Biblical Creation vs. Evolution

[Shammu]

More scientists express doubts on Darwin
600 dissenters sign on challenging claims about support for theory
Posted: June 22, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

More than 600 scientists holding doctoral degrees have gone on the record expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory of evolution and calling for critical examination of the evidence cited in its support.

All are signatories to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, which reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The statement, which includes endorsement by members of the prestigious U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Russian Academy of Sciences, was first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in 2001 to challenge statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series.

The PBS promotion claimed "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

The list of 610 signatories includes scientists from National Academies of Science in Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, India (Hindustan), Nigeria, Poland, Russia and the United States. Many of the signers are professors or researchers at major universities and international research institutions such as Cambridge University, British Museum of Natural History, Moscow State University, Masaryk University in Czech Republic, Hong Kong University, University of Turku in Finland, Autonomous University of Guadalajara in Mexico, University of Stellenbosch in South Africa, Institut de Paleontologie Humaine in France, Chitose Institute of Science & Technology in Japan, Ben-Gurion University in Israel, MIT, The Smithsonian and Princeton.

"Dissent from Darwinism has gone global," said Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman. "Darwinists used to claim that virtually every scientist in the world held that Darwinian evolution was true, but we quickly started finding U.S. scientists that disproved that statement. Now we're finding that there are hundreds, and probably thousands, of scientists all over the world that don't subscribe to Darwin's theory."

The Discovery Institute is the leading promoter of the theory of Intelligent Design, which has been at the center of challenges in federal court over the teaching of evolution in public school classes. Advocates say it draws on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines that indicate some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favor of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M.D., pathologist and professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," he added. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say."

[Soldier4Christ]

How could the Heart Mountain slide occur in only 30 minutes?

by Michael Oard

June 21, 2006

The Heart Mountain Detachment (no longer considered an overthrust) was a huge slide that occurred in the early Cenozoic (about 50 million years ago within the uniformitarian timescale). The initial block of carbonate rock covered an area of 425 mi2 (1,100 km2) near the northeast edge of Yellowstone National Park. Although the current fault plane dips gently to the southwest,1 uniformitarian scientists believe the carbonates slid down a slope of less than 2° toward the southeast. The block broke up into at least 50 large fragments and spread over an area greater than 1,360 mi2 (3,500 km2). The carbonates are about 1,650 feet (500 m) thick, but uniformitarian geologists believe the rocks were 1.25 to 2.5 miles (2 to 4 km) thick during the slide and were later eroded.2

Many of the fragments ended up over the valley fill sedimentary rocks of the northwest Bighorn Basin. Heart Mountain (figure 1) is one of those fragments, which slid about 40 mi (60 km), coming to a stop on a gentle incline. The McCulloch Peaks represent the most distant fragments, 55 miles (85 km) from the breakaway point.
A major uniformitarian puzzle

The cause and displacement of the slide have been mysterious and controversial for over 100 years within uniformitarian circles. Hauge exclaimed:

    Despite more than 100 years of study, the Heart Mountain detachment remains among the world’s most puzzling geological structures.3

What is the uniformitarian mechanism?

Uniformitarian geologists have debated whether the displacement of the Heart Mountain fragments occurred catastrophically or slowly. Based on two recently published papers, researchers favor catastrophic emplacement.4,5 The Heart Mountain slide is believed to have taken only 30 minutes!6

For such an event, uniformitarian geologists need a catastrophic mechanism. Besides the problem of initiating the slide on a low slope, there is the problem that the carbonates broke off within a strong rock layer, when the slide could have detached from weaker underlying rocks.7 Furthermore, strata just below the slide surface is commonly undeformed. Many mechanisms have been proposed in the past, none of which had enough support.

Two mechanisms are currently competing, but after a volcanic eruption had already initiated the slide. There is the question of whether an eruption of the type envisioned by uniformitarian geologists is capable of initiating the slide. One mechanism is that friction along the sliding plane released CO2 from the carbonates, providing a “gas cushion” that aided further movement.5 The second hypothesis suggests that friction was reduced by the heating of water within the lowermost layer, causing a “fluid overpressure.”4 This heating was aided by lava extruding upward in vertical cracks. Both these hypotheses seem unlikely, and they will be difficult to test.
Flood catastrophism offers a better mechanism

The end of Noah’s Flood (about 4,400 years ago) offers a more straightforward mechanism. First, the events occurred underwater. Second, sliding friction would have been reduced, and the Heart Mountain Detachment could have been buoyed by a cushion of water or steam. Since volcanic rocks had already been deposited before sliding,2 the uniformitarian geologists are likely correct that a volcanic eruption caused the slide. Third, the eruption would have been much more catastrophic, occurring during uplift of mountains and continents and accompanied by great earthquakes.8 Much more energy is available in the Flood paradigm.

Evidence for an underwater event during the Flood is provided by the emplacement of vertical trees, dropped into the Absaroka volcanics—after the slide. These volcanics mostly represent layer upon layer of volcanic debris flows and ash beds that accumulated several thousand feet thick over eastern and northern Yellowstone Park and vicinity.9 The Absaroka volcanics soon covered most Heart Mountain Detachment fragments. The volcanics contain multiple layers of vertical trees at various locations (figure 2), interpreted to be multiple “fossil forests” by uniformitarian scientists. After emplacement, the Absaroka volcanics were greatly eroded into deep valleys. Creationist geologist Harold Coffin has studied Yellowstone National Park for several decades. He concluded that the trees, representing widely different climatic regimes, were emplacement from a mat of floating logs during the Flood.10

An example for the emplacement of these Heart Mountain carbonate blocks is provided by huge blocks of solidified lava that slid off the Hawaiian Islands into the deep sea.11 Although the initial movement of the Hawaiian lava blocks was down a steep slope, the continuous sliding over a low slope on the bottom of the ocean simulates what would have happened to the Heart Mountain fragments during the Flood.
Acknowledgement

I thank Dr. Harold Coffin and Mr. Dennis Bokovoy for reviewing an earlier draft and offering valuable comments.
References

   1. Pierce, W.G., Nelson, W.H., Tokarski, A.K., and Piekarska, E., Heart Mountain, Wyoming, detachment lineations: Are they in microbreccia or in volcanic tuff? Geological Society of America Bulletin 103: 1,141, 1991.
   2. Aharonov, E and M.H. Anders, Hot water: A solution to the Heart Mountain detachment problem? Geology 34: 165, 2006.
   3. Hauge, T.A., The Heart Mountain detachment, northwestern Wyoming: 100 years of controversy; in: Snoke, A.W., Steidtmann, J.R., and Roberts, S.M. (eds.), Geology of Wyoming, volume 2, Geological Survey of Wyoming Memoir No. 5, Laramie, Wyoming, p. 530, 1993.
   4. Aharonov and Anders, Ref. 2, pp. 165–168.
   5. Beutner, E.C. and Gerbi, G.P., Catastrophic emplacement of the Heart Mountain block slide, Wyoming and Montana, USA, Geological Society of America Bulletin 117:724–735, 2005.
   6. Binns, C., www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/060519_moving_mountain.html , 2006.
   7. Beutner and Gerbi, Ref. 5, p. 724.
   8. Oard, M.J., Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: A model for the middle and late diluvian period—Part I, Creation Research Society Quarterly 38(1):3–17, 2001.
   9. Coffin, H., Hergenrather, J., Bokovoy, D. and Oard, M., Road Guide to Yellowstone National Park and Adjacent Areas from a Creationist Perspective, Creation Research Society, Chino Valley, Arizona, 2005.
  10. Coffin, H.G., The Yellowstone petrified “forests,” Origins 24(1):5–39, 1997.
  11. Oard, M.J., Possible analogue for the Heart Mountain Detachment, Journal of Creation [formerly Technical Journal] 10(1):3–4, 1996.

[Soldier4Christ]

An annoucement from AIG (Answers In Genesis) website. I have viewed a few of these segments already and they are really great videos, especially good for showing to school aged children.

Video On Demand, Answers with Ken Ham series:
Answers with Ken Ham video online—for free

Over the next 24 weeks we’ll be releasing online the most popular set of DVDs AiG has produced: the Answers with Ken Ham 12-part series (we’re breaking each one down into two 15-minute segments). You will be able to enjoy a new video segment online every week—for free. Check the requirements* to get your computer ready.

* Requirements:

    * broadband access to the internet
    * a modern browser
    * Macromedia Flash 7
    * enabled Javascript

[Soldier4Christ]

NEW POLYSTRATE TREE FINDS add to our collection of evidence for rapid
fossilisation. These vertical fossil trees protruding through many layers were
found off the south east coast of the Kingdom of Fife in Scotland, below the
median spring tide level, as John Mackay was doing research on coal deposits of
the region in May. One Anglican clergyman recently told us his Theistic
Evolutionist opponents have told him polystrate trees are so rare they can be
ignored, yet there are large numbers of polystrate trees at this new site alone.

http://www.creationresearch.net/research/Scotland.htm

[Soldier4Christ]

GERMAN SOLNHOFEN RESEARCH over three days (fitted between 3 nights of
meetings in Munich) enabled David Keep and John Mackay and helpers to survey
fossils in a 20m (65 ft) thick section of one quarry in the famous Solnhofen
area noted for the Jurassic fossil Archaeopteryx. In the 3 days we were also
able to collect fossils of: at least 400 feather star crinoids, 1 spiny lobster,
1 perfectly preserved shrimp, 1 Cyprus pine branch, 1 fern stem, 1 cockroach, 1
jelly fish fossil 15 cm (6 in) across, 1 herring, many small nautilus type
shells, 1 cycad branch with leaves, plus lots of photos. Most specimens came
from a section of fine limey shale layers (some paper thin) in the top 8m we
investigated. The jelly fish alone establishes this area was rapidly deposited
and any argument the area took millions of years to be laid down is nonsense.

The trip also made it possible for us to see originals of at least 3 specimens
of Archaeopteryx. What surprised us most was the apparent absence of wing
feathers on the 3 specimens. Local authorities claim there are now a total of 9
known specimens.

[Soldier4Christ]

DEVOLUTION DEBATE HOTS UP as opponents and many students take exception to
our contention that the world isn't evolving - it's devolving. Both recent UK
debates against Dr Steve Jones and Dr Jeff Ollerton met their claim that they
had never heard of devolution, so it couldn't be a scientific concept, so we
must be making it up. The only place where devolution occurs is in politics. A
short check through the history books will establish that the word evolution
already had wide use in politics before Charles Darwin commandeered it for his
theory. We don't mind being credited with inventing the biological meaning of
devolution, because it accurately describes the degeneration from the good
creation after the coming of sin. What has amazed us is the rabid opposition to
the concept that devolution is degenerate change. Dr Ollerton claimed snakes
losing their legs is just another example of evolution and when we replied that
when humans with legs gave birth to humans with no legs after mum took
thalidomide, nobody said "Look - evolution is happening!" Everybody knew it was
degenerate, which led to students objecting that their friends who had no legs
were not degenerate, but were merely human variants. They disliked it even more
when John pointed out that if a lion was let loose in the room, students with no
legs would be 'naturally selected' against and eliminated from the human gene
pool. Our final prediction as evidence of this devolution for these debates has
been one which is not even popular with many creationists: the next decades will
see new allergies and diseases we have never seen before as our immune system
continues to collapse, as our environment continues to decay and as our
relationship to all other creatures on this planet becomes more unbalanced. The
concept of the fall and degeneration has become despicable in the eyes of many,
totally due to their acceptance of the false theory of evolution, and is a major
reason they think they can ignore God as Saviour. Change is real, but it is not
evolution - it is devolution. Degeneration is also real and to deny it will only
hinder those who really are degenerate, and do need the help of those of us who
are slightly less degenerate.

[Soldier4Christ]

DR MONTY WHITE, AIG UK, who attended the Northampton University debate, met
with us after for discussion and commented on an audience question from a female
student about "what was the purpose of beauty if evolution was true?".
Evolutionist Ollerton had answered beauty exists because it offers survival
advantage as males select the most favourable looking mate and this ensures
their genes are passed on and the less beautiful ones are not; beautifully
coloured and highly fragrant plants attract more insects etc. John Mackay had
responded that highly coloured and fragrant plants such as sweet peas are self
pollinated so don't need to attract insects, and at least one male butterfly
(Heliconus) mates with the female when only her bland rear end protrudes from
the crysallis and the male has never even seen how spectacularly coloured and
beautiful she is, therefore beauty exists often only because God likes pretty
things, so praise God if you are one of them. Dr Monty White said the
evolutionist selection for gene transfer argument is totally false for human
beings, as the best looking females tend to take up modelling or movie careers
and don't want children because it spoils their figures, so they marry men who
want fame rather than families. The women with the most children at present tend
to be the not so good looking ones living in less expensive housing.

[Soldier4Christ]

ARCTIC CLIMATE SURPRISE reported in news@nature 31 May 2006 and Nature vol
441, p606 1 June 2006. In August 2004 the Arctic Coring Expedition aboard the
"Vidar Viking" drilled a 430m (1,410 ft) core of sediment from the Lomonosov
ridge on the floor of the Arctic Ocean, 250 km (155 miles) from the North Pole.
Scientists have now studied the organic carbon from shells and algae in the core
sediment and used the isotopic composition of the carbon to calculate the
temperatures of the Polar region in the past. They concluded that during the
Eocene period, (approx 55 million years ago) the temperatures around the North
Pole were almost 24 degrees Celsius (75F), the temperature differences between
the poles and equator were a lot less and the Arctic cooled down about the same
time as the Antarctic. The researchers said the results were inexplicable by
current climate models. One of the expedition leaders, Jan Backman, a marine
geologist at Stockholm University, Sweden, commented: "This is a major, major
surprise."  Suggestions for the unexpectedly balmy climate around the North Pole
include greenhouse gases, heat-trapping stratospheric clouds and hurricane
induced ocean mixing.

ED. COM. It is no surprise to Biblical Creationists that there is evidence for
the Arctic regions having being pleasantly mild in the past. Genesis describes a
world that was surrounded by "waters above" which would have had a greenhouse
effect until the time of Noah's flood. After the flood God told Noah there would
be extremes of climate for the remaining history of the world. Snow and ice are
not specifically mentioned until the book of Job. This new report is not the
first evidence that the world once had a more uniform and mild climate. The
fossil record all over the world indicates the world was once filled with large
animals and plants that could only have lived in a world that had a much better
climate and food supply. For example, see Arctic Fossils Indicate Warm climate,
Evidence News 10 Mar 2004.

[Rookieupgrade1]

PR,

I have not read all of this thread.......................bad way to start I know.

I have seen in Bronzesnakes thread on creation the continuting belief that the earth is biblically tracked to be 6000 or so years old.

Have you read Lee Strobles book, "Case for a Creator"

Men with more PhD's than I can count in many scientific feilds giveing real scientific eveedence to support the holy Creator God, but also that the actual text of the bible may not necesarily lead to teh original thought. Digging deaper into the text and its greek and aramaic origins leave considerable room to support the Create world through "big bang" or biblically, light.........and subsiquent heat and formation of the life essencialls that we as the created required to survive.

Quite facinating actually.

I wanted to ask Brother Tom about it but got side tracked and that thread was locked.

Feel free to Delete this post and PM me to discuss.

BIC

[Soldier4Christ]

ARCTIC CLIMATE SURPRISE reported in news@nature 31 May 2006 and Nature vol
441, p606 1 June 2006. In August 2004 the Arctic Coring Expedition aboard the
"Vidar Viking" drilled a 430m (1,410 ft) core of sediment from the Lomonosov
ridge on the floor of the Arctic Ocean, 250 km (155 miles) from the North Pole.
Scientists have now studied the organic carbon from shells and algae in the core
sediment and used the isotopic composition of the carbon to calculate the
temperatures of the Polar region in the past. They concluded that during the
Eocene period, (approx 55 million years ago) the temperatures around the North
Pole were almost 24 degrees Celsius (75F), the temperature differences between
the poles and equator were a lot less and the Arctic cooled down about the same
time as the Antarctic. The researchers said the results were inexplicable by
current climate models. One of the expedition leaders, Jan Backman, a marine
geologist at Stockholm University, Sweden, commented: "This is a major, major
surprise."  Suggestions for the unexpectedly balmy climate around the North Pole
include greenhouse gases, heat-trapping stratospheric clouds and hurricane
induced ocean mixing.

ED. COM. It is no surprise to Biblical Creationists that there is evidence for
the Arctic regions having being pleasantly mild in the past. Genesis describes a
world that was surrounded by "waters above" which would have had a greenhouse
effect until the time of Noah's flood. After the flood God told Noah there would
be extremes of climate for the remaining history of the world. Snow and ice are
not specifically mentioned until the book of Job. This new report is not the
first evidence that the world once had a more uniform and mild climate. The
fossil record all over the world indicates the world was once filled with large
animals and plants that could only have lived in a world that had a much better
climate and food supply. For example, see Arctic Fossils Indicate Warm climate,
Evidence News 10 Mar 2004.

[Soldier4Christ]

PROFESSOR STEVE JONES ON EVOLUTION  "I always think that the finest evidence
for evolution comes from fossils, and it is very hard to imagine, is it not, a
fossil virus, but one has been found." From "Why creationism is wrong and
evolution is right" 29 Min. 14 Sec into Podcast of Royal Society Public lecture
by Prof Steve Jones, 11 Apr 2006.


ED. COM. Since Steve Jones is a professor of genetics at the University College
of London UK, you would think that his "best evidence for evolution" would be
from his own expertise of genetics, not fossils. However, after many years of
debating evolutionists we have noticed they consistently claim the best evidence
for evolution comes from branches of science other than their own. The creation
versus evolution debate is commonly portrayed as being faith versus science, but
Jones' comment reminds us that belief in evolution is based, not on direct
scientific observations made by experts in their field. It is based on one
expert's faith in the authority of other experts in different fields who
willingly return the favour - and all hope the public never find out! If you can
see the funny side of that - you're right,  it's the Emperor's new clothes all
over again. Belief in Biblical creation also involves faith, but it is not faith
in the expertise of human scientists and philosophers who weren't there, instead
it is a fact based faith in the Creator who was there.

[Soldier4Christ]

STEVE JONES ON EVOLUTION AGAIN after claiming that fossils were the best
evidence for evolution Jones went on to describe what he called a "fossil virus"
- an HIV virus found in a preserved pathology specimen from an African who died
in 1959. Since then a number of variations of the HIV virus have been found and
Jones showed a diagram of how the different variants relate to one another and
explained that some of the recently discovered variants of the virus do not mix
their genes with each other and are therefore becoming different species. He
asks: "And if that isn't proof of descent with modification what is? I mean what
more could you possibly want?"

ED. COM. Jones is doing no more than what Darwin and every evolutionist since
has done, and it's a point we are stressing more and more in our debates. The
evolutionists modus operandi is to first "define evolution as change, then call
all change evolution; next accept any change as proof of evolution and therefore
dismiss creation as unthinkable. In Jones case with HIV, notice (1) he first
defined evolution as change via "Genetics plus time", then (2) he stated his
evidence with a most remarkable use of the word fossil by referring to "Fossil
HIV (v.1) 1959 as an assumed ancestor of  HIV (v.6)  2006", THEREFORE (3)
descent with modification over 47 years from 1959-2006 is true, THEREFORE (4)
(Jones implies), Hydrogen gave people in 4.6  billion years, THEREFORE.Chemicals
can naturally change from MINIMAL NON LIFE information (hydrogen) to MAXIMUM
LIFE information (Human DNA - genes), THEREFORE .LIFE IS THE INEVITABLE RESULT
OF THE NATURAL PROPERTIES OF UNIVERSE, THEREFORE .. "CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS"..
which is what he openly called John Mackay on BBC radio. To which John replied
it was time everyone knew that Jones was not presenting evidence, but dressing
up his atheism in scientific terms that were meant to fool most people into
thinking he was using evidence. To answer Jones' question, "And if that isn't
proof of descent with modification what is? I mean what more could you possibly
want?": Yes, HIV 1 giving HIV 6  is descent with modification, but it is not
evolution. The variants of the virus are still HIV viruses, and all HIV
variations that have been found over the last 50 or so years do not explain how
the virus could have evolved from some other virus, let alone from simple
organic molecules.

[Soldier4Christ]

CATASTROPHIC DINO DEPOSIT FOUND according to BBC News Online and
news@nature, 7 June 2006 and Nature, vol. 441, p739, 8 June 2006. Sauropods were
enormous long-necked, four-legged dinosaurs that grew to be as long as 27m (88
ft). Palaeontologists in Germany have found bones of a small dinosaur that seems
to be a miniature version of monster sauropods. They have named it "Europasaurus
holgeri". The bones were from at least 10 individuals, the largest of which
would have been 6.2m long (20.3 ft). Initially the scientists thought that the
dinosaurs were juveniles but when they examined the bones under a microscope
they found the bone layer structure was like that of adult dinosaurs, but the
layers were smaller. The researchers suggest that the animals lived on small
islands and had evolved to be small in order to survive in an environment with
scarce resources. In the supplementary information provided on the Nature
website the researchers describe the rock layer where the fossils were found as:
"Bed 93 is a carbonate mudstone, which near the bone accumulation contains large
intraclasts (max. 200 cm3). Scarce other vertebrate remains from the bone
accumulation pertain to fishes, atoposaurid crocodiles, pterosaurs, turtles, and
theropod dinosaurs. Gastropods and bivalves are the macroinvertebrate component,
and foraminifera and ostracodes are most common in the microfossil fraction.
Other microfauna components are characean gyrogonites, fish teeth and sponge
remains." They go on to claim, "The sauropod carcasses were probably transported
by a river from the island into the sea and came to rest in the shallow,
low-energy marine environment. The localized nature of the bone accumulation
suggest that all the bones were accumulated in a single catastrophic event."

ED. COM. Small dinosaurs have been found in the past and always appear to be
fully formed separate kinds, so these new specimens are no help to the theory of
evolution. If they had shrunk from larger species then they are the result of a
degenerative change, either to their environment or themselves - again no help
to evolution. The comments about the sediment in which they were buried show
that in spite of an overall belief in slow gradual processes, evolutionists are
prepared to admit that these fossils were buried in "a single catastrophic
event" that resulted in land dwelling animals such as dinosaurs and pterosaurs
being buried amongst sea creatures. This is actually the norm for dinosaurs, as
most dinos we have investigated have been buried in sediments containing masses
of shells and other sea creatures which is exactly what you would expect if a
catastrophic flood swept over all the land surfaces, picked up any land dwelling
animals, mixed them with sea creatures and then dumped them all together. Vast
amounts of time are a popular belief, but the fossil record does not show it.
(Ref. catastrophe, dinosaurs, flood)

[Soldier4Christ]

Who Created All Things?

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

The Scripture is dogmatic as to who created all things, yet some may become confused when reading the Bible to find there are three different proper names associated with this great work. In each case the great work of creation is said to be uniquely and solely His, showing that there can be only one absolute Creator. The answer is as follows: God created all things. Genesis 1:1 is abundantly clear as to this fact. So is Hebrews 3:4: “For every house is builded by some man; but He that built all things is God.” This is a cause and effect argument. Houses do not go up by themselves. A man must build them. Even so, creation did not come about by itself. God built all things in the beginning. God is said to be the sole author of creation. Jehovah (LORD) created all things. “Thus saith the LORD (Hebrew, Jehovah), the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker . . . . I have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Isaiah 45:11,12). “For thus saith the LORD (Jehovah) that created the heavens,” (Isaiah 45:18). Now the Creator is said to be Jehovah, and author of creation. Jesus (the Word) created all things. “All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). “By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible . . . all things were created by Him, and for Him” (Colossians 1:16). Jesus is clearly seen as the author of creation.

How can God, Jehovah, and Jesus all be said to be the absolute Creator of all things? The reason is this: Jesus of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Whatever is said of Jehovah in the Old is said of Jesus in the New. Jehovah is God; Jesus is Jehovah; Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus, who is God, created all things.

[Soldier4Christ]

Evolution Is Not Based on Natural Laws

According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself.

One of the claims most frequently used by evolutionists for excluding the scientific evidence for creation in public schools and to be denied for publication in scientific jour-nals is that such evidence is not based on natural laws, therefore it cannot be scientific. They claim that evolutionary theory is based on natural laws and thus qualifies as a scientific theory. Hence, the theory of creation must be excluded, but the theory of evolution is admissible (of course, it must be absolutely atheistic). However, evolutionary theory is not based on natural laws but is actually contrary to natural laws.

Let us first consider evolutionary theories on the origins of the universe. The most widely accepted theory on the origin of the universe is known technically as inflation theory, but is generally referred to as the Big Bang theory. It was recognized that the standard Big Bang theory had insuperable flaws, so something else had to be postulated to rescue the theory. Alan Guth, now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, invented the notion, based on quantum theory, that prior to the Big Bang there occurred a fluctuation of a false vacuum. The particle, or whatever it might be called, that was produced in a tiny fraction of a second, inflated itself into something about the size of a grapefruit. From this point on the remainder of the universe was produced essentially similar to the original Big Bang theory, starting with subatomic particles, then hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), then stars and galaxies, eventually our solar system, and so on until we arrived. There were no natural laws in existence during this hypothetical early stage of the origin of the universe. Evolutionists must suppose that the natural laws that now govern the operation of the known universe somehow were produced by the Big Bang. Therefore, its origin could not have been based on natural laws. If creation is excluded then likewise all evolutionary theories on the origin of the universe must also be excluded.

Furthermore, there are perhaps as many as fifty physical constants in the universe that must be precisely what they are or the universe and life could not exist. They cannot be a little bit more or a little bit less. They include, for example, the universal constants (Boltzman's constant, Planck's constant, and gravitational constant); the mass of elementary particles (pion rest mass, neutron rest mass, electron rest mass, unit charge, mass-energy relation); and fine structure constants (gravitational, weak interaction, electromagnetic, and strong fine constants). The probability that even just one of these physical constants could have been produced with precisely the value required from the chaos of the Big Bang is vanishingly small, let alone fifty or so. Thus, all theories on an evolutionary origin of the universe contradict the laws of probability and must therefore be excluded on this basis as well.

According to evolutionary theory, starting with the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and the simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases, the universe created itself. This is clearly a violation of natural law, namely the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law an isolated system can never increase in order and complexity, transforming itself to higher and higher levels of organization. An isolated system will inevitably, with time, run down, becoming more and more disorderly. There are no exceptions. Contrary to this natural law, evolutionists believe the universe is an isolated system which transformed itself from the chaos and disorder of the Big Bang and simplicity of hydrogen and helium gases into the incredibly complex universe we have today. This is a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If natural laws are natural laws, the universe could not have created itself. The only alternative is that it is not an isolated system. There must be a Creator that is external to and independent of the natural universe who was responsible for its origin and who created the natural laws that govern its operation.

What about the present state of the universe? There are three possibilities. It could be in a steady state, neither increasing nor decreasing in order and complexity. A second possibility would be that it is increasing in order and complexity. The third possibility would be that it is constantly decreasing in order and complexity. Some evolutionary astronomers reject the Big Bang theory and suggest what is called the Steady State Theory. They would suggest the first possibility. If the Big Bang theory is correct, and as evolutionists believe, the present natural laws are all there is and all there ever has been, then the order and complexity of the universe should constantly be increasing. Creation scientists, on the other hand, maintain that in the beginning God created the universe in a perfect state and therefore matter would have no tendency to increase in order and complexity. Thus, if something has occurred since creation to change the original created state (and we know that it has) the order and complexity of the universe could not be increasing, but it could be decreasing. Fully in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the order and complexity of the universe is constantly decreasing. Every star in the universe is burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Obviously, that supply of energy cannot last forever. Therefore, unless God intervenes (and the Bible tells us He will), the universe is certain to die. Eventually every star will have burned up all of its fuel and the lights will go out. At this point, there would be no life and no activity anywhere in the universe. It would be dead. If the natural laws which now govern the universe are causing its death and destruction, and these laws are all there is and all there ever has been, how could they have created the universe in the first place? What sort of tortured logic is necessary to suggest such an impossibility? The present state of the universe and the laws that govern it contradict all evolutionary theories concerning its origin.

cont'd