Eating breakfast this morning, I’ve been contemplating a few
things. The first is a YouTube video
showcasing why I don’t believe in the Big Bang Theory. If you are just reading this, here’s my
argument.
Before we begin, we have to agree to one fact. Here is that fact: the universe is not
infinitely old.
Good? Do we both
agree?
Here’s the question I have for anyone who believes in the
Big Bang Theory. How did nothing become
something? If your answer is “we don’t
know, but we think science can figure it out”, I’ll give you a pass and we can
agree to disagree. At least you are
thinking deeply about the subject and understand the limitations of your
argument.
For the rest of you, let’s go to Chemistry. In lab Chemistry, we are taught the output of
a chemical reaction is always equal to the input. Matter is neither created nor destroyed in
the process. It simply assumes a new
shape. If that is true, then it has
always been true. So, despite everything
we are still dealing with the same amount of matter that was there when the
world was first created. Right?
If high school Chemistry is true and matter can neither be
created nor destroyed, and our first premise is true that the universe is not
infinitely old, then we have all the information we need to deconstruct the Big
Bang Theory. So, if you know the age of
something, you know an age at which the object didn’t exist. Except the object we’re talking about here is
time, space, and the universe. So, if we
know that the universe is X years old, we also know that at any point greater
than X, the universe didn’t exist.
Neither did matter, or mass, or time, or anything else.
If you want to argue there was something there, you are
violating our only rule. Remember, the
universe is not infinitely old. If the
universe is not infinitely old, there was to be a creation point. Before the creation point, there was
nothing. No time, no space, no matter,
no cosmic mismasa, no ether, no nothing.
So the question becomes again: how did nothing become
something?
The other thing I’ve been contemplating was a parallel
between evolution and animal conservation.
Evolution says “the best equipped of an animal will survive”. That may not be the fastest, or the smartest
animal. It may be the one with different
coloring.
So the question becomes why do we conserve animals and
prevent them extinction?
The answer always seems to be human encroachment. But think of the pigeon. The pigeon is a good example of adaptation
versus human encroachment. Pigeons used
to be primarily white. Now, most are a
dingy grey that blends in with buildings.
The best equipped pigeon to survive did despite the encroachment of
humanity. The pigeon adapted to survive
and thrive in new environments.
So the answer isn’t human encroachment. The survival of the pigeon also makes me
wonder about other “endangered animals”.
If a pigeon is capable of adapting to human habitation and thrive, why
can’t other animals? Given the general
thought of many “the greatest good for the greatest number of people”, then
animal conservation makes no sense. What
makes these animals that haven’t adapted to new circumstances and situations
worth saving? What makes them better
than any other animal? Do the rules not
apply? The greatest good for the greatest
number of people is the entire idea.
I don’t believe in the idea of “the greatest good for the
greatest number of people”. I’m also not
arguing for keeping endangered animals.
So the logical conclusion for me is to simply let the
animals that can’t adapt perish. If a
pigeon can adapt, why can’t any other animal?
Can a cow start tasting bad?
Certain plants have evolved that defense. Yet despite years and years of breeding, cows
still taste good.
So it seems evolution has been very selective about where it
has been applied. Seems strange. Maybe I just haven’t drug time out far
enough. But then if you drag time out
far enough, then eventually some other animal should evolve to sentience.
And that hasn’t happened yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment