by Allen Williams
Evolutionists regularly invent new fantasy stories to account for the material existence of the universe. Often these stories are discontinuous threads looking at one segment of the universe while ignoring all others. Evolution's explanations seek to satisfy any immediate threats to the theory rather than to meet the overall system constraints which limit it.
The evolutionary mindset is entrenched, often fanatical in its denial of any possibility of Intelligent Design having created the universe despite the mental gymnastics that have to be performed to deny the obvious. The Anthropic principle states among other things that free bodies in space must conserve angular momentum, i.e. when a body breaks apart, the fragments spin in the same direction as the parent. Evolutionists disagree claiming:
"As for the angular momentum problem, that only deals with how the solar system formed. A lot has happened in the last few billion years. In the case of Earth, it was smashed by a proto-planet the size of Mars that gouged out enough material to make the moon. Something similar happened to Venus, except in Venus’s case it was a glancing blow near one of the poles that caused the planet to flip over, making it seem to turn the other way. It is actually still turning the same way, it is just the axis of rotation has flipped. Something similar happened to Uranus, which is now laying on its side (90 degree flip). And let me ask you, why would a creator decide to randomly flip some arbitrary planet over? What possible purpose could that serve?">
Be sure and remember angular momentum only deals with how the universe was formed the next time you inadvertently step in front of a bus. If the moon, with a mass one fourth that of the earth, were torn away in a planetary collision how are both objects relatively round given the vacuum of space? And only one heavenly body rotates and only one has an atmosphere after the collision?
How does something 'seem' to rotate in the opposite direction to the earth? It either does or doesn't. Amazingly, this ‘glancing blow’ collision that causes Venus to 'seem' to rotate in the opposite direction leaves no other indication of its existence, i.e no asteroid fragments or moon to orbit it. It simply disappears into the Sun’s gravity or careens off into deep space. And, this favored collision doesn’t involve conservation of angular momentum because the universe was already formed. How stupid is this!?
Perhaps an ordinary pocket watch holds the secret as to why a Creator might have flipped the rotation of a planet. Just as a watch’s gears turn in opposite directions to track time, so too might the universe be considered a giant clock propelled by gravity.
However, evolution's’ response as to why the earth and moon are round after the collision
and earth’s atmosphere is intact is:
"That is because it melted Earth’s crust... I suppose you have never heard of gravity. It is something that causes objects to be attracted towards each other. It also causes objects that are large enough to form into spheres, or roughly spheres, since that shape minimizes the distance of any point from the center. Our atmosphere also has much less Nitrogen than the other planets. It seems like some huge catastrophe came along and stripped it all away... Of course water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen were trapped underground and escaped over time, but our atmosphere is still completely different than it should be compared to other planets, assuming there wasn’t some massive event that changed it."
Any gravitational force strong enough to ‘round off’ the jagged edges of a collision in the vacuum of free space would be strong enough to hold an atmosphere, yet only the earth has an atmosphere.
So the earth’s crust fused on impact with the ‘proto-sized’ planet right after the moon broke off but none of the life-giving atmosphere was torn away in the process. When one drops something, there is always more than one fragment, how fortuitous for evolution that either all the fragments ‘recombined’ to form the moon or only one piece broke off.
The evolutionist further notes that the atmosphere was all safely 'tucked' under the crust, a crust that fused all around the globe, not just at the point of impact. However, this scenario doesn’t resolve well with the evidence of large meteorites that have struck the earth in the past. They didn’t fuse the earth’s crust at the point of impact, they just created a big hole.
The 'fused crust' then allowed the trapped water and atmosphere to escape millions of years later when either the nitrogen selectively leaked away without any of the water or oxygen along with it. Or, the Nitrogen leaked away during some other future catastrophic event, which also didn’t result in the loss of water or oxygen which violates the known laws of diffusion.
And, of course, the tremendous hydrostatic pressure that would have developed under the earth’s fused crust in the entrapment of atmospheric gases and water not only didn’t split the earth apart but escaped slowly to form the air and sea. And, that collision neither changed earth’s orbit around the sun nor resulted in the heating or cooling of its molten core. And, don't miss the other equally improbable scenario, that molecules of gas 'leaked' out of the rocks over millions of years to slowly form an atmosphere after gravity had 're-rounded' the earth from the departure of the moon. Of course, the nitrogen escaped first because of its lower molecular weight as the earth wasn't fully round yet. {Excuse me while I laugh.}
Interestingly enough, evolutionists concede that green house gases were present in the atmosphere long before the appearance of man. How many years does it take to evolve from an amoeba to homo sapiens? Who was around to record the global warming?
"I should also point out that there are a great many chemical similarities between the Earth and the Moon."
But, the moon didn’t evolve an oxygen containing atmosphere millions of years later as earth did nor did other planets in this solar system. So, what other similarities matter?
Evolutionists regard logic as something true for only a finite portion of time rather than always, a necessary condition to allow the fitting of separate and otherwise incompatible event threads. So, in their world, the ‘null’ hypothesis has no real meaning, i.e. ‘A’ and ‘NOT ‘A’ , nor does the concept of falsification of any hypothesis: "
"Here’s a little experiment to try: Take three bowls of water. Add ice cubes to the first to make it nice and cold. Add some heat to the third to make it nice and warm. Let the second one remain at room temperature. Place your left hand in the first bowl and your right hand in the third, and leave them there for a bit. Say, a minute or so. Then put them both in the middle bowl. Voila! The middle bowl is both hot and cold! If hot is A, then the middle bowl is both A and NOT A!"
What kind of nonsense is this? Temperature is not measured by sensory perception; it’s measured through bodies in thermal equilibrium according to the Zeroth law of thermodynamics. Ask the Doctor to stick his finger in you rather than using his digital thermometer next time you’re sick. If ‘A’ is true, then ‘Not A’ is always false for the chosen case, not just for a finite period. This is the confusion that the 'no absolute' truth teaching brings to public education.
Next we have evolution's perversion of the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics:
"Or are you misusing the Second Law? That’s usually more typical. Creationists love to ignore the fact that if their "decay of everything" version of the Second Law was true, you couldn’t even grow wheatgrass in a cup, because wheatgrass has, like, information in it. Maybe God has to prop up even wheatgrass development in this whole physics-derived field of Okami evil spirit-like cursed decay."
Energy must be in a form that can be utilized by the recipient; otherwise we could all live on sunlight rather than organic nourishment. While plants do utilize the sun as an energy source, the gases they exchange increases entropy to the surroundings.
There's nothing stated in either the second or third law that says decay prevents growth of living organisms. The only requirement for growth is that the energy input be greater than the energy exhausted to the sink. Entropy is merely an indication of the energy decay experienced by that system, living or not. And, the fact that the sun imparts entropy to its surroundings doesn’t alter the fact that the earth is still decaying.
The best argument came from a response to the second half of the second law of thermodynamics or Nerst’s postulation, governing evolutionary processes, {update 5/2/12 - i.e. 2(b).
"It is the second law of thermodynamics that Creationists do not understand. The third simply states that the other two laws only apply at temperatures above absolute zero. The second law says that total entropy can only go down in a closed system. But the Earth is not a closed system, every tiny drop in entropy here is compensated for many times over by the constant, massive increase in entropy in the sun. You know, it being a massive nuclear fireball and all."
As a matter of fact, '2b' states that "..a system will move in the direction that increases the entropy of the system or the universe." This means that the net change in entropy, ‘Sin – S'out must be greater than or equal to zero. The term 'total' entropy as used by the evolutionist is a deception, inferring that 'Sin – S'out can be less than zero. How is a cooling body a net decease in entropy? And, is not the Sun decaying through its fusion reactions in radiating energy to space?
{update 2/12/09} The evolutionist's 'closed system' term is a misnomer. If entropy could only decrease in closed or ordered systems then how does snow melt? The answer is that the state condition depends on the net change in dS, or Sin – S'out. The evolutionist ignores the enthalpy, 'H' of the surroundings. Evolution requires 'spontaneity' for its abiogenesis changes to take place which can only occur through the generation of new entropy by the system, closed or open. It cannot utilize existing entropy from the environment, i.e. S>0 as it can with enthalpy, 'H' or 'dS' itself must be greater than zero. However, it can acquire necessary reaction energy from its surroundings and be spontaneous if 'H-TS' is an absolute minimum. Spontaneous atmospheric reactions like the open air oxidation (of carbon monoxide, CO to carbon dioxide and acid rain , i.e. 2NO + O2 -> 2NO2 occur because the 'H-TS' change produces a positive entropy, 'dS' as required by the 2nd law. Otherwise, neither would be an environmental problem.
The earth’s rotation has been shown to have slowed, loss in kinetic energy, over the last 6000 years and the atmosphere continues to radiate heat to free space according to the second law relationship, i.e. dq/T. Otherwise, everything would burn up from the accumulated energy input by the sun. Next, the evolutionist states:
"Look around next time it is snowing. Snow is a much lower entropy state for water to be in compared to the water vapor that it started at. Yet snow forms. The same goes for crystals, ice, water, and many other ordered systems that form spontaneously in nature. The same principles that allow these system to reduce their entropy also allows life to reduce its entropy."
The crystalline state of any substance in either a closed or open system doesn’t suspend the second law {2(b)} because the net change in ‘S’ is simply zero not less than zero. If the net change in were found to be less than zero for a living organism or system then Nerst’s postulate would be invalid. There is no empirical or physical evidence that supports such a claim since the inception of the law. How can one reduce his entropy without bringing about death? Hypothermia certainly zeros out your entropy.
Evolution theory breaks under the sheer weight of its own convoluted arguments.