[oats]

I think science is at its best when pursued with a sense of artistry and creativity. Problem is, most people skip the parts about actually knowing what they're talking about and go straight to the imaginative explanations of things. I call this "stoner science," and it is usually delivered with a false sense of certainty and authority, and it's annoying.

So I say to you, in all respect, that it is easier to focus on the philosophy of things than the actual science, probably because thoughts without any factual base are above criticism, whereas actual science can be debunked. I'd encourage you to start on the opposite end of the spectrum and earn the right to creativity. That's when it gets really fun.

That being said, I agree with what you're saying though. There could have been plenty of bangs, there could be virtually any other possibility you can imagine in this universe or the next. I'm just a little more interested in the things that can be supported by more than "it's not impossible."