     MADMULAH | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 06:01 pm
The followings are what evolutionists and atheists claim to be true of this world, what do you think?
1. Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium)gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And
even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode? We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?
2. Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that
these great controlling principles developed by accident?
3. Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.
We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled -only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionists's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second
Law.
4. Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
I will post some more! |
| Alpha | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 04:02 pm
Please don't. Especially considering none of it is in your own words, or indeed your ideas. Plagiarism tends to cool my interests in others' comments.
But as an "evolutionist", let me at least clear up a misconception you seem to have regarding the "information from randomness".
First of all, while natural selection indeed has no preconceived plan/form in mind when it works on organisms, that is not the same as saying it's entirely random. Earth has a certain atmosphere, compositition, and follows certain laws of physics. In order for any species to survive and proliferate in it, they would need to have forms that best suit Earth's ecology.
This means that when the first self-replicating molecules arose, they would only survive if they had the best and most adapted form. A molecule that is just slightly more able than another to replicate will do so, and make many copies of itself. A molecule that can replicate itself leaves many copies of itself, which are in turn acted on by natural selection, so that you get ever-more faster, more effecient organisms that ultimately led to you and me.
But how did the first self-replicating molecule arise?
Darwin, in a letter to a friend, touched on this matter: "But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, and electricity present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes..." ("The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin", Francis Darwin [editor], London: 1888).
In fact, we know the Earth had just such an atmospheric composition in the beginning (about 4 billion years ago). And in the 1950s, laboratory experiments proved that amino acids could rather quickly be produced by simple chemical reactions in the absence of oxygen. And amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, the molecules that make all of Earth's life--from the simpliest virus to human beings--function and behave as they do.
Now the question is, how does one get information from randomness? One doesn't. Natural selection is not random, it only propagates those species most suited for life. But MUTATION is random (which is NOT the same as natural selection). Mutation simply produces the variable possiblities, natural selection acts on these possibilities, and only the few forms that (by chance) happen to be suitable go on to the next generation. And they go on because that is their very definition. Earth is littered with failed organisms that did not adapt quickly enough to a changing environment (witness the dinosaurs 65 million years ago), or did not have the necessary means to fight off new predators.
Why it's so hard to understand this, I will never know.
Evolution has been proved again and again, at the molecular level, by the fossil record, by studying the no longer startling similarities among all life on earth. What's more, these similarities are at all levels of all organisms: molecular, behavioral, structural, physiological.
Evolution is the only theory that manages explain why life came to be, why there are such an overwhelming similarities among all of Earth's organisms and yet so many varieties, why some of these organisms survive and thrive while others go extinct, even why so many humans insist that they are not the descendents of "apes and monkeys" (in fact, they are also the descendants of microscopic lifeforms floating in a primordial pond).
It explains religion and culture, xenophobia and sexism, murder and mercy, hate and love.
That there are still those why deny it is no surprise. After all, there still people who insist that the earth is flat, and the sun revolves around it once a day.
--"God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man"--
Nanrei Kobori, late abbot of the Temple of the Shining Dragon (quoted in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan, New York: 1992). |
