Hawking scoffs at heaven

May 16, 2011 • 4:52 am

Lest there be some soul in, say, the Rub’ al Khali who doesn’t know that Stephen Hawking is an atheist, let this be the definitive word.  According to the Guardian, Hawking is “speaking” at a Google Zeitgeist meeting in London today, and his topic is “Why are we here?”  A taste of his answer, which will infurate theists:

In the talk, he will argue that tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life, emerged. “Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in,” he said.

But this, from an interview he had with the newspaper, will tick off the faithful even more:

You had a health scare and spent time in hospital in 2009. What, if anything, do you fear about death?

I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

So let’s not have any more palaver about Hawking’s “mind of God” remark indicating a deep religiosity.

68 thoughts on “Hawking scoffs at heaven

  1. I read a very inspiring text a few days ago about how science ought to be embraced, as it shows mankind is responsible for its own fate. I think Hawking’s statements are in the same tradition. The odds against our emergence are astronomical; how fortunate are we not to be here, in spite of the odds? Better make the best of it, and not turn to fairy tales that dilute the wonder of existence. c:

  2. I admit that the saddest part of my eventual death is that I won’t “know how it all turns out”; really, I am curious on what civilization will look like in 1000 years or so. I also want to know IF unifying the forces of physics is even possible (in elegant form…then again in MY afterlife I have the intellectual firepower to understand it all 🙂 )

    1. Ditto. I also want to know what civilization and/or the earth will look like 10,000 years from now and 100,000 years from now, and 1 million years from now.

      I’m not sure I’d actually want to be alive for a million years straight, but it does suck that I’ll never learn how it all turns out.

      1. If you haven’t already, check out Kurt Vonnegut’s “Galapagos”. Its premise revolves around a main character getting the opportunity to hang around the Earth for a million years, just to watch and wait… and wait… and wait. What happens to humanity is most humorous, eventually.

    2. Exactly! To have a multitude of interests and, someday, not being able to see “how things turn out” is the only bad part of dying. Perhaps, not knowing is a form of death…?

    3. “life is like arriving late for a movie, having to figure out what was going on without bothering everybody with a lot of questions, and then being unexpectedly called away before you find out how it ends”. –Joseph Campbell

    4. When I was little I used to feel very strongly that way about unfinished book or tv series. I would think “I hope I don’t die before x is finished, I really want to know how it all ends”. It’s frustrating to think that I will definately die without finding out how we humans will hold up in the longterm.

      1. That’s OK, the network will probably cancel it before it ends anyway, so none of us will ever know.

        I’m still bitter about “Terriers”.

          1. I still consider Deadwood to be the single best TV series ever, excepting the last, rushed, episode to try and close out what should have been a series that lasted 10 years or more.

            I think I’ve now watched the entire series 5 times through.

            made me a big fan of Ian McShane.

            /fanboy

            1. I too never tire of watching Deadwood – and especially Ian McShane. His presence as Swearengen comes through so strongly – you can almost smell him. I think I was The Last Person In The World to learn that Deadwood was cancelled. I kept checking Netflix for season 4…for probably 2 years. Sigh.

      2. It’s frustrating to think that I will definately die without finding out how we humans will hold up in the longterm.

        I think everyone that has ever existed and will exist shares the same problem.

  3. I never understood why people mistook Hawking’s “mind of God” quips as anything other than a delightfully tongue-in-cheek turn of phrase.

    1. Isn’t it obvious? It’s the exact same reason why Darwin had a deathbed conversion and why Dawkins’s jeans won’t share.

      As Eusebius wrote in his Praeparatio Evangelica, Book XXI, Chapter XXXi, “That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment”:

      [PLATO] ‘But even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

      ‘Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.’

      Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

      Cheers,

      b&

      1. See also:

        “We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.” – Ignatius Loyola

        “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.” – Martin Luther

        1. Unfortunately Luther’s sentiments are usually taken to mean Lying for Jesus is OK. Don’t forget how many of those good ol’ christians were happy to hand over their Jewish neighbors to the bad guys – apparently not many thought it was worth lying to save ’em. The Danes can be proud that they were a remarkable exception.

    2. I see, Ben addressed the act of people using quotes from famous smart people as authority (and extending the method by manufacturing such quotes). But I have a different angle on Grania’s question.

      Maybe it was Nietzsche who wrote something like this (maybe in Beyond Good and Evil): As long as someone views a painting of a horse and sees a horse (not a painting), then they will see the characters G, o, d appended into a word God (as a proper name, as if for a person), and think there is such a thing (or person).

      I imagine everyone commenting here can make abstractions, and realize we are making abstractions. But I’ve known smart and honest people who don’t have as much practice at with that. For example, when I was a teaching assistant at MIT, a homework problem had a sailboat with a mast of length L. A student came to me confused by what that was supposed to mean. He said, suppose the mast has a length 10 meters, then we call 10 meters L, is that what that means? I paused to consider how he saw it (backwards from how I saw it), then I agreed, yes, you can see it that way. Of course, the conventional academic way to think about the problem would be to learn the step he was making years earlier, then work with L in general, and plug in a numerical value for L when we want a numerical result. The experience made me realize I learned that system of abstraction surrounded by peers learning the same thing at the same time (and it was easy), but he was learning that system later (and it was awkward). Again, he was a smart and honest person with a different academic history, trying to understand what we meant.

      1. I remember trying to teach this to a classmate when we were doing algebra for the first time.

        I used colored pens, and replaced each letter in an equation with a colored box. Any x became a red box, any y became a green box, and so on.

        “Treat it like a puzzle – like a crossword or something. All the reds have to have the same value. All the greens have to have the same value. We want to find one that makes the math work.”

        That was the doorway in. Within a week, he had algebra down.

        The teacher asked about it, then started doing the same trick in her introduction to algebra class the following year.

        ^_^

    3. I don’t know about Paul Davies though. After being based on science for almost 300 pages, his book ended on a mysterious note within the last ten. And then he gobbled up the templeton prize for accommodationalists

      1. He has written several books. But yes, Davies seems to be a deist, or at least a believer in belief.

  4. This.

    Not afraid of death (what’s there to be afraid of when there’s nothing?). Dying on the other hand…

    1. “It’s not that I’m afraid to die, I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”

      Woody Allen

  5. Hawking is incredible..but doesn’t he have his own “fear of unknown fairies” ….in a statement earlier this year he implied that the most important problem for science to solve is to get man off the earth!! …to avoid alien monsters!! (?)
    hmm..

    1. I find the idea of territorial aliens somewhat unpalatable, if only because you can’t make space territories over these vast distances. [Colonization is another discussion; I don’t agree with Hawking there either.]

      But astrobiology points to the likelihood of life elsewhere. So not equivalent to fairies (unlikely).

  6. If I were Hawking I would change the voice synthesizer to something more appropriate whenever I am talking about religion. I think speaking with a 1970s Daleks voice staight out of ‘Doctor Who’ would really help the emphasis of certain points!

  7. So how much does Templeton Slush Fund have to spend to paper over this “embarrassment”?

  8. Bernard Shaw said that America and Britain are two nations divided by a common language. Just thought I’d mention that ‘tick off’, as used by Jerry in correct American English, means ‘piss off’ in British English (and probably American too). In Britain, ‘tick off’ means ‘scold’ and nothing but ‘scold’.

    I too am delighted that Stephen Hawking has unambiguously put his beliefs on the table, and confounded those faith-heads who clutched desperately at the straw of the famous ‘mind of God’ phrase, as though it betrayed some kind of religious belief. Of course it never did. Hawking was never religious, just as Einstein never was, despite wishful thinking boosted by his incautious use of language.

    1. Funny how the faith-heads insist we understand just how much of their fundamental document is supposed to be taken metaphorically, while not allowing us the slightest leeway in that regard…

  9. I don’t think we can put Stephen Hawking in the “accomodationist” column with those expressed thoughts.

  10. This has turned up on the front page of Yahoo.com. Of course, comments from Yahoo denizens run typically 10-to-1 against Hawking, typically, “..he cannot possibly know..” and “..this from someone who has to get his ass wiped by someone else??!” Typical…

    If you have Yahoo! mail, I suggest you weigh in (if you wish to waste the time, too).

    1. Interestingly, the rabbi agrees with Hawking that there is no evidence for heaven. The criticism of Hawking is just more accomodationalist “tone” whinging, although Hawking saying that heaven is “a fairy tale for people afraid of the dark.” is pretty mild. The rabbi says that the sin that Hawking committed is implying that believers in heaven are idiots, but Hawking did not call believers “idiots” or anything like the term.

      For the rabbi to infer that Hawking called believers “idiots” shows a super-sensitivity that comes from having fragile beliefs. It is also curious that the rabbi has therefore committed a sin under his definitions of slander or exaggeration.

      I have to agree with Hawking that believers are afraid of the dark; I myself was literally afraid of the dark for a long time. Curiously, I lost my fear of the dark at the same time as I lost my fear in not believing in god. So for me, they are the same thing. Fear of the dark is the imaging of scary things that cannot be seen, and if you can’t have any evidence for them, they can be pretty big and scary. Just like god.

  11. “There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers…” – Beutiful. I have just watched Carl Sagan’s “A Universe Not Made for US.” A brilliant argument for how science is able to protect us from our own biases and wishful thinking, similar to what Hawking is doing here. See:

  12. A question to Hawking was aired 7 July 2008 on the South African TV show 50/50

    “What happens to human self-consciousness when one dies?”

    Hawking replied:

    “I imagine what happens to human consciousness when we die is much like turning off a computer. I don’t believe in a heaven for computers. I think the after-life is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

    This answer silenced at least one South African pseudo-science writer who claimed Hawking was religious – another lie for Jesus exposed.

  13. I think we need to start saying what we mean using our own words, not those exapted from religion.
    It would save a lot of misunderstanding.

  14. I have read that science doesn’t understand the nature of 97% of the Universe(dark matter,and dark energy).We have a lot to learn.However,it infuriates me to no end that religious types conclude,on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that this validates their fantasies.Look at all the energy we put into arguing with them,instead of redoubling our efforts to understand the true nature of reality.Sad

    1. It is more like 95 %.

      And it isn’t like we don’t understand the nature of DE & DM, it is that we don’t understand their exact nature beyond what the standard cosmology tells us.

      This is akin to inflation btw, which is the stage before big bang expansion. We know some of its effects under standard cosmology, but haven’t yet gleaned much more. Here it is worse ratio-wise; if eternal inflation is the kind we have, we currently understand ~ 0 % of nature (14 Gy/oo Gy)…

      Yes, we have a lot more to learn.

  15. Last month I attended a lecture given by Professor Henry (Fritz) Schaefer entitled “Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang and God.” It went something along the lines of:

    Quotes from long dead people (Thomas Aquinas, etc.)

    Quotes mined from recently dead or aging scientists mentioning God.

    Many mentions of the Nobel prize.

    Here’s a list scientists who are Christians.

    Big Bang, must have a beginning. Therefore creator. Awesome power, loving, interested in humans. Jesus.

    In the middle was a short biography of Stephen Hawking, with quite a bit of emphasis on the life-changing event of the first meeting of S. H. and his devoutly Christian wife. Then a number of ‘contentious’ quotes from “A Brief History of Time” (of the ‘mind of God’ variety) which he then proceeded to ‘address’.

    It was a strange lecture consisting, as far as I could tell, of a lot of non-sequiturs designed to give general impressions, one of which was that Steven Hawking isn’t an atheist.

    I don’t know whether S. H. has heard of this lecture, which has doing the rounds for a number of years, but I would love to know what his responses to Schaefer’s arguments would be.

    At the end of the talk, one student asked, but how do you get from “there must be a creator”, to “it must be christianity”? Answer: the fabric of truth is seamless.

    I’ve been trying to work that into a conversation ever since!

  16. The following are the evidence to prove that Stephen Hawking has abused science to support his Big Bang theory in which gravity could exist prior to the formation of the universe to create something out of nothing since his theory has contradicted not only Isaac Newton’s principle, but also Eistein’s theory:

    The following is the extract of the second paragraph under the sub-title of “Negative Pressure” for the main subject of the ‘Nature Of Dark Energy’ as shown in the website address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

    According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the Stress-energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

    As the phrase, the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is mentioned in the extracted paragraph, it gives the implication that physical quantity of matter has to exist prior to the generation of gravitational effects. Or in other words, it opposes the principality that gravitational effects could occur at the absence of matter. As it is described pertaining to Dark Energy, it implies that Dark Energy could only be derived from the existence of the physical quantity of matter. This certainly rejects Stephen Hawking’s theory in which dark energy could exist prior to the formation of the universe as if that dark energy could exist the support or influence from the physical quantity of matter.

    The following is the extract of the third paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Cosmological Constant’ for the main subject of the ‘Nature of Dark Energy’ that has been extracted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy:

    The simplest explanation for dark energy is that it is simply the “cost of having space”: that is, a volume of space has some intrinsic, fundamental energy. This is the cosmological constant, sometimes called Lambda (hence Lambda-CDM model) after the Greek letter Λ, the symbol used to mathematically represent this quantity. Since energy and mass are related by E = mc2, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that it will have a gravitational effect..

    E = mc2 has been used to be related to Dark Energy. As energy and mass are related in according to General Relativity and if m = 0, no matter how big the number that c could be, E (the dark energy) would turn up to be 0 since no matter how big the number c is E is always equal to 0 when 0 (that is the mass) is multiplied by c2. Or in other words, E (the dark energy) should be equal to 0 at the absence of substance (the mass). Stephen Hawking’s theory certainly contradicts Eistein’s theory in the sense that he supports that dark energy ( E > 0) could exist even though there could not be any matter (that is m = 0) existed prior to the formation of the universe.

    Refer to the website address pertaining to Isaac Newton’s theory pertaining to The Unversal Law of Gravitation: ttp://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html

    Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the time of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely separation between the two objects. Fg = G(m1 m2)/r2. (Fg is the gravitational force; m1 & m2 are the masses of the two objects; r is the separation between the objects and G is the universal gravitational constant. From the formula, we note that Fg (the gravitational force or in replacement of dark energy) has a direct influence from two masses (m1 & m2). If either of the m is equal to 0, Fg would turn up to be 0. Isaac Newton’s theory certainly opposes Stephen Hawking in which gravity or the so-called, dark energy, could exist at the absence of matter prior to the formation of this universe in this energy or gravity could create something out of nothing.

    Stephen Hawking might comment that Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles are wrong. However, Stephen Hawking was not born at the time prior to the formation of this universe to visualize how the universe could be formed initially. To jump into the conclusion that the gravity could be created from something out of nothing is simply out of his own imagination. Not only that, his theory contradicts both Eistein’s and Isaac Newton’s principles pertaining to gravity.

  17. What is Big Bang Theory? The following is the definition of Big Bang theory that has been extracted from the third paragraph of the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang, under the sub-title of ‘Big Bang’:
    ‘The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that explains the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, THE UNIVERSE WAS ONCE IN AN EXTREMELY HOT AND DENSE STATE which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a SINGULARITY, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons.’
    As the phrase, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state, is mentioned in the definition of the Big Bang theory, it implies that something would have caused that universe to be once in an extremely hot and dense state. If nothing would have caused the universe to be extremely hot and dense state, how could the universe be in hot and dense condition? Or in other words, there must be something that would have caused the universe to be hot in order that Big Bang theory could be triggered off. This certainly contradicts Stephen Hawking’s theory that supports that something could be generated from nothing. This is by virtue of Big Bang theory requires heat and dense state instead of nothing in order to trigger off Big Bang theory and yet the phrase, something could be generated from nothing as suggested by Stephen Hawking, implies the absence of anything and this includes also heat and dense condition.
    The phrase, After its initial expansion from a singularity, as mentioned in the same paragraph in the website address above gives us the impression that Big Bang theory is the continuation theory of General Relativity.
    The following is the extract from the first paragraph under the sub-title of ‘Timeline of the Big Bang’:
    ‘Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using GENERAL RELATIVITY yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. THIS SINGULARITY IS SOMETIMES CALLED “THE BIG BANG”, but the term can also refer to the early hot, dense phase itself, which can be considered the “birth” of our Universe.’
    Both phrases, general relativity, and , singularity is sometimes called “the Big Bang”, as extracted above give us the idea that Big Bang theory is meant for general relativity.
    What is General Relativity? The following is the definition of General Relativity as extracted from the second paragraph under the sub-title, Introduction to General Relativity, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity:
    ‘General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Eistein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time.’
    The phrase, gravitational attraction between masses results from their warping of space and time, as mentioned in this definition gives the implication that the general relativity has their derivation from three elements and there are masses, space and time. It is only at the existence of masses that has been coordinated with the warping of space and time that these would contribute the gravitational attraction.
    As mentioned early that Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity and yet the General Relativity is only at work among masses, space and time. As masses have to be needed to be in existence in order to have the creation of General Relativity and yet Big Bang theory has to deal with General Relativity, it gives the implication that the masses of substances have to be present in order to generate Big Bang theory. As the existence of masses of substances would then generate Big Bang theory, Stephen Hawking’s theory that Big Bang theory would create something out of nothing would be wrong. This is by virtue of it is the must to have masses of substances to interact with time and space so as to generate Big Bang theory.
    Now a question has to be raised. As it is a must to have masses of substances in order to generate Big Bang theory that would result from their warping of space of time and yet Big Bang theory requires nothing to generate something, all these point to the fact that the Big Bang theory itself is unscientific and contradictorily and cannot be reliable.

    1. I think you have forgotten that energy has mass, not only matter. I’m far from an expert…but it makes sense to me that a super hot, dense point of energy has mass. Energy existed before matter, but mass exists with energy.

      1. Yes, energy has mass. Question has to be raised. Why should there be energy be created in the first place? Who was the one that would have created the energy? If nothing should have created the energy, why should there be energy then? If something should have generated energy, how could it be possible to support that nothing could be generated out of nothing then?

  18. Science could be used to prove the existence of God and to strongly oppose Big Bang Theory or whatever, i.e. quantum theory or etc., that supports that this universe would be created to something out of nothing.
    The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of mass, from the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass:
    (The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time…The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles;…)
    As the phrase, the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time, is mentioned above with the phrase, mass can neither be created or destroyed, it gives the implication that mass could never be increased or reduced. If mass, such as the mass of space in this universe or air or energy or etc., could never be increased or reduced, how the Big Bang theory could play a part to cause the universe to increase. If mass could never be increased or reduced, how the universe could be formed to be something out of nothing. This is by virtue of the same amount of masses of substances or energy should have existed prior to the formation of universe in order to generate the same amount of masses of planets; space in this universe; stars; and whatever that have existed in this current and sophisticated universe in accordance to the law of conservation of mass. Unless the principle of the law of conservation of mass states that the mass could never remain constant over time since it could be reduced or increased, it is then justifiable to use it to support the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory by means of the generation of additional masses of space and planets in this universe. As the law of conservation of mass states that mass will remain unchanged despite it might be transformed into another form, the mass that our universe has now must have the same amount as the mass that would have appeared prior to the formation of this universe especially mass could never be created or destroyed. Thus, the ever increasing of universe through Big Bang Theory has found contradiction with the law of conservation of mass. How could this universe be created through Big Bang Theory when it supports that the mass of the space could be generated with bigger and bigger space and yet the conservation of mass supports that mass could never be created in the first place? If the conservation of mass and energy could change, all the scientific mathematical formula would be wrong since none of the formulas could be equal especially when we talk about the change of transformation of energy from one to another or the transformation of matter from one to another, i.e. Hydrogen and oxygen turn up to be water, and etc. As scientists have proven that the mass could never change over time, how could Big Bang Theory be true then? How could this universe be created to something out of nothing if the mass will remain constant over time? Or in other words, if the world prior to the formation of this universe would be nothing, there should not be anything created. The formation of this universe would only occur if the same mass would have appeared prior to the formation of the universe.
    Even if one might argue that the same amount of energy might have existed prior to the formation of this universe so as to generate matters, i.e. earth, moon and etc.,, in this modern universe, the existence of energy implies the universe would still be created from something and that is energy instead of from nothing.
    The following is the extract from the 1st paragraph under the sub-title, Conservation of energy, in the website address, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy:
    (The law of conservation of energy, first formulated in the nineteenth century, is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system…but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed.)
    As the phrase, that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, is mentioned above, it certainly opposes Big Bang Theory in which something could be created out of nothing since the mass of energy that would have existed before the creation of the universe must remain constant or equal in size even after its creation. Even if one presumes that energy should have existed prior to the creation of the universe, the energy as well as its mass prior to the creation of the universe must be the same as the current universe. As the mass and energy can never be created, how could the mass of the space in this universe be created for further expansion as supported by Big Bang Theory?
    As Big Bang Theory has turned up to be unrealistic, it might turn up to be irrational to compute the age of the earth or the universe since the creation itself is questionable. If that could be so, the computation of the age of fossils could have problem since they might have existed permanently in the past and might not have even the beginning.
    As the mass, i.e. the space, matter, energy and etc., as well as the energy could never be created nor destroyed, and yet this universe could be created in the very beginning, it implies that something should have existed with supernatural power so much so that nothing would be impossible for him to do and this includes the creation of matter and energy in which there should be no way for it to create. Religious people call it to be God.

  19. Evolutionary theory has been found contradiction with the Bible.

    a) The Bible supports that God created plants earlier than moving creatures or things and yet Evolutionary theory supports the reverse since it supports that single cells (moving creatures or things) were created earlier than plants.

    The following are the extracted verses from the scripture:

    Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” After creating the plants, Genesis 1:21, “And GOD CREATED great whales, and EVERY LIVING CREATURE THAT MOVETH, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.”

    As the phrase, God created …every living creature that moveth (or moving creature), is mentioned in Genesis 1:21 and yet it is mentioned after Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants, it implies that God should have created plants earlier than the moving creature, i.e. single cells.

    According to evolutionary theory, single cells were formed in the very beginning prior to their development into more complexity of creatures, i.e. plants. In the timelines of living things, single cells were placed to be in 3.6 billion years ago and yet the plants were created in 475 million years. Or in other words, evolutionary theory presumes that plants were created after the creation of single cells, i.e. living creature that moveth.

    b) God created plants that bore fruits prior to His creation of animals and yet evolutionary theory shows the reverse. The following is the explanation:

    Genesis 1:11, “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.” After that, Genesis 1:20, “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”

    As the phrase, yielding fruit, is mentioned in Genesis 1:11, it gives the implication that God should have created trees that could grow flowers prior to their yielding of fruits. The phrase, the moving creature that hath life and fowl, as mentioned in Genesis 1:20 gives the implication of the creation of animals. As Genesis 1:11 the creation of plants with flowers is mentioned prior to Genesis 1:20, it implies that God should have created plants with flowers prior to the creation of animals.

    In the timelines, it shows the reverse. Animals were created in 590 million years ago and yet the plants that would grow flowers were created in 130 million years ago.

    The discrepancies between the Bible and the timelines table have placed the reliability of evolutionary theory into question.

  20. Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.

    In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.

    The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:

    a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:

    Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.

    b)The creation of sun:

    According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:

    Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.

    As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.

    c)The creation of stars:

    Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”

    The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.

    As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.

    The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.

    How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

  21. There are a few possibilities that the serpent could have dialogue with Eve as mentioned in Genesis 3:

    a)This serpent could be an unique animal that was created by God to be able to speak the same language as Eve;

    OR

    b)All the animals that were created by God did speak the same language in the past.

    Which statement above is more suitable to describe animals in the past prior to the flood?

    Genesis 11:1, “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.”

    As the phrase, And the whole earth was of one language, is mentioned in Genesis 11:1, it implies that all the animals, i.e. dinosaurs, birds, lions, leopards, and etc., spoke the same language in the past. Unless Genesis 11:1 mentions that the whole earth was not in one language and one speech, it is then rational to assume that animals, such as, lions, tigers and etc., could communicate with human beings. This is by virtue of human beings spoke in one language and yet other creatures delivered their own speech that could not be understandable by human beings.

    As all animals in the past could speak the same language, it is rational for serpent to speak the language that Eve understood.

    As all animals prior to the flood could deliver the same speech as human beings, how could Old Age Creation treat the dialogue between the serpent and Adam to be spiritual allegory?

    Nevertheless, it is justifiable for the serpent to speak the same language as Eve since the whole earth communicated in one speech and one language.

  22. Some Old Age Creationists interpret the word, day, to be a thousand years or more due to the following reasons:

    The word, day, in Hebrew is Yom and is defined by Strong Concordance to be:

    1)day, time, year a)day (as opposed to night); b)day (24 hour period) 1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1. 2) as a division of time a) a working day, a day’s journey c)days, lifetime (pl.) d)time, period (general) e)year f)temporal references 1) today 2) yesterday 3) tomorrow

    The word, Yom, in Hebrew could be translated as time in Genesis 4:3, Deuteronomy 10:10, 1 Kings 11:42 and Isaiah 30:8. The word, Yom, could be translated as year in 1 Kings 1:1, 2 Chronicles 21:19 and Amos 4:4. Besides, the word, Yom, could be translated as age in Genesis 18:11, 21:2, 21:7, 24:1, 47:28; Joshua 23:1, 23:2; and Zechariah 8:4. The word, Yom, could be translated as ago in 1 Samuel 9:20. The word, Yom, could also be translated as always in Deuteronomy 5:29, 6:24, 14:23; and 2 Chronicles 18:7. The word, Yom, could be translated as season in Genesis 40:4, Joshua 24:7 and 2 Chronicles 15:3. The word, Yom, when used with the word, dâbâr, can be translated as “chronicles”. The word, Yom, when used in conjunction with kôwl, could be translated as continually. The word, Yom, could be translated as ever in Deuteronomy 19:9 and Psalm 23:6. When the word, Yom, is used in Deuteronomy 28:29 in conjunction with kôwl, it can be translated as evermore.

    Some Old Age Creationists even mention that the words, evening, and, morning, do not refer to sunset and sunrise respectively since they mentioned that the sun was created on day four.

    Discuss.

    Genesis 1:5, “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”

    The phrase, the light, in Genesis 1:5 implies the brightness of the day and the phrase, the darkness, in this same verse implies total darkness. If sunlight was not created in Genesis 1:5, why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? If evening and morning as mentioned in Genesis 1:5 should not refer to the darkness on earth and the light that shone on it, why should the phrase, the light Day, correspond to the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 and the phrase, the phrase, the darkness, in the same verse corresponds to the word, evening? The reason is simply that there should not be light and day if God did not create sunlight to govern the earth in Genesis 1:5.

    Could the word, a day, be viewed from God’s way as a thousand years or etc.? No, it should not be since there is no day and night to govern God and that is why He treats a thousand years to be a day. To God, there is no evening and morning or even day or night to govern His activity. As the phrase, the evening, and, the phrase, the morning, are mentioned in Genesis 1:5, He spoke from human perspective point of view since there are nights, evenings, sunrises and sunsets to govern entire human race in this world.

    Could the word, a day, be treated as a thousand years instead of restricting it to be a day? No, it should not be so since the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 is in singular tense. Unless the word, evening, and the word, morning, in Genesis 1:5 are in plural tense, we could treat them to be more than a day. This is by virtue of there are many evenings and many mornings in a thousand years.

    If the sunlight were created only on day four, why should the phrase, the light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5? This is by virtue of the entire heaven and earth in this world would be in total darkness if the sun were not created in Genesis 1:5. Why should the word, light, be mentioned in Genesis 1:5 when the entire world was filled with darkness as a result of the sun was not created in this world?

    Should we assume that God should have created sunlight on the fourth day? No, it should not be so since Genesis 1:3, “(mentions that) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” If God should have created sunlight on day four, why should God mention the phrase, Let there be light, in Genesis 1:3? As we know all the light in this world is the reflection of the light from sunlight. Could we locate any substance that could give light by itself without depending upon sunlight in this world? If the light as mentioned in Genesis 1:3 should not refer to sunlight, what kind of light should it refer to that could stand alone to give light by itself without relying upon sunlight if the sun should have been created on day four then? Undoubtedly the light as indicated in Genesis 1:3 should be none other than sunlight.

    Could we use Genesis 1:1 to support that God’s creation could be from a billion years and mention that the Bible is not inspired by God since it contradicts against Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 that mention that His creation should be within six days? No, it should not be so since the phrase, the beginning, in Genesis 1:1 could be interpreted as the beginning of the first day. If that could be so, the creation of the heaven and the earth should fall within a day and there is no contradiction with the Bible. The following are the extracts:

    Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

    Exodus 20:11, “For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

    Exodus 31:17, “It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”

    Nevertheless, the word, day, in Genesis 1 should refer to none other than a day instead of more.

    1. God created the light in Genesis 1:4. The following is the extract:

      Genesis 1:4, “And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” (King James Version)

      God’s accomplishment in His creation of light as spelt out in Genesis 1:16 as below:

      Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”

      The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 does not give any sense of the travelling of light in reaching the surface of light. Instead, it implies God’s completion in His creation of light in Genesis 1:16 especially the word, made, is in past tense.

      It is rational for Genesis 1:16 to mention with the phrase, God made, to be in past tense to refer to the light that He had created in Genesis 1:3.

      The additional light that was created in Genesis 1:16 was starlight since stars were created in Genesis 1:16 so as to reflect the light from sun as spelt out below:

      Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.” (King James Version)

      Nevertheless, two great lights were created and one is from sunlight and another is from starlight. Thus, it is rational for the scripture to mention that God made two great lights in Genesis 1:16 so as to refer to the stronger light that He had created in Genesis 1:3 and lesser light in Genesis 1:16. Remember! The word, made, in Genesis 1:16 is in past tense. It certainly refers to the work that God had done in the past.

  23. Evolutionary Theory is questionable!
    As we know, scientists support that human beings were evolved from apes. Provided with environmental conditions that were suitable for apes to be evolved to human beings, why is it that there are still many monkeys exist in this contemporary world? If all apes began to evolve at a certain time in the past to human beings due to the influence of the environmental factors, by logic, all apes should have been evolved to human beings. Why is it that monkeys (scientists called them apes) still exist in this world today?

    Provided with environmental factors that would be suitable for apes to be transformed into human beings, there should be many of them to be evolved to human beings at that time. If that would be so, the sin of Adam and Eve would not affect all human race if their forefathers could not trace back to them but to another human being that would have been evolved from other apes. Why is it that the scripture mentions that all fall into sin by one man?

  24. As we know oxygen is the main source for all living creatures to survive. Apart from it, all of them would perish.

    If all the work of the nature were the work of evolution instead of God, do you think the nature would have the sense that oxygen should have to be created first prior to the existence of all creatures? Certainly the nature could not even know how to think and could not even have the sense that oxygen must be formed prior to all living creatures! God must have to be in existence in the creation so as to enable it to be created first.

    That is the reason why God created plants first (Genesis 1:11-12) to perform photosynthesis in order to transform carbon dioxide into oxygen so as to replenish the earth with oxygen. God would not allow animals (Genesis 1:21) to be created first since all of them would perish especially they were those that only convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. Without the existence of plants in converting carbon dioxide into oxygen, the whole earth would have to be filled with carbon dioxide in the presence of animals. Ultimately all the animals would perish as a result of the absence of oxygen due to the absence of plants. Thus, the presence of plants (Genesis 1:11-12) had to come first and then followed by animals (Genesis 1:21). The arrangement of the order in Genesis 1 must be in sequential order and could not be disputable. This is by virtue of oxygen in this atmosphere could be diluted to the extent to the risk of the lives of all creatures if plants were created after the creation of animals. Bear in mind! All living creatures have to breathe in oxygen and to breathe out carbon dioxide. Ultimately carbon dioxide would fill the earth at the absence of plants.

    Now! Let us analyse the timeline that is laid out by archaeologists as below:
    ■for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
    ■for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
    ■for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
    ■for the last 1 billion years, multicellur life;
    ■for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
    ■for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
    ■for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
    ■for the last 475 million years, land plants;

    From the timeline table that is laid out by archaeologists, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively before the evolution of plants in 475 million years. How could these animals consume food that was grown up from plants when they were only created in 475 million years instead of before? How could God demand all creatures to eat food from plants (Genesis 1:30) when they were not in existence? Don’t tell me that all these animals would be ended up to consume cyanobacteria that was brought into being in 3.4 billions since this living creature could perform photosynthesis! These animals might starve to death if they would eat only small little tiny cyanbacteria.

    Genesis 1:30, “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”

    In order for simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 and 500 million years respectively to survive, many plants should have to be created first in order to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. No doubt cyanobacteria could perform photosynthesis, this small creature might not be able to be fast enough to generate enough oxygen for all these living creatures to live since they, as biggest creatures, consumed oxygen faster than this tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, in generating it. Or in other words, how could simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians be able to survive as plants were created only in 475 million years and yet the tinny creature, i.e. cyanobacteria, that was evolved in 3.4 billion years could not generate sufficient oxygen for these animals to survive? If plants were created only in 475 millions years, all simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians could not be able to survive since all these creatures would cause oxygen in the air to be diluted until such a stage that the atmosphere could be filled only with carbon dioxide.

    Do you find the timeline table that has been established by archaeologists to be illogical in reality?

  25. When did God create plants that bore fruits? It was in Genesis 1:11-12. The following are the extracts:

    Genesis 1:11-12, “God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation—plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good.” (New English Translation)

    The phrase, plants yielding seeds, in Genesis 1:11-12 implies the creaton of plants that bore flowers and ultimately developed into fruits.

    In the Timeline that is established by archaeologists, land plants were evolved in 475 million years and yet plants that bore flowers that had the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years. Or in other lands, the land plants that developed in 475 million years were plants that were unable to bear flowers so as to develop into fruits.

    The following is the Timeline that has been constructed by archaeologists:

     for the last 3.6 billion years, simple cells (prokaryotes);
     for the last 3.4 billion years, cyanobacteria performing photosynthesis;
     for the last 2 billion years, complex cells (eukaryotes);
     for the last 1 billion years, multicellular life;
     for the last 600 million years, simple animals;
     for the last 550 million years, bilaterians, animals with a front and a back;
     for the last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
     for the last 475 million years, land plants;
     for the last 400 million years, insects and seeds;
     for the last 360 million years, amphibians;
     for the last 300 million years, reptiles;
     for the last 200 million years, mammals;
     for the last 150 million years, birds;
     for the last 130 million years, flowers;

    In the above Timeline, simple animals, bilaterians and proto-amphibians that were evolved in 600 million years, 550 million years and 500 million years respectively could not eat food that was grown up from plants due to their absence from the earth as they were evolved in 475 million years and that was a few hundred million years later. This has made Genesis 1:29-30 that God commanded all creatures to eat food that would be grown up from trees to be in vain.

    Genesis 1:29-30, “Then God said, “…to all the animals of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” It was so.” (New English Translation)

    As plants that would grow flowers would have the potentiality to develop into fruits were evolved in 130 million years, all the animals that were evolved prior to their development had to force to eat leaves, stems or roots. This would seem illogical at all for canivores.

    The worse scenario from the timeline that was developed by archaeologists is that all the birds had to eat leaves, stems or roots since birds was evolved in 150 million years before the evolution of trees that bore flowers in 130 million years. It is rational for birds to eat fruits from trees. How about leaves or stems or roots? This has placed the reliability of timeline into question.

Leave a Reply