Did the Big Bang actually happen?

[insane_alien]

Creationism is not science since it is based out of a book that is an account of something no-one ever witnessed and was edited and re-edited based on the whims of the church to turn it into religious propaganda

[insane_alien]

evolution is a theory it has been observed happening in laboratories and in nature(why do think they need so many different flu vaccines?). fossil records also show a wide range of trasitional species. evolution has also been published in scientific journals. what laws does the big bang defy? lets hear your answer.

[flamingoflie]

Why is Creationism not science? You're avoiding the main point.

Yes it did come out from a book but that's not why it makes it a theory. You need evidence and proof am I not right? They do have proof just like evolutionist would say they have proof.

 

"Something no one ever witnessed" you stated.

Than did someone witness couple of monkeys turning into humans? No, not that I know of. No one ever witnessed anything.

[insane_alien]

umm please read the sentence beginning "Creationism is not science since..."

[insane_alien]

please refer to the following site for some facts about creationism and why there is so little evidence for it (as in NONE). http://www.creationtheory.org/

[Xyph]

What makes you think that way? Creationism is also called a theory in science. And didn’t you state that science was all theory? Then why is Creationism not science??

Creationism is not considered a theory in science. It's considered nonsense, and rightfully, because it's not science because its based, ultimately, in faith.

 

Why is it nonsense? You can’t state that it’s nonsense. How can you when you have already stated that science is a theory? Theory is something that you can’t prove isn’t it? (That’s what you would say' date=' right?) If you can explain why it is nonsense ? Explain to me.

I have stated my belief or you would call it an opinion and have given some evidence why I think that way. All you say that it’s “nonsense” and didn’t give enough information to back your belief. So how can you just out right say you’re right and I’m wrong?[/quote']Because you're a Creationist.

 

Yes you don’t have to be scientist to know that. So you’re saying that Creationism is starting from a conclusion? Then what about evolution? Evolution starts from the conclusion. Did any of the evolutionists state that they have proof which started from the beginning? They just see the world today and think back what might have happened millions billion years ago. So basically you’re discrediting evolution by saying this. You said that looking for proof to support is not science which includes evolution as well. You have just said that science is theories, and theories as most of you all know are not the truth. And scientist try to find proof to support their theory. So is theories not science?

Starting from a hypothesis isn't the same thing as starting from a conclusion. Evolution started from a hypothesis based on observation, which was then refined in light of the proof. Creationism doesn't begin from a hypothesis (no, the Bible doesn't count) but a conclusion, so whatever "proof" is gathered is looked at with the aim of using it to conclude that the Bible is an accurate historical document, and things that don't lead to such a conclusion are deemed wrong or ignored.

 

 

Essentially, there's no-one who, after going through a rational scientific education, examined the evidence and decided, "Wait, this seems to suggest that the world was created in 6 days by a god who then created a man called Adam and a women from one of his ribs and then went on to give man 10 commandments and a variety of other ethical laws the specifics of which I should be able to go on to extrapolate from this evidence!" It always works the other way round. Someone reads the Bible, decides it's true, and goes on to try to prove it's true scientifically, no matter how much they'll have to disregard and misinterpret the mountains of evidence pointing to another conclusion.

 

 

 

 

I thought this was a debating forum.

Then you were wrong. There are places to engage in such ridiculous debates as this one, but this thread wasn't one of them, although, unfortunately, it seems to have become one anyway.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I’m sorry you don’t like other people’s beliefs and I feel quite offended for you to state that I don’t have a right to say what I want. (‘implied or needed’ so I can’t say how I feel about this matter since someone else is not needing it? Well if that is so what if I feel that I don’t need your opinion? I thought this was a debating forum. Just because someone has beliefs opposed from yours and you feel like you don’t need it means that you can shut their mouth closed. If we put that into some kind of rule the word ‘debate’ won’t even exist.)

 

And I would like to say that I respect other people’s thoughts as well as their opinion so I don’t state leave evolution out of this because it has no proof.

 

Creationism seems to be the problem since it’s a science forum right? Science. Creationism is not science is what you’re trying to say right now. Why do you think creationism is not science?

 

Flamingoflie, if the thread was clearly intended to be about non-relativistic Newtonian gravity and I continually brought up relativity with the fervour of a religious zealot would you agree that I was being annoying?

 

There are threads for creationism in which you can post.

[Xyph]

Than did someone witness couple of monkeys turning into humans?

Hahahaha, I just noticed this bit. Is that how you think evolution works?

[insane_alien]

could be a case of "this is the first theory i have heard of so i will believe completely in it and won't put the effort in to read about other theories"

[[Tycho?]]

There are no fatal flaws? Are you sure you read my answer carefully? All the people I’ve mentioned noticed the fatal flaw the big bang theory offers. ((I think I’ve said that they(scientist) rejected the big bang theory all because it indicates a ultimate beginning.)) The big bang states that there is a start to all this. A start! How can there be start? Are you agreeing with Quentin Smith? (That from nothing something came?)

 

I think you should actually read a little bit about the big bang so you develop some idea of what the hell you're talking about.

 

How does an ultimate beginning represent a fatal flaw? Since when have scientists rejected the big bang theory because of this (this is a rhetorical question, since I know they havn't rejected the theory, its the only mainstream theory used to describe the begining of the universe).

 

And it also does not imply an ultimate begining anyway. Our theories cannot predict what happend before the big bang. Does it mean that there was nothing before that? We dont know. Nobody has any idea what went on before the big bang, if anything did at all. The theory doesn't try to explain that, so its certainly not flawed in that regard.

 

I'll bold this for you to make sure you notice it:

The Big Bang theory does not explain what caused the Big Bang, nor what occured before it. It is not meant to.

[flamingoflie]

]

evolution is a theory it has been observed happening in laboratories and in nature(why do think they need so many different flu vaccines?). fossil records also show a wide range of trasitional species. evolution has also been published in scientific journals. what laws does the big bang defy? lets hear your answer.

 

Observed what happens in nature? Huh? Nobody observed what happened in nature but in laboratories yes.(since it is in the laboratory conditions )

1920 A.I . Oparm + J.B.Shaldane suggested the primordial soup model' date=' where ocean contains all the organic molecules and by solar, volcanic or lightning these chemicals happen to form life.

Now we have to question where did those organic molecules come from?

So scientist tried all sorts of experiments to prove this.

For instance let’s take a look at one of the best known experiment that occurred in 1953. Stanley Miller of the University of Chicago had said that he accomplished the first step in creating life form by creating amino acids in a glass tube. Miller mixed simple chemicals and gases in a glass tube, then zapped them with an electrical charge to induce chemical reactions to produce so called amino acids. Basically Miller’s success seems to support evolution greatly. Besides Miller other scientist used similar experiments some using heat as an energy source and other using ultraviolet light to simulate light from the sun. Most experiments have succeeded in producing amino acids.

 

So does this really prove evolution? No.

Amino acid comes in two forms, what scientist call left-handed and right-handed. But life can only be formed from the left-handed form. Scientist like Miller got both kinds about 50:50. (This makes it harder for all this to happen by chance.)

 

The next step is “creating life” is to get amino acid to link up as proteins. In 1958

Sidney Fox, a chemist at the University of Miami, started with already existing amino acids and boiled them in water to make them react into protein like chain. And the result was a success or so thought success and he was inducted into the Modern Hall of Scientific Heroes.

But once again there are problems hidden in this experiment. Life is very picky and living things are comprised of amino acids hooked together in a very particular bond called a peptide bond. Also amino acids are capable of hooking into all sorts of different forms forming several different chemical bonds and that’s what they do in the test tube. They hook up in various ways but not in the genuine protein that is capable of functioning in a living cell.

 

In addition, for a protein to be functional, the amino acid must link up in a certain sequence. For example: Let say we have the words = Bob, loves, to, go , skating , with Marian, but , he, hates, doing, it , with, Nancy,

If this were the sequence: Bob loves to go skating with Marian but he hates doing it with Nancy.

The ones that appear in the test tube will be like: Bob Marian go doing with to loves but Nancy he hates skating it.

 

So in other words the ones in the test tube are useless for life.

 

And there is more. If scientist really wanted to duplicate what might have happened billions of years ago, they would have to simply mix up some chemicals in a vat and expose them to energy source like heat or light then wait for results. However scientists do not do that. Why? Because it is impossible to produce amino acids by using this method. So researchers have to control the experiment.

For example in nature you can not find pure chemicals. Substance A and B might react in the laboratory when is isolated and purified forms are used. But in nature? No. Since there are always other chemicals to interfere. In nature A might react with C instead creating very different results.

 

So how does scientist cover this major problem? They uncap their bottles and pour out only pure isolated ingredients in the right order. Obviously Nature doesn’t have flasks of pure ingredients to pour in the right order though.

 

 

Let’s take a look at another experiment that was done by ultraviolet light. Their idea was that sunlight beaming down would stimulate they early earth and produce life. However the longer wavelengths of ultraviolet light are very destructive and would destroy the very amino acid that scientist are looking for. So what do they do? They simply screen out the longer wavelengths and use only short wavelengths.

And Nature doesn’t have those nice screens that would cast out long wavelengths.

Another is they use trap to protect products after they have formed. Amino acids are very delicate and could be easily broken. So when electric or whatever energy you use to produce amino acids that same energy can break the precious amino acids as well. To prevent this scientist built a trap that removes amino acid as soon as they form to protect the delicate compounds. Then again in Nature the trap doors do not exist!

 

Scientist began to notice this problem in Miller’s experiment. The early earth did not have ozone layer to protect the atmosphere. So in 1986 Louis Lerman suggested that the chemicals reacted in the ocean instead of the atmosphere. But this didn’t prove anything either. To start out with where did the chemicals come from? Also Louis suggested that from the bubbles the gases were emitted into the air. Then basically it is the same thing as combining in the atmosphere. Once you’re vulnerable to the strong ultraviolet light whatever reaction took place in the bubble would be useless.

 

As a result these experiment don’t tell what happened on the early earth, they tell us what happens when scientist control their experiments.

 

Next, you stated that Nature shows evolution everyday. Yes bacteria adapt to their surroundings and keep getting stronger and stronger. Adaptation had nothing to do with evolution. Do we see bacteria evolve into different kind of species say fish? No we don’t.

They stay content with their area and develop among them but not into a whole new species.

I’ll give you an example of Darwin’s finches. Finches had different beak due to what kind of food they ate. And he proposed that this was evolution in species. But what really is a simple adaptation. In our body our immune systems gets stronger every time we get a shot. Darwin would call this evolution but in reality it is just plain adaptation. We don’t suddenly sprout wings or something, do we? We are still humans.

Kailbab and Abert squirrels were separated fro 10,000 years and they turned out to be different squirrels. But you have to concentrate on the word squirrel. They still are squirrels.

Now you might say that it was over a millions of years that organism starts evolving. Mutation is what you are saying. Through mutations and mutations and mutations you suddenly have different species! However what mutation really is genetic defect which could be very harmful and often lethal to the organism. So if mutations were to accumulate, the result would be devolution not evolution.

In order for evolution to work you have to hope some mutations would be beneficial. Let say it is but this may require many thousands of mutations and you must hope that these rare beneficial mutated organisms survive and reproduce. The improbabilities are staggering. Even with the simplest fruit flies scientist were unable to mutate it into a beneficial way. All they got to was changing to eye color or wing size. You can tell that change in living things are strictly limited. We do not see the emergence of new and more complex structure.

Okay, let say somehow with very little chance, a fish evolves lungs. What happens to the fish? The fish drowns!

Living things cannot simply change piece by piece, organs by organs. An organism is an integrated system, and any isolated changed in the system is more likely to be harmful than helpful. The only way the fish to be land dwelling animal is to transform all at once, which would be impossible in evolution.

 

Now about fossil records. Fossils do not give evidence to the evolution anymore. It was believed to have given proof to evolution however it discredits it instead.

Darwin himself was so worried about the fossil record that he devoted an entire chapter in The Origin of the Species to "Imperfection of the Geological Record" as relating to his theory, commenting in that chapter, "One [difficulty with the theory of evolution'], namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty."

There are so many missing pieces to start out with. There is no fossil to prove the in-between organism. For instance if a fish turned into a land creature let say a cow, there is no fossil that has both similarities of a fish and a cow. So is the fossil just lost? Or was it impossible for them to fossilize? Evolutionists claim that they just have not found the correct fossils yet. However, they have been looking for the "correct fossils" for over one hundred and thirty (130) years, only producing a few potential transitional forms. Although these do indeed appear to be transitional forms, there are many things that could have gone wrong that evolutionists must assume didn't happen.

1. Evolutionists and creationists both have the same data. Their views effect how they interpret data a lot. Many supposed transitional forms can be explained as a misinterpretation by evolutionists (see article on how a scientist's beliefs affect their interpretation of the evidence).

2. The fossils may not even be the correct age to be a transitional form. For example, evolutionists cannot prove that archaeopteryx existed before birds. In order to even be considered as a transitional form, it must have existed before birds - if they existed at the same time as birds, logically, they couldn't be intermediate between dinosaurs and birds.

3. It is very uncommon to find fossils completely intact and undamaged.

4. The fossils of two species are often strikingly similar and easy for even a well-trained professional paleontologist to confuse.

5. Even if the supposed transitional forms were really transitional forms, there are so few that only a few steps are shown. For example, "transitional forms" only "show" one "step" in-between dinosaurs and birds. (Doesn’t show the whole process.)

 

 

But it does not make any sense since there are so much fish fossils. Fish! What do you think of fish, decay right? Fish is an animal that decays really quickly and like you know in order an organism to fossilize it takes a very long time. So how is it that fish actually become hard as rock when they decay so fast and don’t forget that in the sea the other fish clean them up.

 

There is a fossil of a fish that is in the process of eating another fish. The fish is halfway in the bigger fish and it has become fossilized. How do you explain that? Also the fish which was supposed to be the ancestor of the fishes were discovered off the African coast how could that possibly happen? Is it that one ancestor of the fish forgot to evolve?

There is another picture of a tree fossil.

The tree fossil goes through billions of layers of rock and other fossils.

How is that possible? Did the tree live up to billions and billions of years while slowly the bottom of the tree got fossilized with different organisms in it?

 

Oh! I forgot to add one little detail. Darwin’s theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. I remember that in my text book forgot which one(since been a long time) there was a picture of peppered moth. It was about natural selection happening before our very eyes. In England the tree trunks were darkened by soot, a light-colored variety of the moth became easier for birds to see and were eaten up, while the darker moth flourished. Evolutionist gave this example as natural selection. However the light moths against the dark tree trunks were faked. Peppered moths fly about in the upper branches of trees and don’t perch on the trunks at all. Also the biologist Theodore Sargent of the University of Massachusetts admitted that he glued dead samples of the moths onto the tree trunks for a NOVA documentary. (Jarry A. Coyne, “Not Black and White” Nature396(November 5, 1998):35-36; Jonathan Wells, “Second Thoughts about Peppered Moths,” http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.htm)

 

What laws the big bang defies? I already stated in my answer before but I’ll tell you again.(For details look at my other answers.) Big bang was rejected for a while since it declared an ultimate beginning which is impossible in evolution. Having a beginning was basically saying that at some point from nothing something came. Do you not think that it goes against physics’ law as well as many other? (Think for yourself, “What came before big bang?) ((http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/bigbangrebuttal.html go into this site! It gives evidence of the big bang’s major problems.))

So scientist tried to explain what happened before the big bang which they were unable to. Carl Sagon came up with the idea that the universe oscillates. This goes against the law of thermodynamics.

 

Now, since I answered your questions, I would appreciate if you answered mine.

Why do you believe in evolution?

What evidence do you have?

Why do you think that Creationism is not science? Do you have evidence?

((Creationism is science there are scientist out there with ph.D. and master degree also in some college or university they are taught by professors. These scientists also research and experiment just like any other scientist would. The world is beginning to see Creationism as a part of science. Although many scientists have bias, they consider them as scientist with different view. That is why many debates occur among them.))

[insane_alien]

right, where to begin....

 

However the longer wavelengths of ultraviolet light are very destructive

 

SHORTER wavelegnths are destructive, longer wavelegnths less so.

 

The early earth did not have ozone layer to protect the atmosphere

 

Yes it did. The ozone layer is formed when oxygen in the upper atmosphere is hit by ultraviolet light from the sun. this happens all the time. the ozone only requires oxygen and ultraviolet light to exist.(i won't go into the details of how it is formed but it is nothing to do with life).

 

Yes bacteria adapt to their surroundings and keep getting stronger and stronger. Adaptation had nothing to do with evolution. Do we see bacteria evolve into different kind of species say fish?

 

no this is evolution as it occurs over generations. adaptationis done to a single organism within its lifetime and rarely alters the genetic code. bacteria cannot turn into fish directly no matter how cool it would be if they could.

 

I’ll give you an example of Darwin’s finches. Finches had different beak due to what kind of food they ate. And he proposed that this was evolution in species. But what really is a simple adaptation.

 

The genetic code for the finches beak is different, therefore evolution. they are not born with a generic beak that will adapt into whatever beak is best for the job.

 

Kailbab and Abert squirrels were separated fro 10,000 years and they turned out to be different squirrels. But you have to concentrate on the word squirrel. They still are squirrels.

 

yes they are called squirrels but they are different species of squirrels. would you call a pitbull dog and a poodle the same because they are both dogs?

 

Okay, let say somehow with very little chance, a fish evolves lungs. What happens to the fish? The fish drowns!

 

or you get the lungfish which was the intermediate between ocean life and land life. also probably one of our ancestors. they are actually still around why don't you go google it or look on wikipedia.

 

Living things cannot simply change piece by piece, organs by organs. An organism is an integrated system, and any isolated changed in the system is more likely to be harmful than helpful. The only way the fish to be land dwelling animal is to transform all at once, which would be impossible in evolution.

 

no things do change piece by piece. well its more like a piece of a piece but it does happen. its not like changing a cog with a cpu its gradually changing something.

 

Now about fossil records. Fossils do not give evidence to the evolution anymore. It was believed to have given proof to evolution however it discredits it instead.

 

funny, all i see is support from the fossil record. can you give me your source for this?

 

There are so many missing pieces to start out with. There is no fossil to prove the in-between organism. For instance if a fish turned into a land creature let say a cow, there is no fossil that has both similarities of a fish and a cow. So is the fossil just lost? Or was it impossible for them to fossilize? Evolutionists claim that they just have not found the correct fossils yet.

 

not everything that dies will become a fossil otherwise we would be up to our armpits in fossils.

 

But it does not make any sense since there are so much fish fossils. Fish! What do you think of fish, decay right? Fish is an animal that decays really quickly and like you know in order an organism to fossilize it takes a very long time. So how is it that fish actually become hard as rock when they decay so fast and don’t forget that in the sea the other fish clean them up.

 

fish are in the ideal place to be fossilized(its the bones that fossilize not the entire fish) as when they die and sink to the bottom sediment quickly covers them (a few hours i think). but yes the fossilization process is very slow.

 

Oh! I forgot to add one little detail. Darwin’s theory of how evolution happened is called natural selection. I remember that in my text book forgot which one(since been a long time) there was a picture of peppered moth. It was about natural selection happening before our very eyes. In England the tree trunks were darkened by soot, a light-colored variety of the moth became easier for birds to see and were eaten up, while the darker moth flourished. Evolutionist gave this example as natural selection. However the light moths against the dark tree trunks were faked. Peppered moths fly about in the upper branches of trees and don’t perch on the trunks at all.

 

Then how come i have seen with my own eyes peppered moths almost completely covering a tree trunk.(this was actually scary for me, i have a phobia of moths for some reason)

 

Big bang was rejected for a while since it declared an ultimate beginning which is impossible in evolution.

 

What in the name of all that is hairy has evolution got to do with the big bang?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! evolution is about life and how it evolves to its surroundings(by the way i suggest you look up a definition of adaptation and evolution), the big bang is about the formation of the universe. where is the conflict they aren't exactly intimately related are they.

 

Why do you believe in evolution?

What evidence do you have?

Why do you think that Creationism is not science? Do you have evidence?

 

1. why do i believe in evoultion? it has been observed happening, it explains alot of things about our species past, and its better than the alternatives. if a better theory comes along that explains why evolution fits as well as it does then i will believe in that.

 

2. what evidence do i have? fossil records, observations.

 

3.why do you think creationism is not science? i have answered this. it is based on belief nad has never been published scientifically.

 

4.The evidence is that it is comes from a 2000yearold book that contradicts itself, is blatantly wrong in a lot of areas and is generally a piece of much edited/molested religious propaganda.

 

((Creationism is science there are scientist out there with ph.D. and master degree also in some college or university they are taught by professors. These scientists also research and experiment just like any other scientist would. The world is beginning to see Creationism as a part of science. Although many scientists have bias, they consider them as scientist with different view. That is why many debates occur among them.))

 

i don't care what some people believe. i believe in alot of things that are probably impossible but i like to believe in them anyway. i don't bring them up when i am discussing a scientific issue as they are irrelevant when science is about looking at evidence and drawing up conclusions. i am currently about to start a master degree, i believe in reincarnation and that some people are genuinely psychic, i don't try to enforce it on anybody else because i would appear to be a psychotic nutcase.

[Xyph]

flamingoflie, I'm interested in how you'd respond to my earlier point, and how, in light of this, you can consider Creationism science:

Essentially, there's no-one who, after going through a rational scientific education, examined the evidence and decided, "Wait, this seems to suggest that the world was created in 6 days by a god who then created a man called Adam and a women from one of his ribs and then went on to give man 10 commandments and a variety of other ethical laws the specifics of which I should be able to go on to extrapolate from this evidence!" It always works the other way round. Someone reads the Bible, decides it's true, and goes on to try to prove it's true scientifically.

Oh, and remember that this isn't the same as looking at natural occurences and coming up with hypotheses to explain them, based on what you can see. The bible did not occur naturally and the story contained within it is not abundant throughout the natural world, as is the case with that on which the hypotheses of science are based. No, so called proofs of Creationism would not count as extensions of the bible even if they were valid, since you still have to refer back to the bible to make them so, which is, itself, something that has come into being as an original only once, and is not abundant throughout nature.

 

 

(Edited in case of misinterpretations over language used.)

[YT2095]

actualy the bible is Not a single book at all it`s Many books, the word Bible comes from the Greek word Biblia, meaning "bookS" plural. it goes back further than that too, but that`s beyond the scope of this topic.

[Xyph]

Yeah, but I used the term loosely. It was just simpler to refer to the collection of books that is today recognised as "The Bible" as "a book", rather than "the books of The Bible". Good point, though, I'll edit the post.

[bigsplit]

Hello All,

 

When we use the term Creationist we must be careful...there are new earth creationist (universe 6000years old, God used magic) old-earth creationist (Old earth and God used Magic) and Theistic Evolutionist (God said "Bang" and Science handles it from there). The differences are based on whether you think God is a Magician or a Scientist....whether he waved a wand or used the laws of physics.

 

Creationism in itself is not in opposition to science in all cases and we must not forget this. It is dogmatic interpretations of ancient creationist accounts that are in opposition to science.....like the Church in Gallileo's time...they wish to hold back science because they do not wish to admit that their interpretation of ancient scripture is wrong. It is sad, really sad indeed.

 

But, on the other hand no one should or can assert that Science disproves God...such sentiments are as dogmatically founded as their counterparts.

[GeminiinimeG]

you cant use the bible for science at all. It might have truths withing it but its basically the church telling people what supposedly happened. The bible is full of metaphors and stuff that everybody views in a different manner and cant be accredited in science

[Xyph]

If Creationism is defined as denial of evolution, then it is in opposition to science. If this is what you meant, then I agree, it is sad.

[bigsplit]

If Creationism is defined as denial of evolution, then it is in opposition to science. If this is what you meant, then I agree, it is sad.

 

 

This is not so in all views of creationism...some think that God is active constantly and that evolution is the method of his work dictated by the laws of physics he established in the beginning. But, some creationist do believe evolution is wrong.

[bigsplit]

you cant use the bible for science at all. It might have truths withing it but its basically the church telling people what supposedly happened. The bible is full of metaphors and stuff that everybody views in a different manner and cant be accredited in science

 

Oh, but science is based on philosophies that are all tied into ancient theological ideals. Not too long ago generalist ruled the world of academia where theology, epistomology, metaphysics and physical philosophy were all tied together. All of the specializations of today can trace their heritage back to these great minds. Gallileo, Newton, DeCartes, Darwin and most of the pilliars in which modern science rests were men of faith.

 

But, you are not doubt correct, the church has no business teaching science...such is unwise and dangerous to both theology and science. But, those generalist of old in their attempts to develop complete philosophies are inspirational. Some people cannot help but reach out and try to tie it all together, some peoples intellectual curiousity and desire to know the unknown drives them to seek such meaning. This passion and drive is what make man unique and the quest to answer such questions has lead us to the modern world. Faith is a powerful tool for many.....faith in a natural law of both ethics and the physical world.....such endevors seek the true Unification theory....the unification of the spiritual and physical....the world of faith and science.

[us.2u]

Yes it would be nice if science concurred with religion but unfortunately, I believe that is surreal, a total "fantasy" like happy ever-after; there are other theories or options in answer to the B.B. but as science progresses, I feel the answers are probably not to everyones liking; but then the truth seldom is....us.2u