|

PART FIVE
For
we, the ones believing, enter into the rest, even as He said, "As I swore
in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest," though the works had come into
being from the foundation of the world. [LXX-Psa. 94:11; MT-Psa. 95:11 ]
Hebrews 4:3
What are some of
the reasons for unbelief? For losing faith? I will list some of the major
reasons for this difficulty.
Evolution:
This is a very
broad deceptive teaching and belief. In order to believe this theory you
must renounce the Creator of the universe. This theory is actually
un-provable by every standard.
"Scientists may
speculate about the past or future but they can only actually observe the
present. Obviously, then, the widespread assumption that evolution is an
established fact of science is absolutely false. Thus, evolution can only be
correctly labeled as a belief, a subjective philosophy of origins, the religion
of many scientists. Despite this fact, most of today’s scientists and teachers
still insist that evolution is an established fact of science.
Simply stated, evolution may be defined
as an imagined process by which living things formed by themselves without a
creator and then somehow improved by themselves.
According to this belief, all
bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance from a single,
remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. All of this is supposed to
have occurred accidentally without the benefit of any intelligence or planning.
The basic premise of this “molecule-
to-man” theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, will eventually turn
into people.
Diametrically opposed to this viewpoint, Biblical creationism postulates an
initial special creation by G-d through which all the laws, processes, and
entities of nature were brought into existence as described in the book of
Genesis.
An important point worthy of
contemplation is the fact that throughout history every age has been beset with
false ideas. For
example, it was believed for 15 centuries that the sun and other planetary
bodies revolved around the earth. This idea was known as the
*geocentric
theory and, of course,
we now know this supposition to be completely false. During the 17th and 18th
centuries another theory was universally accepted and taught as an established
fact of science in much the same way that evolution is today. This theory was
known as the
*phlogiston
theory.
it stated that every substance which burned contained the magic ingredient
phlogiston, which gave it combustibility. This erroneous idea was later refuted
by the French chemist, Lavoisier, who demonstrated conclusively that oxygen was
the key element involved in combustion." [From the book, The Collapse of
Evolution by Scott M. Huse]
*Geocentric model
(Redirected from Geocentric theory)
The geocentric model (in Greek: geo = earth and centron = centre) of the
universe is a paradigm which places the Earth at its center. Common in ancient
Greece after the discovery of the approximately spherical shape of Earth, it was
believed by both Aristotle and Ptolemy. Most Greeks assumed that the Sun, Moon,
stars, and planets orbit Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China.
From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
*phlogiston theory
[flojis'ton]
phlogiston theory , hypothesis regarding combustion. The theory, advanced by J.
J. Becher late in the 17th cent. and extended and popularized by G. E. Stahl,
postulates that in all flammable materials there is present phlogiston, a
substance without color, odor, taste, or weight that is given off in burning.
“Phlogisticated” substances are those that contain phlogiston and, on being
burned, are “dephlogisticated.” The ash of the burned material is held to be the
true material. The theory received strong and wide support throughout a large
part of the 18th cent. until it was refuted by the work of A. L. Lavoisier, who
revealed the true nature of combustion. Joseph Priestley, however, defended the
theory throughout his lifetime. Henry Cavendish remained doubtful, but most
other chemists of the period, including C. L. Berthollet, rejected it.
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/
Coupled with the
above information the evolution theory disintegrates with the following
information. Evolutionists want you to believe that hydrogen gas coupled
with extended time allocations, human beings will be brought forth. Where
is the proof of that anywhere to be found? Our body is
composed of the elements found in the earth's soil. Also included in this
human body make-up is water. Right at two-thirds, water is the largest
percentage of the human bodies composition. We cannot neglect these
passages in Genesis
Gen 2:7
And Yahweh Elohim formed the man out of
dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul.
Gen 3:19 By the
sweat of your face you shall eat bread
until your return to the ground. For you have been taken out of it; for you are
dust, and to dust you shall return.
DUST
H6083
עפר
‛âphâr
aw-fawr'
From H6080; dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay, earth, mud: - ashes, dust,
earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish.
Composition of the adult human body.
(For a body weight of 65-70 kg.)
Major Constituents
Approx. amount %
Water 41 kg.
63
Protein 10 kg.
16
Fat 9 kg.
15
Carbohydrates 0.5 kg.
0.7
Minerals 4.5 kg.
3.7
|
Element |
Mass of element
in a 70-kg person |
Volume of
purified element |
Element would
comprise a cube
this long
on a side: |
|
oxygen |
43 kg |
37 L |
33.5 cm |
|
carbon |
16 kg |
7.08 L |
19.2 cm |
|
hydrogen |
7 kg |
98.6 L |
46.2 cm |
|
nitrogen |
1.8 kg |
2.05 L |
12.7 cm |
|
calcium |
1.0 kg |
645 mL |
8.64 cm |
|
phosphorus |
780 g |
429 mL |
7.54 cm |
|
potassium |
140 g |
162 mL |
5.46 cm |
|
sulfur |
140 g |
67.6 mL |
4.07 cm |
|
sodium |
100 g |
103 mL |
4.69 cm |
|
chlorine |
95 g |
63 mL |
3.98 cm |
|
magnesium |
19 g |
10.9 mL |
2.22 cm |
|
iron |
4.2 g |
0.53 mL |
8.1 mm |
|
fluorine |
2.6 g |
1.72 mL |
1.20 cm |
|
zinc |
2.3 g |
0.32 mL |
6.9 mm |
|
silicon |
1.0 g |
0.43 mL |
7.5 mm |
|
rubidium |
0.68 g |
0.44 mL |
7.6 mm |
|
strontium |
0.32 g |
0.13 mL |
5.0 mm |
|
bromine |
0.26 g |
64.2 µL |
4.0 mm |
|
lead |
0.12 g |
10.6 µL |
2.2 mm |
|
copper |
72 mg |
8.04 µL |
2.0 mm |
|
aluminum |
60 mg |
22 µL |
2.8 mm |
|
cadmium |
50 mg |
5.78 µL |
1.8 mm |
|
cerium |
40 mg |
4.85 µL |
1.7 mm |
|
barium |
22 mg |
6.12 µL |
1.8 mm |
|
iodine |
20 mg |
4.06 µL |
1.6 mm |
|
tin |
20 mg |
3.48 µL |
1.5 mm |
|
titanium |
20 mg |
4.41 µL |
1.6 mm |
|
boron |
18 mg |
7.69 µL |
2.0 mm |
|
nickel |
15 mg |
1.69 µL |
1.2 mm |
|
selenium |
15 mg |
3.13 µL |
1.5 mm |
|
chromium |
14 mg |
1.95 µL |
1.3 mm |
|
manganese |
12 mg |
1.61 µL |
1.2 mm |
|
arsenic |
7 mg |
1.21 µL |
1.1 mm |
|
lithium |
7 mg |
13.1 µL |
2.4 mm |
|
cesium |
6 mg |
3.2 µL |
1.5 mm |
|
mercury |
6 mg |
0.44 µL |
0.8 mm |
|
germanium |
5 mg |
0.94 µL |
1.0 mm |
|
molybdenum |
5 mg |
0.49 µL |
0.8 mm |
|
cobalt |
3 mg |
0.34 µL |
0.7 mm |
|
antimony |
2 mg |
0.30 µL |
0.7 mm |
|
silver |
2 mg |
0.19 µL |
0.6 mm |
|
niobium |
1.5 mg |
0.18 µL |
0.6 mm |
|
zirconium |
1 mg |
0.15 µL |
0.54 mm |
|
lanthanium |
0.8 mg |
0.13 µL |
0.51 mm |
|
gallium |
0.7 mg |
0.12 µL |
0.49 mm |
|
tellurium |
0.7 mg |
0.11 µL |
0.48 mm |
|
yttrium |
0.6 mg |
0.13 µL |
0.51 mm |
|
bismuth |
0.5 mg |
51 nL |
0.37 mm |
|
thallium |
0.5 mg |
42 nL |
0.35 mm |
|
indium |
0.4 mg |
55 nL |
0.38 mm |
|
gold |
0.2 mg |
10 nL |
0.22 mm |
|
scandium |
0.2 mg |
67 nL |
0.41 mm |
|
tantalum |
0.2 mg |
12 nL |
0.23 mm |
|
vanadium |
0.11 mg |
18 nL |
0.26 mm |
|
thorium |
0.1 mg |
8.5 nL |
0.20 mm |
|
uranium |
0.1 mg |
5.3 nL |
0.17 mm |
|
samarium |
50 µg |
6.7 nL |
0.19 mm |
|
beryllium |
36 µg |
20 nL |
0.27 mm |
|
tungsten |
20
µg |
1.0 nL |
0.10 mm |
Raw data from
which this table was made are from Emsley, John,
The Elements, 3rd
ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998.
Notes:
Oxygen
is the most abundant element in the earth's crust and in the body. The body's 43
kilograms of oxygen is found mostly as a component of water, which makes up 70%
of total body weight. Oxygen is also an integral component of all proteins,
nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), carbohydrates, and fats.
Rubidium
is the most abundant element in the body (0.68 g) that has no known biological
role (silicon, which is slightly more abundant, may or may not have a
metabolic function).
Vanadium
is the body's least abundant element (0.11 mg) that has a known biologic role,
followed by cobalt (3 mg), the latter being a constituent of vitamin B12.
The last of the
body's elements to be discovered was fluorine, by Moissan in 1886
Where do you
suppose these elements are found? Where does the water in our bodies come
from? The earth of course!
But do the
Evolutionist believe the facts? Dr. Morris states the following.
Evolution and
the Physical Sciences
Not to be outdone, evolutionists in the physical sciences (especially physics,
chemistry; and astronomy) have developed even more fantastic explanations for
the evolution of the universe, the elements, the stellar heavens, complex
molecules, and finally life.
The actual evidences supporting these
evolutionary speculations, however, are even more illusory than those supporting
biological evolution, since they are based on the most indirect sorts of
observations.
As noted in the previous section, the present consensus suggests that the entire
cosmos suddenly evolved out of nothing, first as an infinitesimal particle of
space/time, which proceeded rapidly through an inflationary stage, then through
an incredibly hot ‘big bang,” followed by universal expansion into its present
form.
In the first moments of the Big Bang, so the story goes, all the elementary
particles of matter evolved, then the simplest of the chemical elements,
hydrogen. The energy of the primeval explosion was also able to develop helium,
but the heavier elements had to await the evolution of the first stars and their
disintegration into supernova explosions. In the meantime, many stars and
galaxies somehow evolved from the expanding hydrogen, accumulating by unknown
evolutionary pressures into galactic clusters.
The heavier elements generated from supernovas may evolve into planetary systems
(although the planets of our own solar system are the only ones actually
observed in the universe), and then the complex molecules evolving on some
planets may somehow evolve into living cells (but no life forms have yet been
observed anywhere in the universe except on Earth).
This remarkable pre-biological evolutionary scenario is actually believed in
varying degrees by great numbers of Ph.D. astronomers, biochemists, mathematical
physicists, and others in the physical sciences.
Its “evidence,” however, is entirely
mathematical, since none of these evolutionary stages have ever been observed,
nor could they ever be reproduced in the laboratory.
As far as the origin from non-living chemicals of the first form of life is
concerned, the idea that this could have happened by natural processes is
completely fanciful, even though schoolchildren everywhere are taught that this
happened in the primeval oceanic soup about four billion years ago. The
fascinating comments of Sir Fred Hoyle are relevant in this connection:
I don’t know how long it
is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial
arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which
life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth.
Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they
will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been
assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of
persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the
belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law
which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This
curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to
coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles. . . . It is quite
otherwise, however, with the modern mathematical miracle workers, who are always
to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics.
The Long War Against
G-d by
Henry M. Morris pp 28-29
Several items of
interest emerge from the preceding statements. The first is the so-called
"Big Bang" This idea/theory never considers Yahweh's explanation in His
written account.
Gen 1:1 בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת
הארץ׃
Gen 1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו
וחשׁך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃
Gen 1:1 In the beginning
Elohim created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 Now the earth was
formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. Elohim's Spirit was
hovering over the surface of the waters.
Now! You
are looking at two creations here. Genesis 1:1 was the first creation.
Genesis 1:2 is the re-creation after it became a waste and desolation.
WAS
H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is,
be or become,
come to pass (always emphatic, and
not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come,
accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do,
faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require,
X use.
FORMLESS/WITHOUT FORM
H8414
תּהוּ
tôhu
to'-hoo
From an unused root
meaning to lie waste; a desolation
(of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in
vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain,
vanity, waste, wilderness.
VOID/EMPTY
H922
בּהוּ
bôhu
bo'-hoo
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially)
an undistinguishable ruin:
- emptiness, void.
That is your big
bang. This is also known as the Gap Theory. The time between Genesis
1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Who destroyed the first creation? Satan?
Isaiah 45:18
For thus says Yahweh who
created the heavens, the Elohim who formed the earth and made it, who
established it and didn't create it a waste, who formed it to be inhabited: I am
Yahweh; and there is no one else.
Originally
the earth was created to be a habitable planet. It was destroyed by Satan
in his rebellion against Yahweh's authority and system of government.
There are two
books with extensive information concerning the destruction of the cosmos and
also earth's destruction. These books are rather lengthy and well
documented. If you have time, you could read them for good clarity on
these cataclysmic events. They are Worlds in Collision and Earth
in Upheaval both books are by Immanuel Velikovski
I would like to
present some evidence from the physics perspective. The scientific
discipline of physics deals with matter and energy. The fields of
mechanics, acoustics, optics, heat, electricity, radiation. This also
includes atomic structure and nuclear phenomena. I will now close this
part with some Physics 101. If you remember your Physics lessons you will
remember the laws of thermodynamics, if not, here they are:
PHYSICS
A. Introduction:
We now turn
to the scientific discipline of physics to ponder additional factual evidence,
which also serves to refute evolution and support Biblical creationism. These
facts are taken from the first and second laws of thermodynamics. These two laws
are proven scientific laws which have been tested repeatedly under all types of
systems. No reputable scientist doubts their validity and full applicability.
B. The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is known
as the Law of Energy Conservation.
It states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can
neither be created nor destroyed. This law teaches conclusively that the
universe did not create itself! There is absolutely nothing in the present
economy of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin. This
scientific fact is in direct contradiction with the basic concept of
naturalistic, innovative evolution. The present structure of the universe is one
of conservation, not innovation as required by the theory of evolution.
Although
scientists cannot account for the origin of energy and matter or why the total
energy is conserved, the Bible offers an explanation. G-d alone can truly
create. Man can only re-fashion pre-existing materials. Since G-d has ceased
from His creative works (Genesis 2:3), energy can no longer be created. The
reason energy cannot be destroyed is because G-d is “upholding all things by the
word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). He preserves and keeps in store His creation
(Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7).
C. The Second Law of Thermodynamics:
After being stunned by the first law of thermodynamics, the theory of evolution
is to receive its fatal blow from the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is
known as the Law of Energy Decay.
It states that every system left to its own devices tends to move from order to
disorder. In other words, the universe is proceeding in a downward, degenerating
direction of decreasing organization. Material possessions deteriorate and all
living organisms eventually return to dust, a state of complete disorder. Given
enough time, all of the energy of the universe will become random low-level heat
energy and the universe will have died what is commonly referred to as a
heat- death.
A process that results in a more ordered and complex product, contrary to the
second law of thermodynamics, might be possible but would necessarily be very
limited, rare, and temporary in effect. But evolution requires billions of years
of constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics to be considered even
remotely feasible! Thus, we find that the second law of thermodynamics renders
the theory of evolution not only statistically highly improbable, but virtually
impossible. In the words of British astronomer, Arthur Eddington:
"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation.”
The principle of increasing entropy (increasing disorder and randomness) from
the second law of thermodynamics is interpreted by many creationists to be a
direct result of the curse placed on creation due to the Fall of man (Genesis
3:17-1 9). Creationists also believe that the creation will ultimately be
released from this bondage to decay and corruption (Romans 8:18-23).
The second law of thermodynamics constitutes a grave problem for evolutionists,
and it is not surprising to find that they usually choose to ignore it. When
pressed for an explanation, two arguments are usually given to circumvent this
law of nature.
The first argument is that the second law does not apply to open systems such as
the earth. The argument is that the sun supplies the earth with more than enough
energy to offset the loss of energy due to entropy. Al-though this may at first
seem to be a reasonable argument, it has two major flaws. First, as Dr. Henry M.
Morris points out, it confuses quantity of energy with conversion of energy.
Naturally there is enough energy to fuel an imagined evolutionary process, but
that is not the question. The question is how does the sun’s energy sustain
evolution. The mere availability of energy does not automatically insure the
development of orderly structural growth. Some kind of directional program
mechanism is required to transform energy into the energy required to produce
increased organization. For instance, a pile of lumber, bricks, nails, and tools
will not automatically evolve into a building apart from a directing code,
despite the fact that it is an open system receiving more than enough energy
from the sun to carry out the job. And remember, a complex building is
impossibly primitive compared with even the simplest living cell. Second, there
is no such thing as a closed system. Therefore, to argue that the second law is
inapplicable to open systems such as the earth is meaningless since all other
systems are also open.
The second argument used to reconcile the entropy principle with evolution is
that the second law does not apply to living systems. The phenomena of life,
admittedly, does appear to exhibit a remarkable contrast to the entropy
principle. A seed, for example, develops into a tree and an embryo grows into an
adult. However, as Dr. Henry M. Morris points out, the growth process is
actually not a contradiction of the second law:
“The growth process is really only an out- working of the marvelous structure
of the germ cell, which has within itself the encoded ‘information’ necessary to
assimilate incoming chemicals and gradually build upon itself a structure like
that of the parent organism. It does not really constitute an increase of order,
but rather an outward manifestation of the marvelous complexity of the genetic
system and the environmental energies it is able to utilize.” Biblical
Cosmology And Modern Science Dr. Henry M. Morris
Thus, we find that life really is not increasing in complexity contrary to the
second law of thermodynamics. Rather adult organisms are simply the unfolding,
outward expression of the pre-existing order in the genes. The blueprints for
the growth and development of the adult organism were already present in the
genes of the parents.
The origin of life from this
pre-existing order in DNA does not present any difficulty for the creationist.
The evolutionist, however, finds himself faced with an indomitable problem.
How did life begin without the
pre-existence of such intelligent order and design?
This question must forever haunt the atheistic evolutionist.
It should also be noted that apparent decreases of entropy can only be produced
at the expense of a still greater increase of entropy in the external
environment. Thus, the entire system as a whole continues to run down as
required by the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, such processes are
only temporary and eventually succumb to death and disintegration. Life forms
attempt to postpone the second law of thermodynamics, but entropy eventually
wins out. After all, biological systems and processes are merely complex
chemical and physical processes, and to these the laws of thermodynamics do
certainly apply. Dr. Harold Blum, an evolutionary biochemist, has recognized
this fact and writes:
“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no
evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of
complexity not witnessed in the non-living world.”
Thus, we find that the second law of
thermodynamics completely negates the concept of organic evolution.
The creation model, however, predicts that the second law of thermodynamics will
be operative and is thus, once again, substantiated by the facts of science.
D. Summary
The two most reliable scientific
laws, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, prove that conservation and
deterioration are the processes that characterize and direct the physical
universe.
These facts are in direct
contradiction with the expectations and requirements of the evolutionary
framework which hopes for a universe which is getting better and better,
progressing ever-upward.
Thus, the evolutionary model
of origins is scientifically indefensible.
It is now seen as an antiquated theory which has finally crumbled beneath the
ever-accumulating weight of evidence against it. At the same time, however,
Biblical creationism does correlate with the evidence at hand. We conclude with
a noteworthy quote from Dr. Henry M. Morris: Creation; Acts,
facts, Impacts
"...the Second Law proves, as certainly
as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning.
Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself.
The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of
available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the
available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would
reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time
could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have
come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific
and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: ‘In the
beginning, G-d created the heaven and the earth.”
I included
the entire chapter as one unit. The information was too important to be
segmented. The entire chapter was taken from the book: The Collapse
of Evolution by Scott M. Huse
Thermodynamics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Read carefully
the preceding information carefully. Know what you are up against with
this so-called Evolution Theory. Be ready to answer with relevant
information countermanding this evil lie.

PART SIX

Yours in Yahshua, Hawke

© Truth on the Net Dot Com 2005-11
|