The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

This explanation of space and particles still bothers me, no matter how it's been presented.1. "Space is seething with", implies matter/energy which exists in space rather than an adequate definition of what space is. As per topic, it seems to me that since BBists must come up with an expansionable space for the BB to have worked, this is how it is done.2. Like beings which have the ability to appear and disapear to human detection as many folks, including some scientists believe to be in existence, so possibly with particles. As per TDL 1, I don't see how they can become non-existent and I'm not convinced they do. Science has come a long way from where they were so far as knowledge goes two centuries ago. We've learned a lot and there's likely a whole lot more to be discovered before the (abe: the end of this age.3. Perhaps the day will come when humans will discover that the alleged non-existent cycle or state of particles are the first of what will come to be discovered as an existing form of energy in the universe which humans have been unaware of due to the limited
earthly ability of our minds and senses to know and detect thus far.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-22-2006 11:16 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

But Percy, this is a new thread which I am applying my on topic comment to. Isn't it appropriate to apply the counter viewpoint where applicable, or do you think your viewpoint should be applied to this thread exclusively? My purpose in repeating my views was to apply them to this specific topic just as yours evidently was (abe: in repeating your views.) My purpose as an IDist, obviously was to lend support to my skepticism of the theory of the BB as per topic.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-24-2006 12:35 AM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

My sincere apologies, Percy, for the messup. I don't know if there's a way to fix it. I'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Hi Cavediver. First, thank you for your fairness attitude and willingness to understand my position.1. You may not be aware of my personal hypothesis which calls for an eternal universe in which the ID creator has been forever creating things in, destroying things in and managing things in his universe at will to suit his pleasure. It fully satisfies all three TD laws.2. The BB, of course has the entire universe all scrunched up into a submicroscopic bit of energetic space before the fact. The universe, inclusive of everything existing includes God himself. So before the alleged BB, this god is also scrunched up into his hyper-dense itsy bitsy ball, for there's allegedly no outside of this speck for him to reside in for all of pre-BB eternity and if there were, he'd be out there with nothing around him and nothing to do. It is infinitely demeaning to an infinitely majestic creator, great Jehovah, god of the Bible! How does this fit into Biblical IDism?3. The BB is counter to intelligent design (ID) as per Biblical scriptures which clearly imply nothing random or naturally selected.4. Imo, The BB does not explain the order and design we observe nor does it satistisfy the TD laws as well as a more literal rendering of the Genesis account. For more on how this works as per my hypothesis it's in the great debate between Jar and me somewhere in the archives.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

1. I do not dispute the existence of particles and agree that science has learned a lot about them. I was responding to Percy's comment in message 88 where he speaks of particles which "flit in and out of existence." This seems to be counter to what you are explaining.2. I understand particles such as nutrinos can penetrate the entire planet and are attached to electrons, et al. I don't see them as a property of space, but something existing in space. Like gravity, waves of the sea and mysterious particles are related to things in the universe rather than properties of space. Remove all water from space and you have no waves in it, yet space remains in existence. By the same token, remove what nutrino particles attach themselves to in space and you have no nutrinos yet space remains in existence. How'm I doing?This may be considered off topic by some, but imo, the BB argument has everything to do with the space question, as to whether space has properties capable of expansion or not.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Hi Eta. Nice to have you and Sylas back participating. I assume you mean why I expect my hypothesis to satisfy the LTDs. Do you remember the debate I and Jar engaged in? I haven't taken the time to find it, but that's where I explained it. When I get caught up maybe I can do a fresh thread on it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

How's this? What properties of space, i.e space void of anything energetic, make space capable of curvature?Thanks for the offer to discuss this further in another thread. Since you read some of my stuff in the space thread, I'll let you make that call on the basis of whether you think I am capable of discussing the material you have in mind. Though Sylas patiently and carefully dialoged with me, the layman in layman's terminology, through the issues of the space thread, obviously there were times when he was not well pleased with my responses. Perhaps we could do an exclusive dialog for a spell to see how it would go. Doing taxes and all, I am limited with time, so it might move rather slowly at times if you opt to do it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

THIS IS OFF TOPIC. The reason I'm posting it is that since my participation in this thread has been from a unique viewpoint, it might help for other participants and readers to know what it is.The Buzsaw Hypothesis is as follows:In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. BuzsawWhether this satisfies the laws of thermodynamics is another topic.Note: I'll be out of town most of tomorrow.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Hi again Cavediver. I'll deal only with the secular aspects of your message here so as not to cause a problem. It has always been my understanding that LTD is assumed to be applicable for the universe until shown otherwise and that what is observed in our own galactic environs is the primary model we have for other regions of the cosmos. It appears that you are excusing the BB from these observed laws so as to avoid dealing with the problems related to the BB. Of course, that's pure speculation.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

But yes or no? We have assigned the TDLs to to the entire universe, past and present util shown to be inoperative in any given region.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Is that how it is in the physics textbooks in school? I haven't noticed this in my reading on the web. I'm asking.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

But it seems to me there's a huge difference between directions we've assigned to our planet and laws of physics being observed in our galactic region of the cosmos. The analogy appears to be insufficient. ....And here I thought we were getting along pretty well. My apologies if I came across that way. I meant it is a natural tendency to look at things in a way favorable to one's position rather than a deliberate lie. I'll try to avoid anything that might be taken as a personal insult with you hereafter.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

We may have a lot of apples and oranges problems here then, my friend. You're talking to a old 70 yr old unconverted Newtonian fart here. LOL!

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Well then, what about the high school textbooks? What say they in answer to my question? Surely they say something for the kids about this. I assume they tell them about what I've been reading on the web. No?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Thanks nwr. I'll take a break and have a look around the web.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW