Evolution or Creation?
In the book, "Brief History of time", Cambridge professor Stephen Hawking has publicised his theory as science called "The Big Bang Theory" which is something like:
In the beginning there was a cosmic egg which was the size of a speck of dust on a table. The condensed mass of the entire universe was accomodated by this particle!
In the book entitled "Has Hawking Erred?", by Kraus who calculated a conservative estimate of the mass of the universe as 8x1025 tonnes says,"The idea that a speck of matter smaller than a dust particle on my table could have accomodated the condensed mass of the entire universe, stretches credibility beyond its limits......The Big Bang Theory must seriously be questioned."
The Big Bang theory then explains how the big bang occoured about thousand million years ago.
The assumption that order could be produced by an explosion clearly contradicts the laws of science. A further assumption that uniform radial expansion of energy and matter resulted from this explosion contradicts The Principle Of Conservation Of Angular Momentum. This states that uniform radial motion could have never given rise to curvilinear motion. Hence the assumption that a linearly expanding gas converted into into orbiting galaxies and planetary systems is impossible.
The Law Of Cause And Effect states that for every effect, there must be a cause which is superior in every aspect. This shows that the universe(which is the effect) needed a cause wich is outside it and is superior to it. The only cause outside it and superior to it is The Creator, God!
The Law Of Biogenesis states that, "Life can only come from life". Experimental evidence proves that spontaneous generation is not scientific, as proved by Pasteur.
Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes. Using special glass apparatus, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, preventing microbes in the air from reaching the broth. Pasteur's work showed that microbes appeared in the broth only if they were allowed in with the air. But scientists still cling to the idea of the spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. However, the whole field of microbiology is based on the fact that even in microbes, life only comes from life. Hence evolution contradicts this law by assuming that the first living cell came from dead matter.
In the days of Darwin, it was thought that the simple cell was really simple. But today, modern scientists tell us that the "simple cell" contains thousands of different kinds of proteins and other substances, with billions of each kind along with all kinds of DNA, RNA and other highly complex molecules arranged in an incredibly complicated system.
Even in sophisticated and controlled laboratory conditions, the famous experiments carried out by Miller, Fox and others to produce life in the laboratory never worked!
Scientists cannot even create this "simple cell" that was formed from dead matter, as they presume!
Lipson, the British physicist comments in an article published by Physics Bulletin May 1980 entitled "A Physicst Looks at Evolution":
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?" He concludes,"I thik, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only possible explanation is creation.....I know this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me.....but we must not reject something we do not like if experimental evidence supports it".
The start of the relationship between DNA and protein causes a major problem to evolutionists. Left to themselves, the natural trend of acid-base reactions is to scramble up DNA and protein units in all sorts of deadly combinations. Left to time chance and their inherent chemical properties, the bases and amino acids of DNA and proteins would react in ways that would destroy any hope of producing life. To make a living cell alive. scientists need Creation!
Dr Michael Denton, an authority on molecular bioligy, in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" says,"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is possible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series". He refers to chemical evolution of life as "simply an affront to reason".
How did the "simple cell" become a complicated human being? According to evolution, it happened by a series of micro-mutations (Mutations are sudden changes in the genetic structure brought about by genetic factors, like radiation, penetrating the germ cell). When an adaptation involves a whole group of traits working together, with none of the indviduval pieces having any survival value until the whole sst is functioning together, then evolutionists have a big problem.
For example, the woodpecker is continually banging its beak into trees. To do this and survive, it must have a thick skull, with shock-absorbing tissues, muscles and other parts. It also requires a very long tongue to reach under the tree bark. All these traits must be fully developed for the woodpecker to survive! Hence survival of the fittest has no hope when it comes to adaptations that require certain traits, all depending on one another, and so does time and chance or natural selection. The only logical explanation is design and creation!
Scientists know today what Darwin didn't know about heredity - the traits which are acquired through "effort" cannot be passed on to the ofspring. For example Darwin assumed that new traits, like the long neck of the giraffe was due to the stretching of the necks of the ancestors to reach leaves high in the trees. As scientists discovered the errors in Darwin's assumptions, they tried to develop darwinism into a new form - Neo-Darwinism. They replaced this concept of use and disuse by the random changes in genes called mutations.
What does science have to say about mutations? All observed natural mutations are ultimately either harmful or deadly, with no exception! Yet evolutionists claim(with no basis) that one in 10000 mutations might not be harmful, and they base their theory on this assumption. The only example cited by evolutionists is sickle-cell anameia, a disease of red blood cells. However it is classified as beneficial only because the carrier of this cell becomes immune to malaria! This is because the life-span of the defective blood cell is shorter than the incubation period of malaria. It is not due to any improvement in the blood cell! So only in regions of the world where malaria is a common cause of death, carriers of sickle-cell anaemia are at an advantage. Where the defective gene is inherited from both parents, the person usually dies before reaching adulthood. Hence sickle-cell anaemia is a harmful mutation after all! Hence mutations cannot be justified as the means of evolution. Even mutations point to creation!
Mutations are rare (occouring on an average of perhaps once in every 10 million duplications of a DNA molecule. But there is a problem when one needs a series of related mutations; the odds of getting only two related mutations is one in hundred trillion. Only four related mutations have a chance of one in 1028, and the earth isn't big enough to hold enough organisms to make this likely! Suprisingly, it was Huxley, the famous evolutionist who worked out the probability of the evolution of the horse as 1 in 103000000!
Mathematically, the possibiility of such a simple cell coming by chance has been calculated by a number of mathematicians. M.Golay calculated the figure based on the assumption that it was accomplished by a series of 1500 successive events, each with a generously high porbability of 1/2 (The probability would have been much lower if it had to be accomplished in a single chance event). The result was 1 in 10450! (i.e., one outcome in 10 raised to the power of 450 attempts!).
Take an evolutionary time scale of 3 trillion years and total space of 5 billion light years. If each particle can take part in one hundred billion billion events per second, then the greatest number of concieveable events that could have taken place in all space and time would be 10170 events!
When the probability of occourance of an event(1 in 10450) is smaler than one out of the number of events that could ever possibly occour(10170), then the probability of its occourance is considered zero by mathematicians.
Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous evolutionary Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge, spent time working out the possibility of life arising by chance. He made news under the heading "There must be a God" in the London Daily Express, 14 Aug 1981. This was the very conclusion he reached after the detailed mathematical analysis of the belief that life could result from time chance and the properties of matter.
It was, according to him, comparable to the belief that "....a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"
To be continued....
In the beginning there was a cosmic egg which was the size of a speck of dust on a table. The condensed mass of the entire universe was accomodated by this particle!
In the book entitled "Has Hawking Erred?", by Kraus who calculated a conservative estimate of the mass of the universe as 8x1025 tonnes says,"The idea that a speck of matter smaller than a dust particle on my table could have accomodated the condensed mass of the entire universe, stretches credibility beyond its limits......The Big Bang Theory must seriously be questioned."
The Big Bang theory then explains how the big bang occoured about thousand million years ago.
The assumption that order could be produced by an explosion clearly contradicts the laws of science. A further assumption that uniform radial expansion of energy and matter resulted from this explosion contradicts The Principle Of Conservation Of Angular Momentum. This states that uniform radial motion could have never given rise to curvilinear motion. Hence the assumption that a linearly expanding gas converted into into orbiting galaxies and planetary systems is impossible.
The Law Of Cause And Effect states that for every effect, there must be a cause which is superior in every aspect. This shows that the universe(which is the effect) needed a cause wich is outside it and is superior to it. The only cause outside it and superior to it is The Creator, God!
The Law Of Biogenesis states that, "Life can only come from life". Experimental evidence proves that spontaneous generation is not scientific, as proved by Pasteur.
Pasteur boiled some broth to kill any microbes. Using special glass apparatus, he allowed air to circulate over the broth, preventing microbes in the air from reaching the broth. Pasteur's work showed that microbes appeared in the broth only if they were allowed in with the air. But scientists still cling to the idea of the spontaneous generation of microscopic animals. However, the whole field of microbiology is based on the fact that even in microbes, life only comes from life. Hence evolution contradicts this law by assuming that the first living cell came from dead matter.
In the days of Darwin, it was thought that the simple cell was really simple. But today, modern scientists tell us that the "simple cell" contains thousands of different kinds of proteins and other substances, with billions of each kind along with all kinds of DNA, RNA and other highly complex molecules arranged in an incredibly complicated system.
Even in sophisticated and controlled laboratory conditions, the famous experiments carried out by Miller, Fox and others to produce life in the laboratory never worked!
Scientists cannot even create this "simple cell" that was formed from dead matter, as they presume!
Lipson, the British physicist comments in an article published by Physics Bulletin May 1980 entitled "A Physicst Looks at Evolution":
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?" He concludes,"I thik, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only possible explanation is creation.....I know this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me.....but we must not reject something we do not like if experimental evidence supports it".
The start of the relationship between DNA and protein causes a major problem to evolutionists. Left to themselves, the natural trend of acid-base reactions is to scramble up DNA and protein units in all sorts of deadly combinations. Left to time chance and their inherent chemical properties, the bases and amino acids of DNA and proteins would react in ways that would destroy any hope of producing life. To make a living cell alive. scientists need Creation!
Dr Michael Denton, an authority on molecular bioligy, in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" says,"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is possible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series". He refers to chemical evolution of life as "simply an affront to reason".
How did the "simple cell" become a complicated human being? According to evolution, it happened by a series of micro-mutations (Mutations are sudden changes in the genetic structure brought about by genetic factors, like radiation, penetrating the germ cell). When an adaptation involves a whole group of traits working together, with none of the indviduval pieces having any survival value until the whole sst is functioning together, then evolutionists have a big problem.
For example, the woodpecker is continually banging its beak into trees. To do this and survive, it must have a thick skull, with shock-absorbing tissues, muscles and other parts. It also requires a very long tongue to reach under the tree bark. All these traits must be fully developed for the woodpecker to survive! Hence survival of the fittest has no hope when it comes to adaptations that require certain traits, all depending on one another, and so does time and chance or natural selection. The only logical explanation is design and creation!
Scientists know today what Darwin didn't know about heredity - the traits which are acquired through "effort" cannot be passed on to the ofspring. For example Darwin assumed that new traits, like the long neck of the giraffe was due to the stretching of the necks of the ancestors to reach leaves high in the trees. As scientists discovered the errors in Darwin's assumptions, they tried to develop darwinism into a new form - Neo-Darwinism. They replaced this concept of use and disuse by the random changes in genes called mutations.
What does science have to say about mutations? All observed natural mutations are ultimately either harmful or deadly, with no exception! Yet evolutionists claim(with no basis) that one in 10000 mutations might not be harmful, and they base their theory on this assumption. The only example cited by evolutionists is sickle-cell anameia, a disease of red blood cells. However it is classified as beneficial only because the carrier of this cell becomes immune to malaria! This is because the life-span of the defective blood cell is shorter than the incubation period of malaria. It is not due to any improvement in the blood cell! So only in regions of the world where malaria is a common cause of death, carriers of sickle-cell anaemia are at an advantage. Where the defective gene is inherited from both parents, the person usually dies before reaching adulthood. Hence sickle-cell anaemia is a harmful mutation after all! Hence mutations cannot be justified as the means of evolution. Even mutations point to creation!
Mutations are rare (occouring on an average of perhaps once in every 10 million duplications of a DNA molecule. But there is a problem when one needs a series of related mutations; the odds of getting only two related mutations is one in hundred trillion. Only four related mutations have a chance of one in 1028, and the earth isn't big enough to hold enough organisms to make this likely! Suprisingly, it was Huxley, the famous evolutionist who worked out the probability of the evolution of the horse as 1 in 103000000!
Mathematically, the possibiility of such a simple cell coming by chance has been calculated by a number of mathematicians. M.Golay calculated the figure based on the assumption that it was accomplished by a series of 1500 successive events, each with a generously high porbability of 1/2 (The probability would have been much lower if it had to be accomplished in a single chance event). The result was 1 in 10450! (i.e., one outcome in 10 raised to the power of 450 attempts!).
Take an evolutionary time scale of 3 trillion years and total space of 5 billion light years. If each particle can take part in one hundred billion billion events per second, then the greatest number of concieveable events that could have taken place in all space and time would be 10170 events!
When the probability of occourance of an event(1 in 10450) is smaler than one out of the number of events that could ever possibly occour(10170), then the probability of its occourance is considered zero by mathematicians.
Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous evolutionary Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge, spent time working out the possibility of life arising by chance. He made news under the heading "There must be a God" in the London Daily Express, 14 Aug 1981. This was the very conclusion he reached after the detailed mathematical analysis of the belief that life could result from time chance and the properties of matter.
It was, according to him, comparable to the belief that "....a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein"
To be continued....
posted by Ajay Joshua at 7:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home