Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Da-amn, boy. You keep knocking them out of the park.It's a pity you are wasting your brilliance on ICANT.

Hi lyx2no, But you forgot the most important thing about that story.The seed that was planted in the seedbed to get the plant to grow the cabbage. I didn't even go into all the processes that was necessary to grow that head of cabbage.But the seed had to come from somewhere it did not appear out of thin air. It had to be harvested and prepared for use as seed. Care must be taken when preparing cabbage seed. If they are planted close to Mutard, Collards, Kale, Kohlrabi, Cauliflower, Brussels Sprouts and Broccoli they can cross with each other. They have been developed over thousands of years. Somewhere back down the line there was the first original plant. There had to be at least 2 plants or there would be no cabbage. But it would have been much better if you had several thousand different plants to start with.Unless you can get it to magic like the universe appearing expanding.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi molbiogirl, There is no such thing as xianity.Therefore anything would be older than xianity.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Answer the question.

I have no knowledge at all, hence my repeated claim to having no knowledge at all. I do have knowledge after that which I can extrapolate backwards in an iffy fashion and say if this proceeds as it has up to here then zero would be here. This may indeed be wrong which is why I make no further statement about it and don't hold myself to that one.You're asking that I falsify 0<10^-43. That's all the statement says. T=0 clearly happened prior to T=10^-43because that is what it means. It's a matter of definitions. Yesterday came before today because that is what the word yesterday means. T=0 is the name given to the point on the graph where the size of Universe line gets to zero if extrapolated past the last known point. Then the last know is located at T=10^-43 and given that name. I implied nothing about unified forces. You're just shoving fancy words into your statements to make them sound all grown up. What would be much more impressive then fancy words would be a show of understanding of what 10^-43 means. You've used it like a brazillion time and it's still just another magic word to you. You've made an error of a few ten million trillion trillion trillion orders of magnitude*.I don't think you'll ever be able to understand the flaws in any of your arguments if don't rid your language of magic powers.AbE: *It's only 43+log(few) orders of magnitude. It's amazing what can slip by when one is frustrated.Edited by lyx2no, : Scratch "orders of magnitude".

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

I'm betting your kids hated your bedtime stories.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Thanks. I'm a molbiogirl fan myself.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

1) Abiogenesis is not even remotely related to this topic. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with cosmological origins.2) the proposed mechanism of abiogenesis is spontaneous assembly of proteins into a self-replicating molecule. The spontaneous self-assembly of all of most of the precursor molecules has been observed in the lab, but research is still incomplete. Your lack of comprehension of natural processes is astounding, Buz. "Itdiditself" is a disingenuous way of saying "it did not require outside intelligence." If I ask how Zinc reacts with Hydrochloric Acid, is it really accurate to say "itdiditself?"Come now Buz, you're painting a strawman the size of Montana. But what else would we expect of the author of the BULLSHIT hypothesis, the crown jewel of all meaningless apologetics? The word "work" is meaningless unless you define the form the work took. You still haven't given any sort of mechanism. You just stuck the word "work" in to make your silly "model" sound like it was consistent with the laws of Thermodynamics - but yet again, apologetics fails by trying to smash the evidence into your pre-conceived idea. It's hilariously obvious because you don't even know what the terms you're throwing around mean. You have a grasp of physics beneath a high school student, and throwing around technobabble like a Star Trek episode writer doesn't help you. That's because you neither understand the scientific model nor the Laws of thermodynamics. "As far as you can see" means nothing when your comprehension level is below High School graduates.As to why you're wrong, the Big Bang model does not propose that at any time the Universe contained more or less mass-energy. the Big bang model is perfectly compliant with the Laws of Thermodynamics - do you honestly think physicists would propose a model not in compliance? Are you delusional? I see one as falsifiable and accurate. I see the other as a feces-coated fairy-tale. Not what I said, and certainly not what you quoted from me.

If you want to discuss thermodynamics, why don't you address Message 13 ?Until it's answered any claim that your "theory" is consistent with thermodynamics is an empty assertion.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

I am told that we know what happened from T=10-43.

---

And I haven't said otherwise. I thought we were talking about the expansion of the universe, though. You do understand that there are multiple things going on, yes?And that inflation is not the same as expansion, yes? Let us remember what Buzsaw said: We know a fair amount of the expansion of the universe. What do you think the red-shift is a measure of? What do you think the various experiments into dark energy are about?

quote:

---

You are the mathematician so what does the math say?

---

What are we talking about? You're switching the goalposts. Are we talking about origins? Inflation? Expansion? What?There's a lot we don't know, of course. If we knew everything, then there would be no point in doing any sort of research at all. But you seem to be reaching toward that perennial creationist claim that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.We don't know what happened in Planck time. So? How does that change anything about what we do know?

quote:

---

Anything between T=0 and T=10-43 is unfalsifiable.

---

Incorrect. You are confusing "unknown" with "unknowable" and "unfalsifiable."What do you know about branes? It seems to be showing some promise.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

Could you be a little more specific? Like their names or the books that their prophesy is in.

---

Prophecy? Who said anything about prophecy? Just go outside and look up. Go to the library and look in any of the various mythological stories. For crying out loud, the Greek mythos is replete with stories of how the stars got up there. Have you read the Iliad? Homer talks of the creation of the heavens by Hephaestos. How about the Catasterismi? It includes the Milky Way.

quote:

---

I claim the God of Abraham. Islam also claims the God of Abraham.

---

(*chuckle*)The god of Islam is not the same as the god of Christianity or the god of Judaism. Let's not play dumb here.

quote:

---

I can not find anywhere that science says there are a finite number of stars.

---

Are you incapable of doing the math? Science is not like religion where you look up in the "holy book" (often known as "the CRC") the blessed claim as if that were the end-all, be-all of things. It is a derived property: There is only so much space in the universe, ergo there can only be so many stars.

quote:

---

Could you be a little more specific? Like their names or the books that their prophesy is in.

---

Prophecy? Who said anything about prophecy? Since you don't mention which one you're talking about, I'm a bit hard pressed to tell you what you want to hear. Are you talking about the world ending in fire? Look up Russian mythology for an example.I am not here to do your homework for you.Here's another hint which someone who has any real familiarity with world mythoi should know: Ragnarok.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, that isn't. What was said was that the universe was big. What was never mentioned was that it was still expanding.

---

​

I don't know where you got your information from but it was not from the Bible I read where God said: "even my hands have stretched out the heavens."

---

I'm sorry, I don't see how that responds to my point. You quoted exactly what I said: The Bible claims the universe is big. It does not say that it is still expanding.

quote:

---

Was Robert Frost a deity or a poet. He can say anything.

---

So can any other author, such as the authors of the Bible. You are trying to claim uniqueness for the Bible and yet when we examine the literature, we find that there isn't anything unique to it. Everything it says has been told elsewhere.

quote:

---

I should have said going dark and will remain dark forever.

---

But that isn't what astronomy says, either. Stars still shine, even when they collapse. And in some cases, they explode and make new stars.

quote:

---

I could still use their names or the books that their prophesy is in.

---

Prophecy? Who said anything about prophecy?

quote:

---

I did not say science said anything about dead bodies in a specific city.

---

Yes, you did: What part of "Science calls that technology" isn't talking about science?

quote:

---

If you have a TV

---

Are you seriously claiming that there was no such thing as journalism before the invention of the TV? And that the Bible "prophesied" journalism?what do you think the Iliad is? It's the story of a war telling all the nations of the world of dead bodies lying in Troy.

quote:

---

Since their God is the God of Abraham and Moses by their claim it would be the same God.

---

Except it isn't. Let's not play dumb here. The gods of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not the same god. Why do you think there is such strife in the Middle East?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to Rahvin:

quote:

---

If expansion is true the universe had to expand in all directions equally.

---

Why? Be specific. What makes you think the universe is a sphere? What part of "there is no center" is eluding you?Do you understand the difference between finite/infinite and bounded/unbounded? I don't mean the difference between finite and inifinite and, as a separate thing, the difference between bounded and unbounded. Instead, I am talking about the difference between the concept of infinity and the concept of boundedness.

quote:

---

Don't sound like nuclear war or volcanic eruptions of meteor impacts to me. Looks like it disappears in a ball of fire to me.

---

Just like all the other mythoi out there that have the world ending in fire. What makes you think the Bible is unique?

quote:

---

I called attention to a particular star called outcast that is leaving the Milky Way traveling at 1.5 million mph.

---

You're referring to Jude 1:13. You do realize, however, that this passage isn't referring to stars, yes? It's referring to planets and even that is only a metaphor for evil people.

quote:

---

I was asking for references or books from the other deities that told us there was wandering stars that would go dark forever.

---

But your quote doesn't even say that.

quote:

---

What giant leap in: "to who is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever"? What flowery words, or poetry?

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? The pvery phrasing "to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever" is, by its very nature, flowery words and poetry. It certainly isn't a scientific statement or any other kind of prose.

quote:

---

That says these dead bodies will lay in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 1/2 days.

---

You realize that you just contradicted your claim to me, yes? You said you weren't talking about dead bodies in a specific city. Well, clearly you were.

quote:

---

This was not possible until the TV Satellite system was in place.

---

Huh? There was no such thing as journalism until the space program? Again, what do you think the Iliad is? It's the story of a war.

quote:

---

There is no poetry there and there is no flowerly language.

---

Ahem. It's nothing but poetry and flowery language.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT responds to SGT Snorkel:

quote:

---

My point was that they were innumerable.

---

But they're not. They are quite numerable. There's a finite number of them. All finite numbers are numerable.

quote:

---

That simply means there are too many to be numbered.

---

Incorrect. That's not what "innumerable" means. And no, I'm not referring to the mathematical term of "denumerable" where even infinite numbers are numerable. I'm talking about the difference between "finite" and "infinite."There are not an infinite number of stars. Therefore, you can number them.Do not confuse the difficulty of the task with impossibility.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

There is no such thing as xianity.

---

There most certainly is. Are you going to call the first Christians to be something other than Christian? The "X" in "Xian" is not the Roman letter X but rather the Greek letter C. The name, in Greek, is written, "CristoV."As paper was always at a premium, the "Christ"-related terms, including the name, itself, were often abbreviated to C or Cr.Why do you think one of the big symbols in Christianity is the fish? It isn't because of the "fishers of men" passage. It's that the phrase IhsoV CristoV Qeou UioV Swthr ("Jesus Christ, son of god, saviour"), when initialized, becomes "ICQUS," which is the Greek word for "fish."It's how Christians referred to themselves. Are you denying your own heritage?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

ICANT writes:

quote:

---

There had to be at least 2 plants or there would be no cabbage.

---

You do realize that life existed long before sex, yes? Most life on this planet reproduces asexually.At any rate, you're missing the point. You're falling for the common creationst claim that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything. This is the same creationist fallacy that says because evolution doesn't explain the origin of the universe, it can't possibly be accurate.Evolution doesn't even attempt to explain the origin of the universe. Evolution is about biology and the origin of the universe is about cosmology. Evolution assumes there is a universe already in place because it doesn't matter how the universe came into being so long as it did.

quote:

---

Unless you can get it to magic like the universe appearing expanding.

---

Huh? What do you mean "appearing"? Are you implying that it isn't?So why is it we can directly measure it? What do you think the red-shift is? Have you not heard of WMAP and PLANCK?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.