Premise 1: The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy cannot be suspended in order for evolution to be true
The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms defines a scientific law as “a regularity which applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena”. In other words, as long as scientist take care to make sure that the law applies to the scenario in question, the law will always hold true. A Law of Science is neither theory, nor hypothesis. By definition, a scientific law has no knownexceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place.
One of the first laws of physics children learn while in middle school is the Law Of Conservation of Mass discovered by Antoine Laviosier in 1785. In it’s most compact form, it states: “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed”
In physics and chemistry, the Law of Conservation of Mass states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as the system’s mass cannot change, so quantity can neither be added nor be removed.
When searching Wikipedia for how the Solar System formed and evolved it says:
The formation and evolution of the Solar System began 4.5 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud. Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protopanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.
According to the theory of evolution the combination of a giant molecular cloud, chemicals, and energy provided the necessary components for the “big bang” to happen. That these were the “some things” that turned into “everything“. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, and the amount of matter that exists in the universe has always been constant then the question to ask is:
Discussion Question 1: If matter cannot be created or destroyed how was the matter in the molecular cloud caused the “big bang’ created to begin with?
Another scientific axiom is the First Law Of Thermodynamics which states that that the total energy of the universe is a constant meaning there is never less or ever more.
Discussion Question 2: If the First Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in the universe has always been the same and constant, then how could the energy in the original molecular cloud create the vastly “more energy” necessary for galaxies, the sun, stars, earth and life if it can never be increased?
Premise 2: The Law of Abiogenesis states that life cannot originate from non-living matter which evolution requires
The Law of Abiogenesis is credited to the work of Louis Pasteur and others who through repeated scientific experimentation and observation established the axiom— Omne vivum ex ovo “all life is from life.”
Biogenesis describes a process whereby living organisms can only arise from other living organisms. In other words scientist have always adamantly agreed that non living entities such as chemicals, rocks, minerals, or energy cannot produce life.
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life.
Yet Evolutionist Scientists advocate that the origin of life arose by chance from non-living chemicals through a process called chemical evolution.
However living things get their information from their parent organisms, and contrary to evolutionary doctrine, scientists have never observed life arise from raw, unprogrammed matter.
Most sincere evolutionary scientist admit their is an unexplainable gap in the theory of evolution:
We know how life, once it began, was able to proliferate and diversify until it filled (and in many cases created) every niche on the planet. Yet one of the most obvious big questions–how did life arise from inorganic matter? —Remains a great unknown?
The theory of evolution requires the direct violation of the Law Of Biogenesis that leaves evolutionists without explanations for not only how life originated from nonlife, but also how non-life became a mechanism for an expanding a more complex gene pool.
Our progress on this question has been impeded by a formidable cognitive barrier. Because we perceive a deep gap when we think about the difference between inorganic matter and life, we feel that nature must have made a big leap to cross that gap. This point of view has led to searches for ways large and complex molecules could have formed early in Earth’s history, a daunting task. The essential problem is that in modern living systems, chemical reactions in cells are mediated by protein catalysts called enzymes. The information encoded in the nucleic acids DNA and RNA is required to make the proteins; yet the proteins are required to make the nucleic acids. Furthermore, both proteins and nucleic acids are large molecules consisting of strings of small component molecules whose synthesis is supervised by proteins and nucleic acids. We have two chickens, two eggs, and no answer to the old problem of which came first.
In other words, the matter, gases, and chemicals that supposedly produced life through the big bang could not have provided the genetic information essential to the formation of living things because the components are non-living and the genetic information essential for life does not exist in non-living matter.
Life comes from life and this cycle repeats itself a billion times a day. Not once has a scientist from any field of specialty produced an example of life arising from non-life yet evolutionist believe life not only came from non-organic matter but it did so randomly and spontaneously.
Discussion Question : If evolutionist science claims that complex life forms came from non-organic matter randomly and spontaneously then why with today’s modern technology haven’t they been able to produce life from non-life even one time in the laboratory?
Premise 3 : Evolution if true, should have been replicated elsewhere
Evolutionary theory proposes that our solar system formed from a cloud of swirling gas, dust, and particles. They don’t say where the gas, dust, and particles came from.
An extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang
The Scientific Method which should regulate all science research and development states that if the same conditions, materials, and controlling environment are all the same then the same results should occur every single time if an hypothesis is true.
The 3 main criteria of the scientific method are: 1) Observability 2) Testability 3) Repeatability
Supposing evolution’s theory of the “Big Bang” to be true, the planets and their 63 known moons would have evolved from the same “matter” and at the same time. If so we should be able to assume that they would have common material and similarities right?
Even the appearance of planets “screams” diversity not similarity
The fact is planets in our solar system aren’t made from the same material, so they can’t be evolutionary brothers and sisters. The sun is 98% hydrogen and helium, yet less than 1 percent of all the other planets is hydrogen and helium. If they evolved from the same elements how could this be?
The Moon landings have permitted man to actually study it’s composition and structure. Enough has been found now to permit the firm conclusion that the earth and its moon are of vastly different structure and therefore could not have the same celestial evolutionary “ancestor”.
To the surprise of scientists, the chemical makeup of the moon rocks is distinctly different from that of rocks on earth. This difference implies that the moon formed under different conditions...and means that any theory on the origin of the planets will have to create the earth and the moon in different ways
Jerry E Bishop “New Theories Of Creation,” Science Digest, vol. 72, p. 42
The seven lunar rovers, seven Mars rovers, three asteroid rovers, Hubble telescope, James Webb telescope, satellites, and manned space exploration and all of these technologies have highlighted the major differences in the planets not similarities
Many details as to why Earth is the only planet with liquid water in our solar system need to be worked out,” said Diana Valencia, a graduate student in Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University.
“We’ve searched carefully for oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and silicon—the things that are found on Earth and the sun in abundance,” Michele Fumagalli, an astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says in a press release issued by the university. “We don’t find a trace of anything other than hydrogen and deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen).”Michel Fumagalli; Astronomer University of California
The chemical and material makeup of the planets in our solar system are so varied mathematically and substantially that the theory that they all were made at the same time by the same energy and matter is impossible to corroborate in a scientifically quantitative way yet the theory is taught as verifiable fact.
sci·en·tif·ic meth·od /ˌsīənˌtifik ˈmeTHəd/
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. “criticism is the backbone of the scientific method“
If the universe and solar system were created at the same time as the earth, with the same material that the “Big Bang” created the earth from the differences in gases, elements, and metal composition on other planets should not be vastly greater than their similarities which are extremely hard to find.
Discussion Question : If all the planets and stars that exist in the known universe exploded into existence at the same timeas the earth, why does their chemical and physical makeup radically differ? Also, if all the planets in the universe share the same evolutionary birthday and complex life has had the same amount of time to develop there, why hasn’t even the smallest detectable evidence of macro-evolution occurred on any other planets?
ThinkCubed Truth Veracity Grid
Have I considered the issue carefully, honestly, and with an open mind?
Does what I think conform to the rules of logic and avoid contradiction?
Has what I believe been influenced by my own personal bias, presuppositions, or desires?
