You Have Two Choices

There are really only two games in town. Both Christian scientists and atheistic scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. I have spoken with post-modernists who offer up alternatives to these two possibilities, such as a past eternal universe, or mere relative understandings of truth. Without getting into the weeds too much, your main theorists and thinkers on both sides reject these ulterior notions based on sound evidence, such as heat death, entropy, and others.

Biblical creationists already have a Genesis account of a beginning, corroborated by Christ, and many writers of scripture, so this news does not pose issue in and of itself.

On the other hand, when scientists discovered that the universe had a beginning, they were not happy.

Physicist Arthur Eddington wrote: “philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me… I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

When Einstein discovered that space-time-matter had a beginning, he was quoted as saying the result “irritates me”, due to its theological ramifications. You could surmise that a multi-verse would somehow change the implications, but it does not. Mathematically (since a multi-verse is hypothetical and un-explorable), a theorem that explains a multi-verse, created by Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his scientific team, proves that even if one exists, there is a beginning to them all.

Vilenkin, a believer in a multi-verse rather than God says,  “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).”

So to the point: the two games in town are

a) The universe created itself, or

b) A creator outside of time, space, and matter created it. Therefore He is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

We have delved into space travel, the Big Bang, and other related topics on this site, but to now bring up an additional bit of information in the realm of philosophy, there is a self-evident principle of causality with which we must contend. In its simplest form, the law of causality simply states that everything has a cause. A house has a cause, yes, but that is an easy one. But I can go pick a leaf off a tree, and determine its cause, or a rock laid down by an ancient flood, and it will have a cause. Now, we may disagree on what the forensic evidence points to as an initial cause, but we will not disagree that said object does indeed have one.

This self-evident first principle of philosophy is there, along with others such as the law of non-contradiction, identity, and so on, to prevent the need for an infinite regression of explanations. In other words, if you have to explain everything, then you will never get to the end of explanations, and truth ceases to exist. This is why we must stop with certain obvious realities, or these first principles.

Of course a common retort is, who caused God then? But being outside of time, space and matter, being infinite, there is no logical reason to need a cause. Like our first principle, He is self-evident, or the un-caused first cause – Aristotle said, the unmoved mover. Hence why He refers to Himself as I AM. There is no “was”,  there is no “will be”. For us yes, but not for Him. Besides, you cannot have a higher god that is “more infinite” than infinite. This also is illogical.

Now, in regards to anything within the forensic sciences, something not repeatable, observable, or demonstrable, we are looking for causes at the most basic level. Science is basically the search for knowledge, or search for causes – causality.

Therefore, one must now ask him or herself, do I abandon the law of causality when it comes to origins? This isn’t about age of the universe, or dinosaurs, all which do have answers according to a biblical world view. But simply regarding the beginning of it all, do I base my life on the natural and material sciences only, dismissing all possibility of creation, and force myself to choose a beginning that happened in eons past against the laws of all I claim to hold dear?

The great skeptic and atheist Christopher Hitchens was debating Frank Turek, and equated the Big Bang to a suitcase about to pop open, “and everything that is ever going to be is inside that;  that was the best I could do.” He went on to say, “And I don’t think many people could do, if I say it myself, that much better.” For such a revered and intelligent man, to state that the historical narrative of the Genesis account, in all of its beauty, and mastery, revered for thousands of years, and preserved through the ages doesn’t compare with this suit case analogy is quite telling. But in the end, an avid atheist will always struggle with how to articulate a result with no definable cause, because to repeat the point, both sides agree there was a definitive beginning.

There are only two choices. Einstein knew this. I commend atheists for being consistent in their take on naturalism, but as we view all manner of explanation and mental gymnastics to explain godless possibilities, and then relegate those possible happenings to the far unobservable past, do we not firmly place it in the category of faith? Faith in that there must not be a God.

Both sides, as human beings will try to identify the three basic life questions:

Where did I come from?

Why am I here?

What happens when I die?

The last two questions are bound inexorably to the first. Einstein was right, it can be irritating, since there is a beginning. But if nothing can cause something, or more than that, everything, then we have undone what is self-evident, and have removed meaning from all we observe.

There are only two choices.

Advertisements

Shall We Travel to Other Worlds?

I have recently been setting up and teaching apologetic classes for my church, and as I grow my curriculum, I am getting more and more excited about the future of my ministry, in whatever form or capacity God may use it. But after gearing up for an amazing class for the high school kids this past Wednesday, I was derailed by threats of weather, which shut down the whole town, and sent the locals running for milk and bread.

The post script to this “storm of the year” was that it rained a little, but I digress.

Since I have been so amped up to rattle off some amazing facts, and have as of yet been unable to, I thought I would share a bit about space travel. The reason? TRAPPIST-1 of course. The observation of some planets passing in front of a star approximately 39.5 light years away. This news, although interesting in the sense that we can discover more about space and our galaxy, is being used as a catalyst to create space-exploration fever. TRAPPIST-1 has its own website now, and chatter about the planets have been mentioned far and wide, picked up by NASA, space.com, and a myriad of other such science based programs. The issue is, with each report comes the suggestion, sometimes implied, sometimes outright affirmed, that we are a step closer to exploring life on other planets, discovering life in the universe, and even traveling to them for a meet and greet in the near future.

This is an  intellectually dishonest position, and I am of the belief that these scientists know it. What they have observed is simply that planets orbit a dim sun 232,210,000,000,000 miles away. Now, of the seven observed, they push the insinuation repeatedly that 3 of these 7 are within the “habitable zone”. This of course implies that life like ours could potentially live on all three of these planets, which will be the idea perpetuated heavily and with as much vigor as possible. Why? The all-mighty dollar. This will insure attention, clicks, interest, comments from world leaders, write ups in magazines, PBS specials, and most importantly, an influx of money promised to be earmarked for further discoveries of such magnitude.

Why this assumption that life must be out there waiting for us to discover it? Evolution! The pre-supposition is firmly set within the minds of academia, and through this lens is how they observe the universe. It stands to reason that if we evolved here, then judging by the size of the universe, many other such life forms in various states of evolution must have done the same all over. We just need to locate where!

Of course if they believed we were a special creation, and that God stretched out the heavens (said over 17 times in the old Testament) to speak of His glory, we would not expect evolution, a most unscientific theory anyway, to have done much with any of the stars we see in the night sky.

SETI – the search for extraterrestrial intelligence –  believes as Sagan, Tyson, and Dawkins do, that we are not special, and so they have spent hundreds of millions since 1960 in order to discover absolutely nothing.

This is a huge topic, but 2 things we must consider:

  1. Carl Sagan said that only 2 factors were needed to sustain life, (ironically the same two factors that have been highlighted in all these articles). A sun like ours, and a planet in the habitable zone of said sun. This was stated by him in 1966, but since then we have learned of many more requirements for life to exist, or Goldilocks factors. Water, thickness of crust, large gas planets, size of sun, moon, electromagnetic core, and on and on. If we take just 20 of these factors, and give each a 1 in 10 chance of occurring at some particular star, say Trappist, the chances would be 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000  that it could happen. Based on the number of stars we think the universe has, this is a one star for every billion out there. Here’s the kicker. There are now over 200 factors identified! Hugh Ross, astrophysicist has named 200+ Goldilocks factors, and that number brings our chances up to 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! This cannot happen, and is beyond nature’s ability to create by chance. Furthermore, this ignores the life-from-non-life problem that evolution already has.
  2. If we consider actually traveling to find these places, we must take in to account that the nearest star is 25,671,957,738,631 mi away, Alpha Centari. Nearest galaxy, about 2.5 million light years. And as of now, we cannot get even close to traveling at light speed. Mass increases as speed increases, therefore as we get a shuttle to approach the speed of light, lets say 90% of the speed, it would take the energy of 73 million atomic bombs to move the mass. The same amount to slow it down. And one touch from a pea sized piece of debris would impact said vehicle like two atomic bombs, according to Gary Bates of CMI. This is an unrealistic goal.

There is much more on this topic, and I wrote this article, UFO’s and God some time ago for you to check out. The bottom line is, yes science and discoveries are wonderful, but space exploration, like the “discoveries” from anthropology, are often used for money, grants and prestige, not for truth.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 5

We have examined the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages. This is the final article. The other parts are linked below:

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

At this point, we have pulled the Big Bang train right up to the formation of stars, or stellar evolution; so for the final article, we will assume that despite science assuring it didn’t happen, we have somehow arrived at a first generation star, comprised of helium, hydrogen, and suspiciously absent of heavier elements. If you will recall, it took us 5 billion years to arrive here, so we must very quickly produce all other elements on the periodic chart, along with planets, moons, etc.

Scientists call the first generation stars ‘Protostars’. Since the creation of matter from nothing had to start with the simplest elements of helium and hydrogen, the theory goes that after the stars that can’t form were formed, somehow the 90 heavier elements or post-helium elements had to evolve via chemical evolution. The theory states that all these protostars repeatedly exploded; billions and billions of stars exploding for billions of years, and this volatility produces our heavier elements, second and third generation stars, and eventually the universe as we observe it today.

Problems:
1. Scientists call problem one the “helium mass 4 gap”. There are nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8, and they make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to change itself into any heavier element. “Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5.”  The theory of chemical evolution, and therefore arriving at our current catalog of heavenly bodies is impossible using this process. This science fails to justify stellar evolution on any level. As usual when it comes to evolution, chemists think biology has the answer, biologists thing geology has the answer, and geologists think paleontology has the answer, and around we go. But in regards to this science, the mass gap cannot be overstated, and is a huge problem. This problem is proven by both hydrogen bombs, which cannot change to heavier elements, but stop at mass 5; and also by the sun, which if not for the gap at mass 5, would be shooting uranium at us.

2. Even at 15 billion years, there is not enough theoretical time for this process to produce heavier elements.

3. Science would have to explain how random explosions resulted in the intricate orbits and beauty of circling patterns we find in space. Order from disorder. Again a violation of the 2nd law. Explosions do not create order. Since there are no or very few first generation stars, it stipulates that almost every star exploded at least once, meaning the order we see must have come from explosions somehow.

4. There are not enough super novas to produce the heavier elements. Statistically the rareness of supernovas (which is needed to supposedly produce the heavier elements) are way too few to create all the heavier elements needed. The lack of supernovas in the night sky has long been a problem for evolutionists. (see problem 5).

5. Supernova recordings in history: 185AD, 1006AD, 1054AD (Crab Nebula), 1604AD, 1918 AD in Aquila, 1987AD in the veil nebula. If you add them all up including these major events, you can get up to about 16 supernovas in the last 2000 years. With only a few hundred total in the night sky, not only can’t we make the elements, but we can’t account for a 15 billion year time frame. If they occurred at a great enough rate to develop the universe with their explosions, would there not be millions visible? Statistically this amount is essentially zero. About 1 per 650 years on average. Simply not enough to create a universe. They are a rarity and there are plenty of quotes from evolutionist to attest to this.

6. Why did explosions mysteriously stop? We should be able to see continued activity that was originally creating the universe. Evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago explosions stopped. A theory proven wrong, but held onto.

7. Super novas DO NOT THROW OFF ENOUGH MATTER TO MAKE ADDITIONAL STARS. A supernova may throw off as much as 10% of its mass, but this is not sufficient to create a new star. In addition, what matter did get thrown off would be dispersed in every direction.We can conclude easily that with not enough mass to form a second generation star, and not enough explosions occurring not enough times, to create all matter and elements in the universe with this method is lunacy, and not worth teaching.

8. If you turn a spectroscope towards a supernova explosion, the conclusion is that it throws off…. get ready for it…. HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. The a fore mentioned Crab Nebula only shows H and He, no heavier elements. Once again, observable demonstrable repeatable science defeats the theory.

I would encourage anyone who reads to please share some or all of these, and/or to ask questions, and allow us to explore the truth together. Taken as a whole, my hope is that it is apparent one cannot just blindly believe that the Big Bang Theory and ensuing results are facts. Each stage falls desperately short of being possible, and with even minimal logic, one can expose it as false. This is a godless theory, attempting to explain the wonders of the universe with natural processes. Typically the failure of each stage is glossed over, or not reported, and what you have is cleverly animated persuasion along side an agreed upon curriculum. But it is my mission, as a writer and believer, to help arm Christians with the courage to stand on the word of God, rather than the word of man. So I hope this was helpful in refuting faith in a godless creation, and pray that when faced with persecution for not believing evolution, you can take comfort in the fact that you are indeed beautifuly and wonderfully made, whoever you are. I leave you with this encouragement:

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing.

 

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 4

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

We continue to delve into the issue of matter organizing itself by natural processes in the vacuum of space. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. In layperson’s terms, this means disorder will increase in a closed system. This bit is important so I will underline it. All of evolution is dependent upon the violation of this law. We see proof of entropy increasing all around us. Energy is added to house shingles or the hood of a car via direct sunlight, or weather, and what happens? Disorder. The breaking down of matter. Decay. This is as natural as can be, and without intelligence acting upon a system, complexity or additional information is never observed to occur. Yet, this is exactly what we are taught, and expected to believe happened over and over and over for 13 billion years in order to to bring about our existence.

If the Big Bang happened, imagining the explosion, and inertia, and vectors in frictionless space. What would the result be? If we pretend that it wasn’t a theory, and asked scientists to assume an explosion happened in a vacuum, how would they illustrate it?

There would be an outer rim of fast moving matter. With no matter ahead of it to collide with, the initial explosion would never slow.
Now, to produce a star, gas would have to: stop flowing outward,
then begin moving in circles, then rotating gas would have to contract or move close together – one would have to explain how linear motion required for the expanse that exists somehow changed into angular momentum.

A quantity of gas in frictionless space moving forward is way too stable for any of this to happen.

Gas in space which was circling would fly apart. Evolutionist Hawit’s research disproves the possibility of gas clumping. Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He was not a creationist. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet. This opinion agrees with observable science. If you agree, you are agreeing with science, and not with evolution, just to make a point. This means stellar evolution is not science.

We must consider another if-then question. It is quite simple. If stars cannot form naturally, then why are there trillions of them? Does God not become more obvious, and not less, once we examine real science? If so, then why are they teaching our kids that 13 billion year old stellar evolution is a fact? The answer… what would they replace it with? God? Certainly not.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 1

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

First a definition:

1) The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

2) a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density – (Merriam-Webster)

3) An effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe…Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a “singularity” and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure… – (www.big-bang-theory.com)

Please notice in definition 3 the use of phrases like, “effort to explain”, and “we don’t know for sure”. There are many of these when you consider the science. More I found were, “a theory deducing the cataclysmic birth of the universe”, and “leading explanation of how the universe began”. After http://www.space.com states it as their leading theory, they begin with statements like this: “In the first second after the universe began, the surrounding temperature was about 10 billion degrees.”

10,000,000,000 degrees. Stated as fact. And when they teach children natural sciences in school, these numbers, these “facts” are taught, remembered, written down, and tested on. 10 billion degrees. 13.8 billion years ago. Make no mistake, since it is the “best explanation” science has, it is taught as truth. If not taught, the prevailing question asked by science professors is, “Well, what are you going to replace it with?”

The Big Bang Theory is mostly based on math, red shift, waves found in space, and lots of assumption.  If you can find a text book that gets specific, you will find that “nothing” packed tightly together  and then exploded outward containing hydrogen and helium into frictionless space.  If space was full of anything else, it wouldn’t be the beginning, so logic dictates this moment of nothing at all to something. The spontaneous generation of matter. It is interesting to note, the person who made it popular was George Gamow, who was a science fiction writer in 1948.  It is unfortunate that science fiction has taken such a strong role in what we force our children to learn. He campaigned using cartoons, which he stated really helped sell the theory.

So you take these huge numbers, 13.8 billion years, 10 billion degrees… and nothingness explodes out.  Over the next several articles we will look at the assumptions that must take place for this to end up as a universe.  Today is step one:

The actual big bang explosion:
1.  You are asking people to believe that a tiny bit of “nothing” blew up and created all matter.  This is based on theoretical extremes and calculations.  Nothing more.  and it sounds like the fairy tale that it is.
2.  Nothingness cannot pack together. It has no way to push itself in close, and no barometer for density, as it contains no parts. Looking out into a void, how would one imagine a single point of nothingness gaining density. Just this alone rails against physical laws.
3.  A vacuum has no density. It is stated that the singularity was dense before it exploded, but a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4. There is no ignition.  No fire if no match.  As we all know from studying actual science, a fire needs three things to exist: Fuel (there is none), flammable gas (there is none), and heat (which would be caused by the friction of nothing, so in essence, none could exist). Couldn’t be chemical, because there were no chemicals.  They surmise the event would have been nuclear, but if you have no atoms, you cannot have a nuclear blast.
5. No way to expand nothing.
6.  Nothingness cannot produce heat.  Intense heat supposedly caused nothingness to turn to protons, neutrons, and electrons… but a vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself.  It would be purely magic if an empty void changed itself to matter. Again, we have no energy source for this to occur.
7. Technically speaking, the calculations of what needed to happen are too exacting.  In layman’s terms, it means the math is too perfect. The narrow mathematical limits of a singularity’s expansion are such that its too narrow to have happened.  R H Dickey wrote gravitation and the universe,and in it he states that if the expansion was .1 percent faster it would have gone too fast, and if .1 percent slower it would have re-collapsed.
8.  Roger L St Peter in 1974 developed math stating that if a big bang happened, it would collapse forming a theoretical black hole, and could not have happened.  In essence you would have one theoretical action swallowing another one.
9.  The theory states that anti matter would have to be created in equal amounts.  what is well known to physicists is that there is not enough anti matter in the universe, and that antimatter immediately destroys matter, therefor would have destroyed any matter created, again theoretically.

So before getting out of the gate in our secular dependence upon explaining everything sans-God,  there are certainly some issues with the ridiculous moment that nothing exploded out to start forming the universe with a few sub atomic particles.  When examined closely, and with reason, it does not, and should never hold water.  But as Gamow said, cartoons may help.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

 

Is it arrogance to think you’re special?

PaleBlueDot
Pale Blue Dot

Let me start by saying I don’t believe interpretation of facts will bring people to the Lord. I think that is a Holy Spirit thing. My hope is to grow a ministry that affords people the ability to stand fast in what I consider authoritative scripture. Today, we will address the chances of other earth like planets supporting life, as a follow up to my UFO’s and God article.

https://jrcooper.org/2016/01/20/ufos-and-god/

Several years back NASA published a famous picture of earth from space (shown here) showing just how not-special we were, a distant spec among millions of others. It was named ‘the pale blue dot’. Promoter of anti-creation sentiment Carl Sagan famously commented, “Consider again that dot [Earth]. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”

Well, of course the creationist community was in a scramble, trying to prove that this little blue marble wasn’t so matter-of-fact, and insignificant. After all, our bibles tell us we are a special creation, made in His image. Despite the many problems with the big bang, and the several brands of evolution that must exist to generate life

[Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”,
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds,
and  Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter]

the crux of Sagan’s criticism was that the odds of other planets like ours existing goes up exponentially with our understanding of the vastness of the universe. This would seem like reasonable logic, but I don’t mind telling you, this has been debunked, and very soundly at that.

Consider odds, since that is all this is based on, conjecture that it simply must be. First science began to determine what factors were needed to have a planet capable of supporting the diversity of life we find here. Abundant factors were apparent: We must be within a galactic habitable zone, be around the right type of star, protected by gas giants, distance from sun, nearly circular orbit, oxygen atmosphere, a terrestrial planet, large amounts of water, one moon the correct size (I could do an amazing write up on the extraordinary moon alone),correct mass, iron core for magnetism, proper thickness of earth’s crust, plate tectonics, heat within its interior, and on and on, and furthermore they are all factors that must be met at one place and at one time, or the possibility of life fails. Just to extrapolate a bit on one factor alone, we can consider the sun. It is technically classified as a spectral type G-2 dwarf main sequence star. If it were less massive, like 90% of the stars in our galaxy, the habitable zone would be smaller, and we’d have to be closer to remain within livable boundaries, but increased gravity would lock our planets rotation into synchronization to its orbit, forcing one side of the earth to continually face the sun, exposed to radiation and heat, while the other side would lay in a frozen state of perpetual ice. To say we existed within a delicate balance would be the scientific understatement of the century.

Of course, as one considers this, one could still say, “Yes it would be rare, but hey, we are talking about the whole universe here. Billions and billions of stars, right?” So we will consider actual odds. In an attempt to estimate the probability of attaining this perfect combination of factors, a conservative 1 in 10 chance was applied to each. Once you multiply the probabilities of 20 factors needed, you get 10 to the -15, or one one thousandth of one one trillionth. Some estimate there may be as many as 200 separate factors, but  I’ll let you do the math. Once those odds were overcome, we would have to then consider odds of random chance creating the order necessary to produce a complex living cell, which are even more tumultuous odds for evolutionists, as it is mathematically impossible. If you wish to read a short article to provide insight on that, here is a link by Dr. Henry Morris, an author and apologist.
http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

The bible says God stretched out the heavens, and further states, “He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name.” Psalms 147:4. Space is vast, to be sure, which naturally fills us with awe and wonder. But depending on perspective, some look up at the night sky, and feel insignificant, like Mr. Sagan. Others look up and and feel blessed at how special they are, and can be nothing but grateful that the Lord placed us under all that glory, one of many ways He chose to love us.