Aside from the biblical reasons, which should be enough for any honest Christian who loves Jesus Christ, I would like to spend some time revealing why evolution theory is wrong right from the outset.
1. Concerning cosmological evolution; the so-called 'big bang' resulting in the vast order we see in our universe/world? Since when does an explosion produce order? Someone give an example of such high levels of order (such as living organisms) being developed by accidental forces.
2. Did natural law create itself? Did the big bang create the natural laws we know? (E=mc^2, F=Gm1Gm2/r^2, T=Fr, W=FD, etc). Nature provides no explanation for the origin of natural law. Unless there is a Creator who set the balance of nature, then there is no explanation available to us.
3. The universe does not reveal phenomena that is consistent with the theory of evolution as far as the amount of time that has been assigned to it.
Example:
Quote: "A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, 'Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril,' the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature. 'Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men,' Ron Cowen quipped. 'That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos.'
Other recent findings echo this theme of 'mature at birth.' Consider three examples from March of this year:
Oh, but it gets far worse for evolutionists than this:
Quote: "
This year stretched the imaginations of many astronomers and cosmologists. They have discovered amazing features at the outer reaches of the universe. And they cause headaches for those with blind faith in naturalistic origin theoriesincluding a big bang about 14 billion years ago.
"Back in January, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of a massive and distant string of galaxies. By their own dating methods, they were looking at a structure within only 2 billion years of the universes inception. This was much too early for such a complex structure to have evolved naturally.
"Later this year, astronomers announced another anomalous discovery. This time, they found individual galaxies at allegedly advanced stages of galactic evolution in a part of the sky named the redshift desert. They used the Gemini North Telescope, with an 8-metre mirror, on the summit of Mauna Kea on the big island of Hawaii. This area of the sky is supposed to be so old and so close to the beginning of everything that it was believed nothing as complex as a galaxy should, or could, exist there.
"Under big bang assumptions, astronomers looking into the redshift desertare seeing the universe as it was 8 to 11 billion years ago, at a time when it was only 3 to 6 billion years old. This part of the sky had not previously been widely explored. Astronomers believed it contained objects too faint and dim to study properly. However, recent advances in telescope optics have allowed astronomers to make a systematic study of the redshift desert, the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS).
"What the GDDS astronomers found was totally unexpected. Where they had expected to see young, small, still-developing galaxies, they found more than 300 fully mature galaxies, just like those seen near our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
Team member Dr Karl Glazebrook from Johns Hopkins University says the find presents a huge challenge because their star-forming youth is in fact long gone.2 He explained:
We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models [based on the big bang] predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldnt have been there, but are.3
This is a story that is sounding more and more familiar."
Not surpising at all for those of us who believe in a young world/universe. The evolutionist predictions about the age of certain things in our universe have been in error time and time again. I've been seeing this since I was a kid when Isaac Asimov as well as the scientists at NASA predicted that there would be one hundred ft of dust on the moon and it would be dangerous to send astronauts there. Subsequent moon probes proved them wrong.
But rather than make this post longer than really necessary let me give the first of several photos of things that should not exist if evolution were really true. Talk about red shifts, how about this one?
Here is an example of galaxy NGC4319 which appears in close proximity to the Quasar, Markarian 205. We have been told that Quasars are the most distant objects in space, on the very edge of the universe and some 15 billion light yrs away. So the common consensus has been that appearances here are decieving and Markarian 205 is billions of miles further out in space than the much larger appearing NGC4319. But an infra-red photo of the two celestial objects reveals that there is a clear connection between them. That is bad news for evolutionary cosmology.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Quote: "A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]the existence of this physical link." Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift[/FONT]
This is just the beginning of my objections to evolutionary theory.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
1. Concerning cosmological evolution; the so-called 'big bang' resulting in the vast order we see in our universe/world? Since when does an explosion produce order? Someone give an example of such high levels of order (such as living organisms) being developed by accidental forces.
2. Did natural law create itself? Did the big bang create the natural laws we know? (E=mc^2, F=Gm1Gm2/r^2, T=Fr, W=FD, etc). Nature provides no explanation for the origin of natural law. Unless there is a Creator who set the balance of nature, then there is no explanation available to us.
3. The universe does not reveal phenomena that is consistent with the theory of evolution as far as the amount of time that has been assigned to it.
Example:
Quote: "A strange cartoon graced the cover of Science News last fall (10/08/2005) that serves as a symbol for a whole class of problems for evolutionary astronomers. It showed a star-shaped old man in a stellar maternity ward. With its title, 'Crisis in the Cosmos? Galaxy-formation theory is in peril,' the article exposed a running theme in astronomy: as far back as we look, stars and galaxies appear mature. 'Imagine peering into a nursery and seeing, among the cooing babies, a few that look like grown men,' Ron Cowen quipped. 'That's the startling situation that astronomers have stumbled upon as they've looked deep into space and thus back to a time when newborn galaxies filled the cosmos.'
Other recent findings echo this theme of 'mature at birth.' Consider three examples from March of this year:
- The Spitzer Space Telescope found clusters of galaxies a third of the assumed age of the universe.
- UV and infrared surveys found "ubiquitous" galaxies at redshift 6.7, corresponding to 5% the assumed age.
- The Swift satellite detected a gamma-ray burst 12.8 billion years old in the assumed time scale. 'This means, said Nature (3/9/2006, p. 164) 'that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes.'
Oh, but it gets far worse for evolutionists than this:
Quote: "
This year stretched the imaginations of many astronomers and cosmologists. They have discovered amazing features at the outer reaches of the universe. And they cause headaches for those with blind faith in naturalistic origin theoriesincluding a big bang about 14 billion years ago.
"Back in January, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of a massive and distant string of galaxies. By their own dating methods, they were looking at a structure within only 2 billion years of the universes inception. This was much too early for such a complex structure to have evolved naturally.
"Later this year, astronomers announced another anomalous discovery. This time, they found individual galaxies at allegedly advanced stages of galactic evolution in a part of the sky named the redshift desert. They used the Gemini North Telescope, with an 8-metre mirror, on the summit of Mauna Kea on the big island of Hawaii. This area of the sky is supposed to be so old and so close to the beginning of everything that it was believed nothing as complex as a galaxy should, or could, exist there.
"Under big bang assumptions, astronomers looking into the redshift desertare seeing the universe as it was 8 to 11 billion years ago, at a time when it was only 3 to 6 billion years old. This part of the sky had not previously been widely explored. Astronomers believed it contained objects too faint and dim to study properly. However, recent advances in telescope optics have allowed astronomers to make a systematic study of the redshift desert, the Gemini Deep Deep Survey (GDDS).
"What the GDDS astronomers found was totally unexpected. Where they had expected to see young, small, still-developing galaxies, they found more than 300 fully mature galaxies, just like those seen near our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
Team member Dr Karl Glazebrook from Johns Hopkins University says the find presents a huge challenge because their star-forming youth is in fact long gone.2 He explained:
We expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion years ago, because theoretical models [based on the big bang] predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead we found highly developed galaxies that just shouldnt have been there, but are.3
This is a story that is sounding more and more familiar."
Not surpising at all for those of us who believe in a young world/universe. The evolutionist predictions about the age of certain things in our universe have been in error time and time again. I've been seeing this since I was a kid when Isaac Asimov as well as the scientists at NASA predicted that there would be one hundred ft of dust on the moon and it would be dangerous to send astronauts there. Subsequent moon probes proved them wrong.
But rather than make this post longer than really necessary let me give the first of several photos of things that should not exist if evolution were really true. Talk about red shifts, how about this one?
Here is an example of galaxy NGC4319 which appears in close proximity to the Quasar, Markarian 205. We have been told that Quasars are the most distant objects in space, on the very edge of the universe and some 15 billion light yrs away. So the common consensus has been that appearances here are decieving and Markarian 205 is billions of miles further out in space than the much larger appearing NGC4319. But an infra-red photo of the two celestial objects reveals that there is a clear connection between them. That is bad news for evolutionary cosmology.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Quote: "A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]the existence of this physical link." Halton Arp's discoveries about redshift[/FONT]
This is just the beginning of my objections to evolutionary theory.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
