Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

I don't think this is very fair to Buzsaw: your acronym is missing an "H." Seriously now, the only difficulty that I come to with Buzz's theory is that most of it doesn't actually say anything. Reading each point, the bottom line is "Jehovah does something to make this point occur." It doesn't actually say what the "something" is. In order for it to count as a theory, it's got to propose the "something."So, for instance: Where you say "through varied means," I could insert, "through the laws of thermodynamics," and it wouldn't conflict with your theory. A quantum physicist could likely insert the exact processes as currently understood by science, and it still wouldn't conflict with your theory. So, your "theory" does not change our understanding of anything, except that you have attributed what we already knew to Jehovah.I have no problems with your attributing it to Jehovah, as long as you don't argue that the observable processes are not happening.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Hello, ICANT. All the knowledgeable, smart people have failed to make you understand what a singularity is and where it comes from, so I will make one last attempt, from my cosmological dumbness, to explain it in a simple way."Singularity" means "current math doesn't work." Let's say, for instance, that we are cavemen, and we just figured out how to do addition. This model worked great for determining the number of rabbits each hunter in our tribe caught during the day. If Ug caught one rabbit in the morning, the next rabbit he caught would make his total number of rabbits two.However, when the bully, Grog, took away one of Ug's rabbits, our addition model failed to predict the number of rabbits Ug would have afterward. Try as we might, we could not find a situation under which our addition model would allow the number of rabbits to decrease. Since we did not know how to do subtraction, we were unsuccessful at explaining the phenomenon to Ug. We had to throw our hands up in the air and say, "Sorry, Ug: our model doesn't explain this."So, as soon as Ug starts losing rabbits, our addition model reaches a singularity: it can no longer predict the number of rabbits Ug will have. Essentially, the inability of a certain model to explain a phenomenon is called a "singularity."BB reaches a singularity beyond T=10^-43. This means, BB theory cannot explain anything that happened before T=10^-43. In like manner, evolutionary theory reaches a singularity before the point where the first organism arose (however, unlike BB theory, ToE scientists haven't actually established when we reach that point). Until there is life, ToE doesn't explain what's happening.So, roughly speaking, "singularity" = "inability for a theory to explain a phenomenon." Got it?Edited by Bluejay, : Added the greeting.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

For some inexplicable and unfalsifiable reason, my computer is unwilling to open the PDF file you provided, so I have not been able to read it (reading it probably wouldn't help my comprehension all that much, anyway, though). If he is, I'm not the one who could prove it. I'm only explaining it as I've understood it from Son Goku and Cavediver and company. My understanding is that there are many different types of things called "singularities." I've heard of spacetime singularities (that sounds like that's what Hawking is talking about), which result from curvatures of spacetime and the like, but I've never heard it explained that a spacetime singularity is the condition of the universe at T=0. I've only heard it described as mathematicals giving funky answers, e.g. infinite mass at a single point, which prevents us from using our models to get accurate answers. Well, it shouldn't. What it should tell you is that there isn't a way for us to know what's there, because the math gives weird answers.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

In mathematics, "no answer" is weird. Generally it means either "undefined" or "infinite."I think that's the general point.And, the PDF problem is just a settings issue on my bug-ridden, new computer. It has come up many times.But, I don't think we should expend another thread talking about this.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

The word "finite" refers to a period, not an instant. If you have a period of time that goes from time A to time B, that time period is considered finite if A does not equal B (if they were equal, the time elapsed would be zero, which is non-finite), and if neither A nor B is equal to infinite. Note that this does not preclude either A or B (AbE: or any point in between) from being zero. This has been explained to you a billion flippin' times, ICANT. Science doesn't have a "faith" option. The options are "here's a theory (or at least, a hypothesis)" or "no comment." And, "no comment" literally means "nothing": no theory, no hypothesis, no belief, no faith, NOTHING! Granted. But, either way, Big Bang Theory still works after T=10^-43. Until we find some theory that can get at that first Planck epoch, our answer for that is "no comment." So you're welcome to insert your God in this Gap (that is, until a mechanism or theory is developed), but doing so in no way refutes the Big Bang Theory, and your continual assertions that we have faith in our view of the Planck epoch are still incorrect (because we have no view of the Planck epoch yet).Edited by Bluejay, : dBCodes issues and one clarification

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.