dradt

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

I think science kinda suffers from a P.R. issue, much of which is do to language and the lack of the ability to give commentary along with the facts.
An example of this need can be detailed in one of the firt ideas that you run into with the big bang theory, one that at first rub seems counter intuitive to basic common sense.
Can an explosion create life? (Not directly of course but indirectly, getting the process going.)
I think most peoples experience with explosions are one in which a step down in order takes place not an increase in complexity.
For example If you put a stick of dynamite in a mail box and it explodes, you would never expect to get a bigger better mailbox.
Additionally explosions have a cause, a series of conditions, that need to be met to occur.
Right off the bat the big bang theory at least sounds dubious.
An unexplained point of stuff, that for some unknown reason, moves from that state, to an explosive state and kinda like a magic hat, a stream of stuff starts spewing out, and will eventually congeal into a soup of planets, stars and other stuff. One day this stuff will bring rise to a special flavor of soup on a far away planet called earth.
Human Bean Soup.