Summations Only

Hiding in denial behind the dictionary, Inadequate cryptocreo? Impossible, you silly mouse. The cat has come to drag you out of your hiding hole.
The dictionary says usually not always. Which is more and which is less usual is an opinion anyway. Open to debate. The point is your cryptocreo faith is based on the same principles. Genesis is ascribing an age to time and so are you. You reckon the difference in magnitudes of the duration given by Genesis and that given by you counts for anything? 6000 is different in principle from 13.7 billion you think? Who are you fooling, Inadequate?

It's an article though, for you to understand anything it's saying you have to have an understading of the subject. I can read an article about neurology and be able to memorize what it says and regurgitate it to you giving the impression that I know what I'm talking about. But I actually wouldn't really know shit. Memorizing information or an argument against a scientific theory you read in an article does not make one smart. Any article. Yes even those. An uneduscated person in biology reading an article about the evolution of hominids is not learning anything. The only way to get to understand hominid evolutionary history is starting with a basic biology of life class taught in school.That's why a lot of the arguments here on this site from creationist are just silly, because they really don't know anything about science outside of what they've read on the internet about the sujects they're debating. It's clear to everyone else though, I can assure you that.- Oni

I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. I don't know who "the cat" is but this author knows very little about the subject. You knowing equally as much (which is to say nothing at all) would agree with such nonsense. But that's my whole point Alfi. You know it's really bothering me that I haven't been given my own nickname by you yet. WTF?- Oni

What are you insinuating here? Are you insinuating that only seminary students are capable of understanding and analysing the claims made in the scriptures and the commentaries to them? Are you hinting Latin is a must? Are you fluent in the mathemagical scripts yourself? Do you get the finer mathemagical points of Kerr or of no-hair theorem?
Listen, Constantin Antonopoulos is an expert analyser of bigbangist mathemagical nonsense. Almost as good as Bill Gaede. If you propose their awareness of the tenets of the bigbangist scriptures is somehow lacking and some finer details known to you are missing, you need to specify which are the details that are missing from their minds and are present in yours.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

If that is how you would like to describe telling the truth and using words properly, then apparently that is what I am doing. Whereas what you are doing with words is usually done only by people suffering from acute psychiatric disorders. To qualify one clause, not the whole thing. Did you notice where the word "usually" comes in the definition? Not only do I not subscribe to the usual form of creationism, I do not subscribe to creationism at all, since I do not subscribe to "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing". You are lying to me about my own opinions, how do you think that's going to work out for you? I think that the fact that I'm not a creationist should count for something in a discussion of whether or not I'm a creationist. You, of course, have a different opinion, because you are either mad, stupid, or an enormous troll.

I am sorry, Blue, but what is exactly that singularity you are claiming to be something and in what way it is different from pure nothing? In the quackademic descriptions this is a putative entity of zero dimensions and size. An entity of zero size occupies no volume and it does not take any time to occupy no volume. Does not exist if translated in plain English. The quacks add infinite density, temperature, curvature and mass to the putative characteristics of the alleged primordial monster.
Unfortunately, the morons fail to demonstrate anything other than their total ignorance of elementary physics and arithmetic. Their chutzpah is so great that they are blaming their idiocy on the laws of physics allegedly breaking at the point of their inane fantasies. The cretins fool nobody but the masses of gullible apes needed to be persuaded of the nonsense in order to finance their grants and tenures.Any mass is a finite measurement being a relation to all other objects in existence. A purported singularity may possess no mass being singular and unrelated to anything else by definition. Temperature is the density of objects in chaotic motion. Any motion requires room to occur and other objects in respect to which the objects could possibly move. Therefore the singularity may measure no temperature or density or exhibit any other properties it takes an object to exist. Singularity may not exist other than on a piece of a quackalogical paper. Sorry, Blue, to inform you about that. It is exactly that pure nothing that does not exist.

You miss the point, Inadequate. Usual here may have a historical significance only. It was usual before the advent of the modern quackademic consensus-nonsensus cosmogony. After the quackademics absorbed and adopted the ex nihilo creationism of Genesis into their big bunk cosmogony the meaning of usual somewhat changed. After the founder of the quackery teaching- Lemaitre- globally Genesis type of creationism is much less usual than its bigbangist variation. That is the situation in the modern world now. Face it, blaming it on my alleged madness, stupidity or trollage cannot change anything. You are being vocal in defending the creationist quackery, are firmly in denial about it so are listed as a crypto-creo by the feline.

The National Geographic has some embarrassingly simplistic articles.
Often what was meant to be 'scientific' was 'opinion' instead.
Even my not-particularly-scientifically-minded girlfriend used to wince at the quality of the articles.
It didn't take long for us to cancel the subscription, as the only thing it offered of any worth was the photography.

Did you ever ask yourself why everyone you knew stopped returning your calls?

So far it is me who is not returning most of your calls here. You seem to be stalking here. Going around disliking my every post, hey? Posting nothing yourself but insinuations? What's that all about? Got any arguments to defend your crypto-creo bigbangist faith? Come on, don't be shy. Out with them or get off the pot, Pandita.

So, your answer is: "No, I have never asked myself why everyone I knew stopped answering my calls".Why do you think they all abandoned you?
What explanation would you assign to their behaviour?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Constructing a legend, Pandita? So far you ain't abandoning me with your sneaky loaded questions tactics.
That's how your grant-fed peer-review if we pat each other's backs, we can quack like drakes and ducks quasi religion operates. You are illustrating it nicely. Denigrate the debunker by all means, evade the issue completely, continue slurping at the trough as if nothing happened is the recipe. Soon your time will be up with this, kiddo.

So, you don't know why they all left you and you have chosen to never ask why.
That is not the behaviour of a sane person.

Your deflecting tactics and sob-legends about the poor mad cat abandoned by all the mice for the reasons unknown to the unsuspecting feline ain't helping your crypto-creo case. Highly irrelevant diversion. The cat is from Russia, the feline knows the nitty-gritty behind the sneaky tactics well. You are in the dock here, not the moggy. Concentrate on your case. It ain't looking any too good to the judge and jury.

Blah, blah, blah, Vatican. Concentrate on your case instead of cussing the moggy vacuously.
Your sophistry is not helping you. Nothing is needed to be the source and cause of all existence because all of existence is not an effect. You assume it as such. Don't make irrational assumptions and you may not complain the moggy is destroying them. The Universe or the whole of existence is not an effect. You assume it to be an effect so are making irrational demands for a cause and naively believe the silly pseudo-science big bunk fairy tale can be such. Only things can be effects in need of a cause. The Universe is the full set of what all things do. What they do is to exist. The Universe itself it is not a thing but your idea of all that exists.
Bigbangism contains no knowledge to destroy so you have nothing there. You need to build it up from scratch. You need to acquire basics yet.