rule #5.

5) Misrepresenting another debater is a disqualifying factor. Ask questions if you are unsure about what they are saying.

He has not only failed to ask questions when he was unsure of what I have said, but he has blatantly refused to acknowledge his misrepresentations of my position repeatedly, even after these have been pointed out to him, and explained in detail repeatedly.

Moreover he has also continually and repeatedly misrepresented the sources of information that he himself has pointed to. And when his errors concerning those misrepresentations were exposed to him, rather than confessing his error, he just continually repeated the very same misrepresentations over again.

I'm not going to sit here and continually explain away the very same repeated false misrepresentations over and over again for the next 30 posts. I don't see any point in wasting my time doing that. These misrepresentations have already been addressed in detail.

Wolfbitn also clearly has no consistent theological theory to discuss anyway. He first claimed that Genesis 1 was describing the extinction event at the time of the demise of the dinosaurs. And now he's proposing that Genesis 1 was describing a creation event of a brand new land mass called Pangea upon which the dinosaurs themselves had roamed for some 300 million years.

These two opposing theological interpretations of Genesis 1 are clearly incompatible. So I don't see where there is anything to debate here anyway. He should have published his theological ideas and had them peer-reviewed by other theologians first. I'm sure they would have caught these inconsistencies for him.

So I resign from this debate for ethical reasons. I trust that the readers of this forum will not be sad to see this debate closed in any case. ;)

Wolfbitn is more than welcome to make his closing comments as I'm sure he will no doubt proclaim the same accusations toward me. And that's fine. For if he does this then he too will be confirming that this debate should indeed be closed for ethical reasons, and we can finally concede on something. ;)
[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 #22

Post by Wolfbitn »

I wanted to come to you as just 'me' for a moment since none of us really know one another.. I hope this can be accepted as nothing but sincere to all.

As you saw, Divine has conceded the debate... just QUIT. Read on, I am giving him a chance to withdraw his concession.

When I arrived here, as a man who happens to believe and follow the Christian God, I was fairly amazed at the apparent hostility toward christians displayed by a few people. It is very open, very deep seated, and a lot of people would take offense at some of the blanket judgments that occur on occasion.

I have always been one to accept someone for who or what they are, it isn't my seat to judge anyone for what they may do or dont do, i pretty much try to treat everyone decently. Now we dont have to be strangers.

I only say all this to say this... I dont stereotype anyone. I dont make blanket statements about anyone unless it was to say Christians believe in God, as do Jews, as do Muslims. Atheists do not. Agnostics dont know.

That being said. I believe it is very clear that I have not tried to misrepresent anything Divine has said. I have presented excellent sources for everything I brought out. I clearly backed every point with MULTIPLE sources, and as is the case with the WMAP documents, the original source. I used very reputable science journals and men of science to bring out my points. I did prove I DO know what I am talking about.

Divine on the other hand, though he debated with spirit, failed on several levels.

1) He lost a huge point when he claimed string had not been falsified. Every test from CERN thus far has falsified every tested prediction that has been tested there. He couldnt produce a single success from CERN.

2) He lost a huge point when he didnt realize how eternal inflation has been woven into string for going on decades.

3) He didnt realize Guth actually works with string and has for going on decades.

4) He even stated there was no such thing as Darwinism and was shown to be wrong and asked to concede the point.

On the other hand I have shown that a very well educated minority of the church believe as I do in one form or another. Some believe exactly as I do, and OEC goes back, as I showed early on, over 2000 years.

I have also proven that the Hebrew DOES ALLOW for us to understand that Genesis 1 relates to an extinction event in verse 2, and then the subsequent restoration of life across the planet.

I have proven that Genesis 1 states EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT MOVETH originated from the waters... even the birds flying in the skies. Every modern translation says the same thing here.

I have proven that Divine knew of NO OTHER ancient literature, declaring evolution. Nor could he produce ANY other ancient creation story that proclaimed evolution occurred, making Genesis ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE.

I have proven then that somehow the writer of Genesis 1 knew something we didnt know for nearly another 3500 years.

I have proven that todays accepted model of the universe is propped up by string, and that eternal inflation was woven into string to make it work.

I have proven it was repeatedly falsified at CERN

I have proven the BB has SEVERAL KNOWN and OBSERVED inconsistencies, that string theory had hoped to solve as "the theory of everything".

I have proven with actual graduate school material by professor Guth himself, from MIT, where Guth is a Professor, that Guth works with string theory, and presented his quantization of a scalar field.

I have proven that, Despite Divine insisting otherwise, YES there is such thing as Darwinism.


I have proven Genesis 1 SUPERIOR over Darwinism, when we predict what we should find in the fossil records. Darwin professed a very long slow gradualism with no jumps or spurts... Genesis 1 states that sometimes life is simply going to spring forth in huge illogical spurts such as what we find occurring during the Cambrian explosion. The fossil record proves Genesis 1 was right, 3500 years before Darwinism was wrong.

I have proven that the claim man was specially created and formed to take reign over the earth, dominating it and all the animal kingdom, is also backed by our 2nd chromosome... which unlike all the animal kingdom is completely unique in its apparent "fusion". Every primate has 48 chromosomes in 24 base pairs... EXCEPT for man, who only has 46 chromosomes in 23 base pairs... So somehow we apparently DEvolved into a simpler form, and yet we gained superiority... ironically, or maybe not so ironically, this 2nd chromosome is the chromosome that deals with intelligence.

Divine was now, as of post 19, in a situation where he had to concede EVERY ONE of these points and several more... throughout close to 20 concessions.


So I'll tell you what I'm going to do...

I hereby offer Divine the opportunity to withdraw his concession and to take up the debate where we left off... He can pick up by addressing my last post to him, post number 19.


Divine... you have your opportunity to take this back in hand. You may WITHDRAW your concession, as a sign of good sportsmanship from my side.. If you accept simply alert me in another thread, and you may pick right up at post 19.

If you do not accept but answer back here, you are then hereby challenged to post my supposed misrepresentation of "everything you said". My view says you were simply very overwhelmed suddenly and had to make so many concessions so early on.

To any other reader who may want to try to prove me wrong... can you PROVE Genesis 1 is less scientifically viable than the Big Bang?

Would YOU like to pick up addressing post 19 if Divine turns down my offer to allow him to withdraw his concession?


My theory is that Genesis 1 states that the earth suffered an extinction event and reveals the subsequent healing process.

The debate is:

My theory is more easily tested than string BB or dark matter.

My theory FARES better in its testing than string bb and dark matter combined.

My theory has been tested more times and in more ways than string bb and dark matter combined.

My theory is therefore superior, more scientifically viable, and more worthy of the title "theory" than BB, string, or dark matter combined.


Feel free to contact me on the thread discussing this debate, and we will set you right up to take Divine's place addressing post 19... I frankly dont think anyone can win it for him now.

Otherwise concession accepted. Thank you

I do hope you pick it back up Divine... I will also make the same offer in our other thread so youll be sure to see it.

Peace

Wolfbitn

.
"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 #23

Post by Divine Insight »

Wolfbitn wrote: When I arrived here, as a man who happens to believe and follow the Christian God, I was fairly amazed at the apparent hostility toward christians displayed by a few people.
This debate is not about Christianity. It's about the scientific method and how it cannot be applied to theological speculations in any religion.
Wolfbitn wrote: 1) He lost a huge point when he claimed string had not been falsified. Every test from CERN thus far has falsified every tested prediction that has been tested there. He couldnt produce a single success from CERN.
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

String theory has not been falsified. Even the article you yourself had pointed to clearly states this. And this has already been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Wolfbitn wrote: 2) He lost a huge point when he didnt realize how eternal inflation has been woven into string for going on decades.
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

Just because string theorists are trying to incorporate string theory into inflation does not mean that inflation theory itself began as a string theory or is anyway a string theory. It's not. It began as a theory based upon the standard model of physics.
Wolfbitn wrote: 3) He didnt realize Guth actually works with string and has for going on decades.
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

This in no way implies that his original Inflation theory was ever dependent upon string theory. It wasn't.

Wolfbitn wrote: 4) He even stated there was no such thing as Darwinism and was shown to be wrong and asked to concede the point.
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

There is no "Official scientific theory called Darwinism". This term has been loosely associated with the ideas of Charles Darwin himself, and possible even in references to Darwin's book "Origin of he Species".

But there is no official theory in science that is studied as "Darwinism". The modern theories of evolution have grown exponentially beyond the ideas proposed by Darwin.

Wolfbitn wrote: I have also proven that the Hebrew DOES ALLOW for us to understand that Genesis 1 relates to an extinction event in verse 2, and then the subsequent restoration of life across the planet.
Allowing for various interpretations of ancient scriptures does not give them scientific credence. It also ALLOWS FOR other interpretations as well. So this doesn't serve as any evidence for you arguments.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven that Genesis 1 states EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT MOVETH originated from the waters... even the birds flying in the skies. Every modern translation says the same thing here.
And so what? :-k

Genesis also proclaims that before the earth existed, and was without form and void, all that existed was water. So the Bible has everything starting from water. That's just the basis of this mythology for everything.

Moreover, we know that the earth did not come from water.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven that Divine knew of NO OTHER ancient literature, declaring evolution. Nor could he produce ANY other ancient creation story that proclaimed evolution occurred, making Genesis ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE.
You haven't proven anything. I haven't looked into the thousands of other creation stories. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if several of them begin with water. Moreover, proclaiming that a mythology is unique doesn't mean anything.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven then that somehow the writer of Genesis 1 knew something we didnt know for nearly another 3500 years.
No you haven't. The writers of Genesis 1 thought that the earth was also formed out of these same waters, and we know that part is false. So they didn't get it all correct by a long shot.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven that todays accepted model of the universe is propped up by string, and that eternal inflation was woven into string to make it work.
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

This is a gross misrepresentation being made by you about modern science. Modern science and cosmology including Big Bang Theory is not the slightest bit dependent upon String Theory. You can't possible have proven that because it's not even close to being truth.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven it was repeatedly falsified at CERN
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

You haven not proven any such thing. On the contrary you pointed to an article that even stated itself that these test do not falsify String Theory in general.

Moreover, you are already MISREPRESENTING modern science and cosmology in your previous claim that it is all propped up by String theory. That is simply as false as anything can be.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven the BB has SEVERAL KNOWN and OBSERVED inconsistencies, that string theory had hoped to solve as "the theory of everything".
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

Big Bang Theory ends with the Big Bang Fireball. It is not even dependent upon having started from a singularity. There is nothing in Big Bang Theory that demands that this fireball had to have started as a singularity.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven with actual graduate school material by professor Guth himself, from MIT, where Guth is a Professor, that Guth works with string theory, and presented his quantization of a scalar field.
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

Guth's current studies and teaching do not justify your claim that his original Inflation theory was based upon string theory.

Moreover, even if that were true, (which it's not) that still wouldn't have anything to do with Big Bang Theory, because Big Bang Theory does not demand, nor predict that the universe had to have begun as a singularity.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven that, Despite Divine insisting otherwise, YES there is such thing as Darwinism.
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

Darwinism is a loose term referring to the ideas of Charles Darwin and possibly to his book 'Origin of the Species'. I don't deny that and never have. What I am saying is that there is no such thing as an official scientific theory called "Darwinism" that is being held up by scientific community today as representing modern day evolution theory.

So for you to pretend that "Darwinism" represent modern day evolution theory is nothing short of,....

MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven Genesis 1 SUPERIOR over Darwinism,
First off, you have NOT done this. And secondly why should anyone care even if you had? Darwinism is not a valid scientific theory in today's modern science.

Gensis 1 is NOT superior, because it doesn't even give any details at all. At best all it can suggest is that all life came from the water. You would still need Darwin's "Origin of the Species" anyway. Your only argument there seem to relate to arguments over how much time is actually required for species to change.
Wolfbitn wrote: I have proven that the claim man was specially created and formed to take reign over the earth, dominating it and all the animal kingdom, is also backed by our 2nd chromosome... which unlike all the animal kingdom is completely unique in its apparent "fusion". Every primate has 48 chromosomes in 24 base pairs... EXCEPT for man, who only has 46 chromosomes in 23 base pairs... So somehow we apparently DEvolved into a simpler form, and yet we gained superiority... ironically, or maybe not so ironically, this 2nd chromosome is the chromosome that deals with intelligence.
And I have already shot that down as being nothing different from any other creation story ever written by mankind. Men who write creation stories have always placed man as the highest beings closest to their Gods.

So there's nothing to this. It's not the least bit remarkable. And there is nothing in Genesis that mentions anything about chromosomes. :roll:

So you are pretending to give Genesis credit for things he has never even remotely stated.
Wolfbitn wrote: I hereby offer Divine the opportunity to withdraw his concession and to take up the debate where we left off... He can pick up by addressing my last post to him, post number 19.

There is nothing here to debate.

You have presented nothing but self-contradictory unsupportable claims about an ancient myth that you even continually change on the fly.

You began this debate by proclaiming that Genesis 1 describes an extinction event at the time of the demise of the dinosaurs.

Now you are proclaiming that this same myth is describing a creation event of a single land mass called Pangaea some 300 million years prior to the extinction of the dinosaurs.

You can't have it both ways.

Plus you have continually MISREPRESENTED MY POSITION on things.

And you continually MISREPRESENT SCIENCE ITSELF.

You also continually MISREPRESENT BIG BANG THEORY

I see no reason to continue this debate. You have no published theory. All you have is random speculations, and you even continue to change those in the middle of the debate.

Your only hope to get anywhere at all is to continually misrepresent all of science.

You do this by trying to proclaim that modern cosmology is entirely dependent upon String Theory, which is absolutely false. It's a gross misrepresentation by you. Modern cosmology is not in any way dependent upon string theory. And neither is Big Bang Theory.

THIS DEBATE IS OVER

Note to Mods:

Please close this debate thread out and remove myself and my opponent from the Head-to-Head debate forum.

Thank you.
[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 #24

Post by Wolfbitn »

This is going to be very short and sweet and to the point...

Divine says:
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

String theory has not been falsified. Even the article you yourself had pointed to clearly states this. And this has already been pointed out to you repeatedly.

Now... below where I quote post 19, which put Divine into his corner and made him quit... we see the reputable and prestigious scientific journals which declare OVER AND OVER... that the predictions made by string such as super symmetry and tiny black holes, were falsified by the large hadron collider at CERN. Any misrepresentation would be to say it isnt so.

The article goes on to say that this falsification alone does not destroy string theory... which is what he is raising such a puff about. Sad thin line to grasp to and make any kind of big deal out of. When you add in ALL THE OTHER falsified tests art CERN it cetainly does string no favors.

Divine then says:
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

This in no way implies that his original Inflation theory was ever dependent upon string theory. It wasn't.
When all through this debate and below again in post 19, we see that Guths early string theory failed miserably and had to be saved by weaving it into the "theory of everything" in that theoretically it allows anything. Again, the only misrepresentation of the current inflation model would be to say string didnt save it and that it is not woven into string theory.


And he says:
MISREPRESENTATION BY YOU

There is no "Official scientific theory called Darwinism". This term has been loosely associated with the ideas of Charles Darwin himself, and possible even in references to Darwin's book "Origin of he Species".

In spite of the definitions of Darwinism given below... again from post 19, which now follows... THIS is why Divine QUIT the debate...


Make all the following concessions Divine or prove them to be wrong.


Wolfbitn wrote: 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.�


So:

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


Now I want the following concessions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...maybe this will refresh your memory:

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

In post 11 you state this, and I quote:
To begin with you are arguing a fallacious argument. You are addressing the "Big Bang" as if the Big Bang itself is some sort of "theory". Actually it's not.
Then HERE
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=20

in post 29 you said, and again I quote
As far as I'm concerned the Big Bang is not a "theory". It can be viewed as either a hypothesis, or as a conclusion from current observations.

So I think you made yourself pretty clear.


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

Direct questions:

1) What can you tell us about Pangea?

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

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

4) When did Pangea break apart?

5) How old is modern man?

6) Are there any ancient records regarding Pangea?

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

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


and...

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

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


.

.[/quote]
"I never said it would be easy Neo, I just said it would be the truth."
Morpheous

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

Post #25

Post by Wolfbitn »

Divine you have had more that 24 hours to make up your mind... are you taking this debate back up or does your concession stand? If you concede, I will open this up for ANYONE ELSE who wants to take up where you left off... by addressing post 19.

Youll have another 24 hours to decide, and then I open it to whoever thinks they can.

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

Post Reply