If God's Flood was only a regional flood...

[Taz]

Everyone is better than wes, the big spaces in his posts guy.

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

So you don't think that you're better than ANYONE on this planet? You're a fucking liar because you think you're better than me, let alone everyone else here.

Nope. We are all the same. Creatures.

I don't judge the person. I can judge behaviors, I can judge actions, I can judge accomplishments. But in the end we are all human and our worth is no more or no less than others. It's the basis our Founding fathers took when they wrote, all me are created equal.

I'm better than Adolf Hitler, and you're saying that you're not? See? You spout nonsense non-stop.

 

[ding]

Taz BreezeWood and others. Your opposition has come as far as I can, but you need to pick up the ball and provide some answers. It's like we got you in a corner and said, "Gotcha." While I have provided answers or theories the creation scientists are working on, your "theories" should start providing some answers if your cosmic inflation model is true.

Here is a brief article that lists the questions that need to be answered. That graph we see everywhere that looks like a wine glass or balloon tipped sideways may not be true unless you can provide more evidence. It leads me to suspect it isn't just based on the graph being everywhere and is the one used to show that the Big Bang started from a single point. The results do not match the explanations. What we really have found is the flat universe gets expanded like a cloth. What's a mystery is why we see the opaque CMB in every direction.

Cosmic Inflation: How It Gave the Universe the Ultimate Kickstart (Infographic)

Expansion of the universe is not even in every direction
"From current data, it looks like the universe is even, but that's because our instruments aren't advanced enough to really go beyond a certain limit. (The limit of light). In reality, the expansion of the universe is governed by the gravitational wave radiant energy density created by objects coupled by a gravitational force. The closer 2 objects are rotating and accelerating toward each other the more gravitational radiant energy they emit. This increases the amount of expansion more than a uniform sphere. If we had accurate enough instruments we could measure the average radiant energy density throughout the universe and create a detailed “map” of the expansion of the universe. Scientists agree that the universe is most likely modeled as a irregular 3D shape." William Guo (Nobel Prize candidate)

On The Expansion of The Universe Through Gravitational Waves

The universe is not expanding uniformly
The Universe Is Not Expanding Uniformly - Universe Today

Sorry, but you will never be able to get past:

1. Red shift
2. Cosmic background radiation
3. The first Law of Thermodynamics
4. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
5. Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations which show ~14 billion years ago all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a atom in a perfectly ordered state and then began to expand and cool.

The universe has not existed forever. The universe had a beginning. That beginning was ~14 billion years ago. And since that time has expanded and cooled until it eventually evolved into beings that know and create all according to the Laws of Nature which existed before space and time itself.

 

[ding]

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

So you don't think that you're better than ANYONE on this planet? You're a fucking liar because you think you're better than me, let alone everyone else here.

Nope. We are all the same. Creatures.

I don't judge the person. I can judge behaviors, I can judge actions, I can judge accomplishments. But in the end we are all human and our worth is no more or no less than others. It's the basis our Founding fathers took when they wrote, all me are created equal.

I'm better than Adolf Hitler, and you're saying that you're not? See? You spout nonsense non-stop.

That's correct. My actions and behaviors are "better" but as with all things all of our actions and behaviors work toward the good of men of good will.

 

[ding]

I’m not better than anyone so your statement is false.

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

So you don't think that you're better than ANYONE on this planet? You're a fucking liar because you think you're better than me, let alone everyone else here.

Nope. We are all the same. Creatures.

I don't judge the person. I can judge behaviors, I can judge actions, I can judge accomplishments. But in the end we are all human and our worth is no more or no less than others. It's the basis our Founding fathers took when they wrote, all me are created equal.

I'm better than Adolf Hitler, and you're saying that you're not? See? You spout nonsense non-stop.

But here is your problem with that, you start with an extreme example and then use that to justify it towards everyone.

 

[ding]

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

So waht, they move onto another experiment, that's what happens, sometimes the experiment works and sometimes it doesn't. What does all this have to do with possible other universes?

What do you mean what this means for possible other universes? It means there isn't any evidence for them. First, it was established that one couldn't have an universe where our science experiments would not work. What was determined was in the core of scientists who believe in cosmic expansion, in order to explain how a "big bang" could expand in the way our universe is laid out, would accept all possible worlds. It was pointed out to them, just like I am pointing out to you now. We can't have worlds where our science does not work. Second, there isn't any experiment where to show how something, even of infinite density and temperature could expand in such a way that our universe ends up in the manner that it did. There is no evidence for cosmic expansion which these scientists keep looking for. They proposed a cosmology, but nothing backs it up. The other thing that we didn't even discuss is one can't have any point of infinite mass or temperature because the math doesn't work. To have any ginormous "infinite" anything -- density, mass, temperature, widgets, anything -- one is dividing by zero, 1000/0 = infinity. I learned only God can divide by zero. If we can divide by zero, then 5 x 0 = 5. In regular math, 10/5 = 2 or 2 x 5 = 10. Only a creator can create five items to make 5 x 0 = 5.

What's equally strange is you just ignore what I proposed of the possibility of multiple dimensions. Why do you continue to believe in multiverses where our science does not work and of infinite possible outcomes? Wouldn't God live in one of them if this were true ha ha? Mine is backed by scientific principles while yours is backed by faith in the "religion" of singularity and cosmic expansion.

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

If they were all created by the same process then they all have the same laws.

 

[JoeB131]

...Then why would god order Noah to take 2 of every animal, if all the animals weren't going to drown because the flood wasn't worldwide as many posters here contend?

okay, let's look at this stupidity.

First, if he took only two of every animal, every animal species would have gone extinct in a couple generations due to inbreeding.

Second, if it was a world wide flood, how did the Marsupials know to go back to Australia? How did they get to where the Ark was to start with.

Also, if Noah was from the Mesopotamian region and ended up at Mount Ararat, after being on a boat floating for a year, how is it he didn't go very far from where he started.

Even in today's oceans, boats that were washed out to sea in the Japanese Tsunami ended up at the Western American coast a year later.

Furthermore, if the oceans rose enough to cover every mountain in the world, how would have they been able to breath. If you go to the top of Mt. Everest or any other really tall mountain, you need to bring oxygen to breath.

You see how the logical problems compound when you make these silly arguments?

 

[ding]

...Then why would god order Noah to take 2 of every animal, if all the animals weren't going to drown because the flood wasn't worldwide as many posters here contend?

okay, let's look at this stupidity.

First, if he took only two of every animal, every animal species would have gone extinct in a couple generations due to inbreeding.

Second, if it was a world wide flood, how did the Marsupials know to go back to Australia? How did they get to where the Ark was to start with.

Also, if Noah was from the Mesopotamian region and ended up at Mount Ararat, after being on a boat floating for a year, how is it he didn't go very far from where he started.

Even in today's oceans, boats that were washed out to sea in the Japanese Tsunami ended up at the Western American coast a year later.

Furthermore, if the oceans rose enough to cover every mountain in the world, how would have they been able to breath. If you go to the top of Mt. Everest or any other really tall mountain, you need to bring oxygen to breath.

You see how the logical problems compound when you make these silly arguments?

I don't believe she cares. It wouldn't be near as much fun to read it allegorically as it is to read it literally.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't believe she cares. It wouldn't be near as much fun to read it allegorically as it is to read it literally.

the problem is, as an allegory, it doesn't make much more sense.

The scientific absurdities aside, the philosophical ones are much worse.

God drowns every baby in the world or maybe just every baby in the Levant because he's angry that people he made are bad because they used the free will he gave them.

And then they keep being bad anyway.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Agnostics don't get it, so that is why I don't argue with them.

The point is that a "Noah" existed in a flood catastrophe.

But why take 2 of every animal for a regional flood?

Your dealing with a person who has probably never read the Bible

Here’s some words by Jesus Christ Himself
That the flood was real, that there was an ark, and the flood came and took them away
Jake don’t even believe Jesus Christ
Matthew 24:37-41

 

[BreezeWood]

While I have provided answers or theories the creation scientists are working on, your "theories" should start providing some answers if your cosmic inflation model is true.

you are a joke bond ...

the finite angle trajectories of matter will return them in unison over time to their origin reenacting the compaction back to energy and a new moment of singularity.

 

[hobelim]

...Then why would god order Noah to take 2 of every animal, if all the animals weren't going to drown because the flood wasn't worldwide as many posters here contend?

okay, let's look at this stupidity.

First, if he took only two of every animal, every animal species would have gone extinct in a couple generations due to inbreeding.

Second, if it was a world wide flood, how did the Marsupials know to go back to Australia? How did they get to where the Ark was to start with.

Also, if Noah was from the Mesopotamian region and ended up at Mount Ararat, after being on a boat floating for a year, how is it he didn't go very far from where he started.

Even in today's oceans, boats that were washed out to sea in the Japanese Tsunami ended up at the Western American coast a year later.

Furthermore, if the oceans rose enough to cover every mountain in the world, how would have they been able to breath. If you go to the top of Mt. Everest or any other really tall mountain, you need to bring oxygen to breath.

You see how the logical problems compound when you make these silly arguments?

lol... it wasn't a year, it was 40 days,, Two of every animal was not necessarily about kangaroos and chickens etc. just like kosher law is not about food or animals.

Mountains in scripture represent big shots who loomed over the human landscape.

That would mean a flood of 6 or 7 feet would have covered even the highest mountain...

The splash of a meteor hitting the indian ocean would account for water rising into the sky, fountains of the deep opening up, coastal civilizations and every settlement near streams rivers or dry washes in the deserts would have been swept clean away, and there would have been enough water instantly vaporized into the atmosphere to encircle the globe and caused a worldwide deluge of torrential rain that would have lasted for weeks.

They didn't have to exaggerate much when using this near extinction event as a basis for teaching a moral children story. ....


Burckle Crater - Wikipedia


A large scale tsunami, moving outward from an epicenter in the vicinity of Burckle Crater would become focused as it passed into the Arabian Sea and would roll right up into the Persian Gulf. How far inland this tsunami would travel before exhausting itself would depend on the height of the wave and the topographical gradient over which it was moving. But consider this: from the northern coastline of the Persian Gulf at Kuwait, to a point in the Tigris-Euphrates lowland where the elevation rises to at least 500 feet above sea level is more than 500 miles inland. In other words, a 500 or 600 foot tsunami traveling up the Persian Gulf would have nothing to arrest its momentum as it traveled inland a distance of some 500 miles. The entire plain of the Tigris-Euphrates valley would be completely overwhelmed.

 

[JoeB131]

lol... it wasn't a year, it was 40 days,, Two of every animal was not necessarily about kangaroos and chickens etc. just like kosher law is not about food or animals.

Okay, go back and read the bible. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the waters didn't recede for a year.

The splash of a meteor hitting the indian ocean would account for water rising into the sky, fountains of the deep opening up, coastal civilizations and every settlement near streams rivers or dry washes in the deserts would have been swept clean away, and there would have been enough water instantly vaporized into the atmosphere to encircle the globe and caused a worldwide deluge of torrential rain that would have lasted for weeks.

If you try to find rational explanations for the "flood myth", then you really make the theological argument moot. Most of those myths are probably oral traditions from the frequent flooding that must have happened at the end of the last ice age... but then it becomes a lot less miraculous.

 

[hobelim]

lol... it wasn't a year, it was 40 days,, Two of every animal was not necessarily about kangaroos and chickens etc. just like kosher law is not about food or animals.

Okay, go back and read the bible. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the waters didn't recede for a year.

The splash of a meteor hitting the indian ocean would account for water rising into the sky, fountains of the deep opening up, coastal civilizations and every settlement near streams rivers or dry washes in the deserts would have been swept clean away, and there would have been enough water instantly vaporized into the atmosphere to encircle the globe and caused a worldwide deluge of torrential rain that would have lasted for weeks.

If you try to find rational explanations for the "flood myth", then you really make the theological argument moot. Most of those myths are probably oral traditions from the frequent flooding that must have happened at the end of the last ice age... but then it becomes a lot less miraculous.

Finding a rational explanation for the basis of a bible story does not render the teaching moot.

It explains everything.

No other natural phenomena could account for the hundreds of worldwide flood myths that describe a near extinction event that dwarfed any yearly regional flooding. In fact existing glacial melting would have accelerated and contributed to the magnitude of the flooding...


Have you never seen the destruction that just one day of heavy spring rain can do with the seasonal snowpack of just one mountain?

 

[ding]

I don't believe she cares. It wouldn't be near as much fun to read it allegorically as it is to read it literally.

the problem is, as an allegory, it doesn't make much more sense.

The scientific absurdities aside, the philosophical ones are much worse.

God drowns every baby in the world or maybe just every baby in the Levant because he's angry that people he made are bad because they used the free will he gave them.

And then they keep being bad anyway.

The first five books were written by Moses, an adopted son of the king of Egypt (1400 B.C.). These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Bible records the history that all nations have in common. So when you read the first 11 chapters, you are reading allegorical accounts of actual events which were passed down orally for thousands of years. Sprinkled in these allegorical accounts of actual historical events is wisdom that ancient man passed down orally from generation to generation that taught morality. If you believe that God literally did these things then you not only miss the point of an allegorical account of actual historical events but you miss out on the nuggets of wisdom.

So what are you really interested in? Confirming your bias or finding nuggets of wisdom that were passed down for thousands of years. Because if you are interested in the latter then you need to read the Bible in the context of men 6000 years ago.

 

[danielpalos]

...Then why would god order Noah to take 2 of every animal, if all the animals weren't going to drown because the flood wasn't worldwide as many posters here contend?

Global Ice Ages happen on a regular basis.

 

[westwall]

You can't have any number of different laws that we do not know about. This is fallacious scientific thinking. There can't exist any number of possibilities through multiverses because then no experiment or observation that we do today would be valid. It could mean that it would not be successful in another universe or it may not apply to a different universe. Then there would be no way to falsify anything.

The way to these universes is supposed to be wormholes. They are also supposed to be a way to travel through time, i.e. time is shortened by going through a wormhole. What is the evidence for these wormholes?

My take is there are other dimensions instead of multiverses. For example, we know that spacetime curves when one can travel at the speed of light and that gravity will affect it and the traveler. It may not have to be the speed of light, but a percentage. Very fast space travel could open up pathways we never were able to find. Where's the evidence? One, the shape of the universe is described in the Bible. That it is flat or thin on one side and fast expanding like a curtain, and that it has edges and that the edges curve upward. We also have the standard model of particle physics, quantum mechanics, Einstein's general and specific theories of relativity and the standard cosmological model. With mathematics, we can envision how 3-D objects would appear in the 4th dimension.



One of the pieces of evidence she mentions for multidimensions is looking for particles. If we can show that a graviton exists, then it would be evidence for multiple dimensions. The graviton exists in our world one moment and could move into a higher dimension the next.

One evidence for no multiverses
Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

So waht, they move onto another experiment, that's what happens, sometimes the experiment works and sometimes it doesn't. What does all this have to do with possible other universes?

What do you mean what this means for possible other universes? It means there isn't any evidence for them. First, it was established that one couldn't have an universe where our science experiments would not work. What was determined was in the core of scientists who believe in cosmic expansion, in order to explain how a "big bang" could expand in the way our universe is laid out, would accept all possible worlds. It was pointed out to them, just like I am pointing out to you now. We can't have worlds where our science does not work. Second, there isn't any experiment where to show how something, even of infinite density and temperature could expand in such a way that our universe ends up in the manner that it did. There is no evidence for cosmic expansion which these scientists keep looking for. They proposed a cosmology, but nothing backs it up. The other thing that we didn't even discuss is one can't have any point of infinite mass or temperature because the math doesn't work. To have any ginormous "infinite" anything -- density, mass, temperature, widgets, anything -- one is dividing by zero, 1000/0 = infinity. I learned only God can divide by zero. If we can divide by zero, then 5 x 0 = 5. In regular math, 10/5 = 2 or 2 x 5 = 10. Only a creator can create five items to make 5 x 0 = 5.

What's equally strange is you just ignore what I proposed of the possibility of multiple dimensions. Why do you continue to believe in multiverses where our science does not work and of infinite possible outcomes? Wouldn't God live in one of them if this were true ha ha? Mine is backed by scientific principles while yours is backed by faith in the "religion" of singularity and cosmic expansion.

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

Oh? So God and a giant flood are possible in those alternate universes? Say it ain't so!

 

[Taz]

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

So you don't think that you're better than ANYONE on this planet? You're a fucking liar because you think you're better than me, let alone everyone else here.

Nope. We are all the same. Creatures.

I don't judge the person. I can judge behaviors, I can judge actions, I can judge accomplishments. But in the end we are all human and our worth is no more or no less than others. It's the basis our Founding fathers took when they wrote, all me are created equal.

I'm better than Adolf Hitler, and you're saying that you're not? See? You spout nonsense non-stop.

That's correct. My actions and behaviors are "better" but as with all things all of our actions and behaviors work toward the good of men of good will.

So you are better than some people, your retraction is duly noted.

 

[Taz]

Ok, maybe not you.

No maybe about it.

Additionally I am more than happy for you to believe you are better than others. That is your mistake to make.

So you don't think that you're better than ANYONE on this planet? You're a fucking liar because you think you're better than me, let alone everyone else here.

Nope. We are all the same. Creatures.

I don't judge the person. I can judge behaviors, I can judge actions, I can judge accomplishments. But in the end we are all human and our worth is no more or no less than others. It's the basis our Founding fathers took when they wrote, all me are created equal.

I'm better than Adolf Hitler, and you're saying that you're not? See? You spout nonsense non-stop.

But here is your problem with that, you start with an extreme example and then use that to justify it towards everyone.

No, I'm just showing you that what you said was bullshit.

 

[Taz]

Your link is what appears to be a failed experiment. Which in no way says that multiverses are not possible. Only when we can see into other universes will we know if they all have the same laws or not.

It wasn't a failed experiment, but a mistake made in looking for gravitational waves. The galactic dust caused their readings to be incorrect. What the initial success and aftermath of BICEP2 (was not correct) showed was evolution's cosmic inflation proponents were wrong. They were all too eager to propose what you propose of having any number of different laws in other universes and that cosmic inflation backs up the Big Bang Theory. All it did was show where cosmic inflation is not found.. Even though gravitational waves were discovered after this experiment, it does not mean that the cosmic inflation theory part of the Big Bang Theory holds, too. It's like they're science-ing the sh*t out of gravitational waves so that the cosmic inflation model can be propped up.

And do you know why cosmic inflation is important? It helps explain the differences in our expanding universe. If it were not true, which it isn't, then our universe would look not as dense and similar as it expanded out from its initial "bang." It doesn't explain the clusters of our galaxies and stuff even if much of the materials in the mass can be pressed into a point of singularity. Moreover, as you know, the heat of the universe in one part of the universe being the same in other parts of the universe is what confirmed the BBT for these scientists.

"Another conundrum thrown up by the basic Big Bang theory is how to explain the relative homogeneity and evenness of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation. How did large-scale structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies develop out of what should have been a rather boringly amorphous and featureless fireball?

This would appear to be in direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes an inexorable tendency towards entropy and uniformity and away from patterns and structures. If our universe had started out completely smooth, then it should have continued that way, and the universe today would contain nothing more than thinly spread dark matter along with less than one atom per cubic metre of hydrogen and helium gas, with no sign of the texture and complexity we see around us (stars, galaxies, a multitude of elements, life)."

Cosmic Inflation - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe

So waht, they move onto another experiment, that's what happens, sometimes the experiment works and sometimes it doesn't. What does all this have to do with possible other universes?

What do you mean what this means for possible other universes? It means there isn't any evidence for them. First, it was established that one couldn't have an universe where our science experiments would not work. What was determined was in the core of scientists who believe in cosmic expansion, in order to explain how a "big bang" could expand in the way our universe is laid out, would accept all possible worlds. It was pointed out to them, just like I am pointing out to you now. We can't have worlds where our science does not work. Second, there isn't any experiment where to show how something, even of infinite density and temperature could expand in such a way that our universe ends up in the manner that it did. There is no evidence for cosmic expansion which these scientists keep looking for. They proposed a cosmology, but nothing backs it up. The other thing that we didn't even discuss is one can't have any point of infinite mass or temperature because the math doesn't work. To have any ginormous "infinite" anything -- density, mass, temperature, widgets, anything -- one is dividing by zero, 1000/0 = infinity. I learned only God can divide by zero. If we can divide by zero, then 5 x 0 = 5. In regular math, 10/5 = 2 or 2 x 5 = 10. Only a creator can create five items to make 5 x 0 = 5.

What's equally strange is you just ignore what I proposed of the possibility of multiple dimensions. Why do you continue to believe in multiverses where our science does not work and of infinite possible outcomes? Wouldn't God live in one of them if this were true ha ha? Mine is backed by scientific principles while yours is backed by faith in the "religion" of singularity and cosmic expansion.

Multiple universes are predicted by math. Nothing says that other universes don't have different laws, more dimensions...

You can't have worlds in this universe that work by different laws of this one, ok, but who knows what's beyond our universe or what might have existed before the BB.

If they were all created by the same process then they all have the same laws.

You don't know that, and no, nothing says that they couldn't have different laws and dimensions...

 

[Taz]

...Then why would god order Noah to take 2 of every animal, if all the animals weren't going to drown because the flood wasn't worldwide as many posters here contend?

okay, let's look at this stupidity.

First, if he took only two of every animal, every animal species would have gone extinct in a couple generations due to inbreeding.

Second, if it was a world wide flood, how did the Marsupials know to go back to Australia? How did they get to where the Ark was to start with.

Also, if Noah was from the Mesopotamian region and ended up at Mount Ararat, after being on a boat floating for a year, how is it he didn't go very far from where he started.

Even in today's oceans, boats that were washed out to sea in the Japanese Tsunami ended up at the Western American coast a year later.

Furthermore, if the oceans rose enough to cover every mountain in the world, how would have they been able to breath. If you go to the top of Mt. Everest or any other really tall mountain, you need to bring oxygen to breath.

You see how the logical problems compound when you make these silly arguments?

You missed the whole point of what I'm asking. Not surprising.