Our whole universe
was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!
Well, first thing is I love this show! Very funny. Above are the lyrics we're all familiar with from the theme song. Again, cute. However it's worth looking closer at what the Big Bang theory itself actually says. A theory is of course a hypothesis or conjecture, a speculation or assumption, nothing more. The trouble is that this particular one is spoken of everywhere as if it's solid fact and there's no other alternative to consider. In reality, it's just the view that's currently widely accepted because lots of people no longer believe in God or bother to investigate the accuracy or historicity of the Bible for themselves, encouraged through lazy science and complacency regarding the testing of evolutionary thought. Dangerous stuff, when people suspend critical thinking. At a minimum, alternative Theories of Origins other than evolutionary ones ought to be taught with candour in schools and explained with equal gusto on the National Geographic channel. But they aren't. Evolutionary thinking, unproven and unprovable, has an almost complete monopoly on second and third level curricula the world over. Enter the Big Bang theory (no, not Sheldon).
The Big Bang theory, at it's essence, says that at some point in the far distant past, things suddenly started moving in the right direction (we do not know why), a direction that at a later point resulted in the miracle of non-life becoming life (we do not know how). The current Wikipedia description of the Big Bang admits in relation to this sudden progress, "The Big Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial condition of the universe, rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe going forward from that point on" * Only it doesn't accomplish this task either. Because the real conundrum which there are no answers for among non-Creationists is how life could spontaneously emerge from dead matter? Whether you consign this emergence to the moment in time of the alleged original Big Bang ** or some later other Bang, you are still left with putting your trust in a mind-bending scenario.
This evolutionary leap of logic which says life came from non-life as a direct result of the Big Bang is comparable to hoping that a huge explosion in a large junk yard might result in a brand new, gleaming Boeing 757 airplane being subsequently found sitting with engine purring on a freshly laid tarmac runway. *** Except that everything we understand about explosions tells us that the opposite would be true. Whatever state the junkyard was in before the explosion, it would of course be in a far worse state afterwards. Any stored metals there might have been to one side of the yard would not have magically been found afterwards in a restored state, straightened and connected beautifully and with aerodynamic precision. No collection of engine parts would have benefited from the eruption to the degree that they would be in situ within the fuselage, oiled and with fuel flowing. If there had been some old remains of paint in tins in one corner, they would not have emerged in the right colours with WestJet logo in place on either side of the aircraft. You get the point. As as has been stated by evolutionary scientist W H Thorpe, "The crux of the whole problem, as we understand it, is to envisage the origin of the cell......the cell is a chemical 'laboratory' of immense complexity. The cell itself could not possibly function without the cell membranes which contain and selectively isolate the working parts of this laboratory." ****
Evolutionary proponents are basically telling us that we should not question the idea that the unbelievably unlikely occurred. We are asked not to question, in fact, that the opposite of what we know must be true (ie that "explosions" of all kinds destroy existing working complexity rather than create more of it) is true, simply because evolutionary theory requires it to be so. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the foundational natural laws, also confirms that entropy, the concept that everything we can observe is slowly heading into greater disorder, is relentlessly increasing. And at the very same time, evolutionists say they reject creationism because they find it too unbelievable, all in the name of science. It isn't science that is at fault here. It's philosophical bias. If someone chooses to deny the existence of the Creator, they will find every evolutionary illogicality acceptable, until if, and when, they come to the point that the sheer weight of evidence becomes simply unbearable.
This evolutionary leap of logic which says life came from non-life as a direct result of the Big Bang is comparable to hoping that a huge explosion in a large junk yard might result in a brand new, gleaming Boeing 757 airplane being subsequently found sitting with engine purring on a freshly laid tarmac runway. *** Except that everything we understand about explosions tells us that the opposite would be true. Whatever state the junkyard was in before the explosion, it would of course be in a far worse state afterwards. Any stored metals there might have been to one side of the yard would not have magically been found afterwards in a restored state, straightened and connected beautifully and with aerodynamic precision. No collection of engine parts would have benefited from the eruption to the degree that they would be in situ within the fuselage, oiled and with fuel flowing. If there had been some old remains of paint in tins in one corner, they would not have emerged in the right colours with WestJet logo in place on either side of the aircraft. You get the point. As as has been stated by evolutionary scientist W H Thorpe, "The crux of the whole problem, as we understand it, is to envisage the origin of the cell......the cell is a chemical 'laboratory' of immense complexity. The cell itself could not possibly function without the cell membranes which contain and selectively isolate the working parts of this laboratory." ****
Evolutionary proponents are basically telling us that we should not question the idea that the unbelievably unlikely occurred. We are asked not to question, in fact, that the opposite of what we know must be true (ie that "explosions" of all kinds destroy existing working complexity rather than create more of it) is true, simply because evolutionary theory requires it to be so. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the foundational natural laws, also confirms that entropy, the concept that everything we can observe is slowly heading into greater disorder, is relentlessly increasing. And at the very same time, evolutionists say they reject creationism because they find it too unbelievable, all in the name of science. It isn't science that is at fault here. It's philosophical bias. If someone chooses to deny the existence of the Creator, they will find every evolutionary illogicality acceptable, until if, and when, they come to the point that the sheer weight of evidence becomes simply unbearable.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
** http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/09/life-began-at-the-molecule-level-new-theories-on-the-origins-of-life-on-earth-other-planets.html
*** Slight variation on the original illustration of the problem as described by the late leading astronomer and opponent of the Big Bang theory, being the first in fact to coin that phrase, Sir Fred Hoyle.
**** Thorpe, W. H. "Purpose in a World of Chance : A Biologists view" Oxford University Press, 1978, p.20
*** Slight variation on the original illustration of the problem as described by the late leading astronomer and opponent of the Big Bang theory, being the first in fact to coin that phrase, Sir Fred Hoyle.
**** Thorpe, W. H. "Purpose in a World of Chance : A Biologists view" Oxford University Press, 1978, p.20
No comments:
Post a Comment