"If you can't explain your science to the layman, I would propose you are no longer dealing in science.
"
I give you String Theory. So far, I have not found a comprehensible lay explanation of it. Same with subatomic physics.
Still, if you wish information on those two subjects, who would you ask? A lay person?
So break it down. Don't explain all of subatomic physics. Explain part of it. I understand protons, neutrons, and electrons. I understand quarks to some extent. I understand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Unfortunately, some of the physicists I have talked with seem to think that math proves reality, instead of the other way around. Many of those don't mind that they have a mathematical model but don't know what it means. They then can't explain it to me. But that's not science, it's magic.
Shalom.
You can keep it.
It is untestable.
It is unprovable. Only a very small minority of those in the scientific community even subscribe to it.
So far, there is not even any evidence for it. Mere vacuous wisp of an ethereal theory, my friend. Nothing more.
Ruminations on a chalkboard.
A vague attempt to stave off the inevitable conclusion that something created this universe...and it wasn't another universe did the creatin'.
Bye-bye, String Theory. Bye-bye, Brane Theory.
Consign them both the the Dustbin of Theories.
Wonder why (some) scientists feel compelled to grope for explanations that might counter the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God?
...because they don't wanna believe in a god. Any god. It scares them, personally, because they are arrogant, and don't want to be accountable for their actions.
Read the Old Testament (at a minimum). Move from your atheism to deism (at a miniumum).
Unlike YOU, I don't have enough FAITH to be an ATHEIST!
Sauron (Despite what I've said, supra, I have always greatly enjoyed your posts, MineralMan. You just happen to be wrong on this particular issue.)