[seastay]

The article makes some good points, in that it takes a assumptions to believe any evidence of proposed accounts to what may have happened in the past, which is the very definition of faith, could be religion or scientific theory.

An assumption made by science for example is that the laws of on physics have not changed from the beginning such as the second law of thermodynamics.

The author assumes that second law of thermodynamics, violated the big bang evidence, not sure how but it is interesting however in context. The second law would allow only lower localized energy states as time increased after the big bang if the universe were a closed system (no other energy inputs to the universe after the bang). Ordered and localized energy and ordered states of matter such as life are hard to explain from and the second law for a closed universe. Yet, the big bang and the evolution of humans would seem to be more consistent with the second law as an open system e.g. some external source of energy input to the universe after the big bang, e.g. GOD?

Good topic for Easter ...

[tortoise]

An assumption made by science for example is that the laws of on physics have not changed from the beginning such as the second law of thermodynamics.

"Thermodynamics" is actually a provable theorem in mathematics -- a necessary consequence of an entire class of systems in the abstract. It is not a Law of Physics in the same sense that, say, gravitation currently is. There is no reason gravitation has to be what we currently think it is from a theoretical standpoint -- we largely observe it to be so, and therefore is a weaker "law".