Evolution is termed “scientific”, but is that true? When we look at any scientific claim, we have to try to falsify it. If it breaks any natural law, it must fail. So what about evolution (I’m including all facets of evolution and origins)? Lets look…
1) The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Science claims that in the beginning, all matter was contained in a small dot. But there is no explanation where this matter came from, it was just there. This is not scientific, its faith.
2) Further, they say this dot was spinning at an extremely fast before it burst. According to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, if this dot was spinning then exploded, all the particles world have the same rotation (think of marbles flying off a turntable or sparks off a grinder). However Uranus and at least seven of the moons in our solar system rotate backwards as well as some entire observed galaxies!
Another problem with the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum is that it states that as the distance from center decreases, the speed of rotation increases (think of a ice skater pulling in their arms to spin faster). Our sun is the center of the solar system so it should have a very fast rotation. Yet, the sun has a very slow rotation; far slower than the planets which are much further away from the center.
3) The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that nature tends to go from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity. This means as things continue, they become more disorganized, not more organized. However, all origin ‘sciences’ require the exact opposite. Now, evolutionists will claim that this Law only applies to closed systems. This excuse has two flaws.
First, the only way out of this Law in an open system is energy and the use of it. They claim that since the earth receives energy from the sun, the 2nd law does not apply. However, for energy to counter the 2nd Law, there has to be a mechanism to use that energy effectively. For instance, chlorophyll in plants use the sun’s energy to help plants grow. But the earth and its creatures have no such mechanism. The sun’s energy on your house destroys it. The sun’s energy on your skin causes disease. Other sources of energy like the energy produced in a nuclear explosion and the energy from lightening or tornados are destructive, not creative. No method exists to use the energy for betterment, it is only and always an additional, destructive force.
Second, the universe is a closed system. Yet the prevailing idea of the formation of galaxies, planets and stars require that from the big bang, the loose particles all gathered together to form these celestial bodies, the fusion that powers them, the orbits they are in, the atmospheres around some of them, the cores surrounded by layers of different mantle, etc. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, these particles should have dissipated even more throughout the universe, not joined together in any form.
4) The Law of Biogenesis states that Life comes from life and cannot come from non-life. Yet with evolution, eventually you get back to a point where life did come from non-life, directly breaking this law.
5) Borel’s Law of Probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty never will happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place
-The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800 (This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros)
- Carl Sagan estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the Earth, is one chance in 1x102,000,000,000
6) The Laws of Nature Concerning Information state that matter cannot give rise to information. Information only comes from a greater source of information. Another of these laws state that a code requires a translator and a translator requires a code.
Now, if we apply these laws to evolution, it hits a brick wall. What makes each of us is DNA. DNA is simply coded information. Since matter cannot give rise to information, where did it come from? Since information always comes from a greater source of information, what greater source provided it for DNA? What source provided it for that? And so on until eventually, there has to be an infinite source of information.
The third one is a big problem. DNA is coded information therefore it needs a translator. The translator is RNA. The translator RNA needs a code which is DNA. No problem, right? Wrong. The problem is, DNA and RNA would have to develop independently, by chance, fully formed and functioning with no coding/decoding errors at exactly the same time. The entire code HAD to form with the entire translator. There could be no intermediate steps and no partial codes or the information in each would be useless as the organism would not have the blueprints to come into existence.
When it comes to breaking the Natural Laws, evolution is guilty. It comes down to your belief structure. Either dirt is exempt from having to follow the natural laws or God, being outside of the creation that He made the laws for, is not bound by the laws.
In His service… Arthur Smith
Evolution is termed “scientific”, but is that true? When we look at any scientific claim, we have to try to falsify it. If it breaks any natural law, it must fail. So what about evolution (I’m including all facets of evolution and origins)? Lets look…
1) The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Science claims that in the beginning, all matter was contained in a small dot. But there is no explanation where this matter came from, it was just there. This is not scientific, its faith.
2) Further, they say this dot was spinning at an extremely fast before it burst. According to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, if this dot was spinning then exploded, all the particles world have the same rotation (think of marbles flying off a turntable or sparks off a grinder). However Uranus and at least seven of the moons in our solar system rotate backwards as well as some entire observed galaxies!
Another problem with the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum is that it states that as the distance from center decreases, the speed of rotation increases (think of a ice skater pulling in their arms to spin faster). Our sun is the center of the solar system so it should have a very fast rotation. Yet, the sun has a very slow rotation; far slower than the planets which are much further away from the center.
3) The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that nature tends to go from order to disorder, from complexity to simplicity. This means as things continue, they become more disorganized, not more organized. However, all origin ‘sciences’ require the exact opposite. Now, evolutionists will claim that this Law only applies to closed systems. This excuse has two flaws.
First, the only way out of this Law in an open system is energy and the use of it. They claim that since the earth receives energy from the sun, the 2nd law does not apply. However, for energy to counter the 2nd Law, there has to be a mechanism to use that energy effectively. For instance, chlorophyll in plants use the sun’s energy to help plants grow. But the earth and its creatures have no such mechanism. The sun’s energy on your house destroys it. The sun’s energy on your skin causes disease. Other sources of energy like the energy produced in a nuclear explosion and the energy from lightening or tornados are destructive, not creative. No method exists to use the energy for betterment, it is only and always an additional, destructive force.
Second, the universe is a closed system. Yet the prevailing idea of the formation of galaxies, planets and stars require that from the big bang, the loose particles all gathered together to form these celestial bodies, the fusion that powers them, the orbits they are in, the atmospheres around some of them, the cores surrounded by layers of different mantle, etc. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, these particles should have dissipated even more throughout the universe, not joined together in any form.
4) The Law of Biogenesis states that Life comes from life and cannot come from non-life. Yet with evolution, eventually you get back to a point where life did come from non-life, directly breaking this law.
5) Borel’s Law of Probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty never will happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place
-The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800 (This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros)
- Carl Sagan estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the Earth, is one chance in 1x102,000,000,000
6) The Laws of Nature Concerning Information state that matter cannot give rise to information. Information only comes from a greater source of information. Another of these laws state that a code requires a translator and a translator requires a code.
Now, if we apply these laws to evolution, it hits a brick wall. What makes each of us is DNA. DNA is simply coded information. Since matter cannot give rise to information, where did it come from? Since information always comes from a greater source of information, what greater source provided it for DNA? What source provided it for that? And so on until eventually, there has to be an infinite source of information.
The third one is a big problem. DNA is coded information therefore it needs a translator. The translator is RNA. The translator RNA needs a code which is DNA. No problem, right? Wrong. The problem is, DNA and RNA would have to develop independently, by chance, fully formed and functioning with no coding/decoding errors at exactly the same time. The entire code HAD to form with the entire translator. There could be no intermediate steps and no partial codes or the information in each would be useless as the organism would not have the blueprints to come into existence.
When it comes to breaking the Natural Laws, evolution is guilty. It comes down to your belief structure. Either dirt is exempt from having to follow the natural laws or God, being outside of the creation that He made the laws for, is not bound by the laws.
In His service… Arthur Smith
