Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

So far nothing has come close relative to scientific LOTs, archeology, personal experience, written historical record and all other observational evidence.

---

Incorrect. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, the action of your "omnipotent supreme creator" is a direct violation of the second law.What would happen if we hooked your engine up to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

The laws of nature relative to complex design fit nicely into my axiomatic POV.

---

Incorrect. They directly violate the second law.You claim the universe is eternal. Ergo, it is infinite. But all physical processes reach equilibrium in finite time. Therefore, since the universe is clearly not at equilibrium, something is violating the second law and keeping it going.Your "omnipotent supreme creator" that manages to perfectly reabsorb the functioning of the universe is a violation of the second law.What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?

quote:

---

How is BBUH less compatible to 2LoT than the spacial expansionist theory?

---

Asked and answered.Multiple times.It is now time for you to provide the mathematics behind it all. If the universe is eternal, why is it not at equilibrium since all physical processes reach equilibrium in finite time?What would happen if we hooked up your engine to a refrigerator?The "spacial [sic] expansionist theory" is not a part of thermodynamics but rather is a part of cosmology. The inflation of the universe is a property of space, not energy. The expansion of the universe is a property of space, not energy.You seem to forget: The expansion of the universe is accelerating.

quote:

---

My hypothesis never has entropy decreasing via work contrary to 2LoT, the omnipotent supreme being just that; omnipotent.

---

You just contradicted yourself. From your first post: That's a direct violation of the second law. It is impossible to sustain energy indefinitely. Some energy is always lost which always causes an increase in entropy, no matter how small.Since all processes eventually reach thermal equilibrium in a finite amount of time, your claim of an eternal universe requires a universe at equilibrium.Since it is not, then you "omnipotent supreme creator" is directly violating the second law.When are you going to address these issue, Buzsaw?

---

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.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is a violation of the second law. All physical properties achieve equilibrium in a finite amount of time. If the universe is eternal, then all physical processes would have achieved equilibrium. Since they clearly have not, something is violating the second law in an eternal universe.

---

​

In an eternal universe finite amounts of time become a figment of the imagination where the fat lady never sings.

---

Incorrect. In an enternal universe, the fat lady sang an infinite amount of time ago. That's the point behind the word "eternal." All processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time. Since an infinite amount of time has passed before the present moment, then all processes will have reached equilibrium before the present moment.

quote:

---

Omnipotence extends equalibrium infinity via work of the source of energy.

---

And that is a direct violation of the second law. There is no way to "extend equalibrium [sic] infinity via work." Some energy is always lost. There are no perfect engines. There are no perfect refrigerators.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As has been asked repeatedly of you: What would happen if you hooked up an engine to a refrigerator?

---

​

Neither are infinite relative to 2LoT.

---

Huh? That isn't an answer to the question. Please try again:What would happen if you hooked up an engine to a refrigerator?Hint: Start by going to the definition of an engine and a refrigerator in the most basic sense. What does an engine do? What does a refrigerator do?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Either the universe is eternal and god can maintain that energy indefinitely (both violations of the second law), or everything runs down.
You can't have both.

---

​

How is it in violation of 2LoT?

---

What part of "all physical processes reach equilibrium in a finite time" are you having trouble with? What part of "eternal" do you not see as a contradiction to that?What part of "What would happen if you hooked up an engine to a refrigerator" are you having trouble with? What part of "maintain that energy indefinitely" do you not see as a contradiction to that?What part of "everything runs down" are you having trouble with? What part of "eternal" do you not see as a contradiction to that?

---

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.

(abe: You BBists often apply a bogus 2D analogy) having both an outside of and a before. Why (abe: do you do this)? Because there is no possible bonafide model for your theory of no outside of or before.Your theory satisfies none of the LOTs. Why?
1. Because your source of energy was part and parcel of spacetime at T=0.
2. Every temporal system must have a zero to be temporal.
3. There was no mechanism for equilibrium at all since there was allegedly no outside of and no before the expansion.
4. There was only expansion; nothing to equalize; no A and B; just expansion, violating 2LoT.
5. Having no outside of and no before, your temporal system had no place to have happened and no time to have happened, violating all science as well as common sense and logic.
6. Space, energy, matter and time all had to have just magically popped into existence as properties of space at alleged T=0, contrary to 1LoT.
7. IMO, your alleged theory of temporal expansion, having, by necessity to have had a zero factor is grossly more magical than my eternal energy designer unbounded space hypothesis, no matter how much QM, math, etc you apply to it.The bottom line here in this whole debate is that BBists apply forces and things to the properties of space so as to make it allegedly expand, curve, etc.Imo, space is simply infinite boundless area in which all forces and things exist. Thus the universe is infinite so far as time and size, having no dimensions. Dimensions apply only to things in the space/area of the universe.The BBUH necessitates a supreme omnipotent designer; yes. that's magical but the most logical of the two magicals.So called Biblical evolutionist BBists as well as YUC (Young Universe Creationists all have major biggie problems:1. The Biblical god, Jehovah, is Biblically eternal/infinite. That can't be possible in any temporal universe hypothesis or theory since, as I've documented, Jehovah has a certain dwelling place in the heavens.
2. There being no outside of eliminates the notion as some have posited in the past that somehow God exists outside of the universe.Scientific Conclusion (for theists and deists): The Universe is either infinite or their god/gods are temporal.Call it magic but I maintain that the the existence of an infinite omnipotent designer creator would always have more energy than his creation. Yes it would magically comprise a perpetual motion machine, if you will. After all, imo, extensive evidence exists relative the likelihood of higher dimensions of intelligence in the universe than we have on earth as they are manifested on earth, like other forces unseen by the naked eye, both the good and the evil realm. All human cultures of history have acknowledged that in one way or another.Imo, the multipresent spirit of God, the Holy Spirit receives energy from emmited light and other forces etc as well as expending energy where desired by God. This is evidenced by the rest day Sabbath which God applied to himself and to intelligent creatures. When Jesus healed the woman who secretly touched his garment from the crowd he said that virtue/energy had been expended from him when healing was effected upon the woman who had exercised faith.All creation praises God/Jehovah except the evil. Perhaps that moves energy as well. I don't know. As in all POVs there's the unknowns.You people require all the answers from ID creationist, but consider all of your significant unknowns as trivial. How about some balance? Edited by Buzsaw, : as indicated Edited by Buzsaw, : As noted in contextEdited by Buzsaw, : Update message title.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Straggler writes:

quote:

---

In this version all the sections of the OT that the author finds distasteful are abondoned and all the parts that rely on the miraculous are also ommitted because they are incompatible with the philosophical bias of the author. We are left with a short story about a nice bloke called Jesus who tells us we should love each other.

---

That'd be the Jefferson Bible. He excised all miraculous actions of Jesus since he wasn't too keen on it.This is why all those reactionary conservatives who keep whining about "original intent" and how "the Founders were Christian" will never understand: The Founders were not theists the way they are. It was the Englightenment. The Clockwork Universe was the paradigm of the day. God set the universe in motion and then stepped aside to let it run.

---

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.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

(abe: You BBists often apply a bogus 2D analogy)

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Do you seriously not understand the point? We use a 2-D analogy because it is simple to visualize: The surface of a balloon is a two-dimensional surface. It is unbounded, finite, and has no center. Nobody is saying that the universe is simply a three-dimensional version of a balloon. It is more complex than that. The only point of the analogy is to show you that there are geometries that allow for an unbounded, finite, uncentered object to expand.The universe's geometry is unbounded, finite, and expands.

quote:

---

having both an outside of and a before. Why (abe: do you do this)?

---

I call bullshit.I don't know anybody who claims that the universe has an "outside" or a "before." In fact, I find all those who advocate for science to say that the universe does not have an outside nor does it have a "before."Names and quotes in complete context, Buzsaw.Again, do not confuse the example being shown with the actual universe. It is merely there to show you proof of concept: A geometric space this is unbounded, finite, uncentered, and expanding.

quote:

---

Your theory satisfies none of the LOTs. Why?
1. Because your source of energy was part and parcel of spacetime at T=0.

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.Your sentence is literally gibberish.

quote:

---

2. Every temporal system must have a zero to be temporal.

---

This contradicts your original claim. From Message 1: The universe is a temporal system. Therefore, according to you, it "must have a zero." But you just said it is eternal.Which is it?

quote:

---

3. There was no mechanism for equilibrium at all since there was allegedly no outside of and no before the expansion.

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.Your sentence is literally gibberish."Equilibrium" is not a mechanism. Equilibrium is a state. All physical processes move toward equilibrium and all reach it in a finite time. Therefore, if the universe is eternal, it necessarily would have reached equilibrium infinitely long before now. Since the universe is not at equilibrium, you are in direct violation of the second law.

quote:

---

4. There was only expansion; nothing to equalize; no A and B; just expansion, violating 2LoT.

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.Your sentence is literally gibberish.The inflation of the universe was not a thermodynamic action. It was a property of space, itself.

quote:

---

5. Having no outside of and no before, your temporal system had no place to have happened and no time to have happened, violating all science as well as common sense and logic.

---

Incorrect. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you: The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space. It did not happen in time. It created time. The only reason you think it is a violation of science and logic is because you literally do not know what the science and logic say.As I have repeatedly asked of you: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?Since we seem to have ways of accomodating the inflation of the universe, ways that can be tested, why do you keep insisting that they are illogical and irrefutable?

quote:

---

6. Space, energy, matter and time all had to have just magically popped into existence as properties of space at alleged T=0, contrary to 1LoT.

---

Incorrect. The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space. The Big Bang did not happen in time. It created time. The creation of the universe was not a thermodynamic event.Are you seriously claiming that physicists would have developed a theory of cosmogenesis that directly violates physics and not notice? That people who have to go through years of training in thermodynamics would suddenly forget all that work?As I have repeatedly asked of you: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?Since we seem to have ways of accomodating the inflation of the universe, ways that can be tested, why do you keep insisting that they are illogical and irrefutable?

quote:

---

7. IMO, your alleged theory of temporal expansion, having, by necessity to have had a zero factor is grossly more magical than my eternal energy designer unbounded space hypothesis, no matter how much QM, math, etc you apply to it.

---

Your opinion is irrelevant. It's your math that matters.When was the last time you provided any mathematical analysis of not only your claims but also of the ones you are railing against?As I have repeatedly asked of you: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?Since we seem to have ways of accomodating the inflation of the universe, ways that can be tested, why do you keep insisting that they are illogical and irrefutable?

---

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.

quote:

---

abe: You BBists often apply a bogus 2D analogy) having both an outside of and a before. Why (abe: do you do this)? Because there is no possible bonafide model for your theory of no outside of or before.

---

Those who do, do have valid models. Or are doing so for illustrative purposes (using a perspective that cannot exist only to explain).

quote:

---

Your theory satisfies none of the LOTs. Why?
1. Because your source of energy was part and parcel of spacetime at T=0.
2. Every temporal system must have a zero to be temporal.
3. There was no mechanism for equilibrium at all since there was allegedly no outside of and no before the expansion.
4. There was only expansion; nothing to equalize; no A and B; just expansion, violating 2LoT.
5. Having no outside of and no before, your temporal system had no place to have happened and no time to have happened, violating all science as well as common sense and logic.
6. Space, energy, matter and time all had to have just magically popped into existence as properties of space at alleged T=0, contrary to 1LoT.
7. IMO, your alleged theory of temporal expansion, having, by necessity to have had a zero factor is grossly more magical than my eternal energy designer unbounded space hypothesis, no matter how much QM, math, etc you apply to it.

---

1) So far as I can understand it indicates that the model is in agreement with 1LoT.2) makes no sense (in fact it seems to assert that your "eternal " universe must be wrong).3) Makes no sense (in fact it seems to assert that the laws of thermodynamics cannot apply to closed systems),4) Seems to be a crazy misrepresentation5) is nonsensical (apparently denying that time can exist)6) directly contradicts 1) AND assumes that there must be a time prior to T=07) Your opinion of something you clearly don't understand in the slightest is clearly worthless.

quote:

---

So called Biblical evolutionist BBists as well as YUC (Young Universe Creationists all have major biggie problems:

​

1. The Biblical god, Jehovah, is Biblically eternal/infinite. That can't be possible in any temporal universe hypothesis or theory since, as I've documented, Jehovah has a certain dwelling place in the heavens.
2. There being no outside of eliminates the notion as some have posited in the past that somehow God exists outside of the universe.

---

Since you're the one raising nonsensical objections to science because you believe that it contradicts your beliefs I'd say that you're the one with the problem

Buzsaw, help us out here.Derive from first principles the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's clear that what I think the Second Law states and what you think it states are very different. I've already derived it from first principles here: Message 64.Please help us out by writing up your own description of the derivation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics from first principles.

---

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.

I don't know how good a yardstick I am, but I couldn't derive 2LOT from first principles, either, and I don't think the request is reasonable. A more reasonable request would be to ask that the principles of 2LOT be understood.Edited by Admin, : Grammer.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Twice now, assuming that Spacial Expansionist Theory (SET) was in actuality Buzsaw’s Straw Man BB (BSMBB), which includes 0T10^-43 and a partridge in a pear tree, I have written that I could not know the rules of SET because Buzsaw made it up. Did he? Or is this a legitimate theory ” even accounting for the variant spelling of spatial ” I simply haven’t heard of; or an alternate name for the standard BB; or do we assume it to mean the BB model ?Would someone please educate me?

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Your analogy obfuscates and deceives, having neither an outside of or before which a balloon has. It has an outside source of energy to effect it's expansion and sets up an illusionary model for advancing the notion that space has properties capable of expansion and curvature. All the more reason to consider your analogy as bogus. I figured you could figure that out all by yourself.All energy and matter observed today once allegedly compacted as properties of a submicroscopic speck of space beginning at T=0 having no outside of or before contrary to all LoTs of science. Where did I say my eternal system had to have a zero? I said your temporal system must have a zero.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Admin responds to me:

quote:

---

I don't know how good a yardstick I am, but I couldn't derive 2LOT from first principles, either, and I don't think the request is reasonable. A more reasonable request would be to ask that the principles of 2LOT be understood.

---

But that's just it: He's not demonstrating that he understands them. Since it is clear that my understanding of them is vastly different from his, we have to go back a level and explain what we mean by them. Pithy statements are pretty, but unless you understand the basis for why we use them, you will only go astray.What does "There are no perfect engines" mean? What does "There are no perfect refrigerators" mean? Even something more basic, "Entropy cannot decrease": What does that mean? That requires an understanding of what "entropy" is, so all we've managed to do is push the question back one level.So far, all we have had out of Buzsaw is bare assertion: "This doesn't violate the second law." No discussion as to why, because that would require actually discussing what the second law says. In my responses to him, I haven't brought up a single equation. I've simply pointed out that the claim that an eternal universe would necessarily require that the universe be at equilibrium since one of the consequences of the second law (in combination with the first) is that all physical processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time.He has yet to respond to that. So without any explanation as to why this isn't a violation of what we know the second law demands, then perhaps he would be so kind as to tell us what he thinks the second law says so that we can determine why it isn't a violation on our own.Again, nothing but bare assertion: "God does perfect work and reabsorbs all energy perfectly." No discussion as to how, because that would require actually discussing what the second law says. In my responses to him, I haven't brought up a single equation. I've simply pointed out that the claim that god can perfectly convert energy to work and work to energy necessarily violates the second law since the second law directly indicates that there are no perfect engines or refrigerators. That's why I've asked him to describe what would happen if we hooked up his engine to a refrigerator: To get him to describe the action (the transfer of heat from low to high with no expenditure of work) and thus show that it is a direct violation of the second law.He has yet to respond to that. So without any explanation as to why this isn't a violation of what we know the second law demands, then perhaps he would be so kind as to tell us what he thinks the second law says so that we can determine why it isn't a violation on our own.I'm trying to get him to talk, to explain where he finds justification for his claims, to put it in context of a larger field of physics. By letting him simply repeat his bare assertions, we don't get anywhere.And for him to claim that "nobody has yet to refute it" is a...well, I'm not allowed to use that word here. Let's just say that the disingenuousness involved would require a backhoe to dig out of.So let him help us out. When he says, "This doesn't violate the second law," what does that mean? What does he mean by "second law"? Start from scratch and tell us what that means. We're not getting anywhere. We've spent 140 posts waiting for him to directly respond to points that were made in the first 10.Edited by Rrhain, : Grammatical error corrected.Edited by Rrhain, : Yet another grammar fix.

---

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.

Hear, hear!

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you seriously not understand the point? We use a 2-D analogy because it is simple to visualize: The surface of a balloon is a two-dimensional surface. It is unbounded, finite, and has no center. Nobody is saying that the universe is simply a three-dimensional version of a balloon. It is more complex than that. The only point of the analogy is to show you that there are geometries that allow for an unbounded, finite, uncentered object to expand.

---

​

Your analogy obfuscates and deceives, having neither an outside of or before which a balloon has.

---

IamJoseph? Is that you? We're not talking about the balloon. We're talking about the SURFACE of the balloon. The SURFACE of a balloon has no "inside" or "outside" because it has only two dimensions. And yet, the SURFACE of the balloon is capable of expanding, has no center, has no boundary, and is finite.

quote:

---

It has an outside source of energy to effect it's expansion

---

So? The point of the analogy is not to talk about the mechanism by which the space expands. It is simply to point out that the geometry is possible. It is merely to show proof of concept. The geometry of the universe is complicated. The geometry of the SURFACE of a balloon is more easily grasped. The specifics by which the SURFACE of a balloon expands will be different from the specifics by which the universe expands.That's why we do experiments in cosmology. The inflation of the universe was not caused by energy but rather by the physical property of space, itself. When we have a piston of compressed gas and we remove weight from the top, the volume expands, but no energy has been added to the system: The gas simply expands due to the physical property of gas under pressure.Similarly, the expansion of the universe is not driven by energy. That's why we call whatever is causing it "dark energy." It is not the same thing as what we can measure as energy.Now, for the umpteenth time: What do you think of the Turok-Hawking instanton?

quote:

---

sets up an illusionary model for advancing the notion that space has properties capable of expansion and curvature.

---

Ahem, for the umpteenth time, we can measure the expansion of the universe. What do you think the red-shift is?And we can measure the curvature of space. What do you think Einstein was talking about with general relativity? One of the predictions of GR is that large gravitic fields will curve space. Note, this prediction was made in 1916. In 1919, there happened to be a total eclipse of the sun. This would make for a perfect test of GR. According to GR, the gravitational field of the sun should bend light around it: A star that was physically behind the sun would appear to be off to the side.The Hubble telescope has shown even more dramatic effects. They're called "Einstein Rings" and the result from the alignment of a distant star or galaxy behind a massive object from the point of view of the earth. Here's a picture of a double ring: Two objects behind the massive one, forming two rings:Are you saying this picture was faked?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't know anybody who claims that the universe has an "outside" or a "before." In fact, I find all those who advocate for science to say that the universe does not have an outside nor does it have a "before."

---

​

All the more reason to consider your analogy as bogus.

---

IamJoseph? Is that you? We're talking about the SURFACE of a balloon. It doesn't have an "outside."And whether or not it has a "before" is irrelevant. The balloon is there to show a point about geometry, not time.

quote:

---

All energy and matter observed today once allegedly compacted as properties of a submicroscopic speck of space beginning at T=0

---

Says who? Nobody who advocates the Big Bang says this. Where did you get this from?Names, dates, full quotations in complete context, please.The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space. The Big Bang did not happen in time. It created time. The universe did not inflate due to energy. It does not expand due to energy. Where do you get this silly notion that anybody thinks it does?For the umpteenth time: What do you think of the Turok-Hawking instanton?

quote:

---

having no outside of or before contrary to all LoTs of science.

---

Bare assertion. You need to justify this statement. What do you think the second law states?And why do you think that the inflation and expansion of the universe are thermodynamic events?For the umpteenth time: What do you think of the Turok-Hawking instanton?

quote:

---

Where did I say my eternal system had to have a zero?

---

When you said, and I quote: Therefore, as I directly stated, AND YOU QUOTED (you did read what you were quoting, yes?): But that, as I directly stated, AND YOU QUOTED (you did read what you were quoting, yes?): So respond to the points, please. Is the universe a temporal system? If not, what is it you mean by "temporal system" because you clearly don't mean the same thing by that phrase that I do.Help us out. Define your terms.

---

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.

Hi Buz, I have a problem with this statement so please help me out.Do you mean to say that the universe has always existed in the state we see it today or that it always existed in some form?In Message 145 you state: Does this mean that the universe as we see it today will always be as we see it today? Or will it be changed as Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:10-12?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 Buz, According to Big Bang Theory that space was inside of the submicroscopic speck as was the entire universe.My problem with that is there was an absence of anything or anywhere for the speck to be.If there was nowhere the speck could exist then it could not exist.That is why I like my theory better. Let me run it by you.In the eternity halls of heaven God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit was counting the angels go by as they took care of their tasks. God the Son said I am bored, I need to do something. God the Father said here take this self contained programed universe give it a kick start and then you must take care of it.God the Son took the self contained programed universe in His left hand and with His right index finger gave it a super thump. The universe expanded at a super rate for a short time due to the super thump. Then it settled down to expansion at the speed seen for billions of years.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."