Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory

Multiple problems here:

quote:

---

Some problematic factors relative to alleged absolute zero are:
1. There was no place/area in which it could have existed.

---

But the math doesn't show there needs to be a place for it to have existed. The Big Bang did not happen in space. It created space.

quote:

---

2. There was no place/area in which it could have expanded into.

---

Again, the math doesn't show there needs to be a place for it to have expanded into. The Big Bang did not expand into space. It created space.

quote:

---

3. There was no time in which it could have existed.

---

Again, the math doesn't show there needs to be a time for it to have happened in. The Big Bang did not happen in time. It created time.

quote:

---

4. It satisfies none of the LOTs.

---

Again, the math says differently. Methinks you don't really know anything about thermodynamics.Without looking up the primer I wrote, write out equational examples of the various laws of thermodynamics. Can you derive the Second Law from first principles? Can you then indicate how those laws connect to quantum cosmology? What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?There is also a problem with your own description of your version:

quote:

---

1. The universe (everything existing) including it's designer, Jehovah, the Biblical god have eternally existed, Jehovah being the omnipotent source, manager and supreme majesty of all of the universe and the energy of it.

---

This would mean that the universe should already be at thermal equilibrium. That's what "eternal" means. All thermodynamic processes achieve equilibrium within a finite amount of time. If the universe is "eternal," then it has existed for an infinite amount of time and no thermodynamic reactions would be possible.

quote:

---

Energy emits from him and sustains his omnipotency as it is emitted from him through work and as it returns to him from what he has created in manifold ways.

---

This is a direct violation of the Second Law. Can you think why? Without looking anything up, can you think why? Here, let me help you refresh your memory:Suppose I have an engine running a refrigerator. What would that mean?

quote:

---

4. What Jehovah has created in the universe tends to run down without energy to sustain/empower it as effected through varied means by Jehovah.

---

So you're saying that the Second Law is actually the hand of god?Would you mind showing us any math to actually support your claims? I am a mathematician. If I can't figure it out directly, I will speak to my astrophysicist friends.

quote:

---

5. The BBUOH satisfies all of the scientific LoT which is observed in the universe.

---

Incorrect. By the description you have proferred, it directly violates the 2LOT as well as drastically ignores what we know from quantum cosmology.Again, would you please provide us with actual math to describe your claims?

---

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:

---

1. If there was no place/area for the expansion to exist, how could it create itself?

---

Because there's nothing to stop it. You really don't understand the math and physics involved, do you? You're thinking linearly and anybody who has done any real work in physics would know that the universe is not linear. You have to stop thinking of "anywhere" and "anywhen." The universe does not function that way.

quote:

---

2. If the expansion created itself, where did the energy come from to create itself if there was no before?

---

No energy was required. Again, you don't understand the physics and math, do you? The inflation of the universe, the expansion that is still happening (and no, those two things are not the same thing), they do not require energy but are consequences of the physical structure of the universe itself.

quote:

---

3. If the above questions are unanswerable, doesn't that make the expansion unfalsifiable?

---

False assumption. The above questions are quite answerable and have, indeed, been answered.You simply haven't bothered to learn what they are.I have asked this of you previously (Message 76) and you blew me off. I would like an answer. If you bother to respond to this message, this is the only thing I truly want an answer to:Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?Cosmology, on the other hand, is well beyond high school. Have you ever done any work in quatum physics? Calculated the wave-form of an electron? Run the two-slit experiment? When was the last time you had to deal with the calculations involved in a twisted tensor?I asked you this in my message, but apparently you decided to blow it off, too:What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?The reason I ask these questions is because the questions you are asking show a severe ignorance of how physics works. This isn't something you can "common sense" your way through because the universe does not work the way you think it works.

---

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:

---

1. My understanding of 2LoT there is no time limit for the application of work to entropy.

---

Then you need to go back to school and learn about real thermodynamics. All thermodynamic processes reach equilibrium in a finite amount of time. It is impossible to construct a system that maintains its energy indefinitely.If the universe is "eternal" as you say, then it should be inert as all processes would have reached equilibrium.

quote:

---

2. My understanding of 2LoT is that work can decrease entropy.

---

Have you ever studied physics? While work can decrease entropy, it can only do so when there is a concommitant increase in entropy somewhere else.The second law of thermodynamics states that for a closed system, the change in entropy must always be non-negative. But since a great deal of reactions do not take place in a closed system, what do we do?For any reaction, there is the system in which the reaction takes place and the surroundings of the system.  Thus:delta-S_total = delta-S_sys + delta-S_surrThis means that the change in entropy of the system might be negative so long as the change in entropy of the surroundings are sufficiently positive to have a non-negative result. Or conversely, the change in entropy of the surroundings may be negative so long as the change in entropy of the system is sufficiently positive to have a non-negative result:delta-S_total = delta-S_sys + delta-S_surr >= 0I have asked this of you previously (Message 76) and you blew me off. I would like an answer. If you bother to respond to this message, this is the only thing I truly want an answer to:Have you ever had any formal training in physics? I mean real physics that you need calculus to figure out where you did the experiment of suspending a pendulum from the ceiling so you could directly calculate G (the constant of universal gravitation), where you recreated the Millikin experiment to directly measure the charge on an electron, where you measured the spectral lines of hydrogen, that sort of physics.Again, that's high school level stuff. How much physics do you know?Cosmology, on the other hand, is well beyond high school. Have you ever done any work in quatum physics? Calculated the wave-form of an electron? Run the two-slit experiment? When was the last time you had to deal with the calculations involved in a twisted tensor?I asked you this in my message, but apparently you decided to blow it off, too:What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?The reason I ask these questions is because the questions you are asking show a severe ignorance of how physics works. This isn't something you can "common sense" your way through because the universe does not work the way you think it works.

---

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:

---

The three unknowns relative to the expansion

---

Incorrect. We actually know a fair amount about it. Where is your evidence that we don't know?

quote:

---

1. The origin of neither can be falsified.

---

Incorrect. There are experiments already taking place with regard to inflation. As I have asked you directly at least twice now: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?

quote:

---

2. The means of neither can be falsified.

---

Incorrect. There are experiments already taking place with regard to inflation. As I have asked you directly at least twice now: What do you think of the Hawking-Turok instanton?

quote:

---

3. The age of neither can be falsified.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously claiming that there is no accepted age of the universe?

quote:

---

Both your science theory and my hypothesis factor in cosmos expansion.

---

Incorrect. So far, you have given absolutely no mathematical construct to describe your claims. It would be helpful if you could provide the physics involved.

quote:

---

My definition of space is unbounded area in which everything exists including particles, photons, gravity; everything.

---

You clearly don't understand what the term "unbounded" means, then. Current cosmological theory has an unbounded universe, too.It is, however, finite.You do understand the difference between finite/infinite and bounded/unbounded, yes?

quote:

---

Imo, the area/space does not have properties capable of expansion.

---

And yet, we can directly observe space expanding right in front of our eyes. What do you think the red-shift is evidence of?And we have done experiments upon the inflation of the universe, too. You do understand the difference between inflation and expansion, yes?

quote:

---

Rather via work, ID increases or decreases the distance between things in the universe according to the plans and purposes of the designer/manager of the universe.

---

That's a direct violation of known physics.If you're going to invoke magic, simply say so.Why are you continuing to ignore direct questions, Buzsaw? I have asked you quite nicely to provide the physics behind your claims. What are you waiting for?

---

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 Taz:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Buzsaw, lately you seem to have been flinging around the laws of thermodynamics a lot. Would you like to write out for us the mathematical expressions to show us just how exactly do the laws of thermodynamics support your proposed hypothesis? Feel free to spend as much time as you need looking up the laws themselves.

---

​

FYO my classroom education amounted to a high school diploma and three semesters at Bob Jones University. That does not mean my ongoing education ended there. At 72 I stop learning when my mind fails or when I die.

---

That isn't an answer. You are making statements about thermodynamics which you then immediately contradict. Therefore, we have to back up and determine just what you think the various laws of thermodynamics say. No, not the pithy phrases that people come up with (First Law = You can't win, Second Law = You can't break even, Third Law = You can't even quit the game) but the actual, physical definitions.

quote:

---

Imo the more relevant thing we need from you is for you to address the specific items which I've posed in this thread.

---

They have been addressed. So far, you've ignored them. Both PaulK and I have come up with very specific violations of your claims with regard to established physics (general relativity, expansion of the universe, second law of thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum cosmology, etc.) You've done your best to avoid them.It would help if you would actually respond to the violations of known physics your claims require.

quote:

---

If you think math is required for any particular statement of mine, please explain in detail specifically why math is required for a reasonable response to it.

---

Because if you're going to claim the universe is eternal, you're going to have to explain why things have not reached equilibrium since all physical reactions reach equilibrium in a finite time. This means you have to actually show how the equations are wrong and what they have overlooked. You can calculate reaction rates to determine how the reaction takes place. If you're going to say that they don't complete, then where in the chemistry have things broken down? What has been overlooked?Be specific.

---

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:

---

But the rest of you's theory has been shown to have an unfalsifyable origin.

---

Incorrect. What do you think the WMAP and PLANCK experiments were for?

quote:

---

By work of the omnipotent designer as I've already explained if you would bother to read it.

---

But that doesn't explain anything. It isn't a mechanism, there is no mathematical formula explaining how it happens.F'rinstance, one of the biggest issues with regard to gravity is exactly how it manages to function at a distance. Einstein's solution to this was not to simply say, "God does it." That doesn't actually explain anything. Instead, he developed a mathematical model that describes a warpage of space. Light still travels in a straight line, but gravity warps space so that what is considered "straight" doesn't look that way.

quote:

---

Blah, blah, blah is my only response to this without going back to see which I'm not inclined to do at this time.

---

You can't remember your own argument?You can't even be bothered to remember your own argument?And you expect people to take you seriously?

---

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:

---

How many of those deities told us the stars were innumerable?

---

Most of them.

quote:

---

Science has a lot of guesses.

---

Incorrect. Science says that there are a finite number, therefore they are not innumerable.

quote:

---

How many of those deities told us the universe was stretched out.

---

Most of them.

quote:

---

That is expansion.

---

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

quote:

---

How many of those deities told us the earth was going to melt with fervent heat one day.

---

A lot of them. As Robert Frost wrote:

quote:

---

How many of those deities told us there were wandering stars?

---

All of them. What do you think the word "planet" literally means?

quote:

---

How many of those deities told us there were stars that had gone dark and remained dark forever?

---

Most of them.

quote:

---

Science calls them a white dwarf.

---

Incorrect. Dwarf stars of all colors still shine...just not as brightly. Why do you think they call them "white" dwarfs? Compare that to "brown" dwarfs.

quote:

---

How many of those deities told us all the nations would be able to see dead bodies lying in the streets in Jerusalem?

---

All the ones that hold Jerusalem as an important city.

quote:

---

Science calls that technology.

---

Incorrect. Science says nothing about dead bodies in a specific city.

quote:

---

The deity Buzsaw is talking about told all those things thousands of years ago.

---

So that would be the god of Islam, right?

---

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:

---

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.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

I have never known of a Christian refering to themselves as an Xian.

---

I've known lots of them. Hie thee to an Orthodox church. You'll see it a lot. Where do you think the following symbol came from?Or this one:But then again, they're Greek. What do they know about Christianity? I mean, it isn't like Constantine created it...oh...wait...he did. Well, it's not like it's part of the Unicode character set...oh...wait...it is (character 2627)

quote:

---

X Does not = Christ.

---

You're calling the entire Orthodox church wrong? I guess I won't mention the Brotherhood of the Sepulchre, then. They use another combined symbol that isn't ☧ (often called the "labarum"): The tau-phi. It's an abbreviation of "taphos," meaning (and I'm sure we all see this coming) "sepulchre."And we better get rid of that "alpha and omega" thing because clearly the Greeks have no concept of what it means to be Christian.I mean, that one's in the Vatican and we all know the Catholics have no concept of Christianity. It isn't like it's called the "monogram of Christ"...oh...wait...it is.

quote:

---

The word ‘ appears 3 times in the Bible.

---

And what, pray tell, does that have to do with anything? The use of "X" for Christ isn't about the word "Christian." It's about the word "Christ." It was a common abbreviation for "Christ" and is still in use today.

quote:

---

The Greek letter C = Ch in english.

---

Says who? Oh, that is a common transliteration. After all, we spell the name "Christ" and not "Xrist." But like all transliterations, it is simply adopted by convention, not because god declared it to be so. Take a look at enough guide books to Greece, especially older ones, and you'll see it spelled "Cnossos" rather than "Knossos." Classical transliteration uses "C" for kappa, not "K."Is it "phyllo" dough or "filo"?

quote:

---

That would be equal to Chian, not Christian.

---

Except that wasn't the symbol that was chosen. The Greek Christians who came up with the symbol used their own language and since the romanization of Greek includes a letter that looks an awful lot like Χ, we simply used the same grapheme.

quote:

---

Putting an X in the place of Christ is only getting Christ out of the way as there is no room for him.

---

Are you seriously claiming the Orthodox don't know their own symbology?

---

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:

---

quote:

---

Incorrect. That's not what "innumerable" means.

---

​

in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary I find:
Main Entry: in·nu·mer·a·ble
Date: 14th century
: too many to be numbered

---

And since when did dictionaries become proscriptive?I notice you have completely ignored the rest of my post: Now, do you think you can come to terms with understanding the difference between a difficult task and an impossible one?Besides, that wasn't what you were talking about. Your own words: But you can number them. You can count them. It is an extremely difficult task, but difficult is not the same as impossible.Still don't remember your own words? Here they are again (Message 39): Still going to insist you weren't referring to an "infinite" amount? How is one supposed to interpret "how can they have a finite number"? Were you, perhaps, meaning "fixed"? If so, that still doesn't help your cause. Mutable numbers are still countable. The population of a country is in flux due to births, deaths, immigration, and emigration, but that hardly means you can't count the number of people in the country at any given time.

quote:

---

Now if you think the task is possible have at it.

---

I see you have confused "difficult" with "impossible" again.

---

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.