Replies

One of the theories was precisely that- an essentially cyclic universe- the Big Bang followed by the Big Crunch- followed by the Big Bang- and so on. Something to do with String Theory.

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

The theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model, which evades most of arguments levelled against the oscillatory universe in the sixties. Despite some success, the theory is still controversial, largely because there is no satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model.

Look, I am not a physicist, and am in no way capable of defending what I don't know. I am of the opinion that Creationists are envious of the scientists, and are all out to prove them wrong, especially in subjects where they have no scratching knowledge of the proposed scientific explanations and arguments. Outright rejection without proper study is their motto, and it was popular in the Dark Ages too. I'd believe a creationist who can explain to me what the 'String Theory' is all about, and how gravity attracts mass, and how mass develops gravity.

I personally think these particular creationists in the article are a bunch of whackos. I also believe that God exists and that evolution is his (or its) way of doing things. If that makes me some kind of a heretic, then so be it. ID is the right's version of junk science.

One of the theories was precisely that- an essentially cyclic universe- the Big Bang followed by the Big Crunch- followed by the Big Bang- and so on. Something to do with String Theory.

Fine, but even if the 'cyclic universe' were to be true, wouldn't you be curious as to how the very beginning of that universe happened, string theory nothwithstanding? But, regardless of what comprises the universe, strings and quarks and time and dimensions , the question still remains: where or how or why did any of that happen?