The Origin Of The Universe And Earthly Life Are Correctly Explained By The Bible

I reject the assertion that the bible correctly explains the origin of the universe and earthly life. The writers of the bible failed to include cosmic microwave background radiation, quantum fluctuations, or the concept that the universe is expanding, so the bible's account of our universe's origins is inaccurate and incomplete. The writers of the bible also failed to include the ideas of inorganic and organic compounds, metabolism and cell replication, or amino acids and genetics, so the bible's account of earthy life's origins lacks a substantial explanation. Pro claims: "The Abrahamic God created the universe using science. .. He merely manipulates science to complete his tasks. " My response: Science is a collection of all of our observations and explanations of natural phenomena. Science is not the phenomena themselves. How did god use something that humans constructed post big bang to "create" the big bang? According to Pro, it's a "childish idea that God is some magical creature," so how does god violate time constraints? Also, time began at the big bang, and creation is a temporal concept that requires time. How could an non-magical god create something without time? Pro should also mechanistically explain, using the bible, HOW the particular Abrahamic god used science to complete tasks; Pro cannot just explain the science behind cosmological events, rather Pro needs to show how god caused them. I understand the big bang and inflation, but HOW did god execute these concepts? What in the bible indicates the mechanism god used? Pro cites the quote from Peter that attempts to add time to the creation account (1 day = 1,000 years, 1,000 years = 1 day). Pro claims "this is a metaphorical way for ancients to say the Lord's time is not our time. " My response: If the lord's time is not our time, then how is god using temporal science, which is contingent on "our time? " Pro cites the day = 1,000 years bible quote to support the idea that "it is possible for [god's] 7 days to possibly mean 13 billion years. " This should show why a metaphorical interpretation of the origins of our universe is incorrect and nonspecific. Pro can metaphorically interpret: 1 god day = 1.9 billion years from a quote in the bible that claims 1 god day = 1,000 years. With metaphorical interpretation, a day becomes an amount of years, and this type of ambiguity does not fulfill a correct explanation of the origins of our universe. Pro brings up time dilation, which should be regarded as irrelevant, because time dilation is a concept of "our time. " Time dilation is not god's own non-magical time. Pro posits: "On Adam and Eve. .. Who came first? The world may never know. " My response: The debate does not mention the origin of humans, males, or females, so "On Adam and Eve, who came first? " is an irrelevant question about the origin of earthly life. Pro claims that the bible states: "God [created] animals and [placed] the stars in the sky" My response: Next set of 10,000 characters, I will be outlining science's current understanding of the origin of the universe and earthly life, but it's commonly understood that science has animals' origin way after stars forming. .. there is no earth before stars either. Why does the bible have it backwards if the bible correctly explains the origin of life? Pro says that the writers of the bible accurately explain the big bang with "God created the universe. " My response: Where in the bible did the writers mention a hot dense state that expanded from quantum fluctuations? How does the phrase "God did it! " suffice for an explanation of something as complex as the big bang? Also Pro mentioned that "People writing the Bible did not understand what the Big Bang was. " My response: Why should we literally or metaphorically accept what ancient people wrote about a topic of which they were largely unaware? So then Pro takes a shot at science, to which I take offense: "The truth is science in all it's knowledgeable glory does not have an answer to WHY or WHAT CAUSED the Big Bang to happen. " My response: False. Understanding what nothing is (quantum fluctuations) and understanding that our universe has zero total energy, the "cause" of the big bang makes sense. Quantum fluctuations = nothing To understand "nothing," one needs to define "something. " "Something" is a physical concept that is best explained by physical sciences, specifically particle physics. Physically speaking, to be something, at the most basic level, something must have particles/atoms/wavelengths/energy/matter/radiation. The absence of all of these basic characteristics of "something" leaves us with "nothing. " The absence of all of these physical properties, nothing, is a concept of particle physics, because the presence of all of these physical properties, is also a concept of particle physics. Particle physics has been observing and testing nothing for a while. The very science used to explain what something is, has discovered that nothing, in a post big bang universe, is a vacuum of empty space with no matter, no energy, no radiation, no particles, and no atoms, BUT there is a detectable faint physical field; its existence is ubiquitous. You might be thinking. .. Hold on! A physical field would be something! A physical field can't be nothing. .. I know. .. I know it sounds contradictory, but this quantum physical field isn't a steady state of something at all. It's empty, it's void of matter or energy, it doesn't radiate, it has no atoms or full particles, it doesn't have any wavelengths of light. .. nothing. What's interesting, but demonstrably true, is that this faint physical field in nothing is simply sub-nuclear particles and their counter parts, antiparticles, popping into existence and just as quickly popping out of existence by annihilating each other constantly. This is called quantum fluctuation. Please see the above video from leading particle physicist, Lawrence Krauss; his explanation is great. I must stress here that quantum fluctuations are everywhere and are what nothing is. I'm serious here. Any idea you'v ever had of nothing is not the case, unless your idea is that nothing is simply quantum fluctuations. So, say all you wish that nothing can't have something in it. .. it doesn't matter (pun intended); nothing = quantum fluctuations. When you strip all of something down, you are left with quantum fluctuations. .. the absence of something is nothing. There is no "nothing" without these fluctuations, period. . http://scholarsresearchlibrary.com... In this nothing state, quantum fluctuations, these sub-nuclear particles exist and don't exist at the same time (annihilation). .. doesn't sound like something to me. Physicists are correct in calling this state nothing. This state of nothingness is actually unstable; it can't remain nothing, such that with the many sub-nuclear particles popping in and out of existence constantly, energy is inevitable from this instability. Energy is just the other side of the coin to matter, and this means that if sub-nuclear particles appearing from quantum fluctuations (nothing) eventually lead to the expression of energy, then matter can come from this unstable nothingness. The total energy of the universe = 0. So all of the matter and energy in the universe is positive energy. You, me, the earth, the sun, the stars, the other planets, galaxies. .. are all positive energy. They have matter/energy. All of the gravity in the universe is negative energy. This negative energy acts on the positive energy by way of gravitational force. All of the positive energy (+matter) in the universe is cancelled out, by force, by all of the negative energy (-gravity) in the universe. . http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org... The universe's total energy is zero; the universe is flat. The universe's total energy can be represented as a set: [+matter, -gravity] As mentioned earlier, in quantum fluctuations, there is no (+) matter or (-) gravity. .. no positive energy, and no negative energy, which as a set looks like: [+0,-0] = 0 However, because [+0,-0] is unstable, which guarantees the expression of energy, a dense energy state the size of a sub-nuclear particle in quantum fluctuations (the big bang) would express positive energy and negative energy. So from nothing [+0,-0] = 0 comes something [+1,-1] = 0. The total energy is 0, but we have some matter (+1) and some gravity (-1); they cancel each other out to equal zero. Now, I mentioned that quantum fluctuations are in a vacuum of empty space, and this is why quantum fluctuations are also referred to as vacuum fluctuations. But pre big bang, there was no space, so there was no vacuum of empty space. Instead space and time fluctuated in and out of quantum fluctuations just like the sub-nuclear particles. So "pre" big bang, we have quantum fluctuations [+0,-0]. There is no matter/energy/atoms/particles/radiation/space/time. .. nothing. Again space and time are variables that fluctuate in and out with the quantum fluctuations before we have any matter or gravity to speak of. At "pre" big bang quantum fluctuations [+0,-0] = 0 Instability-->big bang [+1,-1] = 0 The universe expands [+10,-10] = 0 Inflation accelerates [+100000,-100000] = 0 Now there is lots of matter, and lots of gravity [+1000000000000,-1000000000000] = 0 Still total energy = 0, but we have (+matter) and (-gravity). So this should show how the big bang occurred. Pro goes over the 7 day creation account, to which I respond: It's all metaphorical according to Pro, so the bible's explanation of something that is not metaphorical, the big bang, is incongruous. Also, Pro is retrofitting science concepts into the bible. If these interpretations and retrofitting are metaphorical, why should we regard them as correct? On to you, Pro. ..