VadeRetro wrote:You're reading in too much. I'm not debating the big bang theory. I'm asking how the big bang theory explains the information that now exists in the universe but was not there originally.
I'm reading into this the usual creationist foot-dragging refusal to make any inference that points to conclusions he doesn't like, no matter what the evidence. If you won't make inferences from a clear preponderance of evidence, there's no point pretending that you're arguing about science at all.
Physics and chemistry. Gravitational contraction. Nucleosynthesis. Chemosynthesis. I have referred you to web pages with details. Is it a personal attack to notice that there is no making you see?
Your original post in 1304 says that you want to see this subject (the increase of information) addressed, somewhat implying that you don't think it has been at all. It has been addressed many times in many places.
Demonstrating that you can and will attack any inference from physical evidence as "conjecture" is crossing a very low bar. Science does nothing but infer from data. Everything is "conjecture," so calling what you don't like "conjecture" is just a cheap trick. There is a lot, lot, lot of physical evidence and very solid lines of reasoning for the history which you dismiss as conjecture.
Science has addressed what is loosely called the increase of information. There are known mechanisms, known examples. There is nothing impossible about any of it. It's not a miracle. If you intend to proclaim it as such, you need to shoulder a bit more of a burden here.