Science versus the Theory of Evolution
First off I will have you know that I worked with Joe Taylor in his fossil museum, did a number of fossil restoration projects, replication, and research. In addition, he taught me a great deal much from personal experience. I say this so you'll be aware that I know what I'm talking about. I've experienced it firsthand. I'm not one-sided either. I've been very much exposed to the theory of Evolution here in college. Since my brother-in-law James Taylor wrote some points already, I will refer to some of his points in my arguments.
The Theory of Evolution vs. the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
From firsthand experience, the facts just do not support the theory of Evolution. As afore mentioned, it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that “all work processes tend towards a greater entropy (disorder/lower energy density) over time. Since the universe is tending towards a greater entropy (expanding over time), all work processes within the universe also tend towards a greater entropy."
In layman's terms, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system things always go from a state of order to a state of disorder without exception. Think about a nice orderly child’s bedroom, or any room for that matter. Do nothing and it will “magically” become an absolute mess. You must put energy into the system to make it orderly again. This is why evolution is impossible. There is no physical law that can account for inanimate objects going from a state of disorder to a state of life. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a powerful advocate that someone had to create the incredibly sophisticated order we see all around us, Rom 1:20.
Evolutionists completely ignore this law and when pressed about it they side step it and say “Well that only applies to a closed system and since the earth receives energy from the sun it is open and not closed.” My own college professors will actually say this when questioned about evolution vs. the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Indeed, they all say this and quickly change the subject because they know their answer is a non-sequitur. Why is that you ask? Two reasons:
First, the earth and sun must be considered as being in the universe which is by definition (from a physics standpoint) a closed system. Where then does the universe get this strange ability to defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Answer, it doesn’t. Therefore, things on the earth always go from a state of order to disorder unless work not just energy is applied to reverse the disorder.
Second, if we allow the earth/sun relationship to be an open system (as my college professors suggest) then we have to take into consideration the quality of the energy being put to work in the system. Let's go back to our bedroom analogy. If you tell a two year old child to clean up his bedroom and leave him unattended, every mother knows exactly what you will get, an even bigger mess than before. As you can see it’s not the quantity of the energy but the quality of the work that makes the difference. A two year old child is more than happy to put energy into the room but it’s not the kind that will clean up the mess. Likewise with the sun. Yes, the sun will put tremendous amounts of energy into the earth. But as any thinking person knows not all sun energy is good energy. Think about what happens when summer rolls around and you go outside on the first hot day of the year with your sleeves rolled up. You get a sun burn. The sun put energy into you all right. However, it was not good energy but destructive energy. The sun actually killed life (the cells in your skin) it did not create life. Yes, without the sun we would not live long. We need its energy to have life. But, it takes highly developed systems which are capable of taking advantage of the sun’s energy to utilize any useful work from it. It can’t work any other way. The amount of sun energy that would be necessary to jump start life would kill it before it ever got started.
The Theory of Evolution vs. Science
When it all comes down to it, whether you believe in evolution or creation, it takes faith. For something to be considered scientific, it must be observed and be repeatable under carefully controlled experiments. The theory of Evolution violates both.
"You can't observe the origins of the universe, the earth, the plant and animal life any more than you can repeat it. Therefore, what you believe about origins, whether you are a creationist or evolutionist can only ever be believed by faith. All the fossils that can be dug up can only tell us that we found a fossil and it was in the dirt (or rock as the case may be) and that’s it. Nothing more. It’s a dead animal or plant and it can’t say one word about where it came from or how it got there. Period. We can interpret, based on any number of factors, such as geology and geography etc., how it got there but that is called interpretation based on evidence. Interpretations are always subject to your predisposition. That's not to say the evidence is unimportant or that we can't learn anything from the evidence. The point is there is no scientific mechanism to prove how it got there or why it is there."
It's comical to think they expect us to believe everything evolved from nothing purely by chance with no intelligence., then these same "brilliant” minds can't make one single little simple life form either by chance or with their genius intellect. In actuality, they prove the exact opposite of what they expect us to believe. Only a dummy (talking about the scientists) believes it takes no intelligence to start life and then they with all their supposed brilliance have not the first clue about how to create a life using their “intelligence”. If it can just happen by chance without the catalyst of intelligence then it should be a simple matter for their genius intellect to make one little itty bitty bacteria shouldn't it? They make a laughing mockery of themselves. Of course that's what the Lord said about them in the first place, Ps 2:4. Even if our science advances to the point (I don’t think it will) that we can create life then these same people who have been telling us for the last 100-150 years that it takes no intelligence to create life will have just proved that it does take intelligence to create life.
The Theory of Evolution vs. Statistics
Scientists argue the Earth came to existence by pure chance. We're talking about the Earth that is perfectly positioned so that it sustains life. A mere few miles closer to the sun and we would all be consumed. A mere few miles further from the sun and the world would freeze over.
What about the atmosphere? It protects us from a great deal of dangers, such as powerful microwaves just enough that we stay alive. Something in so complex a situation/position could not happen by pure chance. It would be more likely that a watch would assemble itself on a stump in the woods by pure chance. It just won't happen.
The Age of the Earth
For a long time scientists have maintained that the moon is the same age as the Earth. Over time the moon accumulates a large amount of space dust. The Earth doesn’t nearly as much because of the protective atmosphere. This caused widespread concern among NASA scientists when planning the landing mission to the moon. Some estimated that there would be 100 feet of cosmic powder on the surface. Conservative calculations expected 54 feet.
This created the fear of losing astronauts in a proof of deep powder. NASA did everything in their power to ensure a gentle landing. This explains the huge saucer “pods.” Sensing rods were put in place extending three feet into the surface to take temperature measurements. But what happened when the astronauts landed on the moon? 1/8 to 3 inches of dust!! That’s all! Now how long would it take to gather that much dust? Approximately 8,000 years!
There’s also the issue of world population. If humans have been around for as long as scientists claim, every single space of land on the Earth would be occupied by someone. Even if one were to say that was impossible, what about Homo Erectus and Home Sapien (we’re Homo Sapien Sapiens)? If you include that number, there certainly would be a space problem. Their co-existence is just as probable as our supposed ancestor, monkeys currently co-existing with humans.
The Alternatives at Stake
Divine Creation - Spontaneous Generation
Purposeful Design - Random Accidental Order
Itricate Order - Chaotic Mistakes
Infinite God - Infinite Odds
Life From Life - Life From Non-Life
God = Creator - Time = Creator
Entropy - Evolution
Catastrophe - Gradualism
True Bible - True Theories
God's Purpose - No Purpose
Absolutes Exist - Everything's Relative
Mutations Are Harmful - Some Mutations are Beneficial
Relatively Young Earth - Extremely Old Earth
Civilization From Start - Slow Development of Civilization
Degenerate Man - Man Getting Better
A Future Hope - Hopelessness
Ultimately their fight isn't for the truth. They don't want the truth because they hate it and suppress it as Paul said in Rom 1:18. They hate one person and especially that one person, Jesus Christ. They hate him pure and simple. If, "In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth", then you owe God your obedience but the nature of fallen man despises God and loves sin and disobedience, Rom 3:10-18. If they acknowledge that God created the universe (as Moses said that He did) then they will have to follow Moses' command given in Duet 18:15, to hear the person who would come after Moses. Moses went on to say you must not only hear but obey Him. That "Him" is none other than Jesus Christ, Acts 3:22. All the evidence we dug up, observed, and analyzed at
Many thanks to James Taylor for the use of some of his points
posted by cpuaggie at 9:31 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent post, Justinian!
Post a Comment
<< Home