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

648 Responses

  1. darwin says:

    I dont really understand the discussions and comments. as I get even further, the more i lost hope to really understand entropy, conservation of energy, p6, big bang, crunch, whatever.

    The only way I could understand everything out there, is to believe the existance of a creator. This could ease my questioning. the more I listen to all these stuff, the more I get lost. I just couldnt put all that to my finite mind. I dont know. There must be God that could have caused all these. Period. Sorry.

  2. Sidenei Melo says:

    Which is more important to study nowadays , the macro or the microcosmo ?
    I think both are important, but to understand better or to learn more about macrocosmo, the Universe, it is mandatory to go deep into the micro firstly.
    Comprehension, understanding the outer space is conditioned by
    improvements of our current levels on health status all over the world.

  3. Jon says:

    I guess I don’t have a question but more of a response. I saw this link on Facebook and read up a bit and just had to respond. First off I think your website is very well done and looks great. With that being said, let’s get down to this “Atheist challenge.” and about the three central points of your thesis. You said…

    1. DNA is a language that stores information.
    2. All codes come from a conscious mind; there are no natural processes that can create it.
    3. Therefore, DNA was designed by a mind.

    I have to say that your logic is flawed in these central points. Let me give you an example of why…

    1. Bob Smith has brown hair.
    2. Tom Jones has brown hair.
    3. Therefore, all men have brown hair.

    This is the logic of your central thesis. As you can see, you are making a pretty general and blanket statement based on one piece of information. That just because information that we know of is written with intelligence, that it must mean that all information is written with the intelligence of a designer in mind. AKA, God and DNA.

    That is not very logical to think about it that way. We are extremely limited right now in terms of the different ways life is made. We only have one recipe in the cookbook of life. DNA may be the norm for the storage of genetic information in the Universe. Then again, other life is the Cosmos might use other means of storing and transferring information other than DNA. We just don’t know yet.

    The evidence for Evolution is all around you. All life is made up of the same kinds of elements. On our world they are Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen. Given the enormous amount of time it takes for life to evolve, you get the beautiful diversity of the natural world. If Creationism and Intelligent Design was true, the Science would back it up, but it doesn’t.

    The Universe was “arranged” (I use that term loosely) so that her secrets could be uncovered. When we first learned that science was the search for the truth, it made the “revealed” wisdom of the Bible and other ancient texts obsolete. Because since Evolution is the correct explanation of our origins, and if there is a God, then he picked a poor means of creating life. Evolution does not require a designer. Life does pretty well on its own.

    Thanks for your time.

    • Jon,

      To your “Bob Smith has brown hair example” – that’s not a very good example of inductive reasoning.

      A much better example would be: “All human beings have a mother. Bob Smith is a human being. Therefore he has a mother.”

      Millions of examples, no counterexamples.

      I am not disputing the possibility or evidence for evolution. I am pointing out that all the codes we know the origin of – and for that matter ALL the evolving systems we know the origin of – are all designed.


  4. Tim Allen says:

    Hi Perry,
    I find the creationist’s argument that there are too many gaps in the evolution theory to be very hypocritical since there is no hard evidence for creationist theory at all. I believe that the bible is a great book written by men who tried their best to understand the world around them just as scientists try to understand the word today. I am certain that if the bible were written today evolution would be part of the story and we would still be a very good book but would have a God more like the one Jesus spoke about in the “Golden Rule” and less like the Old Testaments murder and punisher of mankind. If evolution is true there is no “Garden of Eden” and no “Original Sin”. If you take “Original Sin” out of the New Testament you would then have to believe that Mathew, Mark, Luke and John got the “dying for our sins” message wrong, I can live with that because I always believed the “Golden Rule” message was the most important.

    Your comment regarding Albert Einstein quote from “The World As I See It” declaring that “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.” May have been Einstein’ opinion but the fact is that most scientists do not believe in God.

    1997: Gallup Poll comparing scientists with the general population:
    Note the major differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

    Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
    Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man’s creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
    Everyone 44% 39% 10%
    Scientists 5% 40% 55%

    The “scientist” group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, psychology, business administration, etc.

    Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data.

    “Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists.”

    Keep us thinking Perry, I appreciate your faith but do not share your faith in the Old Testament.

  5. Wamundila says:

    WHAT IS TIME? Can anybody who thinks he has realised what it is tell me what it is, supporting the comment with proof or referance to some actual reality. Personally I feel time is the effect of the way we think because a human being is only able to have one thought at a moment and at a very slow rate. Suppose a human brain was able to process several thoughts at one moment very fast! Or better still suppose human brain was able to process an infinit number of thoughts at an instant! I feel human beings would not experiance the effect we call time.

  6. Alastair says:

    Firstly, Einstein didn’t talk about Quantum Mechanics by the time he was 26. For a long time he had battled with Neils Bohr because he completely disagreed with the idea of QM. It was only after a significant amount of proof that he finally admitted to it.

    Also, Einstein is a pantheist. He *does not* believe in God. When he talks about a “spirit”, he is simply referring to the harmony in the universe. He doesn’t literally mean a big conscious being – if he did, do you not think he would question it’s existence, just as he questioned the universe’s?!

    I look forward to tomorrow’s e-mail.

  7. KMD says:

    God, miracles and magic are words we apply to things we don’t understand. A few hundred years ago the very speaking of the way we live today would have earned you a trip to the rack. If we were to travel back in time a few hundred years we would be gods to the locals, just as the spanish were to the South American Indians.

  8. Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda says:

    Dear Perry:

    No offense, but I find that most people who mention entropy have very little formal training in its meaning. I had (while working toward my Ph. D.) to derive all the equations related to all the distributions (Fermi-Dirac, Boltzman, etc.) having to do with populations of electrons, photons, etc. and in the process study entropy in depth. By the way, entropy is the result of randomness as it is a purely statistical result. If “random mutations” were the only factor involved in evolution, you would, of course be right in concluding that animals in general and man homo-sapiens in particular would not have evolved to their present form. But, you forget the fundamental portion of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, namely, survival of the fittest through natural selection.
    A simple example should suffice: Boltzman himself (and he certainly knew about entropy!) suggested what became known as Boltzman’s Demon, a hypotethical being capable of standing in front of a hole separating a gas from a vaccum and letting go through only those molecules of the gas that had a specific velocity (both in magnitude and direction). He showed that entropy would not increase in such a system. Natural selection is the Boltzman’s Demon in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution that renders your conclusions invalid!
    One last word. Right now we have a pandemic in our hands and scientists are worried that the virus may mutate into a more dangerous strain. That, my dear friend, is EVOLUTION!

    Hèctor P. Cabàn-Zeda Ph. D.

    • Hector,

      Evolution is not driven by random mutations but by cellular genetic engineering. See http://evo2.org/prove-god-exists/comment-page-1/#comment-40


      • Jon says:

        But an important process of Evolution are the random mutations. When a mutation occurs, there is a change in the code. A mispelling if you would. If the organism can not adapt to that change, they don’t survive. The organisms that do adapt to the random mutations, survive and leave more offspring.

        Let me give you an example of a random mutation, the asteroid impact that is thought to brought the end of the dinosaurs. That was a random cosmic event that the dinosaurs could not adapt to and eventually died. The creatures that could survive that event, made it.

        • Evolution is not driven by random mutations but by cellular genetic engineering. See http://evo2.org/prove-god-exists/comment-page-1/#comment-40

          • Jon says:

            I know some people let their personal faith get in the way of how they view Science. Science keeps us honest, despite our tendencies to project our own beliefs. The random mutations that occur are a part of evolution. I think you feel that a designer would not allow some sort of “random” events to occur if they were in control.

            Because these natural random events suggest that there isn’t a designer behind everything. Evolution and the fossil record suggest trial and error. Not the work of some great designer. If God was real, then the Adam and Eve story could be true. But since we know it’s not, and that Evolution is the path all life took, we know the story of our creation is much more beautiful, vast and intricate.

            The two aspects of Evolution are DEATH and TIME. The death of all the life forms that could not adapt to the environment; and time it takes for a long trail of small mutations that are by accident, adaptive to the organism. Also the amount of time it takes to accumulate the favorable mutations that increase survival. Given that life has been around on Earth for some 3 billion years, you get the diversity of life. Since Evolution takes that long to work.

            Let me share another point about Mutation in Evolution, again from Carl Sagan and his book COSMOS. He said…

            “Every lifeform on Earth has a different set of instructions, written out in essentially the same language. The reason organisms are different is the differences in their nucleic acid instructions. A mutation is a change in the nucleotide, copied in the next generation, which breeds true. Since mutations are random nucleotide changes, most of them are harmful or lethal, coding into existence nonfunctional enzymes. It is a long wait before a mutation makes an organism works better. And yet it is that improbable event, a small beneficial mutation in a nucleotide a ten-millionth a centimeter across, that makes Evolution go.”

            • Jon,

              The mutations that drive biology are NOT random and there is NO experimental evidence to support the idea that they are random. All experiments involving random mutations (Dobzhanski’s fruit flies, Goldschmidt’s moths) were 100% total failures. 20-30 years of experiments with no successful outcomes whatsoever. I’m sorry but Sagan is wrong on this point, and he provides no supporting evidence that he is right. McClintock’s work on cellular genetic engineering shows that evolution is an engineered process, not a random walk.


  9. Jon says:

    You were right about my “brown hair” example. That is what I was trying to say!

    However, you said “that all the codes we know the origin of – and for that matter ALL the evolving systems we know the origin of – are all designed”

    Again, they only have the appearance of being designed because we have nothing yet to compare it to. Let me share with you a quote from Carl Sagan series COSMOS. He said on the subject…

    “Our ancestors looked at the intricacy and beauty of life and saw evidence for a great designer. The simplest organism is a far more complex machine than the finest pocket watch. And yet pocket watches don’t spontaneously self assemble or evolve in slow stages on their own from say, grandfather clocks. A watch implies a watchmaker.

    There seemed to be no way, in which atoms spontaneously fall together and create say, a dandelion. The idea of a designer is an appealing and all together human explanation of the biological world. But as Darwin and Wallace showed, there is another way. Equally human and far more compelling.”

    Granted, Science has yet to uncover the origin of the genetic code but at the same time, there we may already have the answers. Life could be quite common in the universe, each species going on their own Evolutionary path. The genetic code could be the result of natural processes that occur when life forms. This does not suggest the invention of a designer, it just means that life has a common bond.

  10. Brian says:

    For Hector the PH.D

    Revelation 6
    8. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and THE BEASTS OF THE EARTH.

    Before it became politically incorrect wasn’t it called SWINE flu?

  11. Michael Jaffray King says:

    I do have a question. For me this is a very relevant question so please consider and do not delete it please!!!!!
    Are you Perry Marshall a Christian?
    This is essential for me to know so please and I hope I have put this politely, would you very kindly answer me this one question. Then I will have many more.
    Just a very simple YES! or NO! will be sufficient for me thanks.

    • Michael,

      It would be so easy for me to answer your question. But when a guy is looking for such a black-and-white answer, I’d rather say “read my site and figure it out for yourself.” Life is rarely as black and white as you want it to be.


      • Michael Jaffray King says:

        Perry thanks but I have to say something and please do not think me rude. One is either a Christian or one is not. It is like being pregnant. One cannot be a little bit pregnant. Or an egg cannot be a little bit bad.
        By a Christian I mean in the simplest terms.
        Definition of a Christian which would apply to all 60,000 denominations in the world would be
        1. do you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins?
        2 Do you believe His sacrificial death on the cross would be enough to forgive you or me(I am a big sinner) for our sins?
        3 Did He indeed rise from the dead and then after 40 days ascend into Heaven?
        4. Have you put your faith in Him for salvation and for the free gift of eternal life?

        I am not asking you if every word of the Bible is literally true? e.g. The age of the earth as believed by fundamentalist Christians.
        If you can say yes to the above then in my opinion you are a member of the Kingdom of God.
        I really need to know about this and I do not at the present have enough spare time to find out by studying your life if you do or if you do not. Please give me an answer. God bless you and thanks.

  12. Jon says:

    I wanted to also comment on the “infinite regress” problem.

    The only way to avoid the infinite regress is not an uncaused cause, but simple the Universe was never created in the first place. It has always existed. The universe that we are familar with could be nothing more than one bubble in an ocean of bubbles.

    You say “something had to exist” something did, the universe itself. The universe is “infinitely old” meaning it never had a beginning. The big bang is just the beginning of our universe but that in no way suggests that we are the only universe.

    You are contradicting yourself by saying there HAS to be an uncaused cause and that something is God. That is the entire arguement on infinite regress. If there has to be a beginning, that means there always has to be a beginning.

    Again, the only way to avoid that paradox is to simply say the Cosmos has always existed and wasn’t created in the first place

    • Jon,

      That is all fine except it violates entropy. It’s like saying “This candle has always been burning.” In the universe we know, that is impossible. A candle can only burn for a finite period of time, and then it burns out.


      • Jon says:

        I’m not talking about energy, I’m talking about logic. A candle is a finite object, with a short lifespan and that is a creation of man. It was “designed” to exist for a short amount of time. The Universe in no way, conforms to the same principle. There is nothing in Science that says nothing can exist outside or before “our” Universe. It’s just from our point of view and perspective, that seems to be the case because we are finite beings. But again, why should the Cosmos conform to our wishes and desires?

    • Venugopal says:

      Actually, Big Bang is not a universally accepted proposition.
      “According to Google, there are over 74,000,000 articles that attempt to defend the current (infamous) BB, and over 14,200,000 articles on the internet that know there is a better idea. Most of the dissenting writers are competent scientific thinkers. According to the National Science Foundation survey, over 2/3rds of the American population do not believe the BB. The astronomy community should recognize something is wrong.”
      “Observation of faded white dwarfs in M4 proves the universe is older than the BB: “24+ billion years vs. 13.7 billion years”

  13. Jon says:

    I’d like to hear your thoughts on this…

    You mentioned “Dobzhanski’s fruit flies” That’s funny because Wikipedia says that he was a ” A loyal defender of Darwinian evolution, Dobzhansky himself spoke of God as creating through evolution”


    “Dobzhansky’s work was instrumental in spreading the idea that it is through mutations in genes that natural selection takes place.


    Anyway, Sagan does provide an example. He was working in the lab of H.J. Muller, a man who discovered that radiation produces random mutations with fruit flies called Drosophila Melanogaster.(the same ones Dobzhansky was working on)

    One day Sagan discovered a variation in the flies, a new species in a single generation that was the result of a mutation. This new fly wanted nothing to do with the fruit but the solution the flies were kept in. It was micro-mutation and natural selection.

    • Jon,

      Dobzhanski believed in evolution; I, with some reservations, believe in evolution too. Dobzhanski just proved that the “random mutation” hypothesis was incorrect because after 30 years he never got any improved fruit flies.

      As to the Sagan story I need better documentation to interpret his results.


      • Jon says:

        The story from Carl Sagan comes from his book “COSMOS’. I am sure you can find a copy of it at your local library. I bought the paperback for $7, which is a good price for such a book.

        My question about Dobzhanski is if he didn’t believe in “random mutation” then how come he is the leading propopent for that idea. It didn’t seem to change his mind because he still supported mutations are important in Evolution.

        • I can’t speak to Dobzhanski’s motivations, I just know his 30 years of experimental work didn’t support the idea!

          I can tell you more about Goldschmidt. He believed in what he called “hopeful monsters” which was this idea that random mutations accumulated until suddenly there was an avalanche of positive change. This theory was never validated and sounds like a desperate attempt, from the point of view of communication theory. It’s like saying that the interference from airplanes flying over your house suddenly converged into a new improved TV show.

          Please understand what I am saying: Mutations ARE important in evolution. They’re just not RANDOM. They’re engineered. See http://evo2.org/darwin-half-right/

          • Jon says:

            So what you are saying is that you believe God would not use “random” mutations, that they are “engineered” to be that way. Well, that is just an opinion based on your beliefs. Many people see the nature that say way. That how can something be so intricate and yet be random at the same time.

            I would bet that you think that the entire Universe was created just for us. That this grand designer had us in mind when he created everything.

            If that is the case, then how come of all the life that has ever existed on Earth, 99.9% of it is extinct. It would seem that if a designer was in change, couldn’t he get it right the first time?

            Why go through the incredibly long and painful process of Evolution?

            Everything in Evolution suggest that there isn’t a designer in mind, that nature is very chaotic and quite random. There were so many things that had to happen in order for us to be here. Like with the Dinosaur extinction. If that random cosmic event didn’t happen, it’s logical to assume we wouldn’t be here. We owe our existance to luck and serendipity

            • Jon,

              I am not saying God “would not” use random mutation.

              I am *observing* that all the available scientific evidence says that random mutation produces birth defects and extinction, not forward progress. And that what is actually observed is that the genome re-arranges itself in a highly ordered fashion.

              I ask that you read James Shapiro’s paper “A 21st century view of evolution” before continuing to discuss this point.

              You are saying that God would not use evolution, and that is a theological statement not a scientific one. The issues you raise about extinction etc. are all assumptions about what God would or would not do.

              There is no evidence to suggest that random cosmic events, luck, serendipity, etc. produce life forms. That is only an opinion of some people, which goes against all that we actually know.

              Perry Marshall

              • Jon says:

                I know I keep harping back to the dinosaurs but…so what you are saying is that God sent that asteroid to wipe out over 70% of all life on the planet, just so he could create us? That doesn’t sound very god-like at all. Couldn’t he have gotten it right the first time? Why go through the death and destruction of an entire species, just to make a new one? And that wasn’t the only Extinction event on the planet, there have at least 5.

                I can give you a mutation that shows “forward progress”. The Red Blood cells of some people of European decent look globular. While the cells of people of African decent look like sickles. Those sickle looking cells carry less oxygen and transmit a kind of anemia. However, they also provide a major defense against malaria, (common in Africa) so I can assume it’s better to be anemic than dead.

                All it took was a tiny mutation, a single change in the nucletide out of 10 billion cells of DNA that causes a change in an amino acid of protein. This is a forward producing mutation that ensures survival.

                So if I am making assumptions about God, then it seems you are as well. But then again, how can anyone know the mind of God? If there was a God, then his mind would be beyond anything any human being could ever know and understand.

  14. BBB says:

    Lots of interesting replies here.
    If this is supposed to be an actual attempt at proving God’s existence scientifically, it falls far short. But is enough for some people apparently. One response in particular that interested me was basically, “Physics and the cosmos are so very complicated so I simply it for myself by saying God did it.” That line of thinking would love this website’s “proof”.

    The code is the message is the medium is the DNA. This is not a trivial distinction. It’s orders of magnitude away from getting a radio signal and being able to say that it must have an “intelligent” source.

    Energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed just interchanged. If we are living in a cyclical universe that expands, then contracts to a singularity that expands once again then much of this is useless arguing.

    “After all the stars have burned out, where did their energy go and how could you get it back?”

    If you don’t have a clue how to answer that question, then you really have no business running around talking about entropy. It has become a talking point. You know, like what people that subscribe to that other political party run around spouting but don’t know how to verify, examine or explain.

    • BBB,

      The question “After all the stars have burned out, where did their energy go and how could you get it back?” is a legitimate one and your retort is hardly an answer. You’re invited to respond with a factual explanation.


      • BBB says:

        If you are asking me to explain where the “spent” energy from a star burned out has gone, what form is it converted to at that stage, or what it would take to “refuel” such a system, then I would suggest you grab some physics books and stop using words like entropy and trying to reduce the universe to a laboratory sized thermodynamic thought experiment. I am not here to teach you.

        • BBB,

          It sounds like you believe that inside some physics book is an explanation of how a burned-out star re-fuels itself and spent energy becomes renewed. It sounds like you want us to go read the book ourselves… which you don’t appear to have read. I don’t think that book exists.

          I will approve your comments from this point forward if they present the evidence that you say exists.


          • BBB says:

            My apologies. I wasn’t suggesting that stars refuel themselves of their own accord. I was suggesting that a burned out star has expended much energy, but it is not gone. And a universal collapse would be just the thing to recycle the whole system. The book I am referring to is any college physics text on the subject of entropy. Nothing specific. As to the never ending proofs and reproofs that are offered to explain or deny that this universe has enough of a gravitational field to reverse it’s expansion one day, I’m sure you are aware the conclusion keeps expanding with our understanding of the universe.

            I think the attempt to prove the existence of a God by scientific means will never prove fruitful. I don’t think His signature is distinguishable from the painting.

            The complexity theory only holds so much weight. Naturally this universe is here and functional so only the correct combination of gravitational weights and constants would cause this existence. Deriving from that that there could not be some bubbling factory of Universes out there that keep mixing energies until they solidify and grow stable like the first crystals that start a lattice growing, is making an assumption on a cosmological scale.

            Prime mover unmoved only holds so much weight. If we assume that our idea that everything must have a beginning and an end, then we are looking at the universe through our logic. If we say that Z could not exist without having it’s creator Y, then jump from logic and say ok, once you get to God you can stop using that idea, He had no creator. That is disingenuous. It proves nothing and is a nice little logic game that has the worth of a Chinese finger trap. Who is to say that the Universe is not the correct place to stop?

            • Entropy.

              • BBB says:

                If someone starts out with the premise that “God exists, and I believe I can show scientific and logical ideas which also point to this conclusion”, they will get much different results than “I want to test whether or not existing scientific theories or systems of logic contain pieces which can only be explained by an intelligent designer.”

                Throwing away theories because they don’t match data is the very definition of bias. Besides, you don’t think God put you hear to finally publish definitive proof of His existence, do you? Imaging the ramifications for the remaining generations of Earthlings. There would be no more debate on the matter. It would be a change in life as we know it on this planet until the end of time to have verifiable proof of an ID.

                If you neglect a well manicured garden long enough, it will become overrun with all types of plants in unintended configurations. One person will likely say, “This is an example of entropy. You cannot even walk through here anymore. The nice walkways have been bursted by tree roots and the flowers are all dwarfed by weeds. It has fallen to ruin as all systems must go”

                Another observer might say, “No. The plant life diversity in the area has increased dramatically. There is much more sunlight and nutrients being processed into plant cells than ever before. Plant cells have even acted in union to create great pressure and move the debris you call a walkway aside so they can live. And only the most rugged and sturdy of plant species has survived and choked out a species not capable of surviving in this region.”

                • From what you have said it’s evident that you have not really read what I have said.

                  I did not start with the premise “God exists.”

                  I started with the premise “I want to test whether or not existing scientific theories or systems of logic contain pieces which can only be explained by an intelligent designer.”

                  So I looked at DNA, knowing that mutations in DNA are said to be the source of evolutionary change; and knowing that DNA is essential to all life forms.

                  And I made these observations:

                  1) The pattern in DNA is a code.
                  2) All codes we know the origin of are designed; there are no known exceptions.
                  3) Therefore DNA is designed.

                  Observers of gardens (and fossils and everything else) can construct all kinds of stories and subjective opinions. But information theory is not subjective and all information systems that we know the origin of had intelligent designers.

                  Perry Marshall

                  • BBB says:

                    You set up an application to exhibit the result of random mutation on words/letters. There were no rules that wouldn’t allow certain letters to be next to others, like there would be in molecular bonds. And the application uses completely arbitrary replacement, a condition that isn’t suggested as possible by any mutation theory I’ve ever heard of. Should I look at that mutation application as some kind of joke? Because if it’s meant to me an analogy of real genetic mutation, it would suggest whoever made it doesn’t know much about genetic mutations.

                    “2) All codes we know the origin of are designed; there are no known exceptions.”

                    Self replicating acid strings are not a code. They are chemistry. Is a single atom of oxygen a code? And it’s “solution” is another atom of oxygen in that O2 bond we are all familiar? When does chemistry become a code? You are talking about chemical bonds that are never “decoded”. There is not a message their because your perception of “code” is also the medium of code transmission. As I said before, this is not a trivial distinction. Finding a rosetta stone clearly indicates intelligent design. Are you ignoring all research there has been into evolving self replicating acid chains?

                    You say you are not starting with the premise of “There is a God”. I cannot challenge that because whatever starting point of research we may be looking at was in the past and your starting state is for you to know solely. But from my viewpoint, every piece of “proof” you have stated has been pock marked by holes in logic that would make me say, this isn’t a good proof one way or the other. But you went the God route with it. That is your “cross to bear” 🙂

                    Though I will give you something to think about. Evolution is about genetic change. For that change to be carried forward to the next generation reproduction must occur. Genetic changes imply differences. Do herd animals/tribes tend toward out casting that which is different? Thus ensuring that any mutations which resulted in visible physical differences wouldn’t carry a bloodline?

                  • Jon says:

                    But Science isn’t about opinions, it’s about the search for truth. The fossil record tells us a completely different story than what you are claiming to observe. The goal of Science is to get through what is wrong, to what is right. When an incredible majority of Scientists in every field come to the same conclusion on their own (about Evolution, mutations and natural selection) then it must be true, regardless of what we want to believe.

  15. Joe Reinhorn says:

    My instinct tells me that perhaps I`m not intelligent or intellectual enough to get involved in the above argument BUT, supose, just supose that our universe (small, big or whatever) is only a microcosm in a bigger universe and that one is the same from a still bigger universe and so on “ad infinitum”……? Perhaps we are small enough to grasp infinity…..? The need of a God (I’m writting it with a capital G because it is coustomary) creator becomes superfluous. Like the little story about the little boy who having been told that God created this, that and the other asked quite innocently: “Yeah, but who invented God ?”. If that God created so many things, how about the millions of starving children, nuclear armament, religious hate, ctastrrophies, hlocausts, etc. , etc.,…… Perhaps it is time to bring that God to justice for crimes against the Humanity ?

  16. Pradipta says:

    I believe god, I believe my eyes, I also believe a thing that everything has a limited form but astronomers have presented us a grand universe what have no boundary. I think our space researchs are going on wrong procedure since all logics defeat our direct thinking over deep space. Please visit : – http://www.spacemirrormystery.com for detail.

  17. Paul says:

    l am from Jamaica, most people here believe in God, l do too but l am happy that you being knowledgeable about DNA was able to use it and show that it must have been an higher intelligence who put these coded messages in the form of DNA to continue the process of reproduction. l have always questioned Darwins theory of evolution on the grounds of who or what created the first thing that started the evolution process.

    ln the Bible creation starts with God and someone else when he said “let us”, the earlier Egyptians said it was other gods Christians said it was Jesus, but whoever it was that was with him he comanded “let every living thing bring forth beings of its own kind” today when we are able to look at DNA, we see that command still in existence in DNA code. This now however leads the mind to think that these higher intelligence must have been created too. what are your views on this?

  18. Rick says:

    UNI = ONE
    The universe was spoken into existence.
    Who spoke it?

  19. Rick says:

    One more thing, I get tired of hearing “God didn’t write the Bible, men did”.
    Well DUH!!!
    If you had to get a message to me, but are no where near me, and chose a friend to write it and give it to me, how do I know the message was from you and not your friend? Why should I believe the message? Your friend could be lying.
    And answer this, What on earth would the people that penned the Bible for God have to gain other then not having His wrath from disobedience laid upon them.
    Do you really believe Moses went around selling copies for gold and silver?
    See how easy this is when you don’t over-think it!!!!!!!

  20. judex says:

    The organizations in the universe could not have happened by themselves. There must have been an Engineer behind all these. That Engineer is called the Great Spirit or God !

    Organizations mean intelligently putting things tidy.