Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 4
​

All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly (f). Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

Macroevolution cannot occur (g).
Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life (h).
Life could not result from a “big bang” (i).

f. Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^[SUP]24[/SUP] bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Ibid., p. 107.

“If there are more than several dozen nucleotides in a functional sequence, we know that realistically they will never just ‘fall into place.’ This has been mathematically demonstrated repeatedly. But as we will soon see, neither can such a sequence arise randomly one nucleotide at a time. A pre-existing ‘concept’ is required as a framework upon which a sentence or a functional sequence must be built. Such a concept can only pre-exist within the mind of the author.”

g. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p. 124.

h. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also [ “Second Law of Thermodynamics” ]]

i. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[jonrambo]

The big bang theory clearly violates causeality and the second law of thermodynamics. Satan has been very buisy brainwashing that out of peoples heads. You have to hand it to him hes done a good job

And the day the find a real (not fake) half evolutionised human monkey I will eat my hat

 

[DannyC]

The big bang theory clearly violates causeality and the second law of thermodynamics. Satan has been very buisy brainwashing that out of peoples heads. You have to hand it to him hes done a good job

And the day the find a real (not fake) half evolutionised human monkey I will eat my hat

You clearly have no knowledge of the heat death of the universe as energy is slowely being used up, which corresponds with the second law of thermodynamics. You will never find a evolutionised human monkey, that thing doesn't exist, it only exists in the minds of people who barely grasp the theory, we are apes, not monkeys. We didn't evolve from monkeys and nothing is 'evolutionised'.

 

[terminator]

The big bang theory clearly violates causeality and the second law of thermodynamics. Satan has been very buisy brainwashing that out of peoples heads. You have to hand it to him hes done a good job

And the day the find a real (not fake) half evolutionised human monkey I will eat my hat

I bet you don't even know how many laws of thermodynamics there are and what they actually
mean without looking them up.

And the day I see a rib bone turn into a woman I will eat my hat.

And Pahu instead of posting all this garbage information why not just post the link and be done with it.
Here you go: The Center for Scientific Creation

Creation science is not real science because you go into the lab with your mind already made up that
god did it. You look for anything to support your case and ignore the mountains of contradicting evidence.
It is so intellectually dishonest it makes me sick. Please stop spreading this misinformation.

 

[Feynman]

The big bang theory clearly violates causeality and the second law of thermodynamics. Satan has been very buisy brainwashing that out of peoples heads. You have to hand it to him hes done a good job

And the day the find a real (not fake) half evolutionised human monkey I will eat my hat

I'm sure big bang physicists would be aware of that if it were true.
Expand more for me? How does the big bang theory violate causality or the 2nd law of Thermo?
There are lots of misconceptions about the 2nd law out there, especially in the creationist community.

There have been many thousands of early hominid fossils uncovered now, mapping out several distinct varieties. The famous fake isn't the only one ever proposed
Would you like sauce for your hat?

Aronra The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism -- Complete Series - YouTube
Skip to 2:00:00 to learn in detail how that famous fake went down, and how untrue creationists claims that there are only 5 or 6 examples of pre-human transitional forms that are all fakes too, are.

 

[jonrambo]

causeality=cause and effect. 2 neutrons exploded...cause was?????????????
thermodynamics ...ummm third law i think... energy cannot be created and it is slowly draining through heat loss
all 3 of you were wrong about every assumption you made about me lol so ummmmmmmmmmmm yeah what does that indicate

 

[jonrambo]

matter cannot be created*

 

[jonrambo]

but i dont realy want arrogant people in heaven so you guys put your faith in science im sure it will work out for you

 

[terminator]

but i dont realy want arrogant people in heaven so you guys put your faith in science im sure it will work out for you

Have fun in heaven knowing that there are people roasting for eternity in hell.

Heaven is an assumption by the way. It only works if your religion is the right one out
of the world's many. And you have no evidence that a heaven even exists. You only have
a belief.

Also, back on topic: Even if evolution was disproved how does that mean a god did it?

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Have fun in heaven knowing that there are people roasting for eternity in hell.

Why would that be fun? That's plain insulting.

Heaven is an assumption by the way. It only works if your religion is the right one out
of the world's many.

I'd be very interested in hearing more about how you arrived at that.

but i dont realy want arrogant people in heaven...

You don't think saying that to someone is a little ironic?

 

[Pahu]

You clearly have no knowledge of the heat death of the universe as energy is slowely being used up, which corresponds with the second law of thermodynamics. You will never find a evolutionised human monkey, that thing doesn't exist, it only exists in the minds of people who barely grasp the theory, we are apes, not monkeys. We didn't evolve from monkeys and nothing is 'evolutionised'.

ANCIENT MAN: 1​

You did not descend from monkeys. Evolutionists wish to steal your inheritance. Do not let them do it. They want to animalize you. But evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: Ancient Man: 1

Interesting Facts: Here are some basic facts you should know Basic Questions: Questions the evolutionists do not wish to answer Hominids: These are supposed to be your ancestors, but they never were

​

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, ANCIENT MAN, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

INTERESTING FACTS

Cavemen and ape-men. From grade school on up, the schoolbooks tell us about furry "cavemen." We are told that we are descended from a line of apes, monkeys, and smaller creatures.We are also told that bones have been found which were half-ape and half-human.What is the truth about all this?p. 13.

Stopped evolving. No evidence is available about human remains from earlier times—that supports evolutionary theory.Because of that glaring fact, evolutionists try to sidestep this by decreeing that man stopped "evolving" about 100,000 years ago! This is just an attempt to explain away the evidence.Actually, none need be surprised that there is no evidence of human descent from other species; for, as we learned in earlier articles in this webEncyclopedia, there is no evidence that evolution has occurred among plants and animals either.—pp. 13-14.

Why less than five millenniums? If man has been the same for the past 100,000 years, why has he not produced 100,000 years of writings, technology, cities, and all the rest?Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years?—p. 14.

Totally different than the apes. If man descended from ape-like creatures, then we should be like them. Yet we have very different DNA. The number of vertebrae in our backbone is different. Our cranial (brain) capacity is totally different. Many other differences could be cited.—pp. 14-15.

Primitive peoples. In some areas, ancient humans moved into difficult climatic areas and, for a time, lived in "stone-age cultures" until they had opportunity to build cities, plant, and engage in animal husbandry. In some localities (such as New Guinea), conditions have been so difficult that stone-age living has continued down to the present time. Yet a New Guinean child can be raised in a modern culture, go to college, graduate, and enter the modern business world.Sometimes people lived in caves for a time until they could become settled in homes. There is evidence that anciently, as now, people lived in homes at the same time that others were living under trees or in caves.—p. 15.

Neanderthals. These were humans who lived in Europe several thousand years ago. They lived in caves for a time, and had skulls decidedly larger than ours. That means they were much smarter than we are today! That fact, of course, does not agree with evolutionary theory.However, the Neanderthals did have rickets and arthritis, due to poor diet and the damp, cold climate they lived in. Scientists have said this was what caused their curved thighbones and larger eyebrow ridges. The Neanderthals lived at a time when there was not much sunlight. In the next major article in this series (Effects of the Flood), we will learn that there is abundant evidence that many volcanoes blew their tops just after the Flood, reducing temperatures and darkening the atmosphere for over a century.Evidence also indicates that Neanderthals have also lived in more recent centuries. One Neanderthal was buried in a suit of medieval chain armor.—pp. 15-17.

Cro-Magnon Man. These were also clearly humans. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial capacity somewhat larger than our own. They were normal people, not monkeys, and they provide no evidence of transition from ape to man.—p. 17.

BASIC QUESTIONS

But what about the ape-men we hear about in the newspapers—these creatures over a million years old, which are half-man and half-ape?We will now turn our attention to part of a lengthy line of fakes. As we consider them, ask yourself these questions:

Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found? Why not hundreds or thousands? If these are our ancestors, there ought to be millions of our forebears.—p. 17.

Why are only little pieces of bone found for each specimen—never, never a complete skeleton? The less that is found, the more theories can be made for it. In our more complete study on this, diagrams of the Java Man and Piltdown Man bones are shown, which clearly reveal how easy it is to fabricate an ape skull into a human one, when only part of the bones are used.—p. 17.

Why is it that these special bones do not decay, even though they are supposed to be "a million years old"? The truth is that bones rot away within a century or so. Do not confuse actual bones with fossil imprints in rocks; they are different. There are lots of fossils, formed under compression in shale, gravel, and clays at the time of the Flood. But, within a couple centuries, actual bones usually disappear.How could "million-year-old bones" be found in damp earth in Indonesia, China, and England, as claimed by the evolutionists? It cannot happen. Bones rot even quicker in damp climates.—pp. 17-18.

HOMINIDS

Working with a few pieces of bone and making great claims for them, men become famous, are heaped with honors, and receive nice salaries.Yet all the bones they have brought forward would not fill the top of a kitchen table. Here they are:

Java Man. In 1891, in a damp place by a river in Java, *Eugene Dubois found a skull cap, fifty feet away a femur, and, later in another location, three teeth.Dubois decided that they all were from the same individual and that they were about a million years old! Dubois spent many years promoting his discovery, although many experts questioned it.In 1907, a German expedition went to Java to examine the place where Dubois found the bones, and discovered they were taken from the flowage of a nearby volcano which had overflowed in the recent past and buried a number of people.Before his death, Dubois said the bones belonged to a gibbon.—pp. 18-19.So much for Java Man.

Piltdown Man. Of all the hoaxes of evolution, this was the classic. Several men planned it very carefully, carving selected pieces of an ape bone and treating it with chemicals to give it an aged appearance.Eventually, several leading evolutionary scientists were drawn into the plot. Only those parts of the skull and jaw were included, from which it could not be determined the actual shape, size, or cranial capacity of the creature to which it originally belonged.Then the bones were placed in a plaster cast in a halfway position between ape and man. Evolutionists all over the world were excited, and this figment of much imagination was named Eoanthropus Dawsoni ("Dawson's Dawn Man"). With a name like that, this had to be scientific!Eventually the perpetrators of the hoax "found" several more bone pieces, including teeth which had been whittled halfway between ape and human teeth.Although two men reported that they had found Dawson in his office staining old bones, few listened to them. So a whole generation grew up believing in Piltdown Man as the great proof that man came from the apes.Then, in 1953, two British scientists managed to get their hands on the original bones (which had for decades been carefully stored away in the British Museum). Using a new fluorine test, the bones were shown to be quite recent. It was also discovered that they had been carefully carved and stained with bichromate.Three years before the discovery of the hoax, British Parliament had spent a large amount of money in making the Piltdown gravel pit into a national monument to the wonders of evolution.—pp. 19-20, 55-58.

Rhodesian Man. In 1921, some bones were found in an African cave,and the sensational news went everywhere. But later a competent anatomist declared the bones to be merely those of a normal human being. In addition, the "million-year-old man" was found to have dental caries, from a modern diet, and a bullet or crossbow hole in his scalp. Not so old after all.—p. 20.

Taung African Man. Found, in 1924, in a cave in South Africa, this skull was proclaimed to be the missing link. However, later experts found it to be the skull of a young ape.—p. 20.

Nebraska Man. A single molar tooth was found in the Midwest in 1922, and became a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 25 at Dayton, Tennessee. One of the discoverers was knighted by the King of England for his monumental discovery.In 1928, it was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay.—p. 20.

Peking Man. All we have of this 1920 discovery, in China, are plaster casts. The original bones were later lost. They were found in a cave of thousands of bones, mostly animals and only a few human bones. The place appeared to be a garbage dump, for even the human bones appeared to have the flesh eaten off them before being discarded. There was no evidence anything had evolved from anything else.—pp. 20-21.

Australopithecines. Certain ape bones in Africa are called the "southern ape." Experts tell us they were all apes, but most evolutionists are firm in their claims that these were our ancestors. One of the most famous of them is called "Lucy."It was said that these apes had larger than usual cranial capacities, but when checked by other experts, they were found to be nearly normal in size.—pp. 21, 23.

Nutcracker Man. This 1959 African set of bones appears to be another case of mismatched bones. The skull is ape-like, the jaw was much larger (hence the name, "nutcracker"), and some other bones nearby were human.Later, *Louis Leakey, its discoverer, conceded it was just an ape skull.—pp. 23-24.

Skull 1470. In 1973, *Richard Leakey announced a skull which he said was 2.8 million years old. But the lower jaw was not found; this would have told a lot.—pp. 24-25.It appears to be the skull of a modern small-brained person. (Cranial size of people today varies between 1,000 and 2,000cc, with an occasional low of 750cc, and an average of 1,500-1,600cc. So the find of a small-cranium skull is no evidence of evolution. Pardon me for saying so, but an early-teen student and a microcephalic has a cranial capacity of 775cc, the size of Skull 1470.)—pp. 24-25.

Bone Inventory. Time-Life published a book in 1972, listing all the bone finds up to the end of the preceding year. Although over 1,400 specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. There are just scraps and pieces, nothing more.—p. 25.

Baby apes and giant monkeys. It is well-known among scientists, but not printed for you to read, that the skulls of both baby apes and giant monkeys can look like the skulls of immature humans. So "half-ape / half-human" skulls can be found! It is not that difficult to do.—pp. 26-27.

Mass spectrometer breakthrough. Using a new technology, eleven human skeletons, the earliest known in the western hemisphere, were tested—and they all dated less than 5,000 radiocarbon years. It was an oversight that such an investigation was permitted. You can be sure it will not happen again. If it had been applied to the celebrated African bones, found by the Leakeys and others, all those ancient "hominid bones" would be shown to be only a few thousand years old. They will never be radiodated.—p. 27.

ANCIENT MAN - 1

 

[Pahu]

Creation science is not real science because you go into the lab with your mind already made up that
god did it. You look for anything to support your case and ignore the mountains of contradicting evidence.
It is so intellectually dishonest it makes me sick. Please stop spreading this misinformation.

Creation science

The Question evolution! campaign by Creation Ministries International is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.[SUP][1][/SUP] The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found HERE The picture above was featured in an internet posting entitled The Question evolution! campaign axman cometh[SUP][2][/SUP]​

Creation science is science which sets out to show that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Being in the realm of origins science, creation science is a historical science.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the first law of thermodynamics andsecond law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by God.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.[SUP][9][/SUP]

​

Creation Ministries International, a leading biblical creation science organization, declared:
"Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the atheists and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, Journal of Creation has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against evolution, creating little fires all around the world, including Great Britain."Atheist evangelist, Prof Richard Dawkins, speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.
"It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from America and Australia.’"[SUP][10][/SUP]

Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community

Creation science is considered as pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "science".[SUP][28][/SUP] [SUP][29][/SUP] However, Dr. Walt Brown argues that the field of creation science is scientific[SUP][30][/SUP] and the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to their worldviews and preconceptions, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.[SUP][31][/SUP] Also, Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[SUP][32][/SUP] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[SUP][33][/SUP] Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[SUP][34][/SUP]

Creation science - Conservapedia

 

[SHEEPxDOG]

Creation science

The Question evolution! campaign by Creation Ministries International is a worldwide campaign which poses 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer.[SUP][1][/SUP] The 15 questions posed to evolutionists can be found HERE The picture above was featured in an internet posting entitled The Question evolution! campaign axman cometh[SUP][2][/SUP]​

Creation science is science which sets out to show that supernatural creation of the material universe by God is consistent and compatible with the available scientific evidence. Being in the realm of origins science, creation science is a historical science.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] Most advocates of creation science believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the first law of thermodynamics andsecond law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by God.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the origin of life and that the theory of evolution cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that speciation occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.[SUP][9][/SUP]

​

Creation Ministries International, a leading biblical creation science organization, declared:
"Creationist research is having a global effect that is worrying the atheists and secularists of this world. They have had it all their own way for over a century but things are slowly changing. For almost twenty five years now, Journal of Creation has been publishing cutting-edge creationist research that has been fueling the war against evolution, creating little fires all around the world, including Great Britain."Atheist evangelist, Prof Richard Dawkins, speaking at the 20th anniversary of the Edinburgh International Science Festival in April 2008, said the rise of creationism in British schools raised a serious problem for science teachers.
"It is a very worrying trend,’ he said, ‘and I think a lot of it has come over from America and Australia.’"[SUP][10][/SUP]

Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community

Creation science is considered as pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community. Liberals reject Creation Science with the spurious pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "science".[SUP][28][/SUP] [SUP][29][/SUP] However, Dr. Walt Brown argues that the field of creation science is scientific[SUP][30][/SUP] and the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to their worldviews and preconceptions, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.[SUP][31][/SUP] Also, Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,[SUP][32][/SUP] stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."[SUP][33][/SUP] Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[SUP][34][/SUP]

Creation science - Conservapedia

looks like the tree of eugenics, evolution is such a dumb and dangerous theory.

 

[Pahu]

How does the big bang theory violate causality or the 2nd law of Thermo?
There are lots of misconceptions about the 2nd law out there, especially in the creationist community.

Second Law of Thermodynamics​

If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the second law of thermodynamics, the energy in the universe available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the energy available for work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe, which, according to the first law of thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition, implying the universe had a beginning.[SUP]a[/SUP]A further consequence of the second law is that soon after the universe began, it was more organized and complex than it is today—not in a highly disorganized and random state as assumed by evolutionists and proponents of the big bang theory.[SUP]b[/SUP]

a . “The more orthodox scientific view is that the entropy of the universe must forever increase to its final maximum value. It has not yet reached this: we should not be thinking about it if it had. It is still increasing rapidly, and so must have had a beginning; there must have been what we may describe as a ‘creation’ at a time not infinitely remote.” Jeans, p. 181.b . “A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place, since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy? ... The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe.” Gordon J. Van Wylen,Thermodynamics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959), p. 169.
u “The time asymmetry of the Universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics, that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered but that the early Universe apparently was in a highly ordered state.” Don N. Page, “Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetry,” Nature, Vol. 304, 7 July 1983, p. 39.
“There is no mechanism known as yet that would allow the Universe to begin in an arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state.” Ibid., p. 40.
u “The real puzzle is why there is an arrow of time at all; that is, why the Universe is not simply a thermodynamic equilibrium at all times (except during the inevitable local fluctuations). The theory of nonequilibrium systems [such as those described by Ilya Prigogine] may tell us how such systems behave, given that there are some; but it does not explain how they come to be so common in the first place (and all oriented in the same temporal direction). This is ‘time’s greatest mystery’, and for all its merits, the theory of nonequilibrium systems does not touch it. What would touch it would be a cosmological demonstration that the Universe was bound to be in a low-entropy state after the Big Bang.” Huw Price, “Past and Future,” Nature, Vol. 348, 22 November 1990, p. 356.​

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 55.�� Second Law of Thermodynamics

 

[Pahu]

Even if evolution was disproved how does that mean a god did it?

Science Proves God​

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.” [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?"]

 

[SHEEPxDOG]

The big bang theory clearly violates causeality and the second law of thermodynamics. Satan has been very buisy brainwashing that out of peoples heads. You have to hand it to him hes done a good job

And the day the find a real (not fake) half evolutionised human monkey I will eat my hat

mmmmnncant wait to eat that monkey The Simpsons - I Can't Wait to Eat That Monkey - YouTube

 

[Pahu]

Compatible Senders and Receivers
​

Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.


Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[Phillipy]

causeality=cause and effect. 2 neutrons exploded...cause was?????????????
thermodynamics ...ummm third law i think... energy cannot be created and it is slowly draining through heat loss
all 3 of you were wrong about every assumption you made about me lol so ummmmmmmmmmmm yeah what does that indicate

Hiiii I was reading and wondering about what you guys were talking about with the physics, can you help me understand your neutrons hypothetical? It seems like the answer should be "I don't know what caused them to explode" but I felt from the context you were implying nothing did? Perhaps something caused the 2 neutrons to explode that we don't know about (And perhaps something {God} caused the big bang and we just don't understand that via the big bang theory yet)
I'm a theist that accepts evolution and the big bang, I don't think they are incompatible with the existence of God at all, I just don't take the Genesis creation account infallibly literally, I think it was interpreted by the comprehension of the time.
So where was I...
Oh ya, I don't think the big bang theory claims there was no cause

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Oh ya, I don't think the big bang theory claims there was no cause

Interesting! You're a smart cookie.

So how does the BBT address causality?

 

[Phillipy]

Interesting! You're a smart cookie.

So how does the BBT address causality?

It describes the history of our universe over the last 13.8 billion years or so, and then it's just like "And we cannot currently investigate what any previous states were before this point". The big bang model of the history of the universe maintains causality just as we'd expect, then it just gets back to a point where then next cause is still considered a mystery to physics

The big bang theory itself doesn't speculate about what was before that, it doesn't try to tackle the problem of the first cause. There are several hypotheses stemming from string theory and stuff, but one of these days they'll prove that either God made our universe, or God made the multiverse that ours sprung from if that turns out to be what's beyond the current limits of investigation
It's really common for people to think the big bang theory claims that everything came from nothing, which would seem to pose causality issues, but rather it just claims that everything was in an incredibly hot, dense state about 13.8 billion years ago