TaN: Why is it that, in motion pictures concerning war, law enforcement, and those that involve physical conflict between two sides (especially when there is a human interest aspect), when a friend dies in an encounter, we often see the friend cries over the death but never see a similar scene when it happens on the other side. It is as if those on the “other side” were not humans or are devoid of human feelings and have no bond of friendship with fellow “other-siders” whatsoever.
It is strange that we never see deaths being mourned by those on the “other side” but surprising that most of viewers do not seem to notice this shortcoming in motion picture making.
TaN: Life is only possible on Earth. Like it has been written in the Holy Scriptures, if we seriously consider all the factors that must come together at just the right instant, in the right manner, and in the right proportion and combination, the odds are against having life in any other place in the universe.
Take the following facts that are required in order for life to exist:
- The temperature should be just right, meaning that a planet must fall within a range of distance from a star of the right age and energy output in order for life to exist. A little too near, like Venus, and all life will be boiled away. A little too far, like Mars, and all life will be frozen solid.
- The correct proportion of elements, compounds, and substances must be present to produce and support life. An imbalance — an element or compounds significantly out of proportion — and life will not happen.
- The proper catalyst/s must be available to initiate the “spark of life”. Something must start the process; something that is unique, that will happen only under very strict and specific conditions that will most likely never happen again, must occur. This initiating event must be unqiue — so unique that it must never to be repeated — just to kickstart life, otherwise life will continuously be created spontaneously.
- It has been proven repeatedly — but mainstream science stubbornly and obstinately refuse to admit and recognize is — that there is no single primal life from which all life forms originated or sprung from. The theory of evolution cannot be true because of the degree of vairation between and among the genetic blueprint of each genus is unbelievably impossible to transpire. The main life kingdoms are too divergent to have come from a single source — the protozoans, the plants, and the animal kingdom — their DNA are so different that no amount of mutation or evolution (natural selection) and time can produce such a drastically dissimilar creature.
Moreover, the theory that one specie gave rise to an entire different specie, if you really and critically subject it to logical scrutiny, is an impossibility. As an example, the theory that birds and mammals arose from the dinosaurs cannot be soberly argued. A reptile has a very different physical structure and survival need from a bird or a mammal. A lizard cannot give birth to a chicken; wings cannot just suddenly happen and where would the wings of the chicken come from when neither of the parent lizards had them. Logic says that, One cannot give or pass on to offsprings what one does not possess. Lizard parents cannot pass on wings to if they themselves do not have them. This is just utterly nonsense.
This reminds me of the age-old quizzical challenge of, Which came first — the chicken or the egg. The answer is: the chicken. The reasons are: (1) Biblically, God create birds and other animals and not eggs (there is no mention of God creating eggs) and (2) logically, had eggs come before chickens, what would have kept the eggs warm to hatch and watch over them while hatchlings to protect them from predators and to teach them what to eat and how to get at food. If the offspring is entirely different from the parents, how will the parents know what to feed the offsprings and, if the mouth configuration is vastly different (as in a beak from a mouth), it means the diets are different. There are too many inconsistencies in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (where one genus gives rise to another) that they have no leg to stand on when faced with or subjected to critical thinking. Moreover, if one genus came from another, there should be some possibility of interbreeding, but species of different genera cannot interbreed — like a horse (equines) and a pig (porcine).
- It was (once) said that it takes over a hundred different proteins to come together at just the right moment and in the correct sequence to produce life. Any missing or out-of-sequence or ill-timed protein and life will not exist. Also, the proteins that make up life do not “willingly” come together; they have to be “coerced” into coming together, following a very specific and strict schedule, otherwise life will not be.
Taking all (but not limited to) these into consideration, it becomes crystal clear that, even with the statistical probability that the best mathematicians and statisticians can calculate, life cannot just accidentally come into existence but must be deliberate. And that means a Creator must have caused life to exist — God.
TaN: If gravity bends light, it could be that the “sudden” appearance of perviously unseen stars populating the sky may be caused by the “lensing” effect resulting from gravity of a large celestial body that is in the direct path of the light emanating from “behind”.
It was shown (from several documentary science/astronomy videos) that the light from a star carries the image of the said star and, as it traverses space and comes across another celestial body directly in its path, will be bent — i.e., the light will go around the object in its path from all sides — and resumes its trajectory, much like images of smoke going around a object on its way forward. This “gravitational lensing” could produce multiple images of the source star as it goes around the obstructing celestial body and causes any viewer to perceive more than one source star — but a “cluster” of stars surrounding the central (obstructing) star/object.
Just like what is transpiring in saurian archæology (i.e., archæology of dinosaurs and sauropods) today, where there is now an effort to sort through the bewildering variety of dinosaur fossils and bones to explain and show that there are actually a lesser number of species than was previously thought. The seemingly different fossils of giant and miniature dinosaurs were not different species but different stages of development of only a few species — much like the metamorphic phases of certain insects (from egg to larva to pupa to adult, which are drastically different in size and physical appearance as it undergoes metamorphosis into adulthood).
This could be the same for astronomy except differing only in that it is the duplicity of star images received instead of such a sudden increase in the population of stars seen in the universe — although this does not necessarily mean that the number of stars in the universe is any less incalculable.