Our Websites

Everything came from “NOTHING”?

In his latest book The Grand Design, Steven Hawking writes, “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 statement flies in the face of everything we know in science today. Many evolutionists don’t even believe this or at least admit that there is a serious problem when it comes to getting something from nothing. According to evolution, chemical evolution can take place in stars because of “fusion.” However, now we have a very serious chicken and egg problem. Which came first—the stars to form the elements, or the elements to form the stars?

Here are a few quotes about star formation:

“The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form.”1

“No one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing.”2

“Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star—a double or multiple star, or a solar system—is still a challenging theoretical problem …  astronomers have yet to find an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse.” 3

“The origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.”4

“Nobody really understands how star formation proceeds. It’s really remarkable.”5

II Peter 3 is coming to light more and more! People are willingly ignorant!

  1. Martin Harwit, “Star Formation: Naissance et Enfance des Etoiles,” Science 231 (7 March 1986):1201-1202
  2. Ivan Peterson, “The Winds of Starbirth,” Science News 137, no. 26 (30 June 1990): 409
  3. Fred L. Whipple, The Mystery of Comets (Washington, D. C. : Smithsonian Institution Press, 1985), 211—œ213
  4. Charles J. Lada and Frank H. Shu, “The Formation of Sunlike Stars,” Science 248, no. 4955 (4 May 1990):564
  5. Roger A. Windhorst, as quoted by Corey S. Powell, “A Matter of Timing,” Scientific American 267 (October 1992):30

,

Leave26 Responses to testEverything came from “NOTHING”?

  1. Jeff Shows September 15, 2010 at 8:11 am #

    ….professing to be wise, they became fools…..
    Hawking will have his theology right……..one day.

  2. Gary Hendricks September 15, 2010 at 9:31 am #

    On this we can agree. In fact when I see an atheist try to explain how matter came from “nothing” I am amused because I know in my heart they are grappling with understanding God.

    Now if I could just get you guys to stop proclaiming that those of us who believe in a Universe billions of years old are atheists too. There are many respected scientists who believe in God and yet accept what is undeniable and clear scientific discovery. No matter how many time you proclaim otherwise, there really is no contradiction.

  3. Mike Ayala September 15, 2010 at 9:53 am #

    It would be interesting to know by what authority Hawkings makes that statement. It sounds more like philosophy than science. Should I believe it because he said or wrote it?

  4. Jon Richt September 15, 2010 at 10:21 am #

    This statement flies in the face of everything we know in science today.

    Who is this “we” you refer to?

    Is it hubris that allows you to make grand statements about things you’ve clearly shown a lack of understanding in?

  5. Ed Snipples September 15, 2010 at 12:16 pm #

    Why are you using quotes from over 18 years ago?

  6. David Brantley September 15, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    I noticed you put fusion in quotation marks.
    Are you claiming that nuclear fusion does not happen?

    I am curious what is your scientific background to be criticizing Prof. Stephen Hawking?

  7. Nigel McNaughton September 15, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Well first of all it’s a certainty you haven’t read the book. So your whole (late to the party) post is based on 1 line out of an entire book.

    It’s been a hilarious week watching all the religious people (who again haven’t read the book) complain so loudly that you can’t get something from nothing.

  8. Julie Collins September 15, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    Jon Richt, he is clearly not talking to you, he is talking to the people with the ability to use their brain.

    its not much about whether or not something came from nothing that really makes me go “well now i know something is wrong”, it is when they go overboard when i notice they are dead wrong.

    some science books even state “3 seconds after the big bang matter and antimatter won the war with each other” or “1 trillionth of a second after the big bang atoms started to form”

    now how would we POSSIBLY know this?

  9. Mike Ayala September 15, 2010 at 5:44 pm #

    Hey Gary,

    I hope when you say you believe in God, you mean the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Creator of heaven and earth. I’m not being sarcastic: I hope you realize that virtually everybody worships a god of some sort, whether it is the one and only true God, or some poor substitute formed in the image of the one who worships it. Those who worship at evolution’s alters worship a god of nothingness.

    As far as the age of the universe goes with reference to God, the God who claims that He made the universe reveals to us through His word that the creation is in the range of thousands of years old, not billions. The exact number I will not debate at this time, but it is sufficient for the understanding that the Word of God teaches that we live on an young earth in comparison to uniformitarian evolutionary dogma. If you have a problem with that, then your problem is believing the word of God and trusting His divine revelation to you.

    Please be careful about making dogmatic unsupported statements like, “…what is undeniable and clear scientific discovery.” There are a number of contestable issues just in that little statement alone. When you take the bias and dishonesty out of what you call science, all we have left is evidence incompatible with the evolutionary party line. A quick study of radio isotope dating and its relationship to project funding will reveal how corrupted evolutionary dating can be. Evolutionary thinking has corrupted the interpretation of evidence from it’s modern beginning with Darwin and Lyle. Evolutionary thinking has even rewritten what history could have been despite all evidence to the contrary as in the Stanley Miller experiment.

    I do not know what has so convinced you with such great certainty that the creation is billions of years old, but please apply some scrutiny to the proofs shown to you that have formed those opinions within you. Scrutiny is one of the defenses you have against being deceived by those who would steal your soul by causing you to doubt the word of God through deception. Remember, that is Satan’s first line of attack, “Yea, hath God said…”.

    Grace and blessings to you,

    Mike Ayala

  10. Duane September 15, 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    I haven’t read Hawking’s book yet, but there’s something disingenuous about expressing astonishment and disbelief at the concept of “something from nothing” when that’s your position, too. “Oh, well it makes perfect sense if there was a being who said some magic words and made something from nothing. (Gen 1.1-3) Take away the magic person and it’s completely silly.” It’s kind of like Kent’s assertion that scientists believe we came from “grandpa” rock. Well, what do you believe Dr. Hovind? “The Bible says we came from dirt. (Gen 2.7)” Makes perfect sense.

  11. Stephen Holshouser September 15, 2010 at 9:34 pm #

    “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.”

    It sounds like Hawking is pretty good at “spontaneous creation” himself. His ideas about the origin of things arose from absolutely nothing and are worth exactly that.

  12. Welsh Andy September 16, 2010 at 3:17 am #

    A couple of things. Firstly Hawking is talking about the formation of the universe, not stars. Stars formed after the universe.
    Secondly, we know a lot about the formation of stars. Perhaps you should try reading some modern texts on star formation.
    @Mike Ayala Hawking makes his statement on the authority of a lifetime studying the universe.

  13. Joakim Rosqvist September 16, 2010 at 6:46 am #

    >> Which came first—the stars to form the elements, or the elements to form the stars?

    No problem – Big Bang directly creates hydrogen an helium which later contract into stars that over time compress these light elements into the heavier ones.

  14. Boris khoboltovskii September 16, 2010 at 12:11 pm #

    There’s no chicken and egg problem here! The stars form higher elements from mostly hydrogen which is already abundant.
    “Flys in the face of what “we” know in science” is a funny quote when you realize that the person making the original statement is one of our preeminent scientists. It is people like Hawking who help determine what “we” know in science. I’m not sure that some home-schooled kid can critique Hawking.

  15. Boris khoboltovskii September 16, 2010 at 12:46 pm #

    Good on you “Jeff Shows”
    …”Hawking will have his theology right……..one day.”
    Sounds like you reckon Hawking will be in Hell one day…
    and what is is his Sin?
    “being stuck in a wheel-chair unable to speak and care for himself with Motor Neuron Disease, while merely trying to understand the Universe in spite of his situation”.

    I think you should spend the rest of your life looking in the mirror until you “get it”.

  16. Boris khoboltovskii September 16, 2010 at 12:56 pm #

    “Gary Hendricks” Glad you’re amused!
    I wish I had the “know in my heart” super-power. That must be awesome! I do, however, agree with your second paragraph.

  17. Gary Hendricks September 16, 2010 at 1:56 pm #

    Boris…Why would my amusement require some sort of “super-power”. My belief in God is based on the very same intellectual process that your dis-belief comes from. I do, however, believe a creator explains the universe better than a lack of one.

    Mike – If you believe my statement that there is undeniable and clear scientific discovery to be dogmatic and unsupported then let me illustrate. The church used your very same style of reasoning and rhetoric against the scientific discovery that the Earth was not flat and that it was not stationary and had the entire universe rotating around it. But I would hope that even you would admit that there has been “undeniable and clear scientific discovery” proving otherwise. Of course once the church accepted that truth and looked at the Bible without the blinders of human arrogance they realized they had read into the Bible their own limited beliefs

    I absolutely and categorically disagree with you that God ever stated that the age of “creation is in the range of thousands of years old, not billions”. This is simply your very shallow and surface conjecture…and not at all what God Himself said. It is an interpretation of the Genesis account that is purely based on your understanding, which also happens to disagree with the facts. You are no different then those who stripped Galileo of his wealth and status because they, like you, worshiped at the seat of biblical dogma and truly missed the grandeur and glory that is God.

    As I have stated before, genuine science is not an enemy of God. There does not need to be a contradiction. Where is the contradiction in this present discussion? It is between you and science…and I believe also between you and God. I am not saying science is God…but I am saying it is part of His creation and is in no way in conflict with him. Do I have a problem believing the “Word of God” as you stated? (This is a term that is actually used to describe Jesus NOT the Bible by the way.) I would answer no more so than Galileo did. But you don’t get to place your human understanding on the same level as divine revelation. In your arrogance you do a great dis-service to that book that you claim to hold in such high regard.

  18. Nigel McNaughton September 16, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    The next time ‘younger brother’ complains about how all the Evilutionists are big meanies and all the Creationists are sweetness and light, I think I will just compile a list of quotes like Julies as a response.

    Which fruits of the spirit was that Julie? Peace, Love, Kindness.. Self Control?

  19. Jon Richt September 16, 2010 at 5:27 pm #

    Julie Collins wrote the following to me: Jon Richt, he is clearly not talking to you, he is talking to the people with the ability to use their brain.

    Julie, people with brains would know enough to read the contents of a book before claiming they understand what’s written in it.

    You knew this, right?

  20. John Smith September 16, 2010 at 6:23 pm #

    Where did god come from? And who does he believe in?

  21. Joakim Rosqvist September 17, 2010 at 1:11 am #

    @Julie Collins
    >>some science books even state “3 seconds after the big bang >>matter and antimatter won the war with each other” or “1 >>trillionth of a second after the big bang atoms started to form”
    >>
    >>now how would we POSSIBLY know this?

    How can an investigator figure out what happened at a crime scene where he was not present? – by recognizing the objects there and knowing from previous examinations how they behave and because action have physical effects that remain after the event.
    Astronomers and physicists have used various kind of telescopes and particle accelerators for a long time and made many detailed experiments that tell us how matter behaves at different energy levels, allowing us to infer the events that took place a long time ago. It’s quite fascinating – go read a book about it.

  22. Stephen Holshouser September 17, 2010 at 3:12 pm #

    Hawking said;
    “The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can’t understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science ‘God’, but it wouldn’t be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions.”

    I guess he also believes that the laws established themselves as well… brilliant!! He chooses not to believe in a personal God, with absolutely no facts to support his belief, so naturally he tries his best to make hypotheses that do not include Him. It’s like trying to hypothesize where the internet came from without using man as the designer… of course you have to say it created itself… but then you would be stealing credit from Al Gore and who wants to do that?

    Creationists can’t help but believe in God, so naturally we want to prove that everything we see necessarily had to have an Intelligent Being bring it all into existence with order and purpose… it is so obvious. We’ve NEVER seen anything appear out of nothing in the real world, so how can we believe it happened long ago and far away? If there were no consequences for people not believing in God, then it wouldn’t matter to us at all. However, history has shown devastating consequences in this life for rejecting the Lord, and the Bible (which has had many convincing prophecies fulfilled if one will take an honest look) tells of even worse consequences after death. We reason with you because we genuinely care about YOU (not to mention we want to do what Jesus told us to do).

  23. Boris khoboltovskii September 17, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    “Boris…Why would my amusement require some sort of “super-power”. My belief in God is based on the very same intellectual process that your dis-belief comes from. I do, however, believe a creator explains the universe better than a lack of one.”

    I was talking about you “knowing in your heart” as a super power . Not being “amused”. How did you misread that?
    I highly doubt that we use the same intellectual process. If a creator explains the Universe then what explains the creator?

  24. jesse lovell September 18, 2010 at 10:37 pm #

    Atheist, A (without) Theist (God). When people ask me what I am, I tell them I am an atheist because I don’t believe in God or gods. The word g-o-d is word that describes all universal deities; the universal deities in the scriptures are called Ba’alim (plural of Ba’al). These Ba’alim that the children of Yisrael forsook in place of Yahuah( Yod,He,Uau,He) were graven images referring to animals like the goat, bull, and other horned beasts. The 3rd commandment is “You do not bring the Name of יהוה your Elohim to naught, for יהוה does not leave the one unpunished who brings His Name to naught(nothing,vein).” Jesus Christ has very strong ties to Zeus and Apollo the sun gods. The Name Jesus and the title Christ we get from Greek origins. The Greeks called all of their deities by the title Krishna or Christos,(or in English Christ) which means literally to be rubbed upon with salve. The high priests in the scriptures were never to be rubbed on with salve when anointed. They were anointed with oils that were to be poured onto the tops of their heads and any other way is forbidden. So Christ doesn’t mean the Anointed one it means one who is rubbed on with salve. Jesus in Greek is Iesous(E’a-sus); ie in iesous means a cry to invoke Apollo the Sun God, and sous means to lift up, so we have lifting up a cry to invoke Apollo, which is forbidden in the 1st commandment. I am יהוה your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim(Egypt), out of the house of slavery. You have no other mighty ones against My face. which is exactly what we are doing when using any other names except the ones given to us. When we make up our own names and gods and try to say we are doing it to the creator Yahuah he hates it. So when we use LORD, God, And Jesus which are not the Creators name, have no relation to his name, and all refer to pagan gods, should we be using them? (typical response i hear almost all the time) He knows what I mean, He doesn’t really care, and He doesn’t mind what you call him just as long as you believe in what he did. Well Messiah Yahusha said,”Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to complete. For truly, I say to you, till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah till all be done.” And as we just covered he does care what you call him, and calling him whatever you please is called disobedience. When we assert our wills above the will(Torah) of Yahuah we receive strong delusions from Yahuah. If you want to know the truth Yahuah will show you but, it is going to change your life in a way most people do not want(that is what the strong delusions from Yahuah are for, people that want to be willingly ignorant so they can live life the way they want to). All true believers are going to be persecuted and your enemies will be in your own household. 1Jn 3:13 says “Do not marvel, my brothers, if the world hates you.” WE ARE GOING TO BE HATED. Messiah, the Prophets, and many true believers were murdered for exposing the forsaking of the Torah of EloahYahim for the teaching of men(Babylonian Talmud). How can we say we are true believers if we have hardly any persecution( I am talking about people seeking your life persecution)? It says in Jer 16:19 O יהוה, my strength and my stronghold and my refuge, in the day of distress the gentiles shall come to You from the ends of the earth and say, “Our fathers have inherited ONLY falsehood, futility, and there is no value in them.” How are we to know if we have been deceived? Read the Torah, if anything if you believe off from Torah you have been deceived. The ties all religion has in Pagan Babylonian sun god worship will utterly blow your mind. If you care to know the free truth from the true creator Yahuah EloahYahim contact me at Jesseslovell@hotmail.com or start doing scriptural word etymologies and praying to the father Yahuah with repentance for forsaking his Torah.

  25. Duane September 19, 2010 at 2:04 am #

    “How could we possibly know this?”

    Science does not deal in absolutes. Science does not say, “This is how it happened.” Science is scientists observing a phenomenon and studying what can be know about it. Data is collected. Ideas explaining the phenomenon are hypothesized and the data is compared against it. If it is successful, more data is gathered and compared. Also, there is a concept of falsification. What would disprove the hypothesis? Scientists actually work harder to disprove hypotheses than to prove them. It is published and other scientists attempt to replicate and disprove the hypothesis. If it survives, then it is on its way to becoming a theory. Several theories form a model. When you see a science referring to the Big Bang and the details therein such as what happens at 10 ^-37 seconds and such, they are referring to how it is understood according to the model. You will never hear a scientist state that a model is an absolute actuality. What they will say is that a certain model most successfully explains the phenomena we observe better than others. Right now, the Big Bang model is the best explanation for the universe as we see it. Several theories have been shown to describe reality very well, like Einstein’s Theories of General Relativity and Special Relativity. Theories and models can be made to describe other phenomena and use those previously successful theories as their basis. The Big Bang, for instance, comes from the Theory of General Relativity and other theories. Theories are not just assertions written down in a book that other scientists harrumph over and laugh at believers in God. There are precise mathematical formulations behind all of this. We know to a great accuracy quite a lot about the universe. We can tell the speed at which it expands, the mass needed at that speed, etc. We’ve gone way beyond parallax measurements of distances. We use multiple methods and they agree with each other, giving us confirmation. Plus, as said before, we don’t need to actually witness everything to know it happened. Remember Algebra in school? A + 1 = 3. We don’t know A, but we can figure it out by knowing the other values. Science is like that.

    Only religion deals in absolutes. Religion doesn’t actually possess any actual knowledge just assertions. Religion specializes in finding mysteries and offering ad hoc explanations with no evidence and insisting they are not only correct, but because competing ideas don’t assert the same certainty then they must be wrong. It depends on keeping its members ignorant so they will always trust the church. Over time, science has actually discovered the answer to many of these mysteries, such as rainbows (which are the result of the physics of light refractions through rain drops), thunder (it’s not gods bowling), mental illness (not demonic possession after all) etc. Whenever science and religion has been in opposition, science had always won. When it comes to origins, we can deduce through modern clues much about our origins, but the truth is some things are probably never going to be known with an absolute certainty, such as why the universe exists at all. Positing a Bronze Age deity from a small desert tribe does not actually have any explanatory power at all. When you resort to magic as an explanation, you’ve given up. We don’t experience magic today, why would it them seem reasonable as an explanation? I ask back, how can we possibly know this? We don’t have a direct line to God, no matter what some of you insist. If we did, you wouldn’t even have to use concepts like “faith”. “Faith” tips your hand letting us all know that is all some elaborate form of wish fulfillment. If Kent Hovind had an actual direct line to God, he wouldn’t be where he is today. If Ray Comfort actually talked to Jesus and Jesus talked back to him (“He’s as real as my wife.”) then you would think Jesus would give him a better argument than the same variation on Pascal’s Wager, Argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion and consequence that he uses. No one who claims to speak to God ever seems to come out with any more knowledge than they had when they went in. I know if I had actual access to a super being that created the universe and knows everything about it, I would have a lot of questions I’d like answered. I wouldn’t spend the whole experience praising him over and over and apologizing for being so human.

    “Well, we know God from His revealed Word.” You must have a different Bible than I have. Mine has this God character who is a bloodthirsty tyrant obsessed with the comings and goings of a small desert tribe. He hates pork, shellfish and leavened bread, has a huge obsession with foreskins (they say when you collect something, you only need to collect the first few, others will get you the rest. Also, it’s funny that someone so disgusted by homosexuality is so obsessed with penises to begin with), is a jerk a lot of the time (He makes Adam and Eve not knowing the difference between right and wrong, then teases them by telling them to avoid the tree that bears fruit that will let them know right from wrong -which any parent knows is a guarantee the kid is going to check it out- and then punishes them for not knowing right from wrong. Then there’s the story of Abraham, which has God playing Chicken and losing. God destroying the earth for being wicked, which solved not a single thing. It just goes on and on.). A lot of it reads like a priestly handbook. God’s solution for leprosy is having the victim burn a bird and come back every few weeks to be checked out? God also is alright with slavery and thinks that a virgin who is raped should then have to be bought by the rapist and made his wife? Everyone thinks the Bible is all sweetness and light, when there’s some outright pornography in there. I know a guy who has a standing challenge to theists to let him read two Bible stories to their children of his choosing. No one has ever taken him up on it. Why didn’t He put anything useful in there? Like how to cure a disease or how to unclog a drain or something?

    I was raised around Christians. I tried to be one. Ultimately, it just doesn’t make any sense and fails to describe reality with any reliability so why should anyone trust it for anything else it claims? I have read both sides and one side makes logical, informed points and backs them up with evidence and reason The other side uses magic and demonstrably false stories as an explanation and has logical fallacy after fallacy. Emotional appeals are made, consequences are trotted out. Misrepresentations and lies are made. I love it when some communist tyranny is brought out as some model of atheism. Truer representations are countries like Sweden and Denmark, where people are educated, generally well off, and typically atheist. Totalitarianism has more parallels with the religious worldview. It’s all about controlling not only actions, but thoughts. My new all-time favorite logical fallacy is that video on this site that says logic is only possible with God. I’m still trying to wrap my head around why anyone would be impressed with it. So, logic is Unchanging, Immaterial, and Universal and since those also describe God, then it is only possible with God? I have not enough faces nor palms to do such inanity justice. If this is the best you have, then thank you for confirming my worldview.

    The reason folks like the Hovinds are so obsessed with evolution is because they perceive it as the last bastion of hope for religion. Religion failed at everything else, but if we can keep hold of this last mystery then we can keep our magic sky daddy (which is quite lucrative). Problem is, that boat has sailed. Every time you see a creationist try to disprove Darwin himself, they’ve already lost. Darwin just suggested a mechanism, but it’s gone way past him now. So many things he couldn’t ever know have been confirmed through multiple disciplines. We live in a time unlike any other. When the Bible was written, we didn’t understand how babies were made, how disease was transmitted, how traits were inherited, what things were made of, and countless other things. They did the best they could but that was the childhood of civilization. We live in the greatest time ever as far as knowledge about the world. Ask yourself, do I care if what I believe is true and representative of the world I live in, even if it is not comforting? Can I be satisfied with knowledge that can be verified to a high degree by actual study or do I need an absolute answer regardless of how flawed or based upon empty assertions made by people who lived thousands of years ago guessed it might be? If there actually was a real all-powerful entity that created the universe who takes a personal interest in your wellbeing and that of others, wouldn’t you think that if He had a message for mankind that told of His existence that it would be completely unambiguous and would not be open to interpretation? There are 30,000 protestant denominations alone! Wouldn’t it be profound and useful and not read like a book of folklore and stodgy outdated records of tribal births and OCDtype rules?

    Someone asked what convinced us that science is right. We can check the data. It has been checked over and over by many, many different scientists. Bad Science gets weeded out. Remember Cold Fusion? I ask why you believe religion. It is the absolute easiest scam to pull off if one so desired. All it takes is a Bible and the gift of gab. The hard part is done. You don’t have to convince the suckers of anything. They come in already buying whatever you’re selling. Mention Jesus and you are golden. Check out the documentary called Marjoe for some enlightening insight into evangelism. Fact is there’s NO way to ever determine who’s legit and who isn’t. It doesn’t even matter, really, because even if someone is found out to be a fraud, they will STILL have followers because people are convinced they are giving their money and attention to Jesus. I was flipping channels the other day and Peter Popoff has a show and he’s selling “Miracle Water” and still doing his fake healings. Peter Popoff was caught red-handed deceiving his audience and exposed on national television. I’m not even going to go into talking about the 800lb gorilla in the room, suffice it to say, do a little research.

  26. Mike Ayala September 19, 2010 at 6:28 pm #

    Hi again, Gary,

    When you say “the church”, do you mean those whom Jesus has loved and washed from sins in His own blood, or do you mean the corrupt organization that practiced priest craft that originated in Babylon, moved to Phoenicia, and finally landed in Rome which made itself a substitute for Christ?

    Please stick to the point, Gary. The issue is good science, its observation, reporting, and honest unbiased logical conclusions. An history lesson, and a skewed one at that, about what some have done in the name of Christ is leading the discussion down a rabbit trail, and it is neither helpful nor constructive. I cannot understand how an history lesson can be used as any sort of proof or evidence of an old earth or creation.

    You’ve offered nothing of science. You have not even offered anything from the word of God to support any claim you have made. Actually, you have not offered anything except ranting and raving. Please deal with the issue rather than resorting to the predictable evolutionist tactic of character assassination. Please examine what you have written and explain how that is going to convince anybody – even an evolutionist – that the earth and creation is as old as you claim it to be?

    Despite your illustration, your previous statement remains a dogmatic and unsupported statement. Please think it through. Ask yourself, “Is what I am writing actually answering a question by pointing the reader to empirical evidence one can research on one’s own, or is it just venting frustration?”

    You are actually in the unenviable position of that “church” you referenced that tried to prove a flat earth: You are trying to prove an old earth when the evidence is just not there, you have none to offer, and those who produce the supposed evidence that the earth is as old as they say it is are just as corrupt if not more so than those who bought their position of religious authority and sold indulgences to forgive sins. Be careful of the examples you choose to use because they may come back to bite you.

    Genesis? Have you ever actually studied the Bible? If taken at face value, even those Hebrew scholars who do not like it still admit that Genesis 1 means what it says – that the creation was created in six literal evening and mornings (that‘s 24-hours in modern day parlance). Skeptics just try, like you, to authoritatively proclaim that the Bible does not say what it means. The only authority anyone has comes from the word of God. The rest are thieves and robbers who come to steal, kill, and destroy. Do not try to defend an undependable position.

    Like so many others, please do not put words into my mouth. It is very unhygienic and not very polite. I did not say “that God ever stated that the age of “creation is in the range of thousands of years old, not billions”.” I do not know if that is your intention to misrepresent my statements or if your passion is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.
     
    What I have written is not an interpretation. The dumbest thing one can do is interpret the word of God. God says what He means and means what He says. If you find it objectionable, then you need to talk with Him about it.

    Please read the Bible for yourself before you accept what anybody says about it. Don’t even believe what I say. Read it for yourself, but read it with understanding and honesty allowing the word of God to conform you into the image of Christ. Study it to find out what the Bible really says and not what you want it to say. You can even access the Hebrew language through many free Bible software programs.

    Now, you just blow your credibility when you make unsubstantiated allegations especially when they appear malicious in nature. Please show me where the Scripture supports your allegations? Just one valid place would be interesting. You have obviously never done a timeline in the Bible. It is a child’s exercise. If you have done the timeline, then you are just rejecting God’s word.

    Either you accept the word of God at face value, or you set yourself up as the authority determining what is and is not God’s word. I can guarantee that you do not have that authority.


     
    By the way, happy 5771 to you!

    By your reckoning what did God say in His word that was in contradiction to what I wrote? I actually said “He revealed”. He put it in such a way that no one could corrupt it. You are trying to corrupt it. Doing so makes manifest that you have not accepted what He has revealed about the age of the earth and creation. You either have not read it, or you have been so biased that you cannot accept the plain language facts of the Scripture the same way that Darwin could not accept the obvious plain evidence before him at San Sebastian, Santa Cruz River Valley, and Concepcion. Darwin’s conclusions are so wrong that his geological career is an embarrassment to informed evolutionists and the field of geology in general.

    Genesis Chapter 1 has a waw-consecutive at the beginning of each of the verses showing a continuity right through from day one to day six. We are provided the ages of the patriarchs from Adam to Noah and each one’s age at the time of the next son in the genealogy in Genesis Chapter 5. The continuity of the genealogy continues in Genesis Chapter 11 with Shem to Abraham. Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born. Jacob live to be 147. The time from Jacob to today is roughly about 3500 -3700 years.

    Why do you think the Lord included the ages of each person in the early genealogy? I suggest to you the Lord did it to confound those who would later come and distort the word of God teaching an old age of the earth and creation.

    Gary, you are following in the footsteps of that religious organization that persecuted Galileo because he believed the evidence; You are following the old ancient teaching of one who was incompetent at best in his chosen field and more likely dishonest in order to accommodate his system of belief. Twisting the truth never changes the truth. It only reveals the liar.

    Word of God – What? Are you sure about what you wrote? Did you check it out first? Jesus is the Word. “God was the Word.” If you read Mark 10:6, you will find that the Word of God teaches that “from the beginning of the creation God ‘made them male and female’”. Hebrews 4:12 teaches us, “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper that any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” When Jesus returns, “out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations.” But do not worry, for until He comes to snatch us out of here, the Word of God has left us “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Hummm…., I bet there is something here for us all to learn – that is if we are humble.

    God bless you, Gary.

    Mike Ayala