Evolution is not just a term used in biology. It is also used in cosmology. There is an assertion by naturalistic materialists that every object in the Universe got there by natural means and that the very Universe itself evolved - The Big Bang is primarily an hypothesis believed by Darwinists even though the implications of the Universe having had a start winds up biting them in the butt. They simply have not thought it through. But perhaps this article will help?
Apologetics Press prefers that we do not alter their articles if we publish them. Therefore I will not blue the quotes. So here is the first argument against evolution. Evolution defies one of the basic laws of science - Thermodynamics! If you want to see the logical conclusion to this argument, kindly be sure to go all the way down to the very end.
|by||Jeff Miller, Ph.D.|
THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
The First Law
the principle of the conservation of energy is considered to be the single most important and fundamental ‘law of nature’ presently known to science, and is one of the most firmly established. Endless studies and experiments have confirmed its validity over and over again under a multitude of different conditions (p. 165, emp. added).
The basis of every law of nature is experimental evidence, and this is true also of the first law of thermodynamics. Many different experiments have been conducted on the first law, and every one thus far has verified it either directly or indirectly. The first law has never been disproved (Borgnakke and Sonntag, 2009, p. 116, emp. added).
But what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable, are universal. They apply not just to the flight of the ball, but to the motion of a planet and everything else in the Universe. Unlike laws made by humans, the laws of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s why they are so powerful…. [T]he laws of nature are fixed (“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” 2011, emp. added).
The Second Law
[T]he celebrated second law of thermodynamics…says, roughly speaking, that in any change the Universe becomes a slightly more disorderly place; the entropy goes up, the information content goes down. This natural tendency towards disintegration and chaos is evident all around us (1978, 80:506).
Another way of stating the Second Law then is “The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!” Viewed that way we can see the Second Law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the Second Law is all about (1970, p. 6).
It has been my experience that many people do not appreciate how uncompromising the Laws of Thermodynamics actually are. It is felt, perhaps, that the Laws are merely general tendencies or possibly only theoretical considerations. In reality, though, the Laws of Thermodynamics are hard as nails, and...the more one works with these Laws, the deeper respect one gains for them (1986, 9:8, emp. added).
[W]e can say that the second law of thermodynamics (like every other law of nature) rests on experimental evidence. Every relevant experiment that has been conducted, either directly or indirectly, verifies the second law, and no experiment has ever been conducted that contradicts the second law. The basis of the second law is therefore experimental evidence (2009, p. 220, emp. added, parenthetical item in orig.).
IMPLICATIONS OF THE LAWS
Possibility 1: Spontaneous Generation of the Universe
Conservation of energy [i.e., the First Law—JM] and other basic laws hold true in the most distant observed galaxy and in the cosmic microwave background, implying that these laws have been valid for over thirteen billion years. Surely any observation of their violation during the puny human life span would be reasonably termed a miracle…. In principle, the creation hypothesis could be confirmed by the direct observation or theoretical requirement that conservation of energy was violated 13.7 billion years ago at the start of the big bang (2007, pp. 115-116, emp. added).
But the creation of matter out of nothing would violate a cherished concept in science—the principle of the conservation of matter and energy—which states that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa, but the total amount of all matter and energy in the Universe must remain unchanged forever. It is difficult to accept a theory that violates such a firmly established scientific fact (1977, p. 32).
Possibility 2: Eternal Existence of the Universe
The lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions they have calculated for its birth, but the impact is the same: modern science denies an eternal existence of the Universe, either in the past or in the future (1977, p. 30, emp. added).
And concurrently there was a great deal of discussion about the fact that the second law of thermodynamics, applied to the Cosmos, indicates the Universe is running down like a clock. If it is running down, there must have been a time when it was fully wound up…. Now three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion; all indicated that the Universe had a beginning (1978, pp. 48-49, 111).
Possibility 3: The Inevitable Implication
I do not say that, with regard to the origin of life, science neither affirms nor denies Creative Power. Science positively affirms Creative Power…. It is not in dead matter that we live and move and have our being [Acts 17:28—JM], but in the creating and directive Power which science compels us to accept as an article of belief.... There is nothing between absolute scientific belief in a Creative Power, and the acceptance of the theory of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.... Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking somewhere in the country if he believed that the grass and flowers that we saw around us grew by mere chemical forces. He answered, “No, no more than I could believe that a book of botany describing them grew by mere chemical forces”.... Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all Religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to Religion (as quoted in Thompson, 1910, pp. 1097-1100, emp. added).
Stephen Hawking said, “Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can…. Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
How can someone so smart say something so incredibly foolish? Because as one scientist/writer explained, "Cosmology is not even Astrophysics!"
The problem with Big Bang salesmen-scientists like Stephen Hawking is their failure to logically understand the lack of existence before the beginning of existence aka the beginning of the Universe. They believe that the laws of nature were in place, and yet before the Universe existed there would be absolutely nothing, including physical laws. Gravity cannot be without mass and mass cannot be if there is no such thing as "be."
Such men, deluded even if intelligent, fail to comprehend the lack of existence and instead conceive of zero instead. Zero is not nothing, it is simply a number that represents an amount of something and can easily be represented with mathematics as very arguably SOMETHING! One minus one equals zero. Knowing this, and having a grasp on the improbable and inexplicable action of subatomic particles as Quantum Mechanics has discovered, the deluded Darwinist will simply say that minus energy and mass existed in an exact balance with plus energy and mass and this sum of positive and negative something added up to zero. When it ceased to be zero by some means, then zero which they pretend is nothing is then claimed to have exploded by unknown means and unknown oversight into everything. The fact that 96% of the matter and energy that would be expected to be detected if there was any truth to their assertions is simply never detected fails to slow them down. Virtually any ridiculous and far-fetched assertion is accepted as long as a non-God beginning of the Universe winds up at the end of the hypothesis.
If I took a blank piece of paper and showed it to you and asked you what was written on it, you would almost certainly look carefully and then reply, "Nothing." However, if I took a pen and wrote a 0 on that paper, you would then tell me there was something on there. You would probably say either "Zero" or identify it as the letter, "O." You would recognize there is indeed something written on the paper.
Before the Universe existed, there was not zero energy, there was no such thing as energy. There was not zero matter, there was no such thing as matter. Not only was there no marks on the paper, so to speak, there was no paper. If you can wrap your head around the concept, there was not even nothing because God had not yet formed things and so there was no such thing as a lack of things. There was no time, no physical laws, no gravity, no mass, no material existence. The millions of otherwise intelligent people who fail to understand that the material world cannot be all there is because it could not have made itself and is not eternal is sad in the extreme.
The Universe needed a Universe-Maker. We call Him God.