Summations Only

The trouble is Buz is that you are arguing for a scientific world view based on your specific fundamentalist beliefs. It isn't a question of science. From a God perspective why does it matter how God did it? I look at the thought that we evolved from a lifeless chaotic soup into what we experience today and I think "wow", what a creative mind that it took to conceive of all of this.Look at what Paul said in Romans. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. " We are called as a theological undertaking to explore and understand creation. Science came into existence largely because early scientists believed in created order and so discerned that we could learn the great truths of the created order.As a Christian I see our scientists as those who are helping all of mankind to understand the nature and the mind of God. They are our allies in this natural theology. Sure they will get it wrong sometimes but it is also a field that is self-correcting. If your views are correct science will eventually come to that conclusion but it won't be based on a misreading of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Nothing you're blithering about has anything to do with the Big Bang, you know that, don't you?

It's funny how these "dumbed down sheeple" think the same thing as the smartest scientists on the planet. It's almost as though disagreeing with you isn't the same as being dumb. Indeed, it's almost as though disagreeing with you is what smart, well-educated people do.Incidentally, I have told you before --- the word is tenets, not tennants.A tenet is an axiom, doctrine, or belief.
A tenant is someone who owns or leases a property.
And "tennant" is a word you've made up.Perhaps before you lecture the rest of us on logic, or indeed on how stupid we are, you could learn the basic vocabulary of the subject about which you wish to bloviate.

Psychoanalysis of the opposing side is not necessary. Let us take a good piece of solid evidence.There is far more Helium than Deuterium in certain collections of matter free of stellar contamination. The Big Bang model says that this material is left over from before the first stars formed and the Big Bang model predicts the that there must be more Helium than Deuterium in this pre-Stellar matter. In fact the Big Bang model can't be tuned to avoid this prediction, it provides one simple way to falsify the model. However the model predicts the correct result.So, there is far more Helium than Deuterium in certain collections of matter free of stellar contamination, why is this so in your model/opinion?

The dude has just told you all that he knows about the BB models. Do you think you are going to be able to walk said man through tensor calculus?In other posts he details his complete and utter disdain for anybody who has learned more or taught more science than he knows. In his mind, his own ignorance of geology, physics, biology, and all things scientific is evidence of his superiority to you. Surely you've seen those posts yourself.Why would anyone give a rip what this fool thinks? As one person has already put it, the man is a parody of himself.This thread is proceeding in a similar way to that thread on population models, where Buz suggested that some population model reflected reality better than those models based on humans having existed for hundreds of thousands of years.In the end, Buz presented absolutely no math and no basis for making any comparisons. In fact, he admitted that he was in no way capable of evaluating mathematical population models. Has he suggested any method of determining compatibility with the laws of thermodynamics other than his own personal preferences?Not that I can see.

It might be interesting to try........Buz's idea of a "model" seems to be rather literal. He seems to want some sort of mini 4D inflate-at-will demonstration model that is like the balloon analogy but actually representative of the BB model. He seems to think that the absence of such a thing, and the reliance on inadequate balloon analogies, somehow demonstrates the "unrealness" of the Big Bang model and the "obfuscation of reality" mathemetical physicists are trying to bamboozle us all with.But I am more than aware of Buz's incomprehensions. Buzsaw Biblical Universe Origin Hypothesis vs Singularity Universe Origin Theory and The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread are just two examples of long past threads where I (and many others) have repeatedly bashed our heads against brick walls as we try to illuminate Buz at to the nature of cosmological models.I guess we just can't help ourselves but keep trying.......

Your analogy is a strawman. A model depicting the BB and zero event must be compatible with the observable basic laws of science. There is no such model for the above events whereas no model is necessary as evidence that the discovery and production of the GPS system happened. LOL, nobody has been capable of observing a genesis of the Universe. Scientists can only theorize their pre-conceived beliefs.There is ample supportive corroborating evidence that such a supernatural entity exists and the 2nd law does not necessarily rule out the possibility of such an entity effecting decreased entropy via work.BB advocates assume uniformity in that things in the observable Universe are expanding. There is no model to show that that has been so from the beginning of space and time in the alleged zero event.OTO there are models depicting things expanding and contracting via intelligently designed work.

The difficulty here is that you do not understand the basic laws of science.You have had (to be said in voice of Cmdnt Lassaired) many, many, people try to explain these basic laws and still you seem unable to understand what is being told to you. Inflation cosmology. But you wont' understand that because you haven't, yet. You do not know the difference between 'model' and assertion; as this statement points out.Edited by Larni, : Crazy formatting.

Hello Buz. Let's take this one step at a time bearing in mind the the thread title: "Which More 3LoT Compatible, Cavediver's Temp.Non-ID Or Buzsaw's Infinite ID Universe" Buz do you understand and accept that for an eternal universe to not be in a state of maximum entropy this supernatural entity you are citing as the "manager" of energy must be acting to decrease the overall entropy of the universe?Do you accept or dispute this?

Larni, this response is your same ole substance-less type, trying to stuff me into your own limited secularistic ideological mindset regarding the workings of the laws of science.I've shown why your renditions of the LoTs are incompatible to these basic laws of science, beginning with the first law. This typical response of yours and others fail to falsify my allegations. I do understand enough of it to know better. It's not your false charge that I don't understand it. It's that I don't buy into what goes counter to the laws of science, as you sheeple have been indoctrinated into. You know, Larni, that shoe can fit on the feet any and all of us here, depending on ideology. That's why Percy originally, I say originally named this cite. EvC, i.e. evolution vs creationism.Someone wisely said something like, "Be sure the fool you're fooling with is a fool before fooling with a fool."

No, Straggler, that is not my position. I've said it before and I will repeat it. This is why Jehovah, the entity, as per the Genesis record rested after the work he had done.That's why Jesus, after healing the woman with the issue of blood secretly touched his garment for healing, said, "Who touched me? I perceive that virtue/energy came from me." Jesus, the son of Jehovah, who consistently performed many supernatural miracles during his ministry, regularly rested.I've explained in other threads that likely there is a give and take of energy from the source of energy, the entity, and that which is being managed in the Universe. Heat and light are likely factors in this.Of course, as is the case in all scientific hypotheses & theories, there are knowns from which to hypothesise and to research. There are also unknowns to be researched, which must be corroborated by the knowns, so as to warrant any given hypothesis.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does the total amount of energy in the universe increase, decrease or remain constant?Does your supernatural manager of energy act to reverse the total entropy in your eternal universe or does entropy always increase in your eternal universe model?

To answer both questions, the total (I say total) amount remains constant, the managing source of energy existing within Universe; the Universe itself being the only existing perpetual machine, i.e. eternal, if you will.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK. So your model is a closed thermodynamic system. The total amount of energy remains constant. Your model also stipulates that this closed system has existed for eternity.After an eternity of ever increasing entropy any such system would necessarily be in state of maximum entropy. Do you agree? Your perpetual motion machine can only be maintained by this supernatural manager of energy you have conjured up continually reversing entropy in a manner that is entirely at odds with the second law of thermodynamics.Have we ever observed any incidence of entropy reversing in the way your model demands must occur? It should be obvious to even you that your model is not compatible with the laws of thermodynamics.

No, Straggler. Of course not. Either you did not read my position carefully, as stated in Message 176 or you choose to ignore important aspects of it.

quote:

---

I've said it before and I will repeat it. This is why Jehovah, the entity, as per the Genesis record rested after the work he had done.

​

That's why Jesus, after healing the woman with the issue of blood secretly touched his garment for healing, said, "Who touched me? I perceive that virtue/energy came from me." Jesus, the son of Jehovah, who consistently performed many supernatural miracles during his ministry, regularly rested.

​

I've explained in other threads that likely there is a give and take of energy from the source of energy, the entity, and that which is being managed in the Universe. Heat and light are likely factors in this.

---

Perhaps I need to explain to you what I meant by "give and take." There are periods of increased entropy and periods of decreased entropy in many areas within the immense closed system which we call the Universe. How can you call such a system a continual reversal of entropy, when, in fact that counters what I said? There you go with the "even you" again, like so many other demeaning comments on this thread from debate counterparts, resorting to personal demeanour when unable to refute.If you read thoughtfully what I said, it should be obvious to you, Cavediver and the rest that the unique Buzsaw model is indeed compatible with the laws of thermodynamics, whereas yours, Cave-divers and the rest are not.I've stated my Buzsaw Hypothesis as per this and other threads, airing it, not only for this site, but to say that there is no creationist hypothesis as compatible with the 3 Lots and the Buzsaw Hypothesis, especially YECs who fail to explain how an eternal creator god can exist in a temporal Universe. That's why I regard it as uniquely credible, doggedly standing by it. That's why it's difficult for even physicists and cosmologists to refute it. That's why it's scientific.