Why Evolutionism Cannot Be True
Posted: Saturday, July 14, 2007
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
Evolutionism is fading out, gasping for another breath. It is sad that such an enormous amount of time and millions of dollars have been spent chasing an evanescent dream. Yet it's proponents cling to the rotting carcass and will until they die with it. It is also sad that these people have convinced so many people of influence that their hypothesis is proven scientific fact, that our children have to hear it taught as such with impunity. These same influential people refuse to allow any alternative views to be mentioned or discussed. They know that their weak points will not bear up under scrutiny.
That matter was formed from nothing will not pass the "scientific" barriers. Two confirmed laws of Physics destroy that idea. The First Law of Thermodynamics (or the law of conservation of energy) makes it very clear that something (energy, matter, etc.) cannot be made from nothing. And that nothing (again energy or matter, etc.) cannot be made of something. In other words, you may alter, change, displace, move such items but the total quantity in the universe remains the same. Many, over the years, have simply looked the other way and ignored this most important law, and some still do.
The other law that demolishes this same theory is the Law of Causality (or perhaps better known as Law of Cause and Effect). This law simply states: "Every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause." Now it is important that we emphasize each word of that statement. "Every" means regardless of type or size, absolutely everything that exists or happens, falls within the realm of this law. "Material" would include anything you can see, feel, smell, taste or hear. "Adequate" means that it was sufficient to change or perform whatever effect is mentioned. An example I've read, says that a muddy river did not become muddy when a frog jumped into it. That is an inadequate cause. But a heavy downpour of rain eroding the fields upstream, would be adequate. "Antecedent" simply means before, or preceding the effect. There is no known effect that precedes the cause.
Now, how does this demolish the idea that matter just happened to appear at some point? Keep one thing in mindit is known that every cause is also an effect from some other cause. So what happens when you go backward from any effect? As you trace the effect back to it's cause, and then back to that effect's cause, you always back right up to the origin of this universe. It is here, it is enormous, it had to have a cause, and adequate antecedent cause. If you say it was put together by billions of space aliens, you have created another effect and there is of necessity and ending to all of this. So what is left? A cause must be found that is NOT a material effect. But rather, is all cause. Can we supply that type of cause? You bet your last dollar we can. Nothing less than an all powerful, all wise Eternal Spirit which had no cause because He is not material, but supernatural, a spirit. Nothing created Him.
Next is the idea that matter itself has always existed. Eternal physical matter, eternal elements, gases, electrical and magnetic fields, etc. If God can exist forever, why not these things that we see every day? The answer lies precisely in the fact that no physical matter is eternal. It cannot be. Certainly, the First Law of Thermodynamics state that you cannot totally eradicate anything even though you can changed it into different states. But let us now invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics to see what would have occurred if these things had always been here.
All physical matter is constructed of a variety of molecules and of a variety of atoms. All existing materials contain some, albeit very little in some cases, heat or latent energy. The second law states that entropy (disorder) occurs each time energy is utilized. It also states that , over time, entropy will increase as systems move towards equilibrium. This has reference to the fact that heat, as many other substances such as water, tends to flow from a point of high concentration to a point of low concentration. This results in a cooling process as more heat is dispersed into outer space. The Sun itself will be totally expended of it's energy in 3 to 4 billion years. Had this universe been in existence forever, all the energy it contains would have been dissipated into space for untold eons of time. With this would bring the entire universe to absolute zero (-459.67 degrees Fahrenheit) at which point all molecular activity ceases (Third Law of Thermodynamics).
There are many more reasons the evolutionists suppositions have fizzled. There are available online, dozens of quotes from hard shelled evolutionists who have admitted that their ideas are unsubstantiated.
This Article has been viewed 239 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)Joel, Keep the info coming! It is through these types of venues that I hope many will reexamine the propagandized myths forwarded by evolutionary philosophy. It really is not science . Sincerely, Robin CalamaioThanks for the comment. It is only slightly encouraging to know that a minority of the evolutionists are honest and are willing to admit defeat at least to a degree. But usually they won't give up anyway. Read this quote by one: "The problem of the origin of species has not advanced in the last 150 years. One hundred and fifty years have already passed during which it has been said that the evolution of the species is a fact but, without giving real proofs of it and without even a principle of explaining it. During the last one hundred and fifty years of research that has been carried out along this line [in order to prove the theory], there has been no discovery of anything. It is simply a repetition in different ways of what Darwin said in 1859. This lack of results is unforgivable in a day when molecular biology has really opened the veil covering the mystery of reproduction and heredity . . "Finally, there is only one attitude which is possible as I have just shown: It consists in affirming that intelligence comes before life. Many people will say this is not science, it is philosophy. The only thing I am interested in is fact, and this conclusion comes out of an analysis and observation of the facts."—*G. Salet, Hasard et Certitude: Le Transformisme devant la Biologie Actuelle (1973), p. 331 Joel
Your article does not talk about evolution. It talks about the origin of the universe. Why have you then called it 'evolutionism can not be true"? Here you are arguing that the big bang is not true which is a different (although I admit not entirly unrelated) argument.Thank you for your comment Aaron, and you are correct. I, perhaps, should have titled it dirfferently. However, my thought concerning this is that, without the big bang or some other viable answer to the beginning of the universe, matter, life, etc., all other facets of evolutionism are mute subjects. The only other answer to the universe is that taught by creationists and if the evolutionists concede that (fat chance), all other questions are answered. I have two other articles dealing with the false teaching of evolution which I hope you will read. Again, I appreciate your comment.
Why is there an assumption that people are either "evolutionists" or "creationsists"? Just as the world is not black and white neither is this argument. I have had a thorough education in biology up to degree level and it is my belief based on the evidence that I see around me that evolution is a process that is real. However I do in fact concede that all questions are not answered. I believe that God made the rules for the process of evolution that we see before us just as god put in place the laws that started the Universe. Science and belief in a creator are not as incompatable as people think. Just because Richard Dorkins is a scientist that does not believe in god, it does not mean the same is true for everyone that has a deep understanding of scientific theory.Aaron, the subject you are now entering is one of it's own. I can certainly give you adequate biblical evidence to show that evolution (macroevolution) and the account of creation in the Bible is absolutely incompatible. It may soothe some people's conscience who believe in macroevolution, to think it is God given and acceptable, but it is not. It would take a lot of space here to lay this out, so I promise you, within the next week or so, I will submit an article on this very important segment. I do not have a degree in Biology, but I did study biology in college and I have studied it for approximately 50 years since then. Bear with me until I can create another article.
I admire your apparent honesty and your willingness to discuss these matters.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.