How Come Earth Got All the Good Stuff?

 

Isaiah 45.18, 19

By Don Ruhl

The theme of the September 27, 2008 issue of New Scientist was, “Unknown Earth: Our planet’s seven biggest mysteries.” The first of seven articles asked this question: “How come Earth got all the good stuff?”

This question is not so much “how,” but “Why did Earth get all the good stuff?”

The scientist who wrote the article seems perplexed by the thousands of things that came together to make life. Not only does Earth have life, but its abundance and variety goes beyond the human mind’s ability to imagine it all. Just too many things came together for us to be here, that the writer wants to know why, or he says, how did this happen.

How Evolutionists Answer the Question 

The first sentence says, “Look around our solar system and you could be forgiven for thinking its eight planets drifted in from completely different parts of the cosmos.”

Stuart Clark, the writer, admits at the beginning that Earth is not a little different from the other planets in our solar system. The other planets in the Solar System do not even come close to having the characteristics of Earth. If a space traveler visited the Solar System, he would note instantly the uniqueness of the Earth. The grandness of the differences of the Earth above all the other planets moved Stuart Clark to write this article.

He believes that understanding Earth’s early history will reveal why Earth got all the good stuff,

That’s the big picture, but the details of what happened in the early stages of Earth’s life remain a mystery. Solving it is fundamental to understanding why Earth is so suitable for life. We know that its distance from the sun provides the right amount of heat and light to make the planet habitable, but that alone is not enough. Without the unique mix of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulphur that makes up living things, and without liquid water on the planet’s surface, life as we know it could not have evolved. Chemically speaking, Earth is simply better set up for life than its neighbours. So how come we got all the good stuff?

Knowing that water is essential for life, Stuart Clark then said this,

Another big unknown is how Earth acquired its life-giving water supply. Being so close to the sun, it was probably too hot for water to simply condense out of the gas cloud as the planet formed, and any that did collect would have evaporated away during the titanic collision that formed the moon…The most popular explanation is that the water arrived later, in the form of icy comets from the outer solar system that rained down in the period known as the “Late Heavy Bombardment”. As yet, though, there is no firm evidence to confirm this as the source of Earth’s water.

He also said that the European Herschel Space Telescope will look deep into space where he speculates that new stars and planets may be forming, and “where brand new planets may be striking it as lucky as Earth did.”

To him and his colleagues, Earth simply got lucky. Luck had nothing to do with Earth getting all the good stuff.

How then does the typical evolutionist conclude that Earth got all the good stuff?

First, they admit Earth’s unequaled status. Mars is unique, that is, no planet exists in the Solar System like it. However, to say that Earth is unique as Mars is unique understates the uniqueness of Earth greatly. Earth is unparalleled in more ways than I have seen anyone yet attempt to count. The article in question lists a couple, but that does not come close to all the reasons we know, and what about things that we have not yet discovered that make life possible on the Earth?

It remains a mystery. However, they remain persuaded that although a mystery, they believe it was not created to support life. Do not let anyone tell you that scientists, evolutionary or otherwise, do not have biases. They are just like the rest of us. They admit to ignorance in some areas, but claim absolutes when it comes to denying a Creator and His creation.

They believe it all condensed from an astronomical cloud,

What we do know is that different elements would have condensed from the cloud at different temperatures, which would depend on their distance from the sun. We cannot know exactly what happened next, though, because Earth rocks have been compressed, melted and weathered too many times to retain any clues about how they formed. And, since most of the planets in the solar system are out of reach, meteorites are our best hope. They formed at the same time as the planets, and since then have remained largely undisturbed. But to study them, we have to wait for one to fall from space.

Interestingly, they believe meteorites may hold the clue, but meteorites do not have what Earth needed! 

There is no evidence for how Earth acquired its water. They speculate that icy comets brought it, but they have no evidence of such! One source estimates there are 326 million trillion gallons on the Earth. How many or how large of comets are we talking about?!

They believe Earth just got lucky!

Stuart Clark said, “Clearly we need new insights into how planets form.” Clearly!

However, why have they shut the door to creation? They are like Thomas, “Unless I see…I will not believe” (John 20.25). Does it not amaze you how little they know, but that they know for sure that God had nothing to do with it? Remember the words of Paul in Romans 1.19–32.

How Creationists Answer the Question 

“How” is not always the total picture. Sometimes we have to ask “why.” For example, in Matthew 21 Jesus cursed a fig tree and it immediately withered. Listen to the question of the disciples, “Now in the morning, as He returned to the city, He was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it but leaves, and said to it, ‘Let no fruit grow on you ever again.’ Immediately the fig tree withered away. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, ‘How did the fig tree wither away so soon?’” (Matt 21.18–20).

The miracle fascinated them and they wanted to know how it happened. Perhaps they knew one of the “whys” of the event. They knew something about the timing of the appearance of figs, which we do not know and so we have to ask why Jesus cursed it. However, they may not have known the spiritual why. Jesus did things for spiritual reasons. He was not angry at the fig tree, but used it to teach something. Hear what He said in response to their question, “So Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, “Be removed and be cast into the sea,” it will be done. And whatever things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive’” (Matt 21.21, 22).

He did not explain to them the natural or even supernatural process that caused the fig tree to wither. He taught them of the power they also had through prayer. However, we need to know a “why” that the story assumes the disciples already knew. They understood something about the fig tree that caused Jesus to see something wrong with it. The fruit trees we grow, put out leaves then the fruit. Fig trees put out the fruit, then the leaves. This tree, therefore, promised that it had something, but upon a closer look, it did not have what it promised. Therefore, it no longer met its purpose and Jesus cursed it.

This is the problem we have to address with the evolutionists.

They behold the result of a miracle, the existence of all the good stuff of the Earth, and of the Earth itself. How did it get here? How come Earth got all the good stuff? We want to show them “why” Earth got all the good stuff, and then they will know the “how.” Knowing the “why” will lead to the “how.” The “how” is the creative power of the one true and living God. We want them to see that Earth got all the good stuff, because it was intended that life, human life, be able to live here. Who intended life to be here? That will lead to another “why” question. Why did He intend for us to live here? That will lead to a “what” question. What else does He plan for us?

First, let us answer the question without using the Bible, using Paul’s approach in Acts 14 and 17, and Romans 1.

Consider why Paul took the approach he did in those passages. Acts 14 shows again the “why.” “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14.15–17).

All the good stuff of Earth was given here to testify something. The evolutionists of New Scientist magazine have the testimony, but they either do not hear it or they do not know what to make of it.

Acts 17.22–32 shows Paul reasoning from what the Athenians knew or believed and worked toward God.

In Romans 1.18–32, Paul started with what nature tells us.

He also operated under the principle that we know trees by their fruit. Therefore, we want to show atheists and evolutionists the fruit of their way of thinking.

So then, how would you answer the question without using the Bible?

Do we not want to work from the standpoint that Earth receiving all the good stuff has to be more than coincidence?

Second, let us answer the question using the Bible. Isaiah 45.18, 19 says,

For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the Earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:
“I am the LORD, and there is no other.
I have not spoken in secret,
In a dark place of the Earth;
I did not say to the seed of Jacob,
“Seek Me in vain’;
I, the LORD, speak righteousness,
I declare things that are right.”
(Isa 45.18, 19)

While they may not like the truth of this passage initially, just like some of the Athenians mocked Paul, yet, some will think on what you have shown them from Isaiah 45. Taking Isaiah 45, and coupling it with the confusion of the New Scientist article I am quoting, there may come a time when these people will have to acknowledge an Intelligent Designer, but some will still have problems confessing the God of the Bible, His Son Jesus Christ, and the truth of the Scriptures. Some of them may then turn to idolatry.

It is not as though they want to reject the idea of “a God,” but they reject belief in the true and living God revealed in the Bible. Idolatry, even some form of it from the past, might appeal to them and so they may revive it.