This is something I thought about whilst driving home from the shop today.
You know how science tells us that the creation point of view is non-scientific, or that we have no peer reviewed papers on what we hold to be true. But think about this, If the evolutionists, scientists and atheists tells us that the world began with a big bang and it started from nothing or it started from a quantum fluctuation, we have to stop and ask them how they know this.
If they say most scientists believe It is the way it happened ask them how a paper gets peer reviewed and passed. As far as I can tell it should be like this:
- You come up with a hypothesis
- You do experiments to prove that your hypothesis is right
- You do the experiment again to see if it is repeatable
- If you are happy that all is in order you put forward to be peer reviewed.
- Note: peer – A peer is someone at your own level
- It is someone that can do the same experiments you can
- If your peers have successfully repeated your experiment and agree with you, then your paper is published, and your hypothesis is accepted as correct.
Here is my thought, the hypothesis comes from one man that writes it down in a book or a paper. Other men read it, try out the things that man said, and if it works, you tell other people that this works, and it is true.
What repeatable tests/experiments were done by other scientists, evolutionists, or atheists from the original big bang experiment? The answer is none. There were no experiments done or repeated to prove that it is fact. It is at this point a hypothesis that is accepted by most, but it is not a proven fact.
So, everyone that is touting the big bang theory does so because someone else said so and not because they were able to do an experiment to prove it factual. It is a whole bunch of theories weaved together to make a good story, but none of it has the repeatable experiments to back it up – which of course is the scientific method.
Now think about the Christian Faith, Jesus made the hypothesis that through his death on the cross our sins will be forgiven, and we will become new creatures. Jesus did the experiments on the twelve and then on the others that has been documented by his peers.
The Apostle Paul after his conversion read about this hypothesis of people getting saved and transformed by Jesus. He, as a peer, put the hypothesis to the test by repeating the experiment. Lo and behold, people got saved and their lives change to the point where they were willing to die for what they experienced.
This hypothesis has been taken up by millions of other people and the experiments have been repeated millions of times, and the outcomes have millions of times proven the hypothesis to be true. This is repeatable experiments, it has stood the test of time, it has been peer reviewed over and over and over and over again. I think this is quite scientific. You may not like it, but this is what science is. It is repeatable by anyone and if anyone can repeat the experiment and get the same results, it must be correct.
I don’t think the science guys are going to like this logic much. I can hear them already, where is your proof. Well I did the experiment on myself as a sceptic, not as someone that wanted it to be true. I dared Christ to come into my life. I remember very well when I heard the gospel, I said:
“Well Jesus, if you are real and you can save me, then I accept your challenge, I give my life to you, so show me if you are for real. Oh my, he did, he showed me how his salvation can break a stubborn drug addicts resolve and turn him into a compassionate human being. There is my proof for me. Then I went and repeated the experiment and saw hundreds of people turn to Christ and had their lives just like I had. I really don’t need more evidence that salvation in Christ is a fact.
If salvation is a fact, and Jesus started the hypothesis, then I think it is worth our while to listen to the other thinks he hypothesized to see if they are also factual.