![\"\"](\"\/universe.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
COGwriter<\/a><\/p>\n <\/em>A reader sent me a link to the following:<\/p>\n December 29, 2014<\/p>\n In 1966 … the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion\u20141 followed by 24 zeros\u2014planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion\u20141 followed by 21 zeros\u2014planets capable of supporting life.<\/p>\n With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis\u20140 followed by nothing.<\/p>\n What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.<\/p>\n Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: \u201cIn light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.\u201d<\/p>\n As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn\u2019t be here.<\/p>\n Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life\u2014every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth\u2019s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.<\/p>\n Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn\u2019t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?<\/p>\n There\u2019s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces\u2014gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the \u201cstrong\u201d and \u201cweak\u201d nuclear forces\u2014were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction\u2014by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000\u2014then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.<\/p>\n Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all \u201cjust happened\u201d defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?<\/p>\n Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term \u201cbig bang,\u201d said that his atheism was \u201cgreatly shaken\u201d at these developments. He later wrote that \u201ca common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.\u201d<\/p>\n Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that \u201cthe appearance of design is overwhelming\u201d and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said \u201cthe more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.\u201d …<\/p>\n Eric Metaxas\u00a0 http:\/\/www.theyeshivaworld.com\/coffeeroom\/topic\/science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n The Bible teaches:<\/p>\n 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Although some accept the Creation, many of the wise of the world still do not seem to want to believe this. But they should:<\/p>\n 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:20-22).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Scientists who do not accept that there is\/was a Creator are being fools as one must not pay attention to the evidence to conclude otherwise.<\/p>\n There is sermon from the Continuing<\/em> Church of God<\/a> titled Is it logical to believe in God?<\/a> with additional information.<\/p>\n In addition to the uniqueness, etc. of planet Earth, for life to start and remain, could not have possibly happened randomly.\u00a0 Real scientists accept that there had to be some type of Creator.\u00a0 And there was.<\/p>\n Some items of possibly related interest may include:<\/em><\/p>\n Is God’s Existence Logical?<\/a> Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?<\/a> COGwriter A reader sent me a link to the following: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God December 29, 2014 In 1966 … the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-doctrine"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=28283"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28283\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28286,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28283\/revisions\/28286"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cogwriter.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\nScience Increasingly Makes the Case for God<\/h2>\n
\nIs Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II<\/a> This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life<\/a>.
\nHow Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation?<\/a> Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Where the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long? Here is a link to the article in Spanish: <\/em>\u00bfCu\u00e1n vieja es la Tierra? \u00bfCu\u00e1n largos fueron los D\u00edas de la Creaci\u00f3n? \u00bfTeor\u00eda de la brecha?<\/a>
\nQuestions and Answers from Genesis<\/a> Many wonder about certain early events that this article discusses.
\nWhere Did God Come From?<\/a> Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Who is God?
\nHow is God Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient?<\/a> Here is a biblical article which answers what many really wonder about it.
\nHas time been lost?<\/a> It Saturday the seventh day of the week?
\nWhy Were You Born?<\/a> Why did God make you? Herbert W. Armstrong<\/a> wrote this as a booklet on this important subject. You may also wish to read the article What is Your Destiny?<\/a> or watch the video, also titled What is Your Destiny?<\/a>
\nBuilding Character: Going on to Perfection<\/a> Once you have accepted Jesus, do you need to strive for perfection and build character? A related video sermon is available: Going on to perfection and building character<\/a>.
\nWhat is the Meaning of Life?<\/a> Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally? There is also a video titled What is the meaning of your life?<\/a>
\nBible: Superstition or Authority?<\/a> Should you rely on the Bible? Is it reliable? Herbert W. Armstrong<\/a> wrote this as a booklet on this important subject.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"