thomas p wrote:

On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 18:53:09 -0500, SkyDragonGrey
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very
small, dense beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key
issue: "If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a
singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have
to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . .
We have to face the problem of a Beginning."—Sir Bernard Lovell.

This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and
intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very
finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part
faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe would
have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth
part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe
to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its
existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no
life."

And that could only mean something if one has already assumed one's
conclusion. That seems so terribly obvious.

It also seems as if this Lovell fool has done no reading at
all beyond noticing that there was a big bang.
The answers are out there for anybody who can read above a
6th grade level and can use a library.

Start with Allen G. Guth and A. Linde.

There is nothing more irritating than an utterly ignorant
moron mewling about things he knows nothing about at all.