runner,
You don't seem to know the difference between a hypothesis, a theory and a fantasy:
A hypothesis is an explanation someone comes up with for what might be occurring.
A theory is something that fits the facts and is the best explanation we have for why something is so.
A fantasy does not fit the facts.

The big bang theory says nothing about whether there's a Creator. That's not what it was intended to explain. But if you think there was no big bang, why do you think the cosmic background radiation is polarised? Indeed why do yo think the universe is expanding? Or do you think the redshift is the result of something other than expansion?

How much longer will you allow yourself to be played by the neocons who invented the notion of "man made warming religion"? Are you unaware that the neocons are atheists serving their own greed at the expense of humanity? And what facts are you imagining that those like me, who believe in global warming because it fits the facts, are ignoring?

___________________________________________________________________________________

JP,
A flaw is a weakness, imperfection or shortcoming. This does not necessarily equate to a difference from how something was meant to be.

Brian, you complain that people ignore science and base their beliefs on emotions, but then you support SSM?
What is homosexuality but a denial of biology and a belief in emotional reactions?
Science clearly demonstrates that the human body was not designed for sodomy, in fact its downright unhealthy unless multiple precautions are taken, yet we are told that people can't help their urges, they are innate. That is emotional, not scientific. And in terms of evolution, heterosexual sex evolved to ensure the survival of the species. That is science, not emotion.
Science also clearly defines two sexes/genders and occasionally makes a mistake and produces a biologically abnormal third sex. Yet we are asked to accept that despite all biological evidence to the contrary, people must be treated as the gender they emotionally choose.
You haven't really thought this through, have you?

Brian, you've made a case for our irrationality and limited vision! And given some of what we know to be real can't yet be proven! Particularly when some science reliant zealots refuse to accept eyewitness evidence and simply treat it as common hallucinations?

True science rules nothing out that simply can't be objectively disproved!

All you've managed to prove, is an extremely narrow unhealthy obsession with what you can see and therefore prove?

Even so like most of your ilk? Able to embrace a particular unproven evolutionary theory as being the most plausible?

Simply put, a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard has better odds of creating a fully functional and flyable 747, than evolutionary theory, with more holes than Swiss cheese. Creating something far more complex!

Like a walking, thinking, talking, gum chewing, communicating inventive, empathetic and loving human being!

Even when essential pieces of a very large jigsaw are patently missing!

Or confound the very fundamentals of science? Which states as immutable law, that energy can neither be created or destroyed, merely transformed!

Meaning everything that is the known universe or unified field of energy, had to exist in some form before the big bang theory?

Which to be scientifically plausible? Would be a gravity affected phenomena and therefore slowing! Rather than as shown as an unexplained inconvenient truth, accelerating!

Meaning there is a force at work here, stronger than gravity! And maybe implicit in some of those seemingly automatic remissions and miraculous cures?

Or a young man comatose for some significant period awakening able to carry a conversation in fluent Mandarin? Even though never ever exposed to the language or speakers?

I could expand, but word limits prevail!
Alan B.

Meanwhile the contents of this reference describe the baneful limitations of the dismal reductionist paradigm/ideology promoted by Morris. A paradigm in which we are now all trapped with no exceptions, including all the usual suspects who promote Christian "theology".
http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html

The "big bang" is of course a "creation" story/myth.
But what was the real purpose of old-time religious "creation" myths? This essay provides an interesting Understanding and a criticism of the dismal reductionist implicit in the interpretations and use of such myths by most/all of the usual "religious" suspects, including Sells
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/creamyth.html

This essay describes the dimwitted mis-understanding of the nature of Reality promoted by the advocates of both scientism and conventional mommy-daddy creator-"God" religion. http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/spacetim.html

Big Nana,

Homosexuality is not a denial of science. What a silly thing to say.

<<Science clearly demonstrates that the human body was not designed for sodomy …>>

It wasn’t designed for oral sex either. So what?

<<… we are told that people can't help their urges, they are innate. That is emotional, not scientific.>>

What do urges have to do with anything? Do you mean the urge to have sex? Because I can assure you that is very scientifically explainable.

<<And in terms of evolution, heterosexual sex evolved to ensure the survival of the species.>>

Scientists are getting closer to understanding why homosexuality evolved, too.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=evolution+of+homosexuality

<<… we are asked to accept that despite all biological evidence to the contrary, people must be treated as the gender they emotionally choose.>>

No, were not. Transgender people don’t choose to feel like the gender they feel like. It’s not an emotional decision (nor is homosexuality, if that's what you were getting at). There are many valid scientific explanations for transgenderism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

What is this biological evidence against transgenderism that you speak of? It's sounds to me like you're conflating biological sex with gender.

AJ, the article is about people making emotional judgements rather than ones based on scientific fact. And no, people don't choose to be homosexual but society chooses whether to accept that behaviour as normal or acceptable. Just because something is done doesn't mean it is normal. People have sex with every imaginable living and dead and ininimate object possible, but our acceptance of those acts is purely based on our emotional response, not any scientific evidence. In fact various cultures have different ideas on what is acceptable and what is not.That's based on emotion, not biological fact. Acceptance of any minority sexual behaviour has always been a changeable state.
And there is absolutely no proof that transgenderism has a biological base. It has a pyschiatric base, like anorexia, or body dysmorphic syndrome.
The very fact that 80% of children who believe they are transgender change their mind by the time they are adults shows this is an emotional response to external triggers, not a biological fact.
Gender theory is called that because that's all it is, a theory, not scientific fact.