Print Friendly, PDF & Email

My reader friend Tom wrote and told me he’s never heard any evolutionist claim that “something spontaneously appeared from nothing, for no reason.”   What started out as replies to comments has some good teaching points so I thought would pull them up into a blog post. As Tom gets to know me, he’ll realize I’m not doing this prove I’m right, or attempt to beat him up publicly. Not at all.  When I have a useful dialog with someone who disagrees, it is a great way for people to listen in and learn.

Tom stated with certainty that I had no idea what I was talking about.I asked him to disprove what I was saying in this post about a comment from Stephen Hawking.  He replied back:

I’m not sure what you’d like me to disprove. I’ve never heard of anybody who claims that anything “spontaneously appeared from nothing, for no reason.” The Big Bang–as little as is currently knows about it or what caused it–was certainly not matter spontaneously appearing from nothing. Briefly, all matter in the universe was condensed into a very tiny spot before expanding rapidly.

I would never look down upon anybody who believes God had a divine hand in the formation of the universe. [I don’t like] when I see somebody mocking a man like Hawking with such folly and incredible misunderstanding.

I will not be able to completely explain it well here, so I can only suggest you find a book on the subject, perhaps Hawking’s latest.

I would disagree with Tom not “looking down” on those who believe in God because he stated outright I had no idea what I was talking about and pointed me to Hawking as a source of wisdom about our origins.  By the way, there is nothing MOCKING about my post on Hawking. It is factual and ends with empathy for the scientist.

Just because we forcefully disagree with someone doesn’t mean we are mocking them.  To the contrary, instead of my having an “incredible misunderstanding” about Hawking, I propose that I clearly see the real issue: a person who completely denies God has to resort to fantasy explanations for the origins of life and uses their GOD-GIVEN intellectual to create those fantasies.

Questions for Tom and those who believe like him:

Where did the “tiny spot” come from? It was “something”.  What are it’s origins? Did the tiny spot appear spontaneously from nothing for no reason? Was the tiny spot eternal? What CAUSED the tiny spot to expand rapidly? Pure chance? Even if true (and that doesn’t explain how the tiny spot came to exist unless we just accept without question it was eternal), how did a tiny spot of material matter become life, purpose, love, justice, music, joy, thought, creativeness? How did it make the insurmountable jump from lifeless material to living material? Then make the infinitely bigger jump from living material to thinking, rational, creative beings (humans)? Don’t say “read books about evolution” because they ever-changing theory and guesses based on no evidence, no proof and no logic… not “science”.

You only have three options regarding our origin:

  1. SomeONE existed eternally and created someTHING.
  2. Or someTHING existed eternally and created/organized more of itself.
  3. Or NOTHING existed eternally and SOMEthing was created spontaneously for no reason.

Can you think of another option?

Option three is absurd except to those who MUST deny God at all costs and will accept a fairy tale impossibility.  Option two makes dead material not only eternal but creative which is also absurd. Option one is perfectly logical and plausible but opens the door that we are probably accountable to that Creator, and not “gods” of our lives, or worse (?) not random, purposeless accidents.  It is for that reason man will look around at this magnificent creation that screams “THERE MUST BE  CREATOR” and still deny that obvious and unavoidable fact.

You don’t have to HEAR someone claim “spontaneously appeared from nothing, for no reason.”  It is the unavoidable logical conclusion that evolutionists pretend doesn’t exist (apparently its the one thing time and chance didn’t create).

Evolution is a fairy tale based on ONE THING: we MUST deny there is a God no matter how absurd and illogical our theories have to be about this universe, this life and the reason for our existence. Have you ever thought about that aspect? People are willing to believe ANYTHING, no matter how impossible, if it allows them to NOT consider God in the equation.  When you really consider the logical and unavoidable conclusions of evolution, it leaves you to accept as your reasons for existing nothing but an absurdity, an impossibility, indeed, a fairy tale.

Consider “origins”: something from nothing is impossible (a tiny spot is something). Something dead spontaneously becoming something living (even if it took billions of years) is impossible. Something living transforming into something entirely different (a protein into a creature; a creature into a plant; a plant into an animal; an animal into an entire different kind of animal; an animal into a human) is impossible, SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. It’s never been witnessed, never been replicated and there is ZERO evidence for it unless you choose to believe that artists drawings in books as evidence.  Yet people still believe it because the alternative is to consider a Creator.

In fact, it is MORE than impossible (if that’s possible) that animal life became human life by random time and chance. And yet, in order to deny God, the most intelligent men on Earth, like Hawking, will believe that fantasy to their eternal demise for one reason only: because they will not consider believing in God even though an eternal, personal, creative God is the most obvious and logical answer that fits all the evidence we have before us.

Tom points to Hawking to support his declaration that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Why would I even want to read any more Hawking (I’ve read tons of evolutionary teaching over 25 years)? He denies God. That makes everything he says or thinks automatically biased and skewed. That’s not science. He starts with a predetermined conclusion with no possibility of a Creator. That makes him, sadly, a fool, not a scientist, regardless of what the world labels him.

I appreciate Tom’s comments and especially the fact the he doesn’t hide behind a keyboard as a cowardly “anonymous” writer. My intention, as I hope Tom’s is also, is to simply think about and consider what is the Truth… even if that leads me to God or “time and chance”. I hope Tom will be open to both possibilities as well.