The Nature of God Part III - Prooooooove It

Ok, how can anyone possibly prove it was God that created everything and not the Big Bang?
First off, none of us (as far as we know) were there when Big Beginning happened. Not like in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where they have a Restaurant at the End of the Universe. And if we were, we have no memory of it. We certainly had no recording devices (that survived at least). So honestly all we have is extrapolation, lots of different creation myths from lots of different religious traditions (a collection of oral traditions and records made by prophets, scribes, philosophers, and random people with writing implements that were able to preserve a story they say is true), and scientific theories we can either believe or not believe.

Now there are those people who believe ardently in their 5 senses that swear that all the religious traditions are bunk. They cite Science as the reason they are all bunk. They say "leading scientists proved this," and "leading scientists say that." The first problem with the whole "leading scientist" thing is that scientists are just human beings who have studied methods and theories that they believe will reveal facts. They are not even sure there is such a thing as truth. Just facts. They may have great mathematical minds, but in the end if their perception is only with mathematics, that is all they will see. Second problem with the whole "leading scientist" thing is that leading scientists are often proving previous leading scientists wrong. It is their favorite hobby, really. The third problem is that no one really PROVED anything. How could they? You can calculate, theorize, extrapolate, but in the end you are doing it from a room many many many many many many many many many many many many years removed from the event. And as with many unsolved mysteries, time changes everything.

One ardent scientist once said to me that theories are 99.9% proven true. I think that was just a random number put out to make himself feel better. I mean, I took this class in child development once where we talked about the effectiveness of certain birth control methods, including one that was 99% effective when used properly. Now, here's the thing. I also know a certain man who used condoms regularly and used them properly. And he sired about 6 kids while using this method of birth control (since he did not believe in abortion). You may argue "Maybe he didn't really know how to use them?" or "Why didn't he choose another method of birth control?" As a matter of fact, when the condoms just weren't doing the trick, he went and got a vasectomy... Twice. Both times they corrected themselves. Finally the lady involved ended it with a hysterectomy. Statistically, those birth control methods should have worked for the man. 99%, you know. To me this is proof that if God wants a kid born, it is going to be born. You can argue against it if you want. Fact is a lot of people just throw out statistical numbers without any real support. My stats here are hearsay. I won't pretend they aren't. But so is the one about all theories being 99.9% true. Theories are always under scrutiny.

So, what theories have been proven untrue by other scientists?
Here's a Wikipedia site about that.
One by the Discovery Channel.
One on YouTube.


From the Science Channel.
Another site
I apologize if some of the things on their lists are repeats.
Here is even an academic site that debates which theories ought to be retired. Insider POV.
I left out all the pro-biblical arguments... because it is already clear they object to many accepted. scientific theories.

Ok, that aside, what if a leading scientists found things that proved their precious theories wrong? Their careers would be at stake. Their reputations at risk. Their validity as scientists in danger. They are only human, after all. Not saints. And certainly not gods.

Now, I believe that a true scientist would accept they had made an error. A true scientist would truly examine EVERYTHING. Including himself. But (and pay attention) there are a lot of scientists that HATE criticism of their theories. Their theories are their 'children' so-to-speak. They won't even listen to other possibilities...especially the possibilities that they could be wrong.

And what about findings that are ignored or set aside as unexplainable?
I'll make a list:
The Bluefish Caves
Lots of the findings in South America.
Another site full of unsolved archaeology.
And another about out of place artifacts.
And another.
And one that may freak you out.

Now, you might say, "Why did you switch from astronomy to archaeology?"

Simple. Astronomy is about those things far off, and therefore easy to make up stuff about. You can't touch the sun, and we can only estimate at a distance its strength as we would all burn up and die if we physically tried to go there. But Archaeology has physical, tangible evidence that those 5-sense thinkers cannot refute is in fact real.

Now, what they think of the  evidence, I don't know. Some of them would like to believe that aliens made them... (which our dear scientist Stephen Hawking is terrified of, by the way). But personally I think human beings made it all and like with most History, the knowledge was forgotten, lost, or distorted by the 'winners' of wars who rewrote history to their liking (according to Winston Churchill, it is written by the victors). Let me put it this way...I mourn the loss of the Library of Alexandria. So much knowledge, so much history is gone. So many civilizations have been lost.

Here is the thing. The arrogance of humankind really bothers me. Each generation almost always goes around assuming it is better than the previous generation, more advanced. Science right now is the new world religion, touting that we are at the peak of evolution. But, uh, archaeology proves that nations rise and nations fall. There is tons of proof of that. And information, knowledge, and history is constantly being distorted and lost. Don't believe me? Ever hear of the Dark Ages? Ever hear of North Korea? (One of their propaganda videos). Cambodia? I could list more, but for the sake of time, I'm putting it up to you to look it up.

So...do I really trust science?

I trust science like I trust a hammer. As long as I don't smash my finger with it, I'm fine with it. It is a tool. Not a thing to be valued more than my own sense.

Now you may be saying..."You didn't prove anything!!!!"

Uh, actually I was just showing that science is unreliable as a source of truth. Useful, yes, But unreliable.

Now, you want me to prove something than cannot be proven? Is that what you are asking?

I'll tell you what. Next blog I'll do something more familiar, I will compare belief and theories. You see, I have a theory. I call it the theory of the cake. It is how I explain why I think the Big Bang Theory is all nonsense. Mathematically.
Until next time.