Seven Absurdities of Evolution
Seven Absurdities of Evolution
Many Christian leaders have defected, choosing to believe in evolution rather than taking the creation account in Genesis literally. Many think they are doing this for scientific reasons, if so, I hope reading this will cause at least a few to reconsider.
1. In the "Big Bang", nothing went Bang!
The New York Times 5/22/01: "Nevertheless, most cosmologists, including Dr. Guth and Dr. Linde, agree that the universe ultimately must come from somewhere, and that nothing is the leading candidate."
A scientist at www.big-bang-theory.com says, "Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe."
To believe that the universe comes from nothing, is not being scientific. Evolutionists will not allow intelligent design into the classroom because it is unobservable, and un-testable, neither is this. Is this not really a statement of faith?
2. It takes a star to make a star, so how did we get the first star?
According to the theory of evolution, the big bang created a universe full of hydrogen. Through gravitational attraction, the hydrogen came together to form the first generation of stars. This theory fails to recognize that it takes a celestial body several times larger than the earth to have enough gravitational attraction to contain the hydrogen.
A 2007 college textbook describes how stars are born.
Theoretically, stars are born from swirling clouds of hydrogen gas in the deep space between other stars. […] These clouds consist of random, swirling atoms of gases that have little gravitational attraction for one another because they have little mass. Complex motions of stars, however, can produce a shock wave that causes particles to move closer together and collide, making local compressions. Their mutual gravitational attraction then begins to pull them together into a cluster. (Bill W. Tillery, Physical Science 7th edition)
Tillery does not explain how and what kind of complex motions stars can make, or how the first complex stars were born without this help. We are also led to believe that swirling will compress the clouds rather than cause centrifugal force that would in reality expand them or at least hinder their contraction.
Without the preexistence of huge celestial bodies (stars), other stars cannot form from hydrogen anymore then the helium will stay bound together after you pop a balloon.
3. Where do the heavy elements come from?
Fusing light elements (like hydrogen or helium) will release energy. Cosmologists believe this is why stars shine. However, to fuse elements heavier than iron, you will need an external source of energy. Where does the external energy to create the heaver elements come from?
4. Life in a test-tube?
No! The Miller-Urey experiment in 1952 took methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water, added a spark and created two amino acids. It did not create any DNA or the complex system necessary to read DNA. The experiment did not create proteins or the equipment to fold the proteins into useful structures necessary for a living cell. Even with intelligence, a controlled environment and hand picked chemicals, man cannot create life. Miller-Urey experiment created more problems for evolutionists than it solved.
5. Mutations do not create an increase in information.
Nature has variations and mutations. But mutations mean a scrambling of preexisting information. There is no increase in information. Experiments on fruit flies did create a new four-winged fruit fly. The fact remains that the fruit fly already contained all the information in its DNA to create this extra set of wings. The harmful mutation (the fly could no longer fly) simply put an extra set of wings in the wrong place. Because it cannot fly with four wings, future genetic mutations will cause the information for flight to actually be lost. In time, even if you reversed the mutation that caused the four wings, it would no longer be able to fly.
6. The problem of irreducible complexity.
Remove one piece from a mousetrap and it will cease to function, that is because it is an irreducibly complex system. It must have a spring loaded hammer, a platform, and a catch to work as a mousetrap. Nature has many irreducibly complex systems. A simple example is the living cell. For the first replicating cell to have evolved it must have contained DNA. For the DNA to be useful and give God's instructions to the cell, it must be copied into "messenger RNA". It must also contain "transfer RNA" to bring the amino acids to match the DNA. In addition the cell must have an internal station to connect amino acids, a ribosome to fold them into all the above structures, and an internal energy generator, the mitochondria. The mitochondria must have an external system that can transport oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from the cell. The cell also needs cytoplasm, internal fluid and cytoskeleton to keep from collapsing. While this picture of the cell is grossly over simplified, the fact remains that the cell could not have evolved piece by piece over a long period of time. Without every one of these systems (and many others) in place and fully functioning the cell will die. The cell is way to complicated to have evolved in a single step. For something as complex as a cell to evolve, it would take a miracle.
7. The most irreducibly complex system
There is no earthly machination that can create a soul. Scientists have created artificial intelligence, yet they cannot create a soul that has understanding, that feels joy and other emotions. It is in choosing evolution over and rejecting the Intelligent Designer, that you are putting at stake this irreducibly complex system.
Even if you do disagree with one of these arguments, that will not solve your problem. All seven of these points (along with many others) need a rational explanation before evolution can become a scientific fact, rather than just a Statement of Faith.
Why are we not allowed to discuss these problems in school?
If evolution were a real theory, scientists would allow it to be challenged. the fight would be in the laboratory not in the courtroom. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary that showed in many movie theaters and asks the same question. Watch it on YouTube.
Written by Jeff Barnes.
John 5:46-47 ~ For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me [Jesus]: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
Links to some Creation Science Websites
Walt Brown PhD. has written a book In the Beginning. This is the best single resource for the Christian who wishes to see scientific evidence that refutes evolution. At the same time Walt Brown proposes his hydroplate theory, a superior answer to the plate tectonic theory. You can read his book online for free at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
Center for Science & culture
Peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific publications supporting the theory of
intelligent design. https://www.discovery.org/csc/
President and founder of Answers in Genesis. His ministry offers many resources
to learn about creation science. answersingenesis.org/
Favorite Books on Creation Science
In The Beginning
by Walt Brown PhD, his website is already recommended above.
Icons of Evolution
This book is a must-read, it reviews high school and college level textbooks
showing the deliberate misinformation contained in them.
Bones of Contention
Marvin Lubenow examines in detail the humanoid fossils that have been found to date
and comes to some extraordinary conclusions in his book.
Luke 16:29-31 ~ [Jesus speaking:] Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.