Seeking Help: My Problem with Evolution

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
Seriously, I couldn't stop laughing at this description. All I could think of Satan sitting back, feet up, and devising a way to TEST the peoples acceptance of the lie called evolution. He must be laughing his head off. OP, I know that you said that you kind of believed in creationism... Stick with it. Otherwise, he has convinced you of the absolute absurdity of the above.

God created Satan knowing full well what he would do. It's not our fault that god has set up all of the evidence to show evolution, yet won't even step in and clear things up as he allegedly did all throughout biblical times.

You admit that you do not know the answers to your questions. That is honesty at the very least.

I do not think your questions shall ever have thorough answers till we can understand much more than we do today. Was reading some of Stephen Hawkins work and being very uneducated in cosmology and theological physics, I could not comprehend much if any of his thinking.

Hawkins theology tells us that this universe created itself. It had no god to create it and needs no god to create other universes which he theorizes do exist. Now think about that for a moment.. An inanimate physical entity created itself out of nothing. After reading that I then assumed that Hawkins must know what this nothing is. The universe itself and all of its contents were instantaneously self created by what we call the big bang.

Now that does not mean all objects which evolved from this self creation exist in the forms that we see today but only to show that the building blocks were self created. Then Hawkins theorizes that evolution came into play. Everything was put in place with no help of a god and what we see today is the result of X amount of time. The X amount of time is also a theory but as long as it is accepted as science it is considered a fact.

Now to get back to your question as to your understanding evolution. Stephen Hawkins is a world renowned leader in the sciences and having that title he is booked in all of the leading universities today. So our little mush minds of today will swear by this guy and what he teaches. Therefore, Hawkins is the bible of science. The Hawkins philosophy is known as Theological Physics but we are not expected to utter that dastardly word "Theology" because that is the what the stupid Christians teach. Only a high bred evolutionist can use that word in the science field and get a pass.

If Hawkins Theory is correct then this may answer some of what you are confused. If the universe, which came from nothing, produced itself and all the contents of this universe, either by evolution or any other means, it had to be self created. Your answer then would have to be that it has to be evolution and not a outside entity of any sort. An example would be that people build cars. The material which they build these cars are formed by the material which came from nothing. The people who build these cars also came from substances which evolved from the self created universe which came from nothing. Therefore all of both cars and people came from nothing. Now I am not making this up. That is basically what this all amounts to. The people evolved from the materials of the universe and then formed the cars but both had to come from nothing. That my friend is called science.

Therefore the monkey thing is irrelevant simply because the evolutionist subscribe to the Hawkins theology. The monkey itself came from nothing and simply evolved into a man. Biologist can prove this by seeing where the monkey gene was split some X amount of years ago and "whala" here we are. Anyway that is their theory. But their theory is alright just like Hawkins because it's called science. Their science is therefore based upon them using the self created universe substances which came from nothing. Therefore the monkey is irrelevant because the monkey is nothing but a evolution of the materials which came from nothing. Just like the people and cars.

So instead of admitting that there is a creator, it is solvable to the atheist to embrace Hawkins and evolution. That satisfies the white coats and university professors who detest a god theology simply because the god theology has no proof. But the sciences have proof. That is what this culture is being taught and believes. Never mind the theology of big bang by Hawkins or evolution's theology of X amount of years because we are expected to believe those theologies simply because the powers to be are now in charge.

I hope this clears up the questions that you have as an atheist and evolutionist. We are the products of accidental happenings and our sciences are nothing more than explanations of this self created happening. You cannot separate Hawkins from science and you cannot separate science from Hawkins because he is the science heart beat. You are now stuck in your own quagmire and have to live with your own (theological) facts or simply come to the realization that God is the answer to all of this nonsense in the first place. Both camps are based in theology and always will be till God decides to spank all of us and then we shall all know. Don't be foolish! You can't have it both ways.

reply to post by Seede

The Hawkins philosophy is known as Theological Physics

It is not – except, perhaps, by New Age types and creationists. I am a former student of physics, and I had never in my life heard the phrase 'theological physics’ until I read your post.

we are not expected to utter that dastardly word "Theology" because that is the what the stupid Christians teach.

Please. Christians are not necessarily stupid. Promoters of ‘Biblical creationism’ may be stupid or vicious, but not all Christians are Biblical creationists.

I hope this clears up the questions that you have as an atheist and evolutionist. We are the products of accidental happenings and our sciences are nothing more than explanations of this self created happening. You cannot separate Hawkins from science and you cannot separate science from Hawkins because he is the science heart beat. You are now stuck in your own quagmire and have to live with your own (theological) facts or simply come to the realization that God is the answer to all of this nonsense in the first place.

The universe did not create itself out of nothing. It has existed for as long as time has existed, and will continue to exist until time comes to a stop. Time, too, is part of the universe. There is nothing outside the universe except, possibly, another universe, in which case what I say would apply to that universe too.

Was reading some of Stephen Hawkins work and being very uneducated in cosmology and theological physics, I could not comprehend much if any of his thinking.

What a pity, then, that you chose to share your ignorance and incomprehension with us at such length.

And by the way, the name is Hawking, not Hawkins.

reply to post by Astyanax


I recognize that you are being generous and respectful. pretty rare round here. thanks for that.

I would like to believe that I am speaking of (some yet unknown aspect of) physics, rather than metaphysics. I can get just as woo-woo as the "physical reality doesn't exist" guy. but we cannot rely on belief. if teleological causality is real, then it should be workable and useful, if not provable.

it is true that I approach science by seeking out evidence to support my own viewpoint, and that doing so is a bastarization of the process. but I also think that science is so heavily blinded right now, perhaps I am only attempting to compensate.

it all falls apart in cell biology (BIOL 3400 this semester for me). I have known for quite a while that some significant gaps exist in our understanding of biology. but I was aghast when the Prof invoked the concept of the "black box", and that we will be using this (dead end) explanation for many of the concepts used in class because we just DONT KNOW.


believe me, there is PLENTY of room for theoretical development. even in physics (I'm sure you know).

The OPs problem is they assume eyes...etc. were needed and not just one of many ways life could have evolved. Now it seems that eyes evolved early since they tend to be extremely common across life here, but that is as simple as it needs to be seeing so many things with eyes.

If we go back 10 million years humans would not be human anymore, but a different species. Evolution is slow, but never stopping. Humans 10 million years in our future will once again be a different species.

reply to post by tgidkp

And thank you, tgidkp.

it all falls apart in cell biology... I have known for quite a while that some significant gaps exist in our understanding... but I was aghast when the Prof invoked the concept of the "black box", and that we will be using this (dead end) explanation for many of the concepts used in class because we just DONT KNOW.

believe me, there is PLENTY of room for theoretical development. even in physics (I'm sure you know).

Sounds like, in cell biology, what is required is not more theory but more practical investigation.

In general, though, I agree with you. The position in physics is scandalous but quite well known even to people outside the community. I don’t think people realize that microbiology and biochemistry, well-established sciences with working technologies attached, have plenty of knowledge gaps of their own. At least they don’t – so far as I know – contain theoretical incompatibilities as glaring as those that hold (for example) between general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Originally posted by Astyanax
The universe did not create itself out of nothing. It has existed for as long as time has existed, and will continue to exist until time comes to a stop. Time, too, is part of the universe. There is nothing outside the universe except, possibly, another universe, in which case what I say would apply to that universe too.

Well why not "out of nothing"? It has already been proven that matter at the quantum level appears out of nothing and can disappear into nothing. Why not a beginning to our universe?

You are right that it has existed as long as time has existed for us and that is about 14.7 billion years. Just because our universe has time doesn't mean time is everywhere, and if there are infinite universes then there are also infinite types with ours just being one of them that happens to support our kind of life.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Well why not "out of nothing"? It has already been proven that matter at the quantum level appears out of nothing and can disappear into nothing. Why not a beginning to our universe?

Ah.

That’s a bit of a subtle one.

Virtual particles don’t appear out of nothing, strictly speaking. They appear out of the spacetime continuum. The continuum isn’t nothing; for a start, we know it is expanding, and seems to have energy. And not only have virtual particles been proven to emerge from it, but many quantum-gravitational hypotheses (unifying theories) postulate that matter and energy are in essence local distortions of the continuum.

But the universe, from our point of view, has always been there. It just happens that ‘always’ has a limiting value in this instance: thirteen point whatever billion years. This is what Professor ‘Hawkins’ (heave away, there, Jack milad, with a yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum!) means when he proposes that the universe is ‘finite but boundaryless’). I think it is upon encountering that phrase that most people fling A Brief History of Time across the room.

The above would hold true even if the universe had budded out of a pre-existing one. In that universe, the birth of our universe would have been an event in time; but not in our universe. In our universe the parent universe does not exist. But such things are hard to picture, and their implicit contradictions are almost impossible to resolve. Some people like to speculate about multiple universes, but I was never fond of Russian dolls. The reality we know contains enough mysteries and contradictions to be going on with.

It is not – except, perhaps, by New Age types and creationists. I am a former student of physics, and I had never in my life heard the phrase 'theological physics’ until I read your post.

I don't know your age or what university you attended but you are way behind this era of so called science. Here is a brief ID of Stephen Hawking - (Sorry I misspelled his name )

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Stephen Hawking at NASA, 1980s, Born Stephen William Hawking 8 January 1942 (age 69) Oxford England,
Residence England, Nationality British, Fields Applied mathematics, Theoretical physics, Cosmology, Institutions Cambridge University, California Institute of Technology, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,
Alma mater Oxford University, Cambridge University

Stephen William Hawking, CH, CBE, FRS, FRSA (born 8 January 1942)[1] is an English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, whose scientific books and public appearances have made him an academic celebrity. He is an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts,[2] a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,[3] and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States.[4]
Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, taking up the post in 1979 and retiring on 1 October 2009.[5][6] He is now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. He is also a Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge and a Distinguished Research Chair at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario.[7] He is known for his contributions to the fields of cosmology and quantum gravity, especially in the context of black holes. He has also achieved success with works of popular science in which he discusses his own theories and cosmology in general; these include the runaway best seller A Brief History of Time, which stayed on the British Sunday Times best-sellers list for a record-breaking 237 weeks.[8][9]
Hawking's key scientific works to date have included providing, with Roger Penrose, theorems regarding gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, which is today known as Hawking radiation (or sometimes as Bekenstein–Hawking radiation).[10]

Hawking godless universe was on every headline in the news media just recently. In fact I believe it has been with in the last few months. I don't understand why, if you schooled in physics, that you are not aware of this. Hawking is not a creationist but an evolutionist and his theory of a godless big bang is known by almost everyone that I have ever discussed this with.

Please. Christians are not necessarily stupid. Promoters of ‘Biblical creationism’ may be stupid or vicious, but not all Christians are Biblical creationists.

Your knowledge of Christianity is only surpassed by your own ignorance. Not all people who say they are Christians are Christians but a true Christian is a Creationist. The reason for this is that anyone with a religion is placed in a category and unfortunately Christianity became the dumping ground for the perverted. A Christian (Christ Follower) is a Creationist and can not possibly be anything other than a believer in the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. If not a believer in the Creator of Abraham then that one is not a Christian. That my friend is a fact.

The universe did not create itself out of nothing. It has existed for as long as time has existed, and will continue to exist until time comes to a stop. Time, too, is part of the universe. There is nothing outside the universe except, possibly, another universe, in which case what I say would apply to that universe too.

I agree that the universe did not create itself but you will have to take that argument to Hawking because he theorizes that the universe did create itself. Time is part of the equation of the self created universe of Stephen Hawking. Multiple universes are also a part of the Hawking theology just as you agree with the Hawking theology that there are multiple universes. So you also agree, in part, with Hawking.

What a pity, then, that you chose to share your ignorance and incomprehension with us at such length.

You seem to fit the category of a typical liberal in your name calling. I do not believe that I am the ignorant one as you were dead wrong on every issue that you undertook. I do not believe that you schooled in physics or have any knowledge of what a creationist is. I do not know who you mean by " with us" - I certainly hope that all of you "US" are not as misinformed as "YOU". Perhaps a refresher course is in order.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Virtual particles don’t appear out of nothing, strictly speaking. They appear out of the spacetime continuum. The continuum isn’t nothing; for a start, we know it is expanding, and seems to have energy. And not only have virtual particles been proven to emerge from it, but many quantum-gravitational hypotheses (unifying theories) postulate that matter and energy are in essence local distortions of the continuum.

Are you talking about string theory? From what I believe, in our universe space-time is infinite, but the universe from the big bang is not. So what we have is an instantaneous creation of infinite space-time with a slower expansion of the big bang.

The comprehension of something from nothing and zero time is hard to wrap one's brain around because we live in a universe where both are basically impossible to happen.

But such things are hard to picture, and their implicit contradictions are almost impossible to resolve. Some people like to speculate about multiple universes, but I was never fond of Russian dolls. The reality we know contains enough mysteries and contradictions to be going on with.

Ya, kind of hard to speculate outside of our space-time, but I don't think time is required outside of our universe. If we apply OUR rules we get the Russian doll scenario, which I truly doubt, so this tells me we are dealing with something that would be considered impossible within our own space time...

Originally posted by Seede
I agree that the universe did not create itself but you will have to take that argument to Hawking because he theorizes that the universe did create itself. Time is part of the equation of the self created universe of Stephen Hawking. Multiple universes are also a part of the Hawking theology just as you agree with the Hawking theology that there are multiple universes. So you also agree, in part, with Hawking.

I think Hawking believes that since space-time started for us at the beginning our universe then there could be no God to create it, but then a race of beings with lets say a 9 billion year head start would be damn close to what god would be.

So the big question would be if there is a god is he a part of our Universe or outside of it?

Originally posted by Astyanax
....but many quantum-gravitational hypotheses (unifying theories) postulate that matter and energy are in essence local distortions of the continuum.

do you have any intermediate level (no maths) articles you could link me to on this topic?

I have taken physics 1210 (not yet 1220) and I try to understand more advanced topics as a hobby. but quite a lot is too wordy or mathy.

I am trying to resolve some conflicts I am having conceptually with entropy / free energy WRT organisms and I have come to a standstill concerning the condensation of matter (vs dissipation of energies). or simply, where does matter come from? a "local distortion"?


thanks in advance.

reply to post by Seede


we have ALL heard of stephen hawkins. but what you are going to need to show us is a basis for the ridiculous term "theological physics".

perhaps you meant THEORETICAL physics?


p.s. tip: I am pretty sure you don't want to start a pissing match with astyanax on this one.

we have ALL heard of stephen hawkins. but what you are going to need to show us is a basis for the ridiculous term "theological physics". perhaps you meant THEORETICAL physics?

 

Yes - You are correct and I stand corrected.

I think Hawking believes that since space-time started for us at the beginning our universe then there could be no God to create it, but then a race of beings with lets say a 9 billion year head start would be damn close to what god would be. So the big question would be if there is a god is he a part of our Universe or outside of it?

reply to post by Xtrozero


I agree that space time probably started with the beginning of this universe. The 9 billion years ago could be also correct but none of the living will ever be able to prove it. I also agree in the question as to if there is a God and if He is part of our universe or independent of our universe? So in effect I agree with you.

Maybe I should once again explain to this forum that I am not in any of the science fields at all and I would never demean any of the brilliant minds in the science fields. Each and every one is far above my comprehension. I am nothing but a theologian at the best but can grasp some basic concepts if they relate to me in laymen's terms.

I readily admit that most Christians become very defensive simply because we realize that all beliefs are categorized and Christianity seems to be the dumping ground for many perverted beliefs. You may be shocked to learn just how many who are named Christian are not Christian at all. A true Christian is one who is open minded to begin with. I am open minded to the sciences simply because the different tools that they use intrigue me.

I don't always agree when it contradicts my theology such as declaring that God does not exist. If I agreed then I would not be a Christian. I accept a scientist who says that he does not believe there is a God because he is entitled to that opinion and he is honest. But then that same man cannot be honest and equate his opinions beside his facts without stating that they are his opinions. That is what is happening today with many scientists. 15 billion years roll off their tongues as though it is a fact when it is not a proven fact. It is their opinion but it then is written in the science books as a fact. That is wrong and I believe any true scientist can see that it is wrong.

We have the same happenings in theology. A mush mind will state X amount of time in unwritten history as though it is a fact while it is not a fact. God is not a fact to the physical realm. God is actually a theory and will remain so till he shows Himself as a fact and a true Christian will never parrot this theology that He is a fact without being disingenuous.

That brings me to Hawking. A brilliant mind and deserves recognition as a brilliant mind. But to state that the universe needed no god to create it and that this universe created itself is nothing but his opinion. He does not know this to be a fact and he cannot produce the physical or mathematical facts to prove his opinion. He may deduce or conclude or simply believe but he cannot produce. Till he produces this as a fact it will remain his opinion. My belief is that our physical existence cannot be brought into this physical realm through nothing. Why do I believe this? Simply because we cannot understand "nothing."

Here is an example of what most do not know--
"In the beginning God created." In Hebrew, this is Bere#h Bara Elohim, which can be literally translated as "In the beginning created God." One might logically think that the Torah should begin with the deity's name, and therefore one might erroneously think that His name was "In the beginning" (Bere#h), and that he created God. They therefore changed the order of this verse, translating it as "God created in the beginning (Elohim Bara Bere#h) the heaven and the earth." This quote is from one of my thesis from years ago but it shows you that all of this happened from "Nothing" -- Can any mind comprehend "nothing"?

reply to post by Seede

Originally posted by Astyanax
I am a former student of physics, and I had never in my life heard the phrase ‘theological physics’ until I read your post.

Originally posted by Seede
I don't know your age or what university you attended but you are way behind this era of so called science. Here is a brief ID of Stephen Hawking.

I am fairly familiar with the career of Prof. Hawking. Can you show me where, in that lengthy screed, the phrase ‘theological physics’ appears?

Hawking godless universe was on every headline in the news media just recently. In fact I believe it has been with in the last few months. I don't understand why, if you schooled in physics, that you are not aware of this. Hawking is not a creationist but an evolutionist and his theory of a godless big bang is known by almost everyone that I have ever discussed this with.

All cosmological models adopted by physicists are ‘godless’, as you put it – not just Hawking’s. Physics is not theology. Scientific explanations for physical phenomena do not invoke God.

Your knowledge of Christianity is only surpassed by your own ignorance. Not all people who say they are Christians are Christians but a true Christian is a Creationist.

People like yourself are very fond of identifying yourselves as ‘true Christians’ and labelling as heretical any Christian who adopts a different doctrinal or philosophical point of view. I was born into the Anglican church. I am intimately familiar with the doctrine, liturgy and music of that church from having been a choirboy at the very famous Anglican school I attended. I ceased to be a believer upwards of thirty years ago, but have retained a lifelong interest in all religion, the Christian faith included. I have read St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. I am familiar with the histories and controversies of the faith down the ages. I have probably forgotten more about Christianity than someone like you has ever known.

I agree that the universe did not create itself but you will have to take that argument to Hawking because he theorizes that the universe did create itself. Time is part of the equation of the self created universe of Stephen Hawking. Multiple universes are also a part of the Hawking theology just as you agree with the Hawking theology that there are multiple universes.

I have also forgotten more about physics than you will ever know. Don’t embarrass yourself.

You seem to fit the category of a typical liberal in your name calling. I do not believe that you schooled in physics or have any knowledge of what a creationist is.

I called you no names. As to what you believe about me, do you really think I care a hoot?

I am fairly familiar with the career of Prof. Hawking. Can you show me where, in that lengthy screed, the phrase ‘theological physics’ appears?

You are a day late and a dollar short- I had already apologized for my mistyping the word Theoretical Physics although the subject matter was pertaining to a Creator vs a theory by a Theoretical Physicist named Hawking.

All cosmological models adopted by physicists are ‘godless’, as you put it – not just Hawking’s. Physics is not theology. Scientific explanations for physical phenomena do not invoke God.

That was not the subject matter at all. Most all know that most scientists are ungodly and that their scientific models (as you put it) are godless. The subject was that this particular Theoretical Physicist named Hawking declared that the universe created itself with out the God factor. Hawking was the one who brought his theology to the front as a Theoretical world famous Physicist not myself or anyone else. He himself made this great declaration of a scientific revelation. He is the bible of theoretical physics and not students such as yourself.

People like yourself are very fond of identifying yourselves as ‘true Christians’ and labelling as heretical any Christian who adopts a different doctrinal or philosophical point of view. I was born into the Anglican church. I am intimately familiar with the doctrine, liturgy and music of that church from having been a choirboy at the very famous Anglican school I attended. I ceased to be a believer upwards of thirty years ago, but have retained a lifelong interest in all religion, the Christian faith included. I have read St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. I am familiar with the histories and controversies of the faith down the ages. I have probably forgotten more about Christianity than someone like you has ever known.

I will not argue any points of your prior theology because it is not fitting for me to judge you as you have judged me. I respect the office of Archbishop of Canterbury and will not go there. I take it that you were in a division of an American Anglican church as they are all self governing and differ one from another. I respect your decision to withdraw from that belief but do not want to antagonize anyone's belief. You do realize that there are also great God fearing scientists in this world and the godless do not have a monopoly on intelligence?

I have also forgotten more about physics than you will ever know. Don’t embarrass yourself.

That also was not the subject matter and you very well know it. The entire point of the post was to show that Hawking was theorizing his declared science and nothing more. He nor you nor any other human can declare his theory as fact. I realize that you believe you are brilliant and I wish you the best in whatever you choose but self grandiose is not fitting for intelligence.

You may be correct in what you believe. I could not care less what your science declares. You only borrow the tools that the Creator has given you and nothing more. You could be as a god if you could scientifically create your own tools but even you know your limits regardless whether you admit it or do not admit it. There I go with another screed.

End of conversation

reply to post by Seede

The entire point of the post was to show that Hawking was theorizing his declared science and nothing more.

You claimed that he invented a field called Theological Physics.

I had already apologized for my mistyping the word Theoretical Physics.

You ‘mistyped’ the phrase not once but twice in your first post. So it was not a typographical error; you were claiming that such a field exists. The rest of your post also makes this perfectly clear, so it’s no use your trying to wriggle out of it now.

The subject was that this particular Theoretical Physicist named Hawking declared that the universe created itself with out the God factor.

He did not. He merely said God was not necessary. And that is not news; it has been generally accepted among physical cosmologists for a very long time.

Hawking was the one who brought his theology to the front as a Theoretical world famous Physicist not myself or anyone else.

Let me explain what seems to have happened. Hawking had a book – not a scientific study – out last year: it is called The Grand Design. Controversy sells, so the well-worn scientific ‘heresy’ that the universe can exist without a creator was trotted out one more time to help sell this one.

And you fell for it. You read or saw some piece of media promotion for the book and got all excited.

But if you had read the whole of that Wikipedia entry you posted earlier, you would have learned that Hawking published his most important scientific work in the 1960s and 1970s. The book that made him famous to the nonscientific public, A Brief History of Time, came out much, much later, in 2005. I’ve read it; have you? It isn’t a scientific treatise; just like the one that came out last year, it’s a kind of Popular Mechanics-style introduction to physical cosmology. By the time it came out, Hawking’s career as an active scientist was largely over. Physicists, like poets and rock stars, tend to do their best work in the twenties.

I regret to inform you that your knowledge of Stephen Hawking and his ideas comes from a muck-stirring media report you saw. Concerning the ideas themselves, the interview is about forty years out of date.

[Hawking] himself made this great declaration of a scientific revelation.

Not at all. He merely made a passing reference to it in his book.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write in "The Grand Design," which is due to be issued next week. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

That's the quote that lit the fuse in The Guardian as well in The Times of London, which published an excerpt from the book in its Thursday editions...

"The Grand Design" puts together ideas that Hawking has been trying out for a long time. Five years ago, for example, he noted that eliminating the question of what happened before the big bang meant "the beginning of the universe would be covered by science." And four years ago, he joked that he had presented a paper suggesting how the universe began during the same conference at which Pope John Paul II asked scientists to set the question aside. Source dated September 2010

I take it that you were in a division of an American Anglican church.

Good at jumping to conclusions, aren’t we? I am not American.

End of conversation

Do you really think so?

Try adressessing your concerns to an evolutionary web-site. you'll at least get a factual answeer...