You are on page 1of 81

Evolution

Facts, Fallacies and Implications
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• • o o o o •

Part One – Facts and Fallacies Part Two – Accident or Design? Seeing Clearly – The Story of the Human Eye Mapping the Universe The Universe – Six e!"ire#ents o$ %i$e The &rong Ass"#ption Part Three – Divine '#plications

PART ONE –

FACTS AND FALLACIES
Altho"gh nearly "niversal in its teaching( evol"tion stands "pon #any ass"#ptions) So#e in the scienti$ic co##"nity !"estion its validity) Others state it as $act) &hat are the $acts*the tr"th*a+o"t this ,science-?
The s"+.ect OF the tr"e origin o$ li$e has long +een an "nnecessarily co#plicated iss"e) To help yo" +etter "nderstand this s"+.ect( this p"+lication has +een +ro/en into three sections) Together( they $or# a concl"sive state#ent a+o"t the theory o$ evol"tion*and address $acts and $allacies that s"rro"nd it)

The $irst section explains the ass"#ptions that $or# the $o"ndation $or this theory) 0ext( $o"r dra#atic articles de#onstrating solid proo$ $or creation are presented) Finally( we will concl"de with a +rie$ section explaining the i#plications o$ what yo" have read* and the choice that now lies +e$ore yo") 't is reco##ended that yo" read these sections in order) 1o"r thin/ing*and "nderstanding*a+o"t the $o"ndation o$ the world aro"nd yo" will never +e the sa#e2

3vol"tion has +een called the $o"ndation $or #any $ields o$ scienti$ic st"dy) 4e it +iology( geology or +ioche#istry( the scienti$ic world +ases #any o$ its concepts and ideas on the theory o$ evol"tion) 4"t how has evol"tion +eco#e so esta+lished when it is only a theory? Certainly( it #"st have a $ir# and proven $o"ndation) 4"t does it?

As yo" read( yo" #ay $ind that certain parts o$ this p"+lication are con$"sing or di$$ic"lt to "nderstand) Ma/e no #ista/e( the rationale invented to +ring s"pposed s"pport $or evol"tion is +ewildering and co#plicated*to the point o$ even +eing +oring) The $acts get le$t +ehind( and the tort"red and tedio"s scholarly lang"age "sed +y evol"tionists stops #ost $ro# exa#ining this s"+.ect in detail) %e$t $r"strated( #ost people ass"#e evol"tion to +e tr"e) 5owever( this s"+.ect de$ies true logic( so it is to +e expected that yo" will periodically +eco#e lost) &e will de#ysti$y this s"+.ect) 4y the end o$ this +roch"re( yo" will know i$ evol"tion is $act or science $iction) 1o" will see convol"ted*and illogical*theories si#pli$ied in a way never presented +e$ore) &hile so#e parts are technical( the #ore yo" "nderstand a+o"t evol"tion( the #ore yo" will +egin to see thro"gh its ,s#o/e and #irrors)Altho"gh it #ay appear co#plicated( it easily +rea/s down in the $ace o$ si#ple logic) Clarity will co#e $ro# "nderstanding what evol"tion is not) This opens the door to what disproving evol"tion tr"ly points to*the
3A% O '6'0

o$ the "niverse2

4"t +e$ore we can show what really happened( we #"st prove what did not happen) 3ven a c"rsory review o$ this topic shows that it is still hotly contested2 A$ter #any decades( #"ch st"dy has gone into it) The res"lts are +est s"##ari7ed +y a !"ote $ro# the late Colin Patterson( once the world8s $ore#ost $ossil expert9 ,One #orning ' wo/e "p and so#ething had happened in the night( and it str"c/ #e that ' had +een wor/ing on this st"$$ :evol"tion; $or twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it)-

5e addressed his concerns to +oth the geology sta$$ at the Field M"se"# o$ 0at"ral 5istory and the 3vol"tionary Morphology Se#inar at the University o$ Chicago( saying( ,Can yo" tell #e anything yo" /now a+o"t evol"tion( any one thing that is tr"e?- 3ach ti#e( he was #et with nearly co#plete silence) The only co##ent ca#e $ro# the 3vol"tionary Morphology Se#inar( in which one participant stated( ,' do /now one thing*it o"ght not to +e ta"ght in high school)This led Mr) Patterson to co##ent that ,'t does see# that the level o$ /nowledge a+o"t evol"tion is re#ar/a+ly shallow) &e /now it o"ght not to +e ta"ght in high school( and that8s all we /now a+o"t it)4"t what are the
3A% FACTS

a+o"t the theory o$ evol"tion? &hat do we act"ally know?

&hat is the +asis $or its nearly "niversal acceptance? &e will cover in detail the $acts( #yths and s"ppositions that #a/e "p the +ody o$ the theory o$ evol"tion) 1o" will +e a#a7ed at what the evidence act"ally shows2 T e Science o! Lo"ic 'n the real# o$ science( logic is $"nda#ental in interpreting data) 4e$ore delving into the raw data a+o"t evol"tion( it is i#portant to "nderstand so#e o$ the #ethods "sed to explain it) "les o$ logic cannot +e circ"#vented and( +y extension( co##on logic $allacies sho"ld never +e e#ployed) 't is these $allacies that con$"se data and leave the general p"+lic "ncertain a+o"t what is +eing explained) Clear( si#ple logic sho"ld never leave one con$"sed) Once yo" are aware o$ these logical $allacies( yo" will +egin to notice how o$ten they are e#ployed in other $ields*advertising( $or instance) The $ollowing exa#ples ill"strate the logical $allacies co##only e#ployed in science) <eep the# in #ind while reading this +oo/let) #ast$ %ene&ali'ation( This occ"rs when a s#all sa#pling o$ data is "sed to ,prove- a large concl"sion) For exa#ple( a partic"lar car dealership has nothing +"t red cars= it wo"ld +e a hasty generali7ation to concl"de that all cars everywhere are red) Be""in" t e )uestion( This can also +e re$erred to as reasoning in a circle( or circ"lar logic) &hen an ass"#ption or "nproven concl"sion is "sed to validate a pre#ise( one is

+egging the !"estion) 'n other words( there is no $act"al standing $or the pre#ise( +eca"se it is +ased on an ass"#ption) *isuse o! Aut o&it$( &hen one points to a gro"p o$ ,experts- to validate a concl"sion( even i$ that gro"p disagrees with the concl"sion) An exa#ple wo"ld +e to state*witho"t ever cond"cting a poll*that all dentists pre$er a certain /ind o$ toothpaste) Appeal to t e People( Using the general p"+lic as yo"r +asis $or esta+lishing so#ething as $act( instead o$ relying on relevant evidence) A&"ument to Futu&e( Stating that while so#ething is not tr"e now( it will event"ally +e proven to +e correct with $"rther st"dy and investigation) #$pot esis Cont&a&$ to Fact( Trying to prove a point +y creating a hypothesis that has already +een disproved) For exa#ple( stating that the s/y is green( when( in $act( it is o+vio"sly not tr"e) C &onolo"ical Sno++e&$( This $allacy occ"rs when a point is re$"ted or proven +y si#ply dating the evidence as very old( th"s #a/ing it i#possi+le to +e veri$ied or proven) This is ."st a sa#pling o$ the #any logic $allacies covered in A)>) 5oover8s +oo/( Don’t You Believe It) They will +e reiterated as we co#e to the# thro"gho"t) 't is s"rprising how #any are "sed +y scientists when trying to explain the s"+.ect o$ evol"tion*a s"+.ect ass"#ed( +y #any( to +e proven2 Cause and E!!ect,A Scienti!ic LaThere is a great law that governs the entire "niverse) 't is so $"nda#ental that yo" o$ten apply it witho"t even /nowing) 3veryone "ses it and is i#pacted +y it( whether in +"siness or in everyday li$e) 't is the law o$ CAUS3 and 3FF3CT) '$ yo" drop a +all( it $alls to the gro"nd) The effect is the +all $alling and hitting the gro"nd= the ca"se is gravity) '$ yo" get wet a$ter ."#ping into a pool( the e$$ect is getting wet*the ca"se is ."#ping into the pool) As yo" can see( ,ca"se and e$$ect- is si#ply co##on sense)

This "nderstanding is so "niversal that it has +een granted the stat"s o$ a scienti$ic law) For so#ething to +e esta+lished as a cientific law( it #"st co#e "nder rigoro"s scienti$ic scr"tiny) This $"rther shows the $"nda#ental nat"re o$ ca"se and e$$ect) Part o$ this law8s de$inition states that yo" #ay never have an e$$ect that is greater than its ca"se) This aspect o$ ca"se and e$$ect agrees with another law o$ science*ther#odyna#ics) Ther#odyna#ics is the st"dy o$ the dyna#ics o$ ther#als ?heat@) 't is #ade "p o$ three +asic laws( on which A%% disciplines o$ science are +ased) The Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics is directly related to ca"se and e$$ect) 't is +est s"##ari7ed +y saying that everything #oves toward disorder*or a condition /nown as entropy) Consider these exa#ples9 '$ water +eing heated on a stove is at ABC degrees Fahrenheit( and the +"rner is t"rned o$$( the te#perat"re will drop instead o$ rise) 't will #ove toward colder rather than hotter) '$ yo" spin a top( it will( over ti#e( stop spinning) The energy "sed to per$or# any partic"lar tas/ changes $ro# "sa+le to "n"sa+le d"ring the process) 't will always go $ro# a higher energy level to a lower energy level*where less and less energy is availa+le $or "se) This is closely related to the law o$ ca"se and e$$ect) Scienti$ic laws cannot +e +ro/en( nor will they contradict each other) Scienti$ically spea/ing( +eca"se o$ the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics( every ca"se will create a le er e$$ect2 5ow does a #ore advanced li$e $or#*the e$$ect*ste# $ro# a si#pler li$e $or#*the ca"se? So +egins the !"andary o$ evol"tion) . at Is Evolution/ The !"estion o$ evol"tion( per se( co#es in #any shapes and de$initions) 'n its #ost +asic $or#( it is the +rainchild o$ Charles Darwin) 'n his +oo/( The !rigin of Specie ( Darwin post"lated that all living creat"res and( +y extension( #atter itsel$ had co#e $ro# previo"s( si#pler s"+stances) The exa#ple yo" #ay have #ost o$ten heard is that h"#ans ca#e $ro# apes) 't +asically p"rports that li$e ca#e a+o"t +y accident*chance* and that there is no evidence o$ intelligent design) .

prove.4"t even a#ong evol"tionists( the scope o$ evol"tion is largely contested) There are six +asic areas in which evol"tion can +e de$ined9 Cos#ic( che#ical( stellar and planetary( organic( #acro and #icro) "o mic evolution involves the origin o$ the "niverse( ti#e and #atter itsel$) The 4ig 4ang theory $alls within this discipline o$ evol"tion) "hemical evolution involves the origin o$ co#plex ele#ents) This discipline also atte#pts to explain the process in which those ele#ents $or#ed) Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline "sed to explain the origin o$ the stars and planets) This is distinct $ro# cos#ic evol"tion( yet( at ti#es( overlaps it) !rganic evolution atte#pts to explain the origin o$ living #atter) Those in origin o$ li$e st"dies #ost o$ten $oc"s on this discipline o$ evol"tion) The two $inal disciplines o$ evol"tion are also the #ost o$ten con$"sed +y people) They are macro#evolution and micro#evolution) MicroDevol"tion states that all living organis#s experience #"tations and have the a+ility to develop genetic adaptations) The di$$erence +etween this and #acroDevol"tion is that #icroDevol"tion only deals with #"tations within a species) MacroDevol"tion( on the other hand( states that s"ch adaptations and #"tations allow new species to $or#) This #ay so"nd co#plicated*+eca"se it is2 O$ten( evol"tionists cannot even agree on where the lines o$ these partic"lar disciplines start and stop) This has led to #"ch con$"sion a#ong the general p"+lic on which research and evidence is related to which partic"lar discipline o$ evol"tion) For instance( there is a#ple evidence to prove that #icroDevol"tion is constantly happening aro"nd "s) &hen a vir"s +eco#es resistant to anti+iotics( it is de#onstrating #icroDevol"tion) O$ten( this evidence is "sed to .#acroDevol"tion) S"ch a case wo"ld +e a per$ect exa#ple o$ a ha ty generali$ation) This has led to #"ch con$"sion in the general p"+lic( and to heated de+ates a#ong evol"tionists) 4"t the pro+le#s in evol"tion go even deeper) ecall the logical $allacy o$ .

pillars.&hat was the "lti#ate origin o$ #an?)))Un$ort"nately( any answers which can at present +e given to these !"estions are +ased on indirect evidence and th"s are %A AEBB( e#phasis o"rs thro"gho"t@) So#e evol"tionists today #a/e si#ilar state#ents) PierreDPa"l 6rassF( a world renowned 7oologist and $or#er president o$ the Acade#ie des Sciences( stated( .3vol"tion as a historical $act was proved +eyond reasona+le do"+t not later than in the closing decades o$ the nineteenth cent"ry)S"ch certainty a#ong so#e evol"tionary scientists has led #ost schools in 0orth A#erica to teach evol"tion as a .historical $act)4"t not all evol"tionists agree with this concl"sion9 .can +e shown as "nprova+le ass"#ptions( no other concl"sions can +e +ased "pon the#) &e will cover the +asic pillars o$ the theory o$ evol"tion) Most are so i#portant to the theory that disproving the# ca"ses the whole theory to collapse) As we cover each point( the logical $allacy that it e#ploys will also +e pointed o"t) 1o" will +e a#a7ed at the .science."sed to s"+stantiate this nearly "niversally +elieved theory) Evolution( Neit e& T eo&$ no& Fact/ The $irst ass"#ption is the grad"al transition to re$erring to the theory as a tested and proven scienti$ic $act*in essence( a uming evol"tion to +e $act) The certainty with which s"ch state#ents are #ade wo"ld leave #ost $eeling s"re that these scientists #"st have the evidence to s"pport their clai#s) One state#ent $ro# Theodosi"s Do+7hans/y8s +oo/ The Biological Ba i of Human &reedom ill"strates the point well9 .Their s"ccess a#ong certain +iologists( philosophers( and sociologists notwithstanding( the explanatory 63%1 CO0>3CTU A%- ?&) %e6ros Clar/( .begging the %ue tion) The core o$ evol"tion is +ased "pon this $allacy) Many o$ the pillars s"pporting the theory o$ evol"tion are +ased on ass"#ptions) Those ass"#ptions are then "sed to expand and prove other aspects o$ evol"tion) Again( this is si#ply +egging the !"estion) So( i$ any aspect o$ these evol"tionary .

?The Evolution of 'iving !rgani m ( AEGG@) &hile these !"otes spea/ lo"dly( in this $irst ass"#ption( we are not trying to disprove evol"tion( +"t to show that it is not a tried and tested $act) A scienti$ic $act is de$ined as .theory that explains scienti$ic o+servations= scienti$ic theories #"st +e $alsi$ia+le)&hat this #eans is that in order $or a scienti$ic theory to +e valid( there #"st exist a test that can prove it either right or wrong) &itho"t p"tting the theory to a test( one can never prove it*either tr"e or $alse2 For exa#ple( one co"ld o+serve an orange s"nset( and then theori7e that the s"n is always orange) There exists a #eans to either prove or disprove this theory( there$ore #a/ing it a valid theory) O$ co"rse( i$ a theory is proven wrong( it sho"ld no longer +e considered a valid theory) 'n this case( i$ one contin"es to watch the s/y( they will see changes in its color) '$ the sa#e standards are applied to the theory o$ evol"tion( we #"st $"l$ill these two conditions) 3vol"tion #"st +e a+le to +e o+served and also +e a+le to +e p"t to the test) 4eca"se there have not +een any o+served exa#ples o$ #acroDevol"tion on record( the $irst condition is not #et) Those who s"pport this theory state that #ost #a.doctrines o$ +iological evol"tion do not stand "p to an o+.or pro+le#s involved.or evol"tionary changes happened #illions o$ years ago) Past events are not testa+le and( there$ore( evol"tion is also not $alsi$ia+le) .Fro# the !"otes a+ove( we can see that o+servations and tests show inconsistencies( and that evol"tionists the#selves have not accepted evol"tion as tr"e) 5ow co"ld s"ch divergent opinions exist( yet so#e consider evol"tion to +e $act? The answer is clear) 3vol"tion has not +een s"$$iciently proven in the scienti$ic co##"nity to +e considered $act2 F"rther( +y tr"e scienti$ic standards( is evol"tion even a theory? A scienti$ic theory is de$ined as a .an o+servation that has +een con$ir#ed repeatedly and is accepted as tr"e).ective( inDdepth criticis#) They prove to +e either in conflict with reality or else incapa+le o$ solving the #a.

?Arth"r <oestler( (anu ) * Summing +p@) 'n other words( the $ittest are those who s"rvive( and those who s"rvive are dee#ed the $ittest) This is circ"lar logic2 3vol"tionists have ass"#ed that ."st +eca"se so#ething . general theory that all li$e on earth had originated and evolved +y a grad"al s"ccessive acc"#"lation o$ $ort"ito"s #"tations( is still( as it was in Darwin8s ti#e( a highly peculative hypothe i entirely without direct FACTUA% s"pport and very $ar $ro# that sel$Devident axio# so#e o$ its #ore aggressive advocates wo"ld have "s +elieve)As we have seen( evol"tion is de$initely not a $act) 't is not even a scienti$ic theory) As Dr) Denton has stated( it is nothing #ore than a .Can yo" i#agine so#ething so contested( even +y those who pro$ess to +elieve it( ta"ght in schools as $act? 't leaves one to wonder( i$ it is not a $act or a theory( how exactly is it scienti$ic? Su&vivo&s Su&vive One o$ the #ost +asic concepts in the theory o$ evol"tion is .highly spec"lative hypothe i ).Once "pon a ti#e( it all loo/ed so si#ple) 0at"re rewarded the $it with the carrot o$ s"rvival and p"nished the "n$it with the stic/ o$ extinction) The tro"+le only started when it ca#e to de$ining $itness)))Th"s nat"ral selection loo/s a$ter the s"rvival and reprod"ction o$ the $ittest( and the $ittest are those which have the highest rate o$ reprod"ction)))&e are ca"ght in a circ"lar arg"#ent which co#pletely +egs the !"estion o$ what #a/es evol"tion evolve.s"rvival o$ the $ittest)Si#ply p"t( it is the concept that nat"re selects the $ittest and #ost adapta+le o$ a species to prod"ce o$$spring and there$ore s"rvive) So"nding logical( this theory is ta"ght thro"gho"t schools worldwide) 4y reading this series( yo" are +eginning to see that we #"st always P OH3 what is a umed to +e tr"e) 0otice9 .5is :Darwin8s.ecall the logical $allacies disc"ssed a+ove) &hen so#ething is dated very old to prove a point( we are dealing with what is called chronological nobbery) Ma/e no #ista/e( evol"tionists /now that they are not dealing with either a scienti$ic $act or theory( and #"st resort to logical $allacies to validate their clai#s) This is +est descri+ed +y Dr) Michael Denton( a proclai#ed evol"tionist9 .

&e have seen nat"ral selection) 't happens aro"nd the world on a daily +asis) This theory is prova+le2.?5"go deHries( Specie and -arietie ) Their !rigin by .4"t is it? These scientists point to nat"ral selection re#oving the unfit) 4"t this does not create new attri+"tes in a species or( $or that #atter( create a new species2 For evol"tion to +e valid( +etter( #ore advanced creat"res wo"ld have to s"rvive( lending to the creation o$ new pecie ) A $a#o"s D"tch +otanist +est explained the pro+le# +y stating( .s"rvived( it is the $ittest o$ the species) 1o" #ay now +egin to "nderstand why properly "nderstanding logical $allacies +eco#es so i#portant) 3vol"tion is ra#pant with the#2 The theory o$ .ta"tology(.or principle which is no #ore than a ta"tology.s"rvival o$ the $ittest.atural Selection@) 4"t so#e scientists #ay arg"e( .0at"ral selection #ay explain the s"rvival o$ the $ittest( +"t it cannot explain the arrival o$ the $ittest.?6)A) Peseley( The Epi temological Statu of .ect any lexicographer who tried to de$ine a word +y the sa#e word( or a thin/er who #erely restated his proposition( or any other instance o$ gross red"ndancy= yet no one see#s scandali7ed that #en o$ science sho"ld +e satis$ied with a #a.Most evol"tionary +iologists see# "nconcerned a+o"t the charge and #a/e only a to/en e$$ort to explain the ta"tology away) The re#ainder))) si#ply concede the $act) For the#( nat"ral selection is a ta"tology which states a hereto$ore "nrecogni7ed relation9 The $ittest *de$ined as those who will leave the #ost o$$spring*will leave the #ost o$$spring).is what is called a .water is wet-= .&hat is #ost "nsettling is that so#e evol"tionary +iologists have no !"al#s a+o"t proposing ta"tologies as explanations) One wo"ld i##ediately re.a way o$ saying so#ething red"ndant) For instance( .#atter is #aterial-= and so on) S"ch a state#ent does not prove anything( +eca"se it is nothing #ore than a tr"is#) 1et( even with s"ch in$or#ation( evol"tionists willingly ignore the $acts9 .s"rvivors s"rvive-= .utation@) Since all syste#s in nat"re are well +alanced( there #"st +e a #echanis# that keep those syste#s +alanced) There$ore( nat"ral selection is very e$$ective $or re#oving the "n$it $ro# a species) This can +e witnessed +y the instinctive actions o$ a lion attac/ing the wea/est o$ a 7e+ra herd) The 7e+ra herd re#ains healthy( +eca"se the weak are re#oved) .

"st everyday exa#ples o$ the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics) 4"t how does this prove that the "niverse is not eternal? &ith the co#ing o$ the Ato#ic Age( +eginning with Mada#e C"rie8s discovery o$ radi"# in AKEK( ca#e the /nowledge that all radioactive ele#ents contin"ally give o$$ radiation) Consider2 Urani"# has an ato#ic weight o$ ILK)C) As it deco#poses( it releases a heli"# ato# three ti#es) 3ach heli"# ato# has an ato#ic weight o$ M) &ith .nat"ral process o$ selection.'nterestingly( the idea o$ nat"ral selection did not $or# in the #ind o$ Charles Darwin) 'n $act( nat"ral selection was doc"#ented IC years earlier( +y creationist 7oologistJche#ist 3dward 4lyth) Darwin changed the concept $ro# the .nat"ral #eans o$ selection).5e changed it $ro# a readily "nderstood and accepted theory to a circ"lar logic tr"is#2 %i/e all s"ch tr"is#s( the concept o$ nat"ral selection atte#pts to explain everything( +"t( in reality( it explains nothing) Falsely ass"#ed +y so #any( this aspect o$ evol"tion is nothing #ore than a red"ndant state#ent) An Ete&nal 0nive&se 0o #atter how science tries to si#pli$y the theory o$ evol"tion( there is always the pro+le# o$ explaining how and when the "niverse +egan) &hat is its origin? There are only two possi+ilities9 ?A@ 't appeared at a certain point in ti#e( or ?I@ it has always existed) 4oth o$ these ideas re!"ire so#e investigation) 's the "niverse eternal? Did it $or#? And is this possi+le to prove either way? Since we are "na+le to travel +ac/ in ti#e( yo" #ay !"ic/ly thin/ that it is i#possi+le to /now i$ the "niverse had a +eginning) Matter has an a#a7ing property) 't decays2 'n $act( everything is #oving into a $"rther state o$ decay) 1o" see this principle at wor/ all aro"nd yo") '$ yo" clean yo"r ho"se( it will event"ally +eco#e #essy again) 3ven i$ yo" are not living there( d"st will $or# and its general state will decay) 1o"r +ody also evidences this concept) <eeping yo"rsel$ in shape is wor/) '$ yo" stop exercising or eating properly( yo" will !"ic/ly get o"t o$ shape) These are .to the .

o& Bi" #oa1/ At its very core( the 4ig 4ang Theory states that a partic"lar event ca"sed the $or#ation o$ #atter( with o"r #odern "niverse expanding $ro# that initial event) A$ter the +ig +ang( another theory ta/es over) The .the new weight o$ IIN)C( "rani"# +eco#es radi"#) adi"# contin"es to give o$$ additional ato#s "ntil the end prod"ct event"ally +eco#es the inert ele#ent called lead) This ta/es a tremendou a#o"nt o$ ti#e) 4"t( what does this #ean? 't #eans that there was a point in ti#e when the "rani"# co"ld not have existed( +eca"se it always +rea/s down in a highly syste#atic( controlled way) 't is not sta+le li/e lead or other ele#ents) 't always +rea/s down) This also #eans there was a speci$ic #o#ent in ti#e when all radioactive ele#ents ca#e into existence) e#e#+er( none o$ the#*"rani"#( radi"#( thori"#( radon( poloni"#( $ranci"#( protactini"# and others*have existed $orever) This is the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics at wor/2 As 5enry Moore stated( .?Scientific "reationi m@) And it represents a+sol"te proo$ that the "niverse ca#e into existence*or( in other words( that the "niverse is not eternal2 That leaves only one possi+ility) At one point in ti#e( so#ething*or so#eone*cau ed the "niverse to co#e into existence) This +rings "s +ac/ to the concept o$ ca"se and e$$ect) 'n this case( the "niverse is the effect*+"t what is the CAUS3? &e have seen that every e$$ect #"st +e le consistent with the scienti$ic laws we have already disc"ssed) O$ co"rse( scientists have also co#e to si#ilar concl"sions*the "niverse is not eternal and there needs to +e a .was created to explain how a single event ca"sed the expansive "niverse that exists today) 5owever( +oth concepts break laws o$ science) As we saw with the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics( energy is contin"ally #oving into a #ore chaotic state*with less U3 than the ca"se) So( as vast as o"r "niverse is( so#ething greater #"st have ca"sed it) This is $irst ca"se( they atte#pt to explain the "niverse in #any other ways) The #ost co##on is o$ten re$erred to as the .'gnoring the T .4ig 4ang Theory)Bi" Ban".$irst ca"se).in$lationary #odel.The Second %aw re!"ires the "niverse to have had a +eginning.

?Fred( 5eerren( Show .4y l"#ping the initial creation o$ #atter with the expansion o$ the "niverse( scientists have created a series o$ .?Stephen &) 5aw/ing( * Brief Hi tory of Time@) %i/e so #any aspects o$ evol"tion( even when it has +een proven to +e inacc"rate( it is still ta"ght as $act) The s#o/e and #irrors contin"e2 C an"in" t e Rules/ .grew).s#o/e and #irrors(.First o$ all( ' will say that at the p"rely technical level( in$lation itsel$ does not explain how the "niverse arose $ro# nothing)))'n$lation itsel$ ta/es a very s#all "niverse and prod"ces $ro# it a very +ig "niverse) 4"t in$lation +y itsel$ does not explain where that very s#all "niverse ca#e $ro#.The new in$lationary #odel was a good atte#pt to explain why the "niverse is the way it is)))'n #y personal opinion( the new in$lationary #odel is now dead as a scienti$ic theory( altho"gh a lot o$ people do not see# to have not heard o$ its de#ise and are still writing papers on it as i$ it were via+le.which( as we have seen +e$ore( is o$ten the only way to explain vario"s aspects o$ evol"tion) Many scientists( s"ch as Alan 6"th( have also raised this point9 .e /od@) S"ch deceit is ta"ght as $act in schools2 One o$ the greatest #athe#atical #inds o$ the #odern world closed the door on the in$lationary #odel9 ."sa+le energy*not into a larger( #ore co#plex "niverse) 5ow ridic"lo"s that this FACT is ignored2 4"t an even +igger pro+le# is the &ir t %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics( o$ten called the %aw o$ Conservation o$ 3nergy) 't is #e#ori7ed +y high school st"dents( and is a +asic $"nda#ental law o$ science) 't states that energy cannot +e created or destroyed( +"t can only change its $or#) This too $lies in the $ace o$ the +ig +ang theory2 '$ energy cannot +e created( then omething certainly cannot appear $ro# nothing) 3vol"tionary scientists also "nderstand this pro+le#) O$ten( attention is ta/en away $ro# the lac/ o$ explanation o$ the creation o$ #atter +y asserting explanations on how the "niverse .

nothing(.is it possi+le to explain its existence? M"st the creation o$ the "niverse $ollow the r"les o$ science? Any parent is responsi+le $or creating the r"les $or their ho"sehold) At any ti#e( they can change those r"les) 't is in their power to #odi$y( ad."st or even discard these r"les) The child in that ho"se #"st contin"e to live within the con$ines o$ those r"les( no #atter how they are changed) So it is with the "niverse) As the Creator o$ the "niverse( 6od esta+lished its r"les and has the power to #odi$y the#) &hen 5e created the "niverse and #atter( 5e then esta+lished the laws o$ science) 'nterestingly( the First %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics act"ally proves that 6od has always existed) e#e#+er that this law #eans omething co"ld not co#e $ro# nothing) Science has proven that i$ there was not an eternal 6odD+eing to create the "niverse( there wo"ld never have +een a "niverse) Since so#ething can never co#e $ro# nothing( 6od had to always exist2 Unwittingly( science has proven 6od8s existence( while at the sa#e ti#e disproving evol"tion2 0o+el Pri7eDwinning physicist %o"is 0eel stated( ..+iopoiesis)- .Since we have seen that the "niverse co"ld not have co#e $ro# .spontaneo"s generation(.The progress o$ science( no #atter how #arvelo"s it appears to +e)))leads to dead ends and shows o"r $inal ineptit"de at prod"cing a rational explanation o$ the "niverse-*and( it sho"ld +e added( any rational explanation $or plants( ani#als and people) 'nstead o$ loo/ing $or the tr"th o$ creation( science has chosen con$"sion( deceit and s"ppositions) 4"t now 1OU can see thro"gh two #ore o$ these evol"tionary ill"sions2 A B&eat in" Roc2/ 's it possi+le $or a roc/ to co#e to li$e? Co"ld a l"#p o$ coal prod"ce a chic/en? &hile s"ch !"estions see# silly( this is( in essence( what the theory o$ evol"tion teaches) 3vol"tion stands or $alls on whether 0O0D%'H'06 #atter can +e trans$or#ed( thro"gh a series o$ rando# events( into organic*%'H'06*#atter) This concept is called +y #any na#es and explained +y #any theories( +"t #ost o$ the ti#e( it is re$erred to as .or .a+iogenesis..che#ical evol"tion(.

3vol"tion co#prises all the states o$ develop#ent o$ the "niverse= the cos#ic( +iological( and h"#an or c"lt"ral develop#ents) Atte#pts to restrict the concept o$ evol"tion to +iology are grat"ito"s) %i$e is a prod"ct o$ the evol"tion o$ inorganic #atter( and #an is a prod"ct o$ the evol"tion o$ li$e.can change this) Consider9 &hy wo"ld s"ch a pro#inent evol"tionist +l"r the $acts and separate this pop"lar theory $ro# the #atter o$ li$e8s origin ? 0n+&ea2a+le La-s At the a+sol"te heart o$ the .?.de+ate lies a $"nda#ental scienti$ic law*the %aw o$ 4iogenesis) 't states that life can only come from life*that is( only living #atter prod"ces living #atter) Are yo" +eginning to see the inherent pro+le# with the theory o$ evol"tion? .Science( >an"ary AENL@) &hile the arg"#ent p"t $orth +y Mr) 6o"ld so"nds logical( i$ we atte#pt to li#it evol"tion to +iology( one is +eing .>"stice Scalia8s Mis"nderstanding(..?.?4"t even to evol"tionists( the topic o$ li$e8s origin re#ains a stic/y one) Many even go so $ar as to assert that the origin o$ li$e is not related to the evol"tion o$ living #atter)@ enowned evol"tionist Stephan >ay 6o"ld stated9 .spin.Changing Man(.3vol"tion is not the st"dy o$ li$e8s "lti#ate origin as a path toward discerning its deepest #eaning) 3vol"tion( in $act( is not the st"dy o$ origins at all) 3ven the #ore restricted ?and scienti$ically per#issi+le@ !"estion o$ li$e8s origin on o"r earth lies o"tside its do#ain))) 3vol"tion st"dies the pathways and #echanis#s o$ organic change $ollowing the origin o$ li$e.atural Hi tory( Octo+er AEKG@) 4"t is this really the case? 's evol"tion only restricted to the st"dy o$ organic*living* #atter? Allow geneticist Theodosi"s Do+7hans/y to answer9 .grat"ito"s-*and perhaps deceit$"l) '$ evol"tionists separate +iological evol"tion $ro# the origin o$ li$e( or even the origin o$ the "niverse( it opens a +ig and co#pletely "nanswered door9 5ow did events ca"se the "niverse and then li$e( i$ evol"tion applies only to li$e? 5ow can li$e evolve i$ it never existed? 3vol"tion #"st co#pletely enco#pass the whole process*$ro# that +eginning o$ the "niverse to the diversity o$ plant( ani#al and h"#an li$e on earth today) 0o a#o"nt o$ scienti$ic .origins o$ li$e.

Fa& A-a$3 &e have seen that it is i#possi+le $or li$e to have $or#ed $ro# nonDliving #atter) 3ven #any evol"tionists will ad#it that this process is .wrapped in a #ystery).Dece#+er AEKA@) Perhaps the #ost power$"l state#ent is $o"nd as a $ootnote in Moore and Sl"sher8s +iology text+oo/9 ."st s#o/e and #irrors as evol"tionists $reely ad#it that vir"ses o$ any /ind are non#living organis#s( +eca"se they #"st have a living host in order to reprod"ce) 0ot to #ention that it too/ care$"l and deli+erate design to prod"ce even these2 So how do evol"tionists explain li$e on earth? A Land Fa&.6enes on 'ce(.This law is so $"nda#ental that Si#pson and 4ec/8s +iology text+oo/( 'ife) *n Introduction to Biology states( .there is no serio"s do"+t that +iogenesis is the r"le( that li$e co#es only $ro# other li$e( that a cell( the "nit o$ li$e( is always and excl"sively the prod"ct or o$$spring o$ another cell)Also( Martin A) Moe( a writer $or Science Dige t( recently wrote( .?.So#e scientists call this a s"perlaw( or a law a+o"t laws) egardless o$ ter#inology( +iogenesis has the highest ran/ in these levels o$ generali7ation?Biology) * Search for !rder in "omple0ity( AEGM@) These are three concl"sive and irre$"ta+le state#ents a+o"t the $orce and power o$ this scienti$ic law) 5ow then did evol"tionists see# to +ypass this law when trying to prove evol"tion? Are yo" +eginning to "nderstand why they atte#pt to separate the origin o$ li$e $ro# the evol"tionary process? ecently( there has +een #"ch ado a+o"t scientists +eing a+le to prod"ce a synthetic version o$ the polio vir"s) So#e wo"ld say that( at last( it appear that #an has +een a+le to prod"ce li$e $ro# nonDliving synthetic prod"cts) 4"t is this tr"e? This is .5owever( in an e$$ort to propel a dying theory( they have had to change the focu o$ the arg"#ent9 '$ +iogenesis cannot happen on earth( then perhaps it co"ld happen in pace) Ta/e note o$ the divergence $ro# standard science in this post"late) 6enerally( when a theory is .A cent"ry o$ sensational discoveries in the +iological science has ta"ght "s that li$e arises only $ro# li$e))).

that in seven years( yo"r +ody will have co#pletely replaced all ACC trillion cells2 The design o$ each o$ those IBC types varies in shape( si7e( density and p"rpose) The inner $"nctioning o$ the cell is #ost $ascinating) 1o" can thin/ o$ any cell as a #iniat"re $actory*and #iniat"re it is2 ed +lood cells( $or instance( are AC ti#es s#aller than the width o$ a single h"#an hair) 1et( even tho"gh each individ"al cell is #icroscopic( i$ yo" placed all the cells in yo"r +ody end to end( they wo"ld encircle the earth ICC ti#es) Astonishing2 So $ar( we are only tal/ing a+o"t the si7e o$ cells*never #ind their $"nction2 Cells are #ade "p pri#arily o$ three parts9 Me#+rane( cytoplas# and n"cle"s) The membrane s"rro"nds the cell( and has the a+ility to recogni7e h"ndreds o$ s"+stances) Acting as a .it controls what enters the cell and what is p"rged) The cytopla m is the cell8s .$actory $loor(.disproven ?spontaneo"s generation@( it is dispelled and another theory is p"t $orward) 4"t in this case( a new hypothesis is created +eca"se o$ the lack o$ evidence to s"pport the old theories2 And s"ch is the case with so #any aspects o$ evol"tion*a theory #ade o$ straw2 Spectacula& Cells '#agine it is a hot s"##er day and yo" have spent too #"ch ti#e in the s"n) Perhaps yo" are a little red or even +adly s"n+"rned) Over the next $ew days( an a#a7ing process ta/es place as yo"r +ody heals itsel$ $ro# overexpos"re to the s"n) 0o do"+t( yo" paid #ore attention to this process i$ yo"r s/in got to the point o$ peeling or had +eco#e red and sensitive) 4"t loo/ at it $ro# another angle*the a#a7ing adapta+ility o$ s/in) Thro"gh several processes( yo"r s/in is shedding its da#aged cells and replacing the# with new( healthy ones) 1o"r entire +ody*$ro# yo"r s/in( to yo"r eyes( organs( and +rain*is #ade "p o$ cells) 'n $act( yo"r +ody consists o$ over IBC di$$erent /inds o$ cells totaling a+o"t ACC trillion) So e$$icient and e$$ective are these .on which are thou and o$ #achines called organelle ) At any given ti#e( there are over IC di$$erent che#ical reactions happening in the .tra$$ic cop(.little $actories.

+oo/ends.s"pervisors.staircase).o$ the cell*the nucleu ) The n"cle"s ho"ses all the in$or#ation that the cell needs to repair and reprod"ce itsel$) This +l"eprint is #ade "p o$ chro#oso#es and genes containing D0A ?deoxyri+on"cleic acid@) &hen properly "nderstood( D0A is one o$ the #ost +reathta/ing creations in the entire "niverse) 'n an age when co#p"ters are getting s#aller and s#aller( yo" #ay o$ten +e a#a7ed at how tiny co#plex gadgets have +eco#e) 5owever( these pale in co#parison to D0A) '$ yo" transcri+ed the genetic in$or#ation $or .+rains.This is so e$$ective in conserving space( that i$ yo" were to "nravel this spiral $ro# any h"#an cell( it wo"ld +e a+o"t i0 feet in length) 'n $act( it has +een esti#ated( that i$ yo" placed all the D0A in the h"#an +ody endDtoDend( it wo"ld reach to the s"n and +ac/ MCC T'M3S2 1et( all the genetic in$or#ation needed to replicate the over N +illion people on earth today co"ld $it into an area o$ a+o"t 123 of a %uare inch) The n"cle"s( cell"lar #e#+rane and all the #achines in the cytoplas# #a/e "p every cell in yo"r +ody) 0ow stop $or a #o#ent( and recall that there are ACC trillion cells in yo"r +ody( all with these little #achines( $actories and .constantly wor/ing and reprod"cing) Tr"ly( the h"#an +ody is a#a7ing2 5ere is an incredi+le $act a+o"t the largest and s#allest cells o$ the h"#an +ody9 4oth are the .cytoplas#( $or s"ch p"rposes as9 Co##"nication( waste re#oval( repair( n"trition and reprod"ction) There is even an ela+orate transport syste# to #ove prod"cts and waste thro"gho"t the cell) &hile all o$ this is certainly re#ar/a+le( the intrig"e o$ the cell goes even deeper) All o$ these $"nctions are controlled +y the ."st O03 person onto paper( it wo"ld $ill a LCCD vol"#e encyclopedia set( each vol"#e consisting o$ I(CCC pages) D0A is stored in an a#a7ingly e$$icient spiral .$or creating li$e) The s#allest cell is the #ale sper# cell*sper#ato7oa) At the other end o$ the scale is the $e#ale egg cell*the ov"#) All cells( and there$ore all li$e( $all +etween these cells in si7e) 4"t to create li$e( the largest and the s#allest cells co#+ine) 't is interesting .

that the two #ost i#portant cells o$ all are the largest and s#allest( with all the rest $alling in +etween) Coincidence or design? So"rce9 ArtToday( 'nc) So"rce9 ArtToday( 'nc) So"rce9 ArtToday( 'nc) So"rce9 ArtToday( 'nc) This new hypothesis states that the prec"rsor che#icals $or li$e ca#e $ro# space) Astonishingly( this theory is gaining pop"larity in the scienti$ic co##"nity) For s"ch a theory to +e valid( not only wo"ld these che#icals or si#ple a#ino acids have to +e a+le to end"re space travel( they wo"ld also have to +e a+le to s"rvive entry into the earth8s at#osphere2 .

3vol"tionis# is a $airy tale $or grownD"ps)Open o& Closed.let8s s"ppose).ected $ro# a $araway planet( travel thro"gh space ?all while +eing +o#+arded +y high levels o$ deadly cos#ic radiation@( withstand the extre#e heat o$ penetrating the earth8s at#osphere and( $inally( s"rvive the intense s"r$ace i#pact) 5ow ridic"lo"s2 One does not need a degree in science to see how $arD$etched s"ch a theory is*yet( incredi+ly( it is disc"ssed as a possi+ility2 This whole hypothesis is nothing #ore than sideDstepping the original iss"e) This is called a .It Is Still Impossi+le For the next ass"#ption( we can "se the ga#e o$ .3vol"tionists avoid the !"estion and give no real answer( +eca"se they have none) Meanwhile( evol"tion is ta"ght as $act in schools) S"ch $allacies and lac/ o$ evidence are the reason why Dr) %o"is 4o"no"re( Director o$ the Ooological M"se"# and Director o$ esearch at the 0ational Center o$ Scienti$ic esearch in France( stated that .'nstead o$ addressing the %aw o$ 4iogenesis( which they cannot get aro"nd( evol"tionists atte#pt to appeal to the great "n/nown o$ space as the answer ?+ait@( th"s avoiding the original pro+le# ?switch@) 4iogenesis is a U0'H3 SA% law) >"st as it applies on earth( so does it apply thro"gho"t the "niverse) Moving the pro+le# to o"ter space does not #a/e it disappear2 So what is the sol"tion proposed +y evol"tionists who do ad#it to these iss"es? They si#ply apply the argument to future logical $allacy ?as covered in Part One o$ this series@) They clai# it is going to ta/e $"rther advances in science to +e a+le to $ig"re o"t the ca"se $or li$e on earth) This answer is really a .nonDanswer).S"ppose that the previo"s ass"#ption was not $alse( and that at so#e $"t"re ti#e( we will discover the nat"ralistic #ethod in which living #atter ca#e into existence) .+ait and switch).A $act that is seldo# #entioned in s"ch disc"ssions is that si#ple $or#s o$ li$e( as well as all living #atter( are highly un table) 1o" see this all aro"nd yo") Plants( ani#als and people die and deco#pose( while roc/s and #inerals last $or #illennia) So( these highly "nsta+le( si#ple $or#s o$ li$e wo"ld have to s"rvive +eing e.

yo"r theory is $o"nd to +e against the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics( ' can give yo" no hope= there is nothing $or it +"t to collap e in deepe t humiliation."n"sa+le energy)'t is +est explained +y worldD$a#o"s science writer and scientist 'saac Asi#ov9 .O+vio"sly( with the proo$ a+ove( this is !"ite a s"pposition) 4"t $or the sa/e o$ arg"#ent( ass"#e there was a ti#e when only very si#ple organic co#po"nds( s"ch as a#ino acids( existed) &e can even extend o"r ga#e o$ .and dynami ( #eaning .Another way o$ stating the Second %aw then is PThe "niverse is constantly getting #ore disorderly28 Hiewed that way we can see the Second %aw all a+o"t "s) &e have to wor/ hard to straighten a roo#( +"t le$t to itsel$ it +eco#es a #ess again very !"ic/ly and very easily) 3ven i$ we never enter it( it +eco#es d"sty and #"sty) 5ow di$$ic"lt to #aintain .?The .ature of the 4hy ical 5orld@) These are very strong words $ro# two worldDrenowned scientists) Other writers have noted that the #ore yo" wor/ with these laws( the #ore respect yo" gain $or the#) O+vio"sly( the %aws o$ Ther#odyna#ics are a+sol"tely i##"ta+le) The i#portance o$ the %aws o$ Ther#odyna#ics to all disciplines o$ science is o+vio"s $ro# the !"otes a+ove) There$ore( to +e tr"e( evol"tion #"st $all within the constraints o$ Ther#odyna#ics) Most applica+le to this ass"#ption( evol"tion #"st $all within the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics) Re-indin" t e Top/ Ther#odyna#ics co#es $ro# two 6ree/ words( therme( #eaning .let8s s"ppose.power).heat power).heat(.a $ew steps $"rther and s"ppose that these a#ino acids had already $or#ed into en7y#es) O$ co"rse( we are +eing overly genero"s to evol"tion( +"t it will serve to prove a point) 0ow we are ready to shatter this concept +y once again +ringing in the #ost $"nda#ental and i#portant law o$ science in existence today*the %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics) Al+ert 3instein called this the pre#ier law o$ all sciences) Sir Arth"r 3ddington stated that i$ .The Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics states three +asic concepts9 ?A@ Syste#s gravitate to the #ost pro+a+le ?li/ely@ state( ?I@ syste#s will gravitate to the #ost rando# state( and ?L@ syste#s will increase in entropy*the scienti$ic ter# $or .'n essence( ther#odyna#ics is the st"dy o$ .

ho"ses( and #achinery( and o"r own +odies in per$ect wor/ing order9 5ow easy to let the# deteriorate) 'n $act( all we have to do is nothing( and everything deteriorates( collapses( +rea/s down( wears o"t( all +y itsel$*and that is what the Second %aw is all a+o"t.and .closed.open.'n the 6a#e o$ 3nergy and Ther#odyna#ics 1o" Can8t 3ven 4rea/ 3ven(Smith onian In titute (ournal( >"ne AEGC@) Perhaps yo" are already +eginning to see where this law contradicts the theory o$ evol"tion) 4"t evol"tionists have not given "p yet2 'n an atte#pt to #a/e the theory wor/( a de+ate +etween .syste#s has arisen) The di$$erence +etween the two is !"ite si#ple) 'n a closed syste#( there is no inter$erence $ro# an external so"rce( so the Second %aw applies witho"t any co#plications) The syste# +eco#es #ore disordered over ti#e strictly in line with the Second %aw) On the other hand( it is arg"ed that in an open syste#( external so"rces o$ energy allow a prod"ct to have #ore s"stained energy*or increase in "sea+le energy) 'n the case o$ evol"tion( it is stated that +eca"se o"r s"n is s"pplying a#ple a#o"nts o$ extra energy to the earth( this allows $or syste#s to +eco#e #ore co#plex +eca"se they have the necessary energy to do so) And since the s"n is winding down( the overall %aws o$ Ther#odyna#ics in a closed syste# ?the "niverse@ are +eing #et) 4asically( the extra energy $ro# the s"n s"pposedly allows evol"tion to ta/e place on earth) 4"t is this tr"e? As we have seen( clever arg"#ents can so#eti#es +e nothing #ore than s#o/e and #irrors) Ene&"$ Alone Dot Not Evolution *a2e Can si#ply applying energy to a syste# allow it to #ove to a lower level o$ entropy? 's that all that is re!"ired $or evol"tion to ta/e place? There have +een #athe#atical constr"cts to show how the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics doe apply in an open syste#) Does evol"tion $all within these constr"cts? .?.

&hile #any evol"tionists try to hide "nder the concept o$ an open syste#( there are so#e who do not) For instance( Charles >) S#ith stated( ."sea+le).Pro+le#s with 3ntropy in 4iology(. syste#s which exchange neither energy nor #atter with the environ#ent= +iological syste#s are open and exchange +oth energy and #atter) This explanation( however( i not completely ati fying( +eca"se it still leaves open the pro+le# o$ how or why the ordering process has arisen ?an apparent lowering o$ the entropy :an increase in "sea+le energy.re!"ires #ore than .$"nda#ental "nsolved pro+le#s.Bio y tem ( AEGB@) As yo" can see( it was "nderstood decades ago that there are .+"ll in a china shop).S"ch "ncontrolled( "ndirected energy will never +"ild*it alway destroys2 This is exactly the reason yo" sho"ld not leave photographs in direct s"nlight) Over ti#e( this "ndirected( raw energy will destroy the#) There is still another condition that #"st +e #et $or energy to +e ."st raw energy) O$ co"rse( there #"st +e energy( +"t that energy #"st +e directed) 't cannot si#ply +e a .@( and a n"#+er o$ scientists have wrestled with this iss"e) 4ertalan$$y called the relation +etween irreversi+le ther#odyna#ics and in$or#ation theory one o$ the mo t fundamental un olved problem in +iology?.4"t the si#ple e0penditure o$ energy is not s"$$icient to develop and #aintain order) A +"ll in a china shop per$or#s wor/( +"t he neither creates nor #aintains organi7ation) The wor/ needed is PA re!"ires '0FO MAT'O0 T'CU%A &O <= it #"st $ollow SP3C'F'CAT'O0S= it on how to proceed.with this concept) 1et( even recently p"+lished articles $all +ac/ on it) aw energy alone is not eno"gh to lower entropy2 'n $act( $or this to happen( #"ltiple conditions #"st +e #et) Two are s"##ari7ed in the $ollowing !"ote $ro# renowned scientists 6eorge 6aylord Si#pson and &)S) 4ec/8s text+oo/ 'ife) *n Introduction to Biology9 .The ther#odyna#icist i##ediately clari$ies the latter !"estion +y pointing o"t that the Second %aw classically re$ers to isolated :closed.Partic"lar wor/.There #"st +e a #echanis# to convert one type o$ energy into another $or a speci$ic application) &itho"t $"l$illing these conditions( yo" have nothing #ore than raw( "n+ridled energy that will do nothing +"t destroy) .?e#phasis o"rs@) .

?5enry Moore( The Twilight of Evolution( p) LB@) 3vol"tion cannot acco"nt $or the appearance o$ li$e on this or any other planet) Dishonest( yet clever( arg"#ents cannot sidestep the laws o$ +iogenesis or ther#odyna#ics) .in$or#ation-*instr"ctions*$or the process to proceed( and a #echanis# $or those instr"ctions to +e carried o"t) As we have seen( this happens in the leaves o$ plants( as well as the syste#s in o"r +odies) 4"t yo" CA00OT per$or# the highly speci$ic wor/ o$ evol"tion +y si#ply s"pplying energy $ro# the s"n and . egarding the second law o$ ther#odyna#ics ?"niversally accepted scienti$ic law which states that all things le$t to the#selves will tend to r"n down@ or the law o$ entropy( it is o+served( P't wo"ld hardly +e possi+le to conceive o$ two #ore co#pletely opposite principles than this principle o$ entropy increase and the principle o$ evol"tion) 3ach is precisely the converse o$ the other) As :Aldo"s.There are nat"ral exa#ples o$ energy*s"nlight in partic"lar*channeled into "se$"l wor/) The #ost re#ar/a+le*photosynthesis in plants*also serves as the +est ill"stration) Photosynthesis( an energy conversion syste#( is the process in which plants convert s"nlight into the "sa+le energy needed to #a/e plants grow) 4eca"se this process is +iological( we are dealing with the Second %aw o$ Ther#odyna#ics in an open syste#) 'n s"ch a case( raw energy is availa+le in the $or# o$ s"nlight) And +eca"se plants have D0A( there is a highly designed and detailed speci$ication $or this . 5"xley de$ined it( evol"tion involves a contin"al increase o$ order( o$ organi7ation( o$ si7e( o$ co#plexity) 't see#s axio#atic that +oth cannot possi+ly +e tr"e) 4"t there is no !"estion whatever that the second law o$ ther#odyna#ics is tr"e8.to +e carried o"t) *ll needed conditions are #et and( in s"ch a case( there is a lowering o$ entropy*an increa e in "sa+le energy) There are also si#ilar syste#s in o"r +ody*digestion( respiratory syste#( etc) 1et in all cases( the conditions descri+ed a+ove are satis$ied) To per$or# speci$ic wor/( there #"st +e .partic"lar wor/.0o #atter the arg"#ent( no #atter how intensely ar#s are waved( no one can circ"#vent these $"nda#ental laws o$ science) So#e scientists will ad#it that the theory o$ evol"tion and the second law o$ ther#odyna#ics are co#pletely inco#pati+le9 .hoping $or the +est).

positive.ect( evol"tionist %"igi CavalliDS$or7a9 .The $"nda#ents o$ science are +ased on these laws) They are SU 32 They are a+sol"te and have existed since the +eginning o$ o"r "niverse) These laws are immutable*and( as s"ch( #a/e evol"tion 'MPOSS'4%32 *utations !o& Imp&ovement/ At the heart o$ i#proving a species or organis# is the ass"#ption that #"tations will prod"ce #ore and +etter traits or characteristics) This re!"ires new in$or#ation) The so"rce o$ all in$or#ation( as disc"ssed( is in the D0A) For new in$or#ation to $or#( there wo"ld have to +e the in.?/ene 6 4eople 6 and 'anguage ( p) AGN@) O$ co"rse( we have already proven that nat"ral selection doe .ection o$ said in$or#ation +y a #"tation) 5owever( the introd"ction o$ .#"tations) 0at"ral processes re#ove these de$ects $ro# the genetic #ap o$ the creat"re) 'n the light o$ proper nat"ral selection( consider the $ollowing $ro# the head o$ the international 5"#an 6eno#e Diversity Pro.3vol"tion also res"lts $ro# the acc"#"lation o$ new in$or#ation) 'n the case o$ +iological #"tation( new in$or#ation is provided +y an 3 O o$ genetic trans#ission ?i)e)( a change in the D0A d"ring its trans#ission $ro# parent to child@) 6enetic #"tations are spontaneo"s( chance changes( which are rarely +ene$icial( and #ore o$ten have no e$$ect( or a deleteriou one) 0at"ral selection #a/es it possi+le to accept the good ones and eli#inate the +ad ones.new in$or#ation is $ra"ght with pro+le#s) For one( #ost all #"tations are negative in e$$ect) ?As disc"ssed earlier( in$erior organis#s :#"tations.eli#inate the +ad ones)1et is it tr"e that positive #"tations can not only $or# new in$or#ation( +"t ca"se the $or#ation o$ new species as well? 't is in this hope that evol"tion #"st p"t its tr"st) Proving that positive( s"staina+le #"tations happen is critical $or this ass"#ption) An o$ten cited exa#ple is anti+iotic resistance in +acteria) 't is stated that +acteria( thro"gh #"tations( adapt to anti+iotics) 4"t as the $ollowing !"ote shows( what act"ally occ"rs is an in$or#ation lo ( not a gain9 . are re#oved +y the process o$ nat"ral selection)@ This is also tr"e o$ what are ter#ed .'n no /nown case is anti+iotic resistance the .ne"tral.

6enes see# to +e +"ilt so as to allow changes to occ"r within certain narrow li#its( and to prevent those li#its $ro# +eing crossed) To oversi#pli$y a little9 M"tations very easily prod"ce new varieties within a species( and #ight occasionally prod"ce a new ?tho"gh si#ilar@ species( +"t*despite enor#o"s e$$orts +y experi#enters and +reeders* .into a +ird) &hile this #ay so"nd a#a7ing( and act"ally +e l"dicro"s( it is considered a valid theory in evol"tion) 5ow co"ld all the necessary new organs and li#+s develop witho"t new in$or#ation? They si#ply co"ld not2 A si#ple analogy #ay explain it +est9 '#agine all the parts involved in #a/ing a light switch wor/) There are electricity( wires( devices controlling electricity $low( a switch and $inally a light) These were all designed to $"nction in a certain way) '$ the device controlling the a#o"nt o$ electricity were re#oved $ro# the syste#( the light wo"ld get #"ch +righter) This #ay eem li/e an i#prove#ent) The roo# appears +etter lit and it eem li/e the entire syste# has i#proved with the lo o$ a device ?in$or#ation@) 4"t the one who designed the syste# wo"ld /now that this is not the case) The wires and the light were designed to handle a certain a#o"nt o$ electricity) &hile it #ay not appear to +e a pro+le# at fir t( over ti#e( the circ"it will overload and stop $"nctioning) And so is the case with #"tations) 3ven tho"gh so#ething #ay appear to +e an i#prove#ent ?as in the case with anti+ioticDresistant +acteria@( the overall .res"lt o$ new in$or#ation) There are several ways where an in$or#ation loss can con$er resistance.health.o$ the organis# is dimini hed) egardless o$ yo"r +elie$ concerning li$e8s origin( new in$or#ation is re!"ired $or #ore advanced li$e $or#s) And( conversely( any in$or#ation already present is re!"ired to re#ain*either +y evol"tion or +eing p"t there +y a Designer) Ulti#ately( the contin"ed loss o$ genetic in$or#ation will res"lt in the de truction o$ the li$e $or#*not an i#prove#ent2 Finally( regarding the $or#ation o$ new $or#s o$ li$e( 4ritish physicist Dr) Alan 5ayward stated( .?>onathan Sar$ati( 7efuting Evolution@) 4"t evol"tion cannot s"stain itsel$ with lo o$ in$or#ation) Over ti#e( the res"lt wo"ld +e no in$or#ation) The only way higher li$eD$or#s co"ld +e created( wo"ld +e with #ore *in $act( MUC5 #ore*in$or#ation) For instance( i#agine a $ish .evolving.

$acts"sed to prove and draw these .gaps.#"tations see# U0A4%3 TO P ODUC3 30T' 3%1 03& FO MS OF %'F3- ?"reation or Evolution) The &act and the &allacie @) 1et each and every day( #illions o$ children are ta"ght that #"tations*de$ects*have res"lted in the #illions o$ plants and ani#als and "lti#ately h"#an +eings) 0ot only is this plain wrong( it de#eans the "ni!"e and special stat"s that has +een given to #an/ind) T e Real Reco&d o! t e Roc2s O$ten the news #edia r"ns stories a+o"t discoveries o$ ancient arti$acts) This co"ld +e $ossils that are dated to +e #illions*or even h"ndreds o$ #illions*o$ years old) Us"ally( these anno"nce#ents are acco#panied +y color$"l renderings o$ the creat"re as it .creat"res is +ased on little #ore than +one shavings( +ad science and invalid ass"#ptions) Despite all the splash and splendor that acco#pany s"ch discoveries( the science +ehind the# is #ore arti tic and creative than SC'30T'F'C and FACTUA%) To "nderstand why evol"tionists have +eco#e so creative with the $ossil record( yo" #"st $irst "nderstand the .appeared.#illions o$ years ago) 4"t how do scientists( newscasters and reporters develop s"ch intricate drawings? S"rely( it #"st +e +ased on #o"ntains o$ evidence and research( which is then crossDchec/ed with past discoveries) Do not +e so s"re2 At this point( yo" #ay have +eg"n to develop a +it o$ cynicis# toward #odern science) '$ so( yo" will not +e s"rprised that the .in this record) &hat was once hoped to +e the gl"e that +o"nd all aspects o$ evol"tion together( has +eg"n to tear it apart) The two pri#ary pro+le#s with the $ossil record( when "sed $or evol"tion( are so#ewhat interrelated) The $irst are the gaps in the $ossil record) The $ossil record is separated into certain eras*or strata) 3ach o$ these eras contain a certain type o$ creat"re( and is tho"ght to +e speci$ic to a partic"lar period o$ ti#e) For instance( the Ca#+rian strata are dated to a+o"t BLC #illion years ago ?according to evol"tionist dating #ethods@) The pro+le# lies in the $act that( o"t o$ nowhere( $"lly $or#ed creat"res appeared) The Ca#+rian era( $or exa#ple( contains the oldest /nown verte+rates) 4"t as stated +y .ancient.

?The Blind 5atchmaker( p) IIE@) 'ndeed( .ar) '$( over ti#e( the vast #a.eaning of Evolution( p) ILA@) So#e #ay try to assert that they do not exist yet( stating that these transitional $ossils will event"ally +e $o"nd) This can +e +est addressed +y an analogy9 '#agine that yo" have a .This reg"lar a+sence o$ transitional $or#s is not con$ined to #a##als( +"t is an al#ost "niversal pheno#enon( as has long +een noted +y paleontologists) 't is tr"e o$ al#ost all orders o$ all classes o$ ani#als)))and it is apparently also tr"e o$ analogo"s categories o$ plants."st s"ddenly appear( the $ossil record does not show creat"res slowly evolving) '$ the theory o$ evol"tion is correct( there sho"ld +e a very wellDdoc"#ented acco"nt o$ si#ple creat"res slowly evolving into the #ore advanced ones) This is .?The ..ority o$ #ar+les re#oved $ro# the ."st planted there)5owever( this is only the $irst pro+le# enco"ntered +y evol"tionists) The second pro+le# is related to the $irst) 4eca"se #any creat"res .ar $"ll o$ h"ndreds o$ #ar+les) Slowly( oneD+yDone( yo" re#ove each #ar+le( chec/ing its color and text"re) At $irst( the li/elihood wo"ld +e that di$$erent /inds o$ #ar+les wo"ld +e re#oved $ro# the .ode in Evolution( p) ACB@) >"st $ive years later( Dr) Si#pson was $orced to ad#it( ."st not the case2 The world $a#o"s evol"tionist and paleontologist Dr) 6aylord Si#pson $reely stated( .ar) .ar( +"t it is li/ely that yo" have re#oved every other color $ro# the .ar were only red( a nat"ral concl"sion co"ld +e that red is the only color le$t in the ."st planted there( witho"t any evol"tion history.?Tempo and ."st planted there-*or( +etter phrased( they were C 3AT3D2 The $ossil record does not show the $or#ation o$ any creat"re= they all appear to +e .'t is th"s possi+le to clai# that s"ch transitions are not recorded +eca"se they did not exist.ar) O$ co"rse( a new color co"ld +e re#oved $ro# the .evol"tionist ichard Daw/ins o$ Ox$ord University( .&e $ind #any o$ the# already in an advanced state o$ evol"tion( the very $irst ti#e they appear) 't is as tho"gh they were ..

discovery.aw and so#e s/"ll $rag#ents) And nothing else2 Fro# only parts o$ an ear +one and teeth( a#a7ing rendering presented in .red #ar+les.ational /eographic( incredi+ly i#pressive renderings o$ this .'t was now settled*the whale8s evol"tionary path had +een esta+lished( and the theory had +een proven tr"e) Or had it? All the hoopla ca#e $ro# the discovery o$ only a .&e essentially have every stage now $ro# the terrestrial ani#al to one that is $"lly a!"atic).This is the state o$ the $ossil record) &ell over a cent"ry o$ discoveries /eep showing that there are only .$ro# +one $rag#ents) One s"ch .&hat the Precord8 shows is nearly a cent"ry o$ $"dging and $inagling +y scientists atte#pting to $orce vario"s $ossil #orsels and $rag#ents to con$or# to Darwin8s notions( all to no avail) Today the #illions o$ $ossils stand as a very visi+le( everDpresent re#inder o$ the .wal/ing whale)This was s"pposed to +e the #issing lin/ +etween land #a##als and whales) This a#a7ing discovery led paleontologist Daryl Do#ning to state( .wal/ing whale.S"rely s"ch an assertion wo"ld have sweeping e$$ects thro"gh evol"tion sciences) The $ollowing #onth( in the 0ove#+er ICCA iss"e o$ .ational /eographic) Scientists +elieved they had $o"nd a .is worth reviewing) 't received television coverage and was $eat"red in .#agic $ossils.appeared in the article .3vol"tion o$ &hales).le$t) There will +e no #agic $ossil that will change this) This has not stopped so#e scientists $ro# trying to create .ational /eographic were derived) This co"ld +e co#pared to $inding a scrap o$ #etal( and then asserting that yo" can render the exact replica o$ the +"ilding $ro# which it ca#e) This is +eyond ridic"lo"s2 %ater( a s/eleton o$ this sa#e creat"re was discovered) &ith all the $acts in place( it was o+vio"s that this creat"re did not swi#*it was a r"nning land ani#al) O$ co"rse( no correction was o$$ered2 This is not the only exa#ple o$ data #is"sed to $it within the theory o$ evol"tion) The vast n"#+er o$ #isrepresentations has led to state#ents s"ch as9 .

's a 0ew 3vol"tionary Synthesis 0ecessary?-( Science( A"g"st AEKA@) So how do evol"tionists explain the $act that neither grad"al evol"tion nor p"nct"ated e!"ili+ri"# is consistent with the geological record? And how do they acco"nt $or the s"dden explosion o$ li$e in the $irst place? They do not( +eca"se they cannot2 .The occ"rrence o$ syste#ic #"tation( yielding hope$"l #onsters( can +e excl"ded in view o$ c"rrent genetic /nowledge.?>ere#y i$/in( *lgeny( p) AIB@) So the next logical step +y evol"tionists wo"ld +e to ad#it their #ista/es and retire this ragDtag theory) Correct? This is $ar $ro# what happened2 'nstead o$ ad#itting the #ista/e o$ grad"al evol"tion( scientists proposed an even #ore l"dicro"s idea9 P"nct"ated e!"ili+ri"#) This highly co#plicatedDso"nding theory has gained so#e traction within the evol"tionary co##"nity) The theory states that glo+al catastrophes acco"nted $or the s"dden leap in evol"tion) These events wo"ld ca"se s"dden and drastic .syste#ic #"tations).For so#ething co#plex to appear*and not +e destroyed*$ro# enor#o"s volcanic er"ptions or asteroid i#pacts is de$initely hopeful2 Finally( geneticist Theodosi"s Do+7hans/y8s state#ents on hope$"l #onsters +"ry this $anci$"l notion9 .?Ste++ins and Ayala( .?4lant 'ife@) This is $"rther s"pported +y the writings o$ two evol"tionists9 .paltriness o$ the arg"#ents and the overall sha++iness o$ the theory that #arches "nder the +anner o$ evol"tion.hope$"l #onsters).&hat the theory $ails to address is that s"ch #"tations wo"ld devastate an organis#) Also( as we have already covered( these earthDsha/ing events wo"ld not provide the new in$or#ation needed $or the co#plexity o$ li$e to increase) The concept o$ p"nct"ated e!"ili+ri"# has also +een called .)))these theories a#o"nt only to giving #ore or less $ancy na#es to i#aginary pheno#ena= no one has ever o+served the occ"rrence o$ a Psyste#ic #"tation8 $or instance.

ect) 'n nat"re( scientists have discovered that when cos#ic rays co#e into contact with the earth8s at#osphere( they react with nitrogenDAM and create car+onDAM) 'n t"rn( car+onDAM then reacts with oxygen( prod"cing car+on dioxide) Plants then ta/e in car+on dioxide) Ani#als will then eat plants( allowing the# to also ingest car+on dioxide) &hen plants and ani#als die( the decaying process prod"ces nitrogenDAM) And hence( the cycle contin"es) For exa#ple( yo" co"ld ta/e a sa#ple o$ petri$ied wood) &hen it was alive( the wood wo"ld have had a si#ilar ratio o$ car+onDAM to car+onDAI as the air s"rro"nding it) 5owever( when it died( the deco#position wo"ld slowly release car+onDAM into the air( while the car+onDAI re#ained constant) '$ the scientist /new the ratio o$ car+onDAM to car+onDAI in the air( and the rate at which car+onDAM was released $ro# the sa#ple( he co"ld theoretically calc"late its age) Scientists have generally ass"#ed that the ratio o$ these isotopes has re#ained constant in the at#osphere) 4"t there is one #a.sciences.?4owden( The 7i e of the Evolution &raud( pp) IANDIAK@) As yo" can now see( geology is not a $ield o$ science in which evol"tionists can $ind re$"ge or hope to repair their cr"#+ling theory) T e Datin" Dilemma One o$ the #ost nota+le pro+le#s with the $ossil record is related to how $ossils are dated) %i/e #any .dealing with evol"tion( there are sweeping generali7ations and ass"#ptions applied) Archeologists typically "se two di$$erent types o$ dating* radiocar+on and associative) The $irst( and #ost /nown( is called radiocar+on dating) 'n this $or# o$ dating( researchers #eas"re the ratio o$ nonDradioactive car+on ?car+onDAI@ to radioactive car+on ?car+onDAM@ to deter#ine the age o$ the o+.or pro+le# with this ass"#ption*it has not2 .S"ch evidence( a#ong other things( is why geologist &illia# Dawson wrote( .The record o$ the roc/s is decidedly against evol"tionists.

UDThDP+ PDating89 An exa#ple o$ False P'sochrons8(.0otice9 .0ot only then has open syste# +ehavior o$ these isotopes +een de#onstrated( +"t apparent Pisochrons8 and their derived Pages8 are invariably geologically meaningle ) Th"s none o$ the ass"#ptions "sed to interpret the UDThDP+ radio#etric syste# "sed to yield Pages8 can +e valid.?A)A) Snelling( .reasona+le(.+ased on other $inds) This is pro+le#atic +eca"se #any o$ the ite#s "sed $or co#parison were also dated "sing radiocar+on2 e#e#+ering the logical $allacies we have already covered( this is a per$ect exa#ple o$ Begging the 8ue tion) 4asing a concl"sion on an ass"#ption is not only "nscienti$ic( it is dishonest2 For the last cent"ry( archeologists have "sed radiocar+on analysis to create a varia+le chart on which to co#pare other $inds) &hen a new $ossil is discovered( it is co#pared to existing $ossils at that depth o$ gro"nd*called the strata) 't is ass"#ed that #illennia o$ ti#e co#pressed each layer o$ strata and( there$ore( all $ossils $o"nd at a partic"lar layer are o$ si#ilar age) '$ a radiocar+on test then shows a si#ilar date( the sa#ple8s date is esta+lished as $act) Can yo" see how s"ch a syste# allows sa#ples to +e placed within a wide age range? F"rthering this is the $act that s#all sa#ples can +eco#e conta#inated +y the s"rro"nding environ#ent) F"rther still( di$$erent parts o$ larger sa#ples have also +een shown to vary +y hundred of thou and o$ years) M"ch #ore co"ld +e said a+o"t these dating #ethods) 4"t as yo" can see( they are $ar $ro# relia+le) 'n $act( it is p"77ling that s"ch a syste# is "sed at all2 F&om t e #o&se4s *out .Third International "onference on "reationi m@) 0o #atter how lo"d the con$"sing and #isg"ided atte#pts to explain away the variations o$ these isotopes( variations exist) This is why scientists crossDre$erence their $inds( with ite#s that have already +een dated) This wo"ld allow the# to declare the radiocar+on date .

close the s"+.experts-*the apostles*hold a lot o$ a"thority and( there$ore( s"ch a discovery wo"ld co#pletely "nder#ine Christianity) &hy sho"ld state#ents $ro# evol"tionary experts +e viewed in a di$$erent light? Their state#ents show a growing and deepening chas# in the theory o$ evol"tion*one that the tenets o$ evol"tion are no longer a+le to +ridge) 3ven tho"gh we have already thoro"ghly disproven the concept o$ evol"tion( so#e concl"ding !"otes will leave yo" certain a+o"t its $allacy) The 4i+le states( .A word $itly spo/en is li/e apples o$ gold in pict"res o$ silver.i$ a ho"se +e divided against itsel$( that ho"se cannot stand.?Mar/ L9IB@) Allow the $ollowing !"otes $ro# evol"tionists to .?Prov) IB9AA@) 't also states that .ect o$ evol"tion in their own words and s"ppositions) They will show how divided this ho"se is against itsel$( and why( thro"gh their words*and the proo$s provided thro"gho"t*it cannot any longer stand9 .$itly.'t has +een said that evol"tionists are their own worst ene#ies) The +itter disagree#ents +etween scientists o$ co#peting or disagreeing disciplines o$ evol"tion o$ten provide #any o$ the proo$s cited +y those disagreeing with the overall theory) 'n $act( evol"tionists !"estioning evol"tion is #ore signi$icant than #any wo"ld s"ggest) '#agine that a new archeological $ind were to reveal that the $irstDcent"ry apostles expressed do"+t regarding the #iracles and events proving that >es"s Christ was act"ally 6od in the $lesh) S"ch a discovery wo"ld rattle the $o"ndations o$ Christianity) These .?French evol"tionist >en ostand@) &hile we have covered #any ass"#ptions( there are others that drive ho#e the wea/nesses o$ evol"tion) They are so strong and disco#$orting that University o$ So"tha#pton ?3ngland@ evol"tionist and 7oologist 6) A) <er/"t wrote the $ollowing .The theory o$ evol"tion gives no an wer to the i#portant pro+le# o$ the origin o$ li$e and presents only fallaciou olution to the pro+le# o$ the nat"re o$ evol"tive trans$or#ations))) &e are conde#ned to +elieve in evol"tion)))Perhaps we are now in a worse position than in AKBC +eca"se we have searched $or one cent"ry and we have the i#pression that the di$$erent hypotheses are now e0hau ted.

(. o$ li$e :+io.concl"sion to his +oo/ Implication of Evolution ?/eep in #ind that the ter# biogene i in the !"ote re$ers to .&e are on so#ewhat stronger gro"nd with the seventh ass"#ption that the $ish( a#phi+ia( reptiles( +irds( and #a##als are interrelated) There is the $ossil evidence to help "s here( tho"gh #any o$ the /ey transitions are not wellDdoc"#ented and we have as yet to o+tain a satis$actory o+.ective #ethod o$ dating the $ossils)))The evidence that we have at present is ins"$$icient to allow "s to decide the answer to these pro+le#s)0o+el la"reate >a#es &atson stated( ."st an ass"#ption)))There is( however( little evidence in $avor o$ +iogenesis and as yet we have no indication that it can +e per$or#ed)))'t is there$ore a #atter o$ $aith on the part o$ the +iologist that +iogenesis did occ"r))) .?The Double Heli0( p) AM@) .The $irst ass"#ption was that nonDliving things gave rise to living #aterial) This is still .and not the 'aw of Biogene i ( as covered earlier@9 .ority o$ the inverte+rates is ten"o"s and circ"#stantial= not the type o$ evidence that wo"ld allow one to $or# a verdict o$ de$inite relationships) .The third ass"#ption was that Hir"ses( 4acteria( Proto7oa and the higher ani#als were all interrelated))) &e have as o$ yet no de$inite evidence a+o"t the way in which the Hir"ses( 4acteria or Proto7oa are interrelated) .The $o"rth ass"#ption was that the Proto7oa gave rise to the Meta7oa))) 5ere again nothing de$inite is /nown))) .The second ass"#ption was that +iogenesis occ"rred only once) This again is #atter $or +elie$ rather than proo$))) .'n contrast to the pop"lar conception s"pported +y newspapers and #others o$ scientists( a goodly n"#+er o$ scientists are not only narrowD #inded and d"ll( +"t also .The sixth ass"#ption is that the inverte+rates gave rise to the verte+rates)))As 4errill states( Pin a sense this acco"nt is science $iction)8 .origin :genesis."st st"pid.The $i$th ass"#ption was that the vario"s inverte+rate phyla are interrelated)))The evidence( then $or the a$$inities o$ the #a.

4igotry in Science(.One o$ the #ost astonishing characteristics o$ scientists is that so#e o$ the# are plain( oldD$ashioned +igots) Their 7eal has a $anatical( egocentric !"ality characteri7ed +y disdain and intolerance $or anyone or any val"e not associated with a special area o$ intellect"al activity.An editor o$ Science once re#ar/ed( .For the invisi+le things o$ 5i# $ro# the creation o$ the world are .4iologists #"st constantly /eep in #ind that what they see was not designed +"t rather evolved)4"t we have seen that things have not evolved2 &ill science contin"e to +lindly try to prove this i#possi+le theory? '$ so( they are doo#ed to $ail"re( as stated +y 0o+el la"reate Dr) o+ert A) Milli/an9 .Science( April AENM@) &hat $anatical( egocentric intolerance it tr"ly is2 0nans-e&ed.?Phillip A+elson( .The pathetic thing is that we have scientists who are trying to prove evol"tion( which no scientist can ever prove.?4owden( The 7i e of the Evolution &raud999( p) IANDIAK@) 0o longer will con$"sing arg"#ents +l"r yo"r thin/ing $ro# the tr"th o$ the #atter) 3ach ass"#ption has +een syste#atically +ro/en down( point +y point) At the +eginning o$ this p"+lication( it was stated that yo" were a+o"t to read so#ething "nli/e anything yo" have read +e$ore) And as yo" wal/ away $ro# the r"ins o$ evol"tion( yo" sho"ld now see why this is tr"e) 4"t clearing the slate*and yo"r thin/ing*o$ this l"dicro"s theory is only the +eginning) The 4i+le states( . 0np&oven and 0nt&ue Th"s $ar( we have covered #any o$ the ass"#ptions( #yths and $allacies regarding evol"tion) 't was once said that it is #"ch harder to "nlearn error than it is to learn tr"th) 1o" sho"ld +e a+le to easily disprove the dishonest assertions #ade +y evol"tionary scientists) And yo" sho"ld +e a+le to see past the logical $allacies that they e#ploy) The theory o$ evol"tion can now +e clearly seen $or what it is*ridic"lo"s and a+s"rd) The intricate design in$erred in +iological science is why 0o+el la"reate and coD discoverer o$ D0A8s str"ct"re( Francis Cric/( enco"raged his $ellow evol"tionists that .

learned.? o#) A9ICDIL( IB@) 3vol"tionists have corr"pted the tr"th o$ li$e8s origins) 3ven when presented with the $acts( they ignore the#*always $orcing the idea that .clearly seen( +eing "nderstood +y the things that are #ade)1o" can "nderstand what so #any .4eca"se o$ their actions( 6od has closed their #inds to li$e8s tr"e origins) 4"t yo" need not +e ignorant o$ what so #any have never +een shown) 1o" have "nlearned #any $alse concepts) 1o"r slate has +een cleaned*yo"r c"p e#ptied*now yo" are ready to exa#ine so#e o$ the proo$s o$ li$e8s T .what they see was not designed +"t rather evolved).clearly een( +eing "nderstood +y the thing that are made)))4eca"se that( when they knew 6od( they glori$ied 5i# not a /od( neither were than/$"l= +"t +eca#e vain in their i#aginations( and their $oolish heart was dar/ened) Pro$essing the#selves to +e wise( they became fool ( And C5A063D the glory o$ the "ncorr"pti+le 6od into)))+irds( and $o"r$ooted +easts( and creeping things)))&ho changed the tr"th o$ 6od into a lie( and wor hipped and erved the creat"re #ore than the Creator.O – ACCIDENT OR DESI%N/ The $ollowing is a series o$ articles that appeared in The 7E*' T7+TH #aga7ine) anging $ro# the #icroscopic to the intergalactic( they are $o"r power$"l proo$s o$ a Designer*a Creator) &hen $ra#ed against the +ac/drop o$ Part One( the answer to li$e8s origin and the So"rce o$ creation are clearly explained) %i/e the clarity +ro"ght to the clo"ded s"+.#en choose to ignore2 U3 origin) Thro"gh the articles in the next section( the So"rce o$ the "niverse and all li$e in it will +e PART T.ect o$ evol"tion( these proo$s will to"ch on aspects o$ creation in a way yo" have never seen +e$ore) 3ach is co#plete in itsel$( +"t all sho"ld +e read to grasp the scope .

and co#plexity o$ the design o$ the "niverse and li$e) 4e prepared to learn things yo" #ay have never read or "nderstood +e$ore) SEEIN% CLEARL5 THE STORY OF THE HUMAN EYE &hat allows yo" to read the words in this +oo/let? O+vio"sly( at a #ore co#plex level( yo" have to "nderstand the 3nglish lang"age) 4"t +e$ore yo" even +egin to decipher what is written( yo" #"st see it) 'n $act( an a#a7ingly co#plex series o$ actions ta/es place +etween yo"r eyes and yo"r +rain in order $or yo" to see what is written on the page) 1o"r eyes are responsi+le $or KCQ o$ the in$or#ation yo"r +rain receives) This #a/es it +y $ar the #ost vital o$ yo"r sensory inp"ts) '#agine trying to live witho"t yo"r vision) Fro# how the inner eye $"nctions( to how light +eco#es a pict"re in yo"r #ind( science has st"died the h"#an eye in s"ch detail that it will asto"nd yo") 4"t while the function o$ the eye is crystal clear( its origin see#s clo"ded in #ystery) As #entioned( what is really only the theory o$ evol"tion is ass"#ed to +e fact) Children are ta"ght it in school and #ost scientists s"+scri+e to its tenets) S"rely( evol"tion at least atte#pts to open the window into the origin o$ the eye) '$ so( there #"st +e creat"res $ro# who# o"r eyes have evolved) The story o$ this $ascinating organ is +oth inspiring and( pardon the p"n( eyeDopening2 The a+sence o$ evol"tionary evidence reveals the that has gone into it) #o.Does It .o&2/ 3A% origin o$ the eye and the design .

particles.ect( it changes the #a/e"p o$ that light( which then enters yo"r eye) '#agine photons as the tiny a##"nition in pellet g"ns= this will help yo" vis"ali7e their path thro"gh yo"r eye and into yo"r +rain) T e Comple1 Details .is a photon) Photons originate in the s"n and are what we perceive as light) &itho"t photons( there is no light2 1o" are constantly +o#+arded with these particles) The way di$$erent o+.ects re$lect photons deter#ines how colors( text"res and s"r$aces are perceived) 3verything we see is +ased on how s"+stances a+sor+ and re$lect photons) An easy exa#ple o$ this process is to loo/ at two extre#es9 ?A@ A #irror and ?I@ a +lac/ s"r$ace) '$ yo" shine a light into a #irror yo" will reflect the light +ac/ at yo") On the other hand( i$ yo" shine a light at a +lac/ s"r$ace( very little will re$lect +ac/ at yo") 5ow the s"r$ace reacts with light deter#ines i$ yo" see color) &hile this is a very si#pli$ied explanation o$ how photons react to prod"ce di$$erences in what we see( it serves o"r p"rpose to explain how the eye plays a part in this proced"re) So when light re$lects o$$ an o+.4e$ore we can +egin to loo/ at the eye in the light o$ evol"tion( we #"st $irst "nderstand how the eye $"nctions and what syste#s are in place to allow photons to +eco#e an i#age) 4"t yo" #ay wonder9 &hat is a photon? The whole "niverse is #ade "p o$ tiny( #icroscopic ?or even s#aller@ particles) The co#+ination o$ these particles is what constit"tes #atter*the "niverse in which we live) One o$ these +asic .

'nside the 3ye.&hen light $irst stri/es the retina( a photon interacts with a #olec"le called AADcisD retinal( which rearranges within picoseconds to transDretinal) The change in the shape o$ :AADcisD.co#es in contact with the s"r$ace o$ yo"r retina) This #ay see# highly detailed( +"t s"ch a#a7ing detail is one o$ the reasons the eye i a wor/ing #iracle9 .is what co"ld +e called the LC(CCCD$oot view o$ the eye) &e have not yet addressed how the +rain interacts with the eye( or any o$ the corrective #eas"res the eye "nderta/es when it detects a pro+le#) 4"t +e$ore going into that( the $ollowing is the detailed representation o$ what really happens when a . retinal $orces a change in the shape o$ the protein( rhodopsin( to which the retinal is tightly +o"nd) The protein8s #eta#orphosis alters its +ehavior( #a/ing it stic/ to another protein called transd"cin) 4e$ore +"#ping into activated rhodopsin( transd"cin had tightly +o"nd a s#all #olec"le called 6DP) 4"t when transd"cin interacts with activated rhodopsin( the 6DP $alls o$$ and a #olec"le called 6TP +inds to transd"cin) ?6TP is closely related to( +"t critically di$$erent $ro#( 6DP)@ Rods and Cones 'n #ost parts o$ the retina( cones and rods are interspersed) 4"t one part o$ the retina*the #ac"la *is #ade "p entirely o$ cones) This region is responsi+le $or seeing extre#ely $ine detail) 1o" #ay have heard o$ the disease called #ac"lar degeneration) Fail"re in this region is responsi+le $or that condition) .pellet.Inside t e E$e A crossDsection view o$ the h"#an eye Source) how tuffwork 9com The graphic .

Another #e#+rane protein that +inds c6MP is called an ion channel) 't acts as a gateway that reg"lates the n"#+er o$ sodi"# ions in the cell) 0or#ally the ion channel allows sodi"# ions to $low into the cell( while a separate protein actively p"#ps the# o"t again) The d"al action o$ the ion channel and p"#p /eeps the level o$ sodi"# ions in the cell within a narrow range) &hen the a#o"nt o$ c6MP is red"ced +eca"se o$ cleavage +y the phosphodiesterase( the ion channel closes( ca"sing the cell"lar concentration o$ positively charged sodi"# ions to +e red"ced) This ca"ses an i#+alance o$ charge across the cell #e#+rane which( $inally( ca"ses a c"rrent to +e trans#itted down the optic nerve to the +rain) The res"lt( when interpreted +y the +rain( is vision.Michael 4ehe( A"g) AC( AEEN@) 't is not necessary to $"lly "nderstand what ta/es place to ca"se those electrical i#p"lses to $ire into yo"r +rain( +"t it is necessary to identi$y the extre#e co#plexity re!"ired $or the process to ta/e place) Are yo" +eginning to "nderstand why the concept o$ evol"tion +eco#es so ridic"lo"s when applied to yo"r eyes? #a&d-a&e Re6ui&es So!t-a&e The #a/e"p o$ yo"r eye*lens( iris( retina( etc)*are the .?.3vidence $or 'ntelligent Design $ro# 4ioche#istry(.6TPDtransd"cinDactivated rhodopsin now +inds to a protein called phosphodiesterase( located in the inner #e#+rane o$ the cell) &hen attached to activated rhodopsin and its ento"rage( the phosphodiesterase ac!"ires the a+ility to che#ically c"t a #olec"le called c6MP ?a che#ical relative o$ +oth 6DP and 6TP@) 'nitially there are a lot o$ c6MP #olec"les in the cell( +"t the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration( li/e a p"lled pl"g lowers the water level in a +atht"+) .n"ts and +olts.that send the electrical p"lse into yo"r +rain) 4"t how does yo"r +rain /now what to do with those signals when they are received? .Source) how tuffwork 9com Source) how tuffwork 9com .

advanced.T e T&ilo+ite4s E$e( Evolution Reve&sed/ The cr"x o$ the theory o$ evol"tion is that all living ani#als have evolved $ro# si#pler creat"res) 't all started as a p"ddle o$ living #atter( which evolved into #ore co#plex and diverse creat"res( and then ani#als) This whole concept is +ased on the ass"#ption that( over ti#e( all organis#s i#prove +y nat"ral selection*s"rvival o$ the $ittest) &hile that concept is riddled with holes( let8s ass"#e it tr"e $or a #o#ent) 1o" wo"ld expect to $ind that the $ossil record shows that( as ti#e passed( creat"res grew #ore and #ore co#plicated) This wo"ld +e especially tr"e in vision syste#s) 4eca"se vision( in even the si#plest o$ creat"res( is very co#plex( yo" wo"ld expect it to ta/e #illions o$ years $or any .vision syste# to appear) Anything co#plex that appeared too !"ic/ly( or appeared witho"t any prior organis# +eing its prec"rsor( wo"ld +e an e#+arrass#ent to proponents o$ evol"tion) So introd"ces the trilo+ite) These extinct inverte+rates existed in vast n"#+ers thro"gho"t the world8s oceans( and date +ac/ to the Ca#+rian period*approxi#ately MCCDBCC #illion years ago) &hat is #ost a#a7ing a+o"t these creat"res is that they had re#ar/a+ly co#plex vision syste#s) So co#plex were their eyes( that no inverte+rates*or even #any verte+rates*possess anything co#para+le today2 Also( these creat"res see# to have appeared s"ddenly( with no $ossil record o$ anything o$ the li/e +e$ore the#) Pro$essor ichard Fortey( a researcher at the 0at"ral 5istory M"se"# in %ondon states( .Crystal 3yes(.?.0at"ral 5istory ACE( no) K( pp) GCDGA@) . hexagonalDlensed trilo+ite eye@( Phacops8s crystal eye is a sports co"pe in the age o$ the +onesha/er.&e /now that the $irst trilo+ites already had a wellDdeveloped vis"al syste#) 'ndeed( the large eyes $o"nd in the gen"s Fallotaspis( $ro# Morocco( prove that sophisticated vision goes +ac/ at least BMC #illion years to the Ca#+rian period)O$ the Phacops trilo+ite gen"s( he went on to state( .Clearly a very sophisticated str"ct"re ?even #ore so than the :"s"al.

how to trans$or# the over one h"ndred #illion i#p"lses into what we see? '$ yo"r +rain did not /now how to p"t together the photon .s"pporting.and then +alance what each eye sees( there wo"ld +e no co#prehensi+le pict"re de$ined as vi ion) Another a#a7ing process ta/es place in regard to this) 'n any single lens syste# ?s"ch as o"r eyes@( the i#age received is inverted) So( not only does yo"r +rain p"t together those #illions o$ photons( it also know to invert the i#age2 %i/e co#p"ter so$tware( the +rain has to +e progra##ed with all the in$or#ation needed to interpret this data) 't has to /now what colors are represented +y what type o$ light( and how the whole ."sts the lens to $oc"s( and opens or closes the iris to allow the right a#o"nt o$ $oc"sed light on the retina) 0ow that yo" "nderstand the +asics o$ how yo"r eye operates( try this si#ple experi#ent to witness how #"ch interaction act"ally ta/es place +etween yo"r +rain and yo"r eye) &hile yo" are reading these words( loo/ at so#ething $ar away) &hile yo" do this( vis"ali7e that yo" had to #ove the #"scles in yo"r eye( change the iris and ad.the theory o$ evol"tion is nothing #ore than s#o/e and #irrors) '#agine a co#p"ter( with all its parts and pieces( #any o$ which are too co#plicated $or #ost people to "nderstand) 0o #atter how intricate and co#plicated this e!"ip#ent is* witho"t so$tware( it can do nothing) 1o"r co#p"ter will not even t"rn on witho"t so#e $or# o$ so$tware( telling that hardware what to do) 't is the sa#e with the eye) All the #ove#ents that ta/e place in the eye are controlled +y yo"r +rain) The +rain #oves yo"r eye to center on so#ething( ad.$its together) '$ yo" really thin/ a+o"t it( what yo" see with yo"r eyes is nothing #ore than a pict"re that yo"r #ind has created) P"t another way( it is the vivid version o$ what yo" can vis"ali7e with yo"r eyes closed) The h"#an +rain tr"ly is the #ost a#a7ing organ ever created) ."st yo"r lens to get the o+.&ith s"ch state#ents $ro# a worldDrenowned paleo+iologist( it is !"ite o+vio"s that another leg ./now.pict"re.ect $arther away in $oc"s) This leads to the $inal part in "nderstanding how yo"r eyes wor/) 5ow does the +rain .pellets.

?Psa) ALE9AM@) The h"#an eye is a per$ect exa#ple o$ so#ething wonder$"lly made) 'n light o$ the co#plexity displayed in the h"#an eye*.The Trilo+ite8s 3ye9 3vol"tion eversed?.For the invi ible thing o$ 5i# $ro# the creation o$ the world are clearly een( +eing "nderstood +y the things that are MAD3( even 5is eternal power and 6odhead.The $ool has said in his heart( There is no 6od?Psa) AM9A@) 6od "nderstands that physical people need physical proo$) &e need to S33 evidence o$ the Creator9 .' a# $ear$"lly and wonder$"lly #ade.? o#) A9IC@) .inset)@ S"ch !"estions are never addressed2 And even #ore a#a7ing( there has never +een any atte#pt to explain the process +y which an eye co"ld have possi+ly evolved $ro# a si#pler $or#) 4"t is it really that a#a7ing? &hen yo" cannot explain the process +y evol"tion( there is only one other option*it was designed2 And that is an option that #ost scientists wo"ld re$"se to entertain) <ing David stated( .&itho"t this so$tware appearing at the sa#e ti#e as yo"r eyes( they are co#pletely "seless2 Again( while it so"nds i#possi+le $or the eye to have evolved( what are the odds o$ +oth the so$tware and hardware appearing AT T53 SAM3 T'M3? Do yo" see why evol"tionists avoid conversations a+o"t the eye? Si#ply '#possi+le2 3ven in this short article( yo" have +eg"n to see the a#a7ing co#plexity re!"ired $or the h"#an eye) Thin/ $or a #o#ent on the co#plexity re!"ired to $or# the $irst eye) Or what ca"sed a cell to +eco#e sensitive to light) Or why trilo+ites and their eyes disappeared) ?See ."st one organ o$ one living creat"re( yo" can see why 6od states( .

ority in the scienti$ic co##"nity( a vast explosion s"pposedly propelled #atter h"rling in all directions away $ro# this creative n"cle"s) As this theory wo"ld have it( the larger str"ct"res s"ch as galaxies and galaxy cl"sters wo"ld necessarily +e distri+"ted in rando# $ashion) &hat did this new vista o$ the +road expanse o$ the "niverse reveal? Anything +"t rando# $ashion2 Upon con$ir#ing the shape these galaxies and galaxy cl"sters $or#ed( the scienti$ic world was shoc/ed2 This new panora#a revealed a partic"lar str"ct"re consisting o$ over A(CCC galaxies( re$lecting the shape o$ a #an) 0ot only was the theory o$ rando# distri+"tion discredited( +"t to add ins"lt to in."st another proo$ pointing to the 3A% origin +ehind the eye*and the whole "niverse*the 6od o$ the 4i+le2 The proo$s have always +een there( i$ people wo"ld only clearly loo/2 *APPIN% T#E 0NI7ERSE 'n AEKN( a signi$icant leap in the science o$ astrono#y and astrophysics occ"rred( introd"cing a new $rontier9 Positions o$ galaxy cl"sters were represented on a co#p"ter #odel) Altho"gh do7ens o$ s"rveys had already +een cond"cted to chart the distri+"tion o$ galaxies in partic"lar seg#ents o$ the "niverse( none atte#pted to cover so +road an expanse) For the very $irst ti#e( scientists were a+le to o+tain a vis"al concept o$ what the "niverse loo/s li/e) According to the 4ig 4ang Theory( accepted +y the #a.This is ."ry( the evol"tionaryD#inded scientists +eheld that the galaxies in the "niverse $or#ed in the shape o$ a #an2 O$ co"rse( none o$ the scientists attached any signi$icance to the shape o$ this str"ct"re) 5owever( it pro#pted so#e scientists to serio"sly !"estion the 4ig 4ang Theory( which was p"t $ir#ly on the de$ensive +y this new evidence) .

constit"ted co#pelling evidence that galaxies were congregating on twoDdi#ensional str"ct"res( as tho"gh they had condensed o"t o$ cos#ic nothingne on the s"r$aces o$ invisi+le +"++les) 'ndeed( when 6eller later wrote "p the res"lts o$ the CFA :5arvardD S#ithsonian Center $or Astrophysics.so"nd as i$ scienti$ic evidence is giving #ore weight to creation as research advances) A $ew $acts a+o"t the stic/ #an stand o"t as "n"s"ally $ascinating) So#e o$ its A(CCCDpl"s galaxies are as near as LC #illion light years( while others are as $ar away as NBC #illion .the stic/ #an). galaxy s"rvey( she descri+ed the distri+"tion o$ galaxies in the "niverse as loo/ing li/e a slice thro"gh s"ds in the /itchen sin/) 5er #etaphor i#plied that astrono#ers were mightily confu ed a+o"t how the "niverse had $or#ed.4eyond the Soaps"ds Universe(.'t was grand not only in di#ension( +"t also in the sense that it literally changed #an8s "nderstanding o$ the "niverse) So#e scientists rel"ctantly ac/nowledged that the 4ig 4ang Theory had lost so#e credi+ility and possi+ly needed serio"s revision) 5owever( #ost were not yet ready to loosen their e#+race on what was $ashiona+le to +elieve*altho"gh their $aith in the 4ig 4ang ca#e to +e( ad#ittedly( so#ewhat in di array) S#ithsonian astrono#er Dr) Margaret 6eller ac/nowledged that the stic/ #an .6ary Ta"+es( Di cover( e#phasis o"rs@) Ter#s "sed in 6eller8s $ran/ ad#ission pertaining to these galaxy str"ct"res appearing to have .?.7isuali'in" t e %&and Scale Astrono#ers at the 5arvardDS#ithsonian Center $or Astrophysics in Ca#+ridge( Massach"setts had innovated this new techni!"e o$ vis"ali7ing data and red"cing it in scope to a co#p"ter #odel) 1et the representation was relatively acc"rate( given s"ch vast distances2 For the $irst ti#e( #an was a+le to vis"ali7e str"ct"res o$ the "niverse spanning a spectr"# o$ BCC #illion light years) 5e was a+le to view on the largest scale( str"ct"res in the "niverse consisting o$ great wallDli/e $or#ations o$ galaxies s"rro"nded +y voids or areas o$ e#pty space) The very $irst $or#ation discovered in the near "niverse was an i#age rese#+ling a h"#an) 4eca"se o$ its long torso( scientists na#ed this grand $ig"re .condensed o"t o$ cos#ic nothingness.

The Pstic/ #an8 – this $irst s"rvey res"lt #ade it loo/ li/e there was a #essage here $or "s( galaxies arranged in the shape o$ a h"#an) 4"t other slices o$ the s/y have no s"ch $eat"re( and di$$erent scale plots o$ the sa#e slice show no s"ch $eat"re) These $eat"res are interesting( +eca"se they see# to s"ggest that we occ"py a central position in the cos#os)Pertaining to the distortions o$ this i#age that led 6eller8s tea# to la+el it the .$or all #an/ind) 4"t it is interesting that it is ca"sing so#e $ew scientists and evol"tionists to reD exa#ine their preconceived ideas) 't is $ascinating that the Creator has le$t a trail thro"gho"t the heavens $or those who will loo/) A$ter all( the 4i+le says that only .redshi$t.'n $act( the linear arrange#ents o$ galaxies appear to +e arti$icial*+ased on o"r $lawed way o$ co#p"ting their distances) This e$$ect wo"ld #a/e the stic/ #an8s torso loo/ taller than it really is( and it wo"ld exaggerate the walls that appear to s"rro"nd "s.light years) The s"rvey that contained the stic/ #an covered the northern s/y as viewed $ro# earth) The torso o$ the stic/ #an is in the center and closely aligned with tr"e north *in line with the axis o$ the earth8s rotation) A co##only held o+servation a#ong vario"s openD#inded astrono#ers and cos#ologists was well expressed +y Dr) Craig Tyler( at Fort %ewis College in Colorado9 .divine #essage.?faculty9fortlewi 9edu@) Understand that we are not endorsing this discovery as a .Dr) Tyler contin"ed( .in the light spectr"#) Once the optical light $ro# given galaxies are r"n thro"gh a spectrograph ?the instr"#ent "sed to separate light into its co#ponent colors@( the +right and dar/ lines o$ these separated colors are the signat"res o$ oxygen( hydrogen( nitrogen( potassi"#( sodi"# and the other ele#ents) Analysis "sing spectroscopy can easily identi$y all the ele#ents and res"lting co#po"nds involved( whether in the t"r+"lent state o$ co#+"stion or !"iet e!"ili+ri"#) .?Psa) BL9A@) Reds i!ts and t e Fa& 0nive&se The distance o$ speci$ic galaxies $ro# o"r location in the "niverse can +e precisely deter#ined +y #eas"ring the degree o$ .The $ool has said in his heart( There is no 6od.stic/ #an(.

slicing thro"gh soaps"ds in the /itchen sin/).o$ galaxies in repeating circ"lar patterns "pon a twoD di#ensional plane) The #etaphor "sed in descri+ing this pheno#enon has +een co#pared to that o$ .Cosmic 7ie-( This is a co#p"ter si#"lated view o$ a cl"ster o$ galaxies in the distant cos#os) A large( elliptical galaxy do#inates this hypothetical cl"ster8s central region s"rro"nded +y a swar# o$ #e#+er galaxies) Other galaxies which lie $ar +ehind the cl"ster are seen as n"#ero"s visi+le concentric arcs* lensed +y the enor#o"s gravitational $ield do#inated +y dar/ #atter within the cl"ster itsel$) Source) .The disting"ishing $actor o$ this depiction o$ the s"rvey o$ the northern s/y is the h"#an $or# at the center o$ the twoDdi#ensional plane( highlighted in yellow $or p"rposes o$ ill"stration) This is the i#age $o"nd in the co#p"ter #odel $ro# the galaxy distri+"tion patterns in the near "niverse ?less than one +illion light years $ro# earth@) The spheres +elow the slice o$ the twoDdi#ensional plane have +een ill"strated to coincide with the "niversal circ"lar pattern o$ galaxy distri+"tion) 'n analy7ing the spectra o$ galaxies( the patterns o$ the colors are stretched to longer wavelengths) The stretching is si#ply called redshi$t) The $"rther away the galaxies( the .condensation.*S* A Fascinatin" Patte&n( This artist8s rendering o$ galaxy distri+"tion thro"gho"t the "niverse serves to ill"strate what appears to +e the .

ect) 'ncredi+le as it so"nds( #an is now well along in his !"est to "nderstand the geo#etry o$ the "niverse) &ith each passing decade( the process o$ #apping the "niverse is i#proved +y !"ant"# leaps*literally) The threeDdi#ensional pattern o$ the "niverse is analogo"s to +"++les or $oa#( as #entioned earlier) 6alaxies collect in a twoDdi#ensional pattern near the ri# o$ these +"++leDstr"ct"res in repeating patterns) Spotting and recording the +illions o$ galaxies in the "niverse is greatly expedited +y "se o$ the M"ltiple Mirror Telescope ?MMT@ at Mt) 5op/ins( Ari7ona) This telescope covers a relatively large portion o$ the s/y) The new instr"#entation greatly accelerates the recording process( #apping ?"sing $i+er optics technology@ #any #illions o$ distant galaxies well +eyond the near "niverse) *ilestones in 0nde&standin" t e 0nive&se Consider how $ar science has progressed in the past cent"ry) 't was AEIE when 3dwin 5"++le de#onstrated the extent o$ o"r expanding "niverse) 5e was a+le to prove that .greater the redshi$t) Th"s the redshi$t represents a relatively acc"rate #eas"re o$ the distance o$ any galaxy $ro# o"r vantage point) &ith technology to instantly eval"ate redshi$ts( e$$orts to explore +eyond the near "niverse +eco#e greatly accelerated) &hen 6eller and her colleag"es #apped the "niverse ?a $ew h"ndred #illion light years away@ and discovered the stic/ #an( they were only a+le to view in the range o$ a single galaxy in every s!"are degree o$ the s/y) ?A s!"are degree is a+o"t B ti#es the area o$ the #oon)@ Shi$ting the $oc"s B +illion light years o"t into the "niverse( yo" will see #ore than A(CCC galaxies in that sa#e s!"are degree o$ s/y) This de#onstrates how vast the "niverse act"ally is2 6reatly i#proved instr"#entation has #ade it possi+le to si#"ltaneo"sly plot h"ndreds o$ these galaxies) Using newly developed #"ltiplexing instr"#ents( astrono#ers are now well along in their goal o$ #apping all the /nown galaxies in the "niverse( incl"ding( as #"ch as possi+le( the $ar "niverse) 3ven with this instr"#entation( it is expected to ta/e a+o"t a cent"ry to co#plete this a#+itio"s pro.

or draw+ac/ was that it was #erely twoD di#ensional*containing latit"de and longit"de( +"t lac/ing depth) The #issing !"ality was provided +y the #eas"re#ent o$ redshi$t in the light "pon its passing thro"gh a spectrograph( as disc"ssed earlier) edshi$t s"pplied this #issing third di#ension) Altho"gh redshi$t was "nderstood d"ring the ti#e o$ 5"++le ?a+o"t AEIE@( it was a long and tedio"s tas/ to analy7e and #eas"re this pheno#enon) Today( that process is a"to#atic and $ar #ore acc"rate) Made in the AEKCs( the $irst threeDdi#ensional vis"ali7ation o$ the near "niverse was chosen $ro# the northern s/y) Altho"gh that s"rvey covered a spectr"# o$ over BCC #illion light years( 6eller li/ened this panora#a to trying to vis"ali7e the str"ct"re o$ the continents and oceans o$ the earth +y exa#ining a #ap the si7e o$ hode 'sland*hardly eno"gh area to #a/e generali7ations o$ the overview) 1et( there is reason to +elieve that this $irst slice o$ the "niverse was typical o$ the "niverse o+served to a $ar greater depth into space #ore recently) 4y AEKE( the view was over $o"r ti#es deeper than the initial s"rvey in AEKN) Astrono#ers 6eller and 5"chra were a+le to #ap the 6reat &all spanning the northern s/y over a stretch o$ KCC #illion light years) 4y other #appings thro"gho"t the AEECs( it is "nderstood that s"ch str"ct"res are a co##on $eat"re o$ the "niverse) .galaxies were #oving away $ro# "s and that their relative speed increased in proportion to their distance) 5"++le8s $indings $"lly agreed with Al+ert 3instein8s theory o$ relativity that too/ into acco"nt the vast space separating the galaxies) 'n the AENCs( Frit7 Owic/y and his colleag"es plotted #any h"ndreds o$ s/y s"rvey plates( which identi$ied over LC(CCC galaxies) O"r "nderstanding o$ the "niverse contin"ed to expand) &e now "nderstand that the galaxies plotted +y Owic/y and others were within a +illion light years o$ o"r s"n*o"r own neigh+orhood in the near "niverse) &e also "nderstand that this /nown "niverse extends a+o"t AB +illion light years in all directions) 4y the AEGCs( the Owic/y catalog o$ galaxy s"rveys was loo/ed "pon as the pioneering pro.ect deserving #"ch credit) 4"t one #a.

0ote so#e o$ the a#a7ing capa+ilities that now exist9 .ect= they plan to i#age a !"arter o$ the s/y digitally and to ac!"ire spectra $or one #illion galaxies) The $irst slices o$ these large s"rveys give the sa#e #essage as the ones +e$ore the#9 Dar/ voids( thin walls( and $ila#ents de$ine the +"++leD or spongeDli/e tapestry o$ o"r neigh+orhood in the "niverse?..This con"ndr"# :p"77ling( "n/nown. discovered) 4eca"se the #aps are #ore extensive than o"rs( they contain #any dar/ voids( along with a #"ltit"de o$ thin walls and $ila#entary str"ct"res where galaxies are)The p"+lication contin"es( .ational /eographic( p) AKC@) Da&2 *atte& 3no"gh evidence has s"r$aced to +etter "nderstand the general nat"re and distri+"tion o$ #atter in the "niverse) The o+servations noted th"s $ar pertain to #atter that e#its light) This s"##ary o$ #an8s !"est to "nderstand the "niverse wo"ld +e inco#plete witho"t noting the #ysterio"s ele#ent o$ dar/ #atter) As interesting as the visi+le "niverse o$ lightDe#itting galaxies has +eco#e( this visi+le #atter co#prises only AC percent o$ the "niverse) More than EC percent o$ the "niverse is co#posed o$ dar/ #atter2 3xactly what is dar/ #atter? Dr) 6eller8s answer gives the +est assess#ent o$ o"r "nderstanding o$ that iss"e9 . has +een with "s( "nresolved( $or nearly GC years) <nowing the nat"re o$ the dar/ #atter is cr"cial $or a co#plete "nderstanding o$ the $or#ation o$ galaxies) The cos#ic #icrowave +ac/gro"nd radiation))) that pervades the "niverse carries o"r earliest gli#pse o$ the cl"#ping o$ #atter in the "niverse)))'n re#ar/a+le agree#ent with the analysis o$ redshi$t s"rveys( st"dy o$ the #inisc"le $l"ct"ations in the cos#ic +ac/gro"nd radiation tells "s that only a+o"t AC percent o$ the #atter in the "niverse is the nor#al +aryonic st"$$ that #a/es "p .4eyond 3arth(.ect goes +y the na#e o$ the instr"#ent that ena+les it( the IDF( $or a IDdegree $ield) The IDF on the MD#eter AngloDA"stralian telescope ret"rns nearly MCC redshi$ts :ter#s "sed $or distant galaxies with distinct redshi$t characteristics.A consorti"# o$ "niversities in the United States has "nderta/en an even #ore a"dacio"s pro.Tea#s o$ scientists +ased in A"stralia and in the United States have "nderta/en a#+itio"s #apping pro.ects that rely on the new technology) The A"stralian pro. at a ti#e $or galaxies distri+"ted across a IDs!"are degree region o$ the s/y)))The patterns in these i#pressive #aps are si#ilar to the ones we :6eller and colleag"es.

?'+id)( p) AKM@) The +ea"ty o$ the heavens is greatly #agni$ied +y the power$"l telescopes $ar +eyond what the na/ed eye can $atho#) The wider and deeper the $ield o$ vision( the #ore +reathta/ing this creation appears) 'n the physical "niverse( we $ind convincing proo$ that only a S"pre#e Creator co"ld have $ashioned it all together in s"ch a wondro"sly "ni$ied whole) This is precisely why #ost senior astrono#ers s"ch as Dr) >a#es Han Allen have re.rapt"ro"s a#a7e#ent.the o+.?'+id)( pp) AKCDAKA@) T e Continuin" )uest Man8s desire to +etter "nderstand the "niverse contin"es) 'n the year ICCE( the a+ility to see $arther and deeper into space will +e reali7ed +y the la"nch o$ the 0ext 6eneration Space Telescope) 4y the year IACC( scientists plan $or the entire /nown "niverse to +e digitally #apped) The detailed geo#etry o$ the "niverse is expected to +e "nderstood +y that ti#e) Man8s achieve#ent o$ si#"lated co#p"ter #odels o$ the vis"al str"ct"res o$ the "niverse #ay +e acc"rate to the degree that a #ap represents a territory) 4"t Dr) 6eller expresses the inade!"acy o$ s"ch si#"lations as tr"e representations o$ what they pict"re9 .Fro# an aesthetic point o$ view( $or #e( at least( there is ex!"isite +ea"ty in the nat"ral world that si#"lations cannot #atch.ects we o+serve9 stars( planets( and h"#an +eings) The other EC percent is so#ething still #ysterio"s and dar/.ected evol"tionary philosophy ?ingrained into the# in their yo"th@( to +eco#e creationists) &e challenge yo" to prove this $or yo"rsel$ as well) O"r $ree +oo/let Doe /od E0i t: provides a#ple proo$ o$ the existence o$ a Creator 6od) One o$ the $ore#ost scientists o$ the $irst hal$ o$ the twentieth cent"ry*Al+ert 3instein *#ade this /een o+servation a+o"t the order( laws and $oretho"ght that 6od p"t into 5is creation) 3instein expressed the $ollowing ?condensed and paraphrased here@9 5e was $"lly con$ident o$ the existence o$ a s"perior intelligence that he perceived to +e at wor/ in the "niverse) 5e expressed +elie$ in a 6od who revealed 5i#sel$ in the orderly har#ony o$ what existed) 5is perception o$ religion as a scientist too/ on a .at the har#ony o$ nat"ral laws( which revealed an intelligence o$ s"ch .

ecting the existence o$ 6od) Fro# the $orces that +ind ato#ic n"clei to the principles that r"n these great galaxies( we $ind the signat"re o$ the sa#e Creator) Fro# the existence o$ law to the law o$ existence( $ro# the $"llness o$ the earth to the vastness o$ space( that Creator is /nown +y 5is handiwor/) Fro# the +reathta/ing +ea"ty o$ the creation to a #ind that can co#prehend it*all these things testi$y to the #a.esty o$ a s"pre#e( allDwise Creator 6od and 5is +o"ndless creative $oretho"ght2 T#E 0NI7ERSE SIX REQUIREMENTS OF LIFE 3vol"tionists8 ass"#ptions o$ a creation witho"t a Creator sho"ld not go "nchallenged) Mathe#atical pro+a+ilities alone disprove the #ere existence o$ #atter co#ing a+o"t +y rando# chance) 3ven the existence o$ a "niverse containing +iological li$e prohi+its any possi+ility o$ co"ntless intricate +alances occ"rring +y chance) 1et( evol"tion ignores the overwhel#ing pro+a+ilities prohi+iting the existence o$ this creation +y rando# chance) This article will $oc"s only "pon six o$ the n"#ero"s( very speci$ic conditions re!"ired in order $or #atter to exist in a $or# that is $avora+le to s"stain li$e) Once we proceed +eyond the r"di#entary existence o$ #atter( n"#ero"s other h"rdles wo"ld still have to +e acco"nted $or) .s"periority that all the collective syste#atic thin/ing o$ h"#an +eings was an "tterly insigni$icant re$lection ?!ut of .y 'ater Year @) 't wo"ld +e interesting i$ we were to so#eday $ind that 6od has le$t many #essages within the "niverse( leaving #an/ind "tterly witho"t exc"se in re.

Th"s( this article will not +egin to address s"ch re#aining $actors as the or+its o$ the earth and #oon( the precise tilt o$ the earth( iss"es o$ te#perat"re( press"re( co#position o$ the at#osphere and its $iltration o$ radiation( the contin"o"s water cycle and n"#ero"s other re!"ire#ents $or +iological li$e to thrive) The $ollowing six re!"ire#ents are "s"ally expressed in highly technical ter#s) &hile diligent e$$ort has +een #ade to relay this in$or#ation in #ore "nderstanda+le ter#s( the concepts #ay +e relatively co#plicated) &here a technical ter# appears( it is +eca"se no e!"ivalent ter# exists that co"ld +e s"+stit"ted witho"t #issing the point) Re6ui&ement 8( Neut&on *ass 9 P&oton *ass The s"n is #ade "p #ostly o$ hydrogen and heli"#) At the s"n8s core( hydrogen is converted to heli"# thro"gh a n"clear reaction( releasing energy) 'n this process( when two protons collide( one o$ the protons changes into a ne"tron) The two +ond together( $or#ing a new particle( /nown as a deuteron( consisting o$ one proton and one ne"tron) The instantaneo"s change o$ a proton into a ne"tron is possi+le +eca"se the #ass o$ +oth particles are nearly the sa#e) The particle o$ greater #ass will generally trans$or# into a particle o$ lesser #ass +y giving "p a tiny percentage o$ its #ass d"ring the collision) A ne"tron is a+o"t one part in A(CCC greater in #ass than a proton*nearly identical) Th"s( the $or#ation o$ de"terons in the s"n8s core wo"ld never ta/e place i$ the ne"tron #ass was signi$icantly greater or less than the proton) 'n short( de"terons wo"ld not $or# "nless the relative #ass o$ each particle was within C)A percent o$ the other) Stars are a+le to prod"ce n"clear energy thro"gh the $or#ation o$ de"terons) &itho"t this critical process( no star wo"ld prod"ce eno"gh s"stained energy to s"pport li$e on any planet or+iting aro"nd it) De"terons are vital to s"staining the s"n8s ther#on"clear reaction( which provides s"$$icient energy to s"stain li$e on earth) The li$eti#e o$ a ne"tron( when o"tside o$ the n"cle"s( is a+o"t AB #in"tes( in which it decays into a proton and an electron) '$ a ne"tron were only C)EEK o$ its act"al si7e( $ree protons ?particles that are not part o$ a n"cle"s@ wo"ld then decay into ne"trons*and ato#s si#ply wo"ld not exist2 'n s"ch a case( $ree protons wo"ld decay into ne"trons( .

Elect&on C a&"e Scientists have +een a+le to #eas"re and co#pare the relative proton and electron charge within ato#s( and have esta+lished that these charges can only di$$er +y less than one part in A(CCC(CCC(CCC(CCC(CCC ?one !"adrillion@) There$ore( since the charge o$ the electron is o$ e!"al #agnit"de to the charge o$ the proton( ato#s tend to #aintain a ne"tral charge) 5owever( i$ one o$ these charged particles di$$ered +y only one part in A(CCC(CCC(CCC ?one +illion@( then an ato# wo"ld no longer +e electrically ne"tral) '$ the proton charge were greater( ato#s wo"ld +e electrically positive) '$ the electron charge were greater( then ato#s wo"ld +eco#e electrically negative) 'n s"ch cases( ato#s wo"ld no longer +e ne"tral( +"t wo"ld possess a de$inite charge*positive or negative) Since li/e charges repel( in s"ch a case there wo"ld +e rep"lsion +etween ato#s o$ ele#ents*and solid #atter could not e0i t< The thin line o$ tolerance o$ this electrical charge is extre#ely intricate) &hat is the pro+a+ility that the charge o$ these particles wo"ld +e al#ost identical( i$ the "niverse occ"rred +y chance*witho"t any design $ro# an intelligent #ind? Re6ui&ement <( St&on" Nuclea& Fo&ce .1 percent *li$e co"ld not exist2 's it logical to +elieve that s"ch #athe#atical precision co"ld evolve over a long period o$ ti#e? Or that it co"ld co#e a+o"t instantaneo"sly witho"t $oretho"ght or planning? Consider how s"ch sli# possi+ilities greatly "nder#ine the ass"#ptions that evol"tionists #erely ta/e $or granted) Re6ui&ement :( P&oton C a&"e .and*since the n"cle"s o$ a hydrogen ato# is si#ply a $ree proton*hydrogen co"ld not exist2 Th"s( a relative #ass change o$ even the lighte t proportions +etween ne"trons and protons wo"ld eliminate hydrogen( the #ost a+"ndant ele#ent in the "niverse) Consider9 &itho"t hydrogen( water ?5IO@*the +asic solvent $or all +iological li$e*wo"ld not exist) 'n short( i$ the relative #ass o$ protons vs) ne"trons deviated +eyond ..9.

The $orce that +inds the particles o$ the ato#ic n"cle"s together is called the strong n"clear $orce) '$ the strong n"clear $orce were only a+o"t three percent stronger( then all the hydrogen in the "niverse wo"ld have long since +een trans$or#ed into heli"#2 S"ch an increased $orce wo"ld ca"se two protons to $or# a heli"# n"cle"s lac/ing a ne"tron ?diproton@) Since the strong n"clear $orce is not !"ite strong eno"gh to +ring a+o"t this reaction( we have hydrogen in a+"ndance( so vital $or an environ#ent $avora+le $or li$e* providing $or water( and energy $or the s"n) Stars $"eled excl"sively +y heli"# wo"ld +e relatively shortDlived( and #ay even explode d"ring their $or#ation process) '$ the strong n"clear $orce were a+o"t $ive percent stronger( diprotons wo"ld $or# in the s"n8s core( #a/ing the ther#on"clear reactions #any #illions o$ ti#es #ore e$$icient) This wo"ld ca"se its ther#on"clear $"el to +e "sed "p in a short span o$ ti#e( relatively spea/ing) 0ow s"ppose the strong n"clear $orce was red"ced to a h"ndredth o$ its nor#al strength *then what? Protons wo"ld repel each other in the n"cle"s) 5ence( no ele#ents co"ld exist other than hydrogen( which has only one proton2 0ow s"ppose that the strong n"clear $orce was red"ced +y oneDthird o$ its nor#al capacity) 'n s"ch a case( there co"ld exist a n"#+er o$ ele#ents) All these ele#ents( incl"ding car+on and oxygen( wo"ld +e "nsta+le( with relatively short li$eti#es) '$ planets existed "nder s"ch conditions( they wo"ld +e extre#ely radioactive d"e to the contin"o"s decay o$ "nsta+le ele#ents) '$ the strong n"clear $orce were red"ced +y only $ive percent( then de"terons co"ld not exist) e#e#+er that de"terons are cr"cial $or the s"stained n"clear reaction o$ the s"n) The strong n"clear $orce( as the other re!"ire#ents th"s covered( has to $all within a relatively narrow range in order $or a $avora+ly +alanced "niverse to s"stain li$e) Again( what is the pro+a+ility that the "niverse ca#e into existence +y rando# chance? Stop and thin/ a+o"t the care$"l creative $oretho"ght that has to precede even the existence o$ #atter( since +lind chance co"ld never have co#e "p with the exact co#+ination o$ s"ch in$inite possi+ilities) .

Re6ui&ement =( Epsilon Constant 9 %&avitational Fine St&uctu&e Concerning the "niverse( i$ the epsilon constant ?$actor pertaining to gravitational $orces@ deviated only slightly in one direction in relation to gravitational $ine str"ct"re( all stars wo"ld +e red dwar$s) ?Dwar$ stars*generally( white dwar$s*are the re#aining cores o$ stars that have essentially co#pleted their li$e cycles) A$ter the re#aining n"clear $"el is expended( these cores event"ally +eco#e dar/ cinders)@ '$ the epsilon constant deviated in the other direction( all stars wo"ld intensi$y into +l"e giants*h"ge stars with energy levels o$ enor#o"s intensity) As an exa#ple( o$ two stars in the neigh+orhood o$ o"r s"n( igel( a +l"e giant( is over $ive ti#es hotter than 4etelge"se( a red s"pergiant in the later stages o$ its li$e cycle that will event"ally collapse into a white dwar$) Altho"gh the de$inition o$ these two $orces is +eyond the scope o$ this article( a s"##ary o$ these de$initions will serve to show how intricate these ranges tr"ly are) The epsilon constant is de$ined as the $ine str"ct"re constant to the twel$th power( #"ltiplied +y the electronJproton #ass ratio to the $o"rth power) The val"e o$ the epsilon constant in the "niverse is expressed as I)CeDLE ?C)CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCI@) This is an extre#ely delicate $orce that has to +e #aintained witho"t even the lighte t deviation*else the "niverse co"ld not exist in a sta+le condition) The val"e o$ the gravitational $ine str"ct"re $orce is B)EeDLE) This $orce( relative to the epsilon constant( is e!"ally critical $or the sta+ility o$ the "niverse) On a cali+rated instr"#ent one /ilo#eter long( the tolerance o$ the range o$ this $orce co"ld +e no wider than one #illi#eter) The press"res needed $or li$e to exist on earth wo"ld +eco#e enor#o"sly co#plicated i$ o"r s"n were a +l"e giant) The intensity o$ the radiation wo"ld +e s"ch that the earth wo"ld have to +e re#oved $ar +eyond Pl"to8s c"rrent location in relation to the s"n) S"ch an or+it wo"ld i#pose a host o$ "n+alanced conditions hostile $or +iological li$e to contin"e) For exa#ple( in s"ch an or+it( a year wo"ld exceed a decade2 On the other hand( i$ o"r s"n were a red dwar$( the earth wo"ld have to +e #"ch closer to it than Merc"ry is c"rrently located) Many o$ the sa#e pro+le#s that have #ade Merc"ry hostile $or li$e wo"ld exist on 3arth*only #"ch worse) At s"ch a close distance( a red .

this thin( hairline range o$ tolerance and never deviate $ro# s"ch an intricate +alance? Re6ui&ement >( T e Cosmolo"ical Constant 9 ? The expanding "niverse is inhi+ited +y the c"#"lative $orce o$ gravity $ro# all the galaxies) This $orce is analogo"s to the prop"lsion o$ a roc/et( which #"st overco#e earth8s gravity( which wo"ld otherwise hold it +ac/) The $orce o$ gravity that inhi+its the expansion o$ the "niverse is s"ch that this $orce decrea e as distance increa e ) '#agine s"ch a $orce with opposite characteristics( in that it increases with distance( ca"sing the "niverse to expand #ore rapidly) This opposite $orce is called the cos#ological constant) The val"e o$ the cos#ological constant is very close to 7ero) To express the act"al val"e o$ this constant( it wo"ld +e written as less than C)CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCA per s!"are #eter) S"ppose this cos#ological constant were to increase to the level o$ C)CCCA per s!"are #eter) 'n this case( a distortion o$ spaceti#e wo"ld ta/e place over any distance #ore than a $ew /ilo#eters) Under these conditions( one who traveled #ore than a $ew /ilo#eters wo"ld not +e a+le to ret"rn to his place o$ origin) '$ the val"e o$ the cos#ological constant were decreased $ro# C)CCCA to only C)CCCCCCCCCA( then the distortion o$ spaceti#e wo"ld not ta/e e$$ect "ntil one traveled a+o"t oneDtenth o$ the distance to the s"n) 3ven with this .dwar$8s gravitational $orces wo"ld virt"ally prevent the earth $ro# rotating) The side $acing it wo"ld overheat( while the dar/ side wo"ld lose #ost o$ its heat( res"lting in a te#perat"re di$$erential that wo"ld !"ic/ly dissipate the gases in the at#osphere) Scientists agree that neither a +l"e giant nor a red dwar$ can s"pport li$e on an or+iting planet) 1et( the exact +alance o$ the epsilon constant relative to the gravitational $ine str"ct"re $orce is re%uired $or +iological li$e to exist) The slightest deviation in one direction or the other wo"ld ca"se all the stars in the "niverse to !"ic/ly develop into either +l"e giants or red dwar$s) &hat are the chances that an "nDdesigned( rando# "niverse wo"ld so#ehow .slightly i#proved.$ind.level( planets wo"ld not +e a+le to have s"ita+le or+its aro"nd stars) 't is not necessary to .

ea2 Nuclea& Fo&ce The wea/ n"clear $orce allows a proton to change into a ne"tron at the opti#"# rate) '$ this $orce were only slightly s#aller( then all o$ the hydrogen in the "niverse wo"ld have long since +een changed into heli"#) As covered earlier( hydrogen is an essential part o$ the water #olec"le*and water is essential $or all +iological li$e) ."nderstand the concept o$ spaceti#e( +"t rather to appreciate the precision o$ the cos#ological constant in order $or the "niverse to exist as we /now it) Scientists indicate that there wo"ld exist only a very $ew stars i$ a di$$erent cos#ological constant per#itted a di$$erent rate o$ expansion to occ"r) The opti#"# rate o$ expansion that did occ"r allowed $or the $or#ation o$ the #axi#"# range o$ stars in all the #yriads o$ galaxies) As #entioned in the previo"s section( a $aster rate o$ expansion wo"ld have prevented the $or#ation o$ stars) A slower rate wo"ld have ca"sed #atter to $or# into +lac/ holes instead o$ galaxies) ?4lac/ holes are theori7ed to +e the res"lt o$ the r"naway collapse o$ very #assive stars) 0ot even light can escape the cr"shing gravity o$ tiny +lac/ holes*"s"ally only a+o"t $ive #iles in dia#eter)@ The correct level o$ the cos#ological constant incorporated LI 7eros in this #in"te n"#+er that approaches the val"e o$ 7ero) '$ the extre#ely delicate $orce only had less than LC 7eros( then the expansion o$ the "niverse wo"ld have +een explosive( allowing no stars to $or#) 5ad this n"#+er +een decreased to #ore than LM 7eros( then the expansion wo"ld have +een overco#e +y gravity( res"lting in an inevita+le collapse o$ the "niverse) This very sensitive and intricate $orce had to sta+ili7e at an opti#al val"e very close to 7ero in order $or the "niverse to $or#) The pro+a+ility is virt"ally nil that s"ch an opti#"# val"e co"ld have +een esta+lished +y rando# chance2 Again( do not worry i$ yo" do not $"lly grasp these technical concepts) O"r goal is to help yo" appreciate how this co"ld never have happened apart $ro# the care$"l planning o$ a Creator and Designer) Re6ui&ement @( .

Two types o$ ther#on"clear reactions ta/e place in any star in the prod"ction o$ energy) The $irst reaction ?disc"ssed in e!"ire#ent A@ involves the $or#ation o$ a de"teron as two protons collide( prod"cing one proton and one ne"tron +o"nd together) The second reaction occ"rs when a de"teron collides with a proton( prod"cing a light heli"# n"cle"s with an e#ission o$ energy) Unless the wea/ n"clear $orce existed at the speci$ied #agnit"de as occ"rs in the "niverse( de"terons wo"ld never $or# in the $irst reaction) The rate o$ trans$or#ation into de"terons is act"ally a very s#all percentage o$ the collisions involving two protons) 1et this restrained rate o$ reaction*ca"sed +y the strong n"clear $orce relative to the wea/ n"clear $orce*is what allows the s"n8s ther#on"clear reaction to +e #aintained at a $avora+le and s"staina+le rate) '$ the val"e o$ this wea/ n"clear $orce were only slightly di#inished( the energyD prod"cing ther#on"clear reactions o$ stars wo"ld si#ply cease2 '$ this val"e were slightly increased( then the reactions wo"ld greatly intensi$y( +"rning "p all availa+le $"el in a relatively short ti#e( +y cos#ic standards) 4y +eing at an opti#"# level with respect to the strong n"clear $orce( the wea/ n"clear $orce allows the s"stained reactions o$ the s"n and stars to occ"r at a rate $avora+le $or +iological li$e2 . at A&e t e P&o+a+ilities/ +niver e *naly$er( a so$tware progra# pop"lar on engineering ca#p"ses a $ew years +ac/( helped in calc"lating the #athe#atical pro+a+ility o$ an "nDdesigned "niverse #eeting the six re!"ire#ents $or the existence o$ li$e) So#e o$ the in$or#ation in this article was condensed and s"##ari7ed $ro# this progra#) This so$tware de#onstrated how re#ote the pro+a+ilities were $or all o$ these re!"ire#ents to +e #et p"rely +y rando# chance) One de#onstration $eat"red a total o$ I(AIE separate "niverse #odels) These #odels give a realistic pict"re o$ what the chances wo"ld +e( given vario"s re!"ire#ents +eing #et +y rando# chance) 4elow is the list as to how #any re!"ire#ents were #et) • • Models #eeting A o$ the N re!"ire#ents*MCM Models #eeting I o$ the N re!"ire#ents*K .

For th"s says the %O D that created the heavens= 6od 5i#sel$ that $or#ed the earth and #ade it= 5e has esta+lished .• • • • Models #eeting L o$ the N re!"ire#ents*C Models #eeting M o$ the N re!"ire#ents*C Models #eeting B o$ the N re!"ire#ents*C Models #eeting N o$ the N re!"ire#ents*C 0otice that o$ the I(AIE separate "niverse #odels( only MCM #et at least one re!"ire#ent +y rando# chance) ?The only re!"ire#ents $or which the rando# n"#+er generation progra# were a+le to !"ali$y were re!"ire#ents A( L( M and N)@ O$ the I(AIE #odels( only eight #et two o$ the necessary re!"ire#ents) 0ot a single #odel was a+le to #eet three or #ore) The progra# "ser co"ld alter the para#eters to di$$er $ro# the $orces and constants $o"nd in the "niverse and score a higher pro+a+ility than the de#onstration covered) The point is this9 6iven the constants( $orces and other para#eters in the /nown "niverse( the pro+a+ility o$ these six re!"ire#ents +eing #et +y chance wo"ld +e nil $or million upon million o$ separate #odels cond"cted contin"ally across ti#e2 A $ew decades ago( 5arlow Shapley( a noted astrono#er( #ade an interesting ad#ission that still de$ines the predica#ent that evol"tionists have always $aced9 .Then( in verse AK( 5e contin"es( .in explaining how li$e #ight have evolved) 5owever( the origin o$ s"ch a "niverse can never +e ass"#ed*it si#ply co"ld not have occ"rred witho"t detailed( creative $oretho"ght) T e %&eat Desi"ne& There is an intelligent #ind +ehind the origin o$ the "niverse) And this Personage "na+ashedly states that 5e had a p"rpose $or doing so( proclai#ing 5is power( a"thority and sovereignty to carry o"t 5is will) 'saiah MB9AI states( .&e appear( there$ore( to +e rather helpless with regard to explaining the origin o$ the "niverse) 4"t once it is set going( we can do a little +etter at interpretation.?The Evolution of 'ife( Hol) A@) Once evol"tion is allowed the ass"#ption o$ an orderly "niverse $avora+le $or li$e( they .do a little +etter.' have #ade the earth( and created #an "pon it9 '( even My hands( have stretched o"t the heavens( and all their host have ' co##anded).

%i$t "p yo"r eyes on high( and +ehold who has created these things( that +rings o"t their host +y n"#+er9 5e calls the# all +y na#es +y the greatness o$ 5is #ight( $or that 5e is strong in power= not one $ails)."st the "nderstanding o$ the origin o$ the "niverse) That is only the starting point) 't opens "p possi+ilities so transcendent that it answers !"estions #an/ind has not yet +eg"n to as/2 T#E .To those whose #inds are receptive( 6od leaves no do"+t as +eing the A"thor o$ the entire creation) Those who pre$er alternate theories 5e leaves to their own devices*$or now) At a $"t"re ti#e when 6od reveals 5i#sel$ to the world in general( #an/ind will "nderstand who this Creator is and why their #inds were previo"sly closed to accept and s"+#it to 5is ways) 1et( those who see/ to learn o$ 5i# now( and prove 5is existence( stand to gain #ore than .?'sa) MC9II@) Then( in verse IN( 5e declares( .RON% ASS0*PTION &hen yo" wo/e "p this #orning( yo" #ade a series o$ ass"#ptions) Many o$ the# were done "nconscio"sly) &hen yo" reached $or yo"r alar# cloc/( yo" ass"#ed it wo"ld +e there) &hile getting ready $or yo"r day( yo" ass"#ed #any things as part o$ yo"r #orning ro"tine) 1o" did not plan $or anything o"t o$ the ordinary*s"ch as no hot water( or even so#ething as extre#e as yo"r roo$ caving in) .stretches o"t the heavens as a c"rtain( and spreads the# o"t as a tent to dwell in.it( 5e created it not in vain( 5e $or#ed it to +e inha+ited9 ' a# the %O none else)- D= and there is One #ethod +y which we can prove the existence o$ this 4eing is to recogni7e that any and all hypotheses $or the existence o$ a creation witho"t a Creator have +een overwhel#ingly F%A&3D*in every case2 The One who +ro"ght the creation together asserts that 5e .

The sa#e can +e said a+o"t many aspects o$ li$e) Anyti#e one does not plan $or every possi+le res"lt( he is #a/ing so#e type o$ ass"#ption) O+vio"sly( one cannot plan $or every possi+le co"rse o$ every possi+le action) So nat"rally( #any #a/e ass"#ptions) So +asic are ass"#ptions in h"#an thin/ing that vario"s $ields o$ science "se the# when creating a theory or hypothesis) 0owhere is this #ore evident than in the $ield o$ archeology) The $o"ndation o$ st"dying ancient c"lt"res is +ased on certain ass"#ptions( +e it a+o"t their c"lt"re( intelligence or technological advance#ents) These ass"#ptions are "s"ally +ased on $acts that have already +een collected thro"gh archeological digs) 4"t the pre#ise that so#ething was created +y #an is ass"#ed) Thro"gh the o+vio"s planning and design o$ a +ro/en arrowhead( piece o$ pottery or writing ta+let( a concl"sion is reached) 'n a si#ilar way( i$ yo" are wal/ing along a +each and $ind a soda pop +ottle( yo" wo"ld not #a/e the wrong ass"#ption) 1o" wo"ld not ded"ce that +eca"se this glass +ottle is in sand( and since glass is nothing #ore than co#pressed sand( that the +ottle grad"ally $or#ed d"e to press"res and environ#ental changes) O+vio"sly( yo" reali7e that the +ottle was #ade in a $actory and once contained a +everage) 1o" #ay not have reali7ed( +"t yo" "nconscio"sly ran a series o$ scienti$ic experi#ents( involving geo#etry( ling"istics( che#ical analysis and pro+a+ility) '$ +ro/en into act"al experi#ents( this process #ay have happened as $ollows9 ?A@ 1o" pic/ed "p the +ottle and noticed the shape and text"re o$ the +ottle*63OM3T 1= ?I@ when exa#ining the +ottle( yo" recogni7ed the writing as 3nglish*%'06U'ST'CS= ?L@ the sweet s#ell and perhaps any resid"e in the +ottle indicated the +everage that was once inside*C53M'CA% A0A%1S'S= ?M@ $inally( yo" reali7ed that the P manufactured pop +ottle) O$ co"rse( yo" do not carry o"t this series o$ experi#ents each ti#e yo" pic/ "p a si#ilar ite#) 4ased on previo"s experience*and proo$*yo" ass"#e the res"lt) 'n s"ch a case( O4A4'%'T1 o$ all three o$ the a+ove traits happening nat"rally was so low that this +ottle wa what it was9 a .

ect o$ D0A( yo" #"st $irst "nderstand the $alse ass"#ptions "pon which +iological science is +ased) These ass"#ptions $or# the $o"ndation o$ evol"tion) &hile the p"rpose o$ this article is not to disprove evol"tion( exa#ining .theories.are created) 4"t when yo" wipe away all the wrong ass"#ptions( the real data is +oth $ascinating and inspiring) &hile a#a7ing $acts and details are $o"nd thro"gho"t the "niverse( perhaps the #ost a#a7ing is inside yo"*the cell) 'n $act( there are approxi#ately ACC trillion cells in yo"r +ody and inside each o$ those cells is eno"gh in$or#ation to $ill the largest li+raries in the world) As we will see( an o+vio"s and telltale signat"re identi$ies their origin even #ore concl"sively than the previo"slyD#entioned glass +ottle) And it is hidden in the +l"eprint o$ the cell*D0A) Baseless Assumptions To properly $ra#e the s"+.events happened +illions o$ years ago( +eginning the process o$ organic evol"tion) The $irst o$ these processes is co##only called the 4ig 4ang Theory) This event s"pposedly was the $orce that created the /nown #aterial "niverse) ."n/nown or "ndeter#ined."st two o$ these ass"#ptions does disprove it and shows why #odern science co#pletely #isses the reason +ehind the co#plex design that appears in every living cell in existence) 3vol"tion +asically states that two .yo" are #a/ing a correct*prova+le*ass"#ption +eca"se yo" are +asing it on existing( proven $acts) 4"t witho"t existing $acts( there is no $o"ndation on which to +ase yo"r ass"#ption) S"ch an ass"#ption is not prova+le and is nothing #ore than a gue ) This sa#e process appears in +asic r"les o$ logic) 1o" cannot $a+ricate so#ething and then +ase a concl"sion on that ill"sionary $o"ndation) Anyone can "nderstand that doing s"ch is silly) These r"les o$ logic are applied to nearly every discipline o$ science except one*+iology2 'nstead o$ loo/ing at the $acts and applying si#ple r"les o$ logic( #any convol"ted and con$"sing .

#eaning that a si#ple che#ical process co"ld +e applied to their creation and replication) 4"t ti#es have certainly changed2 .5istorically the point o$ view that li$e co#es only $ro# li$e has +een so well esta+lished thro"gh the $acts revealed +y experi#ent that it is called the %aw o$ 4iogenesis?Biology) * Search for !rder in "omple0ity( Moore and Sl"sher@) A $ootnote in the sa#e text+oo/ states( .to #a/e the transition $ro# inorganic*nonDliving*#atter into organic*living*#atter) &hile #odern science can give no explanation as to why this transition wo"ld happen* or is even possi+le*it is s"pposed that all living cells evolved $ro# this organic goop) The $irst #a."n/nown spontaneo"s event.or explosion o$ plas#aDtype gasses $or#ed the +eginnings o$ the "niverse) Fro# that initial explosion( this early "niverse expanded into what we /now today) To $"rther "nderstand the $allacy o$ the 4ig 4ang Theory( read o"r article .ho#ogeneo"s glo+"les o$ plas#a(.in this iss"e) Secondly( evol"tionists theori7e that at so#e point in this expanding "niverse o$ nonD organic #atter( an environ#ent $or#ed that allowed a .?'+id)@) &hile evol"tionists $reely ad#it that this law $or#s the +asis o$ #odern +iology( #any conveniently disregard this $act when applied to evol"tion) 4"t i$ we( even $or a #o#ent( ass"#e that so#e .So#e scientists call this a s"perlaw( or a law a+o"t laws) egardless o$ ter#inology( +iogenesis has the highest ran/ in these levels o$ generali7ation.Mapping the Universe(.&hen #odern society discovered radiation( we were a+le to deter#ine that all #atter is deteriorating) Once "nderstood( this proves that there #"st have +een a point in ti#e at which #atter did not exist*otherwise( the deterioration process wo"ld have already +een co#pleted) To explain this( scientists devised the 4ig 4ang) 't +asically states that a #a.so"py goop.ca"sed the $irst essential ingredients o$ living #atter*a#ino acids*there still re#ains another colossal h"rdle to overco#e) Comple1it$ F&om C aos &hen $irst discovered in the AEICs( cells were tho"ght to +e si#ple .or o+stacle $or evol"tionists is the +iological law o$ 4iogenesis9 .

errors can +e #ade) This #eans that h"ndreds o$ a#ino acids wo"ld have to rando#ly*yet si#"ltaneo"sly*co#e together in a per$ect con$ig"ration to $or# a wor/ing protein) There is even another degree o$ co#plexity re!"ired to $or# proteins) 0ot only do these a#ino acids have to co#e together as descri+ed a+ove( they #"st +ond in ."st one protein nat"ralistically is approxi#ately A in AC(AIB*not to #ention the numerou proteins re!"ired $or a living cell) '$ yo" ta/e into acco"nt that #ost proteins are #ade "p o$ more than ACC a#ino acids( yo" +egin to see why evol"tionary researchers o$ten downplay chance( asserting that .Stephen C) Meyer@) 't has +een esti#ated that the odds o$ $or#ing .D0A and Other Designs(.$orce $ields(allowing $low o$ certain ite#s in and o"t o$ the cell( and #any #ore independent( yet highly cooperative( #achines) This whole process is controlled +y the n"cle"s o$ the cell( which has +een descri+ed as a co#plex s"perco#p"ter) ? e#e#+er( in spite o$ all the co#plex cell"lar processes( evol"tionary theory states that A%% things happened +eca"se o$ chance and necessity)@ 4"t this initial cos#ic goop did not $or# directly into a wor/ing cell) First( a#ino acids #"st lin/ together to +eco#e #ore co#plex str"ct"res*proteins) This also presents a pro+le#) 4y their very nat"re( a#ino acids have to +e speci$ically arranged to $or# $"nctioning proteins) Co"ld this happen +y chance? '$ yo" rando#ly type /eys on a co#p"ter( there is a chance that thro"gho"t the se!"ence( yo" #ay type a word) 4"t what are the odds that yo" will type a proper entence? Or what a+o"t a poem or a novel? 4eca"se o$ the extre#ely speci$ic layo"t needed to $or# proteins( no .?.&ith #ore power$"l technology( we have +een a+le to loo/ deep into cells and their $"nda#ental +"ilding +loc/s) Cells can +e li/ened to #icroscopic $actoryDcities) There are waste re#oval highways( power $actories( a#a7ingly selective .an extraordinarily co#plex and irreg"lar threeDdi#ensional shape*a twisting( t"rning( tangled chain o$ a#ino acids.typing.

nat"ral #ethod gave rise to their $or#ation) 1et( chance is exactly what h"ndreds o$ #illions o$ st"dents are conditioned to accept as $act) O+vio"sly( one can see that creating a novel or poe# +y chance is i#possi+le) &hy then does the scienti$ic co##"nity at large $ail to "nderstand that so#ething exceedingly #ore co#plex co"ld also not $or# +y happenstance? Can yo" +elieve that anyone wo"ld consider this? 5owever( this is only the +eginning o$ the wrong ass"#ptions science has a$$orded in the !"est to #aintain evol"tion) The $ascinating point to notice in protein $or#ation is the speci$icity re!"ired $or the# to $"nction) 3ven at this very early stage( we notice .so#e .+"ilding)Cellula& *ac ine Code The cell is the #ost advanced engineering #arvel ever discovered) 5"#anity has never created anything that $"nctions nearly as e$$iciently as the cell) 'n $act( aspects o$ the cell are even "sed when designing co#plex and red"ndant syste#s) &hat the D0A %adder eveals .in$or#ational content."n/nown.present) 4eca"se rando# organi7ation does not $or# proteins( there is an existing str"ct"re*a +l"eprint*that #"st +e $ollowed to create the#) 'n all historical $or#s o$ science( in$or#ation content i#plies a creator o$ that in$or#ation) 3ven in these si#ple proteins( this +l"eprint +egs the !"estion9 &ho or what created the in$or#ational +l"eprint $or these proteins? 4"t the signat"re on that +l"eprint +eco#es o+vio"s*not when we loo/ at the +"ilding +loc/s*+"t when we loo/ directly at the cell"lar .

si#ple.#iniD#achine(.+acteri"# has over one trillion +its o$ in$or#ation stored in its D0A) '$ yo" co"nted every letter in every +oo/ in the world8s largest li+rary ?AC #illion +oo/s@( yo" wo"ld approach one trillion .1es( it re!"ires T5AT #"ch in$or#ation $or even a single +acteri"# to exist) '#agine how #"ch #ore in$or#ation is needed to control and reprod"ce the approxi#ately ACC trillion cells in yo"r +ody) 1et all this in$or#ation is stored in this #icroscopic str"ct"re called D0A) 5ow does so #"ch $it in s"ch a little space? The answer is $o"nd in the encoding o$ D0A) 'ts str"ct"re and encoding #ethod are nearly as $ascinating as the a#o"nt o$ in$or#ation it contains) T e Dou+le #eli1 0o do"+t( yo" have seen pict"res o$ a do"+le helix) 't is this incredi+ly e$$icient str"ct"re that allows D0A to encode so #"ch) Understanding this str"ct"re deepens the !"estion o$ how s"ch in$or#ation ca#e to +e present) .which reg"lates vario"s parts o$ the cell) The #ost co#plex o$ these proteins are $o"nd in the n"cle"s*the s"perco#p"ter*o$ the cell) 0ot only does the n"cle"s control how the #iniD#achines interoperate and when new #achines need to +e #an"$act"red( it contains the co#plete +l"eprint $or every #achine in that cell) 4"t in the cells o$ each h"#an +eing( the n"cle"s contains the +l"eprint $or not only each speci$ic cell( +"t $or every cell in the +ody) Tr"ly a s"perD+l"eprint2 This +l"eprint is contained in deoxyri+on"cleic acid*#ost o$ten called D0A) 4eca"se o$ the way D0A is encoded( the a#o"nt o$ in$or#ation it contains is pheno#enal2 And it has to +e= even the #ost si#ple $or#s o$ li$e are highly co#plex) Ta/e( $or instance( 3) coli +acteria) This .+its o$ in$or#ation).3ach part contains highly co#plex( threeDdi#ensional str"ct"res) The $or#ation o$ these proteins is the direct i#pet"s +ehind their $"nction) Certain a#ino acid con$ig"rations $or# each .

r"ngs-*together) 1et this is where the genetic in$or#ation is encoded2 There is no nat"ral explanation $or how in$or#ation co"ld $or# on this che#ically "nconnected axis*+"t there is a rea on $or it) Che#ical +onds are very co##on in nat"re) A salt crystal is one s"ch exa#ple) Any crystalline str"ct"re is #ade "p o$ a series o$ repeating che#ically +onded ele#ents) That is the /ey2 Che#ical +onds create patterns) As can +e seen on either side o$ the D0A ladder( the s"gars and phosphates are repeated) '$ the n"cleotides in the spine o$ the D0A #olec"le were connected via any sort o$ +ond( they wo"ld +e li#ited in the a#o"nt and co#plexity o$ the in$or#ation it co"ld contain) %i/e crystals( the pattern encoded into D0A wo"ld repeat) 3very ti#e g"anine ?6@ appeared( there wo"ld +e adenine ?A@ $ollowing it) 4"t the lac/ o$ any che#ical +ond #eans that any o$ the $o"r +ases can attach to any location on the spine) All are accepted and none is pre$erred2 0ot only does che#ical +onding explain why crystals and related s"+stances $or# in the way that they do( it #a/es the in$or#ation encoded in D0A all that #ore a#a7ing) There is 0O nat"ral way to explain how s"ch highly detailed and co#plex in$or#ation .appeared)epeating patterns create #antras( not #essages2 .As displayed in the ill"stration( D0A loo/s li/e a spiral ladder) A closeD"p o$ the individ"al r"ngs shows the a#a7ing co#plexity o$ this #icroscopic #arvel) On either side o$ the D0A ladder are the individ"al s"gars and phosphates) They are lin/ed together with a che#ical +ond and $or# +oth sides o$ the ladder) The phosphates are then che#ically +onded to the n"cleotides ?designated +y A( T( 6 and C( and located in the center@) These str"ct"res create either side o$ the ladder and are attached "sing hydrogen +onds) 4"t as the a+ove in$or#ational graphic shows( there are no +onds directly lin/ing individ"al n"cleotides *or .

A4A4A4A4 A4A A4A4A4A4.speci$ied co#plexity).the price o$ rice in China).holy grail.Finding the so"rce o$ these #essages is the .origin o$ li$e.and .Se!"ences that show speci$ied co#plexity always i#ply "nderlying in$or#ation) .st"dies con$"se the distinction +etween these two characteristics) There is no arg"#ent in science a+o"t the $act that organic syste#s show order) Any can loo/ aro"nd and see it in nat"re) S"ch things as the rotation o$ planets ca"sing seasons( ani#al #igrations( etc)( are a st"dy in co#plex order) 4"t order does not a"to#atically i#ply in$or#ation) For order to +eco#e in$or#ation( there has to +e a highly i#pro+a+le( aperiodic( yet highly speci$ied series o$ se!"ences) As we have seen( this is exactly what is re!"ired to +"ild even the si#plest proteins right "p to s"per co#plex cell"lar str"ct"res) A co##only "sed analogy to co#pare the di$$erence +etween order and in$or#ation is as $ollows9 Co#pare the two se!"ences .o$ evol"tionary science) 1et the answer is plain) Modern science has ignored the evident signat"re sitting right +e$ore their eyes) T e In!o&mation In!e&ence 0ow that the +asics are covered( yo" #ay +e as/ing the !"estion9 &here and how did this in$or#ation $or#? So#e assert that necessity ca"sed D0A to grow #ore and #ore co#plex) This ass"#ption happens largely +eca"se they con$"se order with in$or#ation) Scientists properly connect the co#plexity within D0A to having an order) 4"t this is "s"ally where .4oth are highly ordered and co#plex series o$ characters) 1et there is an o+vio"s di$$erence +etween the two se!"ences) The second is highly speci$ic) 'n$or#ational researchers o$ten re$er to this as .

evidence(.And there are only two #ethods in which in$or#ation can $or#) 3ither the #edi"# $ro# which they are delivered generated the# or( i$ the in$or#ation transcends the #edi"#( it was intelligently designed) As we have seen( the +onding str"ct"re o$ D0A does not allow it to generate its own in$or#ation) 'n s"ch a case( the in$or#ation transcends the #edi"#) The only logical concl"sion is that the so"rce o$ the in$or#ation is an intelligent $orce*a Creator*as the so"rce o$ that in$or#ation) This concl"sion can +e drawn not .and #any witnesses with .so"nd testi#ony).4"t the de$ense( i$ it co"ld #erely show an airtight ali+i( wo"ld not have to go on to prove that a #"rder weapon did not +elong to the de$endant or that other physical evidence ?or soDcalled ."st +eca"se nat"ral syste#s cannot explain the origin o$ +iological in$or#ation( +"t +eca"se o$ the signat"re and hall#ar/s that +iological syste#s( s"ch as D0A( contain) Design is +ased on the principle o$ CAUS3 and 3FF3CT) 't is "nderstood in science that every action has an e!"al and opposite reaction) For every ca"se( there is an e$$ect2 This also applies to the origin o$ li$e*it #"st have a ca"se2 6iven the proper $acts( h"#an +eings are nat"rally a+le to ded"ce a ca"se*a SOU to "nderstand that the glass +ottle was designed and created +y the hands o$ #en) 1o" have seen so#e o$ the $acts hidden in the ACC trillion cells in yo"r +ody) 1o" sho"ld now +e a+le to see that yo"*and the entire "niverse*were designed and created +y the hands o$ 6OD2 C3* +ehind the things aro"nd the#) This is why( as the original exa#ple showed( we are a+le PART T#REE – DI7INE I*PLICATIONS 3vol"tion can +e co#pared to a #"rder case in a co"rt o$ law) There #ay +e #"ch physical .

long ago) Schools sho"ld not +e teaching it as $act( and the scienti$ic co##"nity sho"ld stop +asing its discoveries and hypotheses within the evol"tionary $ra#ewor/) &hile the research( disproo$s( proo$s and exa#ples co"ld have easily #ade this +roch"re two or three ti#es as large( o"r p"rpose was not to explain every n"ance o$ evol"tion and creation) 't was to create the $o"ndation $ro# which $"rther investigation co"ld ta/e place) Altho"gh evol"tion ha +een so"ndly disproven( yo"r st"dies into creation #ay have .evidence.evidence@ was not related to the de$endant) 'n essence( the case wo"ld +e dis#issed +e$ore the #ore co#plicated #atters were disc"ssed) So it is with evol"tion) &e have shown that its processes co"ld not acco"nt $or the "niverse( that it is i#possi+le $or li$e to co#e $ro# nonDli$e and that the entire concept violates $"nda#ental laws o$ science*over and over2 There is no point in disc"ssing soD called evidence $"rther "p the chain) The case is closed) 0o a#o"nt o$ protesting or de+ating will change these $acts) &ith the +asic .For the invisi+le things o$ 5i# $ro# the creation o$ the world are 3A% .thrown o"t o$ co"rt.$or evol"tion sho"ld have +een ."st +eg"n) The #ere $o"r exa#ples presented here are +"t a th"#+nail o$ the #o"ntains o$ evidence s"pporting a divine Designer) 'n a lastDditch e$$ort to resc"e their theory( evol"tionists o$ten e#ploy highly co#plicated re+"ttals to creationist proo$s) 5owever( nothing o$ tr"th need +e co#plicated) 't sho"ld +e clear and si#ple*as o"r explanations o$ evol"tion have +een) Do not let scholarly lang"age ret"rn yo" to the con$"sion $ro# which yo" have +een set $ree) Science has thrown o"t the 4i+le in an e$$ort to re#ove the need to do anything that a Creator de#ands) 0ot only is 6od8s &ord a science text+oo/ o$ sorts( it also descri+es what #an/ind sho"ld and sho"ld not do) 4"t h"#an nat"re will always throw o$$ restraints and +o"ndaries( and this is the reason that the theory o$ evol"tion has ta/en s"ch a hold on society) 3arlier( we read o#ans A( showing how the #inds o$ scientists have +een +linded +eca"se they re.that has +een presented( the .case.ect plain $acts) 5owever( part o$ the verse was not !"oted and it applies directly to 1OU9 .

clearly seen( +eing "nderstood +y the things that are #ade( even 5is eternal power and 6odhead= SO T5AT T531 A
3 &'T5OUT 3RCUS3-

?vs) IC@)

1o" have seen the pillars o$ evol"tion torn down( and so#e o$ the #any proo$s o$ creation presented) 1o" are no longer witho"t exc"se) May 6od8s words ring clear in yo"r #ind) 4eca"se o$ all the proo$s that exist showing ,5is eternal power and 6odhead(- the sa#e 6od who inspired o#ans A9IC also inspired Psal# AM9 ,The $ool has said in his heart( There is no 6od- ?vs) A@) There can no longer +e do"+t that Arno Pen7ias( recipient o$ the 0o+el Pri7e $or physics( was tr"th$"l when he stated( ,Creation is s"pported +y all the data so $ar)C &istians and Evolution So#e #ay assert that they can +elieve in 6od( while holding to aspects o$ evol"tion* that certain ,religio"s- $or#s o$ evol"tion are tr"e) So#e who pro$ess to +e Christian see#ingly have no pro+le# +elieving #any o$ the pop"lar constr"cts o$ science) This is o$ten +eca"se #any theories have +een proven*tested*and are considered laws o$ science and physics) These proven disciplines have ca"sed #any o$ the world8s Christians to ass"#e that a #odi$ied version o$ evol"tion is also tr"e) 'n an e$$ort to ,so"nd- Christian( Creation is $"sed with evol"tion to create a hy+rid theory) There$ore( despite all that we have covered th"s $ar( so#e #ay still +elieve part o$ the evol"tionary theory) 4"t yo" have already seen that at its +asis( evol"tion is not +i+lical*nor is it scienti$ic2 5owever( #any pro$essing Christians assert that aspects o$ evol"tion do not disagree with the 4i+le) Seeing this( #any are con$"sed) The res"lt is a wide array o$ +elie$s regarding evol"tion and religion) So#e( "na+le to integrate the origin o$ li$e and the "niverse into their religio"s +elie$s( +elieve certain ele#ents o$ the theory o$ evol"tion) Others ass"#e that science and religion can never #ix) 4"t nearly all are con$"sed or le$t in error) This does not have to +e the case2 M"ch o$ the +asis o$ this thin/ing can +e traced to the #odern ed"cation syste#) Decades ago( a +elie$ in 6od was not #et with ridic"le and scorn) 5owever( today( even

insin"ating that a 4eing had any part in designing the "niverse( and li$e within it( is o$ten #et with $iery de+ate*and open hostility2 As we have seen( people have +een indoctrinated in the theory o$ evol"tion $ro# a very early age) 0otice the o$$icial policy o$ the 0ational Science Teachers Association9 ,There is no longer a de+ate a#ong scientists over whether evol"tion has ta/en place)- 3vol"tion is ass"#ed to +e tr"e and ta"ght as s"ch) 5owever( the !"estion re#ains9 Can one +e a Christian and pro$ess to espo"se even so#e aspects o$ the theory o$ evol"tion? As those who $ollow >es"s Christ( #"st Christians +elieve all o$ 5is words recorded in the 0ew Testa#ent? And does the 0ew Testa#ent prove the tr"th o$ the 6enesis Creation acco"nt? 't is a#a7ing how #"ch the 0ew Testa#ent*and Christ 5i#sel$*records a+o"t people and events $ro# the Old Testa#ent) 1o" will never see this s"+.ect in the sa#e way again2 Built 0pon a Foundation All +"ildings have a $o"ndation) This is the +ase on which the rest o$ the +"ilding stands) &itho"t one( the str"ct"re can +e easily destroyed) There$ore( the correct $o"ndation ens"res longevity) So#e #ay +e s"rprised that the 0ew Testa#ent Ch"rch is +"ilt "pon a $o"ndation) The 4i+le states that the Ch"rch is ,+"ilt "pon the $o"ndation o$ the apostles and prophets( >es"s Christ 5i#sel$ +eing the chie$ cornerstone- ?3ph) I9IC@) 'n constr"ction( a cornerstone is the $irst stone laid) This verse indicates that >es"s Christ was esta+lished +e$ore the Old Testa#ent prophets and re$lects the #any Old Testa#ent prophecies $oretelling 5is First Co#ing) This verse also has another very interesting aspect to it) The teachings in 6od8s Ch"rch co#e $ro# apostles and prophets) To +elieve this verse( one #"st at least +elieve the teachings and prophecies o$ the Old Testa#ent) 'n $act( the 0ew Testa#ent points to the Old Testa#ent #"ch #ore than #ost reali7e) The apostle Pa"l( in partic"lar( !"oted the Old Testa#ent n"#ero"s ti#es) 'n the +oo/ o$ o#ans alone( it was !"oted BG ti#es2 This is also tr"e o$ the two epistles to the Corinthians) The $irst epistle !"otes the Old Testa#ent IA ti#es and the second AC ti#es)

'n light o$ 3phesians I9IC( this sho"ld not co#e as a s"rprise( since the 0ew Testa#ent is +"ilt "pon the Old Testa#ent2 4"t what does this have to do with evol"tion? 5ow do all the !"otes( re$erences and script"res prove Creation? The lin/ is in who the 0ew Testa#ent writers !"oted*and the events they re$erenced) ABut A&en4t T e$ All Analo"ies/B 1o" #ay have +een ta"ght that #any o$ the acco"nts in the 0ew Testa#ent are si#ply analogies*stories*"pon which to +ase yo"r cond"ct) 1o" #ay have also learned that +eca"se Christ spo/e in para+les( yo" cannot ever /now when 5e was +eing literal) 4"t yo" sho"ld have no do"+t as to when Christ was spea/ing literally and when 5e was "sing a para+le) 'n nearly every case( so#ething that is #eant as a si#ile( para+le or analogy is stated as s"ch) This $act is o$ten ignored +eca"se a literal interpretation o$ the 0ew Testa#ent +rings #any pop"lar ,Christian- +elie$s*s"ch as the CreationJevol"tion hy+rid*into do"+t) 'n Matthew AL( Christ spo/e a series o$ para+les) 1et( in each instance( they are introd"ced as para+les) >es"s Christ was always clear and /ept things si#ple2 0otice verse IM9 ,another para+le p"t 5e $orth "nto the#( saying( The /ingdo# o$ heaven is li/ened "nto a #an which sowed good seed in his $ield)- This sa#e pattern is $ollowed in nearly every para+le in the 0ew Testa#ent) Christ also clearly re$erences analogies and si#iles) 0otice9 ,)))whosoever hears these sayings o$ Mine( and does the#( ' &'%% %'<30 hi# "nto a wise #an( which +"ilt his ho"se "pon a roc/- ?Matt) G9IM@) 1o" $ind this pattern repeated over and over in the gospels) Do not let s"pposed experts con$"se a s"+.ect that sho"ld +e very clear) Para+les and analogies are "sed in the 0ew Testa#ent( +"t $or the p"rpose o$ #a/ing things C%3A to those who# 6od has called) They were never #eant to +e ,good principles- or ,nice concepts)- Christ wanted s"ch verses to +eco#e ,real- +y applying the# to exa#ples to which the a"dience co"ld relate) 4"t there was another reason Christ "sed para+les9 ,The disciples)))said "nto 5i#( &hy spea/ 1o" "nto the# :the #asses; in para+les? 5e answered and said "nto the#( +eca"se it is given "nto you to /now the

#ysteries o$ the /ingdo# o$ heaven( +"t to the# it is not given)))+eca"se they seeing see not= and hearing they hear not( neither do they "nderstand- ?Matt) AL9ACDAA( AL@) Many +l"r the literal nat"re o$ the 4i+le +eca"se ,they seeing see not= and hearing they hear not( neither do they "nderstand)- &ill yo" +elieve and "nderstand Christ8s words? The 0ew Testa#ent*and the entire 4i+le*was recorded $or a p"rpose) '' Ti#othy L9AN states that all Script"re is directly inspired +y 6od) <eep this in #ind as we read so#e verses in the 0ew Testa#ent) T e Ne- Testament Reco&d There are #any verses that directly re$erence Old Testa#ent people and event *even the Creation event2 The script"res listed +elow cover a wide range o$ topics) 1et( they all have one thing in co##on) 3ach is a state#ent $ro# Christ or an apostle a+o"t events and people o$ the !ld Testa#ent) &hen yo" read the#( as/ yo"rsel$ i$ Christ and the apostles were con$"sed*or i$ they +l"rred the tr"th to help #a/e a state#ent) The only other option is to see these !"otes $or what they are*the inspired &ord o$ 6od2 These verses will help yo" "nderstand why it is i#possi+le to espo"se evol"tion while declaring onesel$ a Christian9
• • • • •

• •

,For *dam was $irst FO M3D( then Eve- ?' Ti#) I9ALDAB@) This verse is a direct endorse#ent o$ the Creation acco"nt2 ,0evertheless death reigned $ro# Ada# to Moses)))- ? o#) B9AM@) ,Sthe fir t man *dam was #ade a living so"l= the la t *dam :Christ; was #ade a !"ic/ening spirit- ?' Cor) AB9MB@) Christ( as the second Ada#( is a type o$ the $irst) ,For as in *dam all die( even so in Christ shall all +e #ade alive- ?' Cor) AB9II@) ,And Enoch also( the seventh $ro# *damS- ?>"de A9AMDAB@) 6enealogies in the Old Testa#ent are very extensive) &hen s"##ari7ed in the 0ew Testa#ent( this validates the detailed renditions in the Old Testa#ent) ,So all the generations $ro# *braham to David are $o"rteen generations= and $ro# David "ntil the carrying away into 4a+ylon are $o"rteen generations= and $ro# the carrying away into 4a+ylon "nto Christ are $o"rteen generations- ?Matt) A9AG@) ,4"t 5e :Christ; said "nto the#( 5ave yo" not read what David didS- ?Matt) AI9L@) ,The %O D said "nto My %ord( Sit 1o" on My right hand( till ' #a/e 1o"r ene#ies 1o"r $ootstool? '$ David then call 5i# %ord( how is 5e his Son?- ?Matt) II9MMDMB@) ,>oseph( yo" on of David( $ear not to ta/e "nto yo" Mary yo"r wi$eS- ?Matt) A9IC@)

Ta/e( #y +rethren( the prophet ( who have spo/en in the na#e o$ the %ordS 1o" have heard o$ the patience of (obS.?L9ILDLK@) 6od did not inspire %"/e to record this lineage si#ply +eca"se it #ay +e .interesting)Christ8s lineage was extre#ely i#portant2 't is ridic"lo"s to +elieve that >es"s Christ died $or #an/ind8s sins and( at to the sa#e ti#e( dis#iss this passage) F"rther still( the implication o$ Christ8s lineage to Ada# are critical) To have +een the second Ada# and inheritor o$ David8s throne ?"pon which Christ will sit at 5is Second Co#ing@( Christ8s lineage #"st +e clear2 6iven the i#portance o$ this line( wo"ld %"/e*inspired +y 6od*#a/e a #ista/e +y incorrectly recording it? &as the Creator o$ the "niverse "na+le to ens"re the acc"racy o$ this passage? '$ so( can we tr"st anything written in the 4i+le? &hile not related to the Creation acco"nt( there are #any #ore 0ew Testa#ent script"res pointing to Old Testa#ent $ig"res and events) For instance( Christ co#pared the end o$ the #odern age to .?%"/e AG9IN@ and to Sodo# and 6o#orrah ?vs) IE@) These verses alone P OH3 two o$ten contested Old Testa#ent events) 3ither these events happened or >es"s Christ is a liar2 The 0ew Testa#ent also re$ers to the preachers o$ righteo"sness) The lives o$ these #en spanned h"ndreds o$ years2 F"rther( Moses is re$erenced in the 0ew Testa#ent GE ti#es2 .?>#s) B9ACDAA@) &hile the previo"s list is extensive eno"gh that #ost wo"ld not dis#iss it as analogy( #etaphor or #yth( the #ost telling acco"nt is recorded in the gospels) The Old Testa#ent is very clear that Christ wo"ld have direct lineage $ro# <ing David) The +oo/ o$ %"/e records this in exact detail) 'n $act( this passage identi$ies Christ8s lineage all the way +ac/ to Ada#2 &hile we are not a+le to !"ote the entire passage( it shows the stri/ing detail in which it was presented9 .• .&hen 5e +egan 5is #inistry( >es"s 5i#sel$ was a+o"t thirty years o$ age( +eing( as was s"pposed( the son o$ >oseph( the son o$ 3li( the son o$ Matthat( the son o$ %eviSthe son o$ She#( the son o$ 0oah( the son o$ %a#ech( the son o$ Meth"selah( the son o$ 3noch( the son o$ >ared( the son o$ Mahalaleel( the son o$ Cainan( the son o$ 3nosh( the son o$ Seth( the son o$ Ada#( the son o$ 6od.0oah8s day.

was #ade.do#inion.?vs) MBDME@) Pa"l8s inspired state#ent starts with a re$erence to 6enesis I9G) 0otice the phrase there .+y 6od( that this did happen) 5e +elieved and "nderstood the Old Testa#ent acco"nt) C&eated to O+tain Cno-led"e 6od gave Ada# and 3ve .over the earth ?6en) A9IN@) This #eant that #an wo"ld +e a+le and need to learn and prod"ce*to generate*#"ch /nowledge as he s"+.Are yo" +eginning to see why the 0ew Testa#ent is +"ilt on the prophets*and why evol"tion is inco#pati+le with tr"e Christianity? Co"ntless #ore exa#ples co"ld +e given) 3ach one serves to strengthen the others) 5owever( we have already gone +eyond the Creation event) Si#ply p"t( the 0ew Testa#ent witho"t the Old Testa#ent wo"ld +e as "seless as a +"ilding witho"t a $o"ndation) 't wo"ld have no s"pport and #"ch o$ it wo"ld si#ply not #a/e sense2 '$ yo" pro$ess to +e Christian( exa#ine yo"r +elie$s and analy7e why yo" +elieve what yo" do) T-o AAdamsB Reveals Sup&eme Pu&pose Another vitally i#portant parallel exists +etween Ada# and Christ that #"st +e "nderstood) 't o$$ers another cl"e to 6od8s purpo e and the validity o$ the Creation acco"nt) F"rther reading o$ ' Corinthians AB provides deeper insight to a co#parison that Pa"l #a/es9 ."gated the planet) . that are heavenly) And as we have +orne the i#age o$ the earthy :#ade o$ $lesh.And so it was writtenS.And so it is written( The fir t man *dam was #ade a living so"l= the la t *dam :Christ. is o$ the earth( earthy9 the second #an :Christ.Again( this is power$"l . was #ade a !"ic/ening spirit) 5ow+eit that was not $irst which is spirit"al( +"t that which is nat"ral= and a$terward :at the es"rrection. that which is spirit"al) The $irst #an :the original Ada#.ew Te tament verification o$ the 6enesis acco"nt2 Pa"l /new that Ada# . is the %ord $ro# heaven) As is the earthy( s"ch are they also that are earthy9 and as is the heavenly( s"ch are they also :+y the res"rrection.( we shall also +ear the i#age o$ the heavenly :co#posed o$ spirit..

And 5ou3 Understanding all that has +een disc"ssed carries deeper i#plications +eyond whether or not evol"tion is tr"e) As we have seen( Christ is re$erred to as the econd Ada#) Christ8s &ir t Co#ing was part o$ 6od8s plan to give all #an/ind an opport"nity $or salvation2 '$ the $irst Ada# never existed( there wo"ld have +een no need $or Christ to co#e and !"ali$y to r"le earth) '$ there was not a $irst Ada#( the reason $or Christ8s $irst co#ing wo"ld not +e tr"e2 Again( there wo"ld +e no need $or a econd Ada#( +eca"se there wo"ld have never +een a $irst) .6od designed h"#an +eings with #inds that co"ld create( devise( reason( o+serve and experi#ent) Thro"gh this inherent a+ility to reason( phy ical /nowledge co"ld +e processed) This was good and right( as long as it was "sed within the $ra#ewor/ that 6od intended) All /nowledge $alls into two categories9 ?A@ the phy ical /nowledge o$ how to wor/ with #atter and physical things( and ?I@ the piritual /nowledge necessary $or people to develop personal relationships with +oth 6od and their $ellow #an) *ll /nowledge is either physical or spirit"al) Ada# and 3ve8s pro+le# was in reasoning that every /ind o$ /nowledge necessary $or salvation co"ld +e o+tained on their own( thro"gh experi#entation) Once they deviated $ro# 6od8s intended &A1( they had no hope o$ reaching the de tination that 5e p"rposed $or the#*and neither does #an/ind( which $ollowed their choice) Once Ada# and 3ve accepted the wrong premi e as their STA T'06 PO'0T*that they co"ld reason everything o"t the#selves*they were destined to $ail2 The acc"#"lation o$ vast a#o"nts o$ /nowledge over #illennia has not changed*and co"ld never change*the $act that #an/ind is headed $or the wrong destination) C"rio"sly( in its !"est $or ever #ore /nowledge( it has ignored #ore and #ore $acts a+o"t the $allacy o$ evol"tion) Many have +een $orced to concl"de that they #"st exist thro"gh li$e devoid o$ the MOST 'MPO TA0T /nowledge*that a+o"t 6od2 T e Second Adam.

to an "tterly illogical $allacy( +elieved only +y the +lind( $oolish*and ignorant2 Does it not a#a7e yo" that evol"tion is ta"ght as $act thro"gho"t #ost o$ the world( yet creation is ridic"led and la#pooned as a si#plistic and $anatical #yth? On the contrary( it is evol"tion that i si#ple* imply prepostero"s2 Consider) &hen yo" started reading this p"+lication( yo" "n/nowingly ca#e to a $or/ in the road) As evol"tion was shown to +e $alse( that $or/ +eca#e #ore and #ore evident) 3vent"ally( yo" chose to learn a+o"t the proo$s o$ 6od and started wal/ing down a new path) Cno-led"e B&in"s Responsi+ilit$ .?' Thes) B9IA@) 4roving so#ething #eans to prove it either tr"e or $alse) 1o" have proven creation tr"e( proven evol"tion $alse and( +y the /nowledge yo" have o+tained( yo" are now a+le to de+"n/ silly assertions) 3vol"tion has gone $ro# so#ething .This is one reason why it is i#portant to "nderstand the events o$ Creation) 't is $"nda#ental to the entire Plan o$ 6od2 ?To learn #ore a+o"t 6od8s plan $or you( read o"r +oo/ The *5ES!.an)@ The 4i+le record is clear) Christ and the apostles were not con$"sed2 They "nderstood the i#portance o$ the Creation event( and Christ "nderstood that it wo"ld +eco#e +l"rred today) So we are le$t with a record*the 5oly 4i+le) 't allows you to "nderstand the validity o$ the Old Testa#ent( the tr"th o$ Creation and the i#plications that this +rings) C an"e o! F&ame-o&2 0ow that yo" have $inished this special report( so#ething sho"ld have happened to yo"r /nowledge o$ evol"tion) 1o" sho"ld now +e a+le to prove what is tr"e*not .Prove all things( hold $ast that which is good."nderstood only +y the scholarly."st a ume it to +e) The FACTS will de$lect the clever arg"#ents o$ evol"tionists) P OOF is the $"nda#ental di$$erence +etween creationis# and evol"tion2 6od8s &ord teaches "s to .E 4!TE.TI*' of .

For "nto 3TU' 3D- who#soever #"ch is given( o$ hi# shall +e #"ch o$ receiving it) 1o" #"st now act on what yo" have learned2 ?AI9MK@) &ith /nowledge co#es responsi+ility) This #eans that C5O'C3S #"st +e #ade as a res"lt 0ow that yo" have disproven evol"tion to +e $iction( and proven that there is a 6od who designed and r"les the "niverse( one h"ge( towering !"estion re#ains9 &ho i the 6od who# yo" now /now exists? &hat is the nat"re o$ the 4eing &ho created the "niverse( #an( ani#als( plants*3H3 1T5'06? So#e #ay have read this p"+lication ass"#ing that they already /now the answer to this !"estion) Their p"rpose was to gain $"rther /nowledge in disproving evol"tion) 4"t( li/e evol"tion( what #ost +elieve a+o"t the 6od o$ the 4i+le is si#ply 0OT tr"e) The tr"e answer to this !"estion will s"rprise*even shoc/*yo"2 .My people are destroyed $or lack of knowledge9 +eca"se yo" have re=ected knowledge( ' will also re.+"t are now le$t with the !"estion o$ whether yo" will accept or 3>3CT it) 0otice >es"s Christ8s words in the +oo/ o$ %"/e9 .?M9N@) &itho"t do"+t( what yo" have learned thro"gho"t this extensive +roch"re is knowledge) M"ch o$ it was pro+a+ly co#pletely new to yo"*never "nderstood +e$ore2 &ith s"ch an "nderstanding co#es responsi+ility) Consider how #"ch has +een covered) 5ow the pillars o$ evol"tion have +een destroyed *and how #any $acts o$ creation were presented) 1o" no longer .ect yo"( that yo" shall +e no priest to Me9 seeing yo" have forgotten the law o$ yo"r 6od( ' will also $orget yo"r children.lac/ /nowledge(.Thro"gho"t this +roch"re( yo" have "ndo"+tedly learned #"ch new /nowledge) 't has +een said that /nowledge is o$ no p"rpose "nless it is "sed) 'n the Old Testa#ent( the prophet 5osea s"##ari7ed a pro+le# in ancient 'srael that parallels that o$ evol"tionists today9 .

ITY > I /od three#in#one: .>"st as disproving the theory o$ evol"tion was only the $irst step toward "nderstanding the origin o$ "niverse and li$e within it( proving the existence o$ a Creator presents yo" with another path*that o$ &5O this 6od is) Ta/ing this path will lead yo" to the "nderstanding o$ why yo" were +orn) 3ach o$ "s has a very speci$ic p"rpose( "nli/e anything yo" have ever heard +e$ore) %earning that p"rpose*and yo"r responsi+ility in it*lies down the new path that has +een presented) Only two !"estions re#ain9 ?A@ &ill yo" act on the new /nowledge that yo" have received? ?I@ &ill yo" contin"e to st"dy o"r p"+lications( teaching yo" the tr"th a+o"t this 6od) There are #any concepts a+o"t 6od) So#e +elieve that 5e is a trinity) 's this tr"e? 's 5e so#ething di$$erent*so#ething greater? So( to learn the tr"e nat"re( p"rpose and identity o$ the 6od who #ade the "niverse and all things in it( yo" #ay read o"r +oo/ The T7I.