You don't want a God, so what do you have instead of? It must be nothing. So, what made nothing, and what came before nothing? Nothing, Nothing, great grandmothernothing nothing.
And out of that nothing came something, and you can explain it, so do! Please. Maybe I can learn from you how to make something out of nothing. Like during the war. One egg and some potatoes and whoops, a family meal for a week! Big Bang indeed.
Susan Doris Wrote:
> You and many others can wriggle and evade and try
> to pick away at corners of the TofE but not one of
> these shakes the value, reliability, basic
> consistency, etc etc of theTheory; nor does any of
> that give any kind of god a look-in. The idea of a
> creator god fails every time, more so when the
> question of who made god.whomade the god who
> created god, etc etc comes in.
> And why you keep on talking about darwwin's
> original work, goodness knows, but it gives away
> your apparent wish to avoid all the studies and
> research that have gone on since then, extending
> and enriching the Theory.
Darwin's classical theory of evolution was
> based on field studies that rely on large
> populations, fragile ecological niches, and
> changing environmental conditions. When it morphed
> into it's more modern genetic form, one could
> preserve the model all the way down to single
> celled creatures-but not further.
> The deal breaker these days is the virus--which
> doesn't seem to follow the same rules.
> The real bugaboo to me is pathogeness--a proposal
> to explain the advancement of various species--it
> still doesn't work.
> I think you're right that the pre-cellular
> "primordial soup" notion is fantasy, but that
> doesn't demand a creationist solution--even if
> some form of creationism may ultimately be
> required. One possibility is a self organizing
> system; another is seeding through meteors and