His reasoning begs the simple question: where did the laws of physics come from that brought about the big bang? Or did these laws spontaneously appear as well?
It is simply ludicrous to believe in spontaneous creation. It is contrary to logic and good sense and was disproved a long time ago through the work of the Creationist Louis Pasteur.
There is no evidence for it. This is just the wild speculation of scientists who seek to eliminate God from the origin of the universe. We are always being told that the evidence supports evolution. So where is the evidence of spontaneous creation?
Something or someone has to be eternal. Everything else has come from the eternal source. The Bible believer acknowledges that God is eternal. He created the world out of nothing:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear, Heb 11:3.
The following challenge to the BBC appeared on the Peter Hitchens feature page of the International Express 5/1/00:
The BBC teased religious leaders by asking them if they believed in the literal truth of the great bible stories. I would like to ask BBC chiefs and the rest of our secular establishment if they believe in the literal truth of evolution. Evolution is an unproven theory. If what its fundamental supporters say is true, fishes decided to grow lungs and legs and walk up the beach. The idea is so comically daft that only one thing explains its survival - that lonely, frightened people wanted to expel God from the universe because they found the idea that He exists profoundly uncomfortable.
5 comments:
I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University
There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.
Clark Pinnock
Mcmaster University
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian
What is "The New Testament of Acts"?
The Book of Acts.
The Acts of the Apostles.
Then why did you use the phrase "New Testament of Acts"? Sherwin-White didn't call it that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
Post a Comment