{"id":29045,"date":"2022-10-05T14:56:50","date_gmt":"2022-10-05T20:56:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/baonline.cog7engage.net\/?p=29045"},"modified":"2023-08-29T11:33:52","modified_gmt":"2023-08-29T17:33:52","slug":"fine-tuned-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/baonline.cog7engage.net\/fine-tuned-world\/","title":{"rendered":"Fine-tuned World"},"content":{"rendered":"

When talking about evolution versus creation<\/a>, there is a phrase that makes all the difference in the world: \u201cfine-tuned argument.\u201d This is a phrase that we need to remember.<\/p>\n

I have read that some of the greatest atheist scientists try not to deal with a fine-tuned argument. So, what is a fine-tuned argument? According to Eric Metaxas of metaxastalk.com<\/a>, this is a fine-tuned argument: \u201cThere are certain things about our universe \u2013 and about our planet \u2013 that seem to be so extremely perfectly calibrated that they can hardly be coincidental.\u201d<\/p>\n

Creation Is Fact and Evolution Is the Myth<\/h3>\n

This fine-tuned argument comes from science. We have been told for years that science is continually proving that Creation is just a myth. Not so! True science is slowly revealing that Creation is fact and evolution is the myth.<\/p>\n

[bctt tweet=”True science is slowly revealing that Creation is fact and evolution is the myth. \u2013 Martin Cicero” via=”no”]<\/p>\n

The reason that we haven\u2019t seen this is because any one fine-tuned argument could be considered a \u201cfluke,\u201d a \u201ccoincidence,\u201d or an accident, but when you compile the list of hundreds of fine-tuned arguments, there is no way this is anything but the mighty hand of a Creator.<\/p>\n

Criteria for Life on a Planet<\/h3>\n

As an example, we were originally told that there were two criteria for life on a planet. The two criteria according to Carl Sagan were, 1) Be near a star like our sun, and 2) Be a certain distance from that star. With the size of the universe and the simpleness of the two criteria, it was possible to speculate that there were hundreds of other inhabited planets. Since then, others have continued researching this topic.<\/p>\n

Walt Jurek, a former Assistant Professor of Engineering Mechanics at the USAF Academy, writes that in 2004, one Christian astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, identified 200 parameters required for a planet to sustain life<\/a>. Jurek writes, \u201cConsidering 200 parameters, it is virtually mathematically impossible for Earth to support life.\u201d<\/p>\n

Life on Earth Is no Accident<\/h3>\n

Life on earth is no accident. These factors prove it is no accident:<\/p>\n