Extremely cogent and valuable review. Thank you.

Thanks. Of course someone already managed to throw me one of those phantom funny votes. Goes with the territory I guess.

Yeah thanks Twansalem, coming from a physicist and a Catholic, that carries some weight.

Given the mundane and illogical reasoning supporting this opinion, the imprecise use of vocabulary and the multiple grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors, it's virtually impossible to believe this poster's claim to have studied "high energy" physics. Yeah, maybe Physics 101 on the high school level, as the writing indicates an educational level well below that of college. Methinks we have yet another internet imposter here. Creationism, even for the sake of brevity, does not essentially constitute a refutation of the theories of big bang and evolution. It's a bit of blind faith malarky that holds that everything in the universe was conjured up in a marked unit of time by a metaphysical divine. It dismisses such ideas as chemical reaction under unique conditions, biological diversity over the course of eons, thermodynamics, etc., in favor of presto!!!: God made everything. One size fits all. Of course, the long-understood fact that the universe is still expanding, and recent observations by scientists of a distant solar system currently forming kinda dispel the notion that the Divine made everything in seven days, however long those metaphoric seven days were. In essence, Creation is still going on, which strongly supports the idea that the universe and existence are not static and fixed, but rather evolving and mutable. Furthermore, science and religion share two major root topics, namely, the origins of existence and man's place in the cosmos. Of course, the Christian ethos had it all wrong on the second issue, and continued scientific examination has blown holes in the cookie cutter notions of Genesis and the Garden of Eden. Science and religion, for the most part, share a mission, that is, explaining the strange and largely unknowable universe around us and trying to get to essence of our existence. One goes about it in an intellectual fashion, relying on fact, the other accepts without question dogma that falls apart under examination. Finally, science does not consider the notion of the Creator at all in its examination of origins. You'll never see any speculation by an enterprise committed to empiricism entertaining the ridiculous idea of the Divine starting the big bang, because such a fairy tale is not observable, nor subject to testable hypotheses, nor provable. So, the inane attempt to resolve faith and science in terms of our origins is a quest for failure, an adventure in self-mystification. The fact that other posters considered the original opinion to "carry some weight" and be "cogent and valuable" is proof positive that quite a few of the know-it-alls on this site are totally clueless.

So the dumbass ukulele player is questioning my academic credentials? What a joke. I'm sitting here grading final exams for an undergraduate physics class that I'm sure Moose would fail with flying colors.