Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Going along with the theme of this thread (pulling shit out of ones ass), I'm going to make up a "theory" of my own, as well. I mean, it's not a science thread, so we do't need evidence, right?Once upon a time, there was a unicorn. Using his magic horn, the unicorn created the entire Universe we live in. He did this exactly 207 years 3 months and 4 days ago, at 3:15am. The expansion of the Universe is happening, but only becasue the unicron made it that way.And the Laws of Thermodynamics fully support my model. No, really, they do! See? All of the energy came from the unicorn, so nothing was really "created!"Oh, and all of the light from distant galaxies? The unicorn likes to play with spacetime every now and then - that's where the expansion of the Universe comes from! He bends space back and forth like a cosmic rubber band (zomg! string theory is right! I don't know anything about string theory or the math that it involves, but obviously it sounds just like the "rubber-band Universe expansion model," so it's a part of my theory, to!), so the space between all of the galaxies really was so small 207 years ago that the light reaching us now looks like it must have been a much longer time in the past.What about all of the stuff that was supposed to have happened before 207 years ago? The unicorn made it that way. He's playful, that unicorn, and he has a super-secret plan that for some reason involves not letting people have sex and making the Universe look really old. No, I can't tell you the plan. You need to have faith.Now, clearly my model has a great deal of unfalsifiability, and has absolutely no evidence in support of it other than my bare statements and this book I just wrote that details the whole thing. But the Big Bang model and the Buzzsaw's Unsurprisingly Long and Less than Stupendous Homegrown Idiot Theory (or BULLSHIT for short) have unfalisifiable parts, too! I mean, the Big Bang model doesn't even have all the answers! At least Buzz's BULLSHIT and my unicorn model answer all the questions!And for those of you who didn't quite catch on, /sarcasm.Anybody can come up with a "theory" that models the Universe as we see it, Buzz. We are all overly blessed with the ability to spew proverbial fecal matter from our mouths (or fingers as the case may be), particularly when no evidence is required, and when parsimony is a foreign concept (as seems to be the case with you in non-science threads).But when it comes down to it, Buzz, if your "model" can't hold water in the science forums (meaning you have no evidence to convince anyone who's not already a member of your proverbial choir), your apologetics are good for nothing mroe than a good laugh.Have fun starting with the conclusions and bending and twisting the evidence to fit them, Buzz. It's rather amusing for the rest of us to watch you contort principles you haven't the foggiest chance of comprehending into your pre-conceived beliefs. You're a perfect example of what science is not, in every way. You demonstrate quite dramatically why apologetics has never caused technological advancement or real greater understanding, while actual science has done so consistently since serious research using the scientific method began.Edited by Rahvin, : Altered the name of Buzz's "theory" to fit the acronym. I kan spel guud.

Which leads us to the basic purpose of all apologetics: trying really, really hard to make total bullshit sound legitimate.When you start with the conclusion and try to hammer the evidence to fit (the very definition of apologetics), you might be able to make your conclusion sound tenable, partcularly to the average Joe. But you can do the same for any fantasy you pull out of your rectum - nothing approached in this manner tends to have any relevance to reality. The method doesn't work, becasue it works equally well for known bullshit as for possible ideas.To those who honestly think that science does this, I'd like to say "go read a book." The scientific method is the antithesis of apologetics, following the evidence to a logical conclusion instead of the other way around. This has proven to be a very accurate method of exploring reality.Also: love your sig, lyx2no.

...and a few thousand deities before that, if you really want to nitpick that way, ICANT.You know full well what Bluejay is saying, and it has nothing to do with what ideas came before others.In the grand scheme of things, basically all of the ideas that came "first" from stoneage mythology have been solidly proven wrong, and with the exception of one particular mythology originating in the middle-east, you'd be forced to agree. Should we really believe the Earth is flat because that idea came first?

"Unknown" does not equal "unfalsifiable." The expansion fo teh universe is falsifiable. The state of the universe at the few moments just after T=0 is falsifiable. Every actual statement made by BBT is falsifiable. The fact that you don't even know what it says does not make it unfalsifiable. No no, Buzz. We read it. it just had nothing to do with a mechanism. You're saying "bob fixed my car." When we ask how he fixed your car, you say "through work." You haven't said anything that amounts to a mechanism that can produce falsifiable predictions. As such, you haven't proposed a hypothesis at all. You've expelled feces from the wrong orifice, that's all.

Nobody seriously believes the stars are innumerable. Too many for a human being to count? Sure. Not too many for a computer.But aside from that, it's hardly rocket science to look at the sky and say "gee whiz, there sure are a lot of stars up there. i don't think I could count them all." You're making a gigantic leap in assuming that your religious text's flowery language and poetry somehow corresponds to science. Again, you're making a huge leap in assuming that the flowery language and poetry of the Bible somehow correspond to scicne, [i]especially[/]i in light of how many things the Bible gets flat wrong. Biblical prophecies don't bear any resemblance to an actual red-giant type of event. They refer to what could conceivably be nuclear war or volcanic eruptions of meteor impacts, but not stellar expansion. Hell, the timescale is way off - I thought it was supposed to happen soon, ICANT, not in a few billion years.And once again, you're making that gigantic leap in asuming that poetry and flowery language refer to science. I'm not even sure of the passage you're referring to with this one. But then, the planets look like stars from Earth without telescopes, and they "wander." Hell the night sky rotates seasonally due to the changing perspective from Earth. Your particular religion is hardly the only group to have noticed this - there were entire belief systems arranged from observations of stellar movement.Once again you imply "the Bible knew it first." Once again, you're wrong. As usual. There are many reasons stars go dark, ICANT. Black holes would be one of them. But again, stoneage observers can notice that they can't find a given star for any number of reasons - such as the object not being an actual star at all.And besides that, you're still making that giant leap and assuming that flowery language somehow corresponds to modern science. Once again with the massive logical leaps. The authors of the Biblical texts wrote poetry and flowery language and vague references to events that can be interpreted in hundreds of different ways.You compeltely ignore that half of even what you just said is completely wrong. The stars are not innumerable, for one.But how about the "pillars of the Earth?" What about the "circle of the Earth?" What about referring to pi as being equal to 3?What about global Floods and 6-day Creationism and a 6,000-10,000-year-old Earth?In one sentence you claim that the Bible predicts science, and in the next you'll deny that the Bible has any inaccuracies. You aren't even self-consistent, ICANT. Does the Bible agree with science or not?As for how many of the thousands of other religions have made similar descriptions, I have no idea - I don't make a serious study of thousands of religion's ancient poetry, scouring flowery language for things that might bear a hint of resemblance to something in modern science. Do you?Or do you only look in your Bible for such loose connections, and disregard all others?You're using typical apologetics, ICANT, and trying to smash the evidence to fit your pre-made conclusions. That only works when you're preaching to the choir.God Bless,

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't require anything, Buzz. But a hypothesis must include a mechanism. That's what scientific models are: descriptions of an observed mechanism, including the testable predictions made by extrapolating that mechanism.Thermodynamics has nothing to do with what I said, Buzz. Note that the word "Thermodynamics" is nowhere in the text you quoted. This would be called a "red herring."Again: your BULLSHIT idea (I like my acronym better) basically consists of "goddidit."Q: How did the Universe reach it's present state?
A: "Goddidit."Similarly,Q: How did my car get fixed?
A: "Bobdidit.""Bobdidit" and "Goddidit" attribute responsibility, but don't answer the question how at all.

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.

You've been told this so many times now I don't know why we even bother. the Big Bang model does not, in any way suggest that the Universe suddenly appeared "from an asence of anything." There is no point in time at which the Unvierse does not exist."Unknown" != "nonexistent"We don't have enough data to make statements regarding the state of the Universe in Planck time. That does not mean there is an "absence of anything" at any point in time, including between T=0 and T=10^-43.How many threads have to be filled with your ignornace of physics, ICANT? The only one insisting on this strawman of the Big Bang is you, after you've been shown you are wrong more times than I have patience to count. You do not understand the Big Bang model enough to make any statement of accuracy regarding the model, even on the most basic layman's terms.

T=0 is a coordinate of time. You can't very well identify a coordinate of a dimension that doesn't exist.On a 2-dimesional graph, at X=0, does the X dimension not exist? It has to - X=0 is a coordinate of the X dimension.So we'll add basic graphs to the list of things you don't understand. You just love to make bare assersions regarding things you don't understand. This very sentence once again proves you don't know what the word "singularity" means.I'd say that we've failed to explain this to you, but after so many attempts from so many people in so many threads from so many different angles, I have to say that the only common denominator is you. Excuse me? I don't recall cavediver talking much about imaginary time. i recall you doing that, as if you follow along with Hawking's hypotheses. My understanding of physics is far beneath Hawking's level. I have a decent layman's grasp, just enough to know that you couldn't tell the actual Big Bang model from a hole int he ground. My level of knowledge is insufficient to delve into Hawking's additional hypotheses...which, you'll note, are not actually part of the Big Bang model. ...except that you don't know what they are talking about, and so you use their words in inappropriate ways that wind up making no sense or having no relevance to the topic.Let me put it this way: if a child continually insists that 2+2=3, after being told that he's wrong, after being shown that he's wrong in multiple different analogies, and after having a mathematician come in and tell him he doesn't comprehend basic math and that he's wrong...does this mean that the child is right?Becasue that's what happens with you. I'm done talking about cosmology with you, ICANT. From now on, I'll just post the word "Wrong" under each false statement you make.

A very large portion of the Bible has been directly falsified. You claim your position is falsifiable, but when the falsification i splainly presented, you simply ignore it.You're very good at ignoring posts. And discontinuities in the logical processes of your own mind.6-day Creationism, the global Flood, the entirety of the Exodus, and many other claims specifically made in the Bible have been directly falsified. Your Biblical record is an incredibly poor source to base much of anything on. Which of course means you have prescious little support. But then, you don't have a problem with contradicting observable reality, do you. Fortunately, that's not how science works. That's how religious apologetics "works." But it's not. There is just as much "evidence" in favor of Greek mythology as there is for Christian. The existence of the city of Troy clearly proves that the entire contents of the Illiad must be true, doesn't it? Your position does not contain any scientific aspects. It contains technobabble - random, half-understood words from scientific literature inserted into your Biblical fantasy to make it sound scientific. Organization is not evidence of a deity. This is an unfalisifiable bare assertion on your part; I could just as easily claim that electromagnetism is evidence for pink unicorns. The relationships of all of the various forces of the Universe is evidence that they are related, and possibly aspects of a single force. It is not in any way evidence of a deity any more than it is evidence of flying bunnies.Further, the "harmony" of systems in the Universe and on Earth is, I assume, in reference to the favorable conditions to life we see here on Earth. This is a common false assumption; where conditions are favorable, life can arise. Where conditions are not favorable, life cannot arise. Your personal incredulity gives you a sense of wonder that humanity exists on a place so favorable to our existence, but our species has adapted over millions of years specifically to this environment. The system is not so "harmonious" on Jupiter - we cannot exist there. Is the fact that the ocean is favorable to fish evidence of a deity because the fish don't live in a desert?You have no evidence whatsoever. All you have are poorly-understood and outright misused scientific terminology scattered around your posts to make them sound authentic.

So, your deity is actually a perpetual motion machine? You do realize that those violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, right? That's why they're impossible.But yet again you have failed to respond with any sort of mechanism. You claim "work" is responsible for the dissemination and recovery of energy, but you refuse to give us the form the work takes to allow your deity to function as a perpetual motion machine.Phase 1: "God"
Phase 2: UNKNOWN
Phase 3: Perpetual motionThis is analogous toPhase 1: Steal underpants
Phase 2: UNKNOWN
Phase 3: Profit!You need to fill in phase 2 with something more specific than "work," becasue "work" means literally any transfer of energy by a force. Exactly what force transfers energy with 100% efficiency and recovers all energy bled off as heat?Here's the problem, Buz: whenever work is performed, entropy increases. The energy transferred by the force through work becomes heat, which disperses until equilibrium is reached.Unfortunately, you cannot perform work with energy from an equilibrium state - work requires an energy differential. That's why, even though the temperatures we're used to are vastly higher than absolute zero, we cannot tap that heat directly to perform work. We need a heat differential to make such things as turbines spin. We could be surrounded by nearly unlimited energy and have no way to use it if the energy was completely in a state of equilibrium.You are proposing some system where your deity performs a magic kind of "work" that somehow does not increase entropy. Your half-hearted "model" involves a perpetual motion machine - a blatant violation of the laws of Thermodynamics.So, unless you can provide a mechanism by which "work" can somehow not increase entropy, you fail.

The answer is very simple:They aren't stationary. Nobody ever said they were. Except you. And you're wrong. Again.Expansion is very different from motion. The Big Bang model does not claim that the galaxies are stationary - as our proverbial balloon expands, the galaxies also move. Motion and expansion are independent.Expansion is determined by the observed fact that the farther away an object is, the more rapid it is moving away. This means the space between all objects is expanding. but it does not preclude the movement of galaxies, just as it does not preclude the movement of the Earth around the Sun.Andromeda and the Milky Way are drawing closer, and this has nothing to do with expansion. Neither does it falsify expansion - the rate of expansion is so small that it is only significant over extremely large differences. At the distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda, gravity is a far more significant factor.

For energy to "come into existence," there must be a point in time at which energy does not exist. There is no point in time where the Big Bang model suggests that energy did not exist. There was never any "nothingness" for an ex nihilo creation to occur.Creationists are the ones who propose that anything ever came from nothing. Scientists propose no such thing. A beginning is a far more clear term than "a 0." Thank you for clarifying. Irrelevant. Expansion is simply a property of space. "Outside of" is a difficult term at best when applied to the Universe. The current Big Bang model does not involve anything "outside of" the Universe. Expansion does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. At all. Expansion involves no force, and no work being done.Again, do you really thing physicists would propose a model that violates their most solidly understood constant laws? Really?Your suggestion that they would is much like suggesting that you would simultaneously uphold that the Bible is literally true, and then propose a Biblical rationalization that contradicts the story of the Flood.Isn't it far more likely that you simply don't understand either the Big Bang model or the Laws of Thermodynamics? There is no Texists. The how and why of the existence of the Unvierse is irrelevant to modeling the expansion that has been ongoing at least since T=10^-43. which is all the Big Bang claims or needs to do. Of course it does. But your claims require that there is a point where the Universe does not exist, and that it simply magically winked into existence. The Big Bang model does not claim this. The Big Bang model does not pretend to know how the Universe came into existence, as we do not have sufficient information to make claims regarding the actual origin of the Universe with any degree of accuracy. There are several competing hypotheses, all of which that I am aware of are for the moment beyond our ability to test. At this point, the Universe may simply exist and not have a true origin, or it may be the result of two branes colliding in an additional dimension, or God could have magiced it into existence, or we could all be in the Matrix. Insufficient data means "we really don't know." Your claim rests on the Big Bang claiming to know, and it does not - your claim is a strawman. Does everything require an "outside of?" If so, why? If the Universe exists in some additional set of dimensions, does that "super-Universe" also require an "outside of?" We have reached the problem of infinite regression again. We have no real data concerning anything that would suggest there is anything "outside of" the Unvierse, so assuming there is something would be a baseless assertion.Let's think of it this way, Buz. A ray is a geometric term referring to a line that has a beginning and progresses infinitely in the opposite direction. it looks like this:*-------------------------->The * signifies the lines origin, and the -> signifies that the ray continues infinitely in that direction.What point on the ray is to the left of the *?The answer is there is no point on the line to the left of the origin point. It's a meaningless question.The word "before" requires an earlier point in time. If time is like our ray, you can have a "before" for any point on the ray...except for the origin point. There is no point in time earlier than the first point in time, exactly as there is no point farther left than the leftmost point on our ray.We could also use a globe as an analogy to the Universe. We've done this before for ICANT, but we can do it again for you.The North-South axis of the globe is analogous to time in this example, and the circumference of the globe is analogous to the spacial dimensions of length, width, and height. The North pole is equivalent to T=0; we don't know anything at all about this spot, but from a millimeter farther South onward to the equator (analogous to the present), we have a pretty good idea of what's going on.Since the North Pole is T=0, and the North-South axis is time, asking "what is before T=0" is as meaningless as asking "what is North of the North Pole?" The question simply doesn't make sense for this structure.The globe analogy is actually how I envision the Universe as modeled by the Big Bang, since I'm not a physicist and I don't know all of the math to give myself a better comprehension.The biggest obstacle to understanding the model is time - we experience time much differently than the way we experience the spacial dimensions, but the truth is that time is just another dimension, exactly like the other three. Our experience of time is an illusion created by the fact that our brain processes require different points in time to function. Look at it like a progress bar for a song. As the progress bar moves to the right, the song plays. The whole song is right there, all at once, but the song only plays as the progress bar moves. Likewise, even though all of time is just another dimension like length or width, our experiences only play out as time moves from past to future, in the direction of increasing entropy.This means that the Universe exists as a particular shape. The expansion of the universe is another illusion - the spacial dimensions are simply larger at different points of time, just as the circumference of the globe is larger at different points on the North-South axis. Our experience of time makes it look like space is expanding (and it is from our point of view), but mathematically or from the perspective of an "outside" observer (not suggesting that an outside exists, simply trying to make it easier to visualize), the Universe simply has a specific structure. That's all. This structure is not necessarily caused by any sort of "force," it's simply an illusion caused by our perception of time. The expansion is independant of motion and thermodynamic processes, just as the motion of ants on a balloon is independant of the expansion of the balloon as it's blown up.There is no point in time where the Universe does not exist, because time is part of the Universe. This is exactly like how there is no point along the North-South axis of a globe where the globe does not exist, becasue the North-South axis is part of the globe. For a violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics to occur, the globe would need to have a "nothingness" spot - a place along the North-South axis where there is no globe, so that the globe suddenly exists where it did not before. There is no such place on a globe, just as there is no such point in time for the Universe - the Universe exists at every single point in time in one state or another, and it must because time itself is simply a feature of the Universe.The globe (our Universe) may have been Created. If so, it was Created as an entire, self-contained entity, with past, present, and future all Created at once from outside of time. This may be due to any number of natural processes, it may be due to any number of gods, or the Universe could simply exist with no origin whatsoever - we simply don't know. We have insufficient data to comment, and so any speculation is exactly that - speculation.Nothing in this model contradicts the Laws of Thermodynamics. At no point does entropy decrease over the entire closed system (only in localized regions that still add up to an overall increase in entropy). At no point is there ever a "nothing" to have something spring out of. At no point is matter or energy ever created or destroyed - they simply change states. If there was a Creation ex nihilo of the Universe from "outside" of the Universe, well, the Laws of Thermodynamics don't really apply, since the Laws of Thermodynamics are also properties of the Universe, and may or may not apply to anything that may or may not exist "outside" be it a deity or anything else. Again, insuficient data means all comments regarding "outside" the Universe are bare speculation, and there is currently no objective reason to consider that an "outside" exists at all.

You know, I love story time so much, I'm going to tell another story. Don't worry, this one is better than the unicorn one. This time, I even have a bunch of old poetry to base my story on!Once upon a time, there were two worlds: Muspelheim and Niflheim, the world of Fire and the world of Ice.When the warm air of Muspelheim hit the cold air of Niflheim, the great giant Ymir and the icy cow Audhumla were created. Ymir's foot bred a son and a man and a woman emerged from his armpits. This is how the giants came to be.(See? Much more believeable than that silly "abiogenesis" stuff! We should always believe in whatever makes the most sense to us - if you need to think hard or study to understand something, it can't possibly be true amirite?)The heat from Muspelheim was so great that it caused Ymir to sweat as he slept, and eventually he sweated out the fire giant Surtr. When he woke up, he was thirsty, so he drank some of Audhumla's milk (I'll bet that milk was always nice and cold, since she was an ice cow!). While he drank, the great cow licked at a salt rock. After several days of this, a man emerged from the salt rock, and together with a female giant this man fathered Bor, who would eventually father three gods: Odin, Vili and Ve.When the trhee gods became strong enough, they killed Ymir. His blood Flooded the whole world, killing all but two of the giants (who would repopulate the species). This is where those silly Christians get their Flood myth - it wasn't really a flood of water, it was just a half-remembered myth from before Midgard (Earth) was created, when the blood of Ymir killed all of the other giants. The gods then used Ymir's flesh to make the soil of the other worlds. They used his blood to make the oceans and rivers, his bones for stone, his brains for the clouds, and his skull for the heavens.One day as Odin, Ve and Vili were walking, they came across two tree trunks, which they transformed into the shape of human beings. Odin gave them life, Vili gave them mind and Ve gave them the ability to hear, see, and speak. The gods named them Ask and Embla, and created Midgard (Earth) for them. They then used Ymir's eyelashes to create a gigantic fence to keep the giants out.(See? It makes a lot more sense - we come from tree trunks, not monkeys or dirt! And Ymir's eyelashes are the reason we don't ever see the giants!)Now, eventually the gods had children as well, and as I said earlier, the giants repopulated. I won't recount all of the Norse religion here, but there is a bit more relevant to this topic:Loki.Loki is the god of trickery, and oh boy does he love to lie and cheat and play pranks. I swear, he's hilarious, as long as you aren't his target anyway. If you are, well, Odin help you. Though he probably won't.Anyway, Loki is the reason science disagrees with all of this stuff. In fact, Loki wrote the Bible. Yep, everything Buz and ICANT and teh other Christians believe is just a giant prank of Loki's. See? I told you he was funny; I mean, convincing a third of the planet's population that an invisible man in the sky created everything in six days when everyone knows Midgard is only one of the worlds and is made from Ymir's carcass? Loki's a laugh a minute! Burning bush? Loki. Exodus? He wanted to make Pharaoh look like an idiot, and when he got tired of him, he let him drown.He's not finished, though. He's got scientists all convinced in this "evolution" hogwash, and that stars are far away, and that you can go into space without colliding with Ymir's skull. Isn't he funny? He keeps using his magic to fool us, that tricky Loki!He also made the Earth look really, really old, and put dinosaur bones in there, and he's responsible for every last one of IamJosephs posts here on the forum. He's the best prankster there ever was, which makes sense since he's teh god of trickery.Of course this means those silly "Laws of Thermodynamics" things are irrelevant - they're just Loki trying to confuse us again.Doesn't this story make so much more sense than Buz's lunatic mishmash of Loki's various pranks? I mean, sure it's hilariously funny, and I'll bet Loki even planned for Buz to not even understand what he's talking about (Loki works on multiple levels at once, and the fact that it's utterly hilarious and makes Buz look like a total fool proves it was Loki).See, the Norse story doesn't violate the Laws of Thermodynamics because those aren't even real. And all of the other contradictions with observed evidence are just pranks from Loki! Doesn't it make so much more sense when you have all of the true answers at first, and then interpret the evidence accordingly? It's so much easier, and I feel so much better than everyone else because I know the Truth and they're all just being tricked by Loki! I don't even need to understand what anyone else is saying - I already know everything there is to know, and the rest is just a prank!

As you have been repeatedly told, there is no point in time in the Big Bang model that has an absence of "energy, space, forces or matter." There never was nothing. Everything that exists has existed at every point in time in one state or another at every single point of time. You can't "create" something if that something always existed (note that "always existed" means "existed at all points of time;" time being a finite dimension means I am not discussing anything "eternal").You've been told this multiple times. Why are you being dishonest? The Big Bang model contradicts none of the lws of Thermodynamics. The fact that you are incapable of comprehending either the Big Bang model or the Laws of Thermodynamics is irrelevant.You're wrong, Buz. As usual, you're talking out of the wrong orifice about topics you don't understand. Your "model," if it can be called such, is nothing more than a gigantic perpetual motion machine - which is a direct violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. You've been told this, as well.So at what point are you doing to stop covering your ears and repeating the same refuted arguments over and over again? Or is this actually the "Buzsaw Broken Record Model?"

quote:

---

Buz: 2+2=5

​

Everyone else: No, it doesn't. See, look, 2+2=4.

​

Buz: Your model doesn't agree with the basic principles of mathematics. mine does. 2+2=5

​

Everyone else: What? No, you have that backwards. Your ideo conflicts with mathematics. See, we'll show you an example by adding 2 apples to 2 apples. See, you can count them, now there's 4. 2+2=4.

​

Buz: Your model doesn't agree with the basic principles of mathematics for extremely large values of 2. mine does. 2+2=5

​

Everyone else: ...you aren't making snese. Nobody ever said anything about "extremely large values of 2." 2+2=4, it's a fact. Your idea is nonsensical. How do you rationalize your idea with the example of the 4 apples? You never responded to that.

​

Buz: Your model doesn't agree with the basic principles of mathematics for extremely large values of 2. mine does. 2+2=5

---

Rinse and repeat.