"This is in response to the people out there who say
"The earth is just perfect for life
Oh what a haven in all the universe just right...
"It's not just right
every opportunity it gets
it tries to kill us.
The tsunamis
the hurricanes
the tornados
the asteroids.
On 3/4 of the earth
if I drop you buck naked?
You are dead 10 minutes later.
Cause something eats you.
Okay?
The earth is bad for life.
Okay?
The proof is in the fossil record,
99% of all species who ever lived
are now extinct.
That is not the signature of a planet that is in love with life."
Pretty popular a while back.
Lets look at what he is saying
with a lil closer inspection.
"The earth is just perfect for life
Oh what a haven...
in all the universe it's just right...
"It's not just right
every opportunity it gets
it tries to kill us."
(It remains however
the only place we have
that supports:
rational,
sentient,
cognizant,
intellectually capable
LIFE.
We have never found
any other place
where that exist,
just here.
I wonder why?)
"On 3/4 of the earth if I drop you buck naked?
You are dead 10 minutes later.
Cause something eats you."
Presents two problems:
1) "On 3/4 of the earth if I drop you buck naked?
You are dead 10 minutes later."
So it is obviously
Not what happened!
Or we wouldn't be here.
So why would that be exactly?
And
2) Where did
the life
come from
that eats you
when you are dropped here
buck naked?
How did it get here?
Why didn't it just:
"get dropped here and get eaten?"
Again,
obviously not what happened.
"99% of all species
who ever lived
are now extinct.
That is not the signature
of a planet
that is in love with life."
Exactly.
It is however
evidence of a creator
that loves his
greatest creation,
not a planet BTW.
"Juvenile scientism"
somebody called it.
(I couldn't agree more).
Perfectly designed for a generation
that came out of the womb
with a cell phone in their hands.
And While were at it?
If we compress the 13.8 billion year history
of the universe down to one year?
Then the entire history of mankind happened on Dec 31st.
So the question becomes:
Since information theory states
information is degraded
over time and distance
and in harsh surroundings?
How did the information get into the DNA molecule so late in the game?
There is one,
one,
metaphysical explanation
for the beginning of the universe
that is head and shoulders above the rest:
Theism
/ˈTHēˌizəm/
belief in the existence of a god
or gods,
especially belief
in one god
as creator of the universe,
intervening in it
and sustaining a personal relation
to his creatures.
True science
(Not arbitrarily ruling out options
because we dont like their implications
and only choosing the theories
that support our predetermined conclusions before hand)
would
DEMAND
that until it can be effectively ruled out?
At a minimum
at a minimum
it deserves consideration.
It it was anything else?
people would have
already been believing in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment