samsquestion-s - Tumblr blog

samsquestion-s · 3 days ago

Text

NASA FINDS CLUES TO LIFES ORIGIN

1. The big bang has had many ups and downs in the scientific community, and even some of the most renowned scholars have suggested that the theory doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny.

2. I would not suggest that it is "idle speculation" or necessarily "grasping at straws." However, I would argue that it is absolutely a "nihilistic notion" based on the evidence or rather lack of evidence to date.

3. I disagree that "millions" of people and hours have been dedicated to this particular aspect of cosmology. Nor would I agree that there is any actual experimentation, even on a small scale that can account for the actual theory. The reason is simple; the big bang theory insists that there was nothing, then a bang, and then everything. Any attempts at experimentation in this theory must start with nothing and produce something. However, all experiment attempts begin with something, because it is already here; it is impossible for us to begin with nothing, and therefore, impossible to test the theory.

4. To suggest that every other theory has "failed to correctly explain what we actually see" is not true at all. The biblical explanation of creation accounts for everything we see. I would also suggest that the big bang theory is incapable of explaining the perfection in the creation; the complexity and simplicity that work hand in hand cannot be accounted for in either the big bang, or in evolutionary theory. Neither the big bang theory or evolutionary theory can account for the unexplainable adaptations to certain species, or the lack of transitional evidence within species, or the fact that the universe is in a state of constant decay, or, how the heck did nothing explode and create everything?! The big bang theory explains nothing; it is a theory without any evidence to support it and no way of testing whether or not it is valid. The biblical account of creation provides substantially more evidence to support its claim than the big bang theorists do.

5. Your friend said, "Ironically, many materialistic scientists initially opposed the Big Bang precisely because it looks too much like a Creation event. But the alternate theories they came up with in an attempt to avoid it just kept getting disproven by scientific observation and evidence. " I mean, they are literally making my point for me. While these scientists continue to try and offer alternative solutions in order to avoid the obvious conclusion that the universe is created, it doesn't change the reality that the obvious conclusion is that the universe was created. Even Stephen Hawking said that the universe and its complex perfection and precise functionality suggest that an intelligent mind must have been behind its design; it's not the creation they want to discount, it is the Creator. My point is, there is no actual evidence to support the big bang theory, and scientists attempting to do so, often find that they are only substantiating the biblical claim of creation; so they run to the hills, or posit something else, like aliens.

6. My opposition to the conclusions are based on the impossibility of applying the scientific method, my understanding of physics, cosmology and most certainly my understanding of theology. Or, to put it more bluntly, I understand this discussion far better than your friend realizes. Additionally, there is nothing materialistic about my approach to creation, so, I'm not quite sure what is meant here. However, I do hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible unless the text itself suggests otherwise. God is not a God of confusion; He did not tell us He created everything in six days to throw us off the trail. He told us because that is what He did. I would ask your friend why a literal interpretation of this text suggests a lack of understanding.

7. The Bible says, "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever. (Psalm 119:160); and Jesus, praying to the Father says, “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17b). What is true starts with God's word. So, why should I discount that in favor of what a scientist, or any other person says? Scripture is the foundation for everything that I believe, and there is no evidence that refutes any of it. In fact, the more science tries to prove the Bible wrong, the more they prove it right; so, which one should I believe? Also, how does a literal approach to the interpretation of the Bible blind me to spiritual truth? That doesn't even make sense to be quite honest. That is, unless you take a subjective approach to the interpretation of Scripture, where everything is metaphorical and exaggerated; then you would suggest that a literal interpretation somehow misses out on the spiritual truths that are hidden so well in metaphor. Yet, if God doesn't want us confused, as His word declares, then why would He hide everything behind metaphor; why would He disguise the truth?

8. The reality is, I hold to a biblical, Christian worldview. I see the Bible as the first source of truth and have yet to see any scientific evidence that actually refutes it. So, I would suggest that anyone who believes science over the Bible, is missing out on a massive amount of spiritual truth. That said, I do not believe that science and theology are at odds with one another. Science is a gift from God and has provided so many wonderful insights and amazing, lifesaving, and life helping things for mankind. I have nothing against science, but I don't give it over Scripture.

9. That's actually kind of a funny attempt to suggest that my theological point of view on this is a fallacious appeal to authority. Allow me to answer that question. It is absolutely an appeal to authority and it is absolutely NOT a fallacy. The reason it is not a fallacy is because I am appealing to the supreme authority; the authority that is over all authorities. I am appealing to God's word as the final authority in all things, in all matters, in all questions; not just in the question of Creation. I am arguing that God's word is the ultimate authority and therefore, appealing to that ultimate authority is not a fallacy. In fact, your friend is committing the appeal to authority fallacy by saying, "It is the result of millions of people and hours engaging in painstaking research and experimentation. Every other theory put forward has failed to correctly explain what we actually see out there in the physical universe." The appeal to authority fallacy is where someone suggests that because the experts mostly or unanimously agree on this or that, then it must be right. Appealing to Scripture is not the same thing. If I were to say something like, 'most theologians agree with a literal six-day creation as written in the Bible.' Then I would be committing a fallacy.

10. So, I would not say that we "must use the Bible when doing science." The Bible is not a science book, but it does give us scientific insights that are useful. To discount the Bible when doing science has often proven foolish. For example, there were some scientists many years ago who said the story of the fall of Jericho was a myth. Funny how they couldn't find the ancient city of Jericho until they looked at where the Bible described it as being. Even more interesting is how the excavation showed that the walls seemed to just fall in on themselves, and yet there was one section that never collapsed...I wonder why? Or what about those great scientific historians who said the Bible is fake because Pilate was never a real person? After all, they said, if there was a governor of Judea named Pilate, there would be a record of it, since Rome was so good at keeping records. We didn't really hear back from them when something was unearthed that said Pilate was the governor of Judea.

Here's the thing. I place the authority and validity of Scripture over anything that any man has to say at any time, and under any circumstances, and it has yet to lead me astray. No man has ever been able to prove anything in the Scriptures to be wrong, so why would I listen to man over God? This doesn't mean that I automatically discount everything I hear, but rather I weigh everything against Scripture. This is how Christians are supposed to live; we are supposed to stand firm in God's truth and do so even when the world hates us or ridicules us for it. Does this mean that everything that isn't talked about in the Bible is wrong? Absolutely not. Rather it means that anything that attempts to discredit or contradict the Bible is wrong; all those things unmentioned; they need to be considered in light of the biblical text. It just so happens, the grand event of the beginning of our universe is recorded in the Bible, and there is no evidence to suggest that what is written there is wrong.

0 notes