G
GEddie
Guest
The laws of nature are neutral in respect of life. The same laws operate on Earth and Venus; but Earth holds life in profusion while Venus is lifeless.Why are the laws of nature judged to be fallible in relation to life? They were in existence before vertebrate life appeared. Life evolved in presence of the laws of nature. In that respect, life became successful in the presence of the laws of nature. So can’t we say that the laws of nature are infallible?
When a meteorite strikes earth and extinguishes dinosaurs, how is that in any way related to support or ruin of life? After the extinction of dinosaurs, mammals began to proliferate. So can we say this event was in support of mammalian life at the expense of reptilian life?
The same laws of buoyancy and oxygenation allow an Olympic swimmer to excel, and a bound-handed pirate victim to drown; just as the changed climate after a meteor strike allowed small mammals to become profuse whilst the dinosaurs perished.
“Infallible” doesn’t really apply to natural laws; it describes a human statement or faculty that is free of error (error being a specifically human thought limitation). Rather say that natural laws insofar as known are stable, predictable, and neutral to life.
ICXC NIKA