WATCH: The Big Bang never happened?

February 10, 2015

WRITER

Here's something you're not seeing reported in the news: the Big Bang may not have ever happened. New research posits that the universe may have existed forever, noting that general relativity can only explain what happened after the Big Bang, not during or before.

Get all the details HERE and scroll down for analysis from Glenn.

GLENN: Oh.

PAT: The science is settled. It's absolutely settled.

GLENN: This should be gigantic news. New quantum studies have shown that there is no such thing as the Big Bang.

STU: Yeah, it didn't happen. Why are you such a big science denier and think this didn't happen.

PAT: Because yesterday you were asking, why are you denying there was a Big Bang. But now you're asking, why are we denying that there wasn't and saying that there was. Yeah, the science is in. It's conclusive.

STU: We know the universe has existed forever. It's eternal.

GLENN: Is that a quote?

STU: The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

PAT: It's the only way they could resolve the math. They could not get the math right.

GLENN: Because everything breaks down the closer you get to the Big Bang.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: So all physics breaks down.

PAT: Yes. And it certainly breaks down during and prior to the Big Bang because they don't have any clue as to what was before it, how it happened, how this matter formed, what caused it to expand, they don't know any of that.

STU: Right. This brings up the question as to what exactly caused this to exist, if it's been there forever. What came before it?

PAT: Right.

STU: And as always, there's no answer to that.

PAT: Right.

STU: At least the Big Bang --

PAT: But they know everything, but shut up and believe everything they say every day about climate change and everything else because they always know, until they don't. Then now they do.

GLENN: This is huge news! The Big Bang has been discredited?

STU: I mean, maybe some of those are holding on to the antiquated ideas of the Big Bang. But this is a legitimate study.

PAT: Legitimate stuff. It's really fascinating to read the article. It almost sounds like a Sunday school class.

GLENN: Yeah, "the universe is eternal."

PAT: Yeah. It's interesting.

STU: And how many times have we heard the Big Bang -- like, you're a complete idiot if you don't believe exactly in the Big Bang as described.

Listen to this quote: The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there. As Glenn was just describing, they knew the whole time that it couldn't have possibly happened the way they were describing it, but you still were an idiot for not believing it their way.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: That's unbelievable.

PAT: Yes. Yes. So they picked this arbitrary. It's not arbitrary. I mean, they used mathematics to figure it out. But they believed it was 13.8 billion years ago that the Big Bang happened. And now, not so much. It's always been here.

[laughter]

Oh, wait. Well -- what happened to create it then? Who did that?

GLENN: You know, you are such a science denier.

PAT: I know. I know. I know.

GLENN: You want to talk about flat earther. Here's the guy who thinks the universe is 13.6 billion years old?

PAT: .8.

GLENN: It's been here forever.

PAT: That's what they'll start saying to the Big Bang theorists. That's what they'll say to them now.

GLENN: No. They won't say that. They won't say that. I think the exact opposite is happening. I think the Big Bang, they will not let go of.

STU: I think you're right.

GLENN: The Big Bang stays.

STU: They'll keep it around for a while.

PAT: Because they have no other explanation for anything. They have to have it.

GLENN: And the Big Bang has been so good at discrediting an eternal being.

PAT: Right.

STU: Like dinosaurs left the earth for a myriad of reasons until they all decided to leave the earth because of meteors that left the earth. I remember seeing that on the cover of TIME Magazine. And it was in the '80s where that's where that came to be. We all realize that, okay, now the accepted thing is that they left because of meteors. But that was never the -- before that, that was not the truth. But scientists were always right in that entire process. They were right until they changed their mind. And they were right again. And only they knew they were wrong before. But they're not wrong then. They're only wrong then now obviously.

PAT: Don't make me go all Piltdown Man on you.

STU: Are you going to do it?

GLENN: Do it. Do it. Do it.

PAT: I might do it.

Okay. For 40 years, for 40 years, scientists believed they had found the missing link. The evolutionary missing link. And they found this skull. And they named him Piltdown Man. And Piltdown Man was the link between primordial man and humans.

Okay. So whatever ape-like creature that we were, this is the link, and then there was us. And for 40 years in the early 20th century, they believed this.

And then in the 1940s, '42, 43-ish, in there somewhere, someone came around and said, this skull is part plastic. I don't think this is actual human bonage here. It seems to be plastic. And they're like, okay, yeah, that wasn't the missing link. Forty years scientists believed that.

GLENN: That can't be true because plastics were new in the 1920s. So either your time is off --

PAT: The timing may be off.

GLENN: Yeah. It is.

PAT: It might be. But it was 40 years, and it was partially plastic. It was partially man-made. Perhaps it was some other sort of polymer.

GLENN: I hate to be a Piltdown Man denier.

PAT: Piltdown Man -- turns out to be a hoax.

STU: It definitely was a hoax.

PAT: It was a hoax.

STU: This is on the Pat Gray best of.

PAT: Oh, yeah. This is on the rotating list.

STU: One of his biggest hits. A lot of times this is the encore at the concert for Pat.

GLENN: He's like, good night, everybody. And they're like, Piltdown! Piltdown! Piltdown! Piltdown!

[laughter]

Okay. I think it was the 1940s.

PAT: For 40 years!

[laughter]

It's like, a long, long time ago.

[laughter]

GLENN: All right. I can't believe he didn't start with Piltdown.

PAT: I will find out exactly what it was made of. Skull fragments. Jaw bone. I'm not seeing what it's made of yet, but I will. I will.

GLENN: Interesting. Interesting.

PAT: I will.

GLENN: And this is the same guy just a few minutes ago said the universe was 13.8 billion years old.

STU: Sucker. This guy will fall for anything that we all believed for decades.

GLENN: What a dope this guy is.

PAT: How long has the Big Bang theory existed? It's been pretty long.

STU: It's been number one for several years.

GLENN: Didn't Hawking have something to do with that? Because Hawking was the one who kind of tried to roll the universe back. Right?

Does anybody know?

PAT: I'm not sure. I don't know.

STU: I don't know the answer to that.

GLENN: I think he was the one who said, let's roll it back. It's expanding. Let's roll it back.

PAT: It's part of the general relativity of Einstein's theory. So he may have started it. And Hawking may have tweaked it. I don't know.

STU: Yeah, because you had the period of 380,000 years of an afterglow light pattern. Then the dark ages. Then the first stars were about 400 million years in. Then the development of galaxies and planets. Dark energy accelerated expansion to today. Of course, that's -- I should say, that's what we believed last week. Now we know it's stupid.

PAT: Completely nonsense.

STU: That was -- it's idiotic now. We can all look back to those times last week when we believed there was a Big Bang.

GLENN: This is such big news. It should be on the front page of everything. The Big Bang isn't right.

[laughter]

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

PHILL MAGAKOE / Contributor | Getty Images

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

I’ve only felt this weight once before. It was 2001, just as my radio show was about to begin. The World Trade Center fell, and I was called to speak immediately. I spent the day and night by my bedside, praying for words that could meet the moment.

Yesterday, I found myself in the same position. September 11, 2025. The assassination of Charlie Kirk. A friend. A warrior for truth.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Moments like this make words feel inadequate. Yet sometimes, words from another time speak directly to our own. In 1947, Dylan Thomas, watching his father slip toward death, penned lines that now resonate far beyond his own grief:

Do not go gentle into that good night. / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Thomas was pleading for his father to resist the impending darkness of death. But those words have become a mandate for all of us: Do not surrender. Do not bow to shadows. Even when the battle feels unwinnable.

Charlie Kirk lived that mandate. He knew the cost of speaking unpopular truths. He knew the fury of those who sought to silence him. And yet he pressed on. In his life, he embodied a defiance rooted not in anger, but in principle.

Picking up his torch

Washington, Jefferson, Adams — our history was started by men who raged against an empire, knowing the gallows might await. Lincoln raged against slavery. Martin Luther King Jr. raged against segregation. Every generation faces a call to resist surrender.

It is our turn. Charlie’s violent death feels like a knockout punch. Yet if his life meant anything, it means this: Silence in the face of darkness is not an option.

He did not go gently. He spoke. He challenged. He stood. And now, the mantle falls to us. To me. To you. To every American.

We cannot drift into the shadows. We cannot sit quietly while freedom fades. This is our moment to rage — not with hatred, not with vengeance, but with courage. Rage against lies, against apathy, against the despair that tells us to do nothing. Because there is always something you can do.

Even small acts — defiance, faith, kindness — are light in the darkness. Reaching out to those who mourn. Speaking truth in a world drowning in deceit. These are the flames that hold back the night. Charlie carried that torch. He laid it down yesterday. It is ours to pick up.

The light may dim, but it always does before dawn. Commit today: I will not sleep as freedom fades. I will not retreat as darkness encroaches. I will not be silent as evil forces claim dominion. I have no king but Christ. And I know whom I serve, as did Charlie.

Two turning points, decades apart

On Wednesday, the world changed again. Two tragedies, separated by decades, bound by the same question: Who are we? Is this worth saving? What kind of people will we choose to be?

Imagine a world where more of us choose to be peacemakers. Not passive, not silent, but builders of bridges where others erect walls. Respect and listening transform even the bitterest of foes. Charlie Kirk embodied this principle.

He did not strike the weak; he challenged the powerful. He reached across divides of politics, culture, and faith. He changed hearts. He sparked healing. And healing is what our nation needs.

At the center of all this is one truth: Every person is a child of God, deserving of dignity. Change will not happen in Washington or on social media. It begins at home, where loneliness and isolation threaten our souls. Family is the antidote. Imperfect, yes — but still the strongest source of stability and meaning.

Mark Wilson / Staff | Getty Images

Forgiveness, fidelity, faithfulness, and honor are not dusty words. They are the foundation of civilization. Strong families produce strong citizens. And today, Charlie’s family mourns. They must become our family too. We must stand as guardians of his legacy, shining examples of the courage he lived by.

A time for courage

I knew Charlie. I know how he would want us to respond: Multiply his courage. Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins. Out of darkness, great and glorious things will sprout — but we must be worthy of them.

Charlie Kirk lived defiantly. He stood in truth. He changed the world. And now, his torch is in our hands. Rage, not in violence, but in unwavering pursuit of truth and goodness. Rage against the dying of the light.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

Glenn Beck is once again calling on his loyal listeners and viewers to come together and channel the same unity and purpose that defined the historic 9-12 Project. That movement, born in the wake of national challenges, brought millions together to revive core values of faith, hope, and charity.

Glenn created the original 9-12 Project in early 2009 to bring Americans back to where they were in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In those moments, we weren't Democrats and Republicans, conservative or liberal, Red States or Blue States, we were united as one, as America. The original 9-12 Project aimed to root America back in the founding principles of this country that united us during those darkest of days.

This new initiative draws directly from that legacy, focusing on supporting the family of Charlie Kirk in these dark days following his tragic murder.

The revival of the 9-12 Project aims to secure the long-term well-being of Charlie Kirk's wife and children. All donations will go straight to meeting their immediate and future needs. If the family deems the funds surplus to their requirements, Charlie's wife has the option to redirect them toward the vital work of Turning Point USA.

This campaign is more than just financial support—it's a profound gesture of appreciation for Kirk's tireless dedication to the cause of liberty. It embodies the unbreakable bond of our community, proving that when we stand united, we can make a real difference.
Glenn Beck invites you to join this effort. Show your solidarity by donating today and honoring Charlie Kirk and his family in this meaningful way.

You can learn more about the 9-12 Project and donate HERE

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) recently delivered a lecture that should alarm every American. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he argued that believing rights come from a Creator rather than government is the same belief held by Iran’s theocratic regime.

Kaine claimed that the principles underpinning Iran’s dictatorship — the same regime that persecutes Sunnis, Jews, Christians, and other minorities — are also the principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

That claim exposes either a profound misunderstanding or a reckless indifference to America’s founding. Rights do not come from government. They never did. They come from the Creator, as the Declaration of Independence proclaims without qualification. Jefferson didn’t hedge. Rights are unalienable — built into every human being.

This foundation stands worlds apart from Iran. Its leaders invoke God but grant rights only through clerical interpretation. Freedom of speech, property, religion, and even life itself depend on obedience to the ruling clerics. Step outside their dictates, and those so-called rights vanish.

This is not a trivial difference. It is the essence of liberty versus tyranny. In America, rights belong to the individual. The government’s role is to secure them, not define them. In Iran, rights serve the state. They empower rulers, not the people.

From Muhammad to Marx

The same confusion applies to Marxist regimes. The Soviet Union’s constitutions promised citizens rights — work, health care, education, freedom of speech — but always with fine print. If you spoke out against the party, those rights evaporated. If you practiced religion openly, you were charged with treason. Property and voting were allowed as long as they were filtered and controlled by the state — and could be revoked at any moment. Rights were conditional, granted through obedience.

Kaine seems to be advocating a similar approach — whether consciously or not. By claiming that natural rights are somehow comparable to sharia law, he ignores the critical distinction between inherent rights and conditional privileges. He dismisses the very principle that made America a beacon of freedom.

Jefferson and the founders understood this clearly. “We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” they wrote. No government, no cleric, no king can revoke them. They exist by virtue of humanity itself. The government exists to protect them, not ration them.

This is not a theological quibble. It is the entire basis of our government. Confuse the source of rights, and tyranny hides behind piety or ideology. The people are disempowered. Clerics, bureaucrats, or politicians become arbiters of what rights citizens may enjoy.

John Greim / Contributor | Getty Images

Gifts from God, not the state

Kaine’s statement reflects either a profound ignorance of this principle or an ideological bias that favors state power over individual liberty. Either way, Americans must recognize the danger. Understanding the origin of rights is not academic — it is the difference between freedom and submission, between the American experiment and theocratic or totalitarian rule.

Rights are not gifts from the state. They are gifts from God, secured by reason, protected by law, and defended by the people. Every American must understand this. Because when rights come from government instead of the Creator, freedom disappears.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

A recent poll conducted by Justin Haskins, a long-time friend of the show, has uncovered alarming trends among young Americans aged 18-39, revealing a generation grappling with deep frustrations over economic hardships, housing affordability, and a perceived rigged system that favors the wealthy, corporations, and older generations. While nearly half of these likely voters approve of President Trump, seeing him as an anti-establishment figure, over 70% support nationalizing major industries, such as healthcare, energy, and big tech, to promote "equity." Shockingly, 53% want a democratic socialist to win the 2028 presidential election, including a third of Trump voters and conservatives in this age group. Many cite skyrocketing housing costs, unfair taxation on the middle class, and a sense of being "stuck" or in crisis as driving forces, with 62% believing the economy is tilted against them and 55% backing laws to confiscate "excess wealth" like second homes or luxury items to help first-time buyers.

This blend of Trump support and socialist leanings suggests a volatile mix: admiration for disruptors who challenge the status quo, coupled with a desire for radical redistribution to address personal struggles. Yet, it raises profound questions about the roots of this discontent—Is it a failure of education on history's lessons about socialism's failures? Media indoctrination? Or genuine systemic barriers? And what does it portend for the nation’s trajectory—greater division, a shift toward authoritarian policies, or an opportunity for renewal through timeless values like hard work and individual responsibility?

Glenn wants to know what YOU think: Where do Gen Z's socialist sympathies come from? What does it mean for the future of America? Make your voice heard in the poll below:

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Glenn's Show Prep

WATCH: The Big Bang never happened?

'Rage against the dying of the light': Charlie Kirk lived that mandate

Kirk’s tragic death challenges us to rise above fear and anger, to rebuild bridges where others build walls, and to fight for the America he believed in.

Out of this tragedy, the tyrant dies, but the martyr’s influence begins.

Picking up his torch

Two turning points, decades apart

A time for courage

Glenn Beck resurrects the 9-12 Project to support Charlie Kirk's family

The dangerous lie: Rights as government privileges, not God-given

When politicians claim that rights flow from the state, they pave the way for tyranny.

In America, rights belong to the individual. In Iran, rights serve the state.

From Muhammad to Marx

Gifts from God, not the state

POLL: Is Gen Z’s anger over housing driving them toward socialism?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism comes from perceived economic frustrations like unaffordable housing and a rigged system favoring the wealthy and corporations?

Do you believe the Gen Z support for socialism, including many Trump supporters, is due to a lack of education about the historical failures of socialist systems?

Do you think that these poll results indicate a growing generational divide that could lead to more political instability and authoritarian tendencies in America's future?

Do you think that this poll implies that America's long-term stability relies on older generations teaching Gen Z and younger to prioritize self-reliance, free-market ideals, and personal accountability?

Do you think the Gen Z support for Trump is an opportunity for conservatives to win them over with anti-establishment reforms that preserve liberty?