Scientific Proof of Creation

By

Gary Primo

January 23, 2013

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to prove by using scientific methods the existence of an All-knowing, extra-physical Creator. What I have done is gather all the information I could find from other independent studies and combined them into one and added my own thoughts and understanding to theirs. The sources for these studies are clearly documented and websites provided.

Questions that Demand an Answer

· How could an essentially orderly creation come about without an orderly Creator? Since when did order ever come out of chaos with no intelligent thought behind it? It seems from reading the Scriptures that all Yahuwah did was plant one seed from which the rest of creation burst forth. That one seed was Yahushua, the only-begotten Son. That would coincide with John’s report in John 1:1-3.

We now know that all the new planets and stars are coming out of some black hole in outer space. To my way of thinking Yahushua likely only created the source of all the planets and stars (as opposed to individually), whatever that might be, as he also created only one human. Woman came from man and all of the rest of mankind came from the two of them. Everything comes from one source. Everything starts with one and the one becomes many. If evolution were legitimate, why would there not be many sources? I find it hard to believe that only one single cell mutated and "evolved" into a complicated, multi-celled creature such as a human being. Did that cell turn into male or female? How did it reproduce to create an entire race?

What are the chances that multiple single celled creatures all mutated in the exact same fashion to create pretty much identical creatures; and that some evolved into males and some into females, when these cells are sexless from the outset? I have yet to see any scientific explanation to these questions; and I believe that they deserve an answer.

· Where is the scientific evidence that there is any life on other planets? If they have it (Area 51) why don’t they produce it? If there were any truth to the “theory” of evolution, would not some form of evolution be occurring on other planets? Would not life there have adjusted to the changing elements as ours did? To date there is no scientific proof that any form of life exists on any other planet. All scientific theories suggesting the possibility are merely wild guesses.

· If all life was wiped off the planet during whatever catastrophic event caused the earth to be completely enveloped in water before the Genesis creation account, how did it manage to evolve again (it didn’t come back again on Mars); and why did man, this time, appear to be suddenly more intelligent? They went from hunters and gathers (nuts, berries, etc.) to cultivators and cattle keepers, builders of monumental designed and complicated architecture, were able to communicate and form societies, laws and economic policies. They were suddenly capable of figuring out complicated mathematical equations, smeltering precious metals and making tools and weapons with them.

They were also aware of 12 of celestial bodies that make up this solar system. How could they know that without the aid of a modern-day telescope?

Yes, Pluto has been officially down-graded to a brown dwarf; however, that does not change the fact that those before the flood were aware of its existence. They also included the sun and our moon. I can’t remember what the twelfth body was. Some might argue that not all life was wiped out by such an event. However, if the Earth was without light prior to the Genesis re-creation, does that not suggest that the planet would have been without any heat source also, and that it likely reached a temperature of absolute “O”? Can any form of life on this planet survive such extreme cold?

http://cryo.gsfc.nasa.gov/introduction/temp_scales.html Absolute zero is at -273.15 Celsius, or -459.67 Fahrenheit.

Reader

“The Earth is the only planet that exists in the solar system that has an atmosphere with an appropriate level of oxygen to support life (or the known life forms at any rate). The climate is in an acceptable range, which is influenced by the amazingly exact distance of the sun from the Earth. Any closer and the sun’s heat would overwhelm the atmosphere. If the sun were slightly further away, the Earth’s temperature would drop dramatically causing the death of most life forms. The light emitted from the sun at its current distance also is reason for life to grow and live.”

In other words, how circumstantial is it that the Earth just happened to find its way to the only place in our solar system that could support life?

· All that is physical is cycular in pattern, as a circle, having no defined beginning or end. Without a starting point one just goes around in circles trying to find one; which is exactly what the evolutionary scientists are doing now. Because of its cycular nature it is impossible for the physical creation to have kick started itself. The only way that physical life could have started is by an external, non-physical source.

· How can there be a creation without a Creator? How can there be laws that govern nature without there being a Lawgiver? Order simply does not come out of chaos without help. I have been in the construction industry most of my life. I know for a fact that I cannot have all the building material dumped on the lot and expect the house to build itself. There is simply no example of this anywhere on this planet. There are many decisions to consider in building a house properly. First you need a design and a blue print to go by. In Ontario, you also need a geographical study and a survey. You have to break ground and prepare footings. Every step is carefully planned out. Each trade works on top of the previous trade’s work. It is always a team effort. Spiritually speaking it was only the Father and the Son in the beginning – a team. It’s my belief that the angelic realm was created before the universe (Job 38:7). They also joined the creation team and may have been included in the “we” in Gen. 1.

Seven Rules Governing Scientific Method

There are also rules governing scientific method and investigation. Here are the 7 rules. The comments in red are mine.

o 1 - To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. (Show me one example of scientific experimentation where they have actually mutated single cells and produced a much more complex plethora of cells working in complete and perfect cohesion with one another.)

o 2 - The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or 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." (In the case of carbon dating, the data they collected was all based on atmospheric conditions being constant throughout all the millennias of earth’s existence. They do not know if it was or wasn’t; yet, there is significant proof that it was different before the Noation flood.)

o 3 - The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false. (Again, in the case of carbon dating, how could they “let reality speak for itself” when they have no data on atmospheric conditions before the flood? Did they even try to prove it false; or were they too gung ho for a positive result?)

o 4 - Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. (When scientists omit the spiritual possibility of creation, they are trying to reach a conclusion with only a fraction of the data. All data has to be considered for a true conclusion to be drawn. If the scientists are anti-creationist to begin with, one can expect a strongly biased conclusion.)

o 5 - Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. (Or, when they fail to come to the desired physical conclusion, they examine another physical source; but they almost never consider the possibility of a divine Creator.)

o 6 - Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results. (Most scientists are not objective at all when considering a spiritual source of creation. They do not believe in the existence of a Creator and; therefore, are not objective at all.)

o 7 - Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established (when data is sampled or compared to chance). (If most of the scientists are atheists, how is getting one atheist to verify the findings of another objective or reliable?)

Here are the 5 steps:

1 - Formulate a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "Does sound travel faster in air than in water?" or "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?"

(When studying physical data alone, one question simply leads to another question. For example, scientists thought the discovery of the atom was going to lead them to positive proof of evolution; but instead, it only led them to the discovery of a number of sub-atomic structures.)

2 - Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on the knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe.

(“May” is the operative word here. Again they are only dealing with physical data {not even considering a spiritual conclusion} and; therefore, they hypothesis is flawed from the very beginning.)

3 - Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing.

(In other words it is all a matter of trial and error. With Darwinism the hypothesis is ripe with errors and inconsistencies, but they stubbornly cling to their hypothesis because aside from an intelligent Creator there is no plausible explanation. Yet they teach it to our children in school anyway.)

4 - Test: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.

(What tests could they have possible done to prove their hypothesis of Darwinism? Did they take a single cell and produce a fully formed human from it? No! Did they take an ape and wait till it turned into a human? Of course not! Instead they “taught” monkeys to behave like humans and say that is their proof. One of my cousins taught his dog to sit on a chair and eat at the table. Does that mean that we came from dogs?

I read an article in National Geographic where monkeys in a certain area of Africa used sticks as weapons for hunting for food. The article claimed that this was proof that ape and man had a common ancestor. Isn’t it much more likely that this was a behaviour they learned by observing man and mimicking him?)

5 - Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data.

(Again, the spiritual aspect of creation is never considered because it cannot be tested by physical means. Therefore, they are trying to form a conclusion without even considering half the data. With physical things, these steps work quite well. However, when considering the source of all life and the universe itself, one is going beyond the physical and into a spiritual realm that these scientists don’t even believe exists.

Most spiritually minded people believe what they believe because of some extraordinary event that occurred in their lives that cannot be explained physically. Divine healing is often one of those events. For my personal dealings with divine intervention read the article on my site by the same name.

Now I will admit that spiritually minded people may be just as quick to jump to a spiritual conclusion when the physical simply cannot be explained. Also there are a lot of “snake oil salesmen” among the spiritual minded community, just as there are a number of such salesmen among the scientific community. It’s called, being human. The trick is to admit to and learn from our mistakes. Darwinism has failed to do that and continues to push its admitted wrongful conclusion.

The Higgs Boson

What is the Higgs boson? The Higgs boson is the latest sub-atomic particle discovered. It is also called the “God particle”. Scientists feel that it will lead them to the answer of how all life began. Again, they are searching for a purely physical source and are not even considering an extra-physical source.

While both studies performed admitted that there is not enough data to either confirm or deny that this even is the famed Higgs boson, they appear to be running with it anyway, as if it were.

The Science of Intelligent Design

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

Definition of Intelligent Design

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

See New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design.

Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

(What else could it be but supernatural? Where do they think the intelligence is coming from? “Natural” means physical. “Supernatural” means extra physical, or something outside the physical realm. There is no way that the physical could have designed itself. The designer has to be extra physical, i.e. spiritual. The Creator cannot be part of the creation. The Creator has to be outside the creation, i.e. non physical.)

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

(There are none so blind as those who will not see.)

Is intelligent design a scientific theory?

Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

(Designed how and by whom? How can one admit to intelligent design while denying an intelligent designer? It’s like arguing if an object is black or just a very dark shade of grey. Man is so intent on denying the Creator that otherwise intelligent human beings come up with some pretty ridiculous arguments.)

Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture

208 Columbia Street — Seattle, WA 98104

phone: 206-292-0401 — fax: 206-682-5320

email: cscinfo@discovery.org

http://www.detectingdesign.com/truthscienceevolution.html

Truth, the Scientific Method and Evolution

Sean D. Pitman M.D.

“The strength of the scientific method is found not so much in its ability to detect truth, but in its ability to detect error. It has the ability to rule out those hypothesis and theories that are definitely wrong.”

“It is commonly stated that religion should be left to theologians while science should be left to scientists. This argument assumes that some important truths are beyond scientific investigation and are thus matters of "faith." What many do not seem to realize is that all human knowledge is a matter of faith. All human theories are statements of faith - even when it comes to the "purer" sciences of physics and mathematics. Human theories may be backed up by a greater or lesser degree of evidence, but, like all human attempts to search out truth, no one and no theory has ever achieved absolute perfection in any aspect of human knowledge concerning the external world. Obviously then, without access to absolute knowledge, a degree of faith remains when one holds a particular position to be true - be it a "religious" or a "scientific" position.”

“A theory is therefore a faith and a faith is therefore a theory. Of course, one who holds a particular faith or theory to be "true" may or may not choose to apply the scientific method to that position. If the scientific method is not or cannot be applied to investigate or test a particular position, then it is impossible to detect any possible error in such a position. Without the ability to detect error, a particular position cannot be said to be "better" or "worse" than any other position. All such faiths and/or theories become equal.”

(The highlights are mine. These statements are so true. That is why a scientist will never convince a Believer of his theory and visa versa.)

The question I have is, “Is it possible that some truth of evolution can exist within the context of Creation.” That is, can there be an element of truth in both arguments? We certainly do see evidence of some evolutionary forces at work in our world today. For example, some animals, if moved to a different part of the world, can adapt to their environment. This is a form of evolution. Also, new species are being discovered all the time. Are these simply life forms that mankind had not yet observed or did they “evolve” from a previously known species. Of course the evolutionists are going to be quick to jump on the band wagon that this is proof of evolution. That is their emotions talking. They really have no way of testing the theory because they simply do not have enough historical, biological or geographical data.

Sometimes the truth is right under our noses and we can’t see it. Even though I was once an atheist, I have been a Creationist for a long time now, but every once in a while I have to stand back from the forest so that I can see the trees. That is how I test my hypothesis. I try not to give into my feelings (my beliefs) and jump to conclusions. I try very hard to see and investigate all new information with an unbiased attitude. Yet I will admit that it is difficult to keep those beliefs out of the forefront of my investigations.

We do know from various prehistoric skeletal remains that have been discovered that animals such as dogs and horses have evolved to a certain extent from that point in time to this, because we have the evidence to support it. However, beyond that we do not have the data to trace either animal back to its real origins. We have absolutely no evidence of the transition itself (from a single celled amoeba to a complicated, multi-celled creature). It simply seems that dogs/horses did exist at one time in a slightly different form than modern dogs/horses. However, no skeletal remains have been found showing the gradual change from prehistoric to modern. This is the evidence that is needed to prove evolution.

The same thing goes for mankind. We know that prehistoric man did exist from the skeletal remains found. However, if modern man did indeed evolve from the prehistoric man, there are definitely many questions remaining to be answered. That being the case, how can anyone conclusively adhere to all the scientific criteria?

Evolutionist attempt to prove that man evolved from primates. In this case, they have no evidence linking apes to either prehistoric man or modern man. The remains they commonly use to “prove” their theory could have just as easily been some mutation – an exclusive case, since they have no other examples to verify it. This is a violation of scientific method. They have simply jumped to that conclusion in their exuberance to prove their theory and their already held beliefs. It is very difficult to do otherwise, given our human nature. For this conclusion to be verified they would need at least two or more sources of identical evidence. With only one, no verifiable scientific conclusion can be drawn.

Science cannot explain the vast difference between primitive and modern man. Modern man seems to have simply appeared suddenly out of nowhere. Where primitive man was more animal-like, modern man, with his vastly superior intellect, appears as a totally different creature, intellectually speaking.

The Scriptures support this fact. It is stated in the book of Genesis that each of the animals were created “after their kind” or after a preexisting species of similar attributes. However, it says of mankind, that he was created after the Elohim kind, not the primitive-man kind. Given the differences between prehistoric man and modern man, proof of this statement cannot be either confirmed or denied outside of one’s belief system. A religious person will believe it and a non-religious person will refuse to believe it. Only a true truth-seeker will put aside his/her previously-held beliefs to get to the facts. In this case, only truth matters – whatever it turns out to be.

The following comes from the web site http://www.icr.org/article/177/.

Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model

The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:

I. The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.¹ This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has "obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design." Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects," yet a "strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer." "The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction," in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.

Note: The second verse of Genesis 1 seems to agree with this theory.

Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.

2 - And the earth was (became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters.

All physical life usually begins with a perfectly formed organism and over time that organism decays and dies. This is the present state of the entire universe and all life in it. Order becomes disorder. The beginning of life (such as a new-born baby human) in normal cases starts with a perfectly formed and healthy person. The day of their birth is usually celebrated annually. However, the day of their birth also marks the day that the process of decay and dying also begins. Disorder comes from order. That scientific fact alone demands the existence of a Creator.

II. Life Was Suddenly Created.

Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,² and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.³ These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;⁴ such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.⁵ The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.

Note: Geographical layers of rock found in different parts of the world indicate that the entire earth was under water at least twice – once during the Noation flood and once before the appearance of man. What kind of “natural” seismic event could have occurred to make the water dissipate and dry land appear? The evidence demonstrates that this event happened quickly, which throws the theory of evolution into the trash can. Was there life (prehistoric) before the watery covering of the earth in the creation account in Genesis 1? It is possible. According to the physical law of thermodynamics, such life would have been in a natural state of decay and prone to self extinction. Even so, it may have had a little help from external influences (asteroid or whatever). That would make the Genesis account a re-creation, not the original, agreeing fully with the physical evidence of a gap between the two.

III. All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.

Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.⁶ None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates.⁷ While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).

Note: Using the example of a dogs and horses, science has supposedly proven that both were slightly different in physical appearance at one time. However, they are still recognizable as a dog or a horse. However, the scientists cannot rule out the possibility that the skeletal remains found were not of some mutation or extinct variety within the same species. Even today horses and dogs come in any number of different shapes and sizes.

Also, they fail to acknowledge that their method of dating could be faulty and over exaggerated, whereby, such evolution (as they are proposing) would not have had the time needed for such a change to occur (if there were any truth to it in the first place).

IV. Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.

The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years.⁸ Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism's natural environment.⁹ Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologies concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.

Note: In other words, the mutation theory defies all that is known about mutations today. Mutations weaken the species and make them less fit, not more fit. A mule is an example of a mutation (a cross between a donkey and a horse). Mules cannot reproduce; therefore there is always the need of both a horse and a donkey to produce a mule. If the same is true of all mutations, there would be no way the mutation could continue to exist on its own or progress any further than its original form.

Species are commonly attracted to their own species. The efforts to create “beefalo” from a buffalo and a cow, demonstrated that when they did successfully breed the mutation with another mutation, after 7 generations they reverted back to either a cow or a buffalo. Therefore, the evidence makes liars out of the evolution scientists.

V. Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.

Although highly imaginative "transitional forms" between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general,¹¹ monkeys,¹² apes,¹³ and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no "fossil traces" of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.¹⁴ The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these "primitive" features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.¹⁵ Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.¹⁶ Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright.¹⁷ The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two "missing links" that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig's tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).¹⁸

Note: Bias nearly always corrupts scientific testing and conclusions. Instead of allowing the evidence to tell the story, they make the evidence fit the theory and contaminate the conclusion. This only makes “monkeys” of the scientists.

VI. The Earth's Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).

Catastrophic events have characterized the earth's history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth's geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.¹⁹

Note: The evidence of catastrophic events occurring on the earth would definitely throw the accuracy of carbon dating into question. Carbon dating relies upon all the conditions for life and atmosphere remaining constant since the very beginning. Any single catastrophic event is capable of changing all of that.

VII. The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.

Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.²⁰ Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;²¹ (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;²² and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.²³Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth's cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.²⁴ Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth's magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.²⁵ Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.²⁶

Note: Many scientists are like most Doctor’s; they think they know it all and are infallible. Unfortunately most people believe they are, too. They certainly do play a valuable role in society, but infallible? That’s a bit of a stretch!

The Recapitulation Theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—and often expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. With different formulations, such ideas have been applied and extended to several fields and areas, including the origin of language, biology, cognition and mental activities,^[1] anthropology,^[2] education theory^[3] and developmental psychology.^[4] While examples of embryonic stages show that molecular features of ancestral organisms exist, the theory of recapitulation itself has been viewed within the field of developmental biology as a historical side-note rather than as dogma.^[5][6][7] By contrast, there is no consensus against its validity outside of biology; recapitulation theory is still considered plausible and applied by some researchers in fields like the study of the origin of language,^[8] cognitive development,^[9] behavioral development in animal species,^[10] and others.

(This is like seeing faces in the clouds. When a new born is seen for the first time by the relatives, some see the mother and some see the father in the infant. It is all a matter of perspective and positive proof of nothing).

Embryological Recapitulation

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/scientific_evidence_gish.html

Various other arguments. The theory of embryological recapitulation is now a thoroughly discredited theory. The list of so‑called vestigial organs has shrunk practically to zero. The attempt to give an evolutionary explanation for the existence of homologous structures has been given up as hopeless by many experts in this field.

(About the only things that we can expect from the Darwinists are totally biased theories bearing no proof whatsoever. All their theories will come to naught as time unfolds.)

The Hydroplate Theory

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

This theory explains a catastrophic event in earth’s history and solves a host of recognized problems. For decades, evolutionists complained that creationists only criticized evolution and did not offer sound scientific theories of their own. The hydroplate theory ends that complaint and explains, with overwhelming evidence, earth’s defining geological event—a worldwide flood.

• • If there was a global flood, where did the water come from? Where did it go?

  • What were the powerful fountains of the great deep?

  • How was the Grand Canyon carved in weeks after a post-flood lake (Grand Lake) breached?

  • What evidence shows that the material in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids came from Earth?

  • What suddenly froze and buried the mammoths? How could they have survived the 6-month winter nights inside the Arctic Circle?

  • How did mountains ranges, volcanoes, submarine canyons, coal and oil deposits, and deep ocean trenches form?

  • What processes sorted fossils and produced layered strata?

(There is much proof behind the Creationist theories. Primarily, their evidence shows that the arguments of the Darwinists and Evolutionists defy everything we know about nature at this present time. If nothing else it offers a sound alternative to the views of these two groups that simply cannot be ignored. Thus the reason many scientists are switching to the Creationist model. While they still come short of admitting to the existence of a divine Creator, they at least admit that there had to be some form of intelligent design behind the creation. This is an excellent step forward!)

Other Evidence

http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/30-Other_Evidences.html

Evidences for a young earth include:

· Rapid magnetic field reversals and decay,

· Less erosion of the continents and less sediments in the ocean,

· Less salt in the sea,

· Carbon-14 found in coal and diamonds,

· Scarcity of human fossils,

· Soft tissue and blood cells found in dinosaur fossils.

These evidences are discussed in the book, evolution – The Greatest Deception in Modern History.

As described in previous sections, other geochronometers Geochronometers are techniques used to date the earth and universe. Although such evidence does not provide an absolute date, the evidence is overwhelming on the side of a young earth. There are over 200 scientific geochronometers⁵² —that is, time clocks that indicate that the earth, solar system and universe are young. indicative of a worldwide flood include huge limestone formations, enormous coal and oil deposits, rapid formation of massive igneous rock and mountain ranges, evidence of accelerated nuclear decay with abundance of daughter isotopes, tightly bent strata (igneous and sedimentary rock), polystrate fossils, clastic dikes, sedimentary strata with sharp bedding planes, relict erosional landforms, and so on.

The following are some of the evidences that conflict with the idea that the universe is 10 to 20 billion years old.

·The observed rotation speeds of stars, interstellar gas and dust, and dark matter of the Milky Way (as well as other galaxies) are much too fast for an old universe; this “winding-up dilemma” remains a puzzle to evolutionists.

·Observation of gas and dust remnants from supernovas (violently exploding stars) is consistent with 7,000 years' worth of supernovas.

·Old earth theorists believe that comets should be the same age as the Solar System, about 5 billion years, yet many comets have an age of less than 10,000 years because of their “melting rate.” There is no satisfactory explanation to explain the large number of comets.

·Other evidence includes the shrinking sun (0.1% per century; too hot millions of years ago) and the receding moon (6 inches per year; too close to orbit earth millions of years ago); and the existence of Uranium-236 (half life of 23.44 million years) and Thorium-230 (75,380 years half life) on the moon.

One of the primary differences between creationists and evolutionists is the issue of time—that is, the age of the universe and earth. Evolutionists and secular scientists claim that the universe Universe is everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy. is very old and came into existence via the Big Bang about 10 to 20 billion years ago. They also believe that the earth is approximately 3 to 5 billion years old.

The most obvious explanation for a young earth and universe is superluminal Superluminal speed is faster than the speed of light. speed and decay of the speed of light over the last 6,000 years. One of the most credible solutions is gravitational time dilation Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational pull; the greater the pull (or higher the distortion of spacetime due to gravity), the slower time passes and the lesser the pull (near the outer fringes of the universe), the faster time passes. Albert Einstein originally predicted this effect in his theory of relativity and it has since been confirmed by empirical science (i.e., precise measurements). Thus, billions of years would be available for light to reach the earth while less than an ordinary day is passing on earth. In other words, light from the extremities of the universe has the potential of reaching earth in a relatively short period of time. in which Einstein suggests that time is not a constant—thus light from the extremities of the universe has the potential of reaching earth in a relatively short period of time.

It is interesting to note that the concept of gravitational time dilation is compatible with the mathematics and physics associated with general relativity General relativity theory is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the state-of-the art description of gravity in modern physics. It unifies special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, and describes gravity as a property of the geometry of space and time, or spacetime.. Nevertheless, all this remains extremely hypothetical and far beyond the understanding of even the very brightest astrophysicist.

The single greatest problem for the Big Bang theory is the Cause of the universe and the Origin of matter and energy within space—how space, matter, and time suddenly came into existence. The fact is, astrophysicists and other scientists don’t have the faintest idea. They have never been able to explain the origin of the original infinite mass and energy and Why there is a universe in the first place.

God stated in Genesis 1:1-2 (NAS), “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.” Jeremiah10:12 (NIV) states, “But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding.” [Bold, emphasis added] The authority of the Bible should never be compromised by mankind’s “scientific” theories and hypotheses.

Giants

Scientists used to scoff at the Biblical claims of giants existing on the earth before the Noation flood. When some bones of these giants were found in 1950, they had to start singing a different tune.

http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm#series

(Genesis 6 tells us that these giants were the product of the sons of Elohim (angels) mating with the daughter’s of men. Some claim that the term “sons of Elohim” is referring to the sons of Seth. However, wherever this term is used in the Old Testament, it is referring to angels.

If the bloodlines of the sons of Noah were pure, how did the genes of these giants survive following the flood? Perhaps it was through their wives. Regardless, they Israelites were commanded by Yahuwah to completely eradicate them from the earth. They obviously failed to kill them all as the story of David and Goliath reveals.

The point is, however, that in spite of the folk lore stories of giants from pretty much every culture in existence, scientists argued for the longest time that they were a myth and never really existed. They said the same of many of the cities mentioned in the Scriptures and now doubt the existence of King David and even the Messiah himself. Archeology and history has made fools of them all.)

The Gap Theory

Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_Theory

Gap creationism (also known as ruin-restoration creationism, restoration creationism, or "The Gap Theory") is a form of old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.^[1][2][3] It differs from day-age creationism, which posits that the 'days' of creation were much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years), and from young Earth creationism, which although it agrees concerning the six literal 24-hour days of creation, does not posit any gap of time.

In religious circles there exists some division over the Genesis account of creation. On one hand you have the seemingly overwhelming evidence that the earth is older than the 6,000 years that the Genesis account seems to imply. This division is rooted in the difference between translations. However, I have checked out the Jewish understanding of creation and the ones I have talked to and whose literature I have read definitely supported the Gap Theory. The Gap Theory suggests that the word “was” in Genesis 1:2 should have been translated “became” which is one of the definitions of the Hebrew word at the root of the “was” translation.

Hebrew (Str.# 1961) – haya – can mean either became or was.

Greek - (Str.# 1096) – ginomai – can mean either became or was.

The Gap Theory renders the Genesis account as a re-creation, not the original creation. With the other information and evidence we have available to us, it would seem that there was life on the earth previous to the Genesis account, but that it was somehow wiped out (by a comet?).

At the beginning of the Genesis account the earth was found to be in a state of chaos – completely enveloped by water and in darkness. No explanation is given as to how it became that way. Genesis 1:1 tells us that in the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth. Verse 3 starts the first day of the recreation. The earth was definitely in existence before that first day. On the first day it is recorded that light was created and the darkness (night) was separated from the light (day). There is no mention of the earth being created that day. However, it is also recorded that the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day. Therefore, the light that appeared in verse 1 must have been from a different source that that in verse 4. That source could have only been the Creator, himself – a supernatural source.

So, what could have happened to reduce the earth to a watery chaos and extinguish the sun? Was it some “natural” galactic disaster or was it the result of an angelic rebellion and a great war in the heavens fought between Yahuwah and His angels and HaSatan and his demons? Did such a rebellion leave the entire universe in a state of chaos and darkness? Did the universe previously support life on other planets as well? It could have been either, depending on what your “belief” orientation happens to be. My theory is that a perfect Creator would only create perfection. After all, why would He create something in a state of chaos and confusion? It is HaSatan who is the destroyer of life and the author of chaos and confusion. Therefore, the satanic rebellion theory makes sense to me.

How could all life be created in only 7 days?

I suppose that I could use the old cliché that “With Elohim all things are possible.” But no scientist is going to believe or accept that explanation. And yet, such a 7 day restoration of life, happen another time in Scriptural history as well – following the Noation Flood.

Genesis 8:6 - And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7 - And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 - But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10 - And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

11 - And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

12 - And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him anymore.

The implication in verse 11 is that the leaf was freshly grown. In fact the tree itself may have been freshly grown. Yet it would be another 7 days before the dove would find enough food to sustain it. In other words, within 14 days these trees were fully grown and bearing fruit, nuts and seeds. This all occurred around the beginning of the spring planting season in Jerusalem (February or the middle of the 11^th month). The only living creatures to be found were those that lived in the sea. So there would have been plenty of marine life for food for Noah and his sons. Within a very short time there would have been the fruit of the land available to them as well for food. This was a special and unusual occurrence. Science could not begin to explain it. The following year would bring a return to the normal growth cycle.

The belief that life on earth as we know it was created in just 7 days is an easy one for those who trust in a divine Creator. However, for a scientist, it is almost impossible to believe. It simply defies all the natural laws. Well, the very fact that such natural laws exist in the first place, demands the existence of a Lawgiver. And; therefore, the Lawgiver is the only One capable of or possessing the power to alter the law of nature.

We have some very clear demonstrations of this occurring in the New Testament. Yahushua walking on the water defied the law of gravity. His calming the storm defied the weather laws. Raising Lazarus from the grave defied the laws of human existence. Healing the sick with a touch of his hand or a spoken word defied all health and healing laws. The list goes on and on. The point is that only the Lawgiver has the power and the authority to alter or manipulate the laws of nature.

Even in the case of human life, the law was altered. In the beginning, before Adam sinned, the laws pertaining to the nature of man were different from after the commission of sin. We have limited knowledge of what exactly that nature was, but we know that sickness and death did not exist before sin was introduced to the world. Man was originally intended to grow from physical beings into fully formed spiritual beings (a completed creation) without having to ever taste death. Sin brought the phenomenon of death with it.

The Trouble with Science

Scientists take credit for “discovering” all scientific knowledge gleaned over the time that man has been on the earth. They gloat, pat each other on the back and hand out awards to one another. However, there is one “scientist” that is greater and more knowledgeable than all the human scientists throughout history combined. That scientist is the Creator. How great must His knowledge of science be? What human scientist can create a universe and life within that universe? His knowledge is so vast that we cannot even begin to comprehend it all.

The very first rule of scientific method limits the spiritual comprehension of most scientists. Unless one personally sees Yahuwah (which no man ever has) or one of His angels, it is very difficult to believe. Sayings like “Seeing is believing.” and “I’m from Missouri, show me” come to mind.

The first rule of scientific method is to see and observe. This cannot be done with the spiritual realm. That is why most scientists do not have faith. Faith simply does not exist within the confines of scientific method unless it is backed up by sight – something observable and measurable. Of course, all the other rules of scientific method fall right into place behind the first and none can be applied to the spiritual realm. Scientific method only works within and is limited to the physical realm only.

The only recorded sightings of spiritual beings are found in the Scriptures and some extra-biblical writings. To believe them one must have faith in the one writing the reports. Not many scientists can accept such reports on faith. However, there are a growing number of “Christian” scientists “evolving” out of the group atheistic scientists that are attempting to prove the existence of Yahuwah using science. One such scientist and noted speaker is Kent Hovind, aka Dr. Dino. http://www.freecdtracts.com/video13.htm

You can watch his videos at the above link and judge for yourselves. All his videos are quite interesting, although I cannot attest to what degree of accuracy or truth to attach to the information. However, one of his theories, in relation to carbon dating, is that we have no way to measure carbon dating beyond the time of the Noation flood because there appears to have been a change in the properties of our atmosphere and weather patterns that was brought about by the flood. Hovind believes what the Scriptures plainly state that there was no rain (only thick dew) on the Earth at that time. He also believes that there was a much higher percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere before the flood.

Gen.2:5 - And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Elohim, Yahuwah, had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 - But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

He further maintains that since there was more oxygen in the atmosphere, this is the reason that man lived almost 1,000 years and dinosaurs grew so big. Reptiles never stop growing until they die. So it makes sense that if they lived longer due to the health effects of more oxygen in the atmosphere, then it would be quite likely and natural for them to grow so big. If we could artificially reproduce that atmosphere in a giant aquarium and place a snake in there and observe it for 100 years or more, it would be interesting to see the result. However, such an experiment would transcend several generations of scientists before the ultimate conclusion could be drawn.

Top Ten Mysteries of the Universe

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Top-Ten-Mysteries-of-the-Universe.html

What are those burning questions about the cosmos that still baffle astronomers today?

· By Joseph Stromberg

· Smithsonian.com, May 08, 2012,

One of the many mysteries baffling astronomers is how galaxies such as the Milky Way are able to form new stars at an unsustainable rate. (NASA / JPL)

My comments appear in red.

1. What Are Fermi Bubbles?

No, this is not a rare digestive disorder. The bubbles are massive, mysterious structures that emanate from the Milky Way’s center and extend roughly 20,000 light-years above and below the galactic plane. The strange phenomenon, first discovered in 2010, is made up of super-high-energy gamma-ray and X-ray emissions, invisible to the naked eye. Scientists have hypothesized that the gamma rays might be shock waves from stars being consumed by the massive black hole at the center of the galaxy.

Even these objects operate in accordance with some natural law. Again I ask, “How can there be a law in place with no law-giver to command it?”

2. Rectangular Galaxy

“Look, up in the sky! It’s a…rectangle?” Earlier this year, astronomers spotted a celestial body, roughly 70 million light-years away, with an appearance that is unique in the visible universe: The galaxy LEDA 074886 is shaped more or less like a rectangle. While most galaxies are shaped like discs, three-dimensional ellipses or irregular blobs, this one seems to have a regular rectangle or diamond-shaped appearance. Some have speculated that the shape results from the collision of two spiral-shaped galaxies, but no one knows for now.

Someone does know – the Lawgiver. If everything evolved on its own by accident one would expect to find many different shaped galaxies. Instead we have only one (that we know of) that flies in the face of every other galaxy. How could this have occurred without some form of intelligent design?

3. The Moon’s Magnetic Field

One of the moon’s greatest mysteries—why only some parts of the crust seem to have a magnetic field—has intrigued astronomers for decades, even inspiring the buried mythical “monolith” in the novel and film 2001: A Space Odyssey. But some scientists finally think they may have an explanation. After using a computer model to analyze the moon’s crust, researchers believe the magnetism may be a relic of a 120-mile-wide asteroid that collided with the moon’s southern pole about 4.5 billion years ago, scattering magnetic material. Others, though, believe the magnetic field may be related to other smaller, more recent impacts.

This explanation actually does make sense. We know that if we strike a magnet with a hard enough blow (say from a sledge hammer) it will lose its magnetivity.

4. Why Do Pulsars Pulse?

Pulsars are distant, rapidly spinning neutron stars that emit a beam of electromagnetic radiation at regular intervals, like a rotating lighthouse beam sweeping over a shoreline. Although the first one was discovered in 1967, scientists have for decades struggled to understand what causes these stars to pulse—and, for that matter, what causes pulsars to occasionally stop pulsing. In 2008, though, when one pulsar suddenly shut off for 580 days, scientists’ observations allowed them to determine that the “on” and “off” periods are somehow related to magnetic currents slowing down the stars’ spin. Astronomers are still at work trying to understand why these magnetic currents fluctuate in the first place.

Once again these objects are governed by some law of nature, thereby demanding the existence of a Lawgiver.

5. What Is Dark Matter?

Astrophysicists are currently trying to observe the effects of dark energy, which accounts for some 70 percent of the universe. But it's not the only dark stuff in the cosmos: roughly 25 percent of it is made up of an entirely separate material called dark matter. Completely invisible to telescopes and the human eye, it neither emits nor absorbs visible light (or any form of electromagnetic radiation), but its gravitational effect is evident in the motions of galaxy clusters and individual stars. Although dark matter has proven extremely difficult to study, many scientists speculate that it might be composed of subatomic particles that are fundamentally different from those that create the matter we see around us.

(For more information on dark matter and dark energy check out the link below.)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Dark-Energy-The-Biggest-Mystery-in-the-Universe.html?c=y&page=1

Note: One of the plagues in Egypt brought the experience of this kind of darkness to the people there. They could not see the light of a candle held right in front of their eyes.

Ex. 10:21 - And Yahuwah said unto Moses, Stretch out your hand toward heaven, that there may be darkness over the land of Egypt, even darkness which may be felt.

22 - And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days:

23 - They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

In stressing that the Israelites had light, the implication would be that only the Egyptians did not. Surely they must have had an abundance of candles and lamps for seeing at night time. Again the implication is that whatever sources of light they had did no good.

This sounds like the very same form of darkness described above, “it neither emits nor absorbs visible light”. How could the author of these scriptural verses have ever even imagined such a degree of darkness without having ever experienced it or having known of its existence? It lasted for three days and was centered over the Egyptians only. What manner of miracle was this – that for this relatively short span of time, this dark matter that as far as we know only exists in outer space, visited the earth for this very short, one and only time in all of man’s history and was experienced by humans? The feeling attached to this darkness was absolute fear. They were afraid to move from their spot.

Such darkness is also a prophesied punishment for the children of Israel who rebel:

Matt. 8:12 - But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Before science discovered dark matter, they would have never imagined such a degree of darkness. It was out there all the time. They just couldn’t see it. This is where faith enters the picture and the man of faith was proven to be right – such a degree of darkness most certainly does exist.

6. Galactic Recycling

In recent years, astronomers have noticed that galaxies form new stars at a rate that would seem to consume more matter than they actually have inside them. The Milky Way, for example, appears to turn about one sun’s worth of dust and gas into new stars every year, but it doesn’t have enough spare matter to keep this up long-term. A new study of distant galaxies might provide the answer: Astronomers noticed gas that had been expelled by the galaxies flowing back in to the center. If the galaxies recycle this gas to produce new stars, it might be a piece of the puzzle in solving the question of the missing raw matter.

Once again everything in this physical universe is cycular and there is no beginning or ending point. Therefore, this phenomenon could not have begun on its own. Where did the material come from to originally create it? What set the process in motion? Again there are natural laws involved that demand the existence of a Lawgiver.

7. Where Is All the Lithium?

Models of the Big Bang indicate that the element lithium should be abundant throughout the universe. The mystery, in this case, is pretty straightforward: it doesn’t. Observations of ancient stars, formed from material most similar to that produced by the Big Bang, reveal amounts of lithium two to three times lower than predicted by the theoretical models. New research indicates that some of this lithium may be mixed into the center of stars, out of view of our telescopes, while theorists suggest that axions, hypothetical subatomic particles, may have absorbed protons and reduced the amount of lithium created in the period just after the Big Bang.

In other words the Big Bang theory defies the natural law that such a phenomenon should produce an expected amount of lithium. Since this phenomenon adheres to a law entirely of its own tells us that the source cannot be physical in origin.

8. Is There Anybody Out There?

In 1961, astrophysicist Frank Drake devised a highly controversial equation: By multiplying together a series of terms relating to the probability of extraterrestrial life (the rate of star formation in the universe, the fraction of stars with planets, the fraction of planets with conditions suitable for life, etc.) he surmised that the existence of intelligent life on other planets is extremely likely. One problem: Roswell conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, we haven’t heard from any aliens to date. Recent discoveries of distant planets that could theoretically harbor life, though, have raised hopes that we might detect extraterrestrials if we just keep looking.

From a physical standpoint, the existence of extra-terrestrial life is entirely plausible. Why should life have “evolved” on only one of the billions of planets out there? Of course, that would only be possible if there was any truth to the theory of evolution. It is quite natural for Darwinists to believe such a theory. And, if there is a verse in Scriptures to support either the existence of other life in the universe or deny it, I am ignorant of it. However, it is my personal belief that it will be mankind (when reborn of the new creation) that will bring life to these planets.

9. How Will the Universe End? [Warning, Potential Spoiler Alert!]

We now believe the universe started with the Big Bang. But how will it end? Based on a number of factors, theorists conclude that the fate of the universe could take one of several wildly different forms. If the amount of dark energy is not enough to resist the compressing force of gravity, the entire universe could collapse into a singular point—a mirror image of the Big Bang, known as the Big Crunch. Recent findings, though, indicate a Big Crunch is less likely than a Big Chill, in which dark energy forces the universe into a slow, gradual expansion and all that remains are burned-out stars and dead planets, hovering at temperatures barely above absolute zero. If enough dark energy is present to overwhelm all other forces, a Big Rip scenario could occur, in which all galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart.

I would not worry too much about the destruction of the universe. The only way that it could ever be destroyed is if the One who created it decides to scrap it all and cause it to either implode on itself or simply cause it to cease to exist. However, in doing so it would be a case of all or nothing, in which case it would have to start with the beginning of His creation – His only begotten Son. Since His only begotten Son has already passed into the new creation, the Father cannot destroy His creation because it has already reached completeness through the Son. Many saints await their resurrection from the grave to join the Son in the new creation.

10. Across the Multiverse

Theoretical physicists speculate that our universe may not be the only one of its kind. The idea is that our universe exists within a bubble, and multiple alternative universes are contained within their own distinct bubbles. In these other universes, the physical constants—and even the laws of physics—may differ drastically. Despite the theory's resemblance to science fiction, astronomers are now looking for physical evidence: Disc-shaped patterns in the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang, which could indicate collisions with other universes.

I would suppose that the existence of more than one universe is entirely possible. I mean, who is to say there isn’t. It could also be possible that there were past universes where the intended Saviour for sin failed in his duty and caused the destruction of that universe. We can throw out all sorts of theories but can prove none. Therefore, belief in any of them boils down to a matter of faith.

There seems to be an awful lot of information that scientist do not know about the universe. With such a lack of information, how can scientists come to any scientifically provable conclusion? The answer is simple. They are just guessing. In their zeal to prove the theory of evolution and a creation without a creator, they seem to throw all scientific method out the window and just make up some other ridiculous theory.

Science simply cannot be applied outside the physical realm. Science has to follow the physical evidence and allow that evidence to interpret the facts. And the fact is that without an extra-physical Creator, there could be no creation.

Physical life simply could not have started without a non-physical source. Its very nature precludes that possibility. From what we can derive from studying nature is that all life comes from an already existing life source. As with the case of mankind and most animals, we need two sources (a mother and father) to create one human being. Where was this source for the very first human being?

A science of DNA study has already proven and has been publically declared that the entire human race can be genetically traced to one mother. Naturally, this one mother had to have someone to mate with to create another human being. So, the history of mankind started with two beings not one.

How is it possible (as the evolutionists claim) for two beings to evolve from two separate single cells and be perfectly compatible for one another?

How is it possible that under the entire cosmos, only two single cells, with barely enough intelligence of their own to even exist, “evolved” into two separate beings of such vast intellect and intelligence, compared to all other creatures on the Earth?

If evolution were a fact, why were there not more of these single cells developing into human beings, or, at least, some kind of fossil record of it?

Where is the evidence of transitional development?

Are we to believe that this tiny single cell suddenly grew into the complexity of cells that make up the human being, while all evidence shows that all life is in a state of decay rather than progression? Also, all scientific evidence reveals that mutating cells always produce a less progressive cell rather than a more progressive one.

They have absolutely NO PROOF of any of the Evolutionist theories – at least none that would qualify under the rules of scientific method. All they have is theories; and those theories are bias in that they already have a predetermined conclusion before they start. They do not allow the evidence to speak for itself. These theories contradict everything we know about the laws of nature.

No matter how far back we trace the source of life, we keep coming up with another source. In other words, if the source of all human life truly was a single mindless cell, who created that cell? In the case of the universe, scientists are now saying that all the planets and stars are formed in some black hole is space. Well, who created the black hole? It is like a Pandora’s Box; every time the scientists think they have an answer, they just end up with another question.

Science is nothing more than a godless religion. They worship the creation instead of the Creator. They continually butt their heads against the wall as they keep going in circles trying to prove a theory that is un-provable. If it genuinely was scientifically provable that the entire creation simply evolved from nothing, I am sure that most who now believe in a divine being would be swayed over. However, the scientist’s zeal is so great to disprove the existence of a divine Creator, that they throw all the scientific criteria that defines science out the window if it disagrees with their theory.

This is not science. THIS IS A RELIGION! And all they are trying to do is convert the world to their religion. This is no different from any other man-made religion in that respect. Other godless religions include psychology and psychiatry. All are being pushed upon us by the physical powers that be, through our education and even a lot of religious systems today. Society seems to be split with roughly 50% following a godless religion of some sort and the other 50% believing in a divine Creator.

The fact is that we are all religious in one way or another. Any set of beliefs constitute a religion – whether a god is involved or not. As we move into a global one world order, there will be only one state sponsored religion (a godless one) and all others will be prohibited and punished (likely unto death). That one religion will be the godless religions of science, philosophy and psychiatry rolled into one.

Proof of Creation and the Plan of the Creator in Nature

Amazingly, almost the entire plan of the Creator (as outlined in the Scriptures) is laid out in nature. For example:

1. The sun is the great light, the moon is the lesser light. They represent the Father and the Son. Yahuwah is the great Elohim and Yahushua is the lesser Elohim.

2. The Moon cycle is approximately 30 days. The Messiah’s life on earth was approximately 30 years. The moon is dark for 3 days and nights. The Messiah was buried in the earth for three days and nights. Following his 3 days and nights in the earth, he was resurrected as an entirely new being; just as the moon comes back again as a new moon.

3. Plant life comes to life in the spring and dies in the fall. The following spring they come up again (resurrected). Although genetically related, these new plants are an entirely new plant (i.e. a new creation).

4. There is also the example of the caterpillar and the butterfly. This is the one that I love the most. The caterpillar spins its cocoon and they enter a state of rest (as in death). The following spring it emerges from its cocoon (a type of resurrection) as beautiful butterflies (magnificent spirit beings); an entirely new and different creature, even though genetically linked to the former creature (caterpillar).

5. The winds remind us of Yahuwah’s set apart spirit – invisible but incredibly powerful. Even though we cannot see it, we are definitely aware of its presence and its enormous power.

6. The rain the Earth receives is essential to all life on the planet. It is a reminder that we are dependent on Yahuwah to sustain our continued existence.

7. No matter how far back science goes in their efforts to prove evolution as the root of all life, all they can come up with is yet one more physical starting point. Every physical “source” they come up with demands a further study as to how that source came into being. Eventually they are going to have to admit that the physical creation could simply not have begun to exist without an extra-physical source or catalyst.

8. Every planet that we know anything about lies as they have since the day they were formed – completely devoid of life or the conditions for life to exist. Why is Earth so different? Why is Earth the only planet we know of so far that is capable of sustaining life? If the theory of Evolution is true, why is it that absolutely no life whatsoever has evolved on any of these planets? Why have the conditions to sustain life not “evolved” on any of these planets? Some aspects of evolution are true but they still remain within the context of creation and within their own species. There is no evidence of cross–species evolution.

9. If the theory of evolution were completely true, why is it not ongoing today? The last great change on the Earth was during the Noation flood. Before the flood, there was no rain. The Earth was watered by heavy dew each morning. Man lived almost one thousand years. Archeology has proven that pre-flood man was endowed with amazing knowledge that science is only today learning about. They had accurate knowledge of the universe that science has only recently re-discovered. If evolution were true, why did their knowledge and intelligence take so many steps backwards before coming to life again?

10. How did the ability to speak and communicate evolve? The scientists claim we came originally from a single celled creature (which they have failed to identify) and then from monkeys (of which they have absolutely no supportive evidence). Why is it that no other creature has the ability to speak and otherwise communicate except for in the most basic and simplistic of forms? To the best of our knowledge, prehistoric man was only capable of such basic communication methods as well. How did such a condition have only “evolved” in modern man?

11. How did man’s great intellect come about? No other creature comes close to possessing the intellect of man. He is capable of creating things to help him cope with his environment – i.e. clothes, houses, transportation, communication devices, weapons of war, systems of trade and commerce, devices to study the universe, etc., etc. In all cases, man is uniquely different from any other creature; and both science and evolution is at a loss to explain why.

12. What other creature is even aware of mathematics, much less able to calculate anything? The entire universe is a lesson in mathematics. Only man is aware of and capable of solving complicated mathematical equations. One would imagine that only an all knowing non-physical Creator would be capable of creating a universe that possesses such awesome mathematical precision and perfection.

The connection between man and an all knowing Creator is painfully obvious; and yet, mankind continues to deny the existence of a Creator. The Scriptures fully explain the reason behind this phenomenon but man refuses to listen. Man thinks that he is already god and capable of making his own way in the universe.

Gen.3:4 - And the serpent said unto the woman, You shall not surely die:

5 - For Elohim does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

This was the same as throwing away the Owner’s Manual that comes with any new car and letting the car decide what is best for itself.

Yahuwah created mankind with the very best of intentions for him; but man rejected Yahuwah along with His owner’s manual (the Scriptures) and has been playing god ever since. In that endevour, man has brought about his own destruction via war, murder, death and disease. What other creature does this? Every other creature does whatever it can to survive.

13. What other creature is capable of feeling the emotions that humans feel, as deeply as humans do? Humans are elohim-like in their capacity for love. If they hate something or someone, they will move heaven and earth to change or satisfy that emotion. Sure, other creatures feel some degree of these emotions, but not to the extent that humans do.

14. What other creature is aware of its appearance and works so hard to change or improve it? What other creature is aware of growing old and tries to extend their lifespan by tampering with their genetic time-clock?

Everything about man is elohim-like in nature, and diametrically opposed to every other known creature. This reality perfectly mirrors what we are told in the Scriptures. We were created after the Elohim kind. Every other creature was created after their own kind.

If man were created after the man kind, we would be no further advance than pre-historic man was. Monkeys are no further advanced than they were from the beginning. Neither are any of the uni-cell creatures that we know about. Where is the proof that we came from either of these two creatures? Simple, there is none. It was all made up because these scientists already have a preconceived theory that kicks an all knowing, all wise Creator out of the equation.

The equation simply cannot be solved without all of the necessary components. That means that these “smarty-pants” scientists are going to continue to chase their tails in an effort to prove a theory that simply cannot be proven or fully explained separate from the component of an Almighty, extra-physical Creator.

You may have heard people blaming Yahuwah (God) for the tragedies in their lives, especially at funerals. Meanwhile, these same people likely never thank the Creator for his blessing and gifts. These people simply do not fully understand the Creator’s role in the creation.

We need to think of the Creator as a planter of life. In this he planted only one seed. That seed was His only begotten Son, Yahushua. In that one seed was the genetic blueprint for the entire creation. That was it. That was virtually the end of the Father’s involvement with the creation. From that point on, it was the Son from whom the physical creation sprung.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Elohim, and the Word was Elohim.

2 - The same was in the beginning with Elohim.

3 - All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

4 - In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

John says it all in these four simple verses. Yahushua was the beginning of the creation of Yahuwah. He was the seed for all life to follow. He was both with Elohim and he was Elohim. The term “Elohim” is a generic term referring to the nature of the being described. Yahuwah is an Elohim. He is also the only being ever referred to as Eloah, the singular form of Elohim. The term Elohim is plural referring to more than one being. In the Scriptures it is used of angels and human judges of Israel as well.

In nature, if you plant one seed, that seed grows into a plant, is fertilized and produces hundreds of seed. Those hundreds of seeds go on to create thousands of seeds, and so on. Every one of these seeds was initially conceived in and part of the DNA of the first seed. And so it is with us; we are genetically linked to Adam and Eve. The science of genealogy has already proven that the entire human race came from one mother.

However, we can go even further back than that. We can trace our genealogy right back to the very first seed that the Creator planted – which was the Only Begotten Son. Therefore, we were basically conceived at the very beginning of creation. Everything else that occurs in our lives is a matter of choice.

We were given the blessing of free choice. However, this is a back handed blessing. It is meant to teach us to make the right choices that will lead us to eternal life. Most of us think this means that any way of life we choose is correct because we chose it and we adamantly defend our right to live as we please. That is quite alright because we exercised our free choice but it was not the right choice and is one that excludes us from ever attaining eternal life.

The point is that man suffers because of his own choices; and the choices made by his forefathers. According to the Scriptures the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons to the third and fourth generation. On one hand this means that every single human is born into sin. On the other hand it also means that if we can keep the spiritual bloodline pure (not sin) for four generations, we can restore mankind to his original state, with a slate wiped clean. However, man has never achieved such a degree of perfection.

The Laws of Yahuwah were built into the original creation (the Son). Just as one has to adhere to the directions of the owner’s manual to keep a vehicle in top working order, so do the laws of Yahuwah have to be adhered to if we expect to work at peak performance.

If the laws of Yahuwah are broken, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Therefore, Yahuwah is not responsible for what happened after He planted the seed, just as the vehicle manufacturer is not responsible if one does not follow the directions in the owner’s manual. It was the choices that mankind made that altered the intended purpose of the Creator. And since we knew full well what the correct choice was and intentionally chose wrongly, we have only ourselves to blame. Physically speaking mankind is on a course of decay and self-destruction. Seeking spiritual perfection is the only thing that can save him from the natural, physical certainty of self destruction.

The Creator’s purpose was quite simple – to reproduce Himself (a family of Elohim beings). The Creator produced the one seed. That seed was His only begotten Son, Yahushua. The rest of creation sprung from this one seed.

Yahushua was created to inherit this universe and rule over it. Since he is the only being to have been brought forth directly from the Father, he is the closest in genetic attributes to the Father as well as the most authentic in reflecting the power and glory of the Father. And yet, Yahushua was not yet a fully formed Elohim. On his own merit, he would have qualified for eternal life before any of the rest of creation was formed. However, he was made to wait patiently until his future role as saviour of mankind was completed. To perform this role he had to die and be in the grave for 3 days and nights. Yes he truly was completely graveyard dead. He literally ceased to exist. If he already possessed eternal life, this would not have been possible.

When the Father resurrected Yahushua, he had to ascend to heaven to be judged and receive eternal life – i.e. re-birth as a totally new creature – the first of all creation, so that he might have pre-eminence in all things.

It was the Son who created the first man and woman (man from the dust of the ground and woman from the rib of the man). It was Yahushua who walked in the garden with them. It was Yahushua whom they rebelled against. It was he who appeared to all the great patriarchs and before the nation of Israel and interceded on their behalf. It was he who came to us born of the flesh to demonstrate to us how we must attain eternal life.

Formerly he was the most glorious creature in the whole universe next to the Father. He gave it all up to become flesh, actually die and wait upon the Father to resurrect him. Of course there was some degree of self interest in his actions as he himself also gained eternal life and the glory of being the firstborn of the new creation in the process. If he had of failed in his quest, I firmly believe that Yahuwah would have had no choice (since Yahushua was the one seed from which all life sprung) but to terminate this creation and start anew. That is how close we came to experiencing the complete destruction of the universe at the time of Yahushua’s coming in the flesh. This is yet one more reason that we have to be grateful and give thanks for his victory.

Bible Codes

Some years ago a Hebrew Scripture student discovered what has come to be known as Bible codes hidden within the text of scripture. While these codes cannot be used to predict future events, it does reveal events that have already taken place, such as the Nuremberg trials, 9-11 and 2012. In the first four books of the Scriptures, the Tetragrammaton is encoded on each of the first pages and in the fifth book it appears on the last page but is backwards. It is as if Yahuwah was signing His signature to each of the original five books, verifying that they were recorded exactly as he delivered them to Moses. The fact that His name appears at the end of the fifth book and backwards implies that it was the conclusion of his instructions to Moses.

The Book of Scriptures, as it comes to us in the Hebrew language, is the only book on the face of the earth (that we know of so far) that contains such a phenomenon. This knowledge was hidden from us for thousands of years until the invention of the computer. It is as if Yahuwah wanted to present this end time (age) generation (Laodicea) with proof of His authorship. And, the fact that it appears only in the Hebrew language, makes me tend to believe that the Hebrew language is a set-apart (sacred) language.

Conclusion

The proof of an extra-physical Creator lays not in what science can prove, but rather what they cannot. They cannot prove their pet theory of evolution even though they teach it as fact in our school systems.

1. If we came from apes, where did the apes come from?

2. If the ape came from a single celled amoeba, where did the single celled amoeba come from?

3. How did the perfect conditions for life begin on this lone planet of all the known planets?

4. If life and the conditions for it “evolved” naturally, why is this same process of evolution not happening on any other planet that we know of?

5. How did a universe suddenly burst forth out of nothing?

6. Where did all the gasses come from that formed the stars and planets?

7. How did the black hole develop from which all the stars and planets come from?

8. How does order come out of chaos without an intelligent designer behind it?

9. How does a cycular physical universe with no starting or ending point develop on its own, without an extra-physical source?

10. How did a significantly more intelligent, modern human being develop from a mutated, low intelligence mammal like an ape? Scientists are at a loss when it comes to explaining any answers to this question. They can find no significant difference between our brain and any other mammal on the planet. They can find no fossil evidence of a single cell mutating and becoming a glorious multi celled, intelligent human being.

11. Modern man made his way suddenly on the scene with absolutely no plausible explanation approximately 6000 years ago. We now know from archeology that the earth was under water before this event. Yet there has been found evidence of life that existed before the watery chaos. If all life was wiped off the planet, how did the process begin again entirely on its own and develop in such a short time?

12. Archeology has also found evidence of a later flooding of the earth – in Noah’s day. There is no known physical explanation known to man for this event.

13. There has been much evidence found that suggests that prior to the Noation flood, mankind possessed great intelligence and were capable of erecting amazing architectural structures that baffle builders to this day. They had amazingly accurate knowledge of the cosmos that our scientists did not “discover” until very recently. How, if evolution were true, did it suddenly reverse itself and cause man to lose the intelligence he possessed earlier? How is it that he is only now regaining that intelligence via the avenue of a universal language?

14. How is it that man alone (of all the earthly creatures) “evolved’ into creatures with such vastly superior intellect and the power of communication? In regards to the Tower of Babel incident in the Scriptures, it is said that the Father confused the language so that no one understood one another. The knowledge that we possess today is a direct result of man’s success in learning one universal language again. Mankind seemed to know that the secret to gaining knowledge lay in communication and developing a universal language. How would the writer of the story of Babel have known about this all important connection if the event truly never happened?

15. How were the prophets of old able to so accurately predict future events hundreds and thousands of years into the future that were so amazingly accurate if not revealed to them by some extra-physical source (i.e. the end of age prophesies of the Messiah)?

We have plenty of questions but few answers as far as science is concerned. The Scriptures do answer a lot of these questions but the scientific community, as well as most of the world, refuses to believe. As the old saying goes, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”.

What can an automobile manufacturer do when dealing with someone that refuses to read or follow the directions in their owner’s manual? It makes the warrantee null and void and the owner is left to his own devises.

That is pretty much what the Creator has done with mankind – left him to his own devices. When man shows that he prefers confusion to the truth, Yahuwah causes that person to become even more confused. That individual is cut off from any spiritual connection to the Creator. The contract is null and void. The Creator no longer has to honour His part of the agreement – the imparting of eternal life. All the alternative paths to salvation of men are absolutely worthless, futile and foolish. All such paths lead to destruction and eternal death.

The plan, as per the word of Yahuwah, is that we were created in the image of the Creator Elohim, for the purpose of reproducing His own kind and of our eventual graduation to full Elohim beings. Right now we are just a shadow of what is to come. The fact that we are such intelligent, creative beings demonstrates that we were created after a much higher being that the rest of creation – i.e. the Creator.

Videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfQE37HKBew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzCTHuQvtec

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonders_of_the_Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

http://www.detectingdesign.com/truthscienceevolution.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Top-Ten-Mysteries-of-the-Universe.html

http://www.icr.org/article/177/

Appendix A

Laws of thermodynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

The four laws of thermodynamics define fundamental physical quantities (temperature, energy, and entropy) that characterize thermodynamic systems. The laws describe how these quantities behave under various circumstances, and forbid certain phenomena (such as perpetual motion).

The four laws of thermodynamics are:^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

• • Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are both in thermal equilibrium with a third system then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps to define the notion of temperature.

  • First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved however the internal energy of a closed system may change as heat is transferred into or out of the system or work is done on or by the system. In real systems work does not always leave the system. For example, changes in molecular energy (potential energy), are generally considered to remain within the system. Similarly, the rotational and vibrational energies of polyatomic molecules remain within the system.

From the above, all the energy associated with a system must be accounted for as heat, work, chemical energy etc., thus perpetual motion machines of the first kind, which would do work without using the energy resources of a system, are impossible.

• • Second law of thermodynamics: An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system. Perpetual motion machines of the second kind are thus impossible.

  • Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. The entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically zero, and in all cases is determined only by the number of different ground states it has. Specifically, the entropy of a pure crystalline substance at absolute zero temperature is zero.

Classical thermodynamics describes the exchange of work and heat between closed systems. It has a special interest in systems that are individually in states of thermodynamic equilibrium. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a condition of systems which are adequately described by only macroscopic variables. Every physical system, however, when microscopically examined, shows apparently random microscopic statistical fluctuations in its thermodynamic variables of state (entropy, temperature, pressure, etc.). These microscopic fluctuations are negligible for systems which are nearly in thermodynamic equilibrium and which are only macroscopically examined. They become important, however, for systems which are nearly in thermodynamic equilibrium when they are microscopically examined, and, exceptionally, for macroscopically examined systems that are in critical states,^[7] and for macroscopically examined systems that are far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

There have been suggestions of additional laws, but none of them achieve the generality of the four accepted laws, and they are not mentioned in standard textbooks.^{[1][2][3][4][5][8][9]}

The laws of thermodynamics are important fundamental laws in physics and they are applicable in other natural sciences

http://khimiya.org/volume15/Fleck.pdf

The Fourth Law of Thermodynamics

Classical thermodynamics, based on conservation of matter and energy

and on the increase of entropy accompanying every natural event, reliably

predicts equilibrium properties of macroscopic systems, regardless of the complexity

of those systems. Thermodynamic theory historically has had little to say about

the far-from-equilibrium evolution of systems. This is in part because the classical

laws of thermodynamics, limited to requirements about the degree and direction of

change, are silent about the means and pathways for achieving change. We propose

a simply stated yet powerful Fourth Law of Thermodynamics that significantly

extends the domain of thermodynamics by incorporating evolving systems and

thereby adding richness to thermodynamic description.