Refuting Theist_1998 on Big Bang Cosmogony

So despite, my recommendation, CXon decided top post a very short reply, as he had 30 mins elft to type up a response, which is not enough time to post something weorthwhile, and we see this exemplified in his argument. 1.1 Con’s Source Con has dropped this; I have shown conclusively that Con’s source is “Jesus, Dinosaurs and More,” despite Con claiming that he did not use this as a source. As I pointed out before, I find it exceptionally ironic that Con scoffed at the use of Wikipedia, but had the gall to use the source he did. 1.2 Age of the Universe According to Con, using Hubble’s law is a “random doodle. ” Whether or not Con likes to admitr it or not, this is physics, and in physics we use mathematics. Whether that’s the mass-evergy equivalence formula to calculate radioactive decay, or using a simple trajectory formula (d = ut + 1/2at^2) to calculate the speed of an object moving of a cliff, or if it’s using equations to calculate the safest speed to travel around a corner in a moving car etc. I think the point is made here. Physics is all about mathematics, and the best that Con has to offer to the mathematics I have shown is that “it’s just doodles. ” Anyone with any respect for mathematics should be more than well aware of just how asinine Con’s stance is. 1.3 Expansion of the Universe When you quote-mine the very person you are arguing against, it’s rather difficult to maintain a level head in light of your blatant dishonesty. I still see that you have not admitted culpability for your ridiculous decision to quote-mine me. There was something you could do here; you could have admitted that you made a tactical error here and admitted that you were wrong to quote-mine your opposition, But rather than trying to conduct yourself with some sense of dignity, you would much rather hide behind the curtains of “My opponent’s being mean to me! ” 1.4 Backwards spinning Planets This argument ignores that collisions occur – something that does affect the spin of an object. This applies to moons as well. You have no offered any sufficient repudiation to this argument. 1.5 Thermodynamics Once again, Con shows a complete lack of respect for physics and by extension mathematics. Those equations are not “doodles. ” If you took even a high school physics class, you would know how foolish it would be to claim that equations are “doodles. ” Oh, yes. You showed these equations to a physics professor did you? There are 3 options here; - You’re simply lying (and that’s something you’ve done all throughout this exchange, so I don’t see any reason why I should even believe you – yes, quote-mining me and refusing to acknowledge that you made an error, is a form of lying. ) - Your college presents these equations in a somewhat different fashion and that professor didn’t pick up on it. Something that is unlikely, because whilst there are changes to how those equations are laid out, those changes are minor as I pointed out in Round 3. - You’ve enrolled in as pseudo-scientific college. Considering your disposition, it wouldn’t surprise me if you enrolled in a college which promotes creationism. If that is the case, the fault lies with you for enrolling in such an institute, and that is why a physics professor there doesn’t know what those equations are. As for what the laws are: Zeroth law of thermodynamics – If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. First law of thermodynamics – Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system. Second law of thermodynamics – The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. Third law of thermodynamics – As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum. You are talking about a very difficult subject, which is thermodynamics. You cannot expect your superficial understanding of the subject to hold any weight at all; especially if you don’t even know what the equations I presented are. Subsequently, your ridiculous notion that I should present “5 things that don’t tend toward disorder,” is thrown out of the window. I will say this again. Your childish brutalisations of thermodynamics do not constitute a valid argument.1.6 ConclusionIn conclusion, whilst I did have to admit my fault for wrongly thinking that Con got all of his arguments from Kent Hovind (a mistake I think is justifiable, as his arguments are almost word for word used by Kent Hovind), I think I have done a reasonable job in showing Con's complete lack of understanding about cosmogony. Con has simply dropped arguments from here, without giving any reason why, and I'm quite sure that reason is because Con cannot answer my refutations with any sort of competency. Like many creationists, Con merely repeats creationist brutalisations and struggle to worm their way out of their own failures. Con has not given any competent rebuttal to my refutation of his backwards spinning planets & moons argument, he has not owned up for his quote-mine, has not touched on the fact the Big Bang refers to an expansion and not an explosion, and harps on about his superficial grasp of thermodynamics, and calls mathematics "doodles. " I think all of that speaks for itself really.