[QUOTE="gubrushadow"]
The First Law of Thermodynamics
What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?
The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.
With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.
What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!
This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!
Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself? Be honest. Accept facts. This is proof that the existing natural realm demands the existence of a Great Creator!
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.
Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.
If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.
When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!
Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: "Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, 'It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).
Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been "wound up." Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is God!
EVOLUTION
The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.
Over and over, these "theorists" try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.
Yet, as one geologist wrote, "It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked" (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).
Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a "debunked" theory: "Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: 'Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.' 'Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.' 'Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.' 'On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative'" (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).
oh no its too long , well have fun :P
theone86
Sweet zombie Jesus, another one of these. First off, can we get one thing straight about theories and never have to talk about it again? Seriously, we need to like imprint this on like every kids' brain coming out of grade school and take every idiot who tries to tell anyone otherwise, stick them in an unmarked crate, and ship them off to a government warehouse, because they are just wrong. This is how the scientific method works, you begin by OBSERVATION. You observe the physical world and take note of natural phenomena (e.g. the fact that white squirrels survive in snowy environments and dark squirrels survive in more polluted environments). From those observations you develop a hypothesis, such as the squirrels are white because god doesn't like his creations to clash, or because they adapted to their environment through selective breeding facilitated by the death of the squirrels who didn't blend in i.e. natural selection. When you criticize evolution as being just a theory you are not referring to a theory, you are referring to a hypothesis, a general conclusion based on minimal observation and lacking support. A theory is formulated after extensive testing and observation of actual phenomena and requires the hypothesis to be verified in order to be considered a theory, therefore a theory is not a theory in the way you imply, but really a hypothesis that has been extensively tested and proven to hold true to real world phenomena, such as the observable and empirically verifiable phenomenom of natural selection. Furthermore, theories are not mutually exclusive and can be used in conjuction with one another to better understand natural phenomena. Having multiple thories relating to one phenomenom does not invalidate them, if anything it makes them stronger. I will go back to the theory of evolution, we can observe scientifically that natural selection is a very real phenomena, we can observe that all fomrs of life adapt to their natural environment, and we can observe that these physiological changes take extended periods fo time to manifest themselves and even longer to become the norm for a species. From these observations we can scientifically conclude that all the species on this planet have evolved over extended periods of time. From other observations of speci DNA, similarity of certain physiological structures, and unearthed bones of common ancestors we can determine that the multitude of species living on this planet came from a relatively small group of ancestors, going back far enough. All this and other pertinent science suppor the theory that life evolved from primordial organisms into the forms of life we know today. Do we know this for sure? No, but all evidence and logic supports it. We may not be able to explain all the specifics, but that doesn't invalidate the theory, that's not how science works. If science can't explain something it doesn't look for a deus ex machina to solve all of its inconsistencies, it searches for solid answer based on more observations, more research, and more facts.
Going on this thought, the laws of thermodynamics apply to the observable world, what we can see and test with our eyes and equipment. Just because it is a scientific law within this realm does not necessarily mean it applies within all realms of existence. Scientists are now becoming aware of a phenomenom which is currently all but immeasurable called dark matter. We know absolutely nothing about this dark matter, we only know of its existence through the failure of measurable matter in this universe to explain the total mass of the universe. There is no way to say that what we can observe as a species is indicative of how the rest of the universe works. We know only of a minute portion of the entire galaxy, much less the universe. Just because we can observe something in our small little corner does not make it universally true.
Furthermore, no one says the universe came from nothing (except for creationists, of course). What adherents to the big bang believe is that it is responsible for the formation of our universe as we know it. It speaks only to formation, not to the origin of matter or energy. Again, science deals only with what we can explain, if there is something currently beyond our capacity to explain it does not mean that god did it, it simply means we are not YET capable of explaining it.
As to the second law, the universe does not know perfect. It is not as if someone was at a used car lot looking at a car in decent condition and a beater and decided to go with the first car, the universe does not work like that. The universe just acts, it's nothing but pure causation. The laws that "govern" the universe, as we like to say, really just describe the observable aspects of the universe, it's not like we make these laws and then the universe is obliged to obey them, quite the opposite, the universe acts as it does and we alter our perception of it as we come to better understand it.
The second law does not have anything to do with evolution, organisms are not compelled to move to a less perfect state from our perception. Rather, organisms simply adapt to their environment through no fault of their own. Where the second law does apply in the biotic sphere is in death and decay. Living organisms use more and more energy as time goes on and begin to decay. They eventually cease facilitation of chemical exchange processes and become abiotic material. This is where the second law is applicable, not in evolution. Evolution is, like the second law, a way to describe an observed natural phenomenon. The second law was written to explain thermodynamics, not breeding patterns over an extended period of time.
Textbook quality pwnage.
Log in to comment