Jump to content

Did God create The Universe?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

According to this guy, the Big Bang never happened:

The Big Bang didn't happen

 

Eric Lerner has been pounding this drum for decades. Still hasn't convinced pretty much anybody with formal education in cosmology (we are all big bang brainwashed).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner

 

PS: As an aside, it is also worth repeating that the Big Bang theory does not describe the beginning of the universe. It describes the evolution of our current universe but requires some fairly restrictive initial conditions. Inflationary models are the current best approach to setting up those conditions but we don't have conclusive observational evidence to that. Historically, inflation has been lumped with the big bang but that is not correct. Culturally many (including many veteran scientists) are struggling to use more precise/correct language and still will sometimes combine the two ideas.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Eric Lerner has been pounding this drum for decades.

It certainly appears so.  I don't know who is right but the scientific community is real quick to criticize and disown anyone with studies outside of the mainstream.  They tend to attack the scientist rather than the data. I find this comment from the linked article interesting:

Quote

It has now become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

It certainly appears so.  I don't know who is right but the scientific community is real quick to criticize and disown anyone with studies outside of the mainstream.  They tend to attack the scientist rather than the data.

There is certainly that hazard, especially when the subject gets politicized. Cosmology, not exactly one of the hot topics. It's much more likely to me that he doesn't get published because his science and data are crappy and instead of acknowledging that he cries persecution by the establishment. That has happened in the past so it's not without the realm of possibility, but I don't think that this is the case here.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

The latest scuttlebutt according to what has been found on the new James Web telescope is that the Big Bang never happened. Have any of you read about that here in the last day or two? I can't post a link right now.

Everything I am seeing is referring to or written by Lerner.  Did you see something besides based on his interpretations?

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

The latest scuttlebutt according to what has been found on the new James Web telescope is that the Big Bang never happened. Have any of you read about that here in the last day or two? I can't post a link right now.

The Big Bang theory (according to space.com) is that "the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."

What the James Webb telescope shows, according to a NASA source, is that the universe doesn't originate from a single point:  "The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time. We know this because 1) we see galaxies rushing away from each other, not from a central point and 2) we see the heat that was left over from early times, and that heat uniformly fills the universe."

This doesn't sound like "the Big Bang never happened", but it didn't happen the way that people originally thought.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The Big Bang theory (according to space.com) is that "the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."

What the James Webb telescope shows, according to a NASA source, is that the universe doesn't originate from a single point:  "The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time. We know this because 1) we see galaxies rushing away from each other, not from a central point and 2) we see the heat that was left over from early times, and that heat uniformly fills the universe."

This doesn't sound like "the Big Bang never happened", but it didn't happen the way that people originally thought.

Why "The Big Bang" is a terrible name (TLDW: Because the name implies concepts that are wrong "big" = wrong, "bang" = wrong.)

 

Edit: A bit more sophisticated look published this year (though, PBS Spacetime did highly praise the minutephysics video linked above): Spacetime DOES NOT expand everywhere. It won't be for everyone.

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment
9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

No. It was on Mindmatters. It was about Lerner and the Web telescope. 

For other goodness we can read NASA on UFOs: Not Nearly So Snarky Now. Here Are 3 Reasons Why. The magazine does seem to take a whole breadth of fringe topics on. By fringe I mean things that skirt the edge of where science has been able to make significant headway (e.g. consciousness) but not quite to pseudoscience land. It seems like they try to inhabit the the fuzzy space between. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean there is a whole lot of speculation in their articles. I've looked at articles from there before, but definitely not one of my go to places for science.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Nofear said:

For other goodness we can read NASA on UFOs: Not Nearly So Snarky Now. Here Are 3 Reasons Why. The magazine does seem to take a whole breadth of fringe topics on. By fringe I mean things that skirt the edge of where science has been able to make significant headway (e.g. consciousness) but not quite to pseudoscience land. It seems like they try to inhabit the the fuzzy space between. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean there is a whole lot of speculation in their articles. I've looked at articles from there before, but definitely not one of my go to places for science.

Yeah. It just came up on my Google feed. Thanks for the comments. 

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Nofear said:

Eric Lerner has been pounding this drum for decades. Still hasn't convinced pretty much anybody with formal education in cosmology (we are all big bang brainwashed).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner

You make him sound like a gadfly but there are many solid institutions and sources that give Eric Lerner a lot of credibility.  Here is an impressive overview of his career (see https://www.plasma-universe.com/eric-lerner/)

Quote

Plasma cosmology

Lerner is a critic of the Big Bang theory and advocates an infinitely old Universe. He has developed original theories of quasars, Large-scale structure of the cosmos, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and the origin of light elements all based on the plasma cosmology approach. He claims that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow filaments. He has analyzed data on the surface brightness of galaxies that contradict the predictions of expanding-universe models.

Lerner developed a theory postulating that quasars are not related to black holes but are rather produced by a magnetic self-compression processes (ie magnetic pinch) similar to that occurring in the plasma focus.

Fusion power

Through his work on the plasma focus, Lerner developed a detailed quantitative theory of the functioning of the plasma focus. Based on this theory, he proposed that the plasma focus could achieve high ion and electron energies at high densities, suitable for advanced fuel fusion and space propulsion. Lerner has done experimental work on the plasma focus in collaboration with the University of Illinois in 1994, with Texas A&M University in 2001, and with the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission. In addition, he developed an original model of the role of the strong magnetic field effect on plasma functioning, showing that this effect could make net energy production more feasible, potentially leading to an economical and safe source of energy.

Presentations

He has presented this approach to fusion at several scientific conferences including (in the past five years) the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, 2002: the American Physical Society, 2003 and the XI Latin American Workshop on Plasma Physics, 2005. Lerner was an invited speaker at both the Fifth (2003) and Sixth (2005) Symposia on Current Trends in International Fusion Research, which is sponsored by the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In the Sixth Symposium the paper was presented with Robert E. Terry, Naval Research Laboratory)[11]

 

Here is an open letter explaining the contrast between plasma cosmology and steady state model with the big bang theory (which is having to deal with more and more contradictions as new observations are being made, see https://www.plasma-universe.com/An-Open-Letter-to-the-Scientific-Community/).  Note that this letter is co-signed by over 250 eminent scientists around world (their names and affiliated organizations are listed at the bottom:

Quote

Bucking the big bang

Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory’s explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang’s validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

cosmologystatement.org

The original letter was subsequently reproduced at cosmologystatement.org, where other scientists and engineers were given the opportunity to add their names to the original signatories. Over 200 signed, and over 250 additional independent researchers. The full list can be seen at archive.org

References

↑ “Bucking the big bang“, New Scientist, May 22, 2004 (Online $$$). Reproduced at cosmologystatement.org. Copy at archive.org, 1 Apr 2014

Here is another example of a work by Eric Lerner published at Harvard (see https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988LPB.....6..457L/abstract)

Quote

Plasma model of microwave background and primordial elements: an alternative to the big bang.

Show affiliations

Lerner, Eric J.

Abstract

A plasma model of the origin of the light elements and the microwave background is presented. In contrast to the conventional big bang hypothesis, the model assumes that helium, deuterium and the microwave background were all generated by massive stars in the early stages of galaxy formation. The microwave background is scattered and isotropized by multi-GeV electrons trapped in the jets emitted by active galactic nuclei. The model produces reasonable amounts of heavy elements, accurately predicts the gamma-ray background intensity and spectrum, and explains the statistics of quasars, compact and extended radio sources.

Publication:  Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 457-469.

Pub Date:  August 1988

 

On 8/15/2022 at 12:43 PM, Nofear said:

- - - Historically, inflation has been lumped with the big bang but that is not correct. - - -

This is an amusing statement to be made.  Similar to anthropologists who try to evade questions by saying abiogenesis is NOT the same thing as evolution.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The Big Bang theory (according to space.com) is that "the universe as we know it started with an infinitely hot and dense single point that inflated and stretched — first at unimaginable speeds, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the still-expanding cosmos that we know today."

What the James Webb telescope shows, according to a NASA source, is that the universe doesn't originate from a single point:  "The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time. We know this because 1) we see galaxies rushing away from each other, not from a central point and 2) we see the heat that was left over from early times, and that heat uniformly fills the universe."

This doesn't sound like "the Big Bang never happened", but it didn't happen the way that people originally thought.

This has been known for a long time. It just has not spread into mainstream understanding. It is why you still get people asking where in space the Big Bang happened and that question doesn’t have an answer.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This has been known for a long time. It just has not spread into mainstream understanding. It is why you still get people asking where in space the Big Bang happened and that question doesn’t have an answer.

In other words, the universe came into existence out of nothing and has been expanding ever since.  How so compelling!

Link to comment
1 minute ago, longview said:

In other words, the universe came into existence out of nothing and has been expanding ever since.  How so compelling!

I’m confused. How does the Big Bang suggest a universe coming into existence out of nothing?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, jkwilliams said:
13 hours ago, longview said:

In other words, the universe came into existence out of nothing and has been expanding ever since.  How so compelling!

I’m confused. How does the Big Bang suggest a universe coming into existence out of nothing?

Because Big Bang proponents have not a clue about the pre-conditions for the Big Bang?

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what I said. I also don’t understand what “compelling” has to do with it.

You were affirming what @InCognitus was saying:  "What the James Webb telescope shows, according to a NASA source, is that the universe doesn't originate from a single point:  "The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time.  In other words, there is NO definite location within the expanding universe where the point of singularity can be found (I can agree with that).  However Big Bang proponents had been using the "Red Shift" phenomena as evidence for, well, the Big Bang!  Please review my post above for alternative cosmologies ably presented by Eric Lerner.  He shows how Big Bang proponents are madly scrambling to account for ever more contradictions as more observations are being made.

I said "How so compelling!" to express my sarcasm.  The Big Bang can only produce a finite universe (with finite number of intelligences) and definite starting point for time but an uncertain ending point (a possibility for finite time?).  The point of singularity is finite.  The resulting Big Bang cannot be infinite.

On the other hand, we have the Gospel as restored by Joseph Smith.  It definitely teaches of endless generations of the Gods and the work will NEVER end.  Therefore the universe has to be infinite and the number of intelligences has to be infinite.   It is even taught that ALL intelligences (you, me and future spirit children) are co-eternal with God).  It is the purpose of God to invite intelligences to participate in the Plan of Happiness and thus enable ever greater dominions and endless generations forever and ever (no end to infinity).

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, longview said:

Because Big Bang proponents have not a clue about the pre-conditions for the Big Bang?

You were affirming what @InCognitus was saying:  "What the James Webb telescope shows, according to a NASA source, is that the universe doesn't originate from a single point:  "The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time.  In other words, there is NO definite location within the expanding universe where the point of singularity can be found (I can agree with that).  However Big Bang proponents had been using the "Red Shift" phenomena as evidence for, well, the Big Bang!  Please review my post above for alternative cosmologies ably presented by Eric Lerner.  He shows how Big Bang proponents are madly scrambling to account for ever more contradictions as more observations are being made.

I said "How so compelling!" to express my sarcasm.  The Big Bang can only produce a finite universe (with finite number of intelligences) and definite starting point for time but an uncertain ending point (a possibility for finite time?).  The point of singularity is finite.  The resulting Big Bang cannot be infinite.

On the other hand, we have the Gospel as restored by Joseph Smith.  It definitely teaches of endless generations of the Gods and the work will NEVER end.  Therefore the universe has to be infinite and the number of intelligences has to be infinite.   It is even taught that ALL intelligences (you, me and future spirit children) are co-eternal with God).  It is the purpose of God to invite intelligences to participate in the Plan of Happiness and thus enable ever greater dominions and endless generations forever and ever (no end to infinity).

I'm always wary of concluding that a given scientific theory or principle can be rejected because it's incompatible with doctrine. I often find it's more a case of my limited understanding of both the science and the doctrine. In my youth, I subscribed to Joseph Fielding Smith's insistence that organic evolution is incompatible with the doctrine of the creation. I've since changed my mind. 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm always wary of concluding that a given scientific theory or principle can be rejected because it's incompatible with doctrine. I often find it's more a case of my limited understanding of both the science and the doctrine. In my youth, I subscribed to Joseph Fielding Smith's insistence that organic evolution is incompatible with the doctrine of the creation. I've since changed my mind. 

Over the many years I have been on this board, I would usually question the science (especially if it is being pushed by a persistent narrative that seems contrived) and explore scientific alternatives.  Sometimes I would follow up with religious perspectives simply to give a doctrinal overview (not necessarily to PROVE my scientific arguments).

I would invite you to review Stephen Meyer's work on evolution (which is deeply insightful).  Hopefully you also gave yourself a chance to understand the work of Eric Lerner.

Edited by longview
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, longview said:

On the other hand, we have the Gospel as restored by Joseph Smith.  It definitely teaches of endless generations of the Gods and the work will NEVER end.  Therefore the universe has to be infinite and the number of intelligences has to be infinite.   It is even taught that ALL intelligences (you, me and future spirit children) are co-eternal with God).  It is the purpose of God to invite intelligences to participate in the Plan of Happiness and thus enable ever greater dominions and endless generations forever and ever (no end to infinity).

You're limiting God's creations to only the universe as we can observe it now.  What if there's more?  What if the universes are infinite and we, with our finite and limited perspective, cannot observe all of God's creation with the eyes we have now? 

The Big Bang Theory need not be incompatible with the gospel.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, longview said:

Because Big Bang proponents have not a clue about the pre-conditions for the Big Bang?

The pre-conditions for the Big Bang are actually pretty stringent. Indeed, one of the difficulties with the Big Bang Theory is how to establish the pre-conditions for the Big Bang. Various models exist to try to establish those conditions.

 

 

57 minutes ago, longview said:

However Big Bang proponents had been using the "Red Shift" phenomena as evidence for, well, the Big Bang!  Please review my post above for alternative cosmologies ably presented by Eric Lerner.  He shows how Big Bang proponents are madly scrambling to account for ever more contradictions as more observations are being made.

One of the problems that alternative theories is that they can sometimes offer alternate explanations for a subset of phenomena but all of them fail to account for the numerous observational evidences for The Big Bang model. One of the biggest strengths of the Big Bang model is that it has been able to successfully accommodate observations that did not even exist with the model was proposed.

  • The dark night sky (Olbers Paradox)
  • elemental abundances
  • large scale structure
  • cosmic microwave background
  • red shifts of almost every galaxyi

And yes, I am going to emphatically state that Dr. Lerner is not correct. That he's written a handful of papers (such as the 1988 one to Harvard) is hardly evidence (compared to body of thousands upon thousands of Big Bang papers (also not evidence per se)). I can also be pretty confident that his model does not explain the scale of the anisotropies and several of the other features that are present in the CMB that would be well beyond the scope of a public discussion board (and for which measurements did not exist in 1988).
 

Edited by Nofear
Link to comment
1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

You're limiting God's creations to only the universe as we can observe it now.  What if there's more?  What if the universes are infinite and we, with our finite and limited perspective, cannot observe all of God's creation with the eyes we have now? 

The Big Bang Theory need not be incompatible with the gospel.

It might be plausible if there are multiple Big Bangs.  Infinite parallel universes?  But there will still be a ton of questions.  Pre-conditions for each Big Bang?

I am inclined not to pursue this angle.  I will just follow up and point to Heavenly Father's instructions to Jehovah concerning a space where there is matter unorganized.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, longview said:

It might be plausible if there are multiple Big Bangs.  Infinite parallel universes?  But there will still be a ton of questions.  Pre-conditions for each Big Bang?

I am inclined not to pursue this angle.  I will just follow up and point to Heavenly Father's instructions to Jehovah concerning a space where there is matter unorganized.

That's assuming we understand what "matter unorganized" means. I'm always wary of people who think the reason they aren't taken seriously by the "mainstream" is that there's some kind of conspiracy to defend orthodoxy. 

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Nofear said:

The pre-conditions for the Big Bang are actually pretty stringent. Indeed, one of the difficulties with the Big Bang Theory is how to establish the pre-conditions for the Big Bang. Various models exist to try to establish those conditions.

 

 

One of the problems that alternative theories is that they can sometimes offer alternate explanations for a subset of phenomena but all of them fail to account for the numerous observational evidences for The Big Bang model. One of the biggest strengths of the Big Bang model is that it has been able to successfully accommodate observations that did not even exist with the model was proposed.

  • The dark night sky (Olbers Paradox)
  • elemental abundances
  • large scale structure
  • cosmic microwave background
  • red shifts of almost every galaxyi

And yes, I am going to emphatically state that Dr. Lerner is not correct. That he's written a handful of papers (such as the 1988 one to Harvard) is hardly evidence (compared to body of thousands upon thousands of Big Bang papers (also not evidence per se)). I can also be pretty confident that his model does not explain the scale of the anisotropies and several of the other features that are present in the CMB that would be well beyond the scope of a public discussion board (and for which measurements did not exist in 1988).
 

But you have not really addressed the increasing contradictions as more observations are being made.  That Big Bang proponents are scrambling to cover for by inventing new cosmological features such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter for which they have zero evidence except with contrived mathematics.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's assuming we understand what "matter unorganized" means.

I'd imagine our understanding of the universe and creation could be compared to a bird's understanding of a 747 and the reasons for flying of each passenger on board.  Maybe even less. 

Probably less.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...