"So you are saying it breaks the second law of thermodynamics. (the disorder would still exist unless it broke the second law) No, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with all the points of the article, I just referenced it so you could find what he said about the beginning. We are also becoming more certain that the mass of the universe is not enough to stop the expanding of the universe. (plus we have found that the rate the universe is expanding at is increasing)"

Yes, as a singularity the universe is completely unlike it is now, all of the laws of physics break down. This doesn't by any means mean that I'm going to use this to say all sorts of crazy things go on. It really doesn't change much. If you agree the big bang happened, you agree that the laws of physics break down. It's how the theory goes. There's quite a lot of proof this is how it is. What is debatable is whethere there was already a universe before the big bang (which is unknowable), and whether the big crunch will occur, which looks like no. Sure, the rate of expansion is increasing, but a rocket speeds up before falling back to Earth.

"In Hawking's own words. I think this is the same article, but if you want to find this quote in it http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html."

I might be naming the wrong theory, but going back into a state of singularity, as I'm suggesting, would cause the state of entropy of the previous universe to be irrelevant.


"And Hawking's theory is true if Einstein's General Relativity is true, you have to finish the statement. More and more tests which support General Relativity are being done."

Yes, relativity and Hawking's theory are fine. It's YOUR conclusions which are wrong. I'm not saying Hawking is wrong.

"Just a comment about this, when creationists speak about evolution, they are talking about macro-evolution, which is in no way a fact."

Well, the theory isn't split into macro and micro. Creationists just do this to make themselves right, since we can observe micro-evolution. The accumulation of micro = macro.

"You believe a dying theory is more supported than anything else?"

Uh, yes, that's what I just said. Are you going to show me a better theory, or just mock me?

"I'm willing to hear other possibilities."

Concluding ANYTHING at this point is jumping to conclusions. That is my point. We know nothing about what could've started time, so how can you possibly say science supports it when there is NO information to base it on?