It is a sad testimony for a person to be ignorant, and it’s even sadder for that person to be deliberately ignorant. Yet many supposedly-intelligent people choose that very approach to the most-basic facets of their existence. The Bible speaks of those individuals when it says, “They deliberately overlook this fact [of the beginning of creation], that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God . . .” (2 Peter 3:5-6 – NKJV)
Do you know that more than 65% of twentieth-century Nobel Prize winners believed in God? Do you know that there is no observational science to indicate that life spontaneously originated (or originates) from non-life, or order from disorder, or design from chaos? Do you know that a true scientist is willing to consider and investigate all the evidence before arriving at their conclusions? Do you know that much of what is currently labeled “science” is really only a philosophy that masquerades as science?
Many individuals who were once inculcated by philosophies and traditions without logical or scientific substance, have discovered authentic truth. (See Colossians 2:8.) One individual framed his conclusion thusly: “Our world is not a random collection of colliding molecules, populated by millions of animated accidents, helplessly assisted by cruel fate!”
Today, I challenge you to dare to investigate! Authenticity is obtainable, and it’s found only in Jesus Christ, of whom the Bible says, “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:3-4 – KJV) Are you willing to authentically what the Bible teaches about origins, the purpose of life, and the God who created and loves us each?
2 Responses
Hi Etaoin,
I beg your patience as I am not staff with Gospel Billboards, and my argument may be flawed, whereas theirs would be better.
You are right, it is sad when people accept SOPHISTRY as a substitute for REASON or TRUTH, but I do not believe that Gospel Billboard has done this.
You ask “Why should the words of Saint Peter be considered any more authoritative than the words of the Hindu Vedas, the sayings of the Buddha, or the beliefs by the various pagans…” The teachings you reference will either stand or fall, based solely on their own merit, not on any other factor. In contrast, the teachings in the Bible stand or fall directly with the truth (or falsehood) of the historical account of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. (as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:14 or 15:13-22).
You say “Science…is able to prove the Universe began billions of years ago, and that the Earth was formed out of star dust. It’s evidence isn’t a matter of faith, but hard physical facts!” I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that this was proven fact. (Example objections: the evolution of stars teaches that gas clouds begin to spin by their their own gravity, and condense to form solar systems, with the heavier elements formed by compaction in the center. My question is: why is the sun approx 96% hydrogen and helium, and surrounded by several rocky planets, also Pluto at the farthest edge is solid, not gas? The scientific method, by its own definition, applies only to phenomena which can be repeated consistently in a laboratory setting. This excludes both Creation and Evolution from the realm of “Observational Science”, and forces us to seek eyewitness testimony, or forensic analysis, in our pursuit of the truth regarding past events and origins.
You then state, in reference to the Bible which I reverence:
“There’s no prophecy of a “Virgin Birth”, and never was one.” (I’m sorry, Isaiah 7:14 is a good example of such a prophecy.)
Quoting you again:
“And since Jesus can only trace his descent from King David through Joseph, if there was a virgin birth, then he isn’t the Messiah! The Messiah has to be a biological descendant, “adoption” doesn’t count.” From a religious perspective, you do have a point. Are saying that you accept the Virgin Birth as a historical fact? If so, who is Jesus?
If he was not born of a virgin, who is Jesus then?
The teachings in the Bible stand or fall directly with the truth (or falsehood) of the historical account of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I respect many specific teachers from my school years. Had any one of them claimed to be God, (as Jesus claims), I would have lost respect for these individuals.
Please read the Gospel of Matthew, and look for hard facts from a legal, forensic, perspective. When someone claims to be God, this is either true or not true, in which case they are either aware of their falsehood or not aware.
Lord, Liar, or Lunatic? What do you think?
It’s a “sad commentary” that too many people think SOPHISTRY is a substitute for REASON or TRUTH, you provided a perfect example.
The fact that we exist, that what you term “creation” exists, doesn’t prove the rest of what you wrote. Indeed, your only “evidence” is to quote from a source not recognized as authentic by most of the people on Earth! Why should the words of Saint Peter be considered any more authoritative than the words of the Hindu Vedas, the sayings of the Buddha, or the beliefs by the various pagans (Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Viking, to name a few). In other words, how do you prove the “god” who’s “word” created the “heavens and the earth” wasn’t Ra, Zeus (or Jupiter), or Odin? You can’t!
But then there’s Science, which is able to prove the Universe began billions of years ago, and that the Earth was formed out of star dust. It’s evidence isn’t a matter of faith, but hard physical facts!
So what that many Nobel Prize winners believe in God? How does that “prove” your claims? After all, 74 million American voters just believed that Lying Trump deserved a second term, while over 80 million believed he didn’t! What does that “prove”?
I could ask how many of those Nobel Prize winners were scientists, but that really doesn’t matter either – unless one holds to the false belief that one cannot be a scientist and believe in a god. A claim utterly demolished by Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of Biology at Brown University (and a devout Catholic) who testified for Evolution in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover. Then again, doesn’t the Pope also accept Evolution?
As for “observational science”, gee what about Forensics? Did anyone “observe” O.J. Simpson murdering his wife and Ron Goldman? Apparently not. I assume, therefore, you think he’s “innocent” – never mind all the forensic and circumstantial evidence for his guilt.
As for order “spontaneously” arising from “disorder”, do you think every snowflake which falls was produced by Jack Frost, or the Snow Queen? (And the “design” of snowflakes is intricate indeed.) The Argument from Design is an old canard, one that fails constantly – yet you insist on flogging that “dead horse”!
But I’m glad you think a “true scientist” should “consider and investigate” all the evidence, since by that definition you’ve just disqualified advocates for Creationism, and its “drag queen” offspring “Intelligent Design”. Those people ignore anything which contradicts them, and rely solely on the Bible as their “proof”. (Much as you do.) It’s ignorance and dishonesty masquerading as Science!
Fortunately, many people who were “inculcated” by that ignorance and dishonesty have discovered Scientific truth. Others, afflicted by what theologians call “Invincible Ignorance”, continue to desperately cling to those deceptions!
Care to identify that “one individual”, and provide proof for that quotation? In any case, that’s a false description of Evolution, and Science. The process by which the Universe was formed, and life evolved, is anything but “random”.
And since you want to talk about “authenticity”, why would anyone find it in the so-called “New Testament”, a collection of “books” that gets things wrong in its very first chapter! There’s no prophecy of a “Virgin Birth”, and never was one. And since Jesus can only trace his descent from King David through Joseph, if there was a virgin birth, then he isn’t the Messiah! The Messiah has to be a biological descendant, “adoption” doesn’t count. (I could cite other “errors”, and outright lies, but this is supposed to be a discussion of Science, not faith.)
Your problem, sir, is you cling to the false doctrine of Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy. Faith, by its very nature, can neither be proved or disproved. But that the Bible isn’t literal or inerrant in all its part is obvious to anyone with an open, and sound, mind. I challenge you to investigate that!