2nd Law of Thermodynamics

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

31913695_588273344874387_7039792427137236992_nand 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?

Advertisements

Old Earth Christians

From Prior article on SES National Conference on Christian Apologetics: “…and of a most interesting conflict among the scholars was of course young verses old earth opinions. I may do a follow up article on that, as it was quite unique the way scholars who believe in the big bang theory have to explain themselves under the paradigm of a creator. They certainly have rebuttals and evidences all neatly decided upon, however, to me (though I am no astrophysicist), these explanations fall very short, and completely contradict what we find in God’s word. You can play interpretation games all day long, but as Ken Ham said quite correctly at the conference, you do not get the idea of millions of years from a simple reading of bible. It is a man-made worldview, which must then be shoehorned into the text to make it seem to fit.”

Two  apologists whom I had the pleasure of meeting, and hearing speak, are both adamantly resigned to the “facts” of the Big Bang, and therefore are forced to explain the creation in a seemingly convoluted way, in my opinion. Dr. Hugh Ross, one such apologist, an author of many books, including Improbable Planet, is a proponent of a version of the Day-Age theory, whereas billions of years of prep and design happened during the overlapping “days” of creation. It is impossible to reconcile a plain reading of the bible text as a whole, and not be at the very least, inconsistent in understanding it when you try to force man’s world view into it. Though some of these old-earth Christians are learned scholars, have advanced degrees, and are smarter than I am, (I realize this puts me in precarious waters, though I’d also point out I met many doctors and scientists with my shared opinion as well), they also simultaneously  deny macro-evolution, Darwinism, and abiogenesis. (These processes, if given any serious thought without the philosophy of naturalism, have way too many holes to be viable, so much so that even the great atheists of our day are forced to kick the can of responsibility down the road.) This means they have to somehow imagine a scenario where God lays the groundwork of creation in stages, or steps, leading up to the existence of man, and during the great lengths of time, He must intervene intermittently in order to spur along the groundwork for mankind’s arrival at some later date.

This certainly conjures up many important questions about God, His infinite power and abilities, and why such a lengthy, slow, and clumsy process would be utilized. As stated, the bible certainly doesn’t even imply this process, and we have stated a “good” world in the beginning that stands as an example of what should have been, and that we will one day be redeemed to. This supposed history that led to our “good” and perfect Eden was apparently arrived at through, chaotic volcanoes, cosmic explosions, millions of years of death, carnage, flooding, cancer, thorns, and suffering. Not exactly a lion laying with the lamb scenario.

The problem is exacerbated when a Christian spends some time studying the actual history of evolution theory, Charles Lyell and his hate for God, how Chalmers reacted to save face for the church, and how over the years, coming up with naturalistic causes for creation and design has allowed for man to use theory in order to assert his own godhood, and how these theories have slowly become axiomatic facts that should not be questioned. (For an amazing book on that subject, read In the Minds of Men, by Ian Taylor.)

Bottom line is, I am not necessarily smart enough to argue with a doctor of astrophysics, and I’d point out that when I read his book, I can see not only his love of God, and Christ, but also his extensive knowledge about astrophysics. But it is obvious that all of his conclusions are based on the presupposition that the Big Bang is true, and that the days of creation are overlapping eras; a problematic position when one considers the importance of resting on the sabbath in the Old Testament, a particular day to honor God, not a roving, malleable representation of His glorious work (imagine an OT Hebrew resting on the 5th and 6th overlapping days in order to work on the seventh as a representation of creation week). So, if the Big Bang is true, then……

(for example) …. if it is true then we explain the collision that created the moon this way, its craters were formed this way, and Mars must be this size, and Jupiter must have formed first in our solar system, and the asteroid belt must have… etc etc, all based on computer models. One model states that there is, based on star observation, a conclusion that the Milky Way tilts up and down every 66 million years, and that the edges of this tilt are too full of radiation for mankind to live, so, of course it is ordained by God that we just happen to be in the center of this tilt process after billions of years at the exact time man arrives on the scene. A whole string of intelligent thoughts, conclusions and theories, based wholly on the fact that the group explaining it is dedicated to a Big Bang model creation. The easiest answer, from a seven day creationist standpoint is, this is where we were placed in the galaxy, and things can simply be observed moving.

Big Bang “proofs” are full of fudge factors, and faith based premises as well, and its problems are glossed over, and not addressed most times in speeches or books presented by Christians. The smoothness problem, dark matter theory, the horizon problem, all serve to discredit an already unscientific theory that challenges logic, laws of causality and energy. Ross even invokes the ridiculous Oort Cloud theory as if it were accepted fact, primarily because it needs to be in there to explain the Big Bang model, our comets, and our solar system, despite it being literally imagined (this passes for science in evolution theory). These issues are sufficient to make any Christian question this as the method in which God used to bring about mankind. But most damning to the theory is of course the bible itself, and how it clearly stands irreconcilable next to the theory, without presenting a myriad of verbal gymnastics, interpretation tricks, and imaginings.

… the earth was formed out of water and by water.

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

The suggestion, therefore, is to once again, stick to the bible as authoritative, as always, in matters of history, and forensics, for as it has time and time again, despite thousands of years of criticism, it will prove true, and man’s hope that it will be proven false in its accuracy will continue to fail. If we do this, we are less apt to look foolish in retrospect, even if our current contemporaries consider us foolish now. This was the case with many kings listed in its pages, ancient cities, civilizations, and scientific observations up to this point. It will continue to be the case moving forward.

You Have Two Choices

There are really only two games in town. Both Christian scientists and atheistic scientists agree that the universe had a beginning. I have spoken with post-modernists who offer up alternatives to these two possibilities, such as a past eternal universe, or mere relative understandings of truth. Without getting into the weeds too much, your main theorists and thinkers on both sides reject these ulterior notions based on sound evidence, such as heat death, entropy, and others.

Biblical creationists already have a Genesis account of a beginning, corroborated by Christ, and many writers of scripture, so this news does not pose issue in and of itself.

On the other hand, when scientists discovered that the universe had a beginning, they were not happy.

Physicist Arthur Eddington wrote: “philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me… I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

When Einstein discovered that space-time-matter had a beginning, he was quoted as saying the result “irritates me”, due to its theological ramifications. You could surmise that a multi-verse would somehow change the implications, but it does not. Mathematically (since a multi-verse is hypothetical and un-explorable), a theorem that explains a multi-verse, created by Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his scientific team, proves that even if one exists, there is a beginning to them all.

Vilenkin, a believer in a multi-verse rather than God says,  “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).”

So to the point: the two games in town are

a) The universe created itself, i.e. nothing created something, or

b) A creator outside of time, space, and matter created it. Therefore He is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial.

We have delved into space travel, the Big Bang, and other related topics on this site, but to now bring up an additional bit of information in the realm of philosophy, there is a self-evident principle of causality with which we must contend. In its simplest form, the law of causality simply states that everything has a cause. A house has a cause, yes, but that is an easy one. But I can go pick a leaf off a tree, and determine its cause, or a rock laid down by an ancient flood, and it will have a cause. Now, we may disagree on what the forensic evidence points to as an initial cause, but we will not disagree that said object does indeed have one.

This self-evident first principle of philosophy is there, along with others such as the law of non-contradiction, identity, and so on, to prevent the need for an infinite regression of explanations. In other words, if you have to explain everything, then you will never get to the end of explanations, and truth ceases to exist. This is why we must stop with certain obvious realities, or these first principles.

Of course a common retort is, who caused God then? But being outside of time, space and matter, being infinite, there is no logical reason to need a cause. Like our first principle, He is self-evident, or the un-caused first cause – Aristotle said, the unmoved mover. Hence why He refers to Himself as I AM. There is no “was”,  there is no “will be”. For us yes, but not for Him. Besides, you cannot have a higher god that is “more infinite” than infinite. This also is illogical.

Now, in regards to anything within the forensic sciences, something repeatable, observable, or demonstrable, we are looking for causes at the most basic level. Science is basically the search for knowledge, or search for causes – causality.

Therefore, one must now ask him or herself, do I abandon the law of causality when it comes to origins? This isn’t about age of the universe, or dinosaurs, all which do have answers according to a biblical world view. But simply regarding the beginning of it all, do I base my life on the natural and material sciences only, dismissing all possibility of creation, and force myself to choose a beginning that happened in eons past against the laws of all I claim to hold dear?

The great skeptic and atheist Christopher Hitchens was debating Frank Turek, and equated the Big Bang to a suitcase about to pop open, “and everything that is ever going to be is inside that;  that was the best I could do.” He went on to say, “And I don’t think many people could do, if I say it myself, that much better.” For such a revered and intelligent man, to state that the historical narrative of the Genesis account, in all of its beauty, and mastery, revered for thousands of years, and preserved through the ages doesn’t compare with this suit case analogy is quite telling. But in the end, an avid atheist will always struggle with how to articulate a result with no definable cause, because to repeat the point, both sides agree there was a definitive beginning.

There are only two choices. Einstein knew this. I commend atheists for being consistent in their take on naturalism, but as we view all manner of explanation and mental gymnastics to explain godless possibilities, and then relegate those possible happenings to the far unobservable past, do we not firmly place it in the category of faith? Faith in that there must not be a God.

Both sides, as human beings will try to identify the three basic life questions:

Where did I come from?

Why am I here?

What happens when I die?

The last two questions are bound inexorably to the first. Einstein was right, it can be irritating, since there is a beginning. But if nothing can cause something, or more than that, everything, then we have undone what is self-evident, and have removed meaning from all we observe.

There are only two choices.

Shall We Travel to Other Worlds?

I have recently been setting up and teaching apologetic classes for my church, and as I grow my curriculum, I am getting more and more excited about the future of my ministry, in whatever form or capacity God may use it. But after gearing up for an amazing class for the high school kids this past Wednesday, I was derailed by threats of weather, which shut down the whole town, and sent the locals running for milk and bread.

The post script to this “storm of the year” was that it rained a little, but I digress.

Since I have been so amped up to rattle off some amazing facts, and have as of yet been unable to, I thought I would share a bit about space travel. The reason? TRAPPIST-1 of course. The observation of some planets passing in front of a star approximately 39.5 light years away. This news, although interesting in the sense that we can discover more about space and our galaxy, is being used as a catalyst to create space-exploration fever. TRAPPIST-1 has its own website now, and chatter about the planets have been mentioned far and wide, picked up by NASA, space.com, and a myriad of other such science based programs. The issue is, with each report comes the suggestion, sometimes implied, sometimes outright affirmed, that we are a step closer to exploring life on other planets, discovering life in the universe, and even traveling to them for a meet and greet in the near future.

This is an  intellectually dishonest position, and I am of the belief that these scientists know it. What they have observed is simply that planets orbit a dim sun 232,210,000,000,000 miles away. Now, of the seven observed, they push the insinuation repeatedly that 3 of these 7 are within the “habitable zone”. This of course implies that life like ours could potentially live on all three of these planets, which will be the idea perpetuated heavily and with as much vigor as possible. Why? The all-mighty dollar. This will insure attention, clicks, interest, comments from world leaders, write ups in magazines, PBS specials, and most importantly, an influx of money promised to be earmarked for further discoveries of such ‘magnitude’.

Why this assumption that life must be out there waiting for us to discover it? Evolution! The pre-supposition is firmly set within the minds of academia, and through this lens is how they observe the universe. It stands to reason that if we evolved here, then judging by the size of the universe, many other such life forms in various states of evolution must have done the same all over. We just need to locate where!

Of course if they believed we were a special creation, and that God stretched out the heavens (said over 17 times in the old Testament) to speak of His glory, we would not expect evolution, a most unscientific theory anyway, to have done much with any of the stars we see in the night sky.

SETI – the search for extraterrestrial intelligence –  believes as Sagan, Tyson, and Dawkins do, that we are not special, and so they have spent hundreds of millions since 1960 in order to discover absolutely nothing.

This is a huge topic, but 2 things we must consider:

  1. Carl Sagan said that only 2 factors were needed to sustain life, (ironically the same two factors that have been highlighted in all these articles). A sun like ours, and a planet in the habitable zone of said sun. This was stated by him in 1966, but since then we have learned of many more requirements for life to exist, or Goldilocks factors. Water, thickness of crust, large gas planets, size of sun, moon, electromagnetic core, and on and on. If we take just 20 of these factors, and give each a 1 in 10 chance of occurring at some particular star, say Trappist, the chances would be 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000  that it could happen. Based on the number of stars we think the universe has, this is a one star for every billion out there. Here’s the kicker. There are now over 200 factors identified! Hugh Ross, astrophysicist has named 200+ Goldilocks factors, and that number brings our chances up to 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! This cannot happen, and is beyond nature’s ability to create by chance. Furthermore, this ignores the life-from-non-life problem that evolution already has.
  2. If we consider actually traveling to find these places, we must take in to account that the nearest star is 25,671,957,738,631 mi away, Alpha Centari. Nearest galaxy, about 2.5 million light years. And as of now, we cannot get even close to traveling at light speed. Mass increases as speed increases, therefore as we get a shuttle to approach the speed of light, lets say 90% of the speed, it would take the energy of 73 million atomic bombs to move the mass. The same amount to slow it down. And one touch from a pea sized piece of debris would impact said vehicle like two atomic bombs, according to Gary Bates of CMI. This is an unrealistic goal.

There is much more on this topic, and I wrote this article, UFO’s and God some time ago for you to check out. The bottom line is, yes science and discoveries are wonderful, but space exploration, like the “discoveries” from anthropology, are often used for money, grants and prestige, not for truth.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 5

We have examined the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages. This is the final article. The other parts are linked below:

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

At this point, we have pulled the Big Bang train right up to the formation of stars, or stellar evolution; so for the final article, we will assume that despite science assuring it didn’t happen, we have somehow arrived at a first generation star, comprised of helium, hydrogen, and suspiciously absent of heavier elements. If you will recall, it took us 5 billion years to arrive here, so we must very quickly produce all other elements on the periodic chart, along with planets, moons, etc.

Scientists call the first generation stars ‘Protostars’. Since the creation of matter from nothing had to start with the simplest elements of helium and hydrogen, the theory goes that after the stars that can’t form were formed, somehow the 90 heavier elements or post-helium elements had to evolve via chemical evolution. The theory states that all these protostars repeatedly exploded; billions and billions of stars exploding for billions of years, and this volatility produces our heavier elements, second and third generation stars, and eventually the universe as we observe it today.

Problems:
1. Scientists call problem one the “helium mass 4 gap”. There are nuclear gaps at mass 5 and 8, and they make it impossible for hydrogen and helium to change itself into any heavier element. “Neither hydrogen nor helium can jump the gap at mass 5.”  The theory of chemical evolution, and therefore arriving at our current catalog of heavenly bodies is impossible using this process. This science fails to justify stellar evolution on any level. As usual when it comes to evolution, chemists think biology has the answer, biologists thing geology has the answer, and geologists think paleontology has the answer, and around we go. But in regards to this science, the mass gap cannot be overstated, and is a huge problem. This problem is proven by both hydrogen bombs, which cannot change to heavier elements, but stop at mass 5; and also by the sun, which if not for the gap at mass 5, would be shooting uranium at us.

2. Even at 15 billion years, there is not enough theoretical time for this process to produce heavier elements.

3. Science would have to explain how random explosions resulted in the intricate orbits and beauty of circling patterns we find in space. Order from disorder. Again a violation of the 2nd law. Explosions do not create order. Since there are no or very few first generation stars, it stipulates that almost every star exploded at least once, meaning the order we see must have come from explosions somehow.

4. There are not enough super novas to produce the heavier elements. Statistically the rareness of supernovas (which is needed to supposedly produce the heavier elements) are way too few to create all the heavier elements needed. The lack of supernovas in the night sky has long been a problem for evolutionists. (see problem 5).

5. Supernova recordings in history: 185AD, 1006AD, 1054AD (Crab Nebula), 1604AD, 1918 AD in Aquila, 1987AD in the veil nebula. If you add them all up including these major events, you can get up to about 16 supernovas in the last 2000 years. With only a few hundred total in the night sky, not only can’t we make the elements, but we can’t account for a 15 billion year time frame. If they occurred at a great enough rate to develop the universe with their explosions, would there not be millions visible? Statistically this amount is essentially zero. About 1 per 650 years on average. Simply not enough to create a universe. They are a rarity and there are plenty of quotes from evolutionist to attest to this.

6. Why did explosions mysteriously stop? We should be able to see continued activity that was originally creating the universe. Evolutionists postulate that 5 billion years ago explosions stopped. A theory proven wrong, but held onto.

7. Super novas DO NOT THROW OFF ENOUGH MATTER TO MAKE ADDITIONAL STARS. A supernova may throw off as much as 10% of its mass, but this is not sufficient to create a new star. In addition, what matter did get thrown off would be dispersed in every direction.We can conclude easily that with not enough mass to form a second generation star, and not enough explosions occurring not enough times, to create all matter and elements in the universe with this method is lunacy, and not worth teaching.

8. If you turn a spectroscope towards a supernova explosion, the conclusion is that it throws off…. get ready for it…. HYDROGEN AND HELIUM. The a fore mentioned Crab Nebula only shows H and He, no heavier elements. Once again, observable demonstrable repeatable science defeats the theory.

I would encourage anyone who reads to please share some or all of these, and/or to ask questions, and allow us to explore the truth together. Taken as a whole, my hope is that it is apparent one cannot just blindly believe that the Big Bang Theory and ensuing results are facts. Each stage falls desperately short of being possible, and with even minimal logic, one can expose it as false. This is a godless theory, attempting to explain the wonders of the universe with natural processes. Typically the failure of each stage is glossed over, or not reported, and what you have is cleverly animated persuasion along side an agreed upon curriculum. But it is my mission, as a writer and believer, to help arm Christians with the courage to stand on the word of God, rather than the word of man. So I hope this was helpful in refuting faith in a godless creation, and pray that when faced with persecution for not believing evolution, you can take comfort in the fact that you are indeed beautifuly and wonderfully made, whoever you are. I leave you with this encouragement:

Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

Nehemiah 9:6
You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You.

Isaiah 40:26
Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing.

 

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 4

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

We continue to delve into the issue of matter organizing itself by natural processes in the vacuum of space. The second law of thermodynamics states that in any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same. In layperson’s terms, this means disorder will increase in a closed system. This bit is important so I will underline it. All of evolution is dependent upon the violation of this law. We see proof of entropy increasing all around us. Energy is added to house shingles or the hood of a car via direct sunlight, or weather, and what happens? Disorder. The breaking down of matter. Decay. This is as natural as can be, and without intelligence acting upon a system, complexity or additional information is never observed to occur. Yet, this is exactly what we are taught, and expected to believe happened over and over and over for 13 billion years in order to to bring about our existence.

If the Big Bang happened, imagining the explosion, and inertia, and vectors in frictionless space. What would the result be? If we pretend that it wasn’t a theory, and asked scientists to assume an explosion happened in a vacuum, how would they illustrate it?

There would be an outer rim of fast moving matter. With no matter ahead of it to collide with, the initial explosion would never slow.
Now, to produce a star, gas would have to: stop flowing outward,
then begin moving in circles, then rotating gas would have to contract or move close together – one would have to explain how linear motion required for the expanse that exists somehow changed into angular momentum.

A quantity of gas in frictionless space moving forward is way too stable for any of this to happen.

Gas in space which was circling would fly apart. Evolutionist Hawit’s research disproves the possibility of gas clumping. Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He was not a creationist. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet. This opinion agrees with observable science. If you agree, you are agreeing with science, and not with evolution, just to make a point. This means stellar evolution is not science.

We must consider another if-then question. It is quite simple. If stars cannot form naturally, then why are there trillions of them? Does God not become more obvious, and not less, once we examine real science? If so, then why are they teaching our kids that 13 billion year old stellar evolution is a fact? The answer… what would they replace it with? God? Certainly not.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.

Faith in the Big Bang; Part 1

We will examine the failures of the big bang theory as a viable option in a 5 part series of articles. This is delivered with the understanding that the Big Bang’s shortcomings could be made into a longer series, or even a semester long class, but this will hopefully highlight what you must believe in for it to occur. We will specifically look at how it fails in each of its stages.

First a definition:

1) The rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that according to current cosmological theories marked the origin of the universe.

2) a theory in astronomy: the universe originated billions of years ago in an explosion from a single point of nearly infinite energy density – (Merriam-Webster)

3) An effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe…Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment. According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a “singularity” and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don’t know for sure… – (www.big-bang-theory.com)

Please notice in definition 3 the use of phrases like, “effort to explain”, and “we don’t know for sure”. There are many of these when you consider the science. More I found were, “a theory deducing the cataclysmic birth of the universe”, and “leading explanation of how the universe began”. After http://www.space.com states it as their leading theory, they begin with statements like this: “In the first second after the universe began, the surrounding temperature was about 10 billion degrees.”

10,000,000,000 degrees. Stated as fact. And when they teach children natural sciences in school, these numbers, these “facts” are taught, remembered, written down, and tested on. 10 billion degrees. 13.8 billion years ago. Make no mistake, since it is the “best explanation” science has, it is taught as truth. If not taught, the prevailing question asked by science professors is, “Well, what are you going to replace it with?”

The Big Bang Theory is mostly based on math, red shift, waves found in space, and lots of assumption.  If you can find a text book that gets specific, you will find that “nothing” packed tightly together  and then exploded outward containing hydrogen and helium into frictionless space.  If space was full of anything else, it wouldn’t be the beginning, so logic dictates this moment of nothing at all to something. The spontaneous generation of matter. It is interesting to note, the person who made it popular was George Gamow, who was a science fiction writer in 1948.  It is unfortunate that science fiction has taken such a strong role in what we force our children to learn. He campaigned using cartoons, which he stated really helped sell the theory.

So you take these huge numbers, 13.8 billion years, 10 billion degrees… and nothingness explodes out.  Over the next several articles we will look at the assumptions that must take place for this to end up as a universe.  Today is step one:

The actual big bang explosion:
1.  You are asking people to believe that a tiny bit of “nothing” blew up and created all matter.  This is based on theoretical extremes and calculations.  Nothing more.  and it sounds like the fairy tale that it is.
2.  Nothingness cannot pack together. It has no way to push itself in close, and no barometer for density, as it contains no parts. Looking out into a void, how would one imagine a single point of nothingness gaining density. Just this alone rails against physical laws.
3.  A vacuum has no density. It is stated that the singularity was dense before it exploded, but a total vacuum is the opposite of total density.
4. There is no ignition.  No fire if no match.  As we all know from studying actual science, a fire needs three things to exist: Fuel (there is none), flammable gas (there is none), and heat (which would be caused by the friction of nothing, so in essence, none could exist). Couldn’t be chemical, because there were no chemicals.  They surmise the event would have been nuclear, but if you have no atoms, you cannot have a nuclear blast.
5. No way to expand nothing.
6.  Nothingness cannot produce heat.  Intense heat supposedly caused nothingness to turn to protons, neutrons, and electrons… but a vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself.  It would be purely magic if an empty void changed itself to matter. Again, we have no energy source for this to occur.
7. Technically speaking, the calculations of what needed to happen are too exacting.  In layman’s terms, it means the math is too perfect. The narrow mathematical limits of a singularity’s expansion are such that its too narrow to have happened.  R H Dickey wrote gravitation and the universe,and in it he states that if the expansion was .1 percent faster it would have gone too fast, and if .1 percent slower it would have re-collapsed.
8.  Roger L St Peter in 1974 developed math stating that if a big bang happened, it would collapse forming a theoretical black hole, and could not have happened.  In essence you would have one theoretical action swallowing another one.
9.  The theory states that anti matter would have to be created in equal amounts.  what is well known to physicists is that there is not enough anti matter in the universe, and that antimatter immediately destroys matter, therefor would have destroyed any matter created, again theoretically.

So before getting out of the gate in our secular dependence upon explaining everything sans-God,  there are certainly some issues with the ridiculous moment that nothing exploded out to start forming the universe with a few sub atomic particles.  When examined closely, and with reason, it does not, and should never hold water.  But as Gamow said, cartoons may help.

List compiled and arranged from: Chapter 2 of The Evolution Cruncher, Vance Ferrell.