Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.
Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.
Our view of the world, the universe, ourselves, our relationships, and even our families changes drastically when science tells us there is no God. But is this what science really tells us? Or is this merely the opinion of secular atheists, promoting their version of the facts?
Secular atheists have a great deal to say about their little god. He can’t be real. He doesn’t exist. He is hateful and misogynistic and on and on. But one thing that seems odd is hearing atheists offer opinions on what god can and can’t do. If your god has to wait on evolution you might have a small god. If your god has to wait 12 billion years for light to come from another star, or requires scientific approval of the latest version of the Big Bang in order to create the universe, you have a small god. If you think you can understand god, you have a small god. If you believe your opinion on matters of eternity are more coherent, pertinent, and relevant than god’s opinion, you have a small god.
But if you have even a glimpse of an understanding of what scripture means when God calls himself I AM, you might have a BIG GOD. If you have meditated on what it might really mean to be omniscient, or omnipotent, or omnipresent, you might have a BIG GOD. If the miracles in the New Testament don’t faze you, because life itself is unbelievably miraculous, you might have a BIG GOD. If the matter of where God was before time was, or before the Universe was doesn’t really bother you at all, because you understand HE CREATED TIME ITSELF, you might have a BIG GOD.
Christians and most atheists agree. Our universe, and the earth, and life itself are astounding and miraculous events. But then the agreement stops.
Atheists say creation is impossible because it would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science. Creationists say that the The Big Bang and Evolution are impossible because they would have required something miraculous, something fantastic, something unbelievable, something outside the bounds of science.
And BOTH are correct. In order for this magnificent world and our vast universe to be here, something miraculous and unbelievable indeed had to occur. In the debate over Evolution, the debate often just comes down to which impossible feat you choose to believe.
But here is the part you probably don’t know. There is nothing scientific about the theories of origin proposed by EITHER side of the argument. The difference is, creationists do not pretend to claim scientific credibility for their theories of origin. Atheistic secular scientists do claim such scientific credibility, in spite of their dependence on mathematical mythology, and their huge problems with DNA damage, no intermediary fossils, a complete lack of transitional forms, polystrate fossils, flatness, the cosmological constant, entropy, inflation, lithium, dark matter, dark energy and the lack of any appreciable antimatter. (For explanations, please see my prior posts entitles Bang… and nothing, The Uniformitarians, and Nothing Can’t do Something.)
However, I would challenge you to read their arguments. I would refer you to a particularly good debate, for instance on pros and cons of the Big bang as science on Debate.org.(1) It is just a dozen or so pages of reading and is quite understandable (See footnote #1).
Another excellent source of understanding the Big Bang Cosmology as (junk) science is found on Quora.com.(2) I believe you will also find this to be an unbiased and scientific interpretation of the data. I highly recommend it, but just be on the lookout for the many times scientists say “we don’t know”, or “we don’t understand” or “we cannot explain” or “for some reason”. If that doesn’t sound scientific, it’s because it isn’t. Those who propose the Big Bang will say “so far results support this model” while at the same time saying they have no idea why their figures are vastly off (by several orders of magnitude during the so-called inflationary period).
For those truly interested in Cosmology, the entirety of the argument and pretty much all of its sub-chapters can be summed up in just one statement… If you believe in the Big Bang, then many areas of science can be said to support your beliefs, and those which specifically contradict your beliefs are just awaiting further experimentation and confirmation. And if you believe in Creation, the exact same statement holds.
As Eric Lerner president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. states, “The big bang is essentially a creationist philosophy. It is creationist both because it opens the door to a supernatural origin of the universe itself, and because it basically says the universe seems absurd. We are asked to believe in it because the experts say it’s true.”(3)
He goes on to say, “Conventional cosmology today is a very big step back toward that medieval conception. Now big bang cosmology is talking about things like dark energy, dark matter, inflation. These are phenomena that cannot be observed or, in the case of dark matter, it could be but never has been in the laboratory and only exists in the celestial sphere. This makes these hypotheses much more difficult to test.” (4) Lerner is not a creationist. But even he can easily see the absurdity of the Big Bang hypothesis.
You return man to dust, and say, “Return, Oh children of man!” For a thousand years in your sight are as yesterday when it is passed, or as a watch in the night. Psalm 90:3-4 ESV