Re: A question (or two) for Scott (Mr. Darwinism)

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> But Science does not have an explanation for what the very 
> first spark was that created the big bang, 

You're right.  And science doesn't profess to know what caused
the Big Bang, either.  Or if in fact it even needed a cause.

Quantum physics has proven that elementary particles of matter
pop in & out of existence all the time.  Sounds weird, I know,
but it's been proven in experiment after experiment.  Quantum
fuzziness, it's referred as.

> or created the gases that caused the big bang.

This is a common misconception.  The Big Bang didn't happen 
*within* a pre-existing space.  The Big Band *created* all space
& time (space-time).  Asking what was there before the Big Bang 
is like asking where *you* were before your parents conceived 
you.  It's a nonsensical question. (Don't take this analogy too 
far - I'm not saying the Big Bang had parents!)

All the gases created in the Big Bang (roughly 75% of which was
hydrogen, 25% helium, & minute traces of lithium) went on to form 
the first generation of stars.  These stars then created the heavier 
elements in their cores &, through supernova explosions, scattered
these heavier elements throughout the rest of the universe, help-
ing to create the second & third generations of stars.

The Big Bang occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.  Our Sun is most 
likely a third-generation star.  It is around 4 1/2 billion years
old (as is the Earth which formed around it).  All elements in our 
bodies (except the hydrogen & helium) were created *inside* stars 
that exploded & died billions of years ago.  We *are* literally 
star dust.

> In your mind, what was the first thing?  

Again, there was no "first thing."  The Big Bang created everything.
Nothing existed before that moment.  Not even time.

> I mean, what created science?  

The *laws* of science were always there.  They were "found" by man
through his intellect & curiosity - via observation, experiment, & 
empirical methods.  

> How did it *all* come to be?

The Big Bang occurred & space-time expanded to where it is now.  And
recent experiments show that it's still expanding....and even acc-
elerating!! 

> Was it God letting out a big fart???

That would explain the smell of my socks.

> Seriously, what/who came first...the ______ or the ________.

I don't know what you're asking here.  You would have to fill in
the above blanks.

> Also, how do you, a serious fan of The Who and of Pete and the 
> music of both, deal with the fact that Pete...a person I believe 
> you look up to...is a very spiritual person who believes in God?

Good question.  The only time Pete's writing makes me cringe a bit
is when he gets *very* literal about Meher Baba (mainly in some of
his more obscure solo material).

Pete's not dumb.  He says, "I have to be careful not to preach."  
And he generally sticks to that.  His writing is vague enough (in 
a good way) to offer different interpretations.  For example, he 
writes often of love - love for Meher Baba - but it can be inter-
preted as the love I may feel for a girlfriend.  Pete's smart enough 
not to pigeon-hole his concepts & ideas.

> Do you just want to knock him in the head and say "Pete, for fucks 
> sake, get real!" ?

No, he's impressed me & touched me with his writing so far.... It
ain't broke, so why fix it?  I don't expect everyone to think like I
do.

> Lastly, what goes through your mind when you listen to songs like 
> Pure 'n easy, or lantern, or Baba O, or Gettin' in Tune, or Seeker,
> or...or....or....or....or.....or

Usually it's, "Man, listen to The OX!"  ;-)  Seriously, I just don't 
hear Pete's spiritual songs as commands for me to accept his beliefs.
Like I said, his writing is beautifully vague; I stretch my own life
experiences comfortably over his lyrics & everything fits just fine.

However, there is a line in "Baba O'Riley" that I sometimes sing out
with a bit more gusto:  "I don't need to be forgiven!!"  ;-)


- SCHRADE in Akron