Curiosity: New series on Science Channel

[rcorlew]

Over the weekend the Science Channel began a new series called Curiosity where they host a discussion from various notables on certain topics, the topic for this week was "Did God create the universe?" The main discussion was centered around Stephen Hawkings' theories where he concludes that science has answered enough of the big questions to scientifically rule out the existence of God, the afterlife and even absolute death.

The expert panel consisted of 3 people: one a cosmologist, one a theologian and astrophysicist, and the other an astrophysicist and cosmologist. They discussed topics such as the entire universe amounts to nothing (there is enough anti-energy to balance positive energy) and since the universe amounts to nothing then nothing had to actually start the creation of the universe. The also featured several guest speakers including a Christian astrophysicist who works for NASA.

The reason I bring this up is the amazing conclusion that was reached by all but one of the 7 experts on the subject, mind you only two were Christians and the other 5 were either atheist or agnostic. Their conclusion was that in the end we are left with either laws of nature (physics) whose existence cannot be explained or a God who created those laws whose own existence cannot be explained; either way the fundamental existence of the universe cannot be explained.

Any thoughts on the subject?

 

[2thePoint]

I agree with their conclusion. Things that run down can't be eternal, and nothing can cause its own existence. So the things that run down (the physical, observable universe) had to have been created by something non-physical and eternally self-existent. I would also note that since evolutionists always insist that their theory is not about origins but only "changes in allele frequency over time", then the theory of evolution cannot be used to discuss origins at all. So those that do not believe in an intelligent designer must propose some other theory for origins, and there is no possible theory that can be more provable or "scientific" than ID; they're all in the same boat at that point.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Their conclusion was that in the end we are left with either laws of nature (physics) whose existence cannot be explained or a God who created those laws whose own existence cannot be explained; either way the fundamental existence of the universe cannot be explained.

Any thoughts on the subject?

Of course the fundamental existence of the universe cannot be explained, we are told this plainly...

''For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.'' -Isaiah 55

''The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.'' -Psalm 77

We cannot understand the fundamentals for the universe's cause without knowing the fundamentals of the very existence of God in all of His full capacities. But we are firmly told this is knowledge we cannot and will not be able to possess. There will come a time, however, when the mystery will be no more.

As for the existence of God, I like to use a simple analogy. Cars. Cars are good proof that God must exist. What do I mean by that?

Simple, without conscious cause, cars cannot be driven, and furthermore they simply would not exist. Fundamentally, a car and the universe are the same, as they are both unconscious, undirected, physical things in and of themselves. It is an impossibility that this universe is to exist without a conscious cause of its own. In a godless universe, cars self assemble and drive themselves. It is a convenient universe, as no manufacturing plants are required. The materials shape themselves into the required components, and come together on their own accord.

 

[miamited]

Hi Tim,

I'm sure that the OP would grant you permission to copy and paste this discussion on any board that is more suitable for your needs. I imagine the OP, having watched the article, is aready fairly familiar with the atheistic viewpoint and is seeking to find out what like-minded believers think about such topics.

So, merely ask the OP if you can take this discussion somewhere else yourself and have at it. I doubt seriously that any of the material in the OP is copyrighted and you are probably free to copy and paste it without fear of any retributions from anyone here. I do respect that you have asked for permission to speak, but as I say, I doubt that the OP is needing any further facts or support of what atheists believe and why.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi corlew,

You know, just yesterday I was at the local blood bank donating blood. My son and I got to talking and the issue, which when I was in school was 'fact', that blood is blue until it is oxygenated came up and my son and the technician said that that was just an old falsehood. The technician asked my to look down at the fluid running through the collection hose and note that it was red. Ok, I said. She pointed out that that blood was still in a sealed airtight containment and that blood is always red. It does turn a brighter red when it is oxygenated, but it is always red.

So, here I am, a 56 year old man remembering back to my high school science days and knowing that I was taught that deoxygenated blood returning to the heart/lung system was blue and in fact teaching us that that was the reason we could see blue veins in various parts of our body. Here's the picture. Something as simple as the blood in our bodies was taught incorrectly as 'facts' for a number of years. Why in the world could we not expect that things taught regarding objects as far away and difficult to discern as the stars and heavenly bodies in the universe, could very possibly be just as 'factually' wrong for a many, many years.

I know many are tired of hearing me beat this drum, but I will continue. I believe, wholeheartedly and without any doubt of conviction that the creation of the entire universe was a miracle of a loving God who desired to create in this realm a creature, much like the angels in the heavenly realm, that would love and honor Him. I believe that the entire purpose, from the most distant heavenly body in one direction to the most distant heavenly body in any other direction, was to provide a place where this creature of flesh and blood which needed oxygen and food to live, could.

Because of my understanding of 'why' the universe was created, I am fully convicted and wholeheartedly believe that is all came into existence miraculously by the power and the glory of a loving God approximately 6,000 years ago. That if you lived 6500 years ago there would be no earth for you to stand on. For as far as you could see in the inky thick blackness of the void of space there would not be a star or any other heavenly body to be seen. You would simply be standing somewhere in an infinite blackness.

Suddenly God spoke the light from His realm to penetrate into the black nothingness of 'space'. He spoke into existence a heavenly body that He called 'earth' and formed it and as soon as that 'earth' was created it was spinning and when it had completed one spin it would have marked off a day. By the time it completed the second spin God would have continued in His work of creating this realm of existence by separating all the water that covered the whole earth so that some became a sheet of small droplets of water and being placed in the space above and surrounding the earth as an 'atmosphere'. By the time the planet spun it's third complete time, God would have created upon the 'earth' dry ground by further separating the water and placed upon that dry ground vegetation. By the time the earth had spun it's fourth complete rotation God would have created all of the myriad stars and other heavenly bodies that make up the 'space' that we see. And so on, until the sixth day. Oh, by the time the earth had spun it's sixth full rotation since God created it and set it in the heavens, God would create, out of the very dust of the ground, all that was a man.

It's a miracle of God and man can never hope to explain that. You see, by definition if we can 'explain' things as far as how they happened or came about through natural processes, then it is not a miracle. It's just what would have happened anyway.

That's what I believe and am thoroughly convinced is the truth. And I believe in a God who loves me so much, that He has not left me in doubt about this, but has plainly told me what He has done. Even Paul stands in awe that the heavens, the creation of all things, are a testimony to the power, glory and majesty of a great, wise and loving God. Yes, I am fully aware that there are many, even among those who call themselves 'christians' who are in disagreement with this. Just so you know, that's ok with me, but it is what I believe and what I believe God's word teaches.

God bless.
In Christ, Ted

 

[2thePoint]

You highlight a good point, miamited. Science prides itself on its continually changing, of saying "We were wrong yesterday, today we know better." But quite ironically, many anti-theists will jump down the throats of anyone who dares to take science at its word; disagree with today's science and you are branded a non- or unfree-thinker, anti-science, afraid to know. They want it both ways; they want science to keep changing yesterday's unassailable fact into today's superstitious fiction, but that we must always accept today's facts. This is what is unfalsifiable about evolution, what makes it blind faith. No matter what scientific facts are ever discovered, the faith in the theory must remain. Heretics from this faith are not tolerated but mocked.

 

[shernren]

Hi corlew,

You know, just yesterday I was at the local blood bank donating blood. My son and I got to talking and the issue, which when I was in school was 'fact', that blood is blue until it is oxygenated came up and my son and the technician said that that was just an old falsehood. The technician asked my to look down at the fluid running through the collection hose and note that it was red. Ok, I said. She pointed out that that blood was still in a sealed airtight containment and that blood is always red. It does turn a brighter red when it is oxygenated, but it is always red.

So, here I am, a 56 year old man remembering back to my high school science days and knowing that I was taught that deoxygenated blood returning to the heart/lung system was blue and in fact teaching us that that was the reason we could see blue veins in various parts of our body. Here's the picture. Something as simple as the blood in our bodies was taught incorrectly as 'facts' for a number of years. Why in the world could we not expect that things taught regarding objects as far away and difficult to discern as the stars and heavenly bodies in the universe, could very possibly be just as 'factually' wrong for a many, many years.

Maybe it's just the case that many high school teachers do not know science themselves?

Have you ever bled, miamited? The fact that you are still alive shows that when you bled, the blood came either from capillaries or from veins. (If an artery is severed, the high pressure ensures that the blood gushes out and the person is very likely to die from excessive blood loss.) Now anybody who's bled before knows that their blood comes out a dark, almost brown red. That's what deoxygenated blood looks like, and you've known it for all your life, and so have scientists, except for a few rather silly high school science teachers.

After all, it wasn't that long ago that America had to be told to catch up to the Soviets in science ...

 

[juvenissun]

Over the weekend the Science Channel began a new series called Curiosity where they host a discussion from various notables on certain topics, the topic for this week was "Did God create the universe?" The main discussion was centered around Stephen Hawkings' theories where he concludes that science has answered enough of the big questions to scientifically rule out the existence of God, the afterlife and even absolute death.

The expert panel consisted of 3 people: one a cosmologist, one a theologian and astrophysicist, and the other an astrophysicist and cosmologist. They discussed topics such as the entire universe amounts to nothing (there is enough anti-energy to balance positive energy) and since the universe amounts to nothing then nothing had to actually start the creation of the universe. The also featured several guest speakers including a Christian astrophysicist who works for NASA.

The reason I bring this up is the amazing conclusion that was reached by all but one of the 7 experts on the subject, mind you only two were Christians and the other 5 were either atheist or agnostic. Their conclusion was that in the end we are left with either laws of nature (physics) whose existence cannot be explained or a God who created those laws whose own existence cannot be explained; either way the fundamental existence of the universe cannot be explained.

Any thoughts on the subject?

1. Don't forget it is a show on the Science channel, which is atheistic.

2. God is beyond science and can not be explained by science. So, from the scientific point of view, God can not exist. We should know the conclusion just by reading the title.

3. Christians have wisdom from God, which can bridge the gap between science and God. So, for a Christian, the scientific info presented in the show is still worth to know, but should not be bothered by the scientific conclusion. (Note: if you are not a scientist, then you will hear more about the (scientific) conclusion than the information, and that might become a burden to you. So, pray (before and) after you watched it.)

4. All similar programs on the science channel are of the same nature. We have to carefully sort out the information and not be confused by their "conclusions". The problem is that many times, they squeezed one or two words into the information which will lead to or imply the conclusion. If you are not careful enough, the presentation could sound convincing.

 

[Dark_Lite]

You highlight a good point, miamited. Science prides itself on its continually changing, of saying "We were wrong yesterday, today we know better." But quite ironically, many anti-theists will jump down the throats of anyone who dares to take science at its word; disagree with today's science and you are branded a non- or unfree-thinker, anti-science, afraid to know. They want it both ways; they want science to keep changing yesterday's unassailable fact into today's superstitious fiction, but that we must always accept today's facts. This is what is unfalsifiable about evolution, what makes it blind faith. No matter what scientific facts are ever discovered, the faith in the theory must remain. Heretics from this faith are not tolerated but mocked.

Accepting what the evidence tells us is not "blind faith." Creationism is rejected because it was falsified over 150 years ago. It simply cannot explain the world we live in.

 

[2thePoint]

Accepting what the evidence tells us is not "blind faith." Creationism is rejected because it was falsified over 150 years ago. It simply cannot explain the world we live in.

Evidence isn't the issue, it's interpretation. Everybody interprets through their worldview. And no, creationism was never falsified.

 

[miamited]

Hi Shenren,

The point is not what I could have logically surmised as fact about red and blue blood. The point is that science; the scientific community at one time recently, within my lifetime, taught and had printed in school books this falsehood regarding blood. It was taught and it was believed by every child of my generation that took basic biological sciences. Here's a little story that you might enjoy: The Truth is Out There by Bob Sprankle | November Learning

Yes, I fully understand that the man telling the story is correct about the color of blood whether oxygenated or not, but consider how it could possible that 90-95% of fairly bright computer lab students believed it. Why? Where did this understanding come from. You'll find that my earlier post is correct. There was a time that schools nationwide and possibly world wide taught that there was a change in the color of blood from blue to red as it traveled throughout the body.

So, the issue, my friend really has nothing to do with whether I was too stupid to figure out that there was no such thing as blue blood as you seem to be pointing out, but that the scientific community is often wrong about things. And as it applies to the knowledge of space and heavenly bodies, we are constantly being presented with new evidence that make old standards 'wrong'.

My point is that if the scientific community could have been so terribly wrong about blood, which is right here right now and we can touch it and feel it and work with it and study it under a microscope. What are the chances that objects and events that are not right here, right now that we can touch and feel and work with and study under a microscope could be misinterpreted or misunderstood.

We have no way of replicating the creation event no matter how one believes all things came into existence in this realm. All we can do is take the verifiable evidence as it applies in the here and now against those things that exist in the here and now and interpolate them to the past or the future. However, all of this depends on natural scientific processes bringing about the event that we are researching. If God, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them by a miracle of His power, majesty, wisdom and purpose, then all bets about what we can prove by natural processes are off. Period. If it was in fact a miracle as the Scriptures declare, then nothing we do through the study of natural processes applies. Period.

If Adam was created at some seemingly instant point of time; if he was created as the Scriptures seem to clearly show, a fully grown adult male; then we can take all the forensic science that we have today at our disposal gleaned from every library and scholarly source on the face of the earth and we will not be able to show how a man who didn't exist yesterday now stands before us as a fully formed adult male. As a matter of fact, just as with the creation account, any 'scientifically' minded person would outright laugh in Adam's face at the preposterous story that yesterday he didn't exist. Which is exactly what happens when those who subscribe to the literal six day creation account find even among many who claim to believe God.

Friend, the same holds true with the earth. If it was seemingly instantaneously created, then we can hold up all the scientific knowledge of the whole world and we wouldn't be able to explain how yesterday all around us was a black inky void and today there is this planet sitting out here all alone by itself. Why, because the cause of the effect would be God and God cannot be proven in the reality of physical evidence. This is why God says that His righteous ones shall live by faith. So here's the question: Will I live by faith or by 'scientific' evidences? Will I live by faith or must everything that I believe about God be 'proved' to me?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[solarwave]

Their conclusion was that in the end we are left with either laws of nature (physics) whose existence cannot be explained or a God who created those laws whose own existence cannot be explained; either way the fundamental existence of the universe cannot be explained.

Any thoughts on the subject?

It would appear we might never know for certain how the universe was created. There will always be a philosophy or theology that can explain away what we don't like.

You highlight a good point, miamited. Science prides itself on its continually changing, of saying "We were wrong yesterday, today we know better." But quite ironically, many anti-theists will jump down the throats of anyone who dares to take science at its word; disagree with today's science and you are branded a non- or unfree-thinker, anti-science, afraid to know. They want it both ways; they want science to keep changing yesterday's unassailable fact into today's superstitious fiction, but that we must always accept today's facts. This is what is unfalsifiable about evolution, what makes it blind faith. No matter what scientific facts are ever discovered, the faith in the theory must remain. Heretics from this faith are not tolerated but mocked.

Not all theories are equal. Some things are more certain than others. Do you think it is possible that the sun in fact goes round the earth? Heliocentricism has been proven again and again by so much evidence that it is practically impossible for it to be wrong. Just because we were once doesn't mean any theory could fall as easily as another. Highly likely theories can be changed slightly, but the fall of a whole theory which has been proven by a mass of evidence would be near impossible. Evolution would be a theory we have a lot of evidence for.

Some theories such as string theory could turn out to be completely wrong, but thats because they don't have a lot of evidence to begin with. So I guess we should put our faith in theories based on how much evidence they have.

 

[miamited]

Hi Darklite,

You responded: It simply cannot explain the world we live in.

You see, this is exactly my point. What kind of God do you believe in, if you don't believe He could have miraculously created all things in just a matter of moments, or as the account seems to indicate, days? Is your God not wise enough to know how everything needed to be made to work in perfect harmony across the universe? Is your God not strong enough to create such magnificent heavenly bodies as we see strewn across the universe?

I'm going to challenge you on your response. What exactly do you mean when you state: creationism cannot explain everything as it presently exists?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi SW,

You responded: It would appear we might never know for certain how the universe was created. There will always be a philosophy or theology that can explain away what we don't like.

I understand that a lot of people believe that statement to be true. However, I am certain. I am absolutely, positively, without a doubt convicted and assured that I know just exactly how all things were created. God spoke! And it became. It became fully formed. It became made in all the complexity and intricacy required that it all work perfectly. The earth when God spoke it into existence was covered with water and then God brought forth the dry ground which had a shallow mantel of tillable dirt that would provide a way for the creature that He was going to make to inhabit the earth to grow food. It became with all of the resources and minerals and water that would be necessary for the creature that He was going to make to inhabit the earth to build shelter. It became with all the soft dirt in which He would place all the plants of the earth in to grow and then the harder, more durable strata below that would support the tons and tons of living things and earth above it. God made the earth as a perfect place, with all that was necessary to sustain plant, animal and human life. He made it near instantaneously because He is God! He can do that! On the day that God began the building of this realm of creation, He had in mind from day one that He was building a home for mankind and He built it and filled it, just as the Scriptures say. He is that God!!!

Of course, you and I have had this discussion before and you know my position and I yours.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Dark_Lite]

Evidence isn't the issue, it's interpretation. Everybody interprets through their worldview. And no, creationism was never falsified.

The interpretation argument seems to be coming rather popular among creationists these days. I take that as a good thing: it's a tacit admission that creationism simply cannot work if the scientific method is applied. I liken it to the hot embers of a dying fire.

There is no alternative "interpretation" that can be applied in order to get creationism and still maintain a view of reality that is sound with a solid, rational foundation. In order for the "interpretation argument" to actually work, practically all of science would need to be thrown out and rebuilt from the ground up. I've noticed the interpretation argument manifest in a few forms:

1. Denial of uniformitarianism.
2. The Omphalos hypothesis.

If #1 is used, that upends all our scientific knowledge. Chemistry, physics, biology, and astronomy are all affected. If we cannot know with certainty that conditions were the same back then as they are now, then we have no basis to stand on. For creationists, this somehow automagically makes creationism true, even though it does not actually logically follow.

#2 has more theological problems than scientific problems, although it does have the epistemological problem described above. The Omphalos hypothesis basically says God is creating a world where we cannot trust our own senses. He becomes the author of confusion, and scripture says God is not the author of confusion.

And one final huge problem for the interpretation argument is argumentum ad absurdum. If we accept the premise of the interpretation argument as true, then we must undoubtedly accept all sorts of varying "interpretations!" Maybe my interpretation of the evidence tells me the world was created last Thursday. The universe is about a week old. It's my interpretation! Therefore, that settles it. It's just as valid as any other interpretation.

Except, it isn't. The evidence tells us that the universe is not a week old. Similarly, the evidence also tells us the universe is not 6,000 years old.

You see, this is exactly my point. What kind of God do you believe in, if you don't believe He could have miraculously created all things in just a matter of moments, or as the account seems to indicate, days? Is your God not wise enough to know how everything needed to be made to work in perfect harmony across the universe? Is your God not strong enough to create such magnificent heavenly bodies as we see strewn across the universe?

The subtle implication that I have a different God than you is not appreciated. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

This seems to be something of a restatement of the Omphalos hypothesis. According to all evidence we have, the universe is not 6,000 years old. It is far older. This was established (by Christians, no less) long before evolution came on to the scientific scene. Stating that the universe is 6,000 years old but looks older makes God the author of confusion. God is not the author of confusion. Stating the universe is 6,000 years old and that the evidence points to it being 6,000 years old is just a denial of reality.

I'm going to challenge you on your response. What exactly do you mean when you state: creationism cannot explain everything as it presently exists?

The explanation creationism provides for our world does not line up with the available evidence, despite the attempts by creation "scientists" to shoehorn it in. Therefore, it cannot explain the world we live in.

 

[solarwave]

Hi SW,

You responded: It would appear we might never know for certain how the universe was created. There will always be a philosophy or theology that can explain away what we don't like.

I understand that a lot of people believe that statement to be true. However, I am certain. I am absolutely, positively, without a doubt convicted and assured that I know just exactly how all things were created. God spoke! And it became. It became fully formed. It became made in all the complexity and intricacy required that it all work perfectly. The earth when God spoke it into existence was covered with water and then God brought forth the dry ground which had a shallow mantel of tillable dirt that would provide a way for the creature that He was going to make to inhabit the earth to grow food. It became with all of the resources and minerals and water that would be necessary for the creature that He was going to make to inhabit the earth to build shelter. It became with all the soft dirt in which He would place all the plants of the earth in to grow and then the harder, more durable strata below that would support the tons and tons of living things and earth above it. God made the earth as a perfect place, with all that was necessary to sustain plant, animal and human life. He made it near instantaneously because He is God! He can do that! On the day that God began the building of this realm of creation, He had in mind from day one that He was building a home for mankind and He built it and filled it, just as the Scriptures say. He is that God!!!

Of course, you and I have had this discussion before and you know my position and I yours.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

As you know I understand creation differently from you. I accept I will never fully understand the moment of creation, but I have faith in God.

 

[shernren]

The point is that science; the scientific community at one time recently, within my lifetime, taught and had printed in school books this falsehood regarding blood. It was taught and it was believed by every child of my generation that took basic biological sciences. Here's a little story that you might enjoy: The Truth is Out There by Bob Sprankle | November Learning

No, your point is merely that you had a peculiarly unthinking high school science teacher one year.

In fact, in the 2nd century AD, the Roman physician Galen already knew that the blood flowing in veins was dark red and the blood flowing in arteries was bright red. And doctors studied Galen extensively until up to 200 years ago. So for the past 1,800 years we have known that the blood in veins is dark red, not blue.

It is true that, in science textbooks, blood vessels containing deoxygenated blood are painted blue color. But that's not equivalent to your "gee every scientist was wrong" theory for two reasons. Firstly, our veins actually do look blue, even though the blood in them is actually red. So on that level the science textbook is right. Secondly, the colors serve more as labels than as actual depictions of the color of blood. You don't get annoyed when you see the USA colored pink and Mexico colored purple - you know the colors don't mean anything.

But I have yet to see the actual sentence "deoxygenated blood is blue" in any textbook. What's more, I've honestly never heard of such a belief until you said it to me.

Yes, I fully understand that the man telling the story is correct about the color of blood whether oxygenated or not, but consider how it could possible that 90-95% of fairly bright computer lab students believed it. Why? Where did this understanding come from. You'll find that my earlier post is correct. There was a time that schools nationwide and possibly world wide taught that there was a change in the color of blood from blue to red as it traveled throughout the body.

So, the issue, my friend really has nothing to do with whether I was too stupid to figure out that there was no such thing as blue blood as you seem to be pointing out, but that the scientific community is often wrong about things.

I'm not saying you were stupid. I'm not even saying your high school teacher was stupid. I'm saying you guys just didn't think about it carefully enough.

And you are just wrong about the scientific community not knowing the color of blood in veins.

So here's the question: Will I live by faith or by 'scientific' evidences? Will I live by faith or must everything that I believe about God be 'proved' to me?

I have no problem with you rejecting science. (Which is why, if you notice, I am not bothering to try to convince you that evolution is right: I really don't care whether you believe it is or not.) But I have every problem with you slandering scientists.

 

[rcorlew]

I think the point of the OP has been missed, it is not a thread about creationism versus evolution, but rather an astounding admission by leading cosmologists and astrophysicists that when you take everything to its simplest form you are left with only two possible conclusions about the origin of the universe:

1) Laws who operation and origins are unexplainable (unexplained laws or why do things operate only this way)

2) An unexplainable God who created the laws

Another interesting thing that really caught my attention was the fact that the universe amounts to nothing (there is as much negative or anti-energy as there is positive energy. The universe is actually just a division between the positive and negative energy. This would actually amount to ex nihilo, creation from nothing.

 

[juvenissun]

I think the point of the OP has been missed, it is not a thread about creationism versus evolution, but rather an astounding admission by leading cosmologists and astrophysicists that when you take everything to its simplest form you are left with only two possible conclusions about the origin of the universe:

1) Laws who operation and origins are unexplainable (unexplained laws or why do things operate only this way)

2) An unexplainable God who created the laws

Another interesting thing that really caught my attention was the fact that the universe amounts to nothing (there is as much negative or anti-energy as there is positive energy. The universe is actually just a division between the positive and negative energy. This would actually amount to ex nihilo, creation from nothing.

Thanks. I don't know how true is that, but I like it. That is a reason I like my avatar. Chinese are smart people, and their philosophy witnesses God's creation.

The disappearing of anti-matter is probably a major problem for the Big Bang model.

 

[KerrMetric]

The disappearing of anti-matter is probably a major problem for the Big Bang model.

Really? What disappearance?