Do you think it is possible that science books, theories, etc. could be influenced by the egos and frail human nature of those producing them?
any intelligent person, at a minimum, has to have a theory to explain: 1. how did life begin? 2. how does time have no beginning 3. how does space go on forever.
I can tell you any scientific explanation proposed, dwarfs Christianity's, in being laughable and ridiculous.
Where should I begin. First you misuse the word" theory" as it is used in science. Scientists observe, then make a hypothesis (educated guess) as a starting point of further investigations. (Many of you here, misuse the word "theory" as meaning "hypothesis”.) Then facts either confirm or disprove the hypothesis. If enough facts and observation, confirmed by many contemporary peers, and this happens step after step, then it becomes a theory, this might not be the final step and the theory can then be further developed, step after step. and critically tested by many others. None of this is the case with any ancient written hypothesis. Repeating stories from witnesses and other hearsay does not constitute a theory.
There are indeed many pseudo science books written by writers with unconfirmed “hypothesis” but they lack the critical reviews and repeat experiments and are indeed influenced by “the egos and frail human nature of those producing them”. Erich Von Daniken’s Chariots of the gods, (1984) comes to mind here. There are some scientists, who publish before their contemporaries have tested and confirmed that their hypothesis can be developed into a theory, warranting further investigations. Such scientist will quickly lose their reputation and are shunned by the rest of the scientific community. One such hypothesis, that the earth, created in the same week as the universe, is younger than 10,000 years old. We can now measure the speed of light. We can measure how far stars are away with he parallax method. We can then calculate how long it takes for the star light to reach us, all very common methods, then we find that many stars are much farther away than 10, 000 light-years (the time it took for the light of the star to reach us since it came into existence). These measurements are taken by many observers at different times and confirmed so we can honestly say, that that hypothesis is incorrect and does not even qualify as a theory. End of story.
Secondly you state “any intelligent person, at a minimum, has to have a theory to explain: 1. how did life begin? 2. how does time have no beginning 3. how does space go on forever.” Is not true. You don’t “have to”. It is more honest to say “I don’t know yet (but because if I look at the development of science we will eventually find out) than to put up a speculation grounded in unproven and untested hypothesis written down in ancient times. Any one can dream up a hypothesis, no matter how unlikely, and then demand “proof that it is incorrect”. If that was logical I can hypothesize that Zeus (Thor and 4000 other deities) exist and ask you for proof that they don’t. You DON”T have to have a THEORY (misuse of the word again, use “speculation” or “hypothesis”). If you do you must have FACTS to back up the hypothesis. (another problem is that people who don’t agree simply ignore facts, and are in denial). The Theory of Gravity is another example. We don’t know the full answer yet but it is not a hypothesis. We can observe it (jump of a building, we can calculate rocket trajectories). It’s a theory although not fully developed yet.
Thirdly you wrote: “I can tell you any scientific explanation proposed, dwarfs Christianity's, in being laughable and ridiculous“ That was what Galileo was told by the Church about his scientific explanation, of the earth rotating about the sun!