Although in this century, most of the scientific community has accepted the theory of evolution as true, there is a significant number of experienced scientists have openly declared impossible this process and assume a contrary position rather postulating the theory of creation.
creationist scientists believe that the evolutionary model does not fit with the established facts of science as it does the creation model. The evolutionary model says it is not necessary to assume the existence of nothing but matter and energy to produce life, this position is not scientific.
As every human being scientists are not always impartial or objective in seeking the truth. We have particular points of view and they exist in both camps (evolutionists and creationists) will not practice that makes good science in some cases. On this matter there is no one foolproof.
Each trend is the result of personal experiences, professionals, etc. addition to the pressure of life itself.
Despite the impression they might give science books are not always accepted new ideas, not even put into consideration, and in any case many assumptions and trends affect scientific behavior, decisions and interpretations of the facts, being suggests human meanings to interpret the evidence and often based on their beliefs, build on these theories.
For example, a fossil is a material that actually has size, texture, weight and shape without But it is only a heavy object with form, not tagged on the meaning and there are no photographs of the animal when alive, and shows its color and habits, etc. The detailed and colorful illustrations that describe those huge and extinct animals and their origins are only human interpretations with little knowledge of living with them have been scientists.
FOCUS OF THIS ARTICLE
have written hundreds and thousands of books that are promoting the model of evolution, theory and ideology. Despite this, there are other views of science. The focus of this book is to show interesting new evidence first and legitimate ways to interpret the data.
The Big Question: How did it all start?
Many evolutionists believe the universe came into existence after a huge explosion and popularly called the BIG BANG. The proposal is that all matter and energy in the world and the universe was once concentrated in one spot. About the size there is something concrete, but is believed to be as small as an electron.
object is said that this was theorized in a vacuum during a time unknown and suddenly exploded for no reason. Thus evolved the universe with all its occupants over billions of years.
How?
theorized object had no atoms, only radiation and subatomic particles compacted. As a result of the explosion its contents were released with great force and great speed in all directions. By going cool, some supposedly simple atoms began to form primarily hydrogen.
Later, in theory, super gas accumulated and concentrated in certain areas and in the stars. This occurred despite the natural tendency to concentrate gases to produce heat and then expand. Throughout the universe were so produced or the stars formed. It is assumed that the stars were other atoms such as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, metals, etc. As a result of all this is supposed that there was sufficient material to be concentrated in particular creating a star in the Milky Way, our sun and this material earth and other planets were produced.
The main evidence to support the Big Bang is the famous "red shift" of light from stars seen from the perspective of the earth. Astronomical measurements of the spectra of many galaxies show that their light appears to be run to the red side of the spectrum.
Some scientists believe that the observed run color is due to Doppler effect and therefore is evidence that galaxies are moving outside a central point. Ofcourse, even if the universe is expanding, it is not definitive evidence for evolution or the Big Bang
PROBLEMS WITH THE EVIDENCE OF redshift
Although some of the "most distant" stars have large redshift values, seems very doubtful that they are away at high speeds, but if this shift is not due to the direction and speed then what would cause?
- found pairs of galaxies separated slightly between them, indeed, some have a "bridge" that connects them. In some cases the redshift values \u200b\u200bbetween pairs are radically different, why?
- Not all galaxies have redshifts, some have blue shift, which does not fit the Big Bang theory.
- Could the observed redshift to be evidence that the universe has a circular motion rather than expansion.
- Instead of moving away at high speeds suggests that galaxies are "red" are relatively quiet.
- Gravity, the force of attraction between all matter can cause the light red. It was predicted by Einstein.
- Had there been a Big Bang should have produced a uniform distribution of matter in all directions. However, it has proved that there are vast empty spaces, and strips that have accumulated millions of galaxies and tight separated by enormous voids. There are giant clusters of quasars. All this contradicts the Big Bang theory.
- Many scientists are quite convinced that any number of indirect events (a Big Bang), may have formed the universe as evolutionists suggest. Many feel it is very hard to believe that an explosion could produce galaxies, planets and physical laws and finally the existence of life in every creature and plant.
Although there are random crashes with evidence of deterioration in the universe, many scientists and philosophers notice a sense of purpose and design
EVOLUTION VERSUS A BASIC LAW OF NATURE
According to the basic laws of nature has been studied whether the development is physically possible. The conclusion is simply not possible. One of the biggest problems is the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
This law describes the basic principles in daily life. Nothing is eternal. Each object appears to change eventually, and chaos increases. Nothing is as new as the day you bought it, the clothes are worn, lint and eventually turns to dust. Even death is a manifestation of this law, the effects of touch and see everyday.
In basic terms the law notes that the energy in the universe is becoming less usable. It is well known that leaving the chemicals always broken down into simpler elements, never become more complex. Outside forces can increase the order in a given time, however, this phenomenon does not last forever.
Once the force is released, the process returns to its natural direction, the more disorder. This energy is converted to low levels of capacity for additional work. The natural tendency of ordered systems, complex and simple is to become more organized and more disordered with time.
Then, in the long run there is a tendency lowering the overall universe. Finally, when all the energy of the cosmos has been spent, all molecules move at random and the whole universe will cool and completely lose the order. In simple words, in the real world, the overall long-term flow is downward, not upward. All physical observations seem to confirm that the law is truly universal, affecting all natural processes quickly.
naturalistic evolution requires that physical laws and atoms organize themselves to increase their ordered arrangements, charitable and complex. Of course through eons of time, billions of things supposedly have developed acquired greater complexity and order.
However, this basic law of science (Second Law of Thermodynamics) says exactly the opposite. Complex arrangements and tidy, in fact arrangements tend to break more and more simple and disorderly with time.
eternal evolution with increasing order and complexity, appears impossible in the natural world. If evolution took place there must have been a powerful force or mechanism that is still operating in the cosmos that will "void the trend" toward disorder of the second law. If such a major force or mechanism is working should be shown so obvious to all scientists. In fact, no force of this nature has been found.
ENERGY DOES THE KEY?
To create any kind of complex organization and organized in a closed system requires outside energy and information. Evolutionists maintain that the second law of thermodynamics did not prevent evolution, since the planet receives solar energy helped create life on our planet. However, what is the simple addition of energy all it takes two to complete this great fact of life?
If we compare a living plant with a dead simply to power can revive the dead plant? A dead plant has the same structure as a living, once used solar energy to temporarily increase the order and growth to produce leaves, stems, roots and flowers, all starting from a seed.
If there really is a powerful evolutionary force working in the universe and the earth open system, why the sun's energy alone can not get the dead plant back to life again?
What really happens when a dead plant receives energy from the sun? The internal organization of the plant decreases, tends to decay and break down into their simplest elements. The heat of the sun only accelerates the process of disorder
the last ingredient: INFORMATION CODED AND DESIGNED
Creationists Scientists believe the cells themselves are built using carefully coded and designed information which has been transmitted from one life to the next since its original conception. SUMMARY OF CHAPTER
- The two most common ideas used to try to explain the origin of the cosmos are the Evolution and Creationism.
- None of the two concepts can be proved or disproved using pure science, as both lead to a significant question of the remote past events that can not be experienced or examined.
- There are serious problems with the theory of "Big Bang" - There is no scientific proof that the universe began or developed as believers of this theory proposed.
- There are smart and experienced scientists who find all forms of evolutionism as grossly unsatisfactory in providing a credible explanation for the origin of the cosmos, based on known facts and physical laws.
- The power of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a serious obstacle to the naturalistic evolution
0 comments:
Post a Comment