Hey Lady Gaga, Can You Please Go Back to Being Awesome?

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

We’d really appreciate it.

Lady Gaga’s latest single from her upcoming album Born This Way is out, and we can’t help feeling disappointed (again). “Edge of Glory” continues the ’80s-ish sound that we should be used to by now, considering the album’s first two song releases “Born This Way” and “Judas.” (Man, how is this album not even out yet?) And it’s not like the songs are particularly bad. They’re just not particularly good, either.

PHOTOS: See the world go Gaga

Here’s the audio for “Edge of Glory”:

Saxophoney! But, also, boring.

Which is killing us because, to be totally honest, we love Gaga so much. Remember “Bad Romance?” “Paparazzi?” Or the still amazing “Just Dance?” Of course you do, because they were awesome. Those were the songs that made Gaga a star and we love her for them. We want some more of that!

You could make the argument that Gaga is expanding her horizons, experimenting and doing new things. Which would be a sound point, if only her new stuff didn’t sound as if it was from Madonna’s lost album from the late 80s. Yes, the videos are still wild and weird, but the music is trite, uninspiring and bland.

Honestly, if these were the tracks that Gaga had debuted with, we seriously doubt she’d be the pop force she is today.

Perhaps she’s simply been putting too much energy into other projects like her collaboration with Zynga to make Gagaville. That’s actually happening. We fear we may have lost our Gaga for good.

VIDEO: Watch Lady Gaga talk about her biggest influence


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.