Stephen Hawking is no longer an atheist

Hawking is no longer an atheist

(Article credit Creation.com)


From a human perspective, it’s sad to see anyone go into a Christless eternity, and indeed God Himself has “no pleasure” in it (cf. Ezekiel 33:11). But we can’t escape the truth: “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment …” (Hebrews 9:27).

While living to 76 might seem like a decent lifespan, death in reality is “the last enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26). This is true no matter how long this was postponed—even the prodigiously long lifespans of our ancestors recorded in the chronogenealogy of Genesis 5 couldn’t change that fact. Indeed, after the lifespan of every patriarch (except Enoch who escaped death), we are reminded over and over, “and he died”.

However, atheists naively regard death as a natural part of the evolutionary process. Indeed, Hawking himself gave a defiant interview to the leftist British newspaper, the Guardian, back in 2011.1 He was reported as claiming:

The belief that heaven or an afterlife awaits us is a ‘fairy story’ for people afraid of death.

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became to be so silly.—C.S. Lewis on the Bulverism fallacy

Unfortunately, this commits a fallacy rife in atheopathic agitprop, what C.S. Lewis called Bulverism:

you must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he came to be so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it “Bulverism”.

In Hawking’s case, he tries to explain away why (he thinks) people believe in an afterlife before demonstrating that this belief is wrong. However, similar arguments can always be turned back on their user, which is one reason this is a silly mode of argumentation. I.e. “The belief that no afterlife awaits us is a ‘fairy story’ for those afraid that there really might be a God who is also a righteous Judge.” Also, Hawking’s account is demonstrably wrong for many people, e.g. C.S. Lewis again:

I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.

It’s now unfortunately too late for Hawking, but it’s not too late for anyone reading this—there really is Good News

Stephen Hawking Died

Stephen Hawking

Compromises on origins and marriage

Creation.com

Marc Ambler

Link between compromises on origins and marriage


After the abolition of apartheid, under the new ‘broom’ African National Congress Government, in 2006 South Africa became one of the first countries in the world to legalize the ‘mirage’ of same sex marriage. As Creator, God has the right to, and has already defined marriage, and so any claim to a union outside of that definition is just a chimera.

An argument often employed to justify homosexual marriage, was that discrimination against them parallels the discrimination against black people under the apartheid policies of previous South African governments, or the segregation policies prevalent in the U.S. until the 1960’s. South Africa’s first black President, Nelson Mandela, claimed to have turned from believing that homosexuality was wrong to supporting gay marriage based on this comparison.

It is a completely fallacious argument. The unjust policies of apartheid were based upon one’s skin colour (or as we have often pointed out it is shade of colour because all humans actually have the one skin colour). This is something as spiritually irrelevant in the design of God as the shape of one’s nose or eyes, or size of one’s feet. Resistance against homosexual practices is based on actions, on activity; men having sex with men (born with XY chromosomes) and women with women (XX chromosomes).

The truth is that we all discriminate against actions all the time even when it is argued that people ‘cannot help themselves’ feeling a certain way (orientation). Most people making this spurious argument would have no problem with discriminating against people stealing their belongings (trying to stop them or putting them in jail), or against those involved in the trade in rhinoceros’ horn. And so it is not a general argument against action discrimination, but the argument against this particular action of same sex, to which the gay lobby object. Of course, some but not all gay lobbyists argue that people are born homosexual. Besides the growing evidence that the idea of genetic causality in human behaviour is culturally rather than scientifically driven, the fact is that none of us are born having sex.

At some point in our lives we take an action, we choose to have sex with a partner; whether within the biblical confines of marriage between one man and one woman; or the license of pre-marital or adulterous or homosexual or polygamous or the many other perversions of sexual relationships the Bible condemns; which we fallen humans have invented, and to which we are prone, and increasingly excuse or condone in a politically correct charged environment.

Creation.com Article Continues Here

Gen1.org
(Denying Evolution) Evolution = Millions Of Years + Your Imagination

Origins and marriage

Woodpecker Owl (Evolution doublespeak explained)

Woodpecker Owl Story

Whats the difference between a "woodpecker owl" and an owl catching a woodpecker. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Example evolution theory explaination of the "woodpecker owl".

The evolutionary relationships of the woodpecker and woodpecker owls are not entirely clear. What is certain is that they are very closely related; they may be considered sister lineages that evolved over millions of years retaining their characteristic woodpecker sound.

Click here to listen to a woodpecker owl: "Woodpecker Owl" Sound (screech owl)

Click here to see an Actual evolved "woodpecker" owl??

A screech woodpecker owl fossil from the Late Pliocene of Kansas (which is almost identical to eastern and western screech woodpecker owl) indicates a longstanding presence of these birds in the Americas, woodpecker owl fossils very similar to the Eurasian woodpecker owl that have also recently been found in Stephen Hawkings backyard!

Where did this idea come from? (The FineTunedUniverse Webmaster.)

I was talking to a lady about her recent field trip with some children out in the woods with a "guide". She was excited to have heard an owl making a sound. She asked the guide what it was and he said, IT WAS A WOODPECKER ?!?!?

I told her I never heard of a woodpecker that sounds like an owl. She said that she didn't think the "guide" was correct.

After I got home I looked up some information about owls and found out there is an owl that sounds a little like a woodpecker. It is the male screech owl. It EATS small birds of prey including woodpeckers. Just because there is an owl that sounds a little like a woodpecker don't get confused and really think there is a "Woodpecker Owl". Owls do eat woodpeckers and other birds.

(Note that I did not say I found a woodpecker that sounds like an owl but an owl that sounds a little like a woodpecker.)

Have you ever heard of a woodpecker that sounds like an owl? No you have not. You would stop and think how silly the idea is and how it is NOT LOGICAL.

My point is people who teach evolution will tell you its possible that a woodpecker could evolve into an owl over "millions of years" and become a "woodpecker owl" that sounds a little like a woodpecker on the basis of a fossil alone.

If you stop and THINK about the "millions of years" and how silly and illogical the idea is you begin to understand its no different that a "woodpecker owl" that makes NO sense.

"Historical evolution science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology.

Evolution theory is based on speculation about what is observable today plus millions of years. Evolution masks itself as "real science". It is NOT real science but speculation based on a world view of "millions of years". Evolution cannot design intelligence.

Evolution is a belief about history. It involves events that cannot be repeated or reproduced in the laboratory, so it does not depend on science in the usual sense of the word.

"Real science" is a term for any science that deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present

Evolutionists try to prove things have existed for millions of years through various ways including misleading carbon dating methods etc as real science.

Creationists try to prove what is observable today is validated by what the Bible tells us about Creation in 6 days. Real science helps validate the bible creation as God has revealed to us in Genesis.

Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same data. (They interpret the data based on their world views and what they believe.)

The evolutionists world view of "millions of years" must be included in their evolution theory explainations and cannot be validated.

The creationisits world view of 6-8 thousand years is validated by the Bible and real science.

The question is what will you believe? Evolution speculation of "millions of years" or what God has revealed in his Word?

The ultimate authority about Creation is the Word Of God and NOT evolution disguised as historical "science"

Evolution is a Religion (Taught in public schools as "science")

Evolutionists also overcome the evidence of creation and intelligent design by a redefinition of science that makes science and naturalism the same thing, and the evidence unimportant. The new definition is: "Science is the search for natural solutions,"People whose religion is naturalism are now widely using the new definition. by a redefinition of science that makes science and naturalism the same thing, and the evidence unimportant. The new definition is: "Science is the search for natural solutions,"People whose religion is naturalism are now widely using the new definition.

FineTunedUniverse.com

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalms 19:1

...........
Our Solar System: Evidence of Creation 1hr 28 min
...........
Our Solar System: Evidence of Creation (Former atheist engineer working on military space program explains why.) Seminar by Spike Psarris Seattle Creation Conference, July 2006.

This presentation goes through each planet in our Solar System (and a few of their moons), and shows how each one discredits evolutionary theories in a different way. Includes about 100 beautiful photos taken from various space probes and the Hubble Space Telescope.
...........
...........
Psalms 19:1
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.


CreationSermons.com