The Universe Came From Nothing!! Or Did It?


I find it fascinating to begin to engage with the fundamental mysteries of the universe - such as how something came from nothing.


There are three basic possibilities:


a. All matter and energy came from nothing in the Big Bang - creating a universe of matter and antimatter in an instant.


b. God (a supernatural being) made the universe from nothing.


c. Matter and energy was always there.


It seems to me that all three propositions are almost equally impossible to comprehend.


Proposition A

Now proposition A is impossible. We have nothing and suddenly matter is formed spontaneously. There is a Big Bang and all the matter, energy, antimatter and antienergy(?) is formed in an instant and we have our universe.


Doesn't make sense to me.


Proposition B

Proposition B is even more absurd. In order to explain the impossibility of proposition A we invent a supernatural being who makes the universe out of nothing. This solves nothing for me. All it is doing is kicking the can down the road.


  • Firstly you are still left with all the matter and energy in the universe being created from nothing
  • Secondly we have invented an even more complex being who has immense powers to do such a thing so is more complex than the universe itself
  • Thirdly there is no attempt to explain where this being was before the universe was created so we have to invent a further, even more complex, universe in which the being resides (heaven, paradise, valhalla, whatever).
  • Fourthly there is no explanation of how this supernatural being came into being in the first place - which is even more problematical and fantastical than a universe spontaneously springing into life out of nothing.
  • Fifthly - it smacks of human thinking when faced with proposition A. We have a need to solve problems. God is our creation.

Proposition C

The universe was always here. It keeps expanding and contracting. Possibly there have been an infinite number of singularities and an infinite number of Big Bangs. It never began and it will never end.


Well that doesn't make sense to human minds either. How can things have always been here? How can they never end?


It is looking as if the expansion of the universe will continue and it will eventually break down to hydrogen and heat through its own entropy and die. So the cycles of expansion and contraction are not a possibility.


Well, that's it as far as I can see. You pays your money and you takes your choice. I think all three are beyond imagination. What do you think?


opher goodwin Added Dec 28, 2017 - 5:35pm
Explaining the unexplainable by creating an even more complex unexplainable doesn't do it for me. To much like primitive human thinking.
There's a mystery here. I love mysteries.
Narnian Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:01pm
Our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion.  Logically, it must have had a beginning.  Stephen Hawking has stated that "the universe has not existed forever.  Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."  His view is shared by many scientists. 
I completely agree with you regarding Proposition A.  The Big Bang seems impossible.  However, I do not believe the universe has always existed, either.  I choose Door # 2 - that the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer (God).  God, by His very nature, is eternal. 
I need to leave shortly, so I probably won't see your reply until tomorrow.
Bembaboy Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:04pm
The Director of Cosmology at Tufts Vilenkin who has studied the universe 35  years who agrees with you. He calculates the odds of the universe coming from nothing are quite small; he also has evidence to suggest there were probably many big bangs creating other universes that our limited technology cannot detect. Anyway I also like a mystery.
Chris Crawford Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:08pm
"Doesn't make sense to me."
Of course it doesn't make sense to you. "Sense" is the digested accumulation of all of your life experiences. You have never experienced a Big Bang. Therefore, it cannot possibly make sense to you. What doesn't make sense (at least to me) is your rejection of an idea that does not conform to your life experiences. The universe is a very big place and has all sorts of phenomena that nobody on earth has ever experienced. 
But let me make it even more difficult to understand. You cannot measure time without an event to mark a point in time. To measure a time duration, you need two events: a start event and a stop event. A clock can't go "tick, tick" without some mass and some energy. And if you can't even theoretically measure something, then how do you know that it exists? As a famous thinker said a long time ago, "To measure is to know" -- and if you can't measure it, how can you know that it exists?
But events can only be made by mass/energy. So if there is no mass/energy, then there is no time. Same thing goes for space. If you are a "non-corporeal intelligence" floating in an empty space that contains no mass at all, how can you measure space? How can you know whether there IS any space? 
So, before the Big Bang, there was no space and no time. In fact, there was NO "before" because there wasn't any time. Therefore, it is not correct to say that something (the universe) came from nothing, because there wasn't any "before" in the first place. At the instant time started, the universe existed. Something didn't "come" from nothing. Something started at the same time that time started.
Weird enough for you? 
opher goodwin Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:20pm
Narnian - Thank you for your reply.
Answer 2 is my least likely. For something to have designed something as grand and complex as the universe requires that something to be even more complex that the thing he created. Where did he come from? Who designed him? That is even more incredible and simply smacks of human imagination to me.
opher goodwin Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:21pm
Bembaboy - there is nothing quite like stretching the mind is there? I love a mystery.
opher goodwin Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:30pm
Chris - Thanks - nicely played. Though nobody knows what there was before the Big Bang do they?
Was it a cyclical event involving a never ending singularity? A clashing of membranes of universes? A universe within other universes? Or a real beginning from nothing?
I have often played with that non-corporeal mind. A great Sci-fi idea but of no real benefit.
Time and space, along with all the laws of Physics, cease in that singularity. Religions are born out of that aren't they?
But my mind tells me there's always a before. That's weird enough to be going on with.
Dave Volek Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:39pm
I would like to spend more time on this concept, but too much to do at home these days. I have had an article in mind for a few years using biology to prove the existence of a creator of some sort, but I need to put it together. 
Two SF writers have tried to tackle this subject. Robert Heinlein in "Job: A comedy of justice" and Jose Farmer in his "Riverworld" series. Both seem to believe that the "gods" are beings similar to us, but they are able to tinker with our world without us knowing about it. In other words, we are just some big experiment for them.
opher goodwin Added Dec 28, 2017 - 6:47pm
Dave - I've read both of those books/series. Two of my favoured writers. I've written a couple of things on a lesser scale. It's an interesting concept to play around with.
Dino Manalis Added Dec 28, 2017 - 7:20pm
The Big bang was a unique event which happened only once, the first and second possibilities may be connected.  The Universe is complex and orderly at the same time.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 28, 2017 - 7:55pm
It was always there. But that's too much for our small minds.
Dr. Byron A. Ellis Added Dec 28, 2017 - 8:20pm
Opher, Revelations 1:8, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." might shed some light on your search. Also, we know that things that humans make, such as houses, cars, and so on do not create themselves. So, it is difficult to imagine that the universe can create itself. Therefore, there must be a creator, and that is the one who says "I am the one who is, who always was, and who is still to come--the Almighty One." 
Chris Crawford Added Dec 28, 2017 - 8:22pm
Opher: "nobody knows what there was before the Big Bang do they?"
This is the weird part: there was no "before". Time didn't start until the instant of the Big Bang. There was no "5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Bang!" There was just "Bang!" 
Even A Broken Clock Added Dec 28, 2017 - 9:44pm
Opher, you are asking the questions that have puzzled cosmology for nearly a century, ever since the expansion of the universe with its accompanying red shifts was observed. Actually, you did not mention yet another possibility that was seriously considered prior to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960's. That was the steady-state universe, where hydrogen atoms would form within the vacuum on a continuing basis. This was the second most popular theory, but when the cosmic microwave radiation was discovered, that showed that this universe did get created from a huge explosion. Since that time, the timeline has been parsed and most events have been understood. Except for two.
One, for the universe to assume its current distribution of matter, there had to be a brief period of inflation at the start of the process. During this incredibly short period of inflation, the universe expanded at a rate greater than the speed of light. All of our knowledge of physics says that you cannot go faster than light, yet during this inflation phase it happened. Current physics cannot explain that.
Second, in order for the universe to exist at present, there had to be a predominance of either matter or antimatter (doesn't matter which one, but it had to be one). By a factor of about 1 part per million, there is more matter than there was anti-matter. The vast majority of matter annihilated itself after the atomic particles formed, and what was left is the difference between the amount of matter and anti-matter. What caused there to be a difference when there is no substantial difference between matter and anti-matter? Current physics cannot explain that.
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 28, 2017 - 9:54pm
The "uncaused first cause" is the only credible explanation.
Every event from eternity past to eternity future had or will have a cause except the "uncaused first cause," whether that be "God" or some other unknown entity or event. The "uncaused first cause" is eternal and has always existed, and it created everything, including Nature. Nature was CREATED along with everything that is contained within it, including all the laws of science. Time and space were also created, so that which CREATED Nature and matter and the laws and time and space is OUTSIDE Nature. We cannot put that which is OUTSIDE Nature INSIDE Nature, nor can we measure it using elements within Nature. We describe that "uncaused first cause" as "supernatural," meaning simply that it is "outside of" or "above" Nature.
The clearly obvious theory of an "uncaused first cause" is much simpler and much more believable than either of the other theories, the impossible theory that "nothing created everything" or the evidentiary-refuted theory that the universe and all that is in it and time and space have always existed.
The probability that "nothing" created "everything" is indistinguishable from ZERO, and the theory is absurd on its face. Where did the original "item" that "banged" come from, and what caused it to "bang" and where did it get the energy to "bang" and where did it get the laws of physics and chemistry to follow once it had "banged" and begun to expand?
We have evidence that Nature, time, space, and the universe had beginnings, so the theory that they have always existed can also be eliminated.
By the process of elimination, the only credible explanation remaining is that everything was created by a "supernatural uncaused first cause."
Tubularsock Added Dec 28, 2017 - 10:32pm
Damn it OG! Tubularsock is attempting in words and deed to save the illusionary world as we know it and you come up with this?
Ok, Tubularsock is only going to explain this ONCE to you and when you accept Tubularsock’s “truth, bigly” you’ll be able to rest. Sure, take notes.
GOD, a neutral term herein, took out a loan in order to buy up and corner the market on the known universe. An early simple transaction.
However, when GOD, a neutral term herein, discovered in the “fine print” later that the known universe was in continual expansion thus the compound interest rate was hinged upon that expansion, GOD, a neutral term herein, became angry!
At this point, as history tells it, GOD, a neutral term herein, contacted TUBULARSOCK UNIVERSAL INVESTMENTS AND SAKE LOUNGE, LTD and made an appointment to discuss his investment possibilities.
As Tubularsock explained to GOD, a neutral term herein, that as the universe expands there is greater profit to be made and as the universe contracts the “belief” in the bear market always shifts the universe to expansion.
Yes pretty simple. And GOD, a neutral term herein, bought it!
Lucky for Tubularsock he didn’t have to explain to GOD, a neutral term herein, the concept of trickle-down!
Michael A. Lewis Added Dec 28, 2017 - 11:31pm
There is another option, often referred to as the Many Worlds hypothesis, or the Holographic Universe:
Our universe is one of an infinite number of universes, each within a black hole, the event horizen of which is a hologram that contains all of the information about the universe within. Within each universe are an infinite number of black holes, each containing a universe.
Thus, everything that can be, exists in one or more of the infinite universes. As we go through our lives, we constantly make choices about the universe we choose to inhabit. What we think of as reality is the gestalt of all the choices made by all consciousnesses. 
The Many Worlds hypothesis holds that the uninverse splits at each decision point, but in my perception, this is not necessary. Everything in the universe we perceive is part of a continuum, not connected (because it is never disconnected), but unitary, part of a continuous flow, what David Bohm called the holomovement. Thus it is unnecessary for the universe to split at a decision point, because the infinite universe(s) already exist, and all influence each other in a great cosmic dance.
I/we/Gaia/Universa focus our consciousness on a particular Universe moment to moment, giving the illusion of physical and chronological separateness to what is actually a space/time unity.
Mark Hunter Added Dec 29, 2017 - 2:26am
To me the universe makes a lot less sense without God ... however, that's likely to always be an article of faith, not science, since I can't imagine a way to prove it. If only George Burns or Morgan Freeman could pop into the room and perform a few tricks ...
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:03am
Dino - according to Hawking and other cosmologists we may be one universe in an infinite number of universes. Universes may be springing into existence all the time. Boggling isn't it?
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:04am
Stone - you may be right that it will always be beyond human comprehension. Our minds are too puny. Though it is amazing what science has found out in such a short while. It has only really just got going. You never know?
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:09am
Doc Byron - I see you have gone for option 2 and simply ignore the questions of where did god come from and the rest of that. Not for me I'm afraid. It seems to me that the human mind struggles with these concepts. Our psychology has evolved to think that everything has a beginning, end, pattern and purpose. That's very good for hunting and gathering but not much use for working out infinity and where the universe comes from. That is why I believe we created god/gods to conveniently solve the problem, stop it nagging at us, and conveniently kick the can further down the road.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:12am
Chris - yes that is a conundrum isn't it? Hard to get your head around what was there before time existed. But as the nature of the singularity was likely such that all time and laws of physics did not exist that surely does not preclude the possibility of something else, beyond our ken, existing, does it?
Can you have anything without time? Or was there a different type of time?
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:25am
EABC - Yes I'd discounted the steady state theory but I suppose I really shouldn't have. You never know? New things emerge and turn things on their head. I don't know how quantum physics fits in with this.
Certainly the process of inflation and the inequality between matter and antimatter throws a few unknowns into the equation.
Fun isn't it?
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:30am
TEWS - I like that phrase - "uncaused first cause," - it does allow a role for god - though not in the biblical sense of an intelligent, caring father figure who dwells somewhere or other up there. This god is something else. Maybe. But whatever sparked that first uncaused first cause? Maybe nothing? Maybe these things just happen by chance?
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:51am
The problem we face is: Human mind thinks in beginnings and endings since humans themselves are born and die. Human minds think in matters of "creations" because humans have parents who "created" them and are used to have a "boss" most of their life. Means an authority "above" them.
IMHO that's the way we look at the Universe, and believe in a Big Bang (most of us), a "creation", simplified version is a god.
When one considers that it was ALWAYS there the question of a "creation" out of nothing makes no sense. I can partly imagine multiverses, or a constant birth-death cycle, as it is the case in our nature.
But at one stage we arrive at the question of TIME, which plays a huge role in this. And time does not exist everywhere.....
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:13am
Tub - now it all makes sense!! Inflation, growth, profit! The universe is the ultimate capitalist creation!! Hence galaxies spiralling out of control, quasars, black holes. Tub you have done it this time! No wonder there is so much interest.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:15am
Michael - I'm just grateful to be part of that holographic Cosmic Dance - pirouetting through space in a continuum of all possibility. Thank you. 
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:17am
Mark - but is that just human thinking?
Oh for George Burns and his cigar.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:19am
Stone - it certainly gets the grey matter buzzing when you start to engage with the possibilities doesn't it?
There's nothing quite like lying on your back outside on a warm night, far from anywhere, and gazing up at the constellation with wonder.
Mark Hunter Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:30am
Maybe it is! But ... maybe it isn’t. In the end, that’s why they call it faith, and I suppose that’s the only real answer the faithful can possibly give the skeptical. Of course, in this particular case nobody knows the answer, but science will get us closer as time goes by.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:58am
Mark - Nobody knows.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:08am
though it eludes our capacity for comprehension the third possibility would seem the only plausible explanation that can live within our limited understanding. I accept that there are just some things that are not for us to know
Doug Plumb Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:53am
Anyone interested in this should look up the Kantian Antinomies. This is outside the bounds of cognitive perception and therefore subject only to speculation. I  can find a Kantian answer to just about any scientific question of a philosophical nature. Kant even addresses the notion of a rational psychology. Its all in the Critique Of Pure Reason.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:03am
Burger - that does have a ring to it doesn't it? But it doesn't explain the expanding universe very well does it?
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:04am
Doug - I'll look that up when I get some time. Thanks.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:09am
Expand and contract. At least as we can perceive it
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:17am
I envision it as being something rather like a lava formation. You have molten rock and gases expanding in all directions, yet within this mass there form fissures and air pockets that undergo their own dynamic. In the heat the pockets of gases expand until bursting and then the pocket collapses in upon itself. The expanding universe is like the mass of expanding molten rock and those gas pockets in the molten rock are like black holes in the expanding universe. Of course the the physics of the two differ, but for the purpose of illustration its a good start for a model of the the third option
Neil Lock Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:26am
Nice article, Opher.
Proposition A seems possible, but unlikely, to me. Though not totally ruled out.
I agree with you that Proposition B is a non-starter. If there is a creator, then how was the creator created? If the creator was always there, we are into Proposition C. If the creator was created at the same moment as the universe, we are into proposition A. If the creator was created by another creator, we are into a loop.
Proposition C seems to me the most plausible of the three. It does, however, have a difficulty. The Universe is expanding at the moment; but its expansion seems to be slowing, and might eventually reverse. If it is expanding fast enough to avoid re-collapse, then it will end in heat death rather than a big crunch. Which would mean that its history would be asymmetrical - it would end differently from the way it began. Not only that, but it wouldn't have a successor, so the chain of universes would be broken. I'm not sure which way the pundits are inclined these days on that question, but I do remember that Stephen Hawking used to think it was a very close call indeed as to whether the universe would eventually re-collapse or not.
Michael A. Lewis's many-worlds universe (which I'll call Proposition D) doesn't convince me either. One of my objections to it is aesthetic - what a waste of resources! And worse, it can never be checked, because it depends on the existence of universes which we can't experience. An unfalsifiable hypothesis is... not science.
Let me throw a slight curve-ball, which I'll call Proposition E. Perhaps time is really a multi-dimensional thing, and the "time" that we experience is only one dimension of it. Imagine, for example, if time really needs to be represented by complex numbers, but what we experience is only the real part of it. In such a model, it would be possible for what looks like a singularity (big bang or big crunch) in our "real" time not to be a singularity when you look at it in complex time. (As an analogy, if you looked at the Earth but could only see things right on the Greenwich meridian, you might think that the North and South poles were singularities).
All this is very closely related to the question "why does time flow?" (or, if you agree with my Proposition E, "why does time appear to flow?") That idea in itself invites further questions, like "what effect does consciousness have on the structure of the universe?" Oh, and then we're back into a Proposition A/B/C scenario. Did consciousness suddenly come in to being? Was it created? Or has it always been there?
Now I'll return y'all to your scheduled programming after these messages from your local station...
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:45am
Thanks Neil! Now let's see what our contestants have won!
A years supply from tonight's sponsor, Scum! The world's first ever combination salad dressing and foot ointment!
Many thanks to Michael Palin for this and his many other contributions to astrophysics
George N Romey Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:50am
Sometimes I think superior beings dropped off the human race on Earth the way people used to drop off unwanted pets alongside the road.
Ultimately the Humane Society came along to rescue dumped pets. I wonder what will rescue the human race.
The Burghal Hidage Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:51am
we wont be rescued. we're part of the lot waiting to be gassed
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 8:41am
No matter what the Universe is, how long is has existed or what caused life on earth:
As long as WE can't manage OUR existence peacefully the rest is obsolete.
Narnian Added Dec 29, 2017 - 8:49am
I also like the term that TEWS Pilot used - "uncaused first cause".  By definition, then, the first cause - whether God or a "force" or even the "singularity" has always existed. 
If I understand it correctly, the "singularity" part of a quantum physics theory.  It goes way over my head.  I've never been strong in science.
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 8:51am
opher, "But whatever sparked that first uncaused first cause? Maybe nothing? "....NOTHING sparked it....that is why "it" is the "uncaused first cause."  If something caused it, THAT cause would be the "uncaused first cause."  Nothing prevents that entity from being the God of the Bible.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 8:54am
We don't know what FIRST is. Maybe there was no first. First is a human definiton born out of OUR perception.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 9:07am
Burger - unfortunately, even with all the Dark Matter taken into account, it doesn't appear that the mass of the universe is sufficient to reverse expansion. I did read a great Philip K Dick book - Counterclock World? where everything went backwards. Strange things happened in toilets, meals were brought up and babies crawled back into vaginas.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 9:21am
Stop gravity and your PC dissolves :-)
Leroy Added Dec 29, 2017 - 9:27am
Interesting article, Opher, and a refreshing change.
It seems to me that Proposition C is where we are at today.  I can buy the argument that the universe expands and contracts.  But it doesn't answer the question of how it got there in the first place. 
Proposition A might be the explanation of how it all got started.  Once you have a universe, everything falls into place.  It is beyond my comprehension, but I can accept that in the beginning there was nothing.  How does something come from nothing?  In my simple mind, if you have equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, you still have nothing, so it seems feasible to create something from nothing.  But, even this idea doesn't work.  There had to be some perturbation to cause matter and anti-matter to form.  But once it forms, look out!  So now we are back to the first mover.  Who or what poked a finger at the universe?  I have to be satisfied that the answer is unknowable.
Concerning time, it is a manmade concept.  Time is nothing more than the measure of a cyclic event.  The universe doesn't care about seconds and years or the vibrations of cesium atoms.  It doesn't have a timekeeper measuring the vibrations of atoms.  I suppose you could say that plants and other organism respond to cyclic events, so the cyclic nature of these is important.  In a sense, it is measured.  But, without living things, it is not important, not measured.  It has no meaning.
"I choose Door # 2 - that the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer (God).  God, by His very nature, is eternal."
Declaring God eternal and timeless is convenient and a cop out.  It merely avoids the question.  It states another unknowable.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 9:33am
Declaring God eternal and timeless is convenient and a cop out. 
Means: ok that's it, brain. Full stop :-)
Narnian Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:07am
Instead of avoiding the question, an eternal God answers the question.  Why couldn't God be the first cause?  Everything in the natural universe had a beginning, but God is supernatural.  He exists outside of time, and created everything into being. 
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:23am
God is supernatural.  He exists outside of time, and created everything into being. 
Proof ? Nada. Believe system. Simplicate life....and why is god a "he" and not an "it" ? Think.....
A. Jones Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:36am
By the process of elimination, the only credible explanation remaining is that everything was created by a "supernatural uncaused first cause."
A "First Cause" or "Prime Mover" in the Aristotelian meaning is the only explanation that makes sense. Additionally, astronomer Fred Hoyle claimed that the various physical constants in the universe are so arbitrarily chosen, yet so fortuitous for the formation of life, that it appears to him that they had been "monkeyed with" by a super-intellect, and that almost nothing in the universe can be reasonably accounted for just on the basis of chance.
Hoyle was an atheist, by the way, and a self-proclaimed Buddhist.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:39am
Neil - Thanks Neil. I like your proposition E. Maybe time doesn't flow? That's the illusion we live in?
Everything is weirder than it looks. I like the string theory but I think I'd add a brass section.
Narnian Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:42am
Since the Bible refers to God as "He", I will follow suit.  The proof of God's existence is in the complexity of the universe.  Consider the Earth.  This is the only known planet with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain life.  The Earth is just the right distance from the sun.  If we were closer, we would burn up; if we were further away, we would freeze.  Our moon is the perfect size and distance from us for its gravitational pull.  The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so the oceans do not stagnate. 
The human body also shows evidence of a complex design.  Our brain takes in everything we see, the temperature around us, the sounds around us, and the texture of the keyboard you type on.  At the same time, our brain keeps track of our breathing, hunger, muscle movement, etc.  Our brain processes over a million messages per second. 
Prove that God exists?  Everything in the universe - from distant galaxies to the tiniest cell - has a very complex design.  Where there is a design, there must be a Designer.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:42am
Burger - or Eric Idle's Galaxy Song -
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:43am
George - there's a Sci-fi story in there!
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:44am
TEWS - of course.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:51am
Stone - it is hard to get your thinking out of human thinking. I suppose that's where maths comes in.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:51am
Stone - I suspect that's why my PC keeps going wrong! I need to speak with some gravity.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:53am
Leroy - Cheers for that. So you go for proposition A. A good choice. Boggling isn't it?
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:56am
Narnian - don't you think that is rather convenient? We create a god, put him outside of time. Don't say where he came from but claim he's eternal. We declare him powerful enough to create universes and then don't have to think about anything ever again.
Not for me I'm afraid. I'd be questioning how a supernatural consciousness of that magnitude came into being.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:57am
Stone/Leroy - you're right - no proof and no real logic.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 11:00am
A.Jones - yes it is very satisfying to talk of a 'supernatural uncaused first cause' but it wouldn't be uncaused if it was caused by a supernatural force would it?
Narnian Added Dec 29, 2017 - 11:13am
Opher - No, not just a matter of convenience at all.  We did not invent a god, but God has revealed Himself to us.  While you question how a supernatural consciousness came into being, I question how everything else could come into being if God didn't create it.  This makes much more sense that self-existing universe. 
By definition, God never came into being.  There has never been a time when He wasn't, and never a place where He isn't.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 11:53am
Narnian - none of it makes sense to a human mind. That's what we are looking at. A supernatural being always existing outside of time and powerful enough to create universes makes even less sense to me.
Neil Lock Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:00pm
Opher: I like the string theory but I think I'd add a brass section.
And the principal brass player will, of course, be Tubasock. :-)
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:01pm
Neil - I've already put him on bongos!! I thought it suited his personality.
Leroy Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:03pm
"By definition, God never came into being.  There has never been a time when He wasn't, and never a place where He isn't. "
But isn't it just a human construct to explain what we can't explain?  Who defined God?  Man.  Ask my dog about God and he will shrug his shoulders.
Stephen Hunter Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:12pm
Opher, nice mind expanding thinking! 
I think 'a' could happen in a multi-dimensional universe, where universes bubble in and out of what we know as existence.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:12pm
Leroy - I agree. A human construct to explain the unknowable.
Rusty Smith Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:38pm
Opher Goodwin I think you are misunderstanding the big bang theory.  It doesn't presume the universe we see started from nothing, it presumes everything we see was already present and does not speculate on where it came from.
Instead it attempts to explain what we can see and measure.  What we are currently aware of is that everything we can see and measure seems to be moving away from a central point.  They tell us they believe all we see was once in one place and is slowly spreading apart, NOTHING MORE.  
That has been named the "big bang theory", but doesn't speculate about where all that stuff came from, why it was all in one place to begin with, or whether or not there are millions of other masses of matter that exist beyond what we can see and measure.
Narnian Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:38pm
I will agree that the concept of God can be very difficult to wrap your mind around.  I personally believe we won't fully comprehend His nature until we are with Him in Heaven. 
At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that it makes more sense to believe in a Creator than any of the other options presented here.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:53pm
Rusty - I agree. The Big Bang starts with a singularity. I was in fact extrapolating back to before the singularity.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 12:54pm
Narnian - I respect your views on it - I just don't agree with them. My mind looks at the logic of a god appearing out of nowhere to create everything. That doesn't make sense to me.
Leroy Added Dec 29, 2017 - 1:06pm
"At the risk of repeating myself, I believe that it makes more sense to believe in a Creator than any of the other options presented here."
It is the easiest explanation for sure.  We don't have to think about it further.  The earth is 6,000 years old and the heavens revolve around it.  That is all we need to know.
Narnian Added Dec 29, 2017 - 1:48pm
Opher, I really appreciate that you've been very civil, and clearly respect my views even though we disagree.  Likewise, I totally respect your views.  Nice to have a discussion that doesn't turn into an argument. 
Leroy, I must respectfully disagree with you, as well.  You may think my view is simple, and it probably is.  I will apply Occam's Razor to my view of the origin of the universe - "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected." 
Guys, I will be gone for a while.  If I don't get back with y'all, I wish you a Happy (and prosperous) New Year.
Wendy Skorupski Added Dec 29, 2017 - 2:26pm
Well, I guess Hamlet was right when he said "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I like to think that there are some things we will never know the answer to, no matter how much we debate and mentally agonise over the conundrum of the universe. 
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 29, 2017 - 3:23pm
The central principle of Quantum theory is mortal limitation. There are certain things men cannot do, that men cannot know. But, reality is based on the belief that someone does know, or must know.
    There is a Lord or else nothing would be real.  
Narnian Added Dec 29, 2017 - 3:39pm
I appreciate that insight, Barath.  I didn't even know that much about Quantum theory.  Totally agree regarding the Lord.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 29, 2017 - 3:49pm
That's why I say there is nothing better than for Men to be good, since mortals have limitations(God's and Angels don't have the same limitations, they are superior to Men).
Rusty Smith Added Dec 29, 2017 - 3:57pm
opher goodwin one of my degrees is in geology and if you study the earth one revelation is that the forces and processes we see happening today, however slow they are, are what shaped the earth we see today.
We know gravity tends to attract matter, even things that are billions of light years apart do attract each other.  Presuming that is true eventually all matter in any given area, even the size of the universe will slowly get closer and closer until it piles together or reaches a critical mass that prompts some form of an explosion that pushes it apart again.
Perhaps we are part of a massive cycle where the universe we see expands and contracts, and we are currently watching the expansive part happen.  
If that's true it wouldn't necessarily mean everything was at the singularity at the time of the Bang, but what was there would expand from that point.
We still don't fully understand how black holes work, so I'm sure we know even less about what happens when mass volumes tremendously exceed anything we can imagine.
Rusty Smith Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:07pm
Leroy I freely admit I have no idea how a lot of this stuff works, but the creationist theory is the least likely in my humble opinion.  
Any entity that could create something has to come from somewhere, and I don't believe any entity can create matter and energy from nothing.
I think it made as much sense a few thousand years ago as any other theory, but since then our understanding of physics and our ability to observe and explain many of the things we once attributed to a heavenly creator have improved tremendously.    We know the earth is not at the center of the universe, we know why the moon doesn't fall from the sky, and why the sun travels from East to West, and even when the next eclipse will take place.  The list of mysteries we can still attribute to a heavenly creator gets shorter every year.  Just because some of our history is still unexplained doesn't mean it must have been done by a heavenly creator.
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:24pm
"Any entity that could create something has to come from somewhere, and I don't believe any entity can create matter and energy from nothing."
Rusty, not true regarding "the uncaused first cause, GOD," and that is what makes Him GOD.  Can DNA create itself and write its own code?  Can a book write itself?  They need a prime mover....and that is GOD.
The list of mysteries we can still attribute to a heavenly creator gets LONGER every year.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 29, 2017 - 4:29pm
    A scientist by controlling or limiting variables might be able to predict an outcome(in an experiment), but no scientist knows what will happen to a country or the World in 1000 years, but you might be able with much study to predict what someone will do or say about something tomorrow.
     That's not the power of Gods and Angels.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:27pm
Any entity that could create something has to come from somewhere, and I don't believe any entity can create matter and energy from nothing.
Right on. Logic.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:32pm
They need a prime mover....and that is GOD.
So what "created" "god" ? Think. As Rusty said. Nothing comes from nowhere, only if .... there was no beginning as we understand it....means everything was there ever since.
Humans exist since about 2 million years as HOMO. The universe, as we believe, is 13 BILLION years old. Maybe it is much older.......the more technology we have the older it gets....maybe there's no there was no beginning.
"God" is a way out of thinking ... a too easy way out for people in the 21st century.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:40pm
So you believe matter and energy came from nowhere, but a Creator couldn't have always existed.
    You are still left with energy and matter creating life by chance which is improbable.
    Take a combination lock, by guessing numbers how long would it take the guess the right combination? What if you had to guess 20 combination locks?
   It's easier when you have the code or combination.
    In the same sense even the constants in mathematics and n science have not been understood by most thoroughly: People just learn to use them to get an answer.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:59pm
Leroy - I agree with you.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 5:59pm
Narnian - thank you too. Have a great new year.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:01pm
Wendy - I think you are right - but it such is fun and awe inspiring wrestling with the beast of the questions.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:02pm
Barath - I don't follow your logic. You may believe there is a Lord but that doesn't make it so. Reality is reality whether we understand it or not.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:03pm
Barath - well I would agree with on the fact that we should strive to make the world better.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:06pm
Rusty - one of the big theories was that the gravity of the universe would eventually slow its expansion and then begin to pull it back in to reform that singularity. My understanding is that the current theory is that there is not enough mass, enough gravity, to do that job. Seemingly we are destined to expand for ever until entropy has done its job and we are reduced to hydrogen and heat. Long before that the stars will have all gone out.
No last bang - just one long whimper.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:08pm
Rusty - I agree with you - the evidence for a creator dwindled a long time ago.
Dr. Byron A. Ellis Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:09pm
Opher, I did not ignore the question of where God came from. I quoted from Revelations, God is always and eternal; He is "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." 
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:09pm
TEWS - but your idea of god is not an uncaused first cause. God was there and caused it. Where did god come from?
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:10pm
Barath - there are no gods and angels - just people.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:11pm
Barath - in an infinite system the improbable happens an infinite number of times.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:11pm
Stone - Right on!
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:19pm
Most of you are having trouble understanding the concept of an "uncaused first cause."  NOTHING caused the "uncaused first cause"; otherwise, whatever caused THAT cause would be the "uncaused first cause."  There was only ONE "uncaused FIRST cause," and that is GOD.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:23pm
So you believe matter and energy came from nowhere, but a Creator couldn't have always existed.
I didn't say that it came from nowhere. I say maybe it was always there in one form or another. As I said: Just because we humans think of terms like beginning and end that does not mean that the Universe behaves that way.
Earth is but a small dot. There's millions of galaxies with billions of stars and trillions of planets. A "creator" is, seen the Universe as a whole, a stupid idea. And even more so that this "creator" is in some sort aware of us. We're no kids. We don't need the bogeyman to make us behave LOL
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:28pm
BTW: Again: What created that creator in your view ? And what created the creator of the creator etc...? So your creator has to have existed as long as the Universe beginning again. And again: IF your creator has created the Universe, what has created him/her/it and what existed BEFORE the creator was created and created the Universe ?
You see, that one does not work.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:30pm
TEWS - I'm certainly having trouble understanding how god can be an uncaused first cause.
God by definition is highly complex. The universe started as highly simply and became complex.
If one was to spontaneously form my money is on the more simple one.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:31pm
The Universe isn't infinite. It has a beginning and an ending. It had a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago, what was before it infinite time or other Universes?But, was Time before there was a Universe?
     One might reason the Lord was Spirit and Spirit is energy and so energy always existed, but that energy had intelligence.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:37pm
There was no time before the Universe. Time is relative to where you are. We think at the moment that the Universe is 13 or so billion years old. In 50 years we might have a technology that finds out that it's 30 billion years old. Who tells you that it has a beginning and an end ? Human scientists.
We can only grasp as much as our senses allow. Can you see infrared or hear radio waves without a radio ? No.
Again: The Universe can NOT be understood using human understanding (beginning-end). That's why we created "god". And maybe it's ok like that. At least when we get clever enough to stop saying "my god is better than yours."
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:42pm
God by definition is highly complex.
No. John Lennon said it very accurately:
God is a concept by which we measure our pain.
God is at the same time hope and a blocking for intellectual development.
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:44pm
Stone - I agree. God is, in my view, manufactured by people.
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:54pm
opher, The universe started as highly simply and became complex.
Not true.  God describes how he created it in all its complexity in Genesis.  He even created man fully formed as an adult human and all the stars and planets in the universe as well as everything on Earth in a short period of time.  The concept of an "uncaused first cause" must be understood before any of the rest of creation can be understood.  God created EVERYTHING:  Time, Space, Matter, Laws, Energy,....even Nature.  God is OUTSIDE of Nature, so trying to put Him inside Nature is a futile task.  Our tiny minds cannot COMPREHEND God, but we can APPREHEND the concept.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 6:58pm
God is, in my view, manufactured by people.
Sure is. Who else ? The concept of a god originates probably from Homo Erectus who looked up to the sky and asked himself: Who made all that ? It's understandable. And we haven't progressed much since then, so it seems LOL
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:00pm
He even created man fully formed as an adult human and all the stars and planets in the universe as well as everything on Earth in a short period of time. 
opher goodwin Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:00pm
TEWS - but I don't believe a word of an archaic document outlining a primitive creation myth. How can you cite that as truth? We've long proved that it has no real content. We can accurate ascertain the age of the Earth and Universe far better than a nomadic tribe back at the dawn of man. The science tells a far more accurate picture.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:01pm
I think I leave that discussion, since I can't contribute more to it.
Dr. Byron A. Ellis Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:09pm
Opher, all will sooner than later find out who God is, as well as God's judgement. May each of us choose the right path.
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:17pm
The following is long, and you may not want to read it. Copy it if you want to learn the truth and read it at your leisure.
Have you ever wondered if the Bibles we have today are based on reliable texts, or if perhaps the original writings (called "autographs") were changed over the years? Are they forever lost? These questions get raised quite often and are important to think about. Here's some information for you to consider that might help address that issue.
Manuscript evidence of Biblical texts compared to other accepted ancient texts:
For starters, let's look at a few other ancient texts for comparison.
Plato Died: 347 B.C.
Earliest known copy: A.D. 900
Span from originals to oldest copies: 1200 years
Number of known copies: 7
Differences between copies: Not enough copies for reliable comparison
Fully accepted as genuine and taught in schools
Aristotle Died: 322 B.C.
Earliest known copy: A.D. 1100
Span from originals to oldest copies: 1400 years
Number of known copies: 49
Differences between copies: Not enough copies for reliable comparison
Fully accepted as genuine and taught in schools
Julius Caesar Died: 44 B.C.
Earliest known copy: A.D. 900
Span from originals to oldest copies: 1000 years
Number of known copies: 10
Differences between copies: Not enough copies for reliable comparison
Fully accepted as genuine and taught in schools
Homer Died: 900 B.C.
Earliest known copy: 400 B.C.
Span from originals to oldest copies: 500 years
Number of known copies: 643
Differences between copies: 95% the same
Fully accepted as genuine and taught in schools
Now, at this point, you might think that it doesn't take much to accept an ancient text as accurate and genuine. That really is not the case. However, there is definite bias and debate when it comes to Biblical texts. And no other group of texts have had more scrutiny than those of the Bible. But is there enough evidence to show whether we have accurate copies of the original Biblical texts today? Let's take a look at just the New Testament.
New Testament Finished: before A.D. 100
Earliest known copy: A.D. 130
Span from originals to oldest copies: less than 100 years and possibly less than 40 years (Apostle John believed to have died in early A.D. 90s)
Number of known copies: 5686
Differences between copies: 99.5% the same for over 2000 years, differences being name spellings and similar or explanatory sentences added by a scribe, some additional details or removal of details about an event, but nothing conflicting.
Fully accepted as genuine by vast majority of scholars worldwide, only challenged by small number of atheists and reputed groups like The Jesus Seminar, Bart Ehrmann, etc.
There is much support for the accuracy of both Old and New Testament documents. Jewish scribes who were copyists were called "counters" because they would count the words on each line of a manuscript to make sure they were the same between the original and their copies. You can actually see their numbers written at the end of each line on the manuscripts. Any mismatched copies were immediately destroyed and the entire copy started again.
We can also tell when more than one scribe and even how many scribes worked on a manuscript. Styles of writing, types of bookbinding, types of paper, etc. are all considered. Every copy is studied and cataloged so we even know exactly which documents contain which words, etc. We also know which documents were mentioned and supported or unsupported by early church fathers.
Discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls also support how accurately the Biblical texts have been passed down over the centuries and millennia. Further discoveries may provide even greater proof, such as the tiny Silver Scrolls found by Dr. Gabi Barkay in 1979. There are still thousands of unexamined documents, scrolls, and books tucked away inside libraries of ancient monasteries, churches, etc. that may one day shed even more light. Perhaps even the original writings themselves are somewhere among them.
We can confidently say that the texts of the Bible have been accurately preserved for us today, and we can trust our Bibles to contain the true Word of God. Differences in translations often depend on which manuscripts they're based on along with the method of translation and purpose that was used.
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:26pm
It takes only one counterexample to disprove the theory of an Old Earth. Most of the "evidence" for an Old Earth is based on claims that lack falsifiability, such as radiometric dating, which is simply CALCULATIONS based on the assumed constant decay rate of radioactive isotopes, and hence would not even satisfy minimum requirements for admissibility in a court of law.
If each of the following 101 counterexamples to an Old Earth were to have merely a 10% chance of being valid, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is less than one fourth of 1%. In other words, the Earth must be young with a likelihood of 99.8%.
Age of the Earth
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:35pm
As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.
Holy fucking shit. Am I back in the middle ages ?
Sorry for coming back, but this is hilarious. Probably comes from a mental ward LOL
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:45pm
Am I back in the middle ages ?...well, Europe is about to be returned to the 7th century by the Muslim invasion,, you are in the 21st century, where SCIENCE is destroying the 19th Century Darwinian science fiction.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 29, 2017 - 7:57pm
No problem. BTW this is not about Muslims here.
Bill H. Added Dec 29, 2017 - 8:06pm
My thought is that we are part of some alien kids science fair project. This probably includes our solar system and the entire universe. The entire solar system as we know it could be contained within a small beaker in the classroom on a table, along with multiple other attempts at a universe.
The entire process from start to finish could be occurring within a period of days or months for these beings.
Maybe this does in a way relate to a "God".
Similar to when I was a kid and spent hours watching my Ant Farm. 
TEWS Pilot Added Dec 29, 2017 - 8:14pm
Stone-Eater Friedli,  No problem. BTW this is not about Muslims here....just bashing Christianity....but at any rate, I wasn't making it about Muslims, I was simply answering your question.
Tubularsock Added Dec 29, 2017 - 8:21pm
TWS Pilot says, "We can confidently say that the texts of the Bible have been accurately preserved for us today, and we can trust our Bibles to contain the true Word of God."
Now that is faith for ya'!
Tubularsock can CONFIDENTLY SAY that mankind has pretty much NOT had the ability to even copy most shit over the years correctly. And because "God" was illiterate "God" couldn't even write it down.
So if "God" couldn't write and he left it to mankind with "free will" to write all this historical shit down and on top of that then allowed these bozos to say, "Hey God told me" well, "god" is one dumb dude!
Tubularsock is going to stick with the Sun God. So far he's comes up every morning!
Mike Haluska Added Dec 29, 2017 - 10:38pm
I always find it amusing that some people find it perfectly plausible that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created in a billionth of a second by the Big Bang, but find it completely implausible that the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
Nobody alive today was a witness to either the birth of the universe or the Earth, so nobody "knows" anything for certain.  Supporters of the Theory of Evolution reveled in their "certainty" when the fossilized remains of the so-called "Mitochondrial Eve" (oldest common human female ancestor) was discovered and Carbon dated to be 250,000 years old. 
Since the discovery, we have enhanced DNA technology that is able to precisely count the number of generations between modern humans and "Mitochondrial Eve".  Guess what they found?  Based on the precise number of generations, the remains are approximately 5,000 years old - NOT 250,000 years!!!  The ONLY WAY that the carbon dating could be accurate is if our ancestors had 10,000 year lifespans!!!
One thing is certain and agreed upon by all.  There is a huge, unexplainable difference in intelligence between humans and EVERY OTHER SPECIES THAT EVER LIVED that occurred suddenly about 5,000 years ago.  There is NO EVOLUTIONARY EXPLANATION for this fact - all other species evolve slowly and in small increments over millions of years and NONE have come close to level of humans.  
No known natural force or set of circumstances could have resulted in the sudden appearance of modern man about 5,000 years ago.  Something (or "someone") intervened for some unknown reason and here we all are, pondering questions about our existence that dolphins and chimpanzees can't begin to comprehend.
If someone out there has an alternate explanation I am all ears.
Bill H. Added Dec 30, 2017 - 12:08am
Then Mike, why/how did we end up being the most destructive species ever to evolve on the Earth?
I believe we are simply another accident of evolution, as were the dinosaurs.
Rusty Smith Added Dec 30, 2017 - 1:19am
opher goodwin  if the known universe is expanding it's gravity is still and always will have a slowing down effect on all the matter in it, trying to pull it towards the center of it's mass.  I know the attraction between masses at great distances is relatively minute, but it still exists and unless there is an opposing gravitational force from another direction will slowly decelerate objects moving away and then start to pull them back towards the center.
No one knows why they may eventually push themselves back out, in another cycle, but I suspect when you get enough mass together the sheer pressure does things to matter that we still don't understand, and causes parts of them to explode, starting the cycle again.
I can't think of a reason why the cycle has to be any more complicated than that and none of this needs God any more than a book needs God to explain why it falls on the floor if I push it off the edge of the desk.
If people want to believe God made all that happen, it's OK with me, but plain old physics explains why I think it happens very well.
Flying Junior Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:44am
I thought about this question as a boy of six to seven years.  I had the deep imagination required.  I thought the matter through completely without reaching any conclusions.
Before there were matter or sentient beings, what exactly did the nothingness of space consist of?  Without matter, planets or stars, what could even delineate a single point in space?
I also used to picture and sense myself as a great, cosmic being walking with giant steps upon enormous piano keys, as magnificent as the rings of Saturn, which would rise up to meet my footfall and then fall away beneath my path as I walked through solar systems and worlds.  I was something like two hundred to five hundred feet tall.  Yet it might have been ten thousand miles.  The rising keys supported my stride with a sensation as that of gravity.  Then they fell away beneath my feet as my strides were completed.  I didn't think that space might be very cold.
I would love to experience that dream once again.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:18am
Doc - we won't necessarily find out. We will just cease to exist
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:25am
TEWS - I have no problem with the fact that the bibles were copied well - though there are plenty of interpretations in the translation.
Both bibles have some interesting and even beautiful writing. They are authentic old documents produced by Arab tribes in the Middle East and represent the cultural baggage and current thinking of those people. It is when people start claiming that they are the word of some supernatural force that I have a problem. I don't believe that at all.
To me it is trying to base your life on the legend of Gilgamesh.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:27am
TEWS - you kid yourself. I treat comments like that with disdain. We know the age of the Earth and the Universe. The biblical interpretation is rubbish.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:32am
TEWS - the Muslims make up 4.4% of the British population. It's hardly being swamped by hordes.
Me thinks you are taken in by propaganda. Religious fanaticism has permeated the USA and distorted minds. You'll be telling me next that the Earth is flat and the sun circles round it, that the stars are pinpricks in the heavens that allow in the light from heaven.
I don't know about the States, after all they have bizarre attitudes to evolution - what with the Monkey Trials, but in a British court if you tried to suggest that carbon dating was rubbish you'd be laughed out. We believe in science here.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:34am
Bill - what will happen to us when their summer break comes around?
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:43am
Mike - evolution does not work that way. Mutations are random. Change can be fast.
Your knowledge on human evolution is lacking. The oldest evidence of Homo sapiens is 200,000 years ago. DNA evidence backs that up. We are very recent.
All this creationist bollocks about the earth being recent with god planting fossils in the layers to fool us.
I find it risible.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:46am
Rusty - I think there has been much debate about whether there is enough matter in the universe to exert enough gravitational pull to start slowing the expansion. The current consensus is that we are well short and there is insufficient gravity to slow us and pull us back. But I reckon there is still much to be discovered.
Time will tell.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:50am
Flying Junior - those days of our childhood, with their flights of fancy, realisations, dreams and wonders are so precious. Imagination is so acute when we are young.
That was a great flight of fancy to have had. I had one when I was about ten, laying on my back in a field looking up at the blue sky and realising it went on forever. My mind reeled and I felt as if I was falling up into it at great speed. Such a sensation.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 30, 2017 - 5:00am
Good replies. My fantasy stay with Disney.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 30, 2017 - 5:00am
May not my. Sorry. Pardon :)
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 7:04am
Stone - too true.
Stephen Hunter Added Dec 30, 2017 - 8:42am
Opher while I do agree with your comments on evolution and how genetic mutations, can speed up the process, I am becoming more skeptical that the human/logical brain came about as natural evolution. There is mounting evidence that even considering mutations, there is no way we could have made the leap to the human logical brain, as quickly as our species did, based on the evolutionary timelines. 
And we are left with a brain that reacts to subconscious impulses from our older emotional brain, that our logical brain is not aware of. (causing us to be out of balance and walk around in perpetual fear)
Dr. Byron A. Ellis Added Dec 30, 2017 - 8:44am
Opher, i will stop right here, since you have position yourself as the "all Knowing, god." Keep in mind "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God..." and more importantly Psalm 14:1. May the New Year increase your understanding of the wisdom and eternity of our Creator.  
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 9:48am
     There really is a Lord and his Angels. It's alright if you don't believe: the Lord isn't a dictator.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:15am
Remodel Amygdala and good is :-)
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:19am
Forget it. It is NOT possible to discuss with believers on a rational level. But that's ok, as long as they don't become fanatical terrorists in the name of their religion. Happy New Year :-)
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:38am
Stephen - the human mind and consciousness are as mysterious phenomena as the universe is. Many animals exhibit high levels of intelligence. We are not unique. The Neanderthals had larger brains than us. I would love to have had a conversation with one of them. I think we will know more in a few decades time. Anything beyond our understanding seems magical until we begin to understand it.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:40am
Doc - I have never suggested that I know everything. I merely state that the archaic religious books are not what the religious claim they are. They are works of men with limited science and technology.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:40am
Barath - there really isn't.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:41am
Stone - it is always interesting to discuss and debate.
Happy New Year to you too!
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:44am
Anything beyond our understanding seems magical until we begin to understand it.
Yep. And that's why "god" was invented. Thanks - I'll get drunk and fall from the chair LOL
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 10:47am
Stone - exactly why.
Katharine Otto Added Dec 30, 2017 - 12:04pm
Awhile back, I recommended The Tao of Physics to you.  It's by an astrophysicist, Fritjof Capra, and was published in 1975.  It compares atomic physics and relatively theory to Eastern mysticism, the idea that all is consciousness, and there is no time.
I'm paraphrasing, and giving it my own interpretation, but in a counter-intuitive point of view, there is no time.  Time and space are illusions, but all we really have is the present moment.  In other words, the Big Bang is always going on, in the present, in the "spacious present."  
Anyway, have you read the book?  It might give a new perspective on your dilemma.  It's way over my head in some places, especially toward the end, but it's a mind-blower.  My own studies of Oriental medicine, especially acupuncture, lead me to think of "life force," or qi, which science presumes to separate itself from.  Qi is energy, the difference between living and dead, even though death of one form doesn't mean death of all.  Qi goes on, transformed.  
I have always been fascinated with concepts of space and time.  My novel deals extensively with that.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 12:22pm
The question about time was rhetorical.
Something can be understood in material way, but there can also be a metaphorical or a Spiritual explanation. Though they may be different ways of understanding something, the Spirit goes on to infinite depths, but the Lord only appears to those who have faith.
    Nature keeps her secrets.
In the olden days a fowler  would throw out seed and when the birds came for them he captured them in the fowler's net.
Nature learned not to trust humans. She only reveals herself to those she trusts.
Rusty Smith Added Dec 30, 2017 - 12:30pm
opher goodwin all the matter will go somewhere and eventually be attracted to other matter, that's basic physics. However weak the pull is from a distant object it still diminishes the speed an object can move away over time, and given enough time would bring even the most distant objects that are speeding away, to a halt, and then slowly start to bring them back just like a giant pendulum, if their were only two objects in the universe.
The next bang might not be from the same singularity but it will happen somewhere.  If what we see is continuing to accelerate away from our singularity it means it has a stronger pull from other more distant matter than it does to the matter in the center mass of our universe.
The word universe has always implied it includes everything but given what we know I think we need to consider coining another term that only includes the matter we can see and sense.  Obviously there is other matter outside that realm that is exerting it's own influence on the matter we can see and measure.  
Matter does not accelerate by itself, it needs energy from other sources, gravity, or pushing or pushing or pulling by another force.  If the force causing what we see to accelerate away there must be a force causing it and I only know three.  One is gravity and the another the force from impacting light, and the third force from other objects that impact those objects.  There is a fourth, if there are uneven forceful ejections of matter or energy from the object, but that would not apply to rocks and other solid matter floating in space.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 12:48pm
     But gravity doesn't affect light, unless it close to a black hole. Light and energy came before matter. Scientists haven't been able to produce matter from light, they they produced energy from matter by atomic fission.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 12:52pm
    A graviton is a wave. As the distance increases between objects its effect decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distances between objects. At a very great distance it might have very little effect on another object.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 30, 2017 - 1:35pm
Time and space are illusions, but all we really have is the present moment
The present does not exist - it would be a nanosecond between the past and the future. And time DOES exist, at least here on earth we have a defined time frame. If there would be no time and space, how could we grow up and age ?
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 2:07pm
The future pre-exists like the existence of a tree is in its seed.
   The way a chess player can see the board 5 moves ahead, Gods and Angels can see 1000 or 2000 years ahead.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 30, 2017 - 2:12pm
Bill H - your accusation:
"Then Mike, why/how did we end up being the most destructive species ever to evolve on the Earth?"
makes me wonder why you even want to get out of bed in the morning.  Isn't there some "mutual genocide society" you can join to commiserate the "crime" of belonging to the human race???
Mike Haluska Added Dec 30, 2017 - 2:21pm
opher - other than your typical response of "because I say so", please provide some objective backup to your claims:
"evolution does not work that way. Mutations are random. Change can be fast."
Name another species ANYTIME IN HISTORY that comes close to the jump humans made in the last 2,000 years despite NO DRAMATIC BIOLOGICAL CHANGES to our physiology.  Other than being taller due to nutrition, we are virtually identical to our 2,000 year old ancestors.  And by the way, you're mixing two different theories (like most people who don't know what they're talking about) when you claim evolution and Natural Selection (mutation) are the same thing.

"Your knowledge on human evolution is lacking. The oldest evidence of Homo sapiens is 200,000 years ago. DNA evidence backs that up. We are very recent."
Do you even bother to read what I wrote?  The 200,000 years is a CARBON DATING ESTIMATE.  The DNA strand of 
Mike Haluska Added Dec 30, 2017 - 2:25pm
(cont) EVERY LIVING CREATURE has links back to the beginning of creation.  The numerical difference between the number of "links" between "Mitochondrial Eve" and modern humans is the number of generations between us and our most recent COMMON ANCESTOR. 
Go look up mitochondria before you respond so you have a chance of responding intelligently.  
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:30pm
Katharine - unfortunately I have no got around to reading that. It sounds fascinating - just my kind of thing.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:31pm
Barath - so the Lord speaks to you does it?
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:36pm
Rusty - They will only be attracted together if they are not moving apart too fast. If their momentum is too great gravity cannot pull them back. The matter in the universe is very sparsely packed (even with Dark Matter taken into account) and moving apart at great speed.
It is a question of mass. If there is sufficient mass it generates enough gravity to overcome the momentum of the bodies moving apart. Scientists believe we are well short of that critical mass. They think gravity will not be great enough to overcome the outward movement. It looks as if the universe will continue to expand and not return to a singularity.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:41pm
Rusty - all the bodies in the universe are moving apart at great speed generated by the Big Bang and inflation. That has been going on for 13.5 Billion years. It is not slowing. Our galaxy is moving at 1.3 million miles per hour.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:41pm
     You're not serious are you?
I read and study and the lord speaks to me through my Spiritual understanding of scripture, and music, literature and history.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:42pm
Barath - gravity bends light.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:43pm
Barath is right about distance reducing gravity effects.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:46pm
     If the Universe itself is turning about its center, how would you know? Because light emitted from a distant star is displaced when it reaches us. The Universe moves, but light emitted from a star hundreds or thousands of years ago doesn't change its path.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:50pm
Ooh, the wheel in the sky keeps on turnin' I don't know where I'll be tomorrow Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'
Wheel in the Sky by Journey
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 3:57pm
     Saying that matter always existed is like the steady state hypothesis. It's been disproven. It has a beginning.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:00pm
    When people read and study scripture they make logical inferences. Inference based on fact is the basis of scientific theory.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:00pm
Mike - having taught biochemistry and genetics up to research level for thirty six years I think I have a pretty good understanding thanks.
Evolution is brought about through mutations that are naturally (or artificially) selected. This is a random process. It is not necessarily slow.
My own research indicates quite clearly that it moves in jumps. What happens normally is that selection weeds out the varieties less well adapted. In a time of relaxation of selection these mutations survive and we get greater and greater variation. When selection pressure returns it may well select varieties that are greatly different to the original species.
If there is a period of high mutation rate then evolution will tend to move slowly.
There have been numerous huge jumps. If you want an example the evolution of baleen whales is a good example. But you can follow this with most groups. Following the last mass extinction that put pay to the dinosaurs along with around 90% of other species there were enormous jumps in mammal diversity to fill the various niches. The Galapagos finches changed rapidly to fill niches. The dinosaurs themselves had rapid jumps in diversity.
In terms of mitochondrial Eve (I will draw you a mitochondrion if you like and explain the functions of the stroma and lamellae in great detail with full biochemistry) I do not know where you get your info from - probably one of the fake creationist sites. Here's something to help you:
Mitochondrial Eve lived later than Homo heidelbergensis and the emergence of Homo neanderthalensis, but earlier than the out of Africa migration,[2] but her age is not known with certainty; a 2009 estimate cites an age between c. 152 and 234 thousand years ago (95% CI);[3] a 2013 study cites a range of 99–148 thousand years ago.
Completely in line with other estimates of Homo sapiens evolution.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:14pm
Gravity will eventually disintegrate the planet over time.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:19pm
Barath - entropy will gradually disintegrate everything. Ho hum.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:21pm
   I should say people make logical inferences from collected data, or based on proven scientific laws.
    A star that emitted light to us within our lifetime or that would reach us from a known position in less than 20 years would be preferable.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:22pm
Barath - astrophysicists work out the rate of expansion and movement relative to energy.
Light is bent and shifted!
Yes I have already stated that the current view is that the steady state is not correct. The Big Bang is real. Much realer than god.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:22pm
Barath - when people read scripture they become deluded.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 4:41pm
    People say because they've never seen evidence.
opher goodwin Added Dec 30, 2017 - 6:50pm
Barath - that's right. There is no evidence. That's the whole point. People just delude themselves on wishful thinking. Meanwhile the universe goes on expanding.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 7:09pm
     There is evidence but you can't see it. If your car had no brakes and you were going over a cliff and you couldn't get out safely. What would you do?
       If you were trapped in a falling elevator what would you do?
     If you were incarcerated in a Gulag by the government without the right to habeas corpus what would you do?
Leroy Added Dec 30, 2017 - 7:09pm
I'm ok with people believing God did it.  When it is taken on fate, it is the end of discussion.  There is no use discussing that line of thinking anymore.  We know how the story ends.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 30, 2017 - 7:25pm
    Most people would say, " I'd pray".
And The Lord who is Merciful and good would reveal himself to you, and try to help you.
A. Jones Added Dec 31, 2017 - 4:05am
that's right. There is no evidence.
Sort of like the hypothesis of Darwinian evolution by means of random mutation and natural selection. No evidence.
A. Jones Added Dec 31, 2017 - 4:14am
when people read scripture they become deluded.
When people believe Darwinian evolution, they not only become deluded, they might very well become ill . . . just as Darwin himself did.
After his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle and the publication in 1859 of "The Origin of Species", Darwin became chronically ill. Some doctors believed then — as some do now — that it was psychosomatic, caused by promoting a story of origins to the world that he tacitly believed was false. 
See, "To Be An Invalid" by Ralph Colp, Jr.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 6:33am
Barath - I'd die.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 6:37am
A.Jones - utter bollocks as usual. There's a whole heap of evidence for evolution of course - unless you're a blind creationist.
Darwin suffered from a hysterically pious wife. He sat on his theories for ages for fear of upsetting her and causing the turmoil that he knew would be the outcome. That is the trouble with fundamentalism and extreme religious cultures.
Don't you know anything?
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 31, 2017 - 8:58am
Pray for knowledge.
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 31, 2017 - 9:08am
     You wouldn't give prayer a chance first? That seems to be a bit obdurate.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 9:18am
Barath - I'll give peace a chance. How's that?
Happy New Year!!
Barath Nagarajan Added Dec 31, 2017 - 9:22am
     I'll try to Imagine a better world.
Happy New Year.
Mike Haluska Added Dec 31, 2017 - 9:45am
opher -your statement:
"There have been numerous huge jumps. If you want an example the evolution of baleen whales is a good example."
is interesting. 
Baleen whales have made an equivalent "evolutionary jump" as humans???  Did you have any "Baleen whale undergraduate students" in your classes?  Who was the first "Baleen whale to walk on the Moon"?  Perhaps you think the ability to swim through a hoop to get a treat is the equivalent of neuroscience . . . most rational people don't.  But hey!  You're the Biology Teacher not me!   
And you wonder why most people think our public education systems are going down the toilet???
And you haven't answered my question about the relative believability between the "Big Bang" and the age of Earth.  Tell us why it is more plausible that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE was created in an instant, with matter travelling billions of light years in microseconds violating every law of physics . . .  BUT the Earth being a few thousand years old is totally unbelievable.
A. Jones Added Dec 31, 2017 - 10:57am
There's a whole heap of evidence for evolution of course
For example?
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 11:11am
Mike - did you not understand the sentence? The evolution of baleen whales from toothed whales was a leap at least as large as the development of the human brain from that of a chimp-like animal.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 11:16am
A.Jones - You really expect me to go through the whole gamut of evidence for evolution?
Try starting with Darwin's own investigations of the evolution of finches on the Galapagos. Then check out the fossil record and trace through the evolution of the pentadactyl limb. Then check out the way selection works on speckled moths. Then start looking at the DNA evidence and the evolution of man. Check out the evolution of the mammalian eye. Then have a look at population genetics.
When you've absorbed that you will be in a position to appreciate the sheer bollocks that creationists spout.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 11:16am
Barath - thank you.
A. Jones Added Dec 31, 2017 - 11:49am
if you want an example the evolution of baleen whales is a good example."
Wrong. And that fantasy has been debunked. It's well known how long a single random mutation — assuming it's beneficial (very rare) and not injurious (very common) — takes to appear. It's also known how many of these rare, beneficial, random mutations, would be necessary to turn Mesonychid (55 years ago, the putative land-roving animal) into Ambulocetus (the putative next evolutionary step away from Mesonychid leading toward the modern whale; an animal that supposedly could both walk on land and swim in the water). The timeline between those two forms is estimated at 5 million years. The question then becomes quantitative: how many mutations (gene replacements by random mechanisms such as DNA copying errors) would be necessary to change the first species into the second species given the approximate 10-year reproductive cycle of whales; and how long would it take for all of those beneficial mutations to appear?
Population genetics establishes that about 1,700 mutations could occur in a period of 5 million years given a 10-year reproductive cycle. You not only need to generate the new genetic information, but you also have to wait until the older species dies out (presumably because of a "fitness" disadvantage compared to the newer species). It has been calculated that about 50,000 beneficial mutations would be necessary change a land-roving mammal like Pakicetus into an aquatic mammal like Durodon. Since only 1,700 mutations can occur in 5 million years, only 17,000 mutations can occur in 50 million years — far too short a time for the necessary 50,000 mutations to have occurred. In order for the necessary 50,000 mutations to have occurred, a timeline of about 150 million years would have been needed; yet the time gap between the earliest and latest fossils is only 50 million years.
So the problem is quantitive: you have too little time between first and last fossils to plausibly generate too many beneficial mutations. So the mathematics doesn't work for you.
The quantitative  problem is in addition to the qualitative ones reluctantly admitted to by paleontologists themselves: flippers on ambulocetus were never found as fossils but simply imagined as having been there; the blowhole was never found on the skull fossil but simply imagined as having been there; the ear-bone (tympanum) originally reported to be "like that of a whale" turns out not to be anything like a whale's ear-bone; etc.
Many decades ago, the Museum of Natural History in New York City displayed a famous series of fossils supposedly showing the evolutionary progression of "Equus", the modern horse, starting from a small animal called "Eohippus." Upon further study, it turned out that all of these animal fossils belonged to different genera and were entirely unrelated to one another as species . . . the display was eventually removed and now sits in the museum's basement somewhere. I expect the same to happen very soon with the putative progression of whale fossils.
The scientific truth is this: we don't have a clue as to where the modern whale came from. To use imagined flippers and blowholes as evidence of Darwinian evolution is fantasy at best, and scientific fraud at worst.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:08pm
A.Jones - No - I'm not talking about the change from land animals to marine whale-like creatures. I am talking about the jump from tooth to baleen.
Which creationist crap do you feed off?
A. Jones Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:09pm
Darwin's own investigations of the evolution of finches on the Galapagos.
The finches prove nothing about evolution from random mutation and natural selection. It has been long known that the long-beaked finches already existed within the larger population of short-beaked finches; they didn't "evolve" via mutation and selection. They were already there. How did they get there? No one knows and Darwin certainly didn't provide an explanation.
During a drought, the shells of seeds become very hard, and thus less accessible to the short-beaked finches, while the stronger long-beaked finches could crack the shells more easily. Thus, "drought + long-beaks" = competitive/reproductive advantage over "drought + short-beaked" finches  . . . but it didn't explain where long-beaked finches came from in the first place. Additionally, when the drought ended and the rains returned, the long-beaked finches did not take over the population of finches; instead, they receded back to their minority status within the general population of finches, whose majority were again the short-beaked variety.
Rather than allowing your dogmatic materialist atheism determine which hypotheses you want to accept as true, why not suspend your ideological biases and do some objective research in this area. You might learn something.
So much for Darwin's finches.
The speckled moth research by Kettlewell has been thoroughly debunked in scientific journals, an excellent popularization being provided by Judith Hooper in her "Of Moths and Men." The original research was incredibly sloppy and biased toward a conclusion that Kettlewell and his mentor at Oxford very much desired. When it was later revealed by American entomologists that:
(1) the moths under scrutiny never alighted on tree trunks at all but always upside-down on tree branches, making it clear that the photos Kettlewell took of moths on tree trunks were staged: in fact, the moths were already dead and Kettlewell glued them there;
(2) the dark-variety of moth (like the long-beaked finches described by Darwin) did not "evolve" from the albino moths but were already members of the overall moth population; and
(3) there was, in fact, no evidence that the dark variety fared any better in sooty environments than the white variety for one salient reason utterly overlooked by Kettlewell: the animals preying on the moths were birds, and birds do not see the world in the same way as humans do: they see mainly in the shorter wavelengths, including ultra-violet. So whether a moth were white or black would make no difference to a bird: both varieties under ultra-violet appear about the same — the dark variety is not "hidden" by the dark soot on tree trunks — making each one potential food. Thus industrial pollution did not cause birds to "favor" the light moths over the dark ones. In fact, the populations remained about the same, the reported difference between the two being a matter of sloppy and biased research by Kettlewell.
Kettlewell, by the way, later committed suicide.
So much for industrial melanism and the case of the peppered moth.
Katharine Otto Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:09pm
You sure started something here.  
My theory is that time and space are agreements that humanity has reached as a species.  You will note that animals have a totally different concept of time and space.  For one thing they habitually live their lives faster or slower than humans.  Think of a mosquito.
Anyway, if we're all living in the immortal now, the physical body is m method of measuring time and space.  When we shed it, we are free of the time-space contract and can move to other dimensions of consciousness.  In this context, "beginning" and "ending
 lose their relevance, because everything is happening in the "spacious" present.  There is way more than one reality.  Everyone who has a consciousness has a reality, and they are all valid.
My philosophy in a nutshell.
A. Jones Added Dec 31, 2017 - 12:11pm
When you've absorbed that you will be in a position to appreciate the sheer bollocks that creationists spout.
The choice is not between materialist evolution on the one hand and supernatural creation on the other. Logic tells us they might both be false.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 31, 2017 - 1:38pm
My theory is that time and space are agreements that humanity has reached as a species.  You will note that animals have a totally different concept of time and space
Time and space for us are tied to our planet and its physical conditions which most probably are different everywhere in the Universe. But animals have, in my view, no idea about this because they lack the intellect to even think about it. They might use nature as guidance of any sort, but they're not conscient of why they do what they do. It's simple biology, be produced and reproduce. Except maybe higher animals like dolphins, apes or elephants which are proven to recognize themselves in a mirror.
The big rest from dogs to cats to chickens have no idea. They might have emotions, but the reason for their emotions might simply be the attendance of food.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 3:37pm
Katharine - I like that. Thanks for putting that out there. Reality huh? Who'd have it?
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 3:38pm
A.Jones - Yeah right. You believe what you like. A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 3:40pm
Katharine - I'm not sure animals have a different understanding of time and space. My dog used to know what time I got home and would slope off to the gate to wait for me every day at the same time. I couldn't do that anywhere near as accurately without a watch.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 3:41pm
Stone - I think many animals have more about them than you think.
Stone-Eater Friedli Added Dec 31, 2017 - 4:02pm
IF they had they'd already started to fight us LOL
Rusty Smith Added Dec 31, 2017 - 5:33pm
Barath Nagarajan  you are getting out of my area of expertise but light does get bent by massive objects.  
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 5:34pm
Stone - I think they tried and lost.
Rusty Smith Added Dec 31, 2017 - 5:47pm
opher goodwin The speed objects are moving apart has nothing to do with whether or not they will eventually succumb to the effect of gravity on each other and one day crash into each other.  That will always happen unless those bodies become more attracted to another object.
If I shoot a rocket up it will always fall back to earth unless I send it far enough to be just as attracted to other mass as it is to the mass of the earth.  
Acceleration requires work, (force over time).  If the universe we see is accelerating that must be because it's being pushed apart or pulled by something further away.
In the absence of air, very tiny forces over very long periods of time have the ability to move objects at greater and greater speeds.  Just plane ol light shining on an object pushes it a little.  Do that for billions of years and I would not be surprised if most matter in our universe started expanding away from all radiation emitting objects just like magnets with the same charge.
Steve Bergeron Added Dec 31, 2017 - 5:56pm
Choices a. and b. are not mutually exclusive.  God could very well have created the universe via what we might call a "big bang."  And, the notion of a big bang creating the universe speaks of having a big banger to create the big bang.  That would be God.
I think that those who shun the existence of God do so more from a psychological standpoint, than anything else.  They usually live their lives, from what I have observed, through the primacy of the autonomous will vs. in the broader context of truth.  "My will, my desires, my goals, my plans, etc."  They don't want anyone, including God, telling them how to live their lives.  It's actually childish, if you think about it.  "Ain't nobody gonna tell ME what to do!"  LOL
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 7:13pm
Rusty - I think the consensus is that the speed they are moving apart is greater than the force required to pull them back together.
opher goodwin Added Dec 31, 2017 - 7:16pm
Steve - well that's a theory. It's a bit different to the story told isn't it?
My atheism doesn't stem from any "Ain't nobody gonna tell ME what to do!". It is more that I see the major flaws in all the religions. They are manifestly manmade. I think the concept of god is also human and implausible. Plus I see no evidence for god. That's all.
Happy New Year to you Steve!
Steve Bergeron Added Dec 31, 2017 - 8:02pm
Hey, Opher!  Happy New Year to you, too!  Comparing religions isn't very helpful, because they vary so widely.  Generally speaking, religion is man's way of seeking God.  We are all built with a desire for the highest good, which is God, and seek Him in whatever primitive, inefficient, in sufficient way we can.  We humans are not perfect, and, therefore, are not capable of creating a perfect system.  That being said, it's not the perfection of religion that proves or disproves God.  Believing in God requires faith, but that faith must be based on truth, not credulity.  Once reason has done all it can, then faith enters in.  To limit oneself to only that which one can prove within our physical universe confines one to the narrow confines of one's own little world.  That's sad and pointless, in my opinion.  We humans have to realize that there is something/someone greater than we are.  We are not the be-all and end-all of existence.
opher goodwin Added Jan 1, 2018 - 8:06am
Steve - well it is certainly nice to believe that there is something greater. I see no evidence of it though. The religions we have created cause more trouble than good. Faith becomes dogma and dogma blows people up.
A. Jones Added Jan 1, 2018 - 10:54am
A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
That, of course, applies to you as well.
What we learned from the 1960s is that even intellectual bigots can sport beards, make peace-signs with their fingers, drive VolksWagons, and listen to Bob Dylan. 
opher goodwin Added Jan 1, 2018 - 12:14pm
Well anyway Happy New Year from one intellectual bigot to another. I hope it's a good one for you.
Katharine Otto Added Jan 1, 2018 - 1:03pm
My idea of animals having a different concept of time:  the life-span of a mosquito is something like three weeks.  In that time it must do everything to complete its life that a human requires many years to do.   Not that the mosquito is cognizant, but life is speeded up for them.  
I don't presume to know how animals or insects perceive the universe.  They have entirely different sensory networks, modes of living, etc.  The ability of a bird to fly, the speed of an insect you're trying to swat . . . we are limited in our ability to assess animal qualities.
Mike Haluska Added Jan 1, 2018 - 5:22pm
opher - by making the statement:
"The evolution of baleen whales from toothed whales was a leap at least as large as the development of the human brain from that of a chimp-like animal."
is so profoundly ridiculous that only an academic would even consider a species that put a Man on the Moon as equivalent to a Frakkin' whale getting teeth.  I hope the British taxpayers didn't foot the bill for your education or are not currently paying your salary.  
opher goodwin Added Jan 1, 2018 - 7:02pm
Mike - I think you misunderstand. I'm not referring to intelligence. I'm talking about the giant nature of the evolutionary leap. The genetic changes necessary between a chimp-like creature and modern man is less than that between a fish-eating toothed whale, such as an Orca and a plankton feeding baleen whale such as a Blue Whale..
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 4, 2018 - 8:00pm
     The duck billed platypus drinks milk, so do pigeons and doves. Birds used to drink milk but the Lord stopped their evolution so birds wouldn't compete with humans( they fly-an advantage).They still like the smell( people spill it at outdoor restaurants)but most birds won't drink it.
   Why didn't Birds develop mammary glands?
    Why do birds fly?It's an advantage in survival, but mammals usually don't. 
       The Lord advances animals that believe in being good. He taught monkeys to walk upright. That's the reason for the advance or evolution of mammals. If people don't believe in being good it is opposite-evolution.
      It's because of the fossil record, Carbon dating, the age of rocks and sedimentation, the time it takes to form layers of Rock and mountains, the Age of the Universe. The whole theory fits together.
opher goodwin Added Jan 5, 2018 - 5:20am
Barath - you're rambling.
Duck billed platypus are monotremes - mammals. They drink milk because they are mammals. Birds are not mammals and do not produce milk. Only mammals produce milk. Both birds and mammals evolved out of reptiles. No god did that. No good animals/bad animals rubbish.
You are one weird guy.
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 5, 2018 - 10:47am
   Pigeons and doves produce milk. You cannot disprove that beings evolve because they believe in being good because how do you know whether animals have intelligence or what they believe in?
   Animals that believe in being good the Lord advanced by teaching them. That's how dogs evolved from wolves?
    The Lord gave them Spirit.
     How do birds fly? Because their Spirits are light. A plane takes off with engines,gathering momentum on a runway. A bird flies from standing still. Birds execute maneuvers,they swoop down and go back up. How?
     That's how technology is invented,by studying nature, birds, the Solar System etc..
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 5, 2018 - 11:55am
   Scientists still do not understand a lot about nature.
See: What the team soon discovered was that the vortices created by the bird’s flight rapidly dissipated almost as soon as they were created. The assumption was that the circling air patterns (lightly explained above) would sustain for a time. Because of this discovery, the usual assumptions of lift and sustained flight were greatly challenged. During the ongoing course of the study, different tests were implemented to check on the validity of the standard models of lift and flight. All of the tests showed different results that didn’t conform to the standard theories.
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 5, 2018 - 12:04pm
    Human beings learn about aeronautics by studying birds. If you don't have a friendship with nature, nature will not reveal its secrets to you.
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 5, 2018 - 12:47pm
    The Christian man is not in keeping with nature. The Christian man is a perverted man. British men are Christian.
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 5, 2018 - 1:07pm
    Nature uses camoflouge. Animals don't trust people.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 5, 2018 - 2:11pm
I haven't visited in a while, looks like lots of great back and forth.  Can anyone explain how, using ONLY evolution with NO intelligence involved and no "supernatural" operators and NO matter or anti-matter or energy or laws of Nature, HOW did all of the elements in the "Periodic Table of the Elements" evolve?
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 5, 2018 - 6:53pm
   I've concluded that birds used to give milk to their young, they used to be mammals, they lost the feature. Only pigeons, doves and the duck billed platypus(a monotreme) retain the feature.
opher goodwin Added Jan 8, 2018 - 12:51pm
Barath - birds came from reptiles.
You are totally out of your mind. Is it LSD? Or are you on crystal meth?
opher goodwin Added Jan 8, 2018 - 12:52pm
TEWS - all matter is made of the same stuff. All elements are products of nuclear fusion in stars. We are all stardust.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 8, 2018 - 5:45pm
That nonsense came from the phony con man Neil deGrasse Tyson .  You skipped a step.  Where did the stuff originate that comprises the stardust?  How did it neatly arrange itself into a perfect complex matrix aka the Periodic Table of the Elements, after starting with sub-atomic particles (where did they come from?) combining into atoms and then where did they get the energy for the reactions and the laws directing how the reactions would progress to create these atoms and then molecules and then the "stardust" that evolved into MAN?
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 9, 2018 - 12:42am
opher goodwin Added Jan 9, 2018 - 6:52pm
TEWS - all the matter and energy in the universe was created in the instant of the Big Bang - if that is what you are referring to. That basic matter was hydrogen which was then fused in stars to create the full range of elements of the periodic table. One recent collision between two neutrons stars created an amount of gold the size of Earth.
opher goodwin Added Jan 9, 2018 - 6:53pm
TEWS - WOW!! It is churches that are empty over here.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 9, 2018 - 9:51pm
opher, you are rambling and skipping over the basic question.  That is usually the answer, ignore where the initial building blocks of matter originated and pretend they were always full fledged entities and pick up the story from there.  Nobody could believe the Periodic Table organized itself through "random collisions" even if the first atom was given as a starting point. Just admit that something you refuse to identify or acknowledge created everything in an ordered universe and is keeping it running smoothly.
Your empty churches are quickly being replaced by MOSQUES....enjoy your retro journey back to the 7th century.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 9, 2018 - 10:34pm
Huge UK Church Survey says Pews Emptying Because Christianity no Longer Preached
Narnian Added Jan 10, 2018 - 10:17am
Interesting article, TEWS.  Thank you for posting the link.  I must agree.  The church has become a Sunday social club.  Of course, empty churches do not discredit the view that God created the universe.  It just shows that fewer people believe it.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 10, 2018 - 11:15am
Narnian (I am one, too, btw),  Here is where opher gets his belief and his religion...and it IS a religion.
The atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss believes he has life figured out. As a cosmologist, he adheres to the Big Bang view of origins, believing that the universe came into existence from a singularity about 13.7 billion years ago. The universe itself and the stars in particular have become his "God."
Krauss has referred often to stardust. “We are all made of stardust,” he has opined. The reason for this assertion is an evolutionary concept of the birth, life, and death of STARS. Big Bangers have an explanation for how they believe stars formed from the original universal matter and began nuclear fusion....but they never explain where the "stuff" came from that "banged" or what caused it to bang or where the energy to bang it came from.
Furthermore, these models do not suggest a route to producing enough of the heavier elements found in the universe. So, scientists like Krauss suggest that these stars eventually "die and explode, and new stars grow from the older, exploded stardust." He supposes that the only reason we, as humans, could have evolved is because of the production of gradually heavier elements, by second- and third-generation stars. Krauss says, “Forget Jesus – the stars died that we might live.” What a mocking admission that the starts are his "Savior." Krauss, like his biology parallel Richard Dawkins, believes in presenting a kind of "awe of science" to young people...when you can't win them with EVIDENCE, dazzle them with BS and smoke and mirrors and theater. So it is to the stars that he supposes this awe must be directed because they are our "saviors."
The Bible, in contrast, explains that the stars are not a subject for awe or worship, except in the sense that they point us to God, Who CREATED THEM so that we worship Him.
Narnian Added Jan 10, 2018 - 11:32am
Brother TEWS, I am glad you understand the argument behind the "Big Bang" argument so well, and that you refute the false logic so well.  As a simple man of faith, I've never been very good at science.  Then again, as you pointed out, what Krauss, et al teach is not science, but faith in a fantasy because they will not accept the truth of the Bible. 
I agree that what Krauss says is on the edge of blasphemy - even if it is out of ignorance.  Thank you for your insight behind the smoke and mirrors.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 10, 2018 - 11:57am
Brother Narnian, here is an excellent one minute explanation from Dr.Frank Turek that you will enjoy. 
Can Chance Be A Cause Of Complexity?
I recommend you go to his website and watch his outstanding and easy to follow logical videos as an apologist for Christianity and for Creation.  Someone tried to put him into either the Young Earth or Old Earth camp, and he said without reservation he could confirm that the earth is at least 57 years old...he was 57 at the time.
This longer video is outstanding as well.
"We get our morality from evolution" DEBUNKED Feat: Frank Turek
Narnian Added Jan 10, 2018 - 12:04pm
Thank you very much for those links, Brother.  Appreciate you sharing your apologist resources.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 10, 2018 - 12:29pm
Everyone here is welcome to expand his or her (or its) mind by visiting them.  Here is another one that I really like, a wealth of information, and it is perhaps Kryptonite to evolutionists and atheists because it is so thoroughly researched.  The writers and researchers all have PhDs or Doctor of (some field of medicine or science) after their names, yet they are attacked as having no credibility by God-haters who probably didn't even go to college.
Answers in Genesis
I met the founder, Ken Ham, many years ago, and I have his autograph along with his words of encouragement in a small Bible that I carried in a leg pocket of my flight suit on every one of my missions during the Vietnam war.
Narnian Added Jan 10, 2018 - 12:52pm
I am definitely impressed that you've not only met Ken Ham, but that he inscribed encouraging words in your Bible.  Thank you for your service, as well. 
I refer to articles from Answers in Genesis, as well as the Institute for Creation Research, when I discuss the origins of the universe, evolution, etc. on  The atheists in the discussion usually try to discredit AiG and ICR by saying they are "biased, not peer reviewed, not true science".  Truly, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".
opher goodwin Added Jan 11, 2018 - 12:06pm
TEWS - I think I addressed this in the article. Nobody knows how matter and energy came to be spontaneously created.
a. You can believe that they were created spontaneously from nothing.
b. You can accept that they have always existed.
c. You can believe that a supernatural being created them.
It seems strange to me that people find c easier to accept than a. They find it quite acceptable to imagine that a supernatural being, more complex and powerful than the universe, existed prior to the universe with the power to create everything out of nothing. Where that being came from is, of course, not addressed. What is was doing before hand is also not addressed.
To me that is just kicking the can down the road and glossing over the whole thing.
The creation of the universe is a wonder. Trying to explain that by creating something even more unbelievable doesn't do it for me.
Narnian Added Jan 11, 2018 - 12:21pm
Hi, Opher.  I'd like to spend my two cents if you don't mind.  While you find it strange that people find option "C" easier to accept than option "A", I find just the opposite.  It's impossible for anything to come from nothing.  Our Creator was not created, and He didn't come from anywhere.  If He had been created, where would His creator have come from?  Everything except for God has a "first cause".  Our Creator always has been, and always will be.  Rather than kicking this can down the road, it explains the origin of our universe very clearly.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 11, 2018 - 4:14pm
In other posts I addressed such things as 1/2 inch per 1000 year of space dust proves the earth, therefore the universe is only 5000 years old.  We know that energy and matter cannot be destroyed or created, therefore both MUST have always existed in some form we may or may not be able to comprehend.
Mathematically, physicists have determined there are 11 dimensions.  We, humans, can only conceive of 4-6 of them.  That does not mean the other dimensions do not or cannot exist, but our little minds are too limited to comprehend.  If God does exist, and I believe He does, He could and would exist in all 11 dimensions.  Is our finite thinking able to comprehend what matter and energy might be like in those other 6 -7 dimensions we have no ability to comprehend?  Are we so arrogant that we believe we would know what to our small limited comprehension is incomprehensible?
Perhaps God is and has existed in the other 11 dimensions.  Perhaps the same God is and was able to cause the matter and energy from those other dimensions to expand into our "comprehensible" dimensions. 
I believe that the more I know I know I know, the less I know I know.
Narnian Added Jan 11, 2018 - 4:30pm
Yes - all we can know for sure is that we really don't know for sure.  I'm reminded of a song "Is A Puzzlement" from "The King and I".  Part of the song goes "There are times I almost think I am not sure of what I absolutely know.  Very often find confusion in conclusion I concluded long ago."  A verse just a bit later goes "And it puzzle me to learn that though a man be in doubt of what he know, Very quickly he will fight to prove that what he does not know is so". 
Although my mind can't comprehend even more than 4 dimensions, I believe it's entirely possible.  We are limited people created by a limitless God.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 12, 2018 - 9:51am
opher goodwin Added Jan 13, 2018 - 9:55am
Narnian - fine. You find it easier to believe that a god, a supernatural being, always existed. You have no problem with him creating a universe out of nothing. I do. That is no different to matter being created out of nothing except that you've merely added an even more unbelievable element to it - without question.
opher goodwin Added Jan 13, 2018 - 10:01am
Joe - we add about 40,000 tonnes per year (and lose a lot more from loss of helium and hydrogen). That is (not taking into account the loss) 0.000000000000001%. How on Earth do you think that even vaguely suggest the Earth or universe is 5000 years old.
You boggle me.
opher goodwin Added Jan 13, 2018 - 10:04am
Joe/Narnian - we are surely limited beings who don't know a great deal - yet. And without science we'd know a lot less.
Where does all this stuff about 11 dimensions come from? Human beings sure enjoy mental masturbation.
TEWS Pilot Added Jan 13, 2018 - 12:52pm

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson et. alt., on which the Uniformitarian argument is usually based.

Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be used by evolutionists to argue for an OLD age of the solar system or the Earth.

Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there...I should know, I was a college intern studying for my undergraduate degree in Physics working for NASA during the Apollo program.

Interestingly, Snelling and Rush’s research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction.
SNELLING, DR A. and Rush, D., “MOON DUST AND THE AGE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Vol. 7 (Part 1), 1993, pp. 2–42.
For example, theistic evolutionists from Calvin College, after scathingly critiquing creationists for alleged erroneous handling of data, do precisely that and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted.
Evolutionists use FLAWED dating methods to CALCULATE the age of the Earth.  Creationists use EVIDENCE.
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 14, 2018 - 7:32pm
I gotta admit I didn't keep up with the discussion, but on the issue of dimesnsions. There's a lot scientists don't know. For example big, big, reality going up infinitely into more advanced Spirit worlds. The Gods and Angels ate much more advanced than humans. They're the Cop on the block. The Governments Of Men Still need policing from gods and angels.
   Or real, real small reality, like atomic. Put a meter in your creeky old house,like we do with sound recordings, amplify, amplify, every squeak, or turn of the door knob can be a Spirit acting through an inanimate object.
  The Lord is Merciful, and Bad people are surrounded by bad spirits, but they don't Know It or they would be terrified.
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 14, 2018 - 7:49pm
I'ok tell you a story. A few months ago I was battling a serious infection. The songbirds around the house dang sorrowful tunes, they were in despair, they would say, "help".They worrfied.
    A couple of weeks later there was a hurricane in Houston and Miami. The birds found a nice spot to nestle together and ride the storm out on a ledge.
    I got sick, the birds worried and dang mournful songs.
You go big by a hurricane. They didn't care.
Animal joke: Why are humans more civilized? Animals kill each other,humans kill themselves.
Narnian Added Jan 15, 2018 - 9:57am
Opher, it's unbelievable that matter would be created out of nothing.  If that were true, why have we never observed matter created from nothing? 
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to believe in a Supreme Being who created all matter.  If God were a created being, He would not be the Supreme Being.  Clearly, He is eternal; He is without limits of any kind.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 15, 2018 - 8:41pm
Narnian, creation of matter and/or energy also violates the laws of physics.  Therefore, the ONLY way matter/energy could be created is for someone or something outside the laws of physics to create the matter and/or energy.  Nothing in man's knowledge is greater than the laws of physics (God is NOT within man's knowledge, we know of Him, but we really do not know Him - work with me here - I know God and Christ as my personal savior, but this is faith as I have not had a personal face to face introduction).  Therefore, according to evolutionists, who believe only in scientific laws, the known universe CANNOT exist as it is made up of matter and energy that cannot exist.  Now we go to philosophy.  "I think, therefore I am".  Does the universe and I actually exist or do I just THINK the universe and I exist and the matter and energy making up the universe is just a figment of my imagination, as are you?  LOL
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 15, 2018 - 10:57pm
    Birds hunt snakes. Birds and reptiles are antagonists, they dislike rack other. The Lord created them for this purpose to be an antagonist to snakes.
Birds are Shivite/Narayanars like Garuda.
Barath Nagarajan Added Jan 15, 2018 - 11:21pm
Birds also get rid of dead or decaying matter like dead trees, and worms and parasites. But, they love healthy trees and sweet things,and sweet scents, getting rid of rotting material is just their job. Shivite/Narayanars
Narnian Added Jan 16, 2018 - 9:17am
Thanks, Joe.  With my (very) limited knowledge of physics, I did not know that.  I appreciate the way you show that matter and energy had to be created by an eternal force or being.  You have some deep musings, my friend.  I guess we have to depend on faith because God is truly beyond our comprehension. 
Joe Chiang Added Jan 16, 2018 - 9:21am