Cosmology, a Motor Cycle Accident, and the Meaning of Life

I was doing a little channeling surfing last night after my wife and I watched Episode 4 of the first season of Foyle’s War, a British detective drama television series set during World War II, using Amazon’s “Prime” service, when I came across a couple of cable shows dealing with cosmology.

Two items immediately came to mind. The first one was a comment made to an article I had written where I claimed that evolutionary scientists are left with the awkward premise that the cosmos is a something from nothing premise. He disagreed.

The second item was news that Frank Pastore was in a severe motorcycle accident and as of this writing is still in a coma. Pastore is a former professional baseball pitcher for the Cincinnati Reds (1979-1985) and the Minnesota Twins (1986). A line drive that shattered his right elbow ended his major league career of a pursuit for fame and fortune. Pastore is a Christian. In 2004 he became the host of The Frank Pastore Show on KKLA 99.5 FM in Los Angeles, the largest Christian talk show in the United States. Several years ago Frank interviewed.

I’ll bring these two stories together in a moment. Let’s begin with the cosmology issue. The biggest gap in the theory of evolution is where did all this stuff come from? One of the first lessons a student in biology class learns is that something cannot and does not come from nothing. Spontaneous generation has been disproven so many times that it is no longer seriously considered, unless you’re a die-hard Darwinist and you need to “prove” the theory.

Physicist, evolutionist, and atheist Stephen W. Hawking argues that the laws of physics allow for the universe to have created itself. In his latest book, The Grand Design, Hawking states:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

This is science? Laws don’t create anything. It’s like saying that economic laws made Warren Buffett a billionaire. If they did, then why isn’t everybody a billionaire?

C. S. Lewis gets to the point when he writes that laws “produce no events. . . .Bookkeeping, continued to all eternity, could never produce one farthing. . . .  Bookkeeping needs something else (namely, real money put into the account . . . before any income . . . can exist.”

Hawking is speculating, but because he is a noted scientist whose speculations fit with what atheists need to believe, some people are willing to believe him.

“Stephen Hawking said it; I believe him; that settles it.” This is religion not science. A number of scientists are not buying what Hawking is selling, and yet it didn’t stop the Discovery Channel from showcasing Hawking’s new religion. It doesn’t matter if there is any empirical science behind anything Hawking says on the subject, as long as they hear him say, via a voice synthesizer designed and created by someone, “I think Science can explain the Universe without the need for God.” Consider these comments from Ervin Laszlo writing on the very liberal Huffington Post site:

“In saying this, Hawking doesn’t speak like a scientist: he speaks like a (speculative) philosopher. . . . To say that [the universe created itself] spontaneously is not an answer: it’s an excuse for an answer. When Hawking says that the spontaneous self-creation of the universe ‘out of nothing’ is evidence that a creator was not involved, he is not speaking as a scientist. He is not making a scientific statement. His statement is pure theology — of the negative kind typical of atheists.

The shows I watched on cosmology don’t give one scrap of meaning to life. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a large-scale physics experiment that was built to detect gravitational waves. In 2002, it cost $365 million. LIGO's mission is to observe leftover gravitational waves of cosmic origin. And once they find what they’re looking for, then what?

Now back to Frank Pastore and his motorcycle accident. On “the night of the accident, Frank had a segment on the show with a professor from APU (Asuza Pacific University) and Frank was talking about the reality of the soul,” Gina Pastore said. “He often talked about this because he was a Christian philosopher. He mentioned on the air, he said, ‘that if I were to be killed on the freeway tonight and my body parts are all over the freeway I'm not on the freeway because I'm my soul and I would be with the Lord.’”

If an evolutionary scientist came upon Pastore’s broken body on the highway, the only thing he could comment on, given his materialistic assumptions about the origin of the cosmos and the evolution of man, would be a description of the broken body. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on ways to capture a gravity wave does not explain who man is. In fact, the reason to build these scientific devices is to prove that there is no God, the soul does not exist, and the afterlife is as elusive as a gravity wave and its kissing cosmic cousin, dark matter.



  • GetOutOfTheBubble

    "The biggest gap in the theory of evolution is where did all this stuff come from?"

    That is not a gap in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain either:

    1) Where matter came from
    2) How matter began to form self-replicating molecules

    "This is science? Laws don’t create anything." No Mr. De Mar, that was a small block of text, not science. If you want to see the whole argument and how it's based on science, you should read Laurence Krauss' "A Universe from Nothing : Why there is Something Rather than Nothing."

    The something from nothing argument demonstrates that what most everyone would call nothing - completely empty space - can actually be host to a spontaneous appearance of particles that weren't present a moment before. This is related to fundamental aspects of our universe like entropy, gravity, and quantum mechanics. Again, if you're interested in learning about it, I recommend Laurence Krauss' book to start with.

    • Gary DeMar

      I've read his book. It's not science. Where is the science (Not theory) that "completely empty space -- can actually be host to a spontaneous appearance of particles that weren't present a moment before." If there is something there that we can't now see (e.g., Dark Matter), then there needs to be an explanation of where the presently invisible stuff came from. Anybody can theorize. By the way, you made my point: "The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain either:

      1) Where matter came from
      2) How matter began to form self-replicating molecules.

      Because it can't.

      • GetOutOfTheBubble

        "I've read his book. It's not science."

        Right, it's a book about science. I don't believe that you've read it. If you had you'd understand how to look into it further and wouldn't ask me a question like:

        "Where is the science (Not theory)"

        You don't seem to understand how science works if you're asking for the science but not the theory.

        "Because it can't." Wrong. Because that's not what it sets out to do. Expecting the theory of evolution to explain where matter comes from is no different than expecting the theory of gravitation to explain where matter comes from. In both cases, you're looking for an explanation of something in the wrong place.

      • Jim David

        ""The theory of evolution does not attempt to explain either:

        1) Where matter came from
        2) How matter began to form self-replicating molecules.

        Because it can't."

        By that reasoning, the theory of gravity doesn't explain how cheese is made...because it can't!

      • Jim David

        Gary DeMar, you say, "I've read his book. It's not science." I haven't read it so I don't know know, but I have a quick question: What is your definition of science?

    • Tionico

      Remember Eintsein? His theory of relativity, since proven accurate? He established a definite relationship between matter and energy. So, what's this have to do about nothing? To posit a universe, or space, as being nothing would of necessity include it has no energy.. no gravity, no electrical attraction, no mass, no molecules, no light, heat, radiation of any sort.. truly NOTHING. Not one joule of any form of energy, not even one electron. Not even a quark.
      One of the laws of physics is that matter will continue to exist in one form or another. A bug, once squashed, merely decomposes into its component elements, it does not disappear. IF this law is accurate, you have quite a job of work to come up with an explanation for how anything can arise from truly NOTHING. For another bug to come into being, the component molecules will already have to be available. If you posit these will be formed through some action of energy, what is the source of that energy, which is something as pointed out above. You can't have it both ways.... every one of your theories of origin preclude SOMETHING preexisting your intitial stuff, whatever form it is, matter or energy. You never begin at THE BEGINNING.

      Scripture does begin at the beginning.... "in the beginning, GOD..........". He who preexists all has made all from the power of His Word, commanding that all take shape and exist. Before He did so, the only thing existing was He Himself. He who preexists all.

    • Chewgag

      The theory of evolution and abiogenesis are absolutely inseparable. To suggest otherwise is to create a smoke screen of pointless arguments and wishful thinking. Why not simply admit the truth that everything you believe is based on speculation, wishful thinking and faith in smarter men than you have all the answers you need to continue worshipping at the alter of Darwinian evolution.

      • GetOutOfTheBubble

        By that logic we can't know anything until we know everything.

        Newton didn't need to know about the big bang or structure of space time to discover fundamental laws that describe our universe.

        We don't need to know about how life started to discover how it changes once it has started.

        Evolution and abiogenesis are absolutely separable. The theory of evolution does not require DNA specifically or any of the particular amino acids or molecules that we see in our world. It is true that our evidence is in the form of organisms based on DNA and amino acids and molecules from our world. But from that evidence, we draw conclusions that we can see rely on higher-level concepts than DNA or particular molecules.

        A serious student of evolution understands these distinctions and understands that you can perform legitimate scholarship of evolution without needing to explain how it was that evolution was able to begin. Just as Newton understood he could know more about the universe without needing to know how it started, or the true mechanisms underlying his discoveries.

      • Jim David

        Why in the world are evolution and abiogenesis inseparable? Evolution explains how populations of living things change, it does not address where life came from. Apparently (like most evolution deniers) you don't actually even know what evolution is.

    • Screeminmeeme

      GOOTB...You guys will do and say matter how avoid confrontation with your Creator.

      • GetOutOfTheBubble

        My creators were my parents, I see them pretty frequently actually.

  • spontaneous

    The something from nothing makes no sense. If you have space with nothing and something spontaneously appears; then you did have something in the first place. What contortions evolutionist go to to prove they can make something from nothing thereby nullifying their first premise.

    • GetOutOfTheBubble

      "If you have space with nothing and something spontaneously appears; then you did have something in the first place." You're just making it a truism to say "You can't get something from nothing." by claiming that if you somehow did get something, then there wasn't really nothing to begin with. But this is how it actually works - nothing one moment, something the next. Quantum mechanics are not intuitive and they do not "make sense."

      • seektruth

        But all your doing is pushing it back to another, yet to be discovered SOMETHING. Your scientists do mental gymnastics to show that gravity can exist without anything present to be producing it - all based on pure SPECULATION.
        Of course it doesn't make sense, it's babble from people who like to think they "know"!

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          You missed the point. It doesn't make sense because it happens at scales for which our senses are useless. Thus, it doesn't make any kind of intuitive sense to us.

          Mass is what's present to produce gravity. The speculation is the first part, then science comes along to verify and falsify the speculations. If you think speculation built the internet you're using, you're pretty optimistic about the power of speculation.

        • Jim David

          Keep trying, brother, but you are talking way over their heads.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          It doesn't seem to get in at all, no matter how polite I try to be.

        • Jim David

          You can't reason someone out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into.

        • Tout

          GETOUT can you prove anything when you are not polite ?

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          To open-minded people not dead-set on disagreeing with everything I say? Yes. It's not that difficult.

        • Tout

          GETOUT Where did 'Mass' come from, without a Creator, Who had no beginning and has no end ?

      • Tout

        GETOUT Where did space come from ? You really believe: something came from nothing ? Have it your way, for now.

        • Jim David

          The power of science is to seek the answer without assuming you already know it. That's one reason why religion may provide lots of things, but it has provided very little in the way of discovery. With religion all the answers are assumed to already be known.

  • Dumb ole redneck

    According to my college physics professor, The Law of conservation of matter states: Matter can be changed but cannot be created or destroyed.

    • ICOYAR

      Apparently through a wormhole matter can hypothetically be destroyed. One of the only few times that could happen.

      • DWinch

        What came first, the worm or the worm hole?

  • Yea

    if you rub 2 things together it makes fire . friction , vibrations like the voice in my head that makes no heat light or sound but its there and only i can hear it

  • Jeronimo Dan

    I'll go with God and Christ, it cost nothing and the pay off is eternal life. The Guy/Gal that does not believe, it could and will lose them everything for eternity, that's a no winner...

    • DixieAngel_76

      I agree with you. When I was a child, I had a youth pastor who put it this way; if Christians are wrong, and there is no God, we have nothing to lose but the opportunity to sin with abandon, but if we're right, and there is a God, they who reject him will lose everything for all eternity. Besides, like the Bible says, the Spirit himself bears witness to us that we are the Children of God. It's beyond the scope of my writing ability to explain it, but deep down I'm sure of it.

      • freedomgirl

        When I was a child, my First day of Catholicism, a van came to our Elementary School to bring us to the Catholic School.
        When we finished, for some reason I went and layed in the back of the van.
        The bus driver Joe, who was really old, went through a stop sign,
        We were sideswiped really bad, Joe had serious injuries. Alot of the students had broken arms and what not... Had to go to the Hospital...
        I was unscaved...
        I wasn't able to persue that Catholic Education after that...
        But, I came to a realization that God didn't want me to pursue that Religion.
        However, I Always Believed In God...
        When I was in 3rd grade, my view of it was "The Big Eye In The Sky"...
        God see's all you do...
        My basic rules to this day, Don't Steal, Cheat or Lie...
        God Will See It... God will see all you do...
        Our Founding Fathers followed this simple guideline...
        It's ashame our Government today is the total opposite...
        But, when it comes for our time to lay down and rest, at least Polititions won't be there. We will rest in Peace... Eventually...

        • Screeminmeeme

          freedomgirl.........It sounds like you have staked your eternal future on that one incident.

          On WHAT do you base your belief system? The 'don'ts' that you mentioned are good ones..... but HOW do you KNOW that stealing, cheating, lying are wrong? You said: 'MY' basic rules. But what if I have my own set of rules that say that those things are 'right' things to do.......what then? Who would be correct? Me or you?

          BTW......Our Founding Fathers based our judicial system and laws on the Judeo/Christian ethic which is biblical and I agree it's a shame that America is being shoved off it's foundational pillars and on to the quicksand of godlessness and hedonism.

          Lastly.....according to the Bible.....only those in Christ will rest in peace.

        • Jim David

          Let me guess, if the driver had narrowly missed the bus you wouldn't hesitate to go on and on about how it was a miracle and God was telling her something, right?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Guest (aka Jim David).....I rarely use the word ''miracle.'' I do, however, believe that the buck stops with God...and that everything that happens has either been orchestrated or permitted by Him, to serve His own righteous purposes. While He has given every man the free will to reject even his own Creator, God still causes the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust...because He is no respecter of persons and loves all of His creatures.

          Bad things like pain and suffering, bus wrecks and wars occur because, man, fully aware of the consequences, disobeyed his Maker creating a domino effect which has continued throughout all generations. Sin and death entered into a perfect world producing the evil we see everyday. That reprobate sin nature cannot be changed apart from a relationship with Jesus Christ.

          The Bible says that He works all things together for good for them who love him...( Rom 8:28) He is Holy, Just, and Good and the Believer can safely trust that every experience...good or bad...will be woven into the beautiful tapestry that is his life.

          Since our finite minds are incapable of comprehending the Infinite mind
          of God, we can only trust by faith in His good will extended toward us.....and in doing so, we experience peace in the midst of conflict...the kind of peace only Christ can give.

        • Jim David

          That was my comment - I tried to delete it because I thought it was off-topic, but you have actually brought it around to the original topic of discussion. You present a pretty elaborate story above, and I'm thoroughly familiar with it. But, given that you say that according to your standards the theory of evolution is as full of holes as Swiss cheese, and given that you say you question everything, your story above must be based on far more evidence and a far clearer understanding than the theory of evolution.

          So, it should be easy for you to explain to me - in a greater level of detail than everything we know about evolution (inheritance, genetics, DNA, mutations, speciation, natural selection, extinction, etc) - exactly how God "orchestrates" the universe. By what process does God's will become physical reality? Please walk me through that step by step. Of course any holes in your explanation, or any gaps in the evidence for that explanation, will render it "disproved." Please explain the process of divine orchestration to me.

        • David

          Jim, not one of your "everything we know about biological evolution" can prove either evolution or "divine orchestration." They simply explain how we have observed things to be at the present time. Inheritance, genetics, DNA, mutations, speciation, natural selection and extinction are all things that we observe now, but we (as scientists) must extrapolate from them what we "know" about the past i.e. biological evolution or divine orchestration. If we make a wrong assumption or an error in our logic, we will be well convinced, but equally wrong.

        • Tout

          If one wants to know the truth, it takes study. Real serious study leads to the origin: called God. God is usually presented as a human figure. How else can we present Him ? As a cloud that envelopes everything ? It does not matter much how you want to see Him. Important is the reality that He exists. And He came, was known as Jesus Christ. So we see Him as a person. Study, think; and adore Him.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Tout...As an ardent Bible student, I agree that study is imperative and that a Christian only grows as he consumes the Word of God.

          2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

          However, I'm thankful that God has deigned to share His truth with the simplest among us:

          Psa 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. l

      • Jim David

        What do you do if Christians are wrong but one of the other thousands of religions are right? You are taking the same risk of losing everything for all eternity just like everyone else. There are more options than simply the Christian God and no God.

        • fed up!!

          JESUS is the only one to have risen from the dead! AND there were witness's to that! only a fool says there is no ~GOD~

        • Jim David

          ...but ours go to 11!

        • Tout

          JIM DAVID you have the right not to search seriously for the truth. You'll find it anyway when it may be too late. How do you believe the beginning of it all ? Something came from nothing ?

        • Jim David

          So, apparently unless I agree with your version of the truth, I haven't searched seriously? Nonsense.

          As for the beginning of it all, I honestly don't know, I don't know if it even had a beginning, maybe it always was. I don't know, and neither do you.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David.......Jesus claimed to be God and His resurrection confirmed His claim. He said that HE was the only way, truth and life.

          Your argument is with Him.

        • Jim David

          I thought you said you question everything...

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David....I do. I did...and examined the evidence and it was compelling. But when He intervened in my life at a time of hopelessness, I believed.

          A couple of my favorite quotes:

          I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
          C.S. Lewis

          If God were small enough to be understood, He would not be big enough to be worshiped.
          Evelyn Underhill

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David...If the atheist or member of one of the many false religions are wrong....they are wrong enough to lose their souls for all eternity.

          If the Christian is wrong...he will have lived in service to a good cause with the highest principles and hopefully avoided the rebellious practice of sin with all of its consequences.

          One note...the ONLY difference between the two groups:
          the Christian trusted in the finished crosswork of Christ, while the others did not. It was simply a matter of free will and choice.

          No one is capable of producing enough good works to earn the right to go to heaven. Its for that reason that Christ died....He took our sindebt upon Himself and served out OUR sentences of death so that we could have HIS report card when we trusted Him as Savior...the imputation of righteousness.

          THAT is the gospel simplified.

          Though God has the power to send people to hell, He cannot send those who have been justified by the blood of His Son.

          People send themselves to hell by rejecting Jesus. Their choice.

          My advice: don't go.

        • Jim David

          There are many religions that warn that Christians will go to hell for following the wrong god. Those religions are each supported by the exact same evidence as Christianity - holy books that are claimed to be the words of God, prophecies that are said to have come true, miracles that are said to have eyewitnesses, testimonies of personal encounters with god - and they are equally certain with all their hearts that you are the one in danger of going to hell. Why aren't you worried about that? Think for a minute of each reason that you're not worried that you're going to go to hell for not following their beliefs. They are probably the same reasons I'm not worried about going to hell for not following your beliefs.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David.......
          Some of my studies were in comparative religions so I'm very familiar with other belief systems, cults and the occult. I've examined and read all/significant parts of the many religious writings and believe the Bible alone to be God's Word.

          I believe the Bible to be inspired by God. Why? Well, one of the best ways to prove inspiration is by examining prophecy. There are many religious books in the world that have many good things to say, but only the Bible has fulfilled prophecies -- with more fulfillments to come.

          Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific detail......many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors. And many have a high degree of specificity,

          The odds for all these prophecies having been fulfilled by chance without error is less than one in 10 to 2000 power. (The estimates of probability come from a group of secular research scientists)

          The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error.

          The Messianic prophecies aloneare compelling evidence of supernatural inspiration of the text. There are 365 prophecies which foretold about the coming Jewish Messiah -written hundreds of years before Jesus was born in Bethlehem. 109 of those prophecies could only have been fulfilled by Christ.

          These are just some of the reasons I believe the Bible alone is the true revelation of God's will for mankind.

        • Jim David

          Right, prophecies that are said to have come true (Muslims have those too, as did the Aztec). I sort of lose interest once critical thinking is thrown out the window.

          I'm more interested in your answer to my question above. By what specific process does God orchestrate the universe? Exactly what steps are involved in divine will becoming physical reality?

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David.....Hmmm... rejection of concrete evidence. You just brush them off. Why? Because you are a presuppositionist. You've already made up your mind and little things like facts won't sway you. The prophetic record is one of the strongest evidences for a supernatural Being so it stands to reason that you would dismiss it.

          You apparently have some problem believing in historical accounts...such as that of Tyre and Sidon, two cities that were prophesied to be destroyed hundreds of years before it happened...and they were, according to the prophecy.

          btw: The so-called prophecies among other religious groups have not had 100% accuracy (God's standard) of Biblical prophecies.

          You've asked a question for which no answer will suffice...but I will tell you what I believe.

          The Bible says that the Infinite, Omnipotent God spoke the world into existence and by the Word of His power, He maintains it.

          ( take a minute to giggle.......)

          I understand that there are Christians who believe that God began the whole thing and used the process of evolution to produce creatures. This argument militates against the idea that what God says, He means...and He said that He created the world in 6 days. Days means days...not eons and it requires a fractured exegesis to make it say something different.

          Since its impossible to comprehend HOW God works, I cannot give you any explanation other than with a word, He created a world containing billions of complex, uniquely designed creatures of every sort...and every morning when I behold the glory of it all, I thank God that I still have enough eyesight to rejoice in it. I thank God that I am able to see design and purpose in Creation and it all speaks to me of a magnificent, beneficent, Genius who created it.

          I'm sorry that you can't experience that.

          The first 3 chapters of Romans explain the condition of mankind....and applies to both of us.

          Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for GOD HATH SHEWED IT UNTO THEM.
          Rom 1:20 For the INVISIBLE THINGS of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY SEEN, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE.
          Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became VAIN IN THEIR IMAGINATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened.
          Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools....
          Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

          Romans 1-3 is helpful in understanding the state of man before a Holy Creator.

          It says that God has given every human being the witnesses of conscience and nature whereby we can know Him.... that everyone has been given enough information to know KNOW that there is a God but that we have consciously rejected Him and proudly gone about our own way. That is you...and that was me until I became willing to be willing to believe that God existed and loved me enough to send His Son to die for me.

          I am well aware that you will reject this answer but for me to try to explain HOW God works would be presumption and a waste of my time and yours.

        • Jim David

          I have to reject that explanation, because it is not an explanation at all. It hits at the core of the problem with religious criticism of science. People such as yourself nitpick every detail of scientific explanations and argue that anything unknown or left unexplained proves them wrong, and to go on and on about holes and gaps and what high standards you have for evidence... and then when the same questions are asked of you, you say (with an absolutely straight face) "oh, well, it's just magic and we can't ever understand." Of course that's unacceptable. It is a ludicrous double-standard.

          Like I said before, critical thinking is just thrown out the window. "God did it all with his magic" is so full of holes that it is not even Swiss cheese - it's just holes.

      • Screeminmeeme

        DixieAngel_76...You explained it just fine. Amen.

    • fed up!!

      what does a man profit if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?????

  • granny007

    Faith like a little child is required. That's sufficient.


    If something follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it MUST have a beginning. All beginnings cannot be spontaneous, but must have an origin. Therefore, something must be eternal, does not abide by the laws of physics at all, have no entropy, and must not be a part of this universe itself. The ONLY thing that describes that is God. Period.

    • GetOutOfTheBubble

      That's how god was defined in the first place. The point here is that scientists are suggesting that the same laws of quantum mechanics that we have learned about in labs, do in fact suggest that you can get something from nothing. If you understand that they're talking about things on the quantum scale, you understand that they're not suggesting that significant amounts of matter come from nothing on any kind of regular basis.

      And I don't know if you're familiar with this, but the laws of thermodynamics aren't exactly suitable for describing what happens at extremes - extreme scales like quantum mechanics, or extreme masses like black holes.

      If you've never gone past introductory physics, I'd recommend doing a lot more reading about this before dismissing it.

      • fatman45

        Who wrote the laws of physics and quantum mechanics?

        • Jim David

          Why do you assume someone did?

    • fed up!!


    • Screeminmeeme

      ICOYAR....The 2nd Law argument is one of my favorite arguments.

  • DWinch

    Pile up enough nothing and eventually you will end up with something, I'm sure of it!
    Probably worth nothing though.

  • Mike in AZ

    Since these brilliant (legends in their own minds) scientists all subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, what I want to know is, who lit the fuze?

    • Screeminmeeme

      Mike in AZ....Exactly ....and brilliant question. 😉

  • WildChild

    It seems to me the editors of most of these websites like to get people in an uproar.
    Their kicking back ringside and reading the pit bull fight they created.
    I know, I got involved in several of them, and one thing I learned, people in general tend to be bullies.
    If you don't think exactly like they do, they will bash you and try to make you feel stupid.
    Yes, I have also 'met' some honestly nice people writing their thoughts in the same subjects that catch my interest.
    But if you read between the lines, so to speak, your fighting in someone elses cockfight and we are the ruffled feathers being torn.
    Just a thought...

  • Jim David

    Oh my god, there is so much misinformation in this article it's overwhelming. No wonder the readers of this blog are so ignorant. Much of what you are reading here is absolute bullshlt, people! Go out and learn about the world!

  • Jim David

    It never ceases to amaze me how complicated the universe is, and yet how every Walmart shelf-stocker, every car mechanic, every insurance salesman (and every loudmouth internet blogger) thinks they command an expertise on planetary physics and evolutionary theory that surpasses literally hundreds of years of accumulated research by tens of thousands of PhD-level professional scientists. They (you guys) actually believe you understand it better than the cumulative discoveries of generations of geniuses. It boggles the mind.

    If you can disprove evolutionary theory, do it! You will join the ranks of the greatest scientists in history. You will literally change the world. You will force every field of research from Archaeology to Zoology to throw out over 150 years of explanation and start over. Please don't keep your brilliance to yourselves, publish it and change the world! If not, shut up a minute and learn something from the intellectual giants that have.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Jim David...Spoken like a tried and true elitist. Your ego is staggering, clearly signaling that you've got a real superiority complex.

      How DO you navigate what with having to look down that long, scornful nose at the unwashed masses? People like you are terrific at showing disdain for anyone who might hold an opinion that differs from those who dare to challenge you. Your comments are dripping with sarcastic contempt.

      On another thread your remarks about evolution were challenged by people educated in fields of science and you used ad hominems to answer instead of refuting their arguments. You were out-argued. Just how does that make you so brilliant?

      Intellectual giants? Your hero worship is the only place for an atheist to go when you deny the existence of God and His hand in your life. That man-made altar of human wisdom that you have sacrificed yourself to will one day crumble when you are confronted with the empirical evidence that your Creator exists....when you see the Light of True Genius because you will be kneeling in His presence.

    • Screeminmeeme

      Jim David....

      People like you who are so contemptuous of people who hold jobs outside of academia ought to come down from their ivory towers and realize that the world does not revolve around them.

      EVERYONE contributes something to society and all of those books, test-tubes, computers, white-boards, lab coats found in universities everywhere were produced, invented, made, packaged, delivered, shelved by SOMEONE....and that very building of brick and mortar that the academic stands in was made by someone willing to break a sweat to build it. Even getting to work in the morning is only made possible by the hard work of millions of people with a high school education but with loads of common sense and dignity who value the notion of dedication and hard-work

      With all of your pretension, you couldn't exist without the 'unwashed' masses.

      And the next time your car breaks down...fix it yourself. You wouldn't want that inferior mechanic to work on it, would you?

      • Jim David

        No no no. You missed my point entirely. A car mechanic is exactly who I would trust if my car broke down. I would bow down to the knowledge an insurance salesman has about insurance. That's my point. They are experts and I'm not, so I would never presume to know more than them about their fields.

        I'm not intending to belittle anyone's contribution to society, I am merely pointing out that it is ridiculous for someone in one job to assume that they know way more than the most specialized experts in another field of work. You're probably fantastic at what you do. I doubt I could do it or understand it well without lots of training and experience. But that works both ways. What is your training and experience in biological science that qualifies you to dismiss it's core principles?

        Have the humility to consider that maybe some people who spend their lives studying something might know a little more about it than someone who hasn't. That goes for auto repair, insurance actuary tables, Walmart retailers...and scientists.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David......

          So...a biologist can't understand the intricacies of an engine and a mechanic can't comprehend biological systems? All reasonably intelligent people think...about all sorts of things including how motors work and the origins of the universe. Many are autodidacts. And being 'uneducated' doesn't preclude the ability to understand and learn about a world of scientific concepts.

          You are declaring that only a biologist understands biology. Baloney. In this tech-obsessed world, knowledge on any subject is at the fingertips of any curious person...and just because he doesn't have an MS in biology does not mean he doesn't have the capacity to assimilate the information and use reasoning and logic to crystallize his opinions about it.

          As for me.....I dismiss nothing out of hand. I question everything. And evolution has more holes than swiss cheese and many evolutionists will not admit that there are many flaws to the theory. my book, that makes them dishonest and not the laudable scientific pioneers you make them out to be.

          And please....stop with the sanctimonious appeals to humility and go take a look in the mirror.

        • Jim David

          So you really believe that because you have access to the internet you command an equal amount of information and understanding as a PhD cosmological physicist? Do you also perform surgery? Do you design software? Do you engineer fighter jets? If you do, I stand corrected. But I suspect there is more to these skills than being able to look things up on the internet and think about them.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David.......

          The point wasn't about the skill or education of scientists or that they ought not be respected for their achievements, but about your persistent habit of judgment and dismissal of people who may not possess a college degree...for whatever reason...yet who are smart enough to ask common sense, reasonable questions which ought to be answered instead of mocked.

          The problem is that you have lionized and elevated these ''intellectual giants'' of science to a place of worship, where they are above being challenged by lesser men. The only thing that seems to matter to you is scholastic pedigree, which is a rather shallow world view which connotes the worse kind of academic snobbery.

        • GetOutOfTheBubble

          You make a mistake is in believing common sense is good enough. One of the reasons we need science is that our common sense is inherently limited. This is one of the reasons that understanding something like evolution is not automatic. You actually have to try, you have to get past preconceived notions of how it doesn't "make sense". And if you don't want to understand it, if you'd rather it be wrong, you will not understand it, and you will continue to think it's wrong.

        • Jim David

          Common sense tells us that every day the sun rises and the sun sets. You'd have to be an idiot to argue with that, right? Only the sun doesn't rise and set every day - the earth rotates on it's axis every day.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David...Douglas Wilson reasons about evolution and where it inevitably leads:

          If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper.

          You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before.

          If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality.

          If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.

        • Jim David

          I don't agree with that black and white description. Why is it all or nothing? Maybe there is something else that is not the storybook God that most people imagine. There is certainly a whole lot that we do not and cannot yet understand. To say it is either the Christian God or nothing is to claim we already know all the options. Whatever we now believe, I suspect it will look silly when looked back upon a thousand years in the future. We will probably seem like primitive fools fighting voilently over whether Baal or Odin has the most powerful magic.

        • Screeminmeeme

          GOOTB...I never said or implied that. I couldn't agree more, though, that our common sense, as well as our ability to reason is inherently limited because we have finite minds.

          But you are suggesting that I ought to 'try' to understand evolution by putting aside tried and true concepts learned over nearly 6 decades of living. You would have me violate my own principles just to believe in something that is not only flawed, in my view, but whose proponents argue about it constantly among themselves. Basically you are challenging my intellectual integrity and that is offensive.

          One observation: I've attended conferences and listened to debates between scientists on the subjects of evolution, intelligent design, and cosmology and while they argue vehemently at times, sometimes ridiculing each other about their competing theories, yet they are in total unanimity about one thing: God didn't do it.

          THAT is not evidence. THAT is presupposition.

        • Jim David

          Where are you getting all that? My frustration is having those questions asked, trying to answer them, and being called "dummy" or "idiotic" or "dishonest" by people who aren't even clear on what they're talking about. Did you miss all of that? Seems like I recall you being part of it. As a matter of fact you accused me of being dishonest for simply defining some biological words.

        • Screeminmeeme

          Jim David...Ever hear of hyperbole? Only a fool would believe a dog would produce a litter of raccoons. I was using this as an example...but my point was that NO dog, given a million years, will EVER produce a raccoon or any other mammal...known or unknown.

        • Jim David

          Where do you think dogs came from? Why are there no canis familiaris in the archaeological record earlier than 30,000 years ago? Did God suddenly create domestic dogs at that time? Did He create them to look a lot more like wolves back then, but gradually decided to create them to look like Chihuahuas, Great Danes, and Pekingnese?

  • David James Hanson

    Regarding the "laws" that foolish materialists (e.g. Hawking) claim as ground for ex nihilo self-creation, these paragraphs may be of interest:

    "LAW, in its most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of action, and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action, whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the laws of motion, of *** gravitation, [!!]*** of optics, or mechanics, as well as the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action which is ***prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound to obey.***

    "Thus, ***when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter,*** from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion, to which all moveable bodies must conform. And, to descend from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes, at his own pleasure, certain arbitrary laws for its direction, --as that the hand shall describe a given space in a given time, to which law as long as the work conforms, so long it continues in perfection, and answers the end of its formation.

    "If we farther advance, from mere inactive matter to vegetable and animal life, we shall find them still governed by laws, more numerous indeed, but equally fixed and invariable. The whole progress of plants, from the seed to the root, and from thence to the seed again; the method of animal nutrition, digestion, secretion, and all other branches of vital economy; *** are not left to chance, or to the will of the creature itself; but are performed in a wondrous involuntary manner, and guided by unerring rules laid down by the great Creator. ***
    "This, then, is *** the general signification of law, a rule of action dictated by some superior being; *** ..."

    [Emphasis added by ***]

    These four paragraphs open the first page of the greatest Anglo-American treatise on Law ever written: "COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND", under the introduction titled "Of the Nature and Sources of Law". Author: Sir William Blackstone, c. 1760

    I submit that Christian theist Judge Blackstone knew vastly more about "law" than does materialist Hawking and his crew of Creator-haters. Nicely, he cites--like Hawking--the laws of "gravitation" to prove his own teleological viewpoint, one directly contrary to Hawking's. To see how Blackstone's teleology trumps (and by inference explains) Hawking's, let us further quote the paragraph immediately next following those quoted above:

    "Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being independent of any other [i.e., God], has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him on whom he depends as the rule of his conduct. ... And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will."

    By this statement Judge Blackstone reveals the root cause of atheists' vehemence: They rebel against their "inferior", "dependent", "subject", subordinate status as humans made by a superior Creator. They desire His "independence", attributes, and self-rule for themselves. Their lust for divine power expresses itself by claiming some kind of self-existent "laws" are "creators" of matter. [What monumental stupidity Hawking demonstrates by his statement! How can a mere "rule" create something? Or even exist apart from a RULER?]

    Am very glad to learn that Mr. Pastore knows better than Mr. Hawking and the navel-gazing "Discovery" channel. God's Will be done for him, for Mr. Hawking, and for all of us here on earth, as justly and efficaciously as His will is done in heaven for Judge Blackstone and those saints who have gone before us.

  • GDC


  • GDC

    The belief in God/s IS a BIZARRE DELUSION and Religion IS a PSYCHOSIS!!!!