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
*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://evo2.org/evolution/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
I recently listened to your “If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists” thing. I happened to have found many inconsistencies (I might be wrong of course)
No. 1) In the Theodosius Dobzhansky’s fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt’s gypsy moth experiments that you talked about how the mutations caused by UV radiations never actually helped bring up any good modifications in the organisms ….well according to me it appears as though the way you started the experiments itself is huge flaw. Remember that the argument actually is about NATURAL random mutations and not forced or artificial mutations caused by unnatural sources. In the experiment you talked, it clear that the mutations in the insects was forced to happen and was by no mean allowed to look like NATURAL. So the very fact that mutations in those insects was not due to natural causes that tells why no good modifications were seen after many decades.
When we are talking about evolution of life, we are talking about millions or even billions of years. What happened in laboratory for an isolated group of organisms subjected forced or artificial mutations for decades cannot be told as a scientific proof to dismiss the theory of random mutations .It is absolutely meaningless and unscientific to come to is conclusion because talking about few decades meaningless when we are talking about evolution.
No.2. You are completely at sea when it comes to understanding natural selections,
Ignoring the fact that the mutations were not natural, there is still another draw back in your approach. Those insects subjected to forced mutations were not subjected to natural selection hence there was no filtering of weak and unfavorable genetic factors that were developed and hence no improvement was seen.
In evolution once an unfavorable mutation is developed it will not be transmitted to next generation because the organisms that possess those new unfavorable characters do survive and reproduce hence all bad changes made by random mutations are eliminated naturally.
But I don’t think those insects in the experiment were allowed to undergo any such process by which unfavorable genes are removed from the gene pool.
It is true that mutations are random but by the process of natural selection I have explained in the above paragraph It is clear that though bad changes takes place due to random mutations only the good changes are transmitted to the next generation this is the role natural selection as I have understood.
In that speech of yours you took an advertisement about something and showed that random mutations lead to extinction.(this is also represented wrongly)
When replaced the alphabet ‘i’ with a zero ‘0’ it is true that it signifies an unfavourable mutation. The next thing that was supposed to happen is the elimination of the unfavourable change by the process of natural selection that I have explain before(But you have simply skipped this important step)
You have continued to mutate the organism even after it acquired many unfavourable changes which technically impossible to happen because the new species that is born due the first (defective)mutation would not have survived to see the next unfavorable mutation.
No:3)
You said that formation of snow flakes do not need and conscious decisions by an intelligent being .If a snowflake can be formed with such geometrical precision without any designer but by mere laws of physics. It means that we have understood physics to such an extent that we can explain how snowflakes are formed with such precision. But Physics as you and I know, tends to explain (i.e. can explain) all the phenomenon and processes that can ever take place in the universe at any time, at any place . The fact that we cannot explain how DNA is coded with such precision does not mean physics can’t explain ,it means that you(and i) have not understood Physics to such an extent.
You said this conclusion does not take us any forward(But it is the only way forward) You might be right(for now) but just because you couldn’t get an answer doesn’t mean you can fill God into the empty blank.
So, what is your point? we can’t explain it by physics so, abandon physics and just say God did it.
If our ancestors had chose to do that(say god did it for every unknown answer) then we would not have had the answer for the question “Why do we fall down when we jump from a height.?”
Our answer would have been “because GOD pulled us down”.
Have you seen all different patterns that the universe can offer ?every single one of them?
Every single pattern in every corner of the universe ? from incredibly complicated to incredibly simple?
(I assume you would say no)
How do know that a pattern cannot get so complicated that it can appear to be a design to our eyes?
What if the fundamental forces of the universe are so powerful that it can give rise to a pattern so complicated that it is beyond our capacity(for now) to actually differentiate it from a design.
You can never know.
So ,I chose be an agnostic
Bringing God into to the main stream of science will not let science progress because for every unexplained phenomenon we will have only one answer ”GOD DID IT”.
Thank you
Shashank
Bangalore,
India
Shashank,
I would encourage you to read Dobzhansky’s reports for yourself and not just take my brief summary as sufficient. I think you will find they were much more thorough than you assume. He was trying to accelerate evolution by accelerating mutations. Since a fruit fly gestates 22X faster than a human, then presumably evolution experiments on fruit flies could be performed in 30 years that would otherwise take 600 years.
In 30 years – trying a huge variety of things – Dobzhansky got absolutely nowhere. He was never able to produce even a single mutation that was beneficial. One would think that at least one of them would have been better – but no.
He had all the natural selection he could want at his disposal. Again, read his research for yourself.
If you are saying that evolution cannot be accelerated, that it simply cannot happen without millions of years, that it cannot be tested in a lab, then you are espousing a hypothesis which is not testable and which is therefore not scientific. You are asking me to believe Darwinism on FAITH, because my experience is, things left to themselves degrade and devolve. The only things that evolve and adapt, in our actual experience, are things that are DESIGNED to evolve and adapt. Things like software programs and product designs do not evolve and adapt because of random accident. There are no known exceptions to this.
Regarding the plausibility of random mutation as a driver of evolution see James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf
In my syllogism I provide 5 possible explanations for the information in DNA – humans, aliens, chance, unknown physical laws, or God. Only unknown physical laws and a designer are systematic, reasonable paths of inquiry. After 200 years of biology nobody has any indication that the laws of physics are a sufficient explanation. If we presume a designer we logically assume there is a higher level of order in living things which leads to productive hypotheses: See http://evo2.org/testable-hypothesis-id-1/
You seem to be forgetting that Newton discovered gravity because he had a theological assumption that God made a universe that obeyed fixed discoverable laws. Science was ostensibly born out of Christian theology. This is not abdication; it actually provided the philosophical framework for modern science.
The ID hypothesis extends this thinking from the generalities of physics to the specificity of the genetic code. I say the origin of life is a singularity event. It cannot be explained by the laws of physics. If you disagree that is entirely fine. But in order to investigate this process you must find a naturally occurring code that you can then investigate.
You say:
I say to you:
Look at ALL the codes in the world that we are familiar with – all of them are designed – then look at DNA. It is completely unlike anything else that occurs in nature.
You can CHOOSE to be agnostic if you wish. I choose to follow the evidence where it leads.
Perry Marshall
When the vital force theory was in force. i.e the theory which said that organic materials cannot be synthesised by inorganic components and that a vital(mystical) force is required to do it .Scientists did not even attempted to synthesize organic compounds for a long time until
This theory was undisputed because then there were no scientific methods known to dispute the theory,many scientists tried to dismiss the theory but failed because the chemical techniques were simply not available at that time.So almost everyone anonymously agreed with the theory and it sounded like a completely reasonable assumption.But Friedrich Wöhler synthesised urea from inorganic components in 1828 and subsequently wrote to Berzelius, that he had witnessed “The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” The “beautiful hypothesis” was vitalism;
For me the present situation in which we are stuck(our incapacity to explain the origin and complexity of DNA) appears to very similar that of the vital force theory.Your theory appears to the next version of this theory(we have just moved on from simple organic matter to fundamental structures in organic life)And just like those people in that time simply could not find an explanation to dismiss the theory. we are in an exactly same situation where we simply don’ t know enough guess anything about the origins of DNA.There are always going to be some people who turn towards “GOD” when ever such a situation arises and they can’t be dismissed untill breakthrough is going to come,just like what happened during the reign of the vital force theory.
systhesizing a DNA molcule does sound to be a foolishly impossible thing to do.
But back then systhesizing organic matter form inorganic matter sounded equally impossible.
History can repeat itself as it as happened many times before.
I know that synthesizing DNA is light year ahead of systhesizing simple organic matter,but we cannot ignore the possiblity.
flying machines were impossible to our ancestors and not for us,
space travel was impossible to them but not for us,
What appears to be completely impossible to us might be possible in the future.
I am simply saying that you simply cannot claim to have an answer which is absolutely corrrect.
Shashank,
All the amazing things you cite like space travel and flight are designed by intelligent beings, they do not occur by random accident.
It is perfectly acceptable to attempt to hypothesize a process by which DNA could have occurred. But to try to sidestep the question of where the information came from is dishonest.
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
Perry
Yes evolution simply cannot happen without millions of years,yes it cannot be tested in lab.But it doesn’t mean it cannot be proved.
Our astronomers and astrophysicists have predicted the different stages of a star’s life,they have predicted the age of the universe ,they have to some extent calculated the speed of expansion of the universe,all these are agreed by all of us.
But this doesn’t mean they have actually created a star in their lab and they have forced it to move on from one stage to another till it becomes a white dwarf or a neutron star in a very short time which would otherwise have taken millions or billions of years.They didn’t create a mini universe similar to our own to actually predict certain things about it did they ??
How did they find out the different stages of a star’s life when an average human life span is not even a nanosecond compared to the life of a star.
It means there are ways of understanding certain processes which take a long time to happen and cannot be recreated in lab.
No body has witnessed an ordinary star turn into a red giant or a white dwarf first hand have they??But still the theory is accepted because the predictions are reasonable and scientific.
So claiming that evolution cannot happen without millions of years is not really unscientific is it?
there are fossils which indicate the evolution of reptiles into birds.
There are fossils or bones of ancestors of our own.
fossils are not the only proofs ,for example there is a proof that dolphin’s ancestors were terrestrial for the fact that a baby dolphin,still under development resembles a land animal with nostrils on the face ,during later stages it moves over to the top.
I am not an evolutionary biologist but there are many such evidences .
One can predict it by careful observation and reasoning ,when testing in a lab is not possible.
Shashank,
The problem with the Darwinian theory of evolution is that it is not a process of careful observation and reasoning. It is just an assertion that if you randomly corrupt DNA and kill the losers you eventually get huge evolutionary developments. There is no principle in engineering or communication theory that supports this. I don’t question the fact of evolution, I question the Darwinian theory of how the process works. Evolution is an engineered process. See James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf
Perry
AM A follower of the Bible not a mordern christian thats an example of capital in hell a solo reader and follower of chriist as a mesiah and son of our creator GOD but with respect to GOD and a conciense reasioning with you my brother is GOD alone and is there anything like christianity for example science is science and without the law in sciense you cant call yourself any scientist,so if the Bible is for christians where did they go .
what were the 3 papers that einstein published?
Conception of God is a pathetic excuse used to inflict fear in the minds of individuals with a a weak state of mind who are rather volatile along with the passage of time,.
This phoney conception was introduced with a good intention—no doubt, but its bein abused overtime to fulfill the desires of a few people claiming themselves to be the chosen one by making up these logics based on beliefs.
If it sounds compicated, lets clarify thru a few examples—-
Conception of God / Religion has always made up explanations that people are happy to follow as long as they are not able to break out of the bubble this inflicted belief has created around them. The only difference of this bubble and a real-life bubble is that this bubble is black on the inside and translucent on the outside—–
Black on the inside—to safeguard its own interest that is, not letting the people living inside it ever to know of the light of knowledge through experiments and analysis hat are accessible only outside the bubble.
Translucent on the outside—to make a strategic approach to the people outside who live in the light. This translucent outer covering never lets anyone clearly get an answer to any question they ask about the world inside but also confusing them by giving them a false feeling that the bubble is actually transparent.But then again, the closer u get the better u realize how unclear the bubble is, always being hypocritical regarding its own explanations, never daring to face the light heads on, but always trying to prove that it itself is the best possible interface for everyone and everything to having a common platform.
I expect comments from everyone and I will keep u all up to date with replys.
PREEAM, BANGLADESH
Where the other end of a Black Holes will be connected, will it originates a tunnel from one universe to the other.
What is inside a Black Hole is it just a void with a high gravitational attraction.
R/Sir,
I ask one question to the Science, Engineering Professors that WHY LIGHT RAYS CHANGES ITS SPEED WHILE COMMING OUT OF A GLASS PLATE ( OR COMMING OUT OF ANY DANSER MEDIUM, TO RARER MEDIUM SAY AIR). LIGHT HAS A PRECISE RATE OF 30,0,000 KILO METRES PER HOUR THROUGH VACCUME EVERY ?. Sir to my surprise PROFESSORS say that the light is re-emmitted by the rarer medium atoms, and as the light has no resistance in vaccume it regains that precise speed. Sir, this explaination do not convinced me on the basis that, every time we talk ” of probability and uncertainity in Natural Phenomenon” then why light regain such a precise speed in rarer medium and a speed of 3,00,000 Km/Hr in vaccume.
R/Sir,
I ask one question to the Science, Engineering Professors that WHY LIGHT RAYS CHANGES ITS SPEED WHILE COMMING OUT OF A GLASS PLATE ( OR COMMING OUT OF ANY DENSER MEDIUM, TO RARER MEDIUM SAY AIR). LIGHT HAS A PRECISE RATE OF 30,0,000 KILO METRES PER HOUR THROUGH VACCUME ?. Sir to my surprise PROFESSORS say that the light is re-emmitted by the rarer medium atoms, and as the light has no resistance in vaccume it regains that precise speed. Sir, this explaination do not convinced me on the basis that, every time we talk ” of probability and uncertainity in Natural Phenomenon” then why light regain such a precise speed in rarer medium and a speed of 3,00,000 Km/Hr in vaccume.
Here’s another possibility. Before time there was no time, not as we seem to know it. But before time could there have been time, an earlier universe which imploded and then another big bang? 1000 billion trillion years ago, figuratively speaking, God existed. Who is to say what we are now isn’t a second, third or even bigger re-creation and go-around?
dumb?
That’s called the bouncing universe theory and it’s invalid because of entropy. Once the energy of the present universe is expended it will not be possible to re-start it, any more than it’s possible to burn a candle twice.
I see no reason to comment any further here. Those who want to communicate with me are welcome to participate on my weblog –
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
It is perfectly acceptable to attempt to hypothesize a process by which DNA could have occurred. But to try to sidestep the question of where the information came from is dishonest.
1. The pattern in DNA is a code.
2. All codes we know the origin of are designed.
3. Therefore we have 100% inference that DNA is designed and 0% inference that it is not.
Perry, that’s a classic example of the fallacy of induction or inductive reasoning. Moderate me all you want, but that won’t change the fact.
Marc, all science is based on induction. To the extent science can prove anything, the genetic code is proof of design.
If you are going to say this is fallacious you are going to need to point out which of these three statements is untrue or illogical.
I’m still waiting for you to substantiate your statement, “Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”
I don’t object to Wikipedia, Perry. I do object to quote mining. No good diverting when you get hung out by your own examples.
If one can infer that something is 100% correct (and I’m not sure even that is semantically possible) then by definition it must be a fact. You can’t get any further down a line than 100%.
We cannot prove that the law of gravity will hold up tomorrow. Or that the sun will come up or that entropy is correct. We only have 100% inference.
What are you suggesting? That apples will suddenly start hanging around in the air? That the sun will suddenly stop in mid space? Gravity is a fact; evolution is a fact. But they are both also theories.
But as far as known scientific laws are concerned, the genetic code gives 100% inference to a designer and 0% inference to any other explanation. Inference to a designer is 100% scientific. At this time, all non-theological or chance explanations are non scientific.
That’s about as wrong as it could be Perry and I’ve just proved it – as have many, many others. You’re just ignoring it because it proves you wrong. You can keep on saying it as much as you want, but that won’t make it any more correct.
You were the one to demand evidence of ONE example in nature where a pattern arose from chaos. So people did (snowflakes, tornadoes) and you went oddly silent – even doing what simple organisms do an co-opting it into your own arguments. That’s one of the ways evolution works.
You’ve hounded me to prove the statement about the code and when I not only do that, I also prove that your other pet model is ludicrous, you completely ignore the point.
Your hypothesis is broken because you’re basing it on an error and no matter how much you deny that fact won’t make it any less of a fact. A house cannot stand on weak foundation; a theory cannot stand on a weak premise and you’ve been exposed on more occasions than I have been able to count.
Lamark was wrong because he based his theory on induction. Darwin was proved right because his theory relies on deduction (as all modern theories do); yet it can be improved, it has been and will continue to be. I doubt it will ever be replaced and more than Newton’s laws of motion will.
Theology has no place in science since science does not concern itself with the supernatural (unobservable). The two can co-exist but only as two parallel lines in a continuum. (You may want to refresh yourself with the definition of the Ampere to see this analogy).
You haven’t got a theorum, you had a hypothesis which has been roundly trounced but like most amateurs in this field, you won’t accept you’re wrong for fear that it destroys your faith in your god.
It won’t.
Even as an atheist, I have no problem with people beleving that god/s sneezed the universe into existence if they want. I do however, have a problem with the sort of intellectual dishonesty you’re punting around.
You’re lying to yourself if you think you have any chance at all of convincing anyone of your ideas in the long term because there is little more than a basic semantic misunderstanding between them and the facts.
Your ignorance of all of this is obvious in your own claim and counterclaim.
You snorted unabashedly at PZ Myer’s admittedly slightly superior description of your random mutation “proof”; although I can understand his ire.
I’ve devoted rather more time (and example) to it but I’ll let your readers find that for themselves why it’s another example of your misunderstanding of the mechanics.
Nevertheless, I owe you a debt of gratitude for providing me with the groundwork for my latest paper: even if that wasn’t your intent.
Marc,
I still can’t see where you have proved anything. In your last post you just got done trying to tell me that DNA isn’t a code. And that science isn’t based on induction.
I have thoroughly addressed the fallacy that a snowflake is a code and those conversations are very easy to find. You’re just demonstrating that you haven’t carefully read my articles; and that you don’t really understand DNA or induction, or the process by which scientific theories are developed.
Your screed about how I’ve already been trounced and I’m ignorant and all that does not further the discussion. When you come here I expect you to present well-researched facts not accusations.
When you have a scientific argument to present, you are welcome to come and present it.
DNA is not a code as in engineer (like yourself) would define a code. How much more proof do you need that you’re basing your arguments on a fallacy which is entirely of your own making?
As a pop science writer, Perry, I’m very well aware of decent scientific arguments and you haven’t provided a single one: other than parroting other people’s hard earned efforts.
I refer you to “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” by Hubert Yockey (Cambridge University Press, 2005) http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521802938?ie=UTF8&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0521802938
And your point is?
The first reviewer in Amazon identifies himself as an engineer. So, I’ll refer you again to the Salem Hypthoesis.
Again, I ask you to answer the very plain accusations that your random number generator which you claim demonstrates so much and I say (in a per viewed and edited paper) actually demonstrates your complete ignorance of the theories you’re discussing.
You might also check the definition of ignorance Perry – it doesn’t mean stupid.
Oh yeah, and there’s this too (QED):
——-
1.0 out of 5 stars Dogmatic, February 5, 2008
By T. Stephens “nature rules” – See all my reviews
Hubert Yockey, in his book entitled “Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life”, concludes that the Central Dogma proves that proteins can not have originated prior to the development of DNA/RNA. The Central Dogma originally stated by Crick was intended for the modern, studied living world to explain that information flows from DNA -> DNA, DNA -> RNA, RNA -> DNA, and RNA -> protein. This is based on the known mechanisms of transcription and reverse transcription etc. in modern forms of life that we have characterized to date. Yockey shows that because a codon includes three bases each with four possible types (ACGT) that there are 64 possible codes that represent the 20-22 possible amino acids in a sequence. The genetic code is redundant according to the argument so that it is impossible that DNA could arise from proteins. Yockey’s ultimate conclusion is that DNA/RNA must have come before proteins and that the ultimate origin of life is unknowable. I find the argument naïve, most likely incorrect and essentially a DNA bias. If we can allow that the genetic code is redundant because of codons, we must acknowledge that in fact the genetic code is the product of complexes of proteins and are a consequence of these complexes. Each base is in fact metabolically constructed by sequences of proteins. It is entirely conceivable to construct new codes for unusual amino acids by altering the protein sequences, something that is being done today by biotechnology companies to generate new peptide based therapeutic drugs. So the information content of proteins is not just 20 amino acids but the trillions of proteins that can be generated through differing sequences which can produce unique catalytic reactions including generating new codes. In addition, the complexes of the proteins contain essential information, e.g., changing the sequence of metabolic reactions or the individual proteins. The protein information space is essentially unlimited and is much more redundant than the genetic code. It is true that the forms of life we characterize today utilize a process that is described by the Central Dogma but it is not true that this is necessarily the way it has always been especially during the origin of life. It has been shown by other scientists that the components of proteins, aminio acids and peptides are readily formed under the conditions of the early earth. On the other hand the bases, nucleic acids, are not formed in this way and are exceptionally unlikely to have existed before amino acids and peptides existed. I would turn Yockey’s argument on its head and state that the protein space is so much more redundant that it surely originated prior to DNA/RNA.
PLUS (if I need to make any further distinctions):
Hubert Yockey, PhD. isn’t even a biologist.
That’s another fallacy Perry: the appeal to authority.
Here’s an idea Perry. You admit that your random number generator is fallacious and I’ll give you a link to the scientific paper (peer reviewed) that proves it.
And is there any person in history who is anywhere near the equal of Jesus in influence?
Abraham. He came before all of them, Perry. Without him there would be no Christianity.
Someone just asked if Einstein believed in a God. From what I have read (from Einstein himself) he believed in a God that created the universe but did not believe in a personal God, that is, a God that is aware of our existence, cares about it or interferes in our lives. He did not care much about the Bible either.
Héctor
Sir,what have caused Big bang ?
I know about it as a explotition yakes place ,I want to know from where that material or substance come which exploded as the BIG UNIVERSE?
Kapil,
Where that material comes from? That’s the million dollar question. I think the only available explanation is that a Creator put it there.
If Time and Matter did not exist before the Big Bang, then what caused the Big Bang? In what Space did the Big Bang happen if there was no Time and Matter?
What could have caused such a humongous explosion like the Big Bang? Albert Einstein said that the Universe was created by an omnipotent being (God) but there must be some logical explanation for the Big Bang.
I only want to thank you for the privilege to receive your video and your mail.
It’s amaizing! Carmen Serrano
Halo, Perry
Glad to meet you and know your whereabouts, ..
My question:
Can we let go the bandrol of atheists and diagnosisof the religions itself, but more focused on the pure creation of the universe what it has produced since the beginning?
I think in the beginning process of creating this universe (based on whatever the theory that later) has given birth to a name form, and are defined as objects. Where the object itself, to this day I only know there are 2 kinds, ie inanimate objects and living things. Meanwhile, intentionally or unintentionally, all of these objects have been placed in the name of space. Space where the objects are until to this day.
but then, I thought to find out how if you want to make something and have to prepare the basic materials for later processed into something? I believe there is not something that just happens without the creators.
It is an existence that we know as the substance and associated with all sorts of theories of creation. That this substance (either taken from where?) is possible for made the object.
Have you thought about, how the substances that come from? From the room where the substance was again taken by its creator? or how the substance had been made from the beginning? using the basic ingredients what else?
Whatever it is, please explain to me about that substance. Today we know a lot of units and structures derived with it substances in the theory of physics and chemistry calculations. “For these substances the special role includes managing the development of each body to this day.
“how to create this substance?”
Thank you very much with all my respect ..
Melvin
If universe is expandind what speed it eccelerates or is it constant speed ?
you can Google this.
Sir, if there is a biginner, then who is it? Also, if there is not a beginner,why hasn’t science been able to explain death because the cells are being renewed consistently? Thank you
Why I embrace Christianity as opposed to other views:
http://evo2.org/faq/#christian