science – J.R. Cooper

THE IPUWER PAPYRUS

As a mater of interesting archeology, the Ipuwer papyrus, also known as the ‘Admonitions of Ipuwer’, is an Egyptian text written on papyrus from around 2000 to 1600 BC, which would put it right at the period of time coinciding with the Exodus. This makes the document a very controversial one, for several reasons.

Firstly it is incomplete, very damaged, and is missing the beginning, and the ending. Secondly, it makes reference to circumstances happening in the surrounding culture that parallel very closely with events of the Exodus. Since the Bible’s critics maintain that the exodus was fictional, and Christians maintain that the old testament records accurate historical narratives, the assertion of bible critics would be to maintain that the two references have no correlation.

Let’s be clear about a couple things. Christians do not need to find corroborating archeology to believe, or bolster faith. Critics mistakenly insist that evidence must be found outside the Bible, which is an unfair bias, as the Bible itself is a library of many books of antiquity, not only remarkably preserved, but uniquely self-corroborating, despite authors being separated by time and distance. In fact, the Bible’s preservation is so well respected by historians, that if one were to dismiss it outright, they would be forced to dismiss all books of antiquity, all of them having far less evidence of reliability. Critics who demand evidence “other than the Bible,” mistakenly assume it is an invalid source of information.

Also, Egyptian history is notorious for deleting negative or embarrassing details. Unlike the embarrassing testimony of sin, confusion, and lost battles, recorded truthfully by the Hebrews, it was not uncommon for Egyptian or other cultures to erase kings they didn’t like, destroy records of wars they lost, or keep details of enemies from notoriety. The result being a highly edited, and favorable account of an empire’s history, coupled with an untenable timeline of kings and events.

That being said, it is always fun when archeology and other sciences do indeed support the authority of scripture, which happens often. As an example, in 2 Kings 18, it says:

13 In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and took them.

Critics often maintained such a king never existed, the Bible was wrong, and secular lists of ancient kings should be held in higher esteem than made up, untrustworthy scripture… that is until 1849, when Henry Layard uncovered the city of Nineveh, and found Sennacherib’s name at the gates.

Arguing that because we haven’t found proof yet, means the scripture isn’t accurate is an argument from silence, and joyfully, often backfires when more evidences are found. But, let is digress back to the Papyrus in question.

Here we have a rare look into some of Egypt’s difficulties, sufferings, and defeats, at a time where most historical records preserve only a sterling façade of power and glory. I highly recommend the documentary Patterns of Evidence regarding the Exodus, if you haven’t seen it, but let’s explore some of what is illustrated by the poetry on this Ipuwer papyrus.

“The door [keepers] say: “Let us go and plunder.”… and the servant takes what he finds” (Exodus 12:36, The Jews plunder the Egyptians upon leaving)

“poor men have become owners of wealth, and he who could not make sandals for himself is now a possessor of riches” (took silver and gold)

“Indeed, the women are barren, and none conceive. Khnum fashions (men) no more because of the condition of the land.” (everything destroyed)

“pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere” (plagues)

“the river is blood, yet men drink of it” (Exodus 7:24 And all the Egyptians dug along the Nile for water to drink, for they could not drink the water of the Nile)

“Indeed, gates, columns and walls are burnt up, while the hall of the palace stands firm and endures… towns are destroyed and Upper Egypt has become an empty waste.”

“I have separated him and his household slaves”

“Indeed, runners are fighting over the spoil [of ] the robber, and all his property is carried off.” – (This is an interesting one, because it is possible citizens are fighting over what has been left in the abandoned homes of the “robbers,” those who plundered the great city. They would be fighting over spoils out of great need.)

Indeed, all animals, their hearts weep; cattle moan because of the state of the land.

“Indeed, the children of princes are dashed against walls, and the children of the neck are laid out on the high ground.” – (tenth plague, death of Egyptian firstborn – At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.)

“Behold, the fire has gone up on high, and its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land.” – Pillar of fire)

“Behold, things have been done which have not happened for a long time past; the king has been deposed by the rabble.” – (slaves victorious over a king)

“Behold, he who had no property is now a possessor of wealth, and the magnate praises him.”

“Behold, the poor of the land have become rich, and the [erstwhile owner] of property is one who has nothing.”

What an amazing document! So many parallels it is hard to ignore. This is by no means exhaustive, and many additional details can be determined by reading all of it, including consequences of the event. Details about barbarians looting afterwards, lead us to believe there was much devastation, and loss of power, opening the city up to looters. Remember, much of the army would have been destroyed in the Red sea.

Of course, we have the perfect authority of scripture, and Jesus stamp of approval for the Old Testament, which He quoted often, in His fulfilling of the law. There are a great many other evidences as well that support the always trustworthy Scriptures. Kahun as an example could have been a slave village, was poor, and nearby. It had buried infants under the floors, possibly from the Egyptian slaughter of Hebrew babies, as well as evidence that the people left suddenly and definitively.

The Amarna letters, ancient writing between Egyptian and Middle Eastern rulers, accuse tumult on a group labeled as Habiru, a probable term for Hebrews. Also at this same time we have evidence of cities like Jericho falling, an amazing discovery in its own right, since the walls somehow fell outward, unlike the collapse of normal walls in war.

The bible, in proper exegesis, interprets itself, and is God breathed and certainly trustworthy. But, wow, is it fun to see amazing historical evidences that paint a clear picture, and support the truth that was known all along.

Should Creationists Be scared of Quantum Mechanics?

Quantum Mechanics is an innovative physics field, the math of which is certainly beyond my expertise, and that has merit as a study of how sub-atomic particles behave and interact. But despite physicists’ insistence, specifically those dedicated to evolutionary processes, it concerns operational sciences rather than origins. And what we run into is the lesson told many years ago by Socrates, that the smartest of us often think themselves wisest because of expertise in one subject they deem most important. This is born out in the poor philosophical conclusions of Hawking, and others, in my opinion, and since they were wise in one area, and share a world-view with main stream scientists, their perceived intelligence and respected reputations prevented critical examination of their philosophical conclusions.

So much so that Hawking gets a pass when he says “because there is a law like gravity, the universe will create itself from nothing.” When he makes the truth claim that “free will is an illusion” without realizing he is admitting we have no reason to trust his own truth claims, including that one!

Or how no one bats an eye when Biologist, Richard Dawkins has to remind us to ignore the appearance of design during his never-ending campaign against a designer: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Without evidence of any kind, Dawkins appeals to faith-based occurrences beyond nature while in the same book, (God Delusion) smugly attacking Christians for doing the same: “There are probably ‘superhuman’ alien civilizations elsewhere in the universe.” “There may well be a plethora of universes.”

He is not rebuked for obvious circular reasoning: “We exist here on Earth. Therefore Earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us.” Brilliant. (insert eye-roll emoji.)

According to Socrates (and Plato) it is okay to be ignorant, because you can remedy it by learning. What is a dangerous enemy of knowledge is being caught in the illusion of knowledge while in fact being ignorant, because of pride.

In the age of google warriors, and misinformation, it is often those who are smart at one subject who have the strongest opinions about many others, especially that which they don’t know much about. (The fact that atheists and scientists would levy this same charge at me is not lost on me. I am a student of many things, but do certainly attempt to hang my world-view on an authority higher than my own whenever possible. That being said, I would stipulate that I am not immune to that criticism either).

Since Max Planck’s Nobel prize in 1919, Quantum Mechanics has been a tangent from classical physics (Newton) and was furthered by guys like Heisenberg, Einstein, and Bohr. The math supports the theories, and it solved problems that classical physics could not.

But here is where the practicality and the problems lie. When you examine the functions, the math shows that wave functions exist as a superposition of all possible states. In this way, we can describe the characteristics of a particle. This makes all positions true simultaneously, and each position inevitable. Extrapolated to the absurd, this acceptance that all possibilities are true is one of the reasons for atheist/evolutionary appeals to a multi-verse, yet another unprovable fudge factor needed to explain the Big Bang Model in naturalistic terms, due to how impossibly finely tuned our universe is. (Stephen Hawking tinkered with this idea late in his life).

It is already well documented in many works the dedication modern scientists have to materialism, evolution, and the anathema of Intelligent Design within the halls of academia; accept anything to prevent a “divine foot in the door”, even that which is absurd, by their own admission. This leads of course to faith in the impossible, the unprovable, the unobservable, and faith in these things, they persist, is supported by QM, because all possibilities exist at once.

In this New Age, or post-modern age, this leads to a morally relativistic view of QM, that reality should be taken as subjective, or based on the observer. Both Einstein and Schrödinger didn’t like the mysticism known as “the observer collapses the wave function,” and even the Schrödinger’s Cat experiment, a now famous pop-culture reference from the Big Bang Theory show, was actually a purposeful reduction to the absurd, as Schrödinger relied more on the law of non-contradiction, rather than relativism.

The basic, true laws of nature and logic, like causality, identity, non-contradiction, were not abandoned by the fathers of QM theorists, but has been popularized today as more and more appeals to a Godless universe meet headlong with direct observable facts that keep proving the Big Bang theory is poor science. Hence the need for faith based beliefs and fudge factors, such as dark matter, dark energy, the Inflaton, the multiverse, etc. You will notice, all of these fudge factors, the physicist and cosmologist must have “faith” in to keep hoping that the universe is Godless. But they do not attribute it to faith, as they lean on the crutch of relativity that QM provides for them. Since it is their specialized, elite field they hold in high esteem above the average plebian’s paltry understanding, they fall into the trap of valuing their elegant math-based conclusions over obvious empirical observations we see and understand every day. They surmise in their own minds every possibility is inevitable without God, as long as they don’t have to observe those conclusions today in real time. This appeal to deep time, or enough time, is the magic elixir poured into each opinion to add credence, and is done so with impunity, since this pillar of evolution is automatically ensconced in the public’s mind as “fact.” In this manner, they can criticize the Christian as ignorant, stupid, or insane (Richard Dawkins) while employing the same tactics themselves, faith being the evidence of things not seen (Heb 11:1).

When we speak in laymen’s terms, it boils down to very smart scientists and mathematicians being so hyper focused on the minutia of QM, that they miss the forest for the trees. This is of course coupled with utter dedication to the presupposition that inorganic evolution is true, as it must be if we are to believe that directionless, purposeless, unthinking inorganic material somehow create intelligent order. We are once again faced with this persistent axiom, Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Again, this is simply because all possibilities exist simultaneously, including one where there is perfect order.

Doctor of Physical Chemistry, Jonathan Sarfati, a respecter of Newton, science, and a creationist, states it this way: “It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory.”

Bottom line, QM works, has strong support, and is not a threat to creationism. In fact, some studies highlight its usefulness in nature, (sense of smell, photosynthesis, bird navigation). But with presuppositions on both sides, what we see is the confusing of QM with interpretations of QM. Luckily we have observable reality to rely on, and in that reality, we know how nature reacts unmanipulated by intelligence, and no amount of insistence that explosions create perfect order naturally will change that.

Dark Matter; Why Does It Matter?

Disclaimer: I am not a cosmologist.

But here is what I do know. The model used to get from the Big Bang explosion from nothing to today’s observable universe, via naturalist or materialist means simply does not work without Dark Matter. (well, it doesn’t work for a myriad of other reasons too, but even assuming the rest fit, the naturalist needs Dark Matter).

Definitions are important, and sometimes I take for granted that everyone knows what I mean when I say things. So let’s take a second and define what I mean when I say a few terms:

Cosmology is a branch of astronomy concerned with the studies of the origin and evolution of the universe, from the Big Bang to today and on into the future.

When I say naturalist, or materialist, it is simply a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications. Things only developed through natural means, without a designer. Essentially this is the normative atheistic point of view.

And Dark Matter? What is it? Well, the definition provided is “a nonluminous material that is postulated to exist in space and that could take any of several forms including weakly interacting particles or high-energy randomly moving particles created soon after the Big Bang.”

These “particles” mind you, are not detectable by any means we now possess. Not visible or observable on any known spectrum. Can’t see it. Can’t feel it. Can’t hear it.

Then how, you might ask, do we know it is there? The answer is, it has to be, because if it wasn’t, the Big Bang model falls apart. In other words, those who operate under the presupposition that the universe propagated itself via natural means know that Dark Matter exists, because it has to exist for the presupposition to be true. This is the atheist’s own version of the “god of the gaps” argument. There is a major scientific gap in how stars can form and how galaxies have been able to maintain their shape (the wind-up problem) and in order to add the correct amount of gravity necessary to make the computer simulations work, they have invented, made up, concocted, pretended, that Dark Matter exists so that the observable universe is more mathematically feasible.

You see, without Dark Matter, the first stars could not have formed in the vacuum of space. If Hydrogen and Helium were floating around in a vacuum, physics tells us the particles would expand. Certainly if they were somehow inclined to coalesce into something more dense, and the temperature would rise, making them expand more, curbing any tendency inorganic, purposeless particles might have to form into a star. A star that must get so dense that it weighs 4,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lbs, the weight of our own sun. Out of Helium. And hydrogen. In space.

The solution, enter Dark Matter. A plugged in and specified amount of un-detectable, un-observable gravity, that is there, simply because it must be, that would push these air particles together hard enough, and long enough to force them into creating the first stars.

I’d like to point out here that this is the self-same scientific community that prides itself on being the paragons of logic, who have market cornered on beliefs that are securely moored to facts, and who are quick to point fingers at believers in God as anti-science. The Berkeley science website even states, “Modern science does not deal with supernatural explanations because they are not scientifically testable.” – (understanding science, 2014).

And what is supernatural? It is defined as a force beyond scientific understanding, or the laws of nature. A force beyond observable nature.

A good example of such a supernatural force would of course be Dark matter.

Why am I so adamant, and even occasionally snarky about this subject? Because I feel the ridiculousness of these theories are obvious. The fudge factors are well known within the scientific community, and yet these obvious pleas for legitimacy are never presented to students. Only big words, and the repeating drums of the big bang being fact, along with great animation, and spectacular fairy tales propped up by eons of time. When spoken of in common language, explained in laymen’s terms, and splashed with the cold water of reality, with the physical laws of the universe, scientists are knowingly making up different types of matter, that no one can see, with the exact properties they need them to have, so that they do not have to be wrong. Dark Matter is one of several.

When I explain the reality of Dark Matter theory to my nine year old, she has the common sense to laugh at those silly scientists. Of course the atheist who sees Christians raise their kids with the notion that stars are a special creation, just like humans are, accuses the Christian of child abuse, negligence, and bad parenting.

But the materialists make up fudge factors with impunity, and without compunction. They call it good science, because it supports their idea of a Godless universe, and they manipulate data and simulations to tell the story they want to believe in. This has not been a search for truth. This has instead been a scramble to defend a dying cosmological model. Dark Matter, and it’s perfect and uncanny gravity, is just another example of this dishonest practice.

My question is, how many made up components of the Big Bang model must their be, before the materialists admit that they too are faith based, and that their faith is in that which is beyond nature, beyond the ability to observe, and in that which contradicts the laws of physics? The difference between concluding that there is a God and concluding that there is Dark Matter, is that the heavens declare the glory of God, it is obvious to any nine year old who looks up to the heavens in awe. Dark matter is declared by no one but the scientists who invented it, and use it in hopes that it will keep the truth of God at bay for a little while longer.

UPDATE: In addition to this article, I will add here an excerpt from the article, “Evidence for dark matter in the inner Milky Way”, sciencedaily.com, February 2015.

““The existence of dark matter in the outer parts of the Milky Way is well established. But historically it has proven very difficult to establish the presence of dark matter in the innermost regions, where the Solar System is located. This is due to the difficulty of measuring the rotation of gas and stars with the needed precision from our own position in the Milky Way.
“In our new study, we obtained for the first time a direct observational proof of the presence of dark matter in the innermost part of the Milky Way. We have created the most complete compilation so far of published measurements of the motion of gas and stars in the Milky Way, and compared the measured rotation speed with that expected under the assumption that only luminous matter exists in the Galaxy. The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us, and between us and the Galactic centre,” says Miguel Pato at the Department of Physics, Stockholm University.” (emphasis added).

This statement, “The observed rotation cannot be explained unless large amounts of dark matter exist around us”, is the obvious and continual bias coming from the scientific community. The effect of the presupposition of deep time is pervasive, and endlessly sabotages attempts at good science. It is the reason they must cling blindly to faith in made up fudge factors.

Also, this author claims “direct observational proof!” Of a substance they cannot detect! How did they directly observe it? They measured the rotation speed of heavenly bodies while assuming only detectable matter exists! In other words, they simply observed the natural universe. And since the conclusion makes deep time impossible, they know dark matter is proved! Are you kidding me?!

Here, from their own lips, you have faith in a made up element, rather than ever consider that their underlying assumptions about the universe are dead wrong.

In The Beginning: Survey of the Truth of Creation 5

ME 89326. (pictured here)

This title, ME 89326 is the name given to classify this ancient relic, dated 2300 BC. It is also known as the Temptation Seal, and is an impression of a carving off a cylindrical seal of the Akkadian Empire. The Akkadian Empire was an ancient Mesopotamian Civilization, spawned in and around the city the Bible calls Akkad.

This piece is currently held at the British History Museum and was discovered in 1846. As we continue our study on the truth of creation, we look to pieces such as this to verify that yes indeed, the Adam and Eve story was circulating within different cultures, as reflected here in the artwork of an ancient people who were not Hebrews.

Of course, a secular museum would not encourage such beliefs, being of the presupposition that the story is certainly not real, and that the beginning of the Bible is not true history. As we have seen, and will continue to see, evolutionary presupposition will dictate what must and must not be, including what an obvious piece like this cannot represent. The notes at the British Museum accompanying this relic state: “…the seal belongs to the well known Akkadian periods 2300 BC, the dated palm and the snake may have fertility significance, there is no reason to connect them to the Adam and Eve Story.”

The insistence that this is not the Adam and Eve story being depicted is quite telling. Notice that these forensic scientists don’t even allow for that possibility, and want visitors to know that they would be undoubtedly in error to assume such a thing, since the museum knows for sure that it just can’t be about that.

So let us look at the picture. The museum suggests that the figure is a man (left) seated in front of a god (right, with headdress), and that some offering is taking place. The plant offering is to worship divine fertility.

The problem: Historically in this period, neither male nor female worshipers are ever shown seated before a god. They are always shown standing with arms up, praising. Another important difference is the worshiper is always depicted smaller in size than the god being worshiped.

Now, if we look at it from a biblical perspective, we have the oral narrative of mankind’s beginnings, which must have been passed down to every and all people from Noah’s family of 8, up until the tower of Babel. Afterwards, oral, written, and artistic depictions of these same narratives, flood legends, creation, and the fall are recorded. In this case, in Mesopotamia, we have a simple enough depiction which was more than likely carved on a cylinder only 300-400 years after the flood took place.

Two human beings, a male and a female, of equal stature, and having a familiar relationship, sit across from one another to eat a fruit. They both eat of the fruit, and behind the woman, as if to tempt her, is a serpent. Further extrapolation might note that the tree is of great importance, central to the depiction, and has seven branches, the number of God and divinity.

It is hard to imagine the events of Adam and Eve being depicted more concisely then this.

What Are Students Taught about the Death of Dinosaurs?

A giant, life ending, asteroid is the common theory, yes? 65,000,000 years ago, teachers confidently espouse, that the most “likely” scenario was an asteroid that our dragon friends could not survive. Despite no evidence for such an event, there are a surprising amount of specifics taught to children about this make-believe impact. It is a model that fits the bill, when one is needed to prop up faith in evolution, and allows evolutionists to maintain their pre-supposition in molecules-to-man, despite the observable data at hand.

The asteroid was apparently 6 miles wide, the needed girth to cause an impact great enough to change the weather, which would have created a crater 110 miles across. There are no craters in the surface of the Earth that show evidence of such an impact, though scientists have tried to pigeon-hole the data from the Caribbean Sea to imply that this event must have happened there. This impact, according to the theory, first proposed by geologist Walter Alvarez in about 1980, wiped out the dinosaurs, along with 80% of the Earth’s animals.

This theory is mostly propped up using the discovery of a higher content of of iridium in the Caribbean, and coupling it with the made-up geologic column which exists no where on Earth. (Iridium is a mineral found in many meteorites, but is also heavily prevalent in volcanic events, which occurred during the flood.)

It is worth noting that though this is a prevailing theory, it is not the only one. Many scientists believe that alternate events killed the dinosaurs. Some of these include mammals eating dinosaur eggs, the evolution of narcotic plants, climate change, diseases, loss of plants causing herbivores to starve, which in turn caused the carnivores to starve, lowering of oxygen partial pressure in the atmosphere.

There are excellent articles and evidences addressing reptile size, geologic column, radiometric dating, etc, from a creationist perspective. But the important point here, and the crux of this article, is to note that none of these theories indicate a global flood. None of these indicate a drowning event, or water at all, as a catalyst for bringing about the extinction of large reptiles.

Why is this important? We can safely agree that academia in general has a strong bias against the bible, and its historical narrative, so we certainly wouldn’t expect the default opinion of secularism to match the global flood history recorded in genesis.

But what is telling is the actual observable data.

Certainly we know about finding buried dead things all over the Earth, including large pre-flood dinosaurs, or dragons. We have discovered billions of dinosaur tracks over the last 20 years, across the globe in over 1500 different locations. Scientists are slowly agreeing that these fossil graveyards, soft bodied (jellyfish) animal fossils, and fossils buried mid-meal, or mid-birth indicate a quick catastrophic burial, rather than some slow burial lasting millions of years.

But even more telling is that we have scientists themselves admitting that these finds were originally deposited due to water. For example:

World’s Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death, By Charles Q. Choi, Live Science Contributor – “The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these Centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously. The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet.”

Drowned dinosaur eggs’ fossil remains reveal embryos grew fast, Los Angeles Times, April 10, 2013|By Amina Khan

Publication in Yellowstone National Park – “Mammoth Site in South Dakota. Mammoths and other megafauna got trapped in a sinkhole and drown about 26,000 years ago.”

This is just a sampling. All over the world, and in article after article, scientists observe the data that these fossils were drowned at the time of death.

Now, look at these pictures of dinosaurs discovered buried:

Notice they exhibit this peculiar contorted position popularly called the “death pose.” This pose of many fossilized dinosaurs, with wide-open mouth, head thrown back and recurved tail, likely resulted from the agonized death throes typical of brain damage from asphyxiation, according to paleontologists. If they were buried in rock slides, or were buried after death and then fossilized, they would not have this position. These animals were obviously suffocating as they were being buried by mud and water. These animals drowned.

We find this data all over the globe, and yet, I would remind you that all of the deep time, secular speculations taught in schools do not involve water! I would say that I remain curious as to why that is. But I know the answer. It puts science a little too close to a biblical theory that must not be allowed in the door. But, as it has many times before, the bible continues to be shown as the most accurate explanation of our early Earth. Is the story fantastic, and amazing? Absolutely. But it so easily explains so many geological features that it puts secular theories to shame. Academia will of course continue to scoff at the bible, regardless of how well the data matches the history. But it is quite faith-building to know that when you put in the time and research, you can stand on a great deal of evidence to support the biblical narrative.

———-

2 Peter 3:3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

What are the Odds, Layperson?

In the last article on dragons, I eluded to a default acquiescence that people engage in if they are laypeople, and are faced with advanced degrees and elite status. It is important to discover what science, and experts have learned, of course. But that is not to say that laypeople cannot engage in common sense considerations in regards to the creation vs evolution debate.

Often, we lay down against an opposing force with initials behind their name, and automatically assume that we are ignorant, or even stupid, if we disagree with them.

I have experienced this myself, when speaking to an astrophysicist. He talked circles around me, and was light-years (haha) smarter than me about Big Bang Theory, star formation, accepted postulations, lunar regression. But when I walked away, I couldn’t dismiss the fact that many of his postulations were deep time scientific models i.e. made up. The Biblical history described in Genesis was not only more logical in the end, but much more intellectually satisfying.

The point is, and this is just my opinion, laypeople have every right to engage in healthy debate, and if done cordially, and with respect, they can depend on their own sense of logic and common sense when it comes to the both biblical, and evolutionary studies. On the biblical side, we must ascertain if miracles are possible, for example. On the evolution side, we must decide if it is logical for us to believe in abiogenesis, or life from non-life. Another example may be that both camps have a huge problem with explaining starlight distance against time. One camp doesn’t have enough time for it to reach Earth, the other doesn’t have enough time for it to be observably equal across galaxies.

We have all heard the old example of monkeys pounding out Shakespeare on a typewriter. If not, it goes something like this:

If several hundred monkeys were lined up at typewriters, and were coerced to start pounding on the keys, and if this experiment went on long enough, we would eventually get the complete works of Shakespeare. This is evolution to a tee. It is a sold probability, and is supported by the elite of academia, regardless of whether or not it passes the smell test of our collective common sense. It is an accepted truth. It is technically possible, and so we add deep time, and conclude that without any guidance what-so-ever, a bacteria can through natural selection become a giraffe. This means that an unintelligent cause, literally beyond a simple-mindedness into the reality of no-mindedness, which knows nothing of giraffes, transforms a bacteria into a giraffe.

Must you be a technical expert in genetics, or biology to understand that this does not hold water?

The theory is perpetuated like this:

Can our monkeys accidentally hit the ‘T’ and then the ‘O’ one after the other? Sure, it is possible. One might say, hey neat, this monkey accidentally made a small word, the word “To”.

Is it technically possible that the space bar is hit next? Of course. Then, the odds would be small, but again technically possible for that monkey, assuming we had enough monkeys, billions of monkeys, hit ‘B’, ‘E’, ‘space’, ‘O’, ‘R’, ‘space’…

And then, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘T’, ‘space’, ‘T’, ‘O’, ‘Space’, ‘B’, E’.

Is it technically possible? Given billions of monkeys, and billions of years, that eventually you would get the sentence, “To be or not to be”? It is a stretch. I’m going to say the answer is an obvious no. This is based on what I observe. I am not a geneticist. Not a biologist. But I know that based on my experiences this cannot happen.

We as logical, rational laypeople, realize that if I toss a handful of letters up in the air, it is possible that two letters may land next to each other, and spell ‘be’, or ‘to’, or ‘is’. If I actually got a three letter word, I’d probably laugh in amazement. “Holy cow, look, I tossed these letters up and it spelled bat! I mean, the ‘T’ is a bit crooked, and the ‘B’ is backwards, but still, that’s crazy!”

But if I go up in a helicopter, and toss out millions of letters, and I do that millions of times, will I ever spell, “To be or not to be, that is the question”?

Now imagine doing that and putting several million in the right order – the amount of base pairs in one bacteria cell’s DNA (cell of a human is 3 billion base pairs).

Another logically huge difference is evolution’s need for trillions of monkeys, to pound on that keyboard non-stop for billions of years. As if the universe, by chance through a series of non-intelligent causes with no agenda, is somehow trying to make order from chaos an infinite number of times. Not only this, but the universe must by chance continue to create new information, beneficial mutations, in order, at the right place, in a habitable zone, and with precise timing, all in order to bring about a result it does not desire in the least. Again, the mindless universe does not know what a giraffe is.

This is what we are taught. And despite our teachers telling us this is how it happened, we know instinctively that this cannot be the case. In fact, one could say, that we are “Without excuse.” It is my opinion, that people must train themselves into this belief, regardless of its absurdity. People wanted to believe it, wished for it, sold it, and of course now it is prevailing and acceptable. So much so that theistic evolutionists have adopted its processes as some warped way that the God of the bible would have created us. It is handed to us by an increasingly secular, man-centered society, and it is a gift for people to latch on to who hate the idea of God.

When Christ said ‘the truth shall set you free’, to those that sought to kill Him, they argued about accepting His truth about God the Father. He told them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did… If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8: 39-45)

We know that an anti-God position is presented to allow for the greatness of man and his theories, but more so for his flexible morality. But I reiterate, a layperson should have every right to test what is being taught against their common sense, about macro-evolution (molecules to man), abiogenesis (life from non-life), and all random chance creating perfect order (anthropic principle) out of chaos for literally no reason, and with no intelligence.

I speak out about it to hopefully lend courage to those on the fence, or who are too scared or intellectually bullied by science elitists. It is okay to disagree with a prevailing theory that makes no sense, and is completely un-observable. It is okay to speak up and say that you don’t believe you came from a sub-species of ape, or from a fish, or from a bacteria, or the now infamous ‘we all came from stardust.’ It is okay to believe that billions of monkeys doing random things will never create the genius of a play, or the genius of a hummingbird, or the genius of you, who are made in the image of something wonderful. It is okay to believe you are worth more than happenstance, built upon random pointlessness.

It is more than okay. It is obvious.

_______

Romans 1:20 – For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse

The Logic of Dragons

Dragons are myth, and legend, and lore, yes? Part of tapestries, and tales, folklore and children stories. Certainly mankind has never hunted and defeated dragons to protect the villagers?

Dinosaurs, society knows, are very real, and of course we look to evidence within the fossil records. We see the erected bones in museums, and their animatronic representations in parks and movies. No intelligent present day person, regardless of belief, would deny that dinosaurs roamed the Earth. And regardless of the time of extinction, we concur that most of these large reptilian beasts are in fact extinct.

But with minimal research, it does not take an advanced degree to discern that dragons were very real, and in fact are the self same dinosaurs that intrigue us today. This is known in Biblical Creationist circles of course, but perhaps not so obvious to certain churches, public schools, and within homes and families that haven’t considered it. What if we use common-sense logic, and history, to identify the connection between dragons and dinosaurs?

One of our first considerations is Sir Richard Owen, a founding father of paleontology, who actually coined the term ‘dinosaur’, in the year 1841. This, as we learn in school, means ‘terrible lizard’. He was a creationist, and had built a natural history museum, within which was displayed creatures’ bones and fossils in 1838 (before the term dinosaur), called ichthyosaurs. Beneath these were the stamped words, “Sea-Dragon”.

Early paleontologists, as they discovered buried creatures, often referred to these large sea, land, and air reptiles as dragons, before and even after the term dinosaur was used. Often the two were used interchangeably.

Thomas Hawkins, and early paleontologist, wrote a research book on “Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri” called Book of the Great Sea Dragons.

This was in 1840, and in it, we can see the common name known to these scientists being used as they logged their discoveries of each fossil specimen. “Dragon”.

Aside from this, it is common knowledge that the Chinese called dinosaur fossils dragons, and is still a colloquial term used today. We certainly do not need to point out how important dragon legend is to the cultures of the Far East. But it is interesting to note that ancient emperor logs have indicated having dragons pull chariots, as well as employing royal dragon feeders, which would seem a strange position to hold with no dragons.

Another consideration would be to deduce whether or not mankind had knowledge of dinosaurs before paleontology, and natural history museums. Of course, the answer to that question is a resounding yes. How do we know this?

Perhaps we can consider the multitude of depictions within the artwork of cultures around the world?

Mayan petroglyphs depict common shapes such as humans, and birds, but also dinosaurs.

Murals and tapestries have dinosaurs depicted in them along with the subject matter of daily life. Some are full of head dresses, leopards, tribesman, and also dinosaurs!

One of my favorites are the engravings of two sauropods on the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell, in the Carlisle Cathedral, built in 1122 A.D. The rest of the tomb is decorated with the commonly observed creatures of today, such as bats, fish, even a dog with what appears to be a collar. Would be tough to explain why an artist/engraver, would suddenly take an aside, and concoct a large long-necked dinosaur that disappeared 65 million years ago.

Another interesting example comes from Calvin pic John Calvin’s commentary on the book of Genesis, the artwork for which was done in 1578 A.D. It is beautifully done, and is full of many animals, some of which appear to be dragons, again, long before paleontology, and before the term dinosaurs was ever coined. It is clear from the cacophony of history, that man has had knowledge of many creatures we would call dinosaurs today.

calvin2
calvin 3 There are hundreds of examples, from ocean stories, to cave paintings, to carvings in buildings, and these examples span the globe, as well as span a great length of time. Dinosaurs were being depicted for thousands of years, in every culture, long before modern science had reconstructed the shapes of the different species.

As the tension between Biblical creationists and Evolutionists continue, there are always rebuttals. We see this in lunar regression, in the decaying magnetic core, and we see it in the horizon problem of the Big Bang, etc. There is no difference here, as the prevailing theory is that ancient peoples uncovered fossils and depicted the animals they discovered.

Like many of the problems with evolution, the mental gymnastics of the ivy tower elite is handed off to academia for consumption. The dynamo theory, the inflation theory. Evolution asks the layperson to set aside common sense and trust the the non-observable ‘faith’ of scientists in chance and deep time to produce information against insurmountable odds, the hope being that people will believe if given enough time anything can happen.

In this case, we have a world of artistic history and discovery, and the very people who created paleontology in the first place confirming dragons as part of reality, rather than legend. Common sense would dictate that many of these creatures had been observed long before we assembled the bones in museums. Art, after all, imitates life.

I would ask that Biblical creationists not allow their common sense to be compromised through intimidation. Laypeople have every right to engage in healthy debate on the topic of origins, age of the Earth, and fun things like dragons. It is easy sometimes to defer to ‘experts’ such as the modern paleontologists who tout evolution as a fact and view all data through this presupposition.

This can lead to bad science and gross errors. Example?

Consider Carbon 14. Most evolutionary paleontologists would never consider testing dinosaur bones for Carbon 14, since it only lasts thousands of years. Why waste the money on testing, when they already “know” that they won’t find anything. Good observation by the elite, yes?

Except, when it is done, they detect Carbon 14. They get dates magnitudes closer to a biblical timeline than to the accepted 65,000,000 year old dates. Often, the secular labs doing the testing, such as The University of Georgia center for applied isotope studies is not told that the bone they are testing was from a hadrosaur so that they would indeed test it.

Typically what follows are cries of contaminated specimens (despite applied decontamination processes), but the reality is, the results are what we wold expect if dragons had walked the Earth with man. Again, observable, demonstrable, repeatable science is a help, not a hindrance, to true Biblical History.

Atheism: Definition

Regarding the term atheist, there is commonly an adoption of this identity by people who don’t want to consider God, or who don’t necessarily choose to believe in a god, or any god for that matter. It is often stated as a philosophy, which acts as a barrier against the need to consider morality, origins, afterlife, etc, and serves to reject the consideration of “religion” in its entirety.

People will claim, “I am an Atheist,” and when pressed, will define it as “I don’t believe in a god,” or “I lack a belief in God.”

This is not comprehensive enough to be considered ‘atheism’, in my opinion, and is hopeless as a definition.

It is no longer a position, or viewpoint, but rather becomes merely description of your psychological state. You are stating that you, personally, do no choose to believe in a god at this time. “I don’t believe in a god” is not a truth claim about the existence of God at all, and can neither be right or wrong. It is simply a belief.

If I say, God is real. That must be either true, or false. There is no getting around it. I can believe what ever I want as a subjective individual, but the moment I make a truth statement, I have to open myself up to evidences, and the possibility that I am incorrect, based on the law of non-contradiction.

In much the same way, a true atheist could categorically state,”there is no god.” This is a truth statement, which now must be verified, scrutinized, held up along side evidence, and considered against opposing views as either true or false.

Michael Shermer, publisher of skeptic magazine even stated at the opening of his debate with Dr. Turek, “There’s two types of atheism, there’s weak and strong atheism, strong atheists say ‘I believe there is no God’, weak atheists say, ‘I don’t believe in God’.”

This weak position causes atheists to say, “I don’t believe in a god, but you now have the burden of proof.” If the two opposing viewpoints are making truth statements, then both parties assume a burden of proof. Or else, I could just as easily state, “I believe in God, prove me wrong.”

Instead, I may say, “there is a God.” I made a truth statement. An atheist may then ask, “What evidence do you have to support that?” (For examples of evidence click here.)

This tactic of lacking a belief in a truth-claim is obvious during any research on the subject. For example, the atheists.org site asserts numerous times that a truth claim should not be pinned to the belief system. It rejects the idea of being a belief at all. Here is an excerpt from that site:

“Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes… Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods…. Despite the fact that atheism is not a religion, atheism is protected by many of the same Constitutional rights that protect religion. That, however, does not mean that atheism is itself a religion, only that our sincerely held (lack of) beliefs are protected in the same way as the religious beliefs of others. Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.” – American Atheists, www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

Notice the attempt to absolve all responsibility from making any truth statements, while maintaining religious protections. This is not an indictment upon atheist persons as a group, certainly not ones who are searching, studying, and determining their own belief paradigm, as much as it is upon an agreed upon definition which allows a group to straddle that line. To be simultaneously a belief and not a belief; a religion and not a religion; a people group that promotes unity and solidarity under the banner of a lack of believing. In other words, a people group who share a belief in no belief.

They state, “To put it in a more humorous way: If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.” (et. al.) This would of course hold water if persons who did not collect stamps were a politicized, and well organized people group who wrote, persuaded, and influenced the culture around them of the merits of not-stamp-collecting, as opposed to simply being people who do not collect stamps.

Imagine a group of people who have decided not to collect stamps stating , “We have more than 170 affiliates and local partners nationwide. If you are looking for a community, we strongly recommend reaching out to an affiliate in your area in order to continue not collecting stamps.”

Stating an opinion does not claim anything, or differentiate you from bananas, baboons, and babies, all who are considered atheists under the weaker, culturally accepted definition, i.e. they don’t personally believe in a god. Atheism is a truth claim, “there is no god.”

For the record, Merriam-Webster declares the definition to be a “belief that there is no god, or a strong disbelief in a god.” This is the point I am arguing here. Are we making a truth statement, or simply stating a psychological position, such as “I don’t like okra.”

No evidence for or against okra is likely to change my mind. But once we make that truth claim, we can now consider how the evidence stacks up; in the case of God, we can overlay the realities of objective moral law, design in nature, the existence of matter, the beginning of the universe, and see if science upholds the possibility that all of this was accidental and random, (a faith in and of itself).

This becomes important during debates, specifically because of the burden of proof. It is often placed upon the Christian nowadays during even civil and healthy debates, but rarely on the atheist, as if the lack of belief in a god should be obvious and universal. But, in times past, it was the other way, and belief in God was the norm, and therefore the default setting if you will. It was up to Charles Lyell and Thomas Huxley to campaign against the bible, much like Dawkins and Hitchens have done in modern times, precisely because they make a truth claim.

Remember, a true atheist must carry some of the responsibility of a burden of proof in a debate. It is not one sided. Learn to recognize the difference between someone making a truth claim, and someone just stating their opinion.

_________

Side note: Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s bulldog, was a devout campaigner for Darwin, outspoken, charismatic, and he drew in crowds like a rock star of today. He actually coined the term agnostic, the West’s new faith, a word he used as a stepping stone to drive doubt against the bible, and to hoist up Darwin’s ideas of all life having common ancestors. This quote by Huxley will give you some insight into the motivation behind such claims. It is fair to say personal philosophy, and not science, drove much of the campaigning for evolution, as it still does today.

“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.” – Thomas Huxley.

Education vs Indocrination

The Classical Education Paradigm has been replaced with our current public school curriculum, for better or worse. This includes Common Core, which is certainly polarizing. But what classical education was predicated upon was how the brain of a created child naturally develops and evolves through childhood.

“Regardless of their learning style, children learn in three phases or stages (grammar, logic or dialectic, and rhetoric), known as the trivium. In the grammar stage (K–6), students are naturally adept at memorizing through songs, chants, and rhymes. If you can get children in this stage to sing or chant something, they will remember it for a lifetime. In the dialectic or logic stage (grades 7–9), teenaged students are naturally more argumentative and begin to question authority and facts. They want to know the “why” of something—the logic behind it. During this stage, students learn reasoning, informal and formal logic, and how to argue with wisdom and eloquence. The rhetoric stage (grades 10–12) is naturally when students become independent thinkers and communicators. They study and practice rhetoric, which is the art of persuasive speaking and effective writing that pleases and delights the listener. Again, it is this approach to teaching students based on their developmental stage that makes this approach so very effective.” – Dr. Christopher Perrin; https://classicalacademicpress.com/what-is-classical-education/

So, in regards to teaching macro-evolution as true, is it any wonder that the books children first absorb, the fun ones about space and dinosaurs, categorically state billions of years, millions of years, repeatedly, like a broken record during that critical stage of absorbing knowledge. We do not teach a first grader in public school to reason, for they cannot. We simply introduce things to them for consumption. So by the time they begin reasoning, and asking why, and how, and what about this or that, they are in middle school. If they started reading science books at age 4, that is nine years of Big Bang, billions of years, dinosaurs extinct for 60 million years, missing link ape men, and all of the ridiculous assertions that are endlessly made before a child has a chance to ask if it makes sense.

They are not taught of its holes, its bad science, and sorted, bloody history. These flaws include considerations for the second law of thermodynamics, or first law for that matter; law of angular momentum with planets; lunar regression problem; lack of transitional fossils; lack of super novas in the sky; or how stars form; lack of weight and mass in gas clouds; deterioration magnetism problem; river deltas; genetic limits of species; soft tissue discoveries of “millions of years old” specimens; Grand Canyon; etc. They are simply given evolution as a fact to absorb, to repeat, and to believe.

By the time a child is twelve… he or she has been told that this is the only way to think, and has never been introduced to any alternate theories. They already believe it before they know to question it.

What if we explained to children that under the ice caps of Antarctica
they drilled down and hit the tops of tropical trees. How would that effect your opinion on matters, possibly global warming, or earth history, or geology?
If taught that Darwin was a racist, who stated categorically that he supported the wiping out of inferior races, would that change the opinion of whether or not students wanted to learn from him, or perhaps make them examine closer whether his opinions held water? (They do not).

So… I would ask, when they are feeding these theories that “have to be true” to children, why are they not teaching real facts that may hurt their theory simultaneously? Is it wrong for children to understand that another possibility exists? Or that the theory isn’t bulletproof? Why be scared of the conversation?

One final note on the matter. It is already the default position of many to be against God. A God evokes thoughts of rules, consequences, something to reign over you, or something to worship or humble yourself in front of. It is probable that if taught from day one of education that the world around you can be explained without a God, this would be more palatable to most, who wish to do what they please, what is “right in their own eyes.” Especially if such a position is condoned by parents, teachers, and those a child naturally looks up to for guidance.

The result, once a child reaches the developmental stage of reasoning, and independent thinking? The result will be the same for many, what many atheists have called Unyielding Despair.

They will reason, much to the chagrin of caring parents everywhere, since it is “true” that God is not necessary to explain the world around them, that the point of life will be to please self, please the collective, or that no course in life matters. These are logical conclusions, based on reason, under that world view. Unfortunately for many, it will never have occurred to question the consequence of the indoctrination they endured, or whether the world view makes sense. When they finally apply reason, it will be in terms of how to deal with the world view they were convinced of. The outcome is bleak for many reasons. But if you are truly nothing more than stardust, what does it matter?

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I posted this pic on my Facebook author page, https://www.facebook.com/cooper.author/;

and as you can plainly see, one of the assertions in this meme is that the theory of evolution violates the law of entropy, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Disregarding for a moment all the other assertions, I had a friend who has an interest in the creation vs evolution debate single out this law, and ask me how specifically the law is violated by the evolutionary theory. Evolutionists claim that the theory does not violate any known laws of physics, including the second law.

What is the second law? Thermodynamics refers to the relationship between energy, heat, and matter. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of a system to degenerate into a more disordered state, or experience entropy (disorder). This means on a long enough timeline, these systems will experience a heat death, or an energy death, where potential energy will cease to be available. People like to say, ‘everything tends towards chaos.’

Now, the main caveat that evolutionists will include is that this applies only to isolated systems, and not to open systems, or systems that exchange matter and energy with the systems around it. They will say that the universe, the Earth, these are open systems, and therefore materials and energy can be added to them, which of course, is correct. The sun, for example, adds energy to the Earth constantly. So does it all depend on whether the system is open or not?

First, lets define the three systems; isolated, closed, and open.

An isolated system shares zero matter and energy with the systems around it. Without intelligent interference, these systems will wind down.

Then there are closed, which only share energy, not matter, and open, which share both energy and matter with its surrounding systems, such as Earth, receiving materials from space (debris, meteors, maybe comets, etc), as well as energy and heat.

But, the interesting thing is, the 2nd law applies to these open systems as well, despite the evolutionist’s claim to the contrary. Dr John Ross of Harvard University states:
“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. … There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

Open systems still move towards disorder. There are some instances, in an open system, where order is increased, at the expense of a net loss of order in the surrounding systems, such as in crystals. But it is important to note, as Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M. points out, there is a huge difference between order, and complexity. A crystal is not increasing information, just aligning and repeating. If one breaks open a crystal, the same repeated alignment is still present, but in smaller chunks. Whereas, if one breaks a cell, or a frog, one destroys the complexity, and thereby destroys the system completely.

Plus, and this is key, you cannot pump raw energy into a system and expect order and increased complexity. It destroys. Stand in the desert sun for awhile and see if your body can utilize the energy of the sun. One anti-creationist states that ice cubes prove adding energy can create order. However, that is through an intelligently designed device, a freezer. Adding raw energy would heat water, and increase disorder, creating steam and air. Plants have a built in mechanism, and language (DNA), and components that enable it to harness the sunlight. We have the intelligence to harness it with devices such as solar panels. We can utilize our designed intelligence to create things from food, to structures, and thereby can create order with intelligence, which is the only way order can be actually created.

This is why entropy rails so hard against the theory of evolution. It is only with an intelligent designer that order has appeared, and through observing how nature utilizes energy to create function and order, whether an open closed system or not, we see once again that “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” – Romans 1:20.

It took intelligence to make the universe, and life, a sensible deduction because as we observe every time, it takes a directed harness and intelligence to use it. So again, we see that observable, repeatable, demonstrable science supports a designer, rather than random chance.

All sides of the debate agree that the universe as a whole is winding down, that it had a beginning, and will one day, on a long enough timeline, experience a heat death. We see entropy in everything from the non-beneficial mutations of the human genome, to the aging of our bodies, to lunar regression, to even the sun itself having a finite amount of fuel to burn. Evolutionists must continually rail against good science to prop up their theory so as to “not let a divine foot in the door,” by inventing ways the universe could have randomly ordered itself, sustained itself, and perpetuated itself. Stars must explode to make more stars, proteins must increase in complexity to become life, the magnetic field of Earth must self-sustain for billions of years (even though we observe it losing magnetism [called the dynamo theory – insert eye-roll here]), and proponents of the theory must assert loudly that their side is the only one that practices good science.

Without intelligence to harness and utilize available energy, regardless of the type of system, we see the universal 2nd law of thermodynamics is very much on the side of creation. The fall back for evolutionists is of course to invoke great amounts of time to solve the problem; the “anything possibly can happen if given enough time” faith. But time only increases entropy. Ask yourself if it is good science to believe that if a cat walks on a keyboard long enough, he will write a book. Now realize that in the simplest organism, there are 1000 pages worth of specific genetic coding. Knowing the 2nd law is true, how do you arrive there without intelligence?

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: