Einstein’s Big Blunder

Where did the Universe come from?

Part 1: Einstein’s Big Blunder

100 years ago, Albert Einstein published three papers that rocked the world.  These papers proved the existence of the atom, introduced the theory of relativity, and described quantum mechanics.

Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding.  This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.

Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ‘steady state’ universe, one that had no beginning or end.

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted.  So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”  He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.

As I’ll explain during the next couple of days, Einstein’s theories have been thoroughly proved and verified by experiments and measurements.  But there’s an even more important implication of Einstein’s discovery. Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began with the Big Bang.

That’s right — time itself does not exist before then.  The very line of time begins with that creation event.  Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.

About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book “The World As I See It” that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”*

He went on to write, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”*

Pretty significant statement, wouldn’t you say?

Stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment:  “Bird Droppings on my Telescope.”

Respectfully Submitted,

Perry Marshall

Frequently Asked Questions

*Einstein quotes are from “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology” by Max Jammer

Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo-2.org/3-free-chapters/

Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0

647 Responses

  1. Mary says:

    Why is religion the fall back answer to anything we can’t explain yet? (Also, we can make the distinction between religion and God, two completely different things for a discussion such as this — don’t you think?)

    • For convenience let’s lump religion and such into a category and call it “metaphysical.” One can make a very strong case that science demands a metaphysical source of the universe. Matter and energy and even time literally come into being at the time of the Big Bang.

      Science has no materialistic explanation for that; in fact the event itself is a violation of ALL known scientific laws – conservation of matter and energy. Then there’s entropy. The universe hasn’t been here forever because it would have completely burned out a long, long time ago. Science doesn’t have a way around any of this. Maybe someday it will, but I doubt it.

      Every answer science produces, leads to three more questions.

      Practically speaking I don’t think science is any closer to replacing religion than it was 500 years ago. Personally I think science in the 21st century makes belief in God more reasonable than it ever has at any period of time.

      • IGE says:

        “The universe hasn’t been here forever because it would have completely burned out a long, long time ago.”

        What do you call universe?
        If you can postulate that God is out of space and time, than why cant be true, that there is something (natural, or “natural”) that is hard to observe or we cant observe it at all, and it still can have some effects, or it had effects on our universe. We still dont know many things so i think its too early to say God did it.

        “Personally I think science in the 21st century makes belief in God more reasonable than it ever has at any period of time.”

        If its more reasonable, then why are more scientists than ever before atheists or agnostics?

        • I for one am not convinced that more scientists than ever before are atheists or agnostics.

          • IGE says:

            “A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed “disbelief or doubt in the existence of God” (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.[11] (See also Relationship between religion and science.)”

            Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#Distribution

            And what about the preivous question?

            • The reason 93% of National Academy of Sciences members are irreligious is that the Academy has a well-known, well-publicized anti-religious agenda. Using them as the basis for your position isn’t much different than me saying “93% of the members of the Catholic Scientists Society DO believe in God.”

              A more trustworthy study is the one by Ecklund and Scheitle, “Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics” at which indicates religious disbelief hovers around 31% for all academics and 40% for those in physics and biology.

              Which is still a minority.

              You may be correct; unbelief may be on the rise. Nevertheless belief in God is not a democratic question. More to the point, I’ve advanced the Information Theory argument for the existence of God for five years now and nobody’s punched a hole in it. You are welcome to invite any scientist to this forum, who thinks they are able to counter it.

              All that we know about communication theory provides 100% inference to intelligence being the source of information in living things.


              • kyle says:

                hmmm… anti-religious agenda? Maybe, but I still think that’s a fairly big assumption – and assumptions are something that we all should avoid in a scientific field. My education as a biomedical engineer definately changed my views on religion, especially after I finally grasped the theory of evolution and all the strong evidence for it. I just don’t know why so many people defalt on a book that was written about 2000 years ago by (so it says) a large handful of authors who have no last names. I wished for a god for a long time and didn’t know where purpose would come from if not from a god. But I realized that the world truely is no less beautiful regardless of it’s origins. It didn’t collapse due to my change of mind, it is the same place regardless of my beliefs. It’s funny we place so much on ‘belief’. You can live a respectable life but if you did not ‘believe’ than you are lost… it’s kinda funny to think about it.

                Just because DNA looks designed and functions in similar fashion to our information systems, doesn’t mean DNA was designed! We have been trying to mimic nature for a long time, such as making strong metals by mimicking the chemical components of spider webs. The material however is not as strong ounce per ounce as the spider webs, because the spiders have evolved over millions upon millions of years. Similarly our information systems are based on natural processes. Of course the information systems are designed, but why should we assume DNA is as well? DNA is so much more complex than our information systems because of the billions of years DNA has undergone evolution. The important thing to understand is our communications and information systems are mimicked from results of natural processes. Just because ours are designed doesn’t mean that the natural ones are. Complexity requires time in the absense of intelligence.

                I love these discussion! And I like to hear strong arguments from both sides so keep em’ coming!

                • Kyle,

                  I don’t dispute that there is much evidence for evolution and I am a cautious advocate of the theory of evolution. But there is a subtlety that you’re not grasping yet. I would strongly encourage you to *carefully* read my article at http://evo2.org/darwin-half-right/

                  • Rene villarosa says:

                    I have no quarrel with evolution. Genesis chapter 1 of the Holy Bible implies evolution to say the least. God the creator is not governed by time whereas evolution is time based. Darwin himself beliefs there’s a Creator.

                    • concerned says:

                      I call bullshit. What proof to you have that Darwin believed in any sort of creator? You best be trolling.

                    • Concerned,

                      Back atcha. Darwin said:

                      “Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason, and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the ‘Origin of Species;’ and it is since that time that it has very gradually, with many fluctuations, become weaker. But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

                      “I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”


                • M S DIVEKAR says:

                  I am a Hindu by religion and stay in Bangalore. I ma a well qualified Electronic engineer and an MBA from top institutes in India.
                  I fully believe that Westerners have not understood Hindu philosophy and hence groping in dark.
                  It is without any doubt that all inventions, discoveries etc are man made. None came from outside earth- they were human beings who took birth here. God (call by whatever name) chose this person and through him /her gave to mankind these inventions and discoveries. Why someone (physical body/ person) was selected etc – itself is explained by Hindu religion. Anyone can be one like that if some one does meditation, establishes contact with God through meditation / introspection, soul search etc etc. Once this concept is understood- then one will realize that World is just a drama and we are palying our role as desired by God. Even great Scientists ultimately become philosophers.

                  DIVEKAR M S, BANGALORE, INDIA

                  • Onder Y. says:

                    Absolutely, I agree!!

                    • jyoti says:

                      Well it appears that here there is the reference of world- like a stage and we are just actors ( Hmm Shakespeare). No this is not so that we are only playing our parts, we are living our parts. In Hindu philosophy itself, they are so many sects. Some believe in God and some do not, they believe in nature and worship it as God. In ancient Indian literature, it was only nature that was worshiped, and there were no Gods, or semi-gods. It was nature that was called Indra, Varuna, Surya and worshiped as God, and then slowly as the tribes increased, division between them widened, then came out new Gods and new Devis that became more popular. Ancient Indian faith was “Sanatan” that means “for all” the citizens of world. But Sanatan Dharam of today has become more religious rather than spiritual. Swami Vivekananda, the Great Indian Saint was atheist, but he was spiritual, he was rational, and he always asked the youth to be logical rather than follow the faith that is old and worn. A young mind should inquire, introspect, search, meditate, think and ask and ask but should believe only what he can prove and not something self-explanatory lengthy illogical thoughts. One more thing I would like to specify here, if we search for the route of science, then it is philosophy that initiated man to think and thus science came into being.It was inquiry, ” who am I? Why I am here?, Why things are like this?, that man started searching. It is not that Scientists become Philosophical, I think that a Philosopher is scientist and vice versa. And by just putting everything to a limit called God, is like denying the potential of human mind. The things which mankind know now were not known centuries before, we never know that centuries after where the mankind will take this inquiry. SO stop not, and use your mind to the real potentials it can realize, no limits…….

                • Bill says:

                  with all due respect and not to offend, I’m tired of the “magic wand” of time being swung around to create these miracles. What seems totally impossible and unreasonable, suddenly becomes extremely plausible and do-able by simply adding “millions and millions of years”.

                  I’ve viewed your material Perry. I REALLY enjoy it. Looking forward to learning much from you!


                • Forrest Charnock says:

                  Dear Kyle:

                  It is not an assumption that the agenda in academics and science is anti-god, secular humanism is the Official State Religion today. Anyone can print as fact the belief that we evolved by chance with no divine interference in any textbook but to even suggest the Biblical account is true is silenced by force.
                  Let’s be honest, otherwise it becomes a yelling contest. The problem with this whole discussion is the Humpty Dumpty education system where words mean whatever the writer decides on a sentence by sentence basis.

                  If the person is selling it the definition is change over time ,natural selection and adaptation which everyone agrees with. Once the “debate” is declared over it becomes the existence of all matter, celestial bodies,laws of nature , and all life by chance godless processes. In other words evolution goes from being the scientific observation of adaptation to the ancient anti-God religion of evolution with no evidence to support that change. It is a blatant bait and switch.

                  Atheism requires the spontaneous creation of matter, life, the laws of nature and information and that cannot be scientifically supported so it is preached from the time the child can watch cartoons until they die of old age, all other views are suppressed, it is brainwashung , not education.
                  If evolution is science explain the creation of the first cell and the information that preceded it . You can;t claim the creationist idea of natural selection affects non-living matter.

                  It comes down to which miracles you choose to accept as true.

            • veegee says:

              Does it really matter, whether certain number of people believe in the existence of God ? One statistics say roughly half the people in the world are believers in God and the other half non-believers. and a small fraction agonistics. God is not some democratic ideal to be voted to power by the number of people supporting or opposing. Actually it is a personal matter whether one believes in God or not. It is left to the individual entirely to believe or not. Dr.Perry Marshall’s frantic effort to prove the existence of God make me think that he doubts his own beliefs and this is an indirect effort to establish his faith !! To reassure himself.

        • Dwyne says:

          If its more reasonable, then why are more scientists than ever before atheists or agnostics?

          the answer is so simple and reasonable that few people can believe it.
          look for one of you atheist book and then look for that same book but the edition before it and try to find all of the editions of that book.
          now read what the first edition said about a topic, then get the edition hat follow it and see what it say about the same topic, very quickly you will see how it starts to change with out no reason or explanations.
          every subsequent book is more illustrative. and has more people behind it. but every anomaly is slowly being removed because it is inconvenient.
          some one read these books and think. and they think “OK that proves it. God does not exist”. buy they never got all the facts that the first book had.
          if you have someone feeding you all this all through you career and there is nothing to raise a question, then of course you will believe that and make it your own. and if you get something you cannot understand then you will do what every one else before you did. “DELETE IT”.
          No explanation, no reason, because there is only one reason and explanation but we cant accept that one. so there is you answer.
          Study has shown that constant repetition become infallible truth for a person.
          eg. if a repent constantly tells there children they are no good, after a wild they will not believe any thing else and there is nothing any one can do about it. there is o doctor or scientist that can change that fact for that person.
          but what if that person come to know and accept what we all refuse to believe? that person can turn his whole life around and make have meaning and worth.

          Now i have a question. if all the doctors, scientist, and knowledge and tangible proof we have we cant help there persons, and something that is intangible and abstract as we believe can make all the difference in the world?

          how come we have so many missing link? there is a missing link for almost every thing. we can never seam to put the peaces together. we have more questions than answers, and we dare not answer anything because it raises even more question about that answer.

          every thing points to what we refuse to believe. but our logical minds choose to believe the elogical.

        • Tony Francis says:

          “If you can postulate that God is out of space and time, than why cant be true, that there is something (natural, or “natural”) that is hard to observe or we cant observe it at all.”

          That primary “something that is hard to observe or cannot observe at all ” definitely has to exist, and that is what we call GOD.

          • Forrest Charnock says:

            Dear Tony:

            God has revealed Himself to us, many willingly suffered horrible deaths before they would recant that . On what basis do you believe that order can arise from disorder , or for that matter that anything can create itself? Matter had to be created , nothing can create itself, to do that it would have to pre-exist itself, a logical impossibility.
            Seeing as you ignored the information question and the way you worded your argument all I see is you believe what you believe because you don’t like the only alternative. That is anti-intellectual at best.
            The Christian has a logical argument for his belief from history, the Bible, archeology, and science. I see no argument you have made at all other than I don’t want to believe in God and you can’t make me.

            If I am wrong where did the first cell come from and where did the information that had to pre-exist it come from? Where did the laws come from and why did they change so and why are they so ordered now? What “natural” process creates information, laws, matter and life?

            What argument from science will support your religious belief there is some “unknown force” ? I think you watched too many Star Wars movies , no offense.

      • Venugopal says:

        The Human intellect is a tiny puny thing, compared to the immensity and complexity of the universe. Attempting to comprehend it completely is like trying to measure the volume in an ocean with a tsable spoon.

      • Jader Silveira says:

        I Think Science always has endeavored to prove that God don´t exist, and in the past
        years always changing its
        comcepts about the world and the human being, a small example of this is that in certain period the man thought that Earth was the center of Universe, after in other period the man thought that Sun spinnig around the Earth, and more later discovery that not just the Earth but the
        Sun is in movement our galaxy is moving, things that people who believed in a God who created everything has already talked at that time, but it was spoken, the person was convicted.
        The current science is trying put God in the creation as a part of the evolution and not a power who created every thing that you can see.
        that to me is the same as the science of the past with people who did not believe what she said “the earth was the center of the universe” then when someone is pronounced saying that God created all things, she is hit with theories of evolution, carbon dating and other things. The belief that person is the same since their ancestors, remains firm in not changed, unlike science, always changing, always trying remove God of the equation.

        Ps: Sorry for my english.

        • Venugopal says:

          “If you have faith, no proof is required. If you don’t have faith, no amount of proof will suffice !!”

          • SIVA says:

            Einstein once said “GOD IS THE FORM OF HUMAN WEAKNESS”.
            Do you think einstein is not mature enough to believe in god!!

            • Boos says:


              To God’s faithful God exist. He is omnipotent and omniscient. To many religious devotees they deem God to be omnipresent and that’s why the world has become morally degraded. Like Einstein’s thought: “God is the form of human weakness”, humans has become degraded and many devotees search for Him but where is HE? Put it this way, have self-respect.

              The actual form of human weaknesses are sex-lust, anger, greed, atttachment and ego. Laziness and carelessness is also a form of human weaknesses. People took for granted and blame it on “Act of God” for misfortune befallen them and the world they live in. Make God a Friend not a convenience. In the scientific arena Einstein may be greatly respected but to great souls, Einstein is an ignorant.



        • Forrest Charnock says:

          Dear Jader:

          I would suggest you look at the science of this man, http://haltonarp.com/ .

          There is a tremendous evidence based argument that the earth is near the center of the universe. The idea that the universe looks the same from anywhere you look at it is an atheistic assumption based on no evidence whatsoever. It is commonly referred to as the Copernican Principle even though Copernicus was a creationist. It may be you think the Big Bang is a fact and that all “real” scientists believe it.
          That is simply not true, there are many scientists who think it is garbage science but to say so will cost you your career. Just like evolution when you challenge the paradigm you pay a price.

          If you study the late great a mathematician Fred Hoyle you would know that Ptolme’s cosmology worked, Caperincus was able to explain it simpler, the only way to actually prove either is to leave the solar system and look back. No one would ever care to return to the old cosmology but it was a brilliant solution at the time and you cannot prove it wrong to this day. One huge problem with chronological snobbery is that if you keep saying people use to be stupid you have to admit that in the future they will say the same about you. The ancients did things we can’t today. Knowledge has increased because it accumulates, intelligence has not.

          It might be advisedly to learn what you are talking about before making these broad statements. Carbon dating has more holes than Swiss Cheese but more importantly it has nothing to do with millions of years. Carbon dating has a half-life of 5730 years, do the math. If you find carbon 14 in a previously living thing that means it cannot be 100ka old, much less millions.

          • jrunyon says:


            Halton Arp did his most important work in the 1960’s (over 50 years ago) and the conclusions that he drew about quasars or quasi-stellar objects (SBOs) have been replaced now that we have the Hubble Telescopes(and other telescopes) to examine these QSOs further. QSOs are now accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts and, in fact, match the spectra of the high-redshift of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity).

            While Halton Arp did develop a good encyclopedia of quasars or quasi-stellar objects exhibiting significant red-shift, his explanation is very 1960-ish. For a summary of the latest Hubble findings, see Dr. David Rogsted (Jet Propulsion Labs, retired) article at http://www.reasons.org/results-refurbished-hubble . The Hubble telescope, using it’s new Wide Field Camera 3 (along with the Herschel Space Observatory), can see galaxies as far away as 13 billion light-years, revealing objects that were shining as early as 650 million years after the big bang.

            It’s interesting that align yourself with the great ATHEIST Fred Hoyle who rejected the Big Bang in favor of the then-dominate ‘steady state universe’. He rejected the Big Bang since he knew that there would not be sufficient time for evolution to happen. He, in fact, coined the word “Big Bang” in an attempt to discredit a competing theory. Again, Fred Hoyle’s work was from 30-50 years ago, and only a few atheists still accept the ‘steady state universe’ theory so they don’t have to consider the Beginning or the Beginner of the universe. Be careful, associating yourself with such atheists may rub off and you’ll become an ardent evolutionist.

            As for dating the universe, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of clocks in the universe – and every single one of them point to an earth and universe that is greater than 10-12,000 years. Even the simplest clocks (i.e., tree rings) have dates that go back over 8000 years with some at 10,000-12,000 years. Even young earth advocate John Woodmorrape’s article on Answers in Genesis web site, says that the dendo-chronology techniques used by scientists are accurate for the Bristlecone Pine – but – he is putting his hope in future techniques that could cut these date by 50% to match their preconceived view of the time since Noah’s flood. You can argue about the clocks in the universe as much as you want, but even if you show that one meets your young earth age requirements, you’ll have to repeat that same activity 1000-times on all the other clocks.

            Jim Runyon

      • Venugopal says:

        I have come across an article, on the internet, saying that the earth’s magnetism is due to the ocean currents. For last 400 years scientists were theorising about this and the consensus was, it is due to the molten metal core of the earth. When science is not able to decipher some thing so near to us, how can we claim that our theories about the big bang, which is removed from us by vast distances of space and time, are accurate and reliable ? How can we be sure that they will not get re-written tomarrow ?

        From : http://www.iop.org/News/news_35352.html
        “400 years of discussion and we’re still not sure what creates the Earth’s magnetic field, and thus the magnetosphere, despite the importance of the latter as the only buffer between us and deadly solar wind of charged particles (made up of electrons and protons). New research raises question marks about the forces behind the magnetic field and the structure of Earth itself.”

        Regards. VG

      • nitin katyal says:

        i agree with u bt another ques which vern my brain is “WHY WE FEEL LIKE PARALISED WHEN IT COMES 2 KNOWING GOD THROUGH SCIENCE”????

      • Niels says:

        “Every answer science produces, leads to three more questions.”

        I haven’t heard of this “law of three questions”. Science is an ongoing process, thus we do not know what “every answer” will produce. Some answers produced by science so far, did lead to many new questions. So what? If that’s the way nature is, that’s the way it is. But some people are uncomfortable with uncertainty, thus they invented various religious dogma. They clinge to the illusion, that beyond a certain point, there are no more questions to be asked: The ultimate answer (God) has been found. Honestly, I think if people need this illusion to live, and if that is really all religion does to these people (i.e. if there are no negative side effects) – then they should be free to believe in it. To each his own.

      • ramkumar says:

        Eeven though i am not inclined to look into the existence of a supernatural behind the question the facts are

        1)It was not einstein who poved the existence of atom .
        2)Expansion of universe was proved by Hubble .(it was he who found out that other galaxies exist.relativity has more to do with space and time curvature .
        Time as we know it know it started with big bang .Quatum loop gravity, sting theory and M-theories tries to uncover the period before singularity ..and even though inits primordial stage tries to explin things ina differnet way .

        Paul the Apostle said the Holy Spirit himself “intercedes with sighs too deep for words” when we prayed deeply .No where had einstein coined the term ‘sprit .. and if at all it is not the holy sprit mentioned in bible or other religious books His was a feeling of awsome wonder regarding the forces working in cosmos which is not explainable . ..a cosmic conciousness (not even similar to a collective conciousness or cosmic one of KG.Jung)

        to quote einstein :
        “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”*.

        This intelligence negates the concept of a all benovalent god head .

        Also note the quote from einstein
        ‘i dont try to imagine a personal God;It suffices to stand in awe at the structure of the world,in sofar as it allows our inadequate sences to appreciate it .’

        Einstein was a atheist and not conventional jew . (Even though he did contributed in creating an atomic bomb along with Richard faynmen and others ). To think that science doesnt provide a explanation to all is theinadequecy of current knowledge and surely that is more nearer( U beleive some thing just because you where born into that religion which is one amoung 1000 )in understanding the nature of universe and reliaible .Current religions present god as a Dumbheaded guy who can be praised by bribes and ceremonies.Fact is that we give atheists a sense of superioritiy when we promotes the concept that our idea of God negates every thing in science

        • Einstein was most emphatically not an atheist. See “Einstein and Religion” by Jammer.

          If you think that our concept of God negates everything in science then I invite you to read the articles on my website. I would say the exact opposite.

    • Our home planet is present before us, likewise just at this time it is again submerged into the depth or the past from another place of space. In or under the circumstances; see about- a question maybe arisen that Is E=Mc2 a sexed equation?

      Answer of the question:

      At this events or very moment we are looking everything has creation yet, same event or very moment whatever shall be received through imagination for any borders on the spiritual of the universe shall be vanished at this very moment i.e. nothing creation in reality viz. the realism is that there is no separate time dimension. Consequently, lawfully Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity formula assimilation such as; E=Mc2 is not accurate and as I see it through that correct assimilation is: E=Mw2 i.e. w= wave. That means this generalized equation is written is E=Mw2, where w represents the speed of the phenomena (e.g., wave) under observation. Since in Einstein’s equation c represents the speed of light, we simply replace w with c to make it specific to that type of phenomena.

      Consequently lawfully, strike the right note or put up to note sheet following on this information.

      I am waiting forward for your response.

      Best regard,
      Shahidur Rahman Sikder
      IYA Logo: http://www.100hoursofastronomy.org/photo-galleries/category/107-l

    • Angar says:

      Read more. Find out what’s happening here on Earth before venturing out. Earth needs help.

    • Logan says:

      Reading the first mail it seems clear to me that the person putting this emails together is biased towards a religious view. I had hoped for something objective.

      • Brigitte says:

        I’ve come to that conclusion as well; it’s a shame too…

        • Venugopal says:

          Some scientists, who believe in God will try to prove the existance of God using scientific discoveries for supporting arguments. Thank God for small mercies, an economist will not use economics for proving the existance of God. Neither will a historian use history to prove God’s existance. . . . .

      • IB says:

        Speaking of bias….

    • Dwyne says:

      Because God give us science to find him not to try and prove he does not exist.
      For the sake of few many are spared.
      God is a God of love and every thing he has done is love to man. He give his son for you and me. And this while we hated him or did not know him.

      I just don’t understand why some people are so happy to say they came from a cesspool of germs.

      The big problem hear is not if there is a God. the big problem here is how to get rid of him?

      if you believe there is a bad, then you must believe also there is a good. why?
      why do we have good and bad? it is not tangible but it is very real.
      do you know why you have the peace we have today? it is because of the belief in God.

      Let us see if we can bring this up very close and personal:
      Let’s say you live in a city; no a town, let’s keep it small and simple. No one believes in God, actually every one believe he does not exist, and they can prove it.
      Every one live for them self, survival of the fittest, no one helps any one unless he can get something back for himself.
      After a while, what will happen to the poor people? Most likely they will have to leave.
      If the poor people leave what will happen to the middle class after a while? They will be packing as well.
      When the middle class leave what will happen to the rich?
      Now what if it is not a town but the whole earth? So you just can’t say well i can’t make it hear i will have to go to another place. Every were is the same.
      The answer is the rich will always have some one to work for them if they pay enough.
      But the problem is they don’t throw away money. They will not hire 10 people if 1 can do the job.
      When you start to touch people food… people do desperate things, they will look at your stuff as through it is rightfully theirs. This adds up to bloodshed, theft, murder, you name it.
      You might think this is pure speculations and extreme but it is not. It has happen before. this is facts.
      At the end of the dark ages the people sad there was no God, so they made there own God: the Goddess of reason. (look up French Revolution)
      They did away with the bible and God and what was the result? mayhem and unspeakable things.
      This link would give you a description of what happen to a nation with out God:

      wither we believe it our not God is what holds society together. He is who holds men in check now.

      Atheism does not give you anything. All it does is strip you from all hope and gives you despair, from all expectation to no expectation, from peace to fear, from helping others to focus on self.
      What do you get from believing there is no God? is life simpler? if yes, then in what way? Are you happier? if yes, then in what way?
      i know you may not know the answer so I will tell you: there are 2 powers at work on this earth: God the creator and Satan the wanta be.
      God has to abide by the rule of goodness and respect, Satan is every thing goes.
      So if you are wondering why there is so few warriors for God is because they too has to abide by the same principle. God is with every one that is with him.
      What this means is that they can’t just talk the talk, but also has t walk the walk.
      Every thing about God is respectful, good, beautiful and perfect. But Satan does not care what you do really, all he cares about is that you don’t believe in God. So he will makes sure you have enough theory of whatever to occupy your mind.
      It is not just evolution. It is atheism, pantheism, and all the other isms, some believe that you are God etc. it really does not mater as long as you don’t there is a creator.
      God only has one standard but Satan has all you and chose and refuse. They all point to the same thing: there is no God because I cant see him or touch him.
      This is nothing new; the Bible predicted all this would happen before the end.

      Now I will let you in on the best kept secrete of all ages: the goal of Satan with all these theories is to get every one to believe that God does not exist because we cant see him. Why? He is hear because he being created wanted to be worship in heaven just like God the creator. And that is what all this master plan is all about. To get you to believe that God does not exist because you cant see him.

      Now what I’m about to say now will make every thing perfectly clear to you. This is going to blow your mind!

      What if God appears to you? Or someone that claims to be God?
      He is like nothing that your eyes have seam, He is not a man, he is a being of dazzling brightness, I’m talking literally it will be hard to look upon him for his brightness. He heals sick people before your eyes. He brings fire down from heaven from a clear blue sky in your sight, you feel the heat from that fire as it burns what ever he commands it to consume. You know this is no trick or illusion.

      Now this is the Billion dollar question. Will you believe that he is God? Now that he has removed all of the obstacle that he had set up so you don’t believe that there is a God?
      Ad he shows you how all these theories pointed to him. He tells you that the bible is obsolete and done away with.
      Would you believe that He is God? The answer is YES.

      Now all this is predicted in the bible. He is not God, it is Satan showing himself as God; it is his plan of deception to get you to do away with the only thing that can identify him for what he really is: the Bible.

      Apparitions are happening all over the earth, He is preparing to answer all your questions. These apparitions are not from God the creator, but from the God that will appair before the true God.

      Satan always has a counterfeit before the real thing.
      The people of god has always and will always be in the minority. Because it is not an easy road. It is self denial for your fellow men, it is loving those people that use you and hate you for no reason, it is about putting Gods law above every other law (every good law will abide under the law of God). It is following God when it is not popular or safe to do so. Because after the First god comes there will be a death decree after a while if you don’t comply.

      So now you know part of the create plan.
      If you would like to know the full story you can read it hear:

      The book is free:

      Hope to see you in heaven.

      • kyle says:

        hmmm… peace because of religion? I don’t know what world you are speaking of. Watch the root of all evil on google video, or read about the salem witch trials, or update yourself on the conflicts in the middle east. Also, read The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer if you want to know about how morality within the human species has come about. Good and evil are very relative, and I suggest a deeper read into books on human ethics and ethical behavior if you want some serious answers. Non-believers and believers have provided the same results on experiments where ethical behavior is being questioned. Chaos within our species is caused by an under-education, lack of ethical understanding, and trips of power, not a non-belief system. We have the ability to comprehend what people declare as the ‘Darwinist’ view, but that doesn’t mean we should live that way by any means. The links you provide give bias opinions on causes for unethical behavior so there isn’t any reason for anyone to take them into consideration. It’s a very sad existence if god is the only thing keeping people in check from doing wrong. If so then many people I know in my life would not be the good people they are. We make decisions ethically by educating and reasoning why it is important to live by certain ethical codes…
        You can speak of how atheism affects you when you can truly understand the perspective of an educated atheist. Until you yourself understand why we view things the way we do, you cannot speak for us. This is exactly how hatred is formed, by fear of those who are different than you. Profiling and prejudice are common when you live a life that allows for these views to prosper. You speak so freely of these things of times to come, but there is no real evidence for this observation (the bible does not count for evidence when you consider all the contradictions and evidence against it). If ‘god’ would appear as you have described, I would either think: a. I am delusional; or b. show me all evidence to prove that you are who you say you are. Why would such an irrational god create such a rational universe and expect us to believe in such irrational things? He heals the sick but not the person who lost a limb? Is he trying to hide from us? If this unlikely event is true then I would have to say that god is not a very ethical supernatural being, and I’d be more suited for damnation where I could learn from some of the greatest minds.

      • Richard says:

        Wow. I can only guess you are evangelical. First off death murder and blood shed? How about the catholic church putting on the crusades as led by the Vatican. The most bloodiest wars in history for one idea; Believe or die! Even the wars going on today is because my god is better than your god. Why do I need a preacher telling me I will go to hell if I don’t believe in god and Jesus Christ as my savior? Sorry but that’s not a warm and welcoming invite to heaven to me those are terroristic threats. And on another note why is it portrayed as disgusting to say we come from a cesspool of germs when if god is the creator he had to have some materials. I may not have proof that it was from a cesspool of germs but do you have proof that it wasn’t? And to think because I don’t believe in god makes me self centered is wrong. Being away from church gives me the time to focus on friends and family. And I am a very high reguarded member of my community. Not living in fear that “Satan” is lurking around every corner gives me peace. And not having a preacher in my face telling me I am going to hell if I don’t believe has made my life less stressful. So answer this: if god is all good and all powerful how come he is powerless to make me believe and therefore willing to cast me to hell because of it.
        and respectfully

        • Arturo says:

          God is all good and all powerful! Belief lies in your mind. As we were before in paradise as mentioned in all version of the Bible, in the Book of Mormons, in the Holy Koran…everything was peace and enjoyment. The fall of Adam is the reason to feel sufferings, the mortal existence was limited to 120 yrs of age (as mentioned in the Bible) because of peoples disbelief and evil doings. If there will be no God to reveal scriptures, where can we find explanation of miracles, guidance and understanding of life, before and after? The events that took place during those biblical times were real and documented. Why some people don’t like to look back of those histories and evidences instead of twisting the reality of the history?

    • Dabe says:

      Hi All,

      My Youtube account http://www.youtube.com/doowop62 has the ability to change opinions, unless one is affected with a vision problem caused by skepticism.

      All are invited to view my youtube offerings. For those who visit, it may be a mind altering experience.


      PS: It has proof of celestial humans on every single planet in our Solar System. And around Neptune it show Celestial humans actually living in the outer atmosphere.

    • nitin katyal says:

      u r true, bt religion show us the way leading 2 god n science the work of god,so hw can we expect science 2 ans d ques which teaches us d way or in layman language what god is,i believe i can never understand god by science bt i can a little by religion

    • james strait says:

      A prediction: Within two centuries religions will be looked upon as a curisoity, an evolutionary tool used by a youthful species. With religion out of the way as the tragic distraction that it is…then mankind can focus on cause and effect without emotionalizing the conversation.

      Our human brains are small machines….wonderous in its own right as it produces the mind, and the mind is all that any of us are. As marvelous as a mind is, it exists because of the inexplicable relationships between the trillions of neural circuits that the brain contains…but trillions is a limiting factor. Our small brains can only produce so much mind….not enough to understand the universe. Enough to contemplate such…but not enough to gain a comprehensive understanding of a really large cosmos.

      The real limiting factor in this broad based conversation that your having is the concept of time. Time is man made, and unique within the universe to only mankind. Forget about when the universe was born, forget about an expanding edge, or an initial beginning. The universe simply is. Subtract time from your thinking, otherwise you’ll hurt your brain produced mind.

      So there it is…religion is on its way out, the universe simply is, and our tiny brains will never produce enough mind to understand it all. It’s fun to contemplate, but don’t ever believe that you have it figured out…

      Otherwise, you’ll be diagnosed as grandiose.

      • Neitzche made the same predictable predictions 150 years ago. He pronounced that God is dead and that religion was on its way out. Every generation of skeptics repeats this mantra.

        • Onder Y. says:

          Could we say that universe was a game called SIMS which is created by GOD? 2nd scenario is what if god is dead now?(which is i don’t believe he is) Maybe we are nothing but a ROBOT. Robots can see if you give them a camera! Their intelligence is as much as what they have got. But i can teach to robots something by electronics.I can make some procedure for them.and they will obey it in the scale of thir boundary.
          Let we think about it. Especially why we were been asked for progress as human kind. Why we are unique as a species? Why not exist another species could be able to speak?

    • vishnudev janagaraj says:

      i have many questions on this and iam finding the answer with my creativity.some of my questions :
      1. why i want to speak to u ? and vice versa.
      2. who iam ?
      i got the answers. you try it in complete silence and in higher concious level


      Many takes on evidence of GOD to the fulfilment of the SCRIPTURES

      Heavenly Father has hidden from the Learned and the Wise, what HE has
      revealed to the innocent and the simple.

      Grace of GOD is personal thus understanding GOD is also personal.

      Knowledge and or Evidence of GOD, is personal too.

      DIVINE Works, Nature, Wisdom, Creation and MIGHTY DEEDS
      stand out clearly and are all evident.

      I must cover volumes of books about events witnessed.
      Absolutely recorded ‘Evidence’ of what transpired and happened to many,
      myself inclusive regarding DIVINE EXPERIENCES / EFFECTS or INFLUENCES which completely operated ‘OUTSIDE’ known Laws of Human
      Knowledge and Comprehension.

      I am not only very firm, aware, but a witness.

      Self labelled Learned and the wise spending time on debating ‘DIVINE Evidence’ certainly needs ‘DIVINE, personal experience.

      When HE opens their Heart and Eyes, not their minds

      Then we will be seeing more DIVINE conformists, believers or trusting
      fellows in our ranks.

      Godschild Michael

    • Bob says:

      Naturalism is a religion–why would anyone assume that it is the established and true religion? Secular Humanism, Atheism, is a religion with zealous followers. Materialism is a religion that claims there is no spiritual realm and that mind/soul is just a series of events in the material body. Rationalism makes up stories. It says: “We can make up stories about fossils and based on these scientific facts (the stories) we know that evolution took place. Post Modernism grows out of these religions, claiming that there is no truth, no lie, no right, no wrong–why would anyone believe a person who said that truth is not real, that there are only winners and losers? Followers of these types of religions claim that their religions are true science.

    • Mansour says:

      Religion has explained everything but people do not figure out, also the most stupids have become clerics not the geniuses that’s why people have many unanswered questions.

    • tdh says:

      Dear Perry,

      Thanks for the enormous, work effort you put in this.

      Does this design, also concludes, H1N1 was designed, or
      is different?

      In case was designed?

      When was designed?
      Why now?


  2. Mary says:

    I’m not sure how you would start a discussion in science class about creationism: “Some people believe that God created the world in seven days….made it look like it had evolved over time….”

    But therein lies the problem: Some people BELIEVE.

    Belief is that which we do in the absence of knowledge. If we knew something to be so, we wouldn’t have to believe it. I’m all for blurring the lines between academic subjects because — was it Einstein who said it? — everything is connected.

    But, the current public school curriculum is hardly set up for such a liberal-minded endeavor. Plus, the current political climate with George Bush determined to turn us all into Christians really worries me. I’d hate to see creationism or Intelligent Design or whatever you want to call it introduced into science class.

    Better left to philosophy or camparative religion courses. Otherwise, where do you draw the line. Wouldn’t you have to teach all creationism stories from all religions? Not just Christianity? Seems awfully problematic to me. Creationism a belief system. Science is empirical.

    • Great question, should the origins debate be considered in science class, or in a history or philosophy class?

      In the origins debate, if we carefully and strictly limit the discussion to that which can be scientifically, empirically proven – and not just anecdotal historical evidence – then both sides have astonishingly, precious little to present.

      Seriously, whether you talk to a creationist or an evolutionist or anyone in between, 99% of their arguments are anecdotal, not genuinely empirical and scientific (though they still may be logical). And some of the best logical arguments available are inductive, not deductive. So maybe it belongs in a history or philosophy class.

      What does belong in a science class is a careful analysis of what is empirical vs. what is anecdotal – a truly skeptical survey of all the evidence, showing that nearly all of it is anecdotal would be quite surprising for most students.

      Skepticism cuts both ways, you know. I’m very much aware of the James Randi types and the skeptics who charge that all religious claims are based on anecdotal evidence and cannot be proven. Having done some research on this myself I think there is some empirical evidence for the supernatural. However the same skeptics are loathe to admit that most if not all of their positions in the origins debate are also based on… anecdotal evidence.

      Last thought, for what it’s worth: Skepticism is a great tool but I think it makes for a lousy worldview – and snide, arrogant people who are hard to get along with :^



      • David Hallam says:

        Peter, Regarding “If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists” video
        You ask the question: Show me an image that does not come through a mind? If DNA is a naturally occurring code your entire premise is wrong. I see no evidence in your argument that DNA was created by God. I did evidence that your argument is based on faith in God and the bible.
        Barbara McClintock discovery of controlling elements provided valuable information that DNA is not just happenstance is evidence of how the mind could have been created by evolution, it does not evidence a creator. It appears to me that your explanations on evolution based on old arguments such as how antelopes never turn to giraffes shows you have never actually seriously studied the science evolution without wearing God glasses.
        According to Craig Holdrege The Nature Institute’s director
        The whole project of explaining the evolution of an animal by abstracting from the whole leads to unsatisfying, speculative ideas on the one hand, and to conceptual dissolution of the unity of the organism on the other. A more adequate understanding requires that we first investigate the organism as a whole and how its members interrelate and interact within the context of the whole organism and its environment. This holistic understanding can then form the starting point for thinking about the evolution of the animal. The evolutionary biologist Dobzhansky’s famous statement that “nothing in biology can be understood except in light of evolution” is a grand claim, which I believe is, in the end, true. But we have a lot of work to do before we get there, and we should not be satisfied with short-cut evolutionary “explanations.”
        If evolutionary thought is to have a solid foundation, we must establish this firm grounding in holistic understanding. As it is, stories of the evolution of traits seem compelling until you look for their context and foundation in the world and discover a pool of quicksand. As Simmons and Scheepers remark about Darwin’s idea of giraffe evolution, “it may be no more than a tall story.”

      • Talented Chimp says:

        “Having done some research on this myself I think there is some empirical evidence for the supernatural.”

        If there is empirical evidence of something, it is, by definition, not supernatural; it is a natural phenomenon with a natural cause. The fact that a natural cause may not be known does not automatically validate a supernatural/mystical/divine cause

        “Skepticism is a great tool but I think it makes for a lousy worldview … ”

        Skepticism is not a worldview, it is a tool, as you say, to evaluate the claims made about the world around us, especially those which are fantastical or are made without, or with inadequate, evidence. The word you are looking for is “cynicism”.

        “the origins debate” … “whether you talk to a creationist or an evolutionist or anyone in between”

        Evolution is not a theory about the origins of life, it is a theory about the *diversity* of life. It is misleading or disingenuous to conflate the two subjects.

        • The pattern in DNA infers a designer. The pattern is evidence which is empirical. The inference is logical.

          I also agree skepticism is only a tool But for some it IS a worldview. The readers of Skeptic magazine, for example.

          • Craig says:

            First off, it’s imply, not infer.

            Secondly, does the pattern in a snowflake imply a designer? What about salt crystals (perfect cubes)? The organization of a hurricane? The roundness of the planets and stars? The structure of spiral galaxies?

            • We can derive the shape of a snowflake or salt crystals and everything else you mention perfectly well from the laws of physics. We cannot derive the genetic code from the laws of physics, however.

  3. ralph says:

    Since man first gained self awareness there have been thousands of religions and religious explanations for why we are here and where we will be after death. Doesn’t it make sense that these thousands of “Godly” explanations are part of the human condition, eg. a need to reassure ourselves, save us from the dark (literally) and explain “who am I?”

    Also, it seems that you are saying that because the universe is extremely complicated, that a supreme being is necessary (to paraphrase Einstein). It doesn’t seem a logical conclusion to me. Just as reasoned would be that we haven’t yet reached the intellectual capacity needed.

    • Ralph,

      If a woman is found dead in her apartment, the coroner tries to determine whether she died from “natural causes” or if she was murdered by someone. The question he tries to answer is: Did an intentional external agent kill the woman or did nature do it? This is an investigation that can be carried out in a methodical, scientific manner.

      If she has a knife wound, no one would ever say, “The only reason this woman appears to have been murdered is that we are not intelligent enough to grasp how sophisticated natural causes can be.”

      We see that the expansion of the universe has to be fine tuned to 120 decimal places; that infers intent rather than chance as an explanation. Or for example, on Day 4 I explain that nobody has ever seen a CODE emerge from nature. All codes we know the origin of are designed by an intelligent agent. This not based on ignorance, but observation. Thus, the inference that DNA was designed is a reasonable and logical scientific interpretation.

      • kyle says:

        I think such a physical, and certainly non-scientific, question is being asked about the dead woman, and does not require the same skeptical scrutiny which other questions do require. One of the most important components of skeptical thinking is to know where and when to apply it. -for reference read Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World”, the chapter titled ‘Baloney detection kit’-.

        I would like to see your reference for the fine tuning of expansion of the universe if you don’t mind (too many links I found where rather biased). ~thanks!

        All the codes we know have an origin of intelligence because we know the source… us! But these codes are based on the end products of a natural process. -Janine Benyus’ “Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature” is a good read on mimicking nature-. The information DNA stores results in such complexity that is appears a supernatural systems designer must have created it. But evolution has given DNA time to become so complex. It is in deep competition (naturally) to survive and become more capable of passing on. The randomness may become more beneficial and, although small in changes, lead to changes within the species which is more benificial. We can see these natural changes on a smaller scale in other changes such as tumorigenesis, immune response, etc… Just because intelligence and information systems are relavant to each other, doesn’t imply that these systems require intelligence. Correlation does not imply causation.

        Thanks! Keep working the mind!

        • Kyle,

          The paper is at ahttp://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013v3

          The story you refer to of DNA being so sophisticated because it evolved over millions of years does not in any way shape or form explain the origin of DNA. You are still taking that for granted. DNA is a necessary prerequisite for evolution. So you’re still faced with the question “where did the information in DNA come from?”


          • kyle says:

            I definately agree that we don’t have an answer to the process of how the information came to be, but we do have an idea of how the amino acids came about (tested by simulating early earth’s atmosphere and lightning). Yes, we don’t have a scientific explanation for ‘information’ that DNA codes for. I just don’t see the default having to be a creator. Sure, for this question it would make sense that it would need an intelligence, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to assume that that is the reason for its purpose and origin. The way I’m interpreting this debate is that: Because we don’t have an answer for A (information arrising in genetic code) that B (a supernatural intelligent being) must have created it. The evidence for information coming from intelligence is strong if you’re considering the information systems that we DO know the origins to, but you’re implying that the same answer must be true for the information found in living organisms. Like many other obstacles in the sciences, it is easy to assign an explanation that makes sense from a thought provoked analysis. It, however, requires skepticism until there is substancial evidence to prove it’s actual cause. Biology, I believe, is much like history, in that it is most important to understand the past in order to understand why it is in the present. Unfortunately we can’t go back to witness the information arrising (which is why we don’t have an answer), but it seems like a mighty assumption to assign this answer to such an unanswered question when it has been used before for other scientific answers and hasn’t lived up to it’s worth.

            • Kyle,

              This is a very important and honest question and I appreciate the respectful way that you have asked it.

              First I appreciate your honesty. You’re right. We don’t know. We can only infer.

              I want to first point out that information theory is not your typical “god of the gaps” argument – it’s a singularity argument.

              A god of the gaps argument says “We don’t know a way that these planets stay in their orbits, so God must push them back in place every now and then.” That obviously didn’t work. But even then, some theologians had a different answer: “God made the laws of physics such that He wouldn’t have to constantly interfere with the operation of the universe.” That idea is about 3000 years old, by the way.

              A singularity argument says, “We cannot look beyond the big bang because we cannot escape space and time. Something transcendent is the only logical explanation.” This is the cosmological argument regarding the Big Bang.

              Information is a singularity argument too. Because there is an infinite chasm between Information and Non-Information. (See http://evo2.org/infinite-chasm ).

              The more you understand about how information is encoded and decoded, the more sense the design argument makes. Information is a top-down phenomenon. Materialism is bottom-up. The way in which you choose to encode information involves many decisions and compromises. 10 years ago I was employed in the industrial automation business and was involved in a battle between 6 different network protocols. There were very clear pros and cons to different data formats.

              Very similar trade-offs are considered with operating systems, databases, etc.

              Dr James Shapiro, in his paper “A 21st Century View of Evolution” compares the functions of the genome to an Operating System. Matter and energy alone do not begin to explain the origin of databases and operating systems. We are extremely familiar with the way that operating systems evolve – they evolve through a competition of deliberate intent. The genome is, in some sense, intelligent.

              At this time there is only one reasonable explanation – that intelligence and codes come from intelligence. It does not come from random chance.

              Let’s be very clear that the “random chance” explanation – which is very much socially acceptable, it’s found in hundreds of textbooks – not only has NO proof to support it, it’s ANTI-scientific. It’s not any kind of systematic, rational explanation. It’s nothing more than an appeal to luck. I’m sorry if this sounds insulting but I don’t know how any self-respecting scientist can espouse the “random accident” theory for the origin of life.

              We have two singularities: The big bang and the origin of life.
              Matter and energy cannot explain themselves. And they also cannot explain the existence of information. The materialistic worldview is failing.

              The most honest thing we can do is admit the failure of materialism and follow the evidence wherever it leads.


              • kyle says:


                Thank you for responding hastily and respectfully.

                I myself do feel alittle uneasy about the idea that the ‘random accident’ theory could be the potential reason for existence. I do, however, in biology (ecology and evolution) see how random mutations can be favorable and continue over SEVERAL generations until they become a dominant trait of a species. I realize this conversation is getting away for the level of information to a more macro level of evolution in organisms, but I just want to point out how viable it is that random mutations can become favorable within a species despite their origin of information due to natural pressures. This of course does not address origins of initial RNA and DNA, but our current definition of randomness does have a logical place in genetics (at least until we understand other viable causes). I believe what I’m trying to say is that we have a tendency to fill these gaps with something that seems plausible on the level we are investigating but ends up leading to more difficult questions later on. We also have a tendency to feel priveledged in thinking that the universe was shaped for us (very understandable seeing our current situation), but it may be that things came about as a result of what previously has happened, with no direct intent, but just due to the conditions that gradually arose. We assume a lot about our own nature, it’s an incredible mechanism which I would love to learn more about, but I’ve become extremely skeptical of how deep our assumptions lie in the realities of our existence. No matter how deeply I feel about something, reality speaks for itself.

                I enjoy conversing with you and look forward to more discussion!



                • Kyle,

                  Thank you, and I appreciate our friendly discussion.

                  I have NO disagreement that mutations happen, and that they result in helpful adaptations. That a mutation process combined with natural selection causes life to adapt to every niche and microcosm throughout the earth. I have no problem with the idea of evolution.

                  But there is a VERY subtle point and I must be as emphatic as possible about making this point:

                  Those mutations are NOT random. Absolutely, positively not.

                  They are internally ENGINEERED. Cellular genetic engineering, as discovered by Barbara McClintock in the 1940’s and continued by James Shapiro in the last 30 years.

                  The idea that these evolutionary mutations are random has been said a million times but proven by no one.

                  This idea is literally the greatest half-truth in science. I make this statement as a communication engineer. Communication engineers deal with codes, professionally, all day long. Because of my engineering background, I have great clarity about certain issues in biology, that most biologists are very vague about. Even Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, who is both a Christian and author of the book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief” misses this subtle point.

                  A person isn’t a bad person for not ‘getting’ this. But this is something that as a communication engineer I am adamant about.

                  My challenge to you is this:

                  Go to the literature and look for PROOF that the mutations that drive evolution are random.

                  I submit to you that if you go on that quest you will come up empty-handed.

                  I have been challenging people online for 4+ years to present me with evidence of this and nobody has ever produced anything.

                  What Shapiro and McClintock discovered was that the genome devotes enormous resources to preventing and correcting RANDOM mutations; while at the same time engineering its own ALGORITHMIC mutations, when it encounters tough environments. DNA literally re-arranges itself. It’s like a computer program that re-writes itself. It’s a marvel of engineering.

                  This 200 year old assumption of randomness as the driver of evolution is:

                  -Not true
                  -Not proven
                  -Substantially DIS-proven
                  -Violates common sense
                  -Is something that “natural selection,” no matter how powerful, cannot compensate for
                  -Is ANTI scientific (because randomness presumes underlying disorder, whereas the scientific method presumes underlying order)

                  A couple of articles which I hope you will read very carefully:




                  Thanks. I do hope you’ll slow down for a bit and really consider what I am saying. Re-read everything 10 times if necessary. Scour every word of these articles. Scour the entire Internet. And above all, insist that those who say “evolution is driven by random mutations” DEMONSTRATE that what they’re saying is true.

                  The implications of this question are far-reaching, to say the least.

                  Respectfully Submitted,

                  Perry Marshall

                  • kyle says:

                    Okay here I go.

                    First off, Barbara McClintock was the one who discovered DNA transposons, which contributed to RANDOM MUTATIONS and the turning on and off of physical characteristics (a physical explanation for random mutation). Your explanation for this appears backwards… They contributed to, instead of correcting, these changes. It is up to you to provide evidence for this alternative mechanism for these mutations, seeing as how this reference (and all other evidence on these mutations) is more geared towards supporting randomness. A substantial amount of evidence is required in fact. DNA polymerase makes mistakes. Chemicals and radiation change nucleotides. Mobile genetic elements jump around in the genome. These are random processes, and can be measured. AMES test is a model and assessment for these random mutations. It provides a measurement for mutagenic potential, but it is modeled after these mutations, the mutations are not modeled after this test. I understand that you are not a Biologist, but I believe a deeper understanding in Biology is required to argue this point – not intended to be offensive.

                    It’s important to realize mutations are random, natural selection is NOT. Natural selection is antipodal to randomness. It is natural selection that makes random mutations look non-random. Their correlation in the natural world (which is not very arguable) is essential for comprehending the non-intelligent guidance in evolution.

                    Here’s also a list of article you might want to look through on the origin of life and genetic information:



                    • Kyle,

                      Talkorigins is misrepresenting McClintock’s work. When in doubt, consult the peer reviewed scientific literature:

                      From James A. Shapiro, “A 21st century view of evolution” http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html. Emphasis mine:

                      “…the prevailing theory of biological evolution postulates a random walk to each new adaptation. In the last 50 years, molecular genetics has revealed features of DNA sequence organization, protein structure and cellular processes of genetic change that suggest evolution by natural genetic engineering. Genomes are hierarchically organized as systems assembled from DNA modules, which themselves generally constitute systems at lower levels. Each genome is formatted and integrated by sequence elements that do not code for proteins. These formatting elements constitute codons in multiple genetic codes for distinct functions such as transcription, replication, DNA compaction and genome distribution to daughter cells. Consequently, the genome has a computational system architecture.”

                      “Natural genetic engineering functions are sensitive to biological inputs, and their non-random operations help explain how novel system architectures can arise in evolution.”

                      “Moreover, the fact that natural genetic engineering changes are neither random in nature nor restricted to a single site in the genome means that they can create novel distributed (multilocus) systems and new genome system architectures.”

                      “One source of this latter view is the conventional theory that evolution occurs by a random walk through adaptive space and produces a virtually endless series of sui generis inventions. One alternative to this conventional view is that there exist design principles and procedures that are used repeatedly in evolution (in other words, evolution occurs as an engineering process).”

                      “In terms of a 21st Century view of evolution, the major importance of natural genetic engineering is that this capability removes the process of genome restructuring from the stochastic realm of physical-chemical insults to DNA and replication accidents. Instead, cellular systems for DNA change, place the genetic basis for long-term evolutionary adaptation in the context of cell biology where it is subject to cellular control regimes and their computational capabilities.”

                      Non-randomness and Regulation of Natural Genetic Engineering Activities

                      The foregoing discussion and an extensiveliterature that cannot be cited here make it clear that MGEs and other natural genetic engineering functions have the capacity to reorganize genomes in just the ways needed to reformat modular genome system architectures. This point is increasingly recognized (e.g. 21,22). However, the degree to which these genome reorganization activities are not random is poorly appreciated. Non-randomness is evident at three levels: mechanism, timing, and sites of action.”

                      “These examples make it clear that natural genetic engineering occurs episodically and non-randomly in response to stress events that range from DNA damage to the inability to find a suitable mating partner.”

                      “We have come to realize some of the basic design features that govern genome structure. Combining this knowledge with our understanding of how natural genetic engineering operates, it is possible to formulate the outlines of a new 21st Century vision of evolutionary engineering that postulates a more regular principle-based process of change than the gradual random walk of 19th and 20th Century theories.”

                      “Molecular genetics has amply confirmed McClintock’s discovery that living organisms actively reorganize their genomes (5). It has also supported her view that the genome can “sense danger” and respond accordingly (56). The recognition of the fundamentally biological nature of genetic change and of cellular potentials for information processing frees our thinking about evolution. In particular, our conceptual formulations are no longer dependent on the operation of stochastic processes. Thus, we can now envision a role for computational inputs and adaptive feedbacks into the evolution of life as a complex system. Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself. “

        • Brigitte says:

          Ah yes, which reminds me I still haven’t finished that book…

  4. Unni Raman Tharakkal says:

    Matter, Energy, Time and Space all created at the time of Big Bang. All the universal laws including the great ‘Conservation of Energy and Matter’ created at that time. There were no such laws before Big Bang. So the Big Bang theory has not violated the law ‘Conservation of Energy and Matter’ since that law was not there before Big Bang. The law is valid only after the Big Bang. Then where is the violation?

    The Big Bang had happened billions of years ago by the Super Intelligence and considering that Super Intelligence even today can listen to your grievances and provide solutions as the God of the modern era is far fetched. Trust Science, that is more dependable than the God.

    • Unni,

      You are arguably right. The law of conservation of matter / energy didn’t exist before then.

      So now we have only pushed the question back further. Where did these laws come from? What was their cause? How is it that these laws didn’t exist, and then suddenly came to exist (along with space and time), and these laws had rational order and structure? Where did this order and structure come from?

      You said it yourself: These elegant laws were CREATED.

      Created by…?

      Perry Marshall

      • Glen Hochkeppel says:

        It’s good to remember that “laws of science” have existence only in our minds’ interaction with the universe. They do not exist in the same way a piece of toast exists. They are formulations coded to work as predictions and explanations of phenomena, and they are no doubt tailored to fit the requirements of the human mind (the desire for eternal verities, for a unitary reality, objective and apart from our perceptions of it, etc.) Our desire for such rules (or such person as “God” who “created” them) is very human, and obviously has created much interesting stuff. But it’s silly to say the “law of gravitation” exists. The universe behaves, and we do our best to explain it, but it’s easy to mistake the menu for the meal, as Alan Watts said.

        Of course, even that piece of toast is more of a verb than a noun!

    • Jayant Joshi says:

      Mr. Unnikrishnan,
      Your view about law of conservation of energy and other laws in science are logical. I also think that the matter originally existed and may be still existing can be considered as God in today’s scientific world. All religions and faiths should be united to agree this and leave their old beliefs and whatever is written in their religious books. Nobody knows and perhaps will not ever know how the original particle (or God in the form of super energetic atom) came into existance. Perhaps if we can dwell into black holes more deeply than now, we may get some idea. Since it is very big, very bright after big bang we can not see it. But since all the atoms and particles in the atom are created from the big bang, we can say that there exists some relation between everything in the Universe. Not only that, it may be possible to communicate between any two of them using the interatomic forces. These forces, mainly attraction, are referred to as “Maya” by sages in old times. God is termed as “Purush”. Big bang happened due to their uniting together and “Prakriti” or Nature came into exitance. Other Gods are created by the Purush who had tremendous powers and can appear or disappear according to their will. Because they are a form of large energy reservoir. Accoridng to Einstein’s theory, mass can be converted into energy. So, reversibly, energy also could be converted into matter. These are the things which will be proved by modern science in future.
      In short, it is not proved that God does not or did not exist. As science progresses, many people will become theists.
      As per your comment, God can not listen to personal grievances, because He has produced such a big Universe and He can not listen small creatures like us. For this, I have an explanation which can be proved experimentally.
      The explantion goes like this: Our mind and thoughts are also a form of energy. When we concentrate our thoughts on one particular thing, this energy gets concentrated like rays of the sun concentrating after passing through a convex lens. This concentrated energy (which we say God listening to our prayers) does a positive work and our wish gets fulfilled. This is evident from an example that if you concentrate properly, you can understand what is going on in other person’s mind. Or, you can feel something terrible is going to happen if some danger is looming on your head.

    • Venugopal says:

      The Big Bang occured about 15 billion years back. There are 30 billion years old galaxies in the universe !
      The following is from : http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
      “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.” . . . .


  5. vinod says:

    Hey Perry, I want to make my career in astronomy….can you give me some suggestions?


  6. vishal says:

    What is the principle and mechanism of the Big Bang Theory? What is meant by ‘cosmology’?

    • You can find good answers to both of these questions at http://en.wikipedia.org/

      • Venugopal says:

        From : http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?Itemid=671&id=2357&option=com_content&task=view
        “The big bang theory is a house of tissue paper that is about to collapse under its own weight.” – American physicist David Dilworth

        • Jim R says:


          You can’t kill the “BIG BANG” with a paper theory with no evidence. Keep reading!

          This is pretty typical of ‘paper theories’ that claim that the Big Bang is dead. These theories typically complain that all the research money is going only to proponents of the Big Bang and none to them. While correctly indicating that the Big Bang does have unresolved issues, they fail to acknowledge that the Big Bang is the best tested theory of all time – and – has withstood over 100 vigorous challenges. Will there be more challenges? Yes – as evidenced by your email. However, please note that weekly (if not daily) new evidenced for the Big Bang are being found

          In this case, Dr. Harnett is clearly a ‘Young Earth Creationist’ with the expressed purpose of coming up with a theory that supports his explicit presuppositions (i.e. young earth). I recently heard an interview that can be heard at: http://podcasts.reasons.org/idkt/idkt-se1.mp3 Dr. Hartnett couldn’t even answer some basic questions about his theory.

          The clear take-away is that Dr. Harnett’s theory is anything but complete – and – more obviously, it is strictly a ‘paper theory’ with ‘ZERO’ scientific validation.
          Go figure: A paper theory with zero confirmations vs. a theory that has withstood over 100 challenges. The Big Bang is so well established that I doubt that it’ll ever be disproven. However, a more comprehensive theory that includes both the Big Bang and Quantum mechanics may be developed. An example of such a theory is ‘string theory’ that, in a couple pages of mathematics give the equations for both Einstein’s Gravity and of Quantum Mechanics. Personally, I like ‘string theory’ but it also need to be tested and validated to be accepted.

          • Venugopal says:

            To the best of my knowledge, the string theory is discarded as invalid. Enough information is available on the internet.
            Regarding the Big Bang : Late Reber Groate is honoured as the father of Radio Astronomy. He argues against the big bang theory. He is a proponent of a stable universe. Many links to him available here : http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/brucemedalists/reber/
            And “A Timeless, Boundless, Equilibrium Universe ” :
            (Please note that this is from Harvard University.)

            • Jim R says:

              String Theory is dead? and was overthrown by Grote Reber who did his work in the 1930-40s? I don’t think so. Read on.

              Edwin Hubble (Hubble Telescope), Grote Reber (and even me) all live/lived in Wheaton IL. Edwin Hubble has a middle school named after him. Reber is unknown. Hubble provided the first proof of Einstein’s theory – that the universe is and has always been expanding. Grote Reber was a radio astronomer who’s work was restricted to the Milky Way Galaxy and a little with Andromeda. One of his last publications was in 1944. He, like Fred Hoyle, held to a static universe – a view that cannot be supported with scientific facts today.

              String Theory dead? Hardly. At a Wheaton College physics symposium in 1997 dedicated to this topic, it is clear that active research is being conducted in over a half dozen projects involving well over 50 scientists that string theory is alive and well — and — well funded.

              • Jim R says:

                Correction: The Wheaton College symposium was in March 26 –27, 2008 and was entitled: “String Theory and the Multiverse: Philosophical and Theological

                • Venugopal says:

                  Dear Jim,
                  I regret to say, but you lack concentration. Where did I say that Reber Grote has over thrown the string theory. Reber Grote has explained the red shift as not due to an expanding universe. He has done enough hard work in the field of radio astronomy. Again you say he has not published after 1944. Completely wrong. His main work started after second world war ( first working radio telescope in 1937), and continued till his death in 2002. He is known as the father of radio astronomy. You have not heard about him does not in anyway lessen the impoprtance of the work he carried out. His biography is an inspiring one to any science enthusiast. Many links to him here :
                  From : http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=58
                  “Reber has constantly and firmly opposed the big bang theory, and also any idea that red shifts indicate expansion. He has emphasized that Edwin Hubble never committed himself to any such explanation for the red shifts he discovered.” . . . .
                  ” Reber’s alternative explanation for red shift, developed and published in the late 1960s simultaneously with a similar explanation by current NPA member John Kierein, is to attribute it to loss of energy of photons experienced in Compton-type collisions with electrons in space, which are evidently part of a gaseous medium causing the well-known 2.7-degree Kelvin cosmic background radiation. The existence of this radiation was discovered by Reber slightly earlier than by Penzias and Wilson, and he researched it for a much longer time than they did, before publishing. Because of his delay, and because he published obscurely and lacked an active PR campaign on his behalf, they were the ones who received the Nobel Prize.” . . . .
                  For your information, Hubble never believed in an expanding universe. As for string theory, with its 11 dimensions, is discarded by the main stream science, as untenable. You may confirm this by spending a few hours on the internet.
                  As for the Big Bang theory, at the outset there was an aggressive personality, a scientist, who was promoting this idea. ” He who shouts the loudest is heard the mostest !!”.
                  There are competent professional scientists from the field of astrophysicis, cosmology, physics etc. who believe that the big bang theory is wrong. They have already conducted two symposiums, titled “Crisis in Cosmology”.
                  You may also know that big science means big funding. The idea of cold fusion which was laughed at for twenty years, is now accepted as a fact by the US navy scientists. (Billions are spent on hot fusion research during the last 60 years !). I hope like cold fusion, the steady state universe will make a come back in the not too distant future.

                  • Jim R says:

                    VG – You should feel free to believe what you wish, but the scientific facts are overwhelming against such a static universe position. It sounds like you have a vested interest in believing that the universe is static.

                    As for the Big Bang, I would guess that over 95+% of all physicists, astro-physicists and astronomers believe in one of several competiting Big Bang theories. With a 99.9999999999999% proof for the Big Bang, and 0.0000000000001% uncertainity, I’d put my confidence in one of the Big Bang proposals and with the 95+% of scientists advocating it.

                    My statement about Reber was 1) to indicate that he lived in Wheaton (like Hubble and me), and 2) that he was a radio astronomer who studies primarily concerned the Milky Way Galaxie (as apposed to Hubble who studied many remote galaxies) – and – that his work (while significant) can’t be considered a serious threat to Big Bang Cosmology.

                    Please read my last posting carefully. I did not state that Reber had overthrown string theory. This independent paragraphy was addressing your statement that “…string theory is discarded as invalid. Enough information is available on the internet.” The point is that significant active research is being conducted by many scientists. It is still a theory that needs to be tested and validated — but it is attractive in that both Enstein’s Theory of Relativity (i.e. Gravity) and Quantum Mechanics can be derived from a few pages of mathematics. However, I would agree that it is hotly contested – but – it definitely has not been discarded as invalid.

          • Venugopal says:

            Dear Jim,
            I wrote about Dr.David Dilworth, who is not a creationist. There were two conferences entitled ” Crisis in Cosmology”, just to refute the big bang theory. Dr.Dilworth has participated in this.You are writing about some body else, who is a creationist, and I fail to make the link, about what I have written and what you are writing. Who is Dr.Harnet. I have never made any reference to him. In fact I am hearing his name first time now, from you only.

            • Jim R says:


              The link you provided above is about the “Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG) ” and in the first paragraph, it refers to Dr. Harnett. Alternative Cosmology is just that – theories that have been proven.

              • yanniru says:

                Jim & Venugopal ,

                Please forgive my butting in here, but string theory is the dominant interest in the USA at the Ivy league schools and other high level schools like Cal Tech and Berkeley; so dominant in fact that other types of physicists complain that they cannot get a faculty position if they are not string theorists.

                Particularly because Jim mentioned the Wheaton College conference on the Multiverse, either of you might be interested in a string cosmology model I wrote as a Google Knol which combines the Big Bang with black holes in the context of a 26 dimensional multiverse. Just a paper model mind you, based on the string theories of others, but it does suggest that the extra dimensions of string theory have some of the characteristeics of a god:


  7. Unni Raman Tharakkal says:

    If somebody can create matter, energy, time and space from nothing, he can create simuteneously the laws concerning these. The the question is who created this superintelligent being. A much more intelligent being is required to create this intelligent and we reach nowhere. The most convenient model is that the Universe always existed and expanded from infinitely small to the present state.

    • Unni,

      Who created this superintelligent being? This being has to be an uncaused cause, otherwise we have infinite regression. See http://evo2.org/infotheoryqa.htm for a more complete answer to this question.


      • kyle says:

        Then, as the great astronomer Carl Sagan once said, if we can say the creator always existed – why can we not just skip that step and say the universe always existed?

      • T says:

        Hi Perry,
        I watched one of your videos on creation and with you until you gave last answer on the posibilities of the creator being god. one of the possibilitie was aliens and you said, “then, where did the aliens come from, they have to come from somewhere”. You absolutely right, they have to come from somewhere.
        My question is, you believe the answer is god. So where does god come from because you never proved that. If you say he’s from out of space and time, then just maybe the aliens must have come from outside time and space.
        The thing is people should stop wasting their time on agueing about this subject. Believe or don’t, who knows the end. Non believers commit crimes, Believers do the same. There are more killings in this 21st century in the name of god and religion.

  8. Dabe Stacy says:

    The fact that one may understand our universe was created, gives me rise of thought that, if created, a Creator has to exist. To study ancient text is to reveal the effort from earliest modern times to understand from where we came. All came from creation, from a Creator. Early writings tried to explain our existence by saying a God created us. We have no way of knowing the Creator, but I believe the book of Enoch most closely describes the kingdom of the Creator or possibly a designated ruler over the creation. I think we humans are, simply, too, ignorant to understand the Creator as much as we may understand about the creation. Consider this, the Creator may consider the creation a minor accomplishment not worth tracking. Perhaps there is more than one Creator. Shall we ever know, is it important that we know. Does our Creator find solace in the many religions developed to celebrate his creation? Is knowledge of a Creator a thing that may be derived? There are those in our world who still are unaware of the human and other sentient beings that populate our entire solar system and possibly our entrire Galaxy.

  9. Venugopal says:

    I believe that the universe existed from an infinite time and will continue to do so. A few cosmologist believe that that the Big Bang never happened. They have their own explanations for red shift and the cosmic microwave background radiation, which are the main arguments for the big bang. They say the presence of plasma in the intergalactic space is the cause of red shift. As for background cosmic radiation, it is Compton scattering. They also argue, if their is inflation then all space every where should be expanding, whcih is not an observed fact.. Some scientists point out that, In all cosmological studies, the effect of huge electro-magnetic forces present in the universe is neglected. Comaring on the basis of size to size, electro-magnetic force is 10^42 times more powerful than gravitational forces.

    • Jim says:

      I’m glad you said that only a ‘few astronomers’ believe that the Big Bang never occurred. They are by far in the minority. The Big Bang has withstood over 100 brutal challenges over the last century and have convinced most of the skeptical scientists that there was, in fact, a beginning of our universe in the not-so-distant past (i.e. 13.7B years ago). Enisteins’ laws of relativity have been proven to 15 places of the decimal. (note: I’m usually good if something is proven to 4-5 places of the decimal).

      So, I think you may seriously want to reconsider you ‘infinite universe’ philosophy. Scientific evidence is overwhelming against your position — just as it is against that of a ‘young earth creationist’ trying to prove that the universe and earth is very young.

      • Venugopal says:

        Dear Jim,
        Actually, I have replied to your question. But the reply appeared much before your question. This here is surely a topsy-turvy universe !!
        If you search the internet, you will come across hundreds of pages written by scientists, proving that the Big Bang never occured.

        • Jim R says:

          To prove that the Big Bang never occurred is to have proved that Einstein is wrong in his theory of relativity – proven to 15 places of the decimal. Each week (day?), additional proofs of his theory are discovered. Having withstood over 100 brutal challenges, Einstein’s theories are considered as close to ‘Laws’ as you can get. I know of no other theory that has been proven to that extent. If you have one, I’ll gladly read up on one. If your theories have withstood rigorous testing and not been proven to any degree (i.e. they are just paper theories), I would willing consider them. Show me one.

  10. A “Big Bang” may have changed the form of the Universe but I very much doubt it brought about its creation.

    The Big Bang theory which is widely regarded as the leading explanation for the origin of the universe posits that space and time sprang into being about 14 billion years ago in a hot, expanding fireball of nearly infinite density. This theory also suggests that after the force created by the Big Bang is spent everything in the Universe may well stop expanding outwards and will then begin an inward collapse – the “Big Crunch”. In other words the Universe may well return to the way it was before the Big Bang took place.

    If this theory of a universal big bang followed by a big crunch is indeed correct then it is certainly an endless cycle with no beginning and no end.

    I posit that nothing can end time nor destroy matter. Whatever may happen twenty billion years in the future to change the form of the Universe as we know it, will definitely not result in its obliteration. Whether it is a “Big Rip”, a “Big Crunch” or, as is more likely, something so far not theorized about, the result will be the same, merely a change in the form of the universe. Matter can never be destroyed nor time stopped.

    If the Universe has always existed then a creator, i.e. “God” is not a requirement.

    Primitive man invented God.
    This “invention” of a God (or Gods) was our ancestors’ way of trying to find a logical explanation for how the so called “Creation” came about.
    They were wrong in giving credit to a “Spiritual Almighty God” for this Being has never existed and the “Creation” has never occurred in the sense of something being created from nothing.
    “God” was therefore an unnecessary invention of man and anyone professing a belief in the “Religions of the Book” is following not “God” but “Man” as it was primitive man who invented “God” in an erroneous attempt to explain creation.

    • Dear Profound Nonsense,

      If you see a candle burning you can be quite certain that it was lit within the last few hours or days… it has not been burning for 100 billion years or since infinity past Nor would we assume that it naturally emerged from older recycled candles.

      Same with the universe.

      An endless physical cycle with no beginning and no end violates entropy. That’s impossible according to all known scientific laws. Entropy as currently understood only provides for one universe and one cycle – the one we’re in.

      Perry Marshall

      • Venugopal says:

        I have read some statistics that says that roughly 50% of people are atheists and the remaining 50% are believers in God. A tiny percentage are those who describe themselves as agonistics. If it was a question of self reassurance, then the percentage of those who believe in God will be much higher than the 50% reported.

        • Venugopal,

          If you include countries like China and the former Soviet Union – where atheism was, at times, forced upon people at gunpoint for generations – maybe the number of atheists in the world approaches something like 30%. Outside of those countries it is generally no more than 10-20%.


          • Venugopal says:

            Chinese are Buddhists. Buddha never believed in a God. And here is one source :
            “The Inconsistency of Theism
            by Andrew Moroz
            A glance at the 1998 World Almanac reveals that over 2.5 billion people (46 percent of the world) are either Atheists or non-believers – a stark difference from North America, where only seven percent are Atheists or nonbelievers. The Atheist position is perhaps founded on a principle of truth — a wish to believe only on evidence rather than on faith. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell satirically exclaimed: . . .”
            It is true that there is no scientific proof that God exist. But there is no scientific proof that God does not exist, also. Truely it is not in the agenda of science to prove or disprove the existance of God. Physical science deals with things that can be quantified like so many kilograms of matter or so many kilometers of distance, etc. Can somebody prove scientifically that Love exists ?! No, because it is beyond the quantification process of science.

            • Boos says:


              Love is a virtue and so it is our innate divine quality. Somehow many of us has lost this quality through time. In the human sense it is spiritual, cannot comprehend how love can be proven scientifically. Presuming you are a better man and to create a life of someone as you is deem an effort of love. Well, it is something to do with feelings.



      • Richard says:

        Mr Perry

        Do you have a site I can go to to learn about entropy?

    • Jim says:

      The ‘big crunch’? Actually, this will never (and has never) happened. In fact, the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, and as such, the gravitational influence to cause a ‘big crunch’ gets less and less each day. The mass of the universe has been shown to be too small for this to have every occurred. But, if it did, entropy is so large that a re-bounce would never take place.

      In summary, there cannot be an oscillating universe, and there won’t be an endless cycle with no beginning and no end.

      • Venugopal says:

        Will you please kindly explain, what you mean by entropy ?

        • Entropy means that over time, energy moves through an irreversible process of going from usable forms to unusable forms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

          In information theory, entropy means that the process of adding noise to a signal is also irreversible. And for identical reasons. Everyone who’s ever done audio or video recording knows this intuitively.

          This is why it’s impossible that “random mutation” is the source of evolutionary diversity. It’s like saying that someone made a million copies of a tape recording of blues music, and a million copies of those tapes were made, and through a process of millions of generations filtered by natural selection, we eventually ended up with some tapes that became Rock & Roll instead of blues.

          Interestingly, the math formulas for thermodynamic entropy and information entropy are identical.


          • Venugopal says:

            In thermodynamics, entropy means that part of the energy content of a system, that is not available for conversion into work, or in other words, usable energy (Free energy).
            For example a gas inside a cylinder, under pressure, will have pressure-volume energy and rotational, vibrational and translational energy of its molecules. The total energy content is called enthalpy, H. The energy that can be converted to work is H-TS. T is the absolute temperature and S is the entropy.
            Entropy is also represented as a degree of disorder. For all natural processes, entropy increases, or things become more and more chaotic and disorderly. Last year, in the US a symposium was conducted, where 20 papers were presented by researchers proving that “Entropy increases in all natural processes” is not always right.

  11. fred wetzler says:

    Assuming that the Universe or Multiverse was created from nothing, it follows that energy–whatever it is– happened. But , because nothing existed, there was no space for energy to happen nor any entity to observe the event. With no observing entity, how could it “happen”??????????? And to what?? So diid energy create its own space??????

  12. Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda says:

    Dear Mr. Marshall:

    I do not see the reasoning behing the statement: “If the Universe had a beggining then it must have a begginer.” Are you reverting back to the old “First Cause” argument? Please, explain.
    Remember that what seems “obvious” according to our daily experiences in not necessarily true. Consider the sum of two identical infinities of the class “Aleph”. The sum is not two “Aleph” infinities but one! This result would be somewhat abhorrent to someone used to deal with finite numbers only!

    Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda Ph. D.

    • Hector,

      I am arguing that all effects have a cause. This is the entire basis of “reason” and rationality in modern thought and science. To argue otherwise is to throw reason and rationality out the window.

      The only way to avoid an infinite regress is an Uncaused Cause.


      • Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda says:

        Dear Perry:

        I understand you are arguing that every effect has a cause. But then, by your own rule, God Himself must have had a cause for his own existence.. You can not have a rule and then dismiss it when it is no longer convenient.
        Also, what is so abhorrent about an infinite regress?


        • Hector,

          Philosophers almost universally reject any form of infinite regress because the result is an infinitely complex answer to a finite question. Good entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress.

          Naturally the next logical question is, “But isn’t God an infinitely complex answer to a finite question?” No. God is infinite but God is not infinitely complex. As Augustine said, “God is simple.” God is one. God is categorically independent of any sequence of cause and effect.


          • Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda says:

            Dear Perry:

            You did not address the point I made in the first paragraph of my last communicaion. Would you, please?
            In dealing with the second paragraph you dismiss my argument by saying that an infinite regress is an infinitely complex answer to a finite question (whatever that is), and therefore unacceptable. May I remind you of an ancient paradox which baffled philosophers for many centuries? In order to travel from 0 to 1 you must first traverse one half of the total distance (1/2), then half of the remaining distance (1/4), then half the remaining distance (1/8) and so on. The sum of the infinite series is a finite number, namely 1. Could it be that we are in the same boat (or, at least, in a similar one) as the ancient philosophers?
            When you say: “God is infinite but God is not infinitely complex. God is simple. God is one. God is categrically ilndependent of any sequence of cause and effect.”, you are stating your personal beliefs, which I respect but do not share.

            Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda

            • Hector,

              The thought experiment of dividing things in half ad infinitum is entirely different from the idea of an infinite regression of beings. Yes I am stating my personal beliefs, that God is simple, God is one. But I am also defending that view as reasonable and rational. It is wholly rational to postulate that the universe is not the result of an infinite series of past explosions. That fits all we know about physics. It is philosophically inevitable that we arrive at an uncaused cause, and this cause makes no sense if it is subject to the same constraints of entropy and cause and effect. Even the laws of entropy do not exist outside of the universe.

              The theistic conception of God is rational.


              • Neelix says:

                Not sure if the paper is still avalible there was a man named Herbert W Armstrong in the early 1920’s,want to say it was 23 that wrote a paper busting the theory of evolution completely.
                Perry your research and website remind me alot of Mr Armstrong’s paper,debubking the flawed theory.Having been a former engineer,now retired it is obvious to me,and many others that the universe and lige itself had to have a designer and creator.Ashamed so many people refuse to see this truth.
                Thanks for a wonderful website.

            • Boos says:


              When one speaks of God understand it to be in the spiritual sense because God is an infinitesimal Point-of-Light, a Soul that is He is the Supreme Soul. We human are soul too. The form of the soul is a dot, just like a star, a point of light with infinitesimal energy. Great souls amidst us knows, we cannot measure the distance to Him. What we need is the spiritual experience.



      • Craig says:

        Except this is not the case. There are uncaused events happening all the time. Radioactive decay of atoms is one example. The creation and destruction of virtual particles in the vacuum is another.

  13. Dabe Stacy says:

    It is understood that our galaxies are moving farther away from us in an outward movement. Movement must have an originating point, in essence, the Big Bang. The event created all that exists in our Universe today. A created event does not come from chaos, therefore, a creator must and does exist. Science in perfect harmony with Religion of God the Creators easily fits the circumstances of the Big Bang. Note, I have never heard of anyone suggesting something could happen from nothing. There seems to be little logic there.

    • Venugopal says:

      Journel of astrophysics.
      Some Critiques of the Big Bang Cosmology
      Jean-Claude Pecker, Collège de France, Paris
      Abstract. Still more shocking than the metaphysical assumption of some
      initial singularity, is the constant insistence upon the so-called cosmological
      principle of “homogeneity” and “isotropy” of the Universe. Observations
      do contradict this principle. And to me, the inhomogeneous, fractal at least
      on a certain scale range, of the distribution of matter is in itself an
      important cosmological fact, hitherto almost neglected. Moreover difficult-
      ties as to the applicability of the second principle of thermodynamics,
      observations of abnormal redshifts, etc., are casting large doubts not only
      upon the standard cosmological models, but even on the interpretation of
      the observed redshift as due solely to a universal expansion.

  14. IGE says:

    Do you think its clever move to explain something by God, when we can explain by him (or it) everything we want?

    • I disagree that we can use God to explain anything we want to explain. I can say that it rained today because of God but if a naturalistic explanation works then it should be accepted and pursued. But as I said elsewhere, even naturalism is rooted in a belief that the universe obeys fixed, discoverable laws; that God made a world that could operate without His constant intervention. The monks, priests and theologians of the middle ages advocated this position and this is what gave rise to modern science.

      Science cannot exist without God.

      • IGE says:

        And there was time when there was no naturalistic explanation. Was it right to talk about God, when there was lightning or something?
        In principle, we can explain by God everything. I agree that we should use naturalistic explanation on those simple things. But i don’t agree that we should turn on God, when we don’t have naturalistic explanation (maybe yet?). It predicts that we have in principle potencial to know the basics of universe.

        In one hand we have science and in the other hand we have religion. With both we can explain the Big questions. We could say we are right to believe in science, because science work with verification, experiments and only science can come to conclusion that something in science is wrong, so all the progress in science is made by science.
        But what about the religion? Do we have the answers of same strength? And is religion self-reflex like science? Does religion change bye conclusion made up by religion or conclusion made up by society?

        • IGE,

          The simplest thing I can refer to here is Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems . In 1931 Godel PROVED, essentially, the following:

          “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself – without referring to something OUTSIDE the circle that you know is true but cannot prove.”

          (That’s the kindergarten version BTW.)

          So for example we have a high school geometry book that’s full of proofs but those proofs ultimately rest on a handful of suppositions that make perfect sense but nobody can prove are true. So you can never prove everything inside that book.

          So what this means is that faith and reason cannot exist without each other. Reason is what you can prove but faith is about what is still unproven and there will always be things in the category of “unproven.”

          No matter how big we draw the circle there is still something on the outside and that thing is God. God cannot be proven but everything inside the circle IS contingent on that outside thing. That First Cause.

          In the last 200 years many have made us think that science and religion are enemies but each needs the other. Religion is about what is ultimately “outside” the circle, and science is about what is inside the circle. The two have a necessary and vital relationship.


          • Boos says:


            Talking about reason , faith and God and the circles. First of all it is good to understand who we are and who God is. Since each and everyone of us blog in your cosmicfingerprints let it be assured that the important thing matters is that we are alive and living and have a purpose. Maybe we can put aside the unproven things and get on with life after all science is about proofing the circumstances and the environment around us on the universe and life itself. How about utopia and immortality for humanity. Any connection with science?



  15. Alba says:

    How can a entire universe be created out of nothingness? You said a superintelligent being created this multiverse. But what was there before that being? Who created God?

    • Alba,

      Who created God? See http://evo2.org/infotheoryqa.htm


    • james strait says:

      What was there before that being? Why a being? Why does their have to be an intial intelligent progenetor? Why before? Is the concept of time not the achilles heel in this discussion? Who created the progenetor? A preprogenetor? See how the concept of time mucks this conversation up? Dooms it to a closed loop of…my concept is superior to your concept.

      The universe simply is. Is it expanding, cyclic, steady state, folding, heaving or an optical illusion? I suspect the universe is vast roiling chaos about which we have only a local and limited understanding. We’ll get better at it…but for now, the universe simply is.

      The getting better at it is why the religious world is in salvage mode. “Intelligent Design” is a desperate effort by fundamentalists to retain some degree of credibility in a world about to leave the supernatural behind.

      My world view does not have to be correct…but Mr. Perry seems to live in a land where only his perceptions have merit. I’m not a psychiatrist, but I do recognize grandiosity when I see it.

      I was raised by a seminary educated theolgian, thus, I vaguely remember that pride in the form of vanity of Mr. Perry’s magatude is a cardinal sin. But then, fundamentalists believe that you can raise hell until your last breath and still gain entrance to heaven by accepting jesus christ (during that last breath) as your eternal savior.


      • yanniru says:


        Your last sentence
        “But then, fundamentalists believe that you can raise hell until your last breath and still gain entrance to heaven by accepting jesus christ (during that last breath) as your eternal savior”
        reminds me that the Tibetean Book of the Dead has a similar theology: If you do not have a guru to help you gain salvation after death, appeal to the Lord of Great Compassion who is available for all seeking salvation. Apparently you can accept Jesus even after your last breath.

  16. Venugopal says:

    The phrase “Big Bang” was coined by Dr.Fred Hoyle, who was a supporter of a steady state universe, which was a very popular idea some 50 years back. Big Bang do have a trace of vulgar connotation. To prove that Big Bang really happened the ecientists have to resort to several devices like Dark Energy, Dark Matter, 11 dimensions etc. There are a few Cosmologists who believe that the big bang never happened. Internet provides hundreds of web sites which provides arguments against Big Bang. Who knows, after 50 years the steady state universe will be the more accepted concept.

    • Kapil Singhal says:

      Any explanation of the origins of the universe that begins with
      something physically indescribable is critically open to question. And
      further there is a gnawing question: where did the singularity come
      from? Here the scientists face the same difficulty as the religionists
      they taunt with the question, “Where did God come from?” And just
      as the religionists respond with the answer that God is the cause of all
      causes, the scientists are faced with the prospect of declaring a
      mathematically indescribable, physically unrealizable point of
      infinite density and temperature, of infinitesimal size, existing before
      all conceptions of time and space, as the cause of all causes. At this
      point, the hapless scientists stand convicted of the same unforgivable
      intellectual crime that they have accused the saints and mystics of
      committing – making physically unverifiable supernatural claims. If
      the scientist is to know anything at all about the origin of the universe, it would seem he would now have to consider the possibility of accepting methods of inquiry and experiment transcending the physical.

      Did everything start from a ‘Big bang’ or a ‘Big brain’?

      If you ask someone, how this universe began, people simply
      murmur, ‘big bang’. Whenever there is a big bang due to some atom
      bomb in your town or city, you can be sure of two things :
      • people would be curious to know who created the explosion–
      any terrorists or soldiers?
      • the explosion might have caused only damage and destruction
      and nothing orderly must have come out of it.
      The explosion usually is chaotic, like the explosion of a nuclear
      bomb. But does this type of explosion result in better organization?
      Do the bombs that fall on cities in wartime produce superbly
      designed buildings, streets and signs with traffic laws? On the
      contrary, such explosions cause wreckage, disorder, chaos,
      disintegration. And when the explosive device is nuclear the
      disorganization is total, as experienced by the Japanese cities of
      Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
      No, a mere “explosion” could not create our awesome universe with
      its amazing order, design and law. Only a mighty organizer and
      lawmaker could direct the powerful forces at work so that they would
      result in superb organization and law.
      The universe we live in, is not some lump of floating material, but a
      perfect residence (with arrangement for food, water, heat, light,
      medicine etc) for all living beings to live in harmony. No one would
      expect a beautiful multi-storeyed housing appartment replete with all
      facilities for food, water supply, lighting and electricity, hospital
      facility etc to spring up from a ‘big bang’ or a big explosion.
      If someone is adament in arguing on ‘big bang’, he might be
      suggested to start a ‘small bang construction company’ and create
      housing appartments based on his ‘big bang’ belief.
      Encyclopedia Britannica admits, “It should be
      emphasized that no theory of the origin of the solar
      system has as yet won general acceptance. All
      involve highly improbable assumptions.” Thus, with
      such “highly improbable” theories the atheists try to
      deny God as the origin and controller of the universe.
      According to big bang theory, everything began from ‘a point of
      infinite temperature, infinite density, infinitesimal in size that is
      physically indescribable, mathematically unverifiable, beyond all
      conceptions of space and time.’ Does it sound like a scientific
      theory? Now where did that ‘point’ come from? Here the scientists
      face the same difficulty as the religionists they taunt with the
      question, “Where did God come from?” And just as the religionists
      respond with the answer that God is the cause of all causes, the
      scientists are faced with the prospect of declaring a mathematically
      indescribable, physically unrealizable point of infinite density and
      temperature, of infinitesimal size, existing before all conceptions of
      time and space, as the cause of all causes. The choice is yours!
      Whether you want to accept God or a ‘point’ as the Supreme cause of
      all causes.
      Thus, believing in an empirical (or physical) scientific theory
      requires just as much faith as in believing that a personal God creates
      and maintains the universe. Scientists generally claim that nothing is
      accepted in the field of Science without proper experimental
      evidence. We can challenge, “Where is the proof that such a point
      existed? It is more wiser to assume that God, a Supreme Truth,
      endowed with unlimited energies is the cause of all causes, than to
      assume a ‘point’ as the Supreme Truth.”

      God is not an assumption, but a tangible
      reality. Dr.Albert Einstein said,“I believe in
      God – who reveals himself in the orderly
      harmony of the Universe. I believe that
      intelligence is manifested throughout all
      Nature. The basics of scientific work is the
      conviction that the world is an ordered and
      comprehensible entity and not a thing of
      Chance. When I sit here and watch the
      mighty ocean, I can imagine the treasures hidden below the bed of
      the sea, when I see the clear blue sky above, I feel sky is the limit.

      When I cast my eyes around I see the wonders and beauties of
      Nature. Science must learn to live in Harmony with all these
      magnificent gifts of God to Humanity.”
      When we think calmly and carefully about this wonderful universe,
      we can see that everything is working under the control of a supreme
      brain. There is a cause behind each action. A machine cannot run
      without an operator. Modern scientists are very proud of automation,
      but there is a scientific brain behind automation also.

      • Forrest Charnock says:

        Dear Kapil:

        Worrying about where the Big Bang came from is asking the wrong question, was there a Big Bang to start with. Despite the way it is presented here many scientists don’t believe there ever was such an event and in fact refer to it as garbage science. Many of these scientists are not Christians.
        The question of where did God come from is sometimes a legitimate desire for understanding but most often the attack of those who don’t want God telling them how to behave.

        Despite what Mr. Perry says with all due respect anyone who reads the first chapter of Genesis and does not see that he is openly saying that a person cannot simply believe what they read in the Bible but needs a scientist to re-interpret it for them is fooling themselves. It plainly states the sun , moon and stars were created on day four and that the earth was formed out of water. One must decide that all the church fathers before 1800 were idiots with no clue what the Bible says , not to mention the Hebrews .

        Whether one accepts the Biblical record or not the BB is no more a fact than spontaneous generation, it is a belief. One thing you seldom hear on this site are the numerous problems with the BB like mater-anti-matter ratio , the flatness problem ,, or that not only did Dr. Hubble state their where other explanations for red shifting but others predicted the background radiation for very different reasons .

        It seems that the BB has become to Mr. Perry what godless evolution has to the academics, a religious belief that the debate is over on.

        • jrunyon says:

          Forrest –
          Please STOP THIS NONSENSE (and dangerous) discussion. Also, be very careful of your reckless expounding of scriptures by insisting that your view is the only correct interpretation of scriptures and that the rest of Christendom is wrong. I would maintain that your view is a minority Christian view.

          The Big Bang is most challenged, most tested, and MOST VERIFIED theory of all time — whether you, or a very small number of scientists, agree or not.

          I think you would agree that St. Augustine is not only an ancient church father – but also a very well respected Christian writer. In his “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” (see my other posts), he says:

          + Even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, … , kinds of animals, shrubs, stones … It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian…talking nonsense on these topics. … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions … how are they going to believe …

          +Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those [non-believers].

          There is absolutely ZERO evidence that the ‘sun, moon and stars’ were created on Day 4. You MUST take your reference point in reading Genesis as “on the surface” of the earth. Otherwise, you have pure nonsense!

          Jim Runyon

          • Forrest,

            I completely agree. Please stop posting this stuff. I don’t know which is worse – your science or your theology. As a matter of fact you are forbidden to post anything else about the Big Bang on this website until you read “A Biblical Case for an Old Earth” by Snoke and discuss it with me here on my blog. If you keep writing this nonsense, I will simply delete your posts. Please take these legalistic, anti-scientific, insulting views elsewhere.

            Perry Marshall

            • Forrest Charnock says:

              I am called dangerous and you say I am insulting you?

              So any one who disagrees with you is anti-scientific? So Newton was anti-scientific? He said the world was created in 4000 B.C. Show me from the Bible how he is wrong or be a man and tell me that the Bible is not your authority.
              . The man who gave us the MRI, the man who led us in to space? Are they stupid, dangerous? You are claiming that Martin Luther and all the church fathers have been proven morons by what you call science.
              I also do not recall you ever presenting a shred of evidence against the Big Bang such as the argument of Halton Arp. You ignore any view but your own.
              Why should I read a book that presents a completely anti-Biblical argument and claims to be Biblical. Not once have you ever tried to argue from scripture Perry. The reason for the decline of Christianity is the lack of respect for Biblical authority.
              What makes you any different than the evolutionist who silence the liberal theologians like yourself?

              I will read the book Perry and I will show all your followers that the argument has nothing to do with scripture and is exactly what I say it is, a compromise on the Bible by a man whose authority is the teaching of men as is your other hero’s.

              • jrunyon says:


                It is St. Augustine that calls your arguments ‘dangerous’ when you continue to talk ‘nonsense’ about well established scientific finding and propose alternate sciences that have little/no scientific basis.

                As for Halton Arp. While he did develop a good encyclopedia of quasars or quasi-stellar objects exhibiting significant red-shift, his explanation is very 1960-ish. There are many good reasons for rejecting Arp’s rational for the big red shifts (see below).

                Today, with the Hubble Space Telescope was launched (and other telescopes have been utilized to examine quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Also, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.

                Dr. David Rogsted (Jet Propulsion Labs, retired) provides a great summary of these red shifts, showing that Hubble, with it’s new Wide Field Camera 3, along with the Herschel Space Observatory to see galaxies as far away as 13 billion light-years, revealing objects that were shining as early as 650 million years after the big bang. (see http://www.reasons.org/results-refurbished-hubble )

                You say “you weren’t there”? Actually, in astronomy, “we really are there”. We are seeing the past as we look further and further back towards the moment of creation of the universe. Now, we can see 95% of the universe’s history (700My/13.8B) or 13.1B years ago. That’s significantly more than 6000 years you seem to be claiming for the age of the universe.

                So, am I ignoring scientists that have alternate view. Absolutely not, We just have to have the latest discoveries and ‘test everything’. Halton Arp, while he did some solid contribution to science in the 1960s, it is very clear that his conclusions were wrong.

                I’m certain that if Newton had the evidence we have today about the age of the universe, he would have enough integrity to acknowledge it. For his time and his information, his conclusions at that time were not unreasonable.

                Jim Runyon

  17. Syed says:

    Since everything is transient and has a cause, there must be a first cause “the Uncaused Cause” that must not be transient. This, we all call God.

    We cannot truly understand God, but in fact, try to understand His Essence.
    Why is it that our capacity gets too limited when trying to understand our Creator?
    It’s quite simple to understand with the following example:
    Since many of us are familiar with programming (Java, C++, ….), we know that anything from flash or animation has huge lines of codes behind its existence. The code may represent an animated movie or a cartoon, but the first cause of all that is the programmer who has written those lines of codes. The characters in cartoon are only there as long as the lines of codes exist and the moment the programmer (creator) ‘selects All’ and ‘deletes’ those lines, everything is gone!
    Since the characters and the programmer are in completely different domains, it is impossible to make the characters (cartoons) understand the nature of their creator (programmer). Let all the cartoons deny the existence of the programmer, the programmer will keep smiling at their ignorance and rather arrogance!

    Similarly, since we all are limited by space, time and matter & our Creator is above these limitations, our understanding of the Creator cannot be but limited.

    It’s all in our benefit to, first of all, believe in the Creator and then accept Him as being worthy of worship. Next comes the realization of the purpose of our creation and striving towards that purpose which, in fact, is the most important objective in life.
    We pray to God to guide us to the true path. Amen.

    • Bertram says:

      Finally, someone who can see things for what it is. I especially like the part of the ignorance and arrogance of the cartoon characters.

      Now, I am just wondering why it is such a mystery to most people that we were not created to unravel God and the creation but rather to unravel or find ourselves because we are the biggest mysteries. We are trying to solve the nature of the universe but cannot even solve simple problems in our own backyard. Yes, I would call it ignorant and arrogant as well.

      First we need to “crunch” our over-inflated egos and then start from humble beginnings. Maybe the truth will then be revealed to us, a truth that cannot be explained scientifically or by any rational tools available to humanity. It will be like explaining advanced calculus to a newborn baby.

      What we have to know is that we were created out of Love(spirit) and to remember that our Father still loves us and wants us to return to Him out of our own free will. I am not saying become religous here, as we all have a direct link to our true Home. It is up to each and every individual to make the link active.

      Love and Peace to all,

  18. Jennifer says:

    To me, I believe that humans just aren’t advanced to know enough about the creation of the universe to have a solid, conclusive answer; there are just too many unknowns. Could God have created the universe? Sure. Could it have happened randomly by chance? I’ve never seen anything to fully disprove that. Could it be some other factor that humans can’t imagine? Why not? For me, I like to believe in the theory of the Big Bang, and in an infinite universe, but I’m aware that it’s just a theory, just an idea. I see some facts that are derived based on other facts, and decide these make the most sense to me, so that’s what I believe in. I realize this is the same as a religion, just a different god. Am I opposed to believing in God? No, I just haven’t found a reason to yet. If I found a reason that was convincing for me, would I change my mind? Possibly (I’d like to say absolutely, but I can’t be completely sure of

    But it all comes down to this: everything that is not empirical is a theory and theories form a belief system. This is shown in how two different scientists can look at the same information and create two different ideas, having nothing in common. Or, two scientists can look at different information and create the same theorem. Maybe I’m just “snide and arrogant” but that’s how I view life. Science is my religion and I’ve yet to see how the belief in God can counter it (but of course I’m obviously open to new ideas if I took the time to read this article and explore this website:) )

    • Dabe says:

      Hello Jennifer,

      My beliefs are in the domain of a Big Bang creation, too. But, in my opinion, that only shows the Universe did not come from chaos. Creation requires prior thought. God is the infinite solution here. He is the infinite Creator. Memory evades me at times, but, I believe it was Carl Sagan, while living, was a proponent of the Big Bang. Even he said the theory leads to an existence of God a Creator.

      Thank you for being open minded to other ideas. It is always good to research and form your own opinions without accepting the comments on a blog such as this one provides.

      Kind regards,

    • Jim R says:


      Actually, the Big Bang and an infinite universe are different theories – and – both can’t be correct. The ‘infinite universe’ was (and still is) the preferred view of some atheistic scientists (e.g., Fred Hoyle) since it supposedly gives nature enough time for evolution to have happened. The Big Bang predicts that the universe began from singularity (i.e. essentially nothing) a fairly short time ago (i.e. 13.7B years ago). Fred Hoyle knew that events are ’caused’ and that if there was a beginning, there had to be a beginner – a reality that he never did accept. The Big Bang is the best proven theory of all time – and – nothing even comes close to replacing it.

      So, you’ll have to choose, either it the Big Bang (with it’s beginning and beginner) OR an infinite universe that holds no scientific validity.

      • Tyler says:

        “So, you’ll have to choose, either it the Big Bang (with it’s beginning and beginner) OR an infinite universe that holds no scientific validity.”

        (False dichotomy.)

        A big bang does not negate an “infinite” universe, as cyclic cosmology illustrates.

  19. yatharth sonthalia says:

    well perry i am a resident of india and when i heard the kind of question you were asking it really excited me. actually i am a kind of person who is pretty interested in these questions. i have reasearched a lot and have come to a conclusion that the world was originated from lord vishnu’s body, and he himself created lord brahma who was the creator of the world. we all are nothing but parts of lord vishnu body who have been send on this earth in order to enjoy as well as perform certain duties. actually india is the place from where this world originated and india will be the place where it will come to an end. you will be shocked to know that lord vishnu will come in his tenth avatar known has kalki who will destroy everything and than again satyug will began.
    at present we are living in kalyug where people are ignorant and are not really interested to work, and wishes to be ignorant. lord vishnu has showed the path in his ninth avatar gautama buddha, where he tries to show how can one achieve god. but the truth is 90% of the people are living in ignorance.

    • Forrest Charnock says:

      Dear yatharth sonthalia :

      I would be interested to know what you researched outside Hinduism and what physical evidence seems to confirm those teachings?

  20. Denish says:

    how can we prove that Newtons law of gravitation is universal?

    • I’m not sure we can. We can only look for anomalies.

    • Jim R says:

      Newton’s laws of gravity, while still being taught in schools, has been superseded by Einstein’s relativity theory. Space travel is the anomaly that demonstrated that Newton’s laws were inadequate and, while useful here on earth, they are not sufficently comprehensively.

      In a similar manner, while Einstein’s theories of relativity has been proven to 15 places of the decimal, they are insufficient to quantum mechanics. So, now you are getting more comprehensive theories (e.g., string theory) that includes explanations for both Einstein’s theory of gravity and quantum mechanics. If ‘string theory’ holds up, that doesn’t mean Eistein was wrong, just incomplete. We are still in search of the ‘unified field theory’.

      • Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda says:

        Dear Jim R:

        Newton’s Laws of Gravity are quite valid in a macrocosmos. We used them to put a man on the moon and probes in Mars and beyond (space travel!). I fail to see the relatioship between Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Law of Gravity. They address quite different aspects of the physical, observable universe. Perhaps you are mistaking Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. This last theory departs from Newton’s in the atomic and subatomic worlds but reduce to Newton’s when simplifications due to a macroscopic world are taken into consideration.

      • Forrest Charnock says:

        What is being looked for is a way to explain away God.
        String theory assumes atheism is true.

        • IBelieve says:

          Intricacies that formulate theories are simply that until the intricacies are resolved into a solution that provides an answer. Evolution is still a theory. Even though it explains the basic structure of the development of species over time, this theory does not explain what occurred to initiate the organization of subatomic matter into atoms, atoms into molecules, molecules into self replicating cells, cells into organisms, organisms into animals, or animals into humanity. The concept of thought and individuality is enigmatic. I cannot explain it and the scientific community has yet to understand it.

          The human spirit desires answers and it seeks answers from One that has knowledge. I believe that the day will come when the One will provide the answers the human spirit seeks and that all of our questions will be resolved. Until then, I will seek my desire.

        • jrunyon says:


          String theory does not assume atheism is true — it’s just a theory about how the building blocks of matter (i.e. quarks) came into being.

          Fermi Labs (Batavia IL) and CERN labs (Switzerland) are able to replicate conditions during the first second of the universe and discover the various quarks that make up protons/neutrons/electrons. String theory is about how the extremely high vibrating bands of multi-dimensional energy (i.e. 10-11 dimensions) create the quarks earlier within the first second of the universe. String Theory does, in a few pages of complex mathematics, provide both the equations for General Relativity and Quantum Physics – and as such – is a very attractive theory. (Please note that string theory is at the early stages of testing/verification).

          If you are a Christian, you believe that God ‘spoke’ creation into existence (i.e. not dissimilar to sound vibrations), and that God exists outside the four-dimensions of our universe (perhaps even in greater than 10 or 11 dimensions). As such, you get the creation of the matter in our universe out of non-matter.

          You can definitely be a theist and believe in String Theory.

          Jim Runyon

          • yanniru says:

            Forest & Jim,

            That an interesting question: “is string theory atheistic?”
            I have a multiverse cosmology model that suggests that some structures in string theory associated with the compactified the extra dimensions have many of the characteristics normally attributed to a god, namely omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience. Now if so, is that a contribution to atheism or to theism. The model suggests that these structures have always existed but are renewed with every Big Bang producing a new universe. The model falls short of claiming consciousness or intelligence or benevolence for the structures, but does not rule out the possibility. So is that artheistic or theistic?

            Richard Ruquist

            • Forrest Charnock says:

              Again it depends on your definition of theist. The definition of God was always the supreme being, the creator of the universe.
              You see my friend if they always existed , as you said, there is no God as they created themselves.

              That is the true dividing line between paganism/atheism and Christian theism and for that matter Orthodox Judaism as well. the eternity of matter. Only the Christians and the Jews believe in the creator God, all other religions believe matter pre-existed God.

              Nothing can create itself, to do that it would have to pre-exist itself, a logical impossibility. String Theory presupposes atheism/pantheism which I see no difference in .

          • Forrest Charnock says:

            Depends on your definition of theist, it is definitely anti-Christian, not to mention junk science.
            You see if the Bible is true, string theory is not, and vise versa. God said he created the earth from water before He created the sun, moon and stars. The Big Bang is anti-Christian as well. Read the Bible .

          • Forrest Charnock says:

            Jim , again I repeat my claim, string theory pre-supposes atheism.
            How can you claim to replicate an event you did not witness?
            The only person who can tell us what happened at creation is the Creator Himself, He did. You are assuming that the Bible is a lie.

            • jrunyon says:


              Your right, we cannot go back to the very beginning of the universe (i.e. Time=0) but we can go back to the first tiny fraction of a second after the creation of the universe. Planck’s time is at 10^-43 second when the four forces of physics were unified. Before that time, we can only extrapolate. As such, while we cannot know everything, we can know a lot of things.

              String theory is a popular theory that explains a lot of things (e.g., unified Quantum and Gravitational Theory, the super-symmetry in our universe, and the building blocks of quarks/protons/neutrons/electrons). String Theory is an area of active research but (unlike General/Special Relativity) is not a universally accepted theory. It’s at the phase of research that Einstein’s work was during the late-1920s.

              Loop Quantum Gravity is a competing theory that also has active research and is also early in it’s life cycle (see Wikipedia).

              Neither of these are either theistic or atheistic. Scientists are just studying nature at deeper and deeper levels. If they are open to exploring the amazing and intricate design of our universe, they will see the ‘character of God’. In fact, God gets angry if we do not study the universe and see his character (Rom 1:19-20) – and – be drawn to him because of our findings.

              Jim Runyon

              • yanniru says:


                Sorry to butt in, but super string theory seemingly contains a structure that has many of the characteristics of a god. So string theory could hardly be atheistic. It may not be Christian even though it is consistent with creation on the first day of genesis. May I suggest that your mind is rather closed if anything nonchristian is considered atheistic. Furthermore, it is my opinion that Intelligent Design should be pulled away from creationism and pushed towards physics and cosmology. For an example read:

    • Ali Vaseghi says:

      Dear Denish
      Is Parsant your last name? Are you from Hydarabad, INDIA? Please reply. I am an old friend.
      very truly yours
      Ali Vaseghi