About the author

Paul Shea

If you need to contact Paul his email is [email protected]

  • Michael Sullivan

    dude space exploration is one of the coolest things *ever.*

  • Elto Desukane

    I agree with you about the wars…

  • bgrnathan

    SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ETERNAL because it could not have sustained itself eternally due to the law of entropy (increasing net energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein showed that space, matter, and time all are physical and all had a beginning. Space even produces particles because it’s actually something, not nothing. Even time had a beginning! Time is not eternal.

    The law of entropy doesn’t allow the universe to be eternal. If the universe were eternal, everything, including time (which modern science has shown is as physical as mass and space), would have become totally entropied by now and the entire universe would have ended in a uniform heat death a long, long time ago. The fact that this hasn’t happened already is powerful evidence for a beginning to the universe.

    Popular atheistic scientist Stephen Hawking admits that the universe had a beginning and came from nothing but he believes that nothing became something by a natural process yet to be discovered. That’s not rational thinking at all, and it also would be making the effect greater than its cause to say that nothing created something. The beginning had to be of supernatural origin because natural laws and processes do not have the ability to bring something into existence from nothing. What about the Higgs boson (the so-called “God Particle”)? The Higgs boson does not create mass from nothing, but rather it converts energy into mass. Einstein showed that all matter is some form of energy.

    The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence and power for the origin and order of the universe. Where did God come from? Obviously, unlike the universe, God’s nature doesn’t require a beginning.

    EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn’t mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn’t mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws may explain how the order in the universe works and operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the genetic code and biological machinery exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how could life or the cell have naturally originated when no directing code and mechanisms existed in nature? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.

    WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports.

    Some things don’t need experiment or scientific proof. In law there is a dictum called prima facie evidence. It means “evidence that speaks for itself.”

    An example of a true prima facie would be if you discovered an elaborate sand castle on the beach. You don’t have to experiment to know that it came by design and not by the chance forces of wind and water.

    If you discovered a romantic letter or message written in the sand, you don’t have to experiment to know that it was by design and not because a stick randomly carried by wind put it there. You naturally assume that an intelligent and rational being was responsible.

    I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)


    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I’ve been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis “Who’s Who in The East” for my writings on religion and science.

  • Explorer08

    Useless and expensive? I think you are talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Or, perhaps that is how we should describe Congress: useless and expensive.

  • one4All

    I suppose some people would be comfortable if we still lived in CAVES but I want More

  • one4All

    Do you think it is a Good Idea that computers no longer are the size a Refrigerator and cost a Million Dollars each? Every Dollar spent on advancing Technology through Exploration of Space rewards us with a Billion Dollars of Benefit. NASA is the Biggest Bargain Americans can Invest in. We could do without Multi-Billion Dollar Battleships and Trillion Dollar F-35 Jets that are Obsolete in a world of Satellites and Drones and would have an Economic BOOM if we Invested a Fraction of that Money in Space Exploration and Advanced Energy Research – Like Building our OWN Fusion Reactor instead of letting Europe build ITER instead of US.

  • Elto Desukane

    “to bring a man to Mars”
    useless, and expensive, a waste of resources, irresponsable…

  • perilun

    If funded they will spend 90% of the money, they say they need more, then spend and repeat. After another 5 year the managers will hope it get canned by Congress so they actually don’t have it blow up on the pad. On the other hand they could pay SpaceX to do it all, far sooner and far cheaper. Or, put the money aside for a “prize” for the first American on Mars or whatever the point to what NASA wants instead. In any case phase out NASA and start up a smaller agency, hire back the 10% of the NASA folks that are any good and focus investments on things that can help the taxpayers, like solar research and Near-Earth-object detection and mitigation. Leave pure science to billionaires to fund put the savings toward deficit reduction or roads or public health or something that helps a lot of citizens in real ways.

  • eatitbutty

    I agree. The 850 billion dollar bailout in 2008 (Read the Big Short) cost more than 50 years of NASA funding. Butts obviously supports banksters and fraudsters…

  • Chiyo

    President Obama told NASA administrator Charles Bolden that his highest priority should be “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”

    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html#ixzz38aocqJ4G

    But, you keep blaming NASA if you want to.

  • Chiyo

    You’re a moron.

  • butts

    Amen Brother!

    NASA should be scrapped right along with the EPA and then we can use those funds to cut taxes for job creators. If God had wanted us to explore space he would have made it smaller.

  • Michael Sullivan

    the last time i was paying attention to NASA, “Muslim Outreach” had somehow made it onto the agenda of this government agency.

    just saying

  • Joseph Brown

    The SLS was never intended to fly; it is, was, always has been, and always will be, solely a way to funnel obscene amounts of porkbarrel spending to key congressional districts and backers. Actual costs are hard to come by, but reasonable estimates (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1) put the per-launch cost between US $5 thousand million and US $14.3 thousand million. As a point of comparison, the SpaceX Falcon Heavy (a human rated system, able to loft 53 metric tons, and scheduled for first flight in or before June of 2015) is currently selling for US $85 million. Other ‘new-space’ companies are also developing vehicles, and are suffering mightily because of the US $3 thousand million stranglehold exerted by the SLS and it’s unimpressive Orion capsule — and that is just this year.

Copyright © 2015 ValueWalk - Privacy Policy

Developed by ValueWalk Team