The Evolutionary way of seeing things, far from being "good science," is contradicted by the very laws of nature it claims to uphold.
Quantum Mechanics: The "primordial singularity" supposedly containing all the matter and energy in the universe could not have turned into a Big Bang, because it was a singularity (an infinitely small point), and thus any hyper-dimensional expansion would have to have been "ticked off" by an ulterior force. An infinitely small point can have no internal physical properties.
Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy: This law states that "Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed." Evolutionism requires the creation of the original matter and energy of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. Under the Evolutionary view, an appeal to hyper-dimensional activity is not allowed. Thus, the universe cannot exist under the Evolutionary model.
Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law points to a low-entropy beginning for the universe, but the Big Bang would have been an extremely high-entropy event (it would had to have been a highly uniform expansion).
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Stars cannot form from uniform clouds of dust and gas, let alone from expanding (outward-moving) clouds of dust and gas. Gravity is not strong enough to overcome the inertia of matter on these scales. In fact, gas actually disperses in a vacuum - as simple experimentation demonstrates.
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Globular (spherical-shaped) clusters of stars cannot organize themselves from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone expanding (outward-moving) clouds of stars. Again, gravity is not strong enough to overcome the inertia of matter on this scale.
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Galaxies cannot come forth from clouds of arbitrarily-arranged stars, let alone expanding (outward-moving) clouds of stars. If gravity is to weak to bring together stars and clusters under the conditions necessitated by the Big Bang, it certainly cannot organize galaxies.
Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation: Planets cannot come about from arbitrary arrangements of matter, let alone from a plane of colliding rock and gas ("accretion disc"); the natural tendency of matter is to collide and break down, not pull together (compare the rings of Saturn which are being slowly crushed even under the stabilizing influence of "shepherd moons").
Laws of Chemistry: If free oxygen had existed in the early atmosphere, primordial life would be eradicated by chemical poisoning, but if free oxygen had not existed originally, life would be eradicated by UV rays because ozone (a molecule consisting of three oxygen atoms) could not form. Oxygen must have either existed or not existed in the early atmosphere - either way, life could not have formed. (Note: The Evolutionary position tends to be that oxygen was not prevalent on Earth when life formed.)
Laws of Chemistry: Virtually all the important chemicals in a living cell are long chain polymers. This means that if they originally had contact with water as Evolution states, they would have melted back into simple amino acids and thus never formed into the important proteins and DNA building blocks needed for life.
Laws of Probability: Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly, so when the first Evolutionary proteins were formed, they would have had to have been created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids, which is essentially impossible even in today's laboratories.
Laws of Probability: The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and many other systems and constants in the universe are so fine-tuned that if any variation in their nature would occur, the universe would likely become one giant plasma ball. Some Evolutionists have sought to reconcile this problem by appealing to an idea that an infinite number of other universes exist (to allow for more than one "roll of the die" regarding these natural laws). However, the universe by definition includes everything that exists - unless, of course, one borrows from the Biblical worldview and allows exterior creative forces. In which case, why wouldn't we simply accept the existence of God?
Laws of Mathematics: Mutations are observed to be harmful or neutral 99% of the time, and at least half the time a large mutation will kill the organism in which it occurs. There is mathematically not enough time for all the required mutations for all lifeforms to have occurred, even within the millions of years given by the Evolutionary view.
Law of Biogenesis: Louis Pasteur firmly established the fact that "life comes only from life" in 1864. The Evolutionary view contradicts this fact by stating that the first living cell was spontaneously generated from non-living chemicals.
Information Theory: DNA is an communication method including encryption, transcription, deciphering, and re-encrypting. It is a language which had to have been fully developed before it was used by cells in a life-form. It is an information system with a purpose, and thus must have had an intelligent sender. Even if one follows popular New Age thinking and states that DNA was created by space aliens, the problem is only pushed back further - where did the information come from which governed the physical functions of the aliens?
Natural Selection: Complex systems cannot form on their own because if one element of the system formed without the rest, the organism in which it formed would be killed off by Natural Selection before the organism could make use of the unfinished system or reproduce. In other words, the individual element, without the other necessary components, would be a useless drain on the organism's energy. Organisms with extra "partly-developed" systems would be at a competitive disadvantage to organisms which remained in the original state. Thus, no organism would end up with a fully-developed complex system in the long term since each predecessor organism, as each system component was added, would be successively less able to function in the short term.
In reality, Evolutionism does not provide a scientific way to explain origins. It is clear from every observation that the universe and the life it contains must have been created by Something from outside space and time.
Why is it so hard for some to accept the fact that God exists? The root of the "unsolved" nature of the origins debate is not a failure of the Creation side to present evidence, but pride among those who do not believe. The thing which will truly transform their hearts is the Word of God. That is why it is foolish to lay aside the Bible from the origins debate - to do so would be to destroy our greatest weapon.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Check out some more detailed articles below on refutations of Evolutionism from a number of varied scientific fields.
This post was updated November 26, 2011.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Anthropology: The Briton Chronologies
If the Biblical record of the Flood and Babel is correct, we should see hints of it throughout the ancient cultures of the world. Innumerable legends point in this direction; however, another category of little-researched evidence also exists.
Much like the Icelandic sagas, the chronologies of the ancient Britons provide a good source for mapping the framework of history. They include not only accounts of such things as the settling of the British Isles, but also events familiar to us, like Julius Caesar's invasion.
Of interest to the creationist anthropologist are the included genealogies. These records chronicle the line of kings of the Britons from the Saxon takeover of Great Britain all the way back to Noah!
Is this genealogy a “pious fraud,” invented by Catholic monks and based upon the record in Genesis, as many claim? Or, is it an independent, factual account?
The “pious fraud” theory is based on the assumption that the "Sceaf" or "Seth" son of "Noa" mentioned in the genealogies is meant to refer to the Biblical Shem. This assumption is not true. First, the etymology of Sceaf is completely different from that of Shem. Second, the genealogies also claim that the Britons descended from Javan, a son of Japheth, making Sceaf the same as Japheth. Japheth, however, was not known to the Christianized Saxons of the supposed “pious fraud” time as Sceaf but as the Latin version of the name, Iapheth.
Another problem with the “pious fraud” theory is (ironically, perhaps) the fact that the Briton account differs on a number of counts from the Biblical one. For instance, one of Nennius (one of the compliers of the Briton history)'s footnotes states: Se Sceaf waes Noes sunu and he waes innan theare earce geboren. (This Sceaf was Noah’s son, and he was born in the Ark.) No son of Noah was born in the Ark. In fact, the Bible states that each of them even had a wife! If the Briton genealogy was really just a copy of the genealogy from Genesis, its' compilers would not have included such obvious errors.
However, the impossibility of the idea of “pious fraud” is demonstrated when one realizes that the Briton ancestry account is not some single chart floating around, but a long sequence embedded in Briton history. This sequence was cataloged around the 1000s by a number of learned men acting independently of each other; most notably Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth.
The Briton chronologies point to a young Earth and the truth of Genesis!
-R. Josiah Magnuson
If one would like more information regarding the Briton chronologies, or to learn about creationist post-Flood anthropology, a recommended resource is the book After The Flood by Bill Cooper, available at AnswersBookstore.com.
Much like the Icelandic sagas, the chronologies of the ancient Britons provide a good source for mapping the framework of history. They include not only accounts of such things as the settling of the British Isles, but also events familiar to us, like Julius Caesar's invasion.
Of interest to the creationist anthropologist are the included genealogies. These records chronicle the line of kings of the Britons from the Saxon takeover of Great Britain all the way back to Noah!
Is this genealogy a “pious fraud,” invented by Catholic monks and based upon the record in Genesis, as many claim? Or, is it an independent, factual account?
The “pious fraud” theory is based on the assumption that the "Sceaf" or "Seth" son of "Noa" mentioned in the genealogies is meant to refer to the Biblical Shem. This assumption is not true. First, the etymology of Sceaf is completely different from that of Shem. Second, the genealogies also claim that the Britons descended from Javan, a son of Japheth, making Sceaf the same as Japheth. Japheth, however, was not known to the Christianized Saxons of the supposed “pious fraud” time as Sceaf but as the Latin version of the name, Iapheth.
Another problem with the “pious fraud” theory is (ironically, perhaps) the fact that the Briton account differs on a number of counts from the Biblical one. For instance, one of Nennius (one of the compliers of the Briton history)'s footnotes states: Se Sceaf waes Noes sunu and he waes innan theare earce geboren. (This Sceaf was Noah’s son, and he was born in the Ark.) No son of Noah was born in the Ark. In fact, the Bible states that each of them even had a wife! If the Briton genealogy was really just a copy of the genealogy from Genesis, its' compilers would not have included such obvious errors.
However, the impossibility of the idea of “pious fraud” is demonstrated when one realizes that the Briton ancestry account is not some single chart floating around, but a long sequence embedded in Briton history. This sequence was cataloged around the 1000s by a number of learned men acting independently of each other; most notably Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth.
The Briton chronologies point to a young Earth and the truth of Genesis!
-R. Josiah Magnuson
If one would like more information regarding the Briton chronologies, or to learn about creationist post-Flood anthropology, a recommended resource is the book After The Flood by Bill Cooper, available at AnswersBookstore.com.
Archaeology: Evidence For the Exodus
As the atheistic system of Evolution disallows any supernatural intervention in history, we are able to counter it using archaeology.
Perhaps the most-researched area of evidence for such supernatural occurrences is the events surrounding the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. According to the Biblical accout, the Israelites were enslaved for almost 400 years. Then, God sent ten plagues on Egypt, opened up the Red Sea for the Israelites to flee across, let the waters fall back on the Egyptian Pharoah and his army, and finally helped the Israelites conquer the land of Palestine from the wicked countries there.
1. The hieroglyphics of Egypt record a time of great distress, when "plague stalks the land," "the river is blood," and "gates, columns and walls are comsumed with fire." After this time, "the people are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil," the king dies mysteriously, and Egypt lapses into a period of turmoil and anarchy. The papyrus containing this record is housed in the Leiden Museum in Holland. It is classified as Leiden 344.
2. There are chariot-wheels and other Egyptian artifacts at the bottom of the Red Sea. These artifacts are not in the traditional site for the Israelite crossing, which would make the Israelites march through a steep chasm, but on a kind of land-bridge on the other side of the Sinai peninsula. This location was also apparently referred to by Josephus and others.
3. The walls of the ancient city of Jericho have been shown to have collapsed outwards in a catastrophic event during a time-frame consistent with the Biblical account of Joshua's conquest (about 1450 B.C.).
Supernatural occurences in history, especially those confirming the Bible, demonstrate the impossibility of atheistic Evolution.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Perhaps the most-researched area of evidence for such supernatural occurrences is the events surrounding the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. According to the Biblical accout, the Israelites were enslaved for almost 400 years. Then, God sent ten plagues on Egypt, opened up the Red Sea for the Israelites to flee across, let the waters fall back on the Egyptian Pharoah and his army, and finally helped the Israelites conquer the land of Palestine from the wicked countries there.
1. The hieroglyphics of Egypt record a time of great distress, when "plague stalks the land," "the river is blood," and "gates, columns and walls are comsumed with fire." After this time, "the people are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil," the king dies mysteriously, and Egypt lapses into a period of turmoil and anarchy. The papyrus containing this record is housed in the Leiden Museum in Holland. It is classified as Leiden 344.
2. There are chariot-wheels and other Egyptian artifacts at the bottom of the Red Sea. These artifacts are not in the traditional site for the Israelite crossing, which would make the Israelites march through a steep chasm, but on a kind of land-bridge on the other side of the Sinai peninsula. This location was also apparently referred to by Josephus and others.
3. The walls of the ancient city of Jericho have been shown to have collapsed outwards in a catastrophic event during a time-frame consistent with the Biblical account of Joshua's conquest (about 1450 B.C.).
Supernatural occurences in history, especially those confirming the Bible, demonstrate the impossibility of atheistic Evolution.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Astronomy: Lack of Population III Stars
A fantastic challenge to the Big Bang Theory is the fact that no Population III stars. or even remnants of them, have ever been found in the universe.
Population III stars are the stars which supposedly formed first after the Big Bang. According to Evolutionists, these stars were composed only of the very lightest elements: hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium. When some of these stars ended in supernovae, heavier elements were produced. Stars containing these new somewhat heavier elements, known as Population II stars, in turn ended in supernovae, and produced stars like our sun. The resulting Population I stars are virtually the only stars we observe. Only a very small percent of stars in the universe consist of merely light elements (Population II stars).
However, not one star has been found to consist of only the elements which would have formed immediately following the Big Bang. There should be a good deal of these stars still existing, because even according to the Evolutionary timescale, the universe has only been around for 15 billion years!
Nor have the remains of these Population III stars been observed. Supernovae have always been found to have originated from Population I stars, and rarely, Population II stars. Black holes should likewise litter the galaxies; but less than a dozen are known.
If the Big Bang had occurred, Population III stars and their remnants should in fact be the most common stars around. Yet absolutely none exist.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Population III stars are the stars which supposedly formed first after the Big Bang. According to Evolutionists, these stars were composed only of the very lightest elements: hydrogen, helium, and traces of lithium. When some of these stars ended in supernovae, heavier elements were produced. Stars containing these new somewhat heavier elements, known as Population II stars, in turn ended in supernovae, and produced stars like our sun. The resulting Population I stars are virtually the only stars we observe. Only a very small percent of stars in the universe consist of merely light elements (Population II stars).
However, not one star has been found to consist of only the elements which would have formed immediately following the Big Bang. There should be a good deal of these stars still existing, because even according to the Evolutionary timescale, the universe has only been around for 15 billion years!
Nor have the remains of these Population III stars been observed. Supernovae have always been found to have originated from Population I stars, and rarely, Population II stars. Black holes should likewise litter the galaxies; but less than a dozen are known.
If the Big Bang had occurred, Population III stars and their remnants should in fact be the most common stars around. Yet absolutely none exist.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Biology: Natural Selection
Natural Selection is a significant hurdle for Evolution to overcome. Did I hear "idiotic?" Please read on.
Natural Selection was actually discovered by (creationist) Edward Blythe twenty years before Darwin. But Blythe did not fantasize that Natural Selection could add information to the code structure of life. Instead, he believed Natural Selection was a wonderful conserving force to keep current species from going extinct.
Darwin ignored Blythe and instead invented his own idea of Natural Selection. Darwin's idea included an illogical belief that with drastic amounts of time, and enough mutations, Natural Selection would actually create entire new body systems.
Natural Selection cannot create entire body systems. In fact, Natural Selection keeps new body systems from being produced. Nearly every body system, from the largest dinosaur to the tiniest amoeba, takes multiple components to accomplish its job. For instance, eyesight is based on an incredible chemical reaction in the retina. The reaction actually reloads itself multiple times every second. There are nearly a dozen chemicals involved. If even a single one of these chemicals did not get mutated simultaneously with the rest, Natural Selection would annihilate the organism. The organism would be at a severe disadvantage because it expended energy on useless scraps of protein.
But would the disadvantage really be very severe? Perhaps the production of several extra chemicals would actually enhance a function which was already existing?
This idea falls short because there are many body systems which are absolutely necessary to life. One example is the very source of energy in every cell: the production of ATP. ATP can be compared to a "pellet" or "particle" of energy. Along a huge assembly line, enzymes work together to build every molecule of ATP. If only one of the enzymes did not occur simultaneously with the rest, not only could ATP not be created, but life itself could not exist as we know it.
Natural Selection keeps complex systems from forming on their own. Apparently, it even keeps life from starting in the first place. The only alternative is that each body system in each life form has been specially designed to do what it does, and has been created from its beginning with all its pieces already in place.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Natural Selection was actually discovered by (creationist) Edward Blythe twenty years before Darwin. But Blythe did not fantasize that Natural Selection could add information to the code structure of life. Instead, he believed Natural Selection was a wonderful conserving force to keep current species from going extinct.
Darwin ignored Blythe and instead invented his own idea of Natural Selection. Darwin's idea included an illogical belief that with drastic amounts of time, and enough mutations, Natural Selection would actually create entire new body systems.
Natural Selection cannot create entire body systems. In fact, Natural Selection keeps new body systems from being produced. Nearly every body system, from the largest dinosaur to the tiniest amoeba, takes multiple components to accomplish its job. For instance, eyesight is based on an incredible chemical reaction in the retina. The reaction actually reloads itself multiple times every second. There are nearly a dozen chemicals involved. If even a single one of these chemicals did not get mutated simultaneously with the rest, Natural Selection would annihilate the organism. The organism would be at a severe disadvantage because it expended energy on useless scraps of protein.
But would the disadvantage really be very severe? Perhaps the production of several extra chemicals would actually enhance a function which was already existing?
This idea falls short because there are many body systems which are absolutely necessary to life. One example is the very source of energy in every cell: the production of ATP. ATP can be compared to a "pellet" or "particle" of energy. Along a huge assembly line, enzymes work together to build every molecule of ATP. If only one of the enzymes did not occur simultaneously with the rest, not only could ATP not be created, but life itself could not exist as we know it.
Natural Selection keeps complex systems from forming on their own. Apparently, it even keeps life from starting in the first place. The only alternative is that each body system in each life form has been specially designed to do what it does, and has been created from its beginning with all its pieces already in place.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Chemistry: "Handedness" of Amino Acids
The chemistry of the theory of Evolution relies on the ability of amino acids, the "building blocks" of proteins and chemicals essential to life, to form spontaneously and arrange themselves in complex patterns. Many Evolutionists believe that the fact that amino acids have been produced artificially in the laboratory (the Miller-Urey experiment) does away with any problems which might arise in the chemistry of abiogenesis. However, this premature "proof" overlooks a very important (and elementary) principle: the handedness of molecules.
Handedness as such means that a molecule of any given amino acid has a 50/50 chance of forming as oriented to the right, and an equal 50/50 chance of forming as oriented (in a "mirror image" effect) to the left.
Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly. This means that when the first proteins were formed, they were created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids. This occurance is, to put it simply, quite impossible. Even with all our fabulous modern instruments, there is absolutely no way to make a completely pure solution of left-handed amino acids. In the cell today, there is a mechanism to keep right-handed molecules from being used. But what about the beginning? The primordial soup had no mind of its own. Clearly, vast amounts of Design are necessary.
The situation becomes still more inexplicable for the Evolutionary chemist. DNA and RNA, the communcation and information components in the cell, are not made of left-handed molecules, but right-handed ones. So it is necessary for two completely pure chemical solutions to not only be produced, but actually interact with each other while maintaining their purity and furthermore carrying out responibilites within the cell!
Evolution is thus shown once more to provide for its believers nothing less than a "Catch 22" situation in which the laws of nature must be violated so life can form by naturalistic means.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Handedness as such means that a molecule of any given amino acid has a 50/50 chance of forming as oriented to the right, and an equal 50/50 chance of forming as oriented (in a "mirror image" effect) to the left.
Proteins in cells require the use of solely left-handed molecules in their assembly. This means that when the first proteins were formed, they were created out of a solution of 100% left-handed amino acids. This occurance is, to put it simply, quite impossible. Even with all our fabulous modern instruments, there is absolutely no way to make a completely pure solution of left-handed amino acids. In the cell today, there is a mechanism to keep right-handed molecules from being used. But what about the beginning? The primordial soup had no mind of its own. Clearly, vast amounts of Design are necessary.
The situation becomes still more inexplicable for the Evolutionary chemist. DNA and RNA, the communcation and information components in the cell, are not made of left-handed molecules, but right-handed ones. So it is necessary for two completely pure chemical solutions to not only be produced, but actually interact with each other while maintaining their purity and furthermore carrying out responibilites within the cell!
Evolution is thus shown once more to provide for its believers nothing less than a "Catch 22" situation in which the laws of nature must be violated so life can form by naturalistic means.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Cosmology: Un-Homogeneity of the Universe
Most of the predictions of the "Big Bang" origins model have never been observed. Let us look at several contradictions between observed science and the Big Bang of Evolution which states that Earth is not, and can never be, at a special place in the universe.
Evidence shows that the polarization of the radio waves from any given galaxy will be angled with respect to the image of that galaxy. This was documented by Drs. Nodelan and Roleston in a 1998 edition of Physical Reviews Letters. The angle of this polarization grows greater the farther away the galaxy, and also grows relatively greater or lesser according to a common axis which stretches quite close to the center of our Milky Way galaxy.
The only sensible explanation for this fact is that the galaxies of the universe are rotating, albeit very slowly, around "us" on this axis! If all the galaxies are centered on our galaxy, we do indeed occupy a special place in the cosmos.
Another challenge to the Big Bang "homogeneity of the universe" assumption is something we observe in galactic red shifts. Based on Hubble's Constant, we can “quantize” the red shifts. When this is accomplished, galaxies seem to be organized in concentric shells surrounding us in space. This is because the red-shifting of the galaxies is in spurts, at intervals of approximately 3.1 million light years each.
Again, Earth must be at a very special place for us to be able to observe this phenomenon!
Evolution's Big Bang ideology does not want us to occupy a special place in the cosmos, but according to the latest information, there is no room for the scientists who promote it to sustain such a hope.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Evidence shows that the polarization of the radio waves from any given galaxy will be angled with respect to the image of that galaxy. This was documented by Drs. Nodelan and Roleston in a 1998 edition of Physical Reviews Letters. The angle of this polarization grows greater the farther away the galaxy, and also grows relatively greater or lesser according to a common axis which stretches quite close to the center of our Milky Way galaxy.
The only sensible explanation for this fact is that the galaxies of the universe are rotating, albeit very slowly, around "us" on this axis! If all the galaxies are centered on our galaxy, we do indeed occupy a special place in the cosmos.
Another challenge to the Big Bang "homogeneity of the universe" assumption is something we observe in galactic red shifts. Based on Hubble's Constant, we can “quantize” the red shifts. When this is accomplished, galaxies seem to be organized in concentric shells surrounding us in space. This is because the red-shifting of the galaxies is in spurts, at intervals of approximately 3.1 million light years each.
Again, Earth must be at a very special place for us to be able to observe this phenomenon!
Evolution's Big Bang ideology does not want us to occupy a special place in the cosmos, but according to the latest information, there is no room for the scientists who promote it to sustain such a hope.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Genetics: DNA Language
The nature of the language of DNA, the information or data system of the cell, is such that life could never have evolved.
The DNA system is one of awful splendor and marvelous complexity. DNA itself is made up chemically of phosphate and a sugar known as deoxyribose (these form the outside of the DNA double helix shape) plus four "bases:" thymine, adenine, guanine, and cytosine. The bases are the links which hold the helixes together, and which contain the actual code of information. They can be thought of as rungs on a ladder. We shall abbreviate them as T, A, G, and C.
T and A are chemically attracted to each other, as are G and C. However, T will not attract to G, or C to A, etc. This is the basis of how the code may be deciphered by the molecular machines of the cell.
The language of DNA is actually an irreducibly complex system of encrypting, transcribing, deciphering, and re-encoding which could only be invented by a genius of incredible capability.
Amazingly, each of the operations which are performed in the DNA system take only minutes!
Evolution has no answer for the complexity of the wonderful information system of life. One of the two co-discoverers of DNA has actually abandoned "Evolution" per se only to suggest that perhaps DNA evolved on some other planet and was brought here by aliens! This idea of course only shifts the problem somewhere else.
Click here for illustrations of DNA in action, or here for more details on how DNA makes Evolution impossible.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
The DNA system is one of awful splendor and marvelous complexity. DNA itself is made up chemically of phosphate and a sugar known as deoxyribose (these form the outside of the DNA double helix shape) plus four "bases:" thymine, adenine, guanine, and cytosine. The bases are the links which hold the helixes together, and which contain the actual code of information. They can be thought of as rungs on a ladder. We shall abbreviate them as T, A, G, and C.
T and A are chemically attracted to each other, as are G and C. However, T will not attract to G, or C to A, etc. This is the basis of how the code may be deciphered by the molecular machines of the cell.
The language of DNA is actually an irreducibly complex system of encrypting, transcribing, deciphering, and re-encoding which could only be invented by a genius of incredible capability.
Amazingly, each of the operations which are performed in the DNA system take only minutes!
Evolution has no answer for the complexity of the wonderful information system of life. One of the two co-discoverers of DNA has actually abandoned "Evolution" per se only to suggest that perhaps DNA evolved on some other planet and was brought here by aliens! This idea of course only shifts the problem somewhere else.
Click here for illustrations of DNA in action, or here for more details on how DNA makes Evolution impossible.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Geology: Lack of Strata Disruption
If the geological rock layers had been slowly laid down over millions of years of Evolutionary processes, we would expect to see much erosion and surface change between them. There is hardly any at all.
Evolution alleges that the rock layers (also known as strata) are the product of uniformitarian year-to-year soil buildup and/or sedimentation. These layers were each formed one by one and placed upon each other. The layers were originally mud or silt, but eventually hardened.
Why then do these layers show almost no sign of surface activity, erosion, or other shape change? In Evolutionary long-age uniformitarianism, there should be very much of such indeed, because there was sooooooooooo much time for it to have happened!
Do we ever observe three layers with a fourth layer laid down into the third, as if a small stream or river channel had briefly existed at that location? No. Do we ever observe layers strewn out of the way and pushed around, as if for instance an animal fight had taken place at that location? No. Do we ever even observe layers with slight ups and downs and smoothed-out sections, as if a short rain had passed over that location? You guessed it... we don't. Rock layers are almost always laid down in completely flat, regular strata.
A uniformitarian visitor from Mars looking at the rock layers without seeing fossils would probably have to assume that there was no life on Earth during the time that the layers were produced.
Just for clarification, there are several places on Earth where a great deal of surface disruption has taken place. One example is the "Great Unconformity" in the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists often point to these places as evidence, but they forget that these few places which have been eroded or disrupted are the exception, not the rule.
If the long ages of Evolution had occurred, every rock layer should be completely disturbed and tossed about. In other words, there would in that sense be no rock "layers" today! We would simply see a mess of debris and eroded rock.
In short, if Evolution were true, rock layers would not exist as we know them. Rock layers had to have been deposited quickly and in a pressurized situation in order to maintain their flat, orderly state. Furthermore, the event in which they were deposited would have had to be worldwide in nature, as rock layers exist everywhere. The Genesis Flood seems to fit this description quite well.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Evolution alleges that the rock layers (also known as strata) are the product of uniformitarian year-to-year soil buildup and/or sedimentation. These layers were each formed one by one and placed upon each other. The layers were originally mud or silt, but eventually hardened.
Why then do these layers show almost no sign of surface activity, erosion, or other shape change? In Evolutionary long-age uniformitarianism, there should be very much of such indeed, because there was sooooooooooo much time for it to have happened!
Do we ever observe three layers with a fourth layer laid down into the third, as if a small stream or river channel had briefly existed at that location? No. Do we ever observe layers strewn out of the way and pushed around, as if for instance an animal fight had taken place at that location? No. Do we ever even observe layers with slight ups and downs and smoothed-out sections, as if a short rain had passed over that location? You guessed it... we don't. Rock layers are almost always laid down in completely flat, regular strata.
A uniformitarian visitor from Mars looking at the rock layers without seeing fossils would probably have to assume that there was no life on Earth during the time that the layers were produced.
Just for clarification, there are several places on Earth where a great deal of surface disruption has taken place. One example is the "Great Unconformity" in the Grand Canyon. Evolutionists often point to these places as evidence, but they forget that these few places which have been eroded or disrupted are the exception, not the rule.
If the long ages of Evolution had occurred, every rock layer should be completely disturbed and tossed about. In other words, there would in that sense be no rock "layers" today! We would simply see a mess of debris and eroded rock.
In short, if Evolution were true, rock layers would not exist as we know them. Rock layers had to have been deposited quickly and in a pressurized situation in order to maintain their flat, orderly state. Furthermore, the event in which they were deposited would have had to be worldwide in nature, as rock layers exist everywhere. The Genesis Flood seems to fit this description quite well.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Meteorology: The Oxygen Problem
The early atmosphere of Earth under the Evolutionary model is a "reducing" atmosphere; that is, it had no oxygen. The reason Evolution contends this is that oxygen would have poisoned any original life even if it could have formed spontaneously.
The evidence from the lowest rock layers actually reveals that oxygen was present from the beginning. Leaving this fact aside, let us look at what would have happened if there was in fact no oxygen on Earth when life formed.
It is oxygen which makes up the ozone which protects life from deadly Ultraviolet radiation. So if no oxygen was present, life would likewise have been destroyed.
In short, if oxygen had existed in the early atmosphere, life would be eradicated by poisoning, but if oxygen had not existed originally, life would be eradicated by U-V rays. Evolution does not work.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
The evidence from the lowest rock layers actually reveals that oxygen was present from the beginning. Leaving this fact aside, let us look at what would have happened if there was in fact no oxygen on Earth when life formed.
It is oxygen which makes up the ozone which protects life from deadly Ultraviolet radiation. So if no oxygen was present, life would likewise have been destroyed.
In short, if oxygen had existed in the early atmosphere, life would be eradicated by poisoning, but if oxygen had not existed originally, life would be eradicated by U-V rays. Evolution does not work.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Oceanography: Quantity of Sea Salt
The quantity of salt in the ocean is a severe problem for Evolution. If the Evolutionary uniformitarian model of Earth history is correct, there should be more than 300,000% more salt in the ocean than is observed!
Salt and other eroded minerals arrive in the ocean gradually through the rivers and streams which flow into it. The rate at which such happens today is measurable. Thus, extrapolating backwards in time, we can come up with an approximate age for the Evolutionary world.
The age we find using this method is, at the very greatest, 100 million years. Evolution declares that the oceans have been around for more than 3 billion years! There is no room for Evolution and evidence of this sort to stand side by side.
But then doesn't young Earth creationism fall, too? No, because it makes a completely different set of predictions. The Bible speaks of a global Flood which would have provided quite enough eroded salt and minerals to be mixed with the ocean and provide the big numbers. It is important to remember that the big numbers only count under uniformitarian (everything has always happened the same way; "the present is the key to the past") assumptions.
So the amount of sea salt in the ocean defeats Evolution on its own terms. However, it fits nicely with the Biblical creation model.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Salt and other eroded minerals arrive in the ocean gradually through the rivers and streams which flow into it. The rate at which such happens today is measurable. Thus, extrapolating backwards in time, we can come up with an approximate age for the Evolutionary world.
The age we find using this method is, at the very greatest, 100 million years. Evolution declares that the oceans have been around for more than 3 billion years! There is no room for Evolution and evidence of this sort to stand side by side.
But then doesn't young Earth creationism fall, too? No, because it makes a completely different set of predictions. The Bible speaks of a global Flood which would have provided quite enough eroded salt and minerals to be mixed with the ocean and provide the big numbers. It is important to remember that the big numbers only count under uniformitarian (everything has always happened the same way; "the present is the key to the past") assumptions.
So the amount of sea salt in the ocean defeats Evolution on its own terms. However, it fits nicely with the Biblical creation model.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Paleontology: Polystrate Fossils
An impossible hurdle for Evolution is "polystrate" fossils. These are fossils which were petrified vertically through rock strata. If the rock strata had been laid down slowly over millions of years, these fossils extending up into numerous layers of strata could never have formed.
A prime example of this observation is the Yellowstone National Park fossil forests. Here, thousands of trees and wood fragments seem suspended vertically in the stone without branches or root system support. They seem to have been torn away from their native ground and floated upright in fluid. Consisting mostly of logs and ripped-up bark pieces, these tree fragments were fossillized as the rock layers were laid down around them.
Many of the dinosaurs which are found are likewise discovered with the rock layers having been laid down around them as opposed to on top of them.
Rock layers normally contain only "cast" or "mold" fossils which could possibly be consistant with the way of formation which Evolution declares. But more and more polystrate fossils are being observed. This fact makes Evolution and its "millions of years" mantra impossible.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
A prime example of this observation is the Yellowstone National Park fossil forests. Here, thousands of trees and wood fragments seem suspended vertically in the stone without branches or root system support. They seem to have been torn away from their native ground and floated upright in fluid. Consisting mostly of logs and ripped-up bark pieces, these tree fragments were fossillized as the rock layers were laid down around them.
Many of the dinosaurs which are found are likewise discovered with the rock layers having been laid down around them as opposed to on top of them.
Rock layers normally contain only "cast" or "mold" fossils which could possibly be consistant with the way of formation which Evolution declares. But more and more polystrate fossils are being observed. This fact makes Evolution and its "millions of years" mantra impossible.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Physics: Our Fine-Tuned Universe
A common argument for Creationism is the uniqueness of the Earth. It is said that the Earth is made "just right" for life. However, this argument can often be side-stepped by Evolutionists who point out that if Earth wasn't suitable to life, life never would have evolved, and we would not be here to observe the "just right"-ness.
Creationists seemingly should thus use a much more potent and convincing fact on this theme: the fine-tuning of the entire universe. Let us examine two of the physical properties and laws of nature which demonstrate this idea.
1. Quantum physics. If the laws of quantum physics, or especially the laws governing the "strong nuclear force," were just slightly changed, it is probable that atoms (the fundamental building blocks of matter) could not even exist. If atoms did not exist, the universe would be merely a plasma of radiation and particles, and there would be no life.
2. The maximum density state of water. Water, the most abundant and perhaps most important substance to life, is very different from any other substance in that its maximum density state is above the freezing point, at 4 degrees Centigrade. If water were like everything else, life could not exist because all the water would freeze completely. As it is, it only freezes on top, because the ice is lighter than the water below it. This enables land animals and plants to continue to ingest liquid water all winter, and likewise enables sea and river animals and plants to not simply freeze right through! All other substances than water continue increasing in density as their temperature decreases.
There may be as many as 18 such laws and properties which are vital to life. If any of these were slightly different, none of us would be here. The universe is created for life to thrive in it.
Does Evolution have objections to this idea? The only objection which can be raised is a conjecure which hypothesizes that there are actually an infinite amount of universes in hyperspace, each with a different set of laws for energy and matter.
The infinite universes conjecture is a very convenient imagination, but it can never be proven. Evolutionists present it because they are not willing to accept the facts when the facts challenge their paradigm. They simply cannot let their religion of Relativism bow to cold, hard, scientific Law.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Creationists seemingly should thus use a much more potent and convincing fact on this theme: the fine-tuning of the entire universe. Let us examine two of the physical properties and laws of nature which demonstrate this idea.
1. Quantum physics. If the laws of quantum physics, or especially the laws governing the "strong nuclear force," were just slightly changed, it is probable that atoms (the fundamental building blocks of matter) could not even exist. If atoms did not exist, the universe would be merely a plasma of radiation and particles, and there would be no life.
2. The maximum density state of water. Water, the most abundant and perhaps most important substance to life, is very different from any other substance in that its maximum density state is above the freezing point, at 4 degrees Centigrade. If water were like everything else, life could not exist because all the water would freeze completely. As it is, it only freezes on top, because the ice is lighter than the water below it. This enables land animals and plants to continue to ingest liquid water all winter, and likewise enables sea and river animals and plants to not simply freeze right through! All other substances than water continue increasing in density as their temperature decreases.
There may be as many as 18 such laws and properties which are vital to life. If any of these were slightly different, none of us would be here. The universe is created for life to thrive in it.
Does Evolution have objections to this idea? The only objection which can be raised is a conjecure which hypothesizes that there are actually an infinite amount of universes in hyperspace, each with a different set of laws for energy and matter.
The infinite universes conjecture is a very convenient imagination, but it can never be proven. Evolutionists present it because they are not willing to accept the facts when the facts challenge their paradigm. They simply cannot let their religion of Relativism bow to cold, hard, scientific Law.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Zoology: Reproduction
Evolution cannot explain the ins and outs, let alone the origin, of the reproduction of living organisms.
First, there are two types of reproduction, and both are irreducibly complex. The two types are sexual and asexual. The basis of sexual reproduction is the uniting of two cells to form one (this new cell then splits continuously until the new organism has fully developed), but the basis of asexual reproduction is the splitting of one cell to form two. How could one of these completely opposite processes turn into the other?
Second, sexual reproduction requires not one, but two, irreducibly complex systems (male and female) which under Evolution must develop simulaneously and yet independently. Sexual reproduction is irreducible complexity on a grand scale.
Third, how did reproduction start to begin with? Did a lightning bolt decide one day to strike the first evolutionary cell in some sort of complex way to split it in half? If a cell splits in half by any other method than the method by which it is designed to, it of course dies. This is what all disorganization and information loss in the world of life will do.
Clearly, there is no room for Evolution in the world of life.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
First, there are two types of reproduction, and both are irreducibly complex. The two types are sexual and asexual. The basis of sexual reproduction is the uniting of two cells to form one (this new cell then splits continuously until the new organism has fully developed), but the basis of asexual reproduction is the splitting of one cell to form two. How could one of these completely opposite processes turn into the other?
Second, sexual reproduction requires not one, but two, irreducibly complex systems (male and female) which under Evolution must develop simulaneously and yet independently. Sexual reproduction is irreducible complexity on a grand scale.
Third, how did reproduction start to begin with? Did a lightning bolt decide one day to strike the first evolutionary cell in some sort of complex way to split it in half? If a cell splits in half by any other method than the method by which it is designed to, it of course dies. This is what all disorganization and information loss in the world of life will do.
Clearly, there is no room for Evolution in the world of life.
-R. Josiah Magnuson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
