But what if.... A 'supreme being' - definition of your choice- related to an all encompassing unconditional LOVE (THIS IS KEY) had nothing to do with your correct animosity to our human preconceptions?

What if in that grand Nature of LIFE, it is profoundly built on the fierceness of Brutal/beautiful love.

What if we just ...over time ...try to lay our templates of understanding on that subtle but profound state of being?

What then?

I respectfully submit your relationship with your friend...your dog...as a possible...answer.

With all sincerity.

__________________
The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
- Jack Handy

You mean the complete opposite to a God that takes joy in killing dogs in agony because their primeval masters ate an apple?

__________________
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - John Maynard Keynes

You allowed your "Sam" to suffer?

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

No of course not...The Big Bang was a product of "Magic", as the materials (mass/matter) that produced such an event were, according to the naturalist, self gestated. Therefore Naturalism begins with the paradox of Mass/Matter existing before it was created as it induced its own BIRTH, therefore breaking the first in a long line of laws that must be breeched to allow for the theory of a self induced NATURAL UNIVERSE. Just like the theory that explains the universe being some 93 billion light years across from one polar extreme to the other, but, the declared age of the universe being only 13.7 billion years old...according to the so called evidence of A BIG BANG. http://en.wikipedia.org/Universe

Does it not seem strange that the Universe is actually further across in measured light years than its physical age can allow? Just how could an expanding universe EXPAND faster then the speed of light? Why of course this breech of physical law can be justified in another chalk board theory of relativity as the number's are juggled and another theory, produced between the ears of man, explains "exactly" how expansion can occur faster than any physical law will allow....and it is the religious that base their belief upon unprovable sky magic, NO? When not ONE STAR has NEVER actually been witnessed being born out of the 100 billion galaxies multiplied by the 300 billion stars in each and divided by the age (13.7 billion) of the universe which declares that one star must have been created every 7 min. from the time of the Big Bang forward....that is if one is to believe and accept the voodo science offered as factual and NATURAL(as the naturalist declare that it just to time consuming witnessing the event of a stars birth according to their theory on star birth).....the numbers just do not add up, unless you go into the extrapolated mind of the Naturalist who preaches the formula....Nobody + Nothing = EVERYTHING (Natural Evolution).

The "only" other valid conclusion would be that the universe was a product of CREATION.....completely unacceptable, because this leaves out the ever popular cult of DARWINISM AND THE DARWINIAN CULTISTS, which also exists only in the mind of its followers....because it sure as hell can not be proven, as again ANOTHER LAW OF PHYSICS leaves short the speculations of the SECULAR NATURALIST, for indeed there is no NATURAL LAW OF EVOLUTION to be found anywhere in the journals of ALL NATURAL SCIENCE. BD

Not sure what you are trying to say, but I like the prose.

Pseudo science is "full of shit". Simple, in the language of HILL-I-BILLYISE, that is not presented in the manner of prose. And is it not also GRAND, the way the SOCIAL DEMOCRATS declare the right to shove this UNPROVEN THEORY down the throat of the population of the these United States...simply because the MAJORITY want to accept it? Wait! I thought that we lived in a Democratic Republic were the MAJORITY could not run rough shod over the minority...simply because they believe something to be true, THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN? WOW! What hypocrisy. Thus, Article four Section four of the US Constitution seems very relevant indeed. BD

Gee, and people wonder why there was a reformation.

Both of these attempts suffer not from their inconsistencies within metaphysics but because they are by nature metaphysical answers. Metaphysics, the understanding of what is real, of what is substantial is a linguistic tool used to help human being cope with their environment. Our metaphysical understanding of space will only grow as we need to understand it better. Your critique and the initial absurdities of the Big Bang theory are not disproofs of our ability to acquire more information and realize more patterns. Instead, they only assert a flaw in the assertion of any metaphysical TRUTH. Instead, to set the philosophical paradigm up so that metaphysics were dedivinized and reduced to the functionality of a simple and limited tool.

You seem to be "intelligent", or you present the verbose language of the pseudo intelligent that wishes "others" to accept their self professed example of intelligence. Just answer these simple questions in the empirical scientific method...without the speculation of theory, and I will bend a knee to your verbose display of Mr. Websters dictionary. They are really quite simple one word questions just explain each in the actual field of science provided with factual knowledge. Please explain 1.) "GRAVITY"...not the characteristics of gravity but gravity. 2.) Life and the force that brings "animation" to a lump of inert matter known as the BODY HUMAN...again, not the characteristics of life but LIFE..its origins, its evolution..etc, and of course NO THEORIES please. 3.) A "STAR".....Please explain the birth of a star, without theory, present the evidence of a NEW STAR being born, show me a star that exists now that was not evident in history. 4.) Please explain just how the Universe can be "observed" being 93 billion light years across, and yet only be 13.7 billion years old...again, no theories, that can be pasted....tell us in "your own words". Show us just how intelligent you, do not OPINE about how smart you are. BD

I may be wrong on this, but I don't think that Catholics ever really opposed evolution. A Jesuit made some very important confirmations of evolutionary theories starting nearly 100 years ago.

Opposition was more a fundamentalist thing. And if you go back and read why WJ Bryan opposed, it you can at least understand the opposition from a moral pov (if not a scientific one).