Theoretically speaking

(This is guaranteed to burn the muffins and turn heads)

So, you have heard of the ‘theory’ of the big bang?

Image result for frost

You have maybe heard of the ‘theory’ of relativity?

Naturally you have heard of the thirty conflicting ‘theories’ of who killed JFK.

I have my own theory as to what busybody emailed a potential penalty on Lexi Thompson which cost her the first LPGA’s first major of 2017.

The trouble with theories is, they are exaggerated opinions, clever guesses, some better than others, some create more fog, are for the most part still unprovable, but far too many are put forth as gospel truth. There are many Theories that are bones without a body.

The so-called big bang. Bang? I think the Creation by God was rather unassuming, demure as it were, introduced as the morning overtakes a night. Just the beautiful voice of God. Quiet. Elegant. No screeching metal such as a train wreck. No, but more like the silent visual awe of lightning or the impression of a wheat field, the unspeakable wonder of those glimmering lights known as stars, you know, those ‘lights,’ not a colored rock with borrowed lumens, but lights, such as which baffles the likes of General Electric.

Mr Einstein’s ‘theory’ of relativity was an answer to the need for gravity, which was dismissed by the Michelson-Morley experiment as well as Tesla. You see, others have equally valid theories, and even more truthful:

Tesla was critical of Einstein stating that his theory of relativity was “a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a king” and “a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense… the theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors…. its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved.”

Bang bang! Hmmm. How do you spell Nye, DeGrasse, Hawking? Do you see how the smokescreens of the theorists create diversions, whereby only the so called elite are qualified to address the issues of life? (So glad here that God does not play hide-n-seek, and welcomes the pure in heart.)

So with what sanity do we say a stream of water or a river moves, but our eyes lie to us as to the moving sun, which sun we see with the same eyes, while others try to convince us of a THEORY that it is not moving?  Talk about faith to turn a blind eye to the obvious! But we worship our theories and call that science.

Theories apart from truth are simply Hollywood material bought and sold to the public as fact.

Fact: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Fact: God made the greater light to rule the day.

Fact: God made the lesser light to rule the night. (again, not a borrowed light given to a dark rock)

Fact: And God created great whales.

But if I am wrong as to the theory of a quiet creation, we can always go with this:

God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.

or this language of God’s majesty upon response to His dotting the heavens with lights:

When the morning stars sang together,

or consider what we are blind to:

By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.

or answer such questions which should put a lock on our tongue:

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

So theories? Eh, a dime a dozen, even the good ones are weak at best. But God’s word? No theories. Plain truth as it should be. The whole creation sings the praises of the divine hand.


About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Genesis- in the beginning and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Theoretically speaking

  1. The Big Bang is not a theory. It is a proven fact.

    Also, in science, theory means model.

    And the models are constructed from observation and mathematics.

    For example, the model of the Solar System before the Renaissance was that put forth by Ptolemy where all the planets and the Sun orbited around the Earth.

    Kepler and Copernicus used mathematics to destroy the Ptolemaic model of the Solar System and create a new, factual model of the Solar System.


  2. ColorStorm says:

    So you didn’t like the reference of Tesla regarding Einstein? lol

    If a theory comports with reality, it is a good theory. If it does not, it is false science, a truth which God reveals and tells us to be wary of.

    This short post highlights more of the deception of false science, where our eyes are told to disagree with common sense by the so-called wise ones.


    • That’s right, Storm.

      Science is all about reality.

      That’s why science only appeared in Christian Western Civilization.


      • ColorStorm says:

        Well certainly progress has been made in many disciplines due to this influence, but rest assured, don’t discount the wisdom of King Solomon, which was not limited to adages. I would bet he was quite the scientist, and would put modern scientists to shame. Remember how the queen of Sheba was blown away by him? His temple too was no hut ya know. He utilized all the principles of math and engineering long before Einstein was in diapers.

        Then there was Adam. No doubt the most brilliant man who lived. And the ten degrees moving of the sun backwards? Yeah, science was alive and well. I believe we are arrogant in thinking our ‘science’ is now superior. Remember the apostle’s words to ‘avoid science falsely called,’ meaning true science was alive and well, and certainly recognizable from the false.


        • Storm,

          The ancient world never progressed past the campfire, the slave and beast of burden.

          They didn’t have science because science was invented in Christian Western Civilization.

          Jesus said that we would do greater works than his.

          That is being accomplished with modern science which is a gift from God.

          Science is unlocking the fires of creation and giving man mastery over everything, just as God created him to do.

          It is therefore absolutely necessary for mankind to know God and serve him.


        • ColorStorm says:


          Yes, I have seen these defenses before, and while I agree with your premise of the last sentence, I’m not on board with the conclusion that men were scientifically ignorant.

          (I am of the opinion that it is the precise opposite)

          God’s word says that men would ‘ever learn, and that knowledge would increase………..but that they also would never come to the knowledge of the truth.’

          Look at the average or daily conversation with atheists for example. On and on and on of cut and paste, borrowed opinions, citing of ‘professionals,’ calling on ‘scientists’ who believe not in God, yet ignoring what is starting them in the face.

          Modern scientists say ‘there is no God,’ making them instantly ignorant of the science they profess, and totally inadequate to draw the correct conclusions.

          Degrasse is a poor excuse as a spokesman for science. Yet, people laud him as a science god.

          The sextant and compass were indeed gifts from God, used by people to exact measures, and what was true then, is certainly true now.

          They had more knowledge with less, more truth, and your citing of Ptolemy is a pretty good example.

          (I’ll not address the idea of ‘greater works’ out of plain courtesy)

          Liked by 1 person

        • Storm,

          The Big Bang is one instance where modern science proves the existence of God.

          Only atheists say “there is no God.”

          That is statement of faith, not science since science has proven the existence of God.

          I think the rub with you is that we don’t need science to prove the existence of God, since God’s existence is understood simply by comprehending the obvious.

          Degrasse, like Hawking and a few others, disgrace science by enslaving it to their religion, atheism.

          Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          True Silence, the atheist sez ‘there is no God’ using the same science as you. There is then a huge disconnect in the interpretation of ‘what is obvious.’

          So yes, while i believe science leads to God, God wired us so we are not at the mercy of other mens knowledge, ere we can see and know Him. Science makes it that much more difficult for men to have excuses.


  3. Ahh,interesting, a quiet creation theory. Works for me! I assume no one was around to record this big bang, so how are we supposed to know if it went “bang?”

    Maybe it was the Big Silent? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make noise? Wait… I think that’s philosophy. 🙂

    As I’m sure you already know, the Big Bang is a theory, actually called the “prevailing model,” so it’s not really proven at all, it’s just been agreed upon. Something I always find funny, they often like to say, “the early phases are still subject to much speculation.” It makes me laugh because scientifically you can’t really prove that the universe did not once exist. In order to really prove there was a Big Bang, you have to prove there was once nothing, and trying to prove nothing is a terrible logical conundrum. The moment you have evidence of “nothing,” you have something.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Big Silent? I like that. What is that old joke. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it, does anyone hear it?

      It is a cinch that sound waves don’t travel in a vacuum, if anyone was near that bang, they didn’t last long, unless they were God and his angels.

      Proving the Big Bang is beyond our capacity. We prove a theory by making predictions that only the theory can explain. I don’t believe anyone has done that with the Big Bang.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. ColorStorm says:

    Here I am contemplating what has been argued since time began. If by ‘big bang’ some mean the beginning of all things, with God at the helm, then fine; but to say it means the ‘random beginning of things,’ then sorry, we part company, amicably even.

    Isn’t there a tv show ‘big bang theory,’ which very title if even in jest, mocks the Creator? If by ‘bang’ some mean when God spoke, ‘let there be light,’ then fine. If by ‘bang’ some mean God’s celebration of the beginning, then fine. But no, no accidents here.

    The Genesis account is accurate as it is written, is scientifically accurate and truthful, and the ensuing proofs are repeatable, observable, and testable. The seasons, cold and heat, and the seed within itself are death blows to evolution.

    But yes, I enjoy the idea of a still morning as it were, but who are we to say that the singing stars were not just that, and that all creation offered a token of thanks in awe, such as the ‘rocks crying out……’

    And as you know msb, we are reminded, since we were not there, as in ‘where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ No, I was not there, therefore I cannot declare.

    You can copyright that idea though, ‘the big silent,’ it may catch on. When you are rich and famous, just give your old friend an honorable mention. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • Storm,

      The cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang was discovered back in the 1960’s by two IBM engineers.

      It has been imaged and we even know what it sounded like (extremely low frequency).

      Science leads right to God’s front porch.


  5. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.


    • ColorStorm says:

      True enough james. Scripture is more than adequate.

      SoM is also correct when he says true science leads to God and truth. Many an unbeliever or skeptic has been converted by the microscope. On the other hand, a child of 6 need not to know one whit about pi before he can see the Creator through nature.

      Science is a great tool, but lab rats are unnecessary to prove God is. 😉 ,

      Liked by 1 person

      • SoM is correct about many things and science is a great tool, you are correct. Well, science is a graet tool depending on how it’s used.

        The Bible is clear: God is the Creator. Any interpretation of science that attempts to remove God from involvement with origins is incompatible with Scripture.

        Science has not yet removed God from involvement yet some hope someday it will. That (science of the gaps I call it) requires as much faith as any Christian has, maybe more.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Arkenaten says:

          Science has proved the falsity of a biblical global flood for one thing.
          It has also proved the falsity of a 10,000 year old earth.
          And the falsity of any claim humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
          Also science has proved that the tale of a biblical Adam and Eve is simply a story.

          How many other examples would you like to see, James?

          (Editors’s right to engage a coupon, lest this poison find a stronghold on otherwise good dirt in God’s good earth. True science will ALWAYS confirm the truth of scripture. ALWAYS. It has been proven that scientists are clueless as to the wealth found in the great deep, meaning they have explored less that .01 percent of the waters resources. So yes, because they have ‘found’ no evidence of the great deluge assumes no evidence CAN be found! Ha. Another joke is on the atheist and the inability to see beyond yesterday. God’s word has never lost an argument to pygmies, or ants.)


  6. Nice BLOG!!! ADD my BLOG too!!! Kisses!!!


  7. Somewhat entertaining Colorstorm, the other day I watched some men discussing the fossil record versus the bible. A bit humorous because there was a flood! The sea fossils under discussion are on the top of the mountain. Every now agrees, there was a flood….we’re just absolutely certain it wasn’t the flood of the bible, the one Noah saw.

    Sigh. Now that’s completely rational…or perhaps not so much.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Hey, I’m good with a Big Bang since I don’t think it testifies any less to God’s majesty. Billions of atoms borne within an incomprehensible time interval? Coming into existence like a raging lion? Sounds like glory to me. But then you’re right, the details are still hazy. For all we know a Big Bang to us can be seen like a million years in God’s time, and a Big Silent in a million years or 7 days in our time can be like two seconds to God. He doesn’t exactly work in our concept of time, does He?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Truly enjoyed this post. I wrote one similar entitled “The Truth About Gravity.” I also speak on the fact that these theories were needed to either disprove God or to promote the energy of chaos by programming people to believe that we were created from it instead of us being the PURPOSEFUL and INTENTIONAL creations that we are. I also give a personal opinion of what I believe “gravity” actually is. Check it out in your spare time and I keep spreading truth!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s