Creation vs. Evolution

[Pako]

Because they knew what they were doing and didn't see the need to twist every single word to fit a different meaning to prove the Bible is 100% accurate?



That's awesome stuff. Nearly every third word in every verse is highlighted with alternate meanings. So what, the original translators were too stupid to know context?

Come ON. The site you originally posted up is trying to say that the Bible said the world was a sphere by saying that a word, translated from Hebrew by Hebrew scholars centuries ago may have been a different word, depending on the context (and, for the hard of thinking, the context is RIGHT THERE on the page) could possibly mean another word which, when stretched to its limit, could maybe mean "sphere" (although not in a physical sense).


Read into that what you will. Or translate it into a foreign language, pretend some of the words mean something else and THEN read into it what you will.

If you want to look at it that way, no one's going to tell you otherwise. I agree it's stretching in the context but you presented the argument and I provided an answer even if you disagree with it. Do you speak Hebrew? Didn't think so....neither do I. They had to pick a word to use in it's context. They used the English word "circle" instead of "compass". According to the Hebrew definition of the word, there were other English words as well that weren't used. Does this change the message and promise of salvation that God promises each and every one of us? No. These details that you continue to split hairs on are not important to the message that Christ was telling us.

John 3:16 - Doesn't matter if their talking about a flat or spherical world, the promise is the same.

 

[Famine]

Do you speak Hebrew? Didn't think so....neither do I.

You'd be surprised. Still, not much of an argument there is there? Neither of us speak a foreign language, yet that means you understand the translation of that language better than I?

They had to pick a word to use in it's context. They used the English word "circle" instead of "compass". According to the Hebrew definition of the word, there were other English words as well that weren't used. Does this change the message and promise of salvation that God promises each and every one of us? No. These details that you continue to split hairs on are not important to the message that Christ was telling us.

Changing one word to a word of vaguely similar meaning, while not necessarily world-changing, makes me raise an eyebrow.

So you can imagine what I did when I read that there are over TWO HUNDRED similar words-which-can-be-substituted-for-others in Isaiah 40:22 alone. And there's only 25 verses in it, most of which occupy no more than one printed line.

Does THAT change the message of God? The forty or so religions around the world who all believe different things but use the Bible as their reference would certainly seem to indicate so.

John 3:16 - Doesn't matter if their talking about a flat or spherical world, the promise is the same.

Unless you're claiming the Bible description of the Earth's shape predates scientific discovery of it - which it wouldn't anyway, since the Egyptians got 1,500 years on it.

 

[Pako]

Interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to. Here are some more questions I have no answer to:

So where did God come from, did he exist in 'nothingness' before he created the universe in six days? How long did he sit around in empty space? Where did dinosaurs come from? Why did God stop appearing to his people, why did he stop guiding them through personal appearances, be they in a cloud or burning bush? Why does homosexuality occur in nature when the bible says it's a no no?

I could go on...

God said he was the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Guess that's what makes Him God.

Don't know how long he sat around.... Does he sit? I'll ask Him when I see Him.

God made all the beasts of the earth and sea, I would imagine this also includes dino's.

Not sure other than the old law of alter sacrifices and other practices found in the Old Testament were done away with as the prophecy of the Messiah was fulfilled through the virgin birth of Jesus. In John 14:6 Jesus said, "No man cometh unto the Father, but by Me". We can also have a personal relationship with Jesus today because he is risen from the dead. With these two key elements, God is not going to present himself in a burning bush as we can talk to the Father directly through Jesus.

Don't know about the homosexuality, I have a hard time with that one and leave that up to the individual and God to work out.

 

[Touring Mars]

A few of these posts are straying slightly from the point...I didn't think this debate was about whether or not God exists, what he does, where he came from, who he is, or about moral arguments, or even about the 'Big Bang' or the 'divine act' of Creation itself..., neither is it about Creation alone...I thought we were discussing Creation versus Evolution... ??

Not even the most ardent skeptic, scientist, Darwinist, or Evolutionary Biology would argue that the 'original event' of Creation can ever be anything more than a mystery, that neither Science or Religion will ever answer satisfactorily... You can know and believe all there is to know about Evolution (and any other science) and still have plenty of room to ponder the mysteries of Creation as well...

But 'Creation Theory' is a different thing again... Creation Theory attempts to explain in pseudoscientific terms how and when the Creation event happened. And a 'Creationist' is someone who believes that Creation Theory accurately describes the origins of our Earth, our species and our Universe. Therefore, I am NOT a creationist, because I believe that the methodology with which their claims are based, are pure pseudoscience.

But I am NOT saying that I don't believe that the Creation event itself is a mysterious, and possibly even divine event. All I am saying is that the people who pretend to know where and when we were created, are wrong. I know they are wrong because they claim to know at all, and I know (as a rationalist) that they do not know, and that they are just hand-waving, and trying to baffle us with pseudoscience... As a rationalist, I do not know exactly how and where we came from myself, but by following the scientific method, as Evolutionary Science demonstrates, one can begin to build an accurate picture of our past and our REAL origins.... Creationists offer no such hope of a true understanding of the real nature of our being...

So, if you call yourself a really spiritual person, ask yourself this... what is more likely to make you believe the Universe and our place in it is more awe-inspiring and amazing? Learning about where we really come from through the study of Evolutionary Theory, and learning that the Universe is a truly ancient and massive place filled with wonder and awe? Or listening to some guy telling you that the whole damn lot was made in 6 days, that you are part of a world that has only been around for 6000 years, and that all the wonders of science and nature that you've learned elsewhere mean nothing compared to what is written in the Bible? I consider myself a spiritual but rational person. But I don't need religiously-inspired pseudoscience to realise the true nature of my surroundings... I let science guide me and teach me what is real and what is not. The truth is stranger, and more wonderful, than any Creationist fiction will ever be...

 

[Pako]

A few of these posts are straying slightly from the point...I didn't think this debate was about whether or not God exists, what he does, where he came from, who he is, or about moral arguments, or even about the 'Big Bang' or the 'divine act' of Creation itself..., neither is it about Creation alone...I thought we were discussing Creation versus Evolution... ??

Not even the most ardent skeptic, scientist, Darwinist, or Evolutionary Biology would argue that the 'original event' of Creation can ever be anything more than a mystery, that neither Science or Religion will ever answer satisfactorily... You can know and believe all there is to know about Evolution (and any other science) and still have plenty of room to ponder the mysteries of Creation as well...

But 'Creation Theory' is a different thing again... Creation Theory attempts to explain in pseudoscientific terms how and when the Creation event happened. And a 'Creationist' is someone who believes that Creation Theory accurately describes the origins of our Earth, our species and our Universe. Therefore, I am NOT a creationist, because I believe that the methodology with which their claims are based, are pure pseudoscience.

But I am NOT saying that I don't believe that the Creation event itself is a mysterious, and possibly even divine event. All I am saying is that the people who pretend to know where and when we were created, are wrong. I know they are wrong because they claim to know at all, and I know (as a rationalist) that they do not know, and that they are just hand-waving, and trying to baffle us with pseudoscience... As a rationalist, I do not know exactly how and where we came from myself, but by following the scientific method, as Evolutionary Science demonstrates, one can begin to build an accurate picture of our past and our REAL origins.... Creationists offer no such hope of a true understanding of the real nature of our being...

So, if you call yourself a really spiritual person, ask yourself this... what is more likely to make you believe the Universe and our place in it is more awe-inspiring and amazing? Learning about where we really come from through the study of Evolutionary Theory, and learning that the Universe is a truly ancient and massive place filled with wonder and awe? Or listening to some guy telling you that the whole damn lot was made in 6 days, that you are part of a world that has only been around for 6000 years, and that all the wonders of science and nature that you've learned elsewhere mean nothing compared to what is written in the Bible? I consider myself a spiritual but rational person. But I don't need religiously-inspired pseudoscience to realise the true nature of my surroundings... I let science guide me and teach me what is real and what is not. The truth is stranger, and more wonderful, than any Creationist fiction will ever be...

Thanks for bringing us back in....

I think you hit some very important points, most of which I agree with. I don't think the earth was created in 144 hours, or 6,000 years either. I do believe, however, it was inspired and created by God. Most of these discussions come to do the existence or absence of God. Proving that God doesn't exist can disprove ANY creation theory. That seems to be the angle that many people in the thread try to take.

So, to define Creation vs. Evolution.....are we talking about origins or processes? As I've stated before, I adopt the thought of creation origins with evolutionary processes.

 

[Pako]

You'd be surprised. Still, not much of an argument there is there? Neither of us speak a foreign language, yet that means you understand the translation of that language better than I?



Changing one word to a word of vaguely similar meaning, while not necessarily world-changing, makes me raise an eyebrow.

So you can imagine what I did when I read that there are over TWO HUNDRED similar words-which-can-be-substituted-for-others in Isaiah 40:22 alone. And there's only 25 verses in it, most of which occupy no more than one printed line.

Does THAT change the message of God? The forty or so religions around the world who all believe different things but use the Bible as their reference would certainly seem to indicate so.

Nope. Doesn't mean that at all. What it does mean is that I am being understanding and sensitive to differences and complexities of translating Hebrew to English and you are trying to make a mockery of it.

Unless you're claiming the Bible description of the Earth's shape predates scientific discovery of it - which it wouldn't anyway, since the Egyptians got 1,500 years on it.

Never said it predates anything. We were talking about Flat and Round earths. Google stumbled on a site that offered some insight into what some of the early writers might have thought and I presented that as it seemed pertinent to the current discussion.

 

[JacktheHat]

I don't think the earth was created in 144 hours, or 6,000 years either. I do believe, however, it was inspired and created by God.

Ahhh, so the Bible is wrong?

 

[Touring Mars]

I adopt the thought of creation origins with evolutionary processes.

I'm pretty much of the same ilk... leave the science to the scientists, and leave the debate about creation to the theologists... teach Evolution in Science class, and debate creation in RE...

Creationists, on the other hand, are a strange bunch who think they can explain creation by using the Bible as proof... This doesn't mean to say that the Bible is 'wrong'... but mis-using the Bible like this definitely is. It comes down to whether or not you really believe that every word in the Bible is the literal word of God... it takes a leap of faith for a religious person to consider that the Bible isn't entirely literal, but it's a concession worth making, because to attempt to defend the Bible as literally true, is to miss the point of it...

 

[ledhed]

A large body of believers have to prove whats in the bible is literaly true they live thier lives by the bible thier belief system is the Bible " the Bible represents the words of God " How can God be considered to have prevaricated ? If you are seen to be knockingdown the basic corner stones of the written words of God you are a danger to faith . it is important to some that god created the universe and man and the bible explains how he is a son of Abraham and so a son of his son etc. etc. So science creates a rather large dilemma...if you start changing your tune about what should be taken literal in the Bible as each and every premise is disproved through scientific discovery..what are you left with ? In the earlier history of the religion you were left with a bunch of dead scientist and others who quickly fell in line with the church. Not so today . Today we get psuedo science to fight fire with fire ..as it may be . But no doubt some would still prefer the old days of burning the unbelievers at the stake. It was much easier.

 

[JacktheHat]

Maybe it's about time they brought out the next book in the series. The new, new testament or something...


💡

 

[Touring Mars]

A large body of believers have to prove whats in the bible is literaly true they live thier lives by the bible thier belief system is the Bible " the Bible represents the words of God " How can God be considered to have prevaricated ? If you are seen to be knockingdown the basic corner stones of the written words of God you are a danger to faith . it is important to some that god created the universe and man and the bible explains how he is a son of Abraham and so a son of his son etc. etc. So science creates a rather large dilemma...if you start changing your tune about what should be taken literal in the Bible as each and every premise is disproved through scientific discovery..what are you left with ? In the earlier history of the religion you were left with a bunch of dead scientist and others who quickly fell in line with the church. Not so today . Today we get psuedo science to fight fire with fire ..as it may be . But no doubt some would still prefer the old days of burning the unbelievers at the stake. It was much easier.

Good points... but the way I see it, faith is about having a belief in the unknown, or more accurately, the unknowable... so whether the text of the Bible is true or not, it doesn't really matter to the truly faithful, does it?

edit: ...which is why Creationists are self-defeating...

 

[ledhed]

I guess you have to ask the truly faithfull . I would not know . I can only write of what I have observed or have understood from conversations with those that I consider faithfull.
If they did not think that way then most would consider them insane or zelots or both. to stick to your guns despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary cant be easy.

 

[code_kev]

From what I've read the Creationists simply don't have a leg to stand on, their arguments are in a single word, pathetic. They have no concept of evidence, proof, or fact. To try and discredit evidence with mistakes made in the past is insane, and just shows what a weak argument they have.

And can a creationist PLEASE explain to me why dinosaurs are never found buried with modern animals, why dating has not found a deer with the same death year as a dinosaur, why we never find dinosaurs and modern beasts together, why we never find them buried at the same depths? If your gonna quote anything, I want a proper scientist please, not a fundie "scientist". From what I can tell most of the fundie dinosaur explanations are PURE guess work. Ha, and you creationists defend that. As long as it agrees with what you say, your all so quick to agree, while a REAL scientist will try to disprove their theories by REAL scientific study. No matter WHAT you say, dinosaurs died out millions of years ago, science is in this case, simply right, and nothing, no matter what can prove other wise. This kinda pisses on the Earth being 6k years old thing. Sorry.

 

[Touring Mars]

. to stick to your guns despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary cant be easy.

Yeh, that's true... but being absolutely convinced that you are right doesn't mean you actually are right... that's why you can never win an argument with a true believer. Infact, if 10 years as a scientist has taught me anything, it's that if you are sure you are totally right, you're probably not...

And can a creationist PLEASE explain to me...

....I want a proper scientist please, not a fundie "scientist".

I'm sorry Kev, but you can't have both...! You'll have more chance finding your 6000 yr old dinosaur bones than finding a creationist who is also a proper scientist, because they don't exist either...

As a 'proper' scientist, the only real answer to your question (as I'm sure you are already well aware) is simple... Creation Theory cannot answer your question.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

For UK residents

Equinox special (Channel 4 at 9pm) about the recent find of the 13000 year old hobbit like creatures

Homo Floresiensis

discovery could mean current perceptions of how humans evolved are to undergoe a radical rethink

 

[PS]

Weren't they a small tribe near australia or something? I remember hearing about that discovery about 2 months ago.

 

[ledhed]

Now we are close to having I.D. taught in Kansas . Who will hire graduates from such a program ? This is insane.

 

[Touring Mars]

Now we are close to having I.D. taught in Kansas . Who will hire graduates from such a program ? This is insane.

You can teach Evolution, you can only preach Intelligent Design/Creationism...

 

[smoovejas]

Now we are close to having I.D. taught in Kansas . Who will hire graduates from such a program ? This is insane.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7759084/

Here is a link to the that story. They showed it on NBC news last night.

 

[James2097]

Surely this thread is intended as a joke? As a fun way to laugh at creationists?
Does anyone with a brain think creationism, as a theory, has a leg to stand on?

If this thread IS a serious discussion, man thats soo nuts that anyone could brush aside Charles Darwin's concept of evolution and the entire scientific community like that (who happen to be a collection of the finest objective minds from the last few centuries...) to believe an imaginary bearded man who hasn't left ANY evidence he's right, or that he even exists.

Creationists are similar to the folks who dissagreed that the earth was round, just for the hell of it (when it was first proven way back when)...

The Earth is old as crap, it rotates about the sun (not vice versa) and Charles Darwin has been proven correct by innumerable sources, discoveries and the most rigorous of scientific studies carried out independently by various intelligent folk who don't have any other agenda apart from discovering how stuff really works.

Creationism: a very quaint idea, but its really time to GET OVER it already!

 

[Pako]

Science has been wrong, like when they said the earth was flat.

 

[Touring Mars]

Surely this thread is intended as a joke? As a fun way to laugh at creationists?
Does anyone with a brain think creationism, as a theory, has a leg to stand on?.

Apparently so... I think it's important to stress that being religious doesn't mean you have to be a Creationist... I think that Creationists subvert geniunely right-minded religious and faithful people, by making them feel compelled to believe their 'theories', by exploiting their faith in the Bible...

If you've read any of my posts in this thread, though, you'll know where I stand on the matter!

I enjoy the debate, but even the debate is controversial in its own right... after being slapped down by the US supreme court time and time again, the creationists are now advocating 'Teaching the controversy'... as a back-door way to introduce school-aged children to Creationism... nice try...

 

[Touring Mars]

Science has been wrong, like when they said the earth was flat.

Science isn't wrong... people's theories were wrong and Science rectified the matter... The method? Make your initial observation and then postulate your theory (I can walk across the flat ground, therefore the Earth is flat)... do some experiments to prove the theory (wait a minute, that pole in the distance disappears over the horizon, therefore the Earth cannot be flat), change your theory (maybe the Earth is round...?) Make more observations (...ah ha, I can see the earth is round from space now!)... come to conclusion (We thought the Earth was flat, but by the scientific method, we now know that it isn't)...

Creation theory is the polar opposite (pardon the pun)... Make your theory, and stick to it, even if the facts you later observe prove it totally wrong...

Teach Creation theory? There's nothing to teach...

 

[James2097]

Science has been wrong, like when they said the earth was flat.

LMAO! No 'scientist' ever said anything of the sort. Scientific methods of thinking were only starting as an objective way to look at the world back then... you still got hung if you said the church was wrong! Galileo had to 'retract' his theory (even though he knew he was right) that the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe so he didn't get hung!

The church doesn't have a good history of accepting when its obviously wrong.

Yes, one scientific study can be wrong, but not something as painstakingly worked out by multiple people independently, over centuries, with clear physical proof in the form of bones, fossils, layers etc, proof of species evolving slowly at different stages etc.

This is not up for question. Its SO basic, its like not accepting grass is green, even when I take you outside and you see the grass is indeed green, and all your intelligent peers agree its green also. You have never EVER seen blue grass, but you somehow think grass is blue. This is the level of idiocy you would need to believe creationism over evolution and scientific reason.

Of course, certain scientific theories can be wrong (or at least not proven conclusively), like how they're once again debating whether the big-bang theory is exactly right, but evolution is pretty much locked in as the consensus amongst anyone with a half-thimble-full of common sense.
Creationism, as a theory, exists purely in your head, no physical or real world proof whatsoever (I could say the world was farted out the back of a giant dog and have as much validity!). It isn't even vaguely tenable as a serious theory of how the Earth came to be. It doesn't even get in the running as worth considering by an objective person!

 

[Pako]

LMAO! No 'scientist' ever said anything of the sort. Scientific methods of thinking were only starting as an objective way to look at the world back then... you still got hung if you said the church was wrong! Galileo had to 'retract' his theory (even though he knew he was right) that the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe so he didn't get hung!

The church doesn't have a good history of accepting when its obviously wrong.

Yes, one scientific study can be wrong, but not something as painstakingly worked out by multiple people independently, over centuries, with clear physical proof in the form of bones, fossils, layers etc, proof of species evolving slowly at different stages etc.

This is not up for question. Its SO basic, its like not accepting grass is green, even when I take you outside and you see the grass is indeed green, and all your intelligent peers agree its green also. You have never EVER seen blue grass, but you somehow think grass is blue. This is the level of idiocy you would need to believe creationism over evolution and scientific reason.

Of course, certain scientific theories can be wrong (or at least not proven conclusively), like how they're once again debating whether the big-bang theory is exactly right, but evolution is pretty much locked in as the consensus amongst anyone with a half-thimble-full of common sense.
Creationism, as a theory, exists purely in your head, no physical or real world proof whatsoever (I could say the world was farted out the back of a giant dog and have as much validity!). It isn't even vaguely tenable as a serious theory of how the Earth came to be. It doesn't even get in the running as worth considering by an objective person!

I take that back, 'scientists' were still trying to make things 'go boom'. It was some early scholars that promoted the idea (300AD-1300AD). Don't you remember how the story goes? Or has history changed again? 'Everyone' thought the earth to be flat, but not Columbus. Everyone meaning what? Certainly not the Greeks, they realized early on that what when they say a boat sailing into a harbor, the first thing they would see was the mast, then the deck, then the hull. This would imply a hill like shape beyond the horizon.

Creation is no more silly than energy from no where, explodes matter from no where to 'create' our universe, galaxy, solar system..... That also sounds a little like a dog fart to me as well. At least it makes more sense that someone initiated the reaction.

 

[Famine]

'Everyone' thought the earth to be flat, but not Columbus. Everyone meaning what?

The all-powerful Roman Catholic Church that ruled Spain, France, Portugal and Italy with a rod of steel. One which had been warmed in a furnace for some time.

Creation is no more silly than energy from no where

Who said anything about nowhere?

You're right though. Creation sounds no less silly, but this, unlike Creation, has evidence to back it up. Science does not operate on the prinicple of "Oh, that sounds about right." or "Well, it's no less dumb than what we've got." Sometimes the hardest principles to grasp are those which are true despite being counter-intuitive.

 

[Touring Mars]

Creation is no more silly than energy from no where

Here's a hugely important distinction to make.... 'Creation' (as it pertains to the our universe) is in itself an issue that both Science and Religion will both always struggle to explain....

... but 'Creationism' is something else entirely.... where Science and Religion both do not even attempt to answer the unanswerable, Creationists will have you think that they know what Creation is... but in actual fact, they don't...

 

[James2097]

I take that back, 'scientists' were still trying to make things 'go boom'. It was some early scholars that promoted the idea (300AD-1300AD). Don't you remember how the story goes? Or has history changed again? 'Everyone' thought the earth to be flat, but not Columbus. Everyone meaning what? Certainly not the Greeks, they realized early on that what when they say a boat sailing into a harbor, the first thing they would see was the mast, then the deck, then the hull. This would imply a hill like shape beyond the horizon.

Creation is no more silly than energy from no where, explodes matter from no where to 'create' our universe, galaxy, solar system..... That also sounds a little like a dog fart to me as well. At least it makes more sense that someone initiated the reaction.

Yes the big bang theory is being looked at again - personally, I don't believe the universe had a 'beginning' as such, or will ever have an 'end'. There is a newer theory that says the universe expands and contracts creating a 'big bang' each time it contracts too tight, sending all the 'stuff' back expanding. Kinda like the tide going in and out. Of course you can't prove this theory conclusively either, but at least the idea is to be objective, and ideas can be debunked without anyone getting burnt at the stake for being a heretic LOL!

Yes, the greeks knew that the Earth was round, but this isn't valid to columbus' society - the knowledge obviously wasn't passed on effectively! Remember we had the middle-ages where a lot of knowledge and thought took a big step backwards- only a few people could write etc.

Yes, energy from nowhere is a silly concept really. Hence Newton's law "For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction"

This is clear enough in my mind to put forth considerable doubt that the initial "big bang" theory is correct. I am more inclined to believe the 'cyclical' type of behaviour inherent in the later theories (many "big bangs") because of this.

No scientist would really be comfortable with the idea that 'matter' can just be invented out of nowhere (unless you get into really complex energy converting to matter and vice-versa and energy transfer between parallel universes, different reality planes etc etc which is kinda crazy conceptual physics and beyond the scope of this thread (and beyond the scope of my brain! )).

Basically, I'm inclined to agree with whatever theory has the most proof/reasoning to back it up. In this case, evolution has loads of real-world examples of being correct, there is NO evidence to contrary, and creationist theory has zero evidence whatsoever.
I'm not saying scientists don't ever need to revise theories and debunk stuff, but in this case creationism would be the VERY FIRST theory to be debunked. Of course we don't know exactly how the universe (as a whole) works, but you can pretty much put creationism aside as a viable idea.

 

[Danoff]

Basically, I'm inclined to agree with whatever theory has the most proof/reasoning to back it up. In this case, evolution has loads of real-world examples of being correct, there is NO evidence to contrary, and creationist theory has zero evidence whatsoever.
I'm not saying scientists don't ever need to revise theories and debunk stuff, but in this case creationism would be the VERY FIRST theory to be debunked. Of course we don't know exactly how the universe (as a whole) works, but you can pretty much put creationism aside as a viable idea.

Hawking theorized that subatomic particles would pop into existance in pairs (one positive and one negative) and then very quickly collide and cancel each other out.

That's matter/energy from nothing and then quickly returning to nothing. He theorized this and then postulated that if this occured on the edge of a black hole, where one particle could get trapped in the gravity well and the other could escape there would be a visible effect at the event horizon of black holes. They investigated this and found that it was true.

Is it not possible that our entire universe amounts to this? A positive and a negative sprining into existance but being the equivalent of zero - that our universe will eventually combine back into nothing and then spring forward again in and endless cycle that must exist because it is equivalent to no reality at all?

I think it is, but that's just a theory.

 

[James2097]

Its a very good theory, yes. Its certainly an elegant way of explaining it. Balance both sides of the equation. Everything can cancel itself out to equal nothingness... is that similar to the whole anti-matter, normal-matter thing, or is that different again? Either way, I'm freaked out.

I still don't get the whole thing of dudes postulating theres like 14 or whatever number of different reality planes taking up the same space and time, with like only gravitational forces being able to cross reality planes (making gravity seem to us much weaker than it is or something!?)... I don't remember exactly what the theory was but there was a show on telly that was all about that crazy conceptual physics and the very lastest theories... it really made me go "WOW", in the Neo voice!