CREATION, EVOLUTION, MATHEMATICS AND THE LAWS OF SCIENCE.

SOME SAY THAT SCIENCE HAS PROVED THERE IS NO GOD AND THAT WE ALL EVOLVED OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS FROM A SOUP - CAN THIS REALLY BE TRUE?

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE UNIVERSE IS 5, 10, 15 BILLION YEARS OLD AND IT BEGAN WITH A BIG BANG?

DOES SCIENCE SUPPORT WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS OR DOES IT SUPPORT EVOLUTION?

THE BIBLE SAYS WE SHOULD NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE TESTED IT TO SEE IF IT BE TRUE OR A LIE - THAT SOUNDS LIKE GOOD ADVICE TO ME SO LET US DO THAT.

THE LAWS OF SCIENCE.

Evolutionists claim that science supports the theory of evolution. The truth is that many scientists[1] have turned away from the theory because they realise it cannot have taken place. Let's look at what Doctor David Rosevear has to say about basic laws of science:[2]

THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

(These are the laws that govern the relationship between heat and work)

First Law: "MATTER AND ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED." (There is no gain or loss of energy when it is converted from one kind to another, for example from electricity into light or heat.)

According to this law there is nothing within the universe capable of bringing it into being. It must have been created by Something outside of the universe - agreed? It does not matter how long you say the universe has existed.

Second Law: "THINGS MOVE IN A DIRECTION FROM ORDER TO CHAOS." (Whilst remaining constant in quantity, energy moves to a lower potential and therefore is less available to do the work.)

If what the evolutionists say is true, that the universe has always existed then according to this second law it would be a mass of disorder. There would be no energy left. It would be like the Dodo - dead. Therefore, as it clearly is not, it cannot be infinitely old but must have had a beginning and quite recently - agreed?

Some time ago I watched a young student as she listened to an unbeliever's explanation of "scientific" evolution. I could see her getting more frustrated as this man expounded his logic until she finally burst out; "But things get worse when left alone, not better." You see it's illogical as well as unscientific. You have to maintain your garden, clean the house, tidy your child's bedroom. However, evolutionists claim there was an explosion billions of years ago (chaos) which resulted in our ordered universe (order).

Third Law: "THINGS ARE AT A MAXIMUM AT ABSOLUTE ZERO."[3] (If you raise the temperature you are adding energy and it will reduce order.)

If you have an open system and add raw energy to it, it will not give you increased order, will it? God told Noah to build an ark (Genesis chapter 6). How do you think he went about it? Did he just add raw energy and hope for the best? Did he pick up lots of pieces of wood and throw them in the general direction of where he wanted to build the ark? Of course not, we both know he would just have ended up with a pile of wood. God gave him a plan to work to and he built a huge ship the size of our modern oil tankers of today. (This will be covered in the next section.) He did not use raw, uncontrolled energy - he had the addition of information, a plan.

Likewise there's no order in this "Primeval Soup" or the "Big Bang". It's scientific nonsense to expect such a thing to produce life! Charles Darwin said sunlight and electric discharges would produce a living cell - what fantasy! Energy and chance will not increase order.

THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.

"EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE; THE EFFECT CANNOT BE GREATER IN SIZE OR IN KIND THAN THE CAUSE."

Everything in the universe has been caused by something. We can trace every effect back to it's cause, even the First Cause. For example if you are wearing a wool jumper you can trace the cause and effect back to the sheep, back through the sheep's ancestry to the first created sheep and to the Creator Himself. It follows directly from the first law of thermodynamics and is embodied in Newton's laws of motion. No exceptions to the law of cause and effect have ever been observed.

Therefore, the "Big Bang" theory also violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing.

Evolutionists say things move onwards and upwards from the primeval soup to man. They believe in this fictitious and massive increase in order and organisation. They believe there are billions of chance changes in their fantasy world of natural selection with no input of information. However, we can see here that evolution is unscientific.

It is directly at odds with the second law of thermodynamics that states things move from order to chaos. The "Big Bang" violates the first law of thermodynamics by creating matter and energy out of nothing. It violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. It violates the third law too, raw energy added to an open system is not a recipe for increased organisation. It violates the law of cause and effect by creating matter and energy out of nothing. YOU CAN ONLY COME TO ONE CONCLUSION CAN'T YOU?

The laws of science are tested. They do not change. Look in your diary - this is why we are able to predict the times of the rising and setting sun and the tides. Structures and interactions of matter are governed by these unchanging laws.

Of course science deals with theories but these can be modified and even abolished if they are at odds with these basic laws. That is, all except the theory of evolution it seems. Instead it is put over as fact on TV and in schools. You see evolutionists cannot afford to adhere to the same standard because they would then have to believe in God.

WHY THIS CONTRADICTION?

Why are some people determined to believe something that cannot possibly be true? There are two main reasons: To be fair most people who believe in evolution simply don't know it could not possibly have taken place. They just believe what they have been taught as fact. They often don't realise the people teaching them are atheists. Secondly; there are those atheistic "experts" who have to try prove evolution correct in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, otherwise they would have to believe in God.

Doubtless you will have seen on TV Professor Richard Dawkins D.Sc. the "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science", so appointed to communicate a greater understanding of science to the public. This is a copy of correspondence I had with him some time ago:

On this web site I am unable to reproduce my actual letters to him and his replies because scanning them in is taking up too much memory. I have only limited memory on this web site. I have typed them word for word here. (If you are reading this in booklet form then you will see photocopy pages of the actual letters.) THESE ARE ACCURATE COPIES WORD FOR WORD:

15th November 1996

Dear Professor Dawkins

I watched your Richard Dimbleby Lecture last Tuesday evening although alas only the final third for reasons with which I will not bore you. I must congratulate you on your delivery, it was superb - but I think there is something I may have misunderstood? Just as I came in I thought I heard you say, and you may have been quoting someone, something to the effect that if a theory is at odds with the second law of thermodynamics then forget it, it's bound to be wrong. If this is the gist of what you said, then I certainly agree.

What I do not understand is that if Darwinian evolution is correct then surely it violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. At the beginning we have a spontaneous process in an isolated system leading to an INCREASE in order when the law clearly states that energy, whilst remaining constant in quantity, moves to a lower potential and is less available to do the work. Is it that you are saying that Carnot and Clausius were wrong? It cannot be that because of your statement in your excellent lecture.

The problem I have (being a rationalist) is that if we apply the second law to the origin of the universe it creates a problem. If we say the universe has had no beginning but is infinitely old then surely it must have reached a state of complete disorder, with no available energy. Surely if the universe is infinitely old it would have already died the heat death predicted by astronomy. Clearly this is not the case, there is order everywhere with energy at a high potential. Thinking rationally it must surely mean that the universe is not infinitely old - that it had a beginning.

Indeed the more I think about such laws, the more I feel something is not quite right. Evolution seems logical until one digs beneath the surface, then it doesn't seem to add up. It seems to me that it violates the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion. It seems to violate the first law by the "Big Bang" creating matter and energy out of nothing. It seems to violate the third law too, raw energy added to an open system is not a recipe for increased organisation it seems to me.

I know you must be a busy man, Doctor Dawkins but if you could find time to put me right, I would very much appreciate it.

Yours sincerely

R Bryce Kaye

Professor Dawkins' reply to me was as follows:

OXFORD UNIVERSITY MUSEUM

Parks Road

Oxford OX1 3PW

England

5-XII-96

Dear Mr Bryce Kaye

Thank you very much for your letter. The question you raise is interesting and I'd like to devote some time to answering it. However, it is one of those questions I am frequently asked and it seems more cost effective to gather them all together and answer them in a book. Accordingly, I have filed your letter away and look forward to having the time to answer it in a book, in more general terms and at greater length than would be possible in a letter. I hope you agree this is a good plan.

Yours sincerely

Professor Richard Dawkins.

HE'S STALLING! THE TRUTH IS HE CANNOT ANSWER WHAT SHOULD BE QUITE A SIMPLE QUESTION IF THEY PREACH ATHEISM!

The Richard Dimbleby Lecture was broadcast on television on Tuesday, 12th November 1996. I invite you to get a transcript of it, don't take my word for it. In it you will see that he said that if a theory is at odds with the second law then forget it and he was discussing evolution! You will observe in his reply that he does not deny he said it. Yet you have seen earlier in this study that evolution certainly is at odds with the second law. In other words Doctor Dawkins is admitting evolution is unscientific yet he and others preach it as scientific fact to a gullible public.

He says in his reply that the question I raise is interesting - I'll bet it is! He admits he's been "frequently asked". I'm sure he has been because those who know evolution to be barmy will have asked people like him "frequently". He hopes I agree it is a "good plan". Well, it's a good plan to put off answering the question! If he has been asked the question a lot, why doesn't he produce a short paper outlining his answer? - Now that would be "cost efficient". The real reason, of course, is that he cannot answer the question. One thing is for sure we won't see the book.

After waiting patiently for two years still no book has appeared answering my question. I therefore wrote to him again. Copy below:

19th December 1998

Dear Professor Dawkins

I wrote to you on the 15th November 1996 on the subject of the compatibility of evolution with thermodynamics, in particular the second law. In your kind reply you told me you would answer my questions in a book. I wonder whether you have written that book yet? You certainly do not appear to have answered any of my questions in your latest book; "Unweaving the Rainbow". Perhaps you have written another book that I am not aware of, which I would very much like to read.

Yours sincerely

R Bryce Kaye

(I enclosed a copy of my original letter to encourage him to reply.)

His reply:

OXFORD UNIVERSITY MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Parks Road

Oxford OX1 3PW

England

4th Jan 1999

R Bryce Kaye

(My address)

Dear Mr Bryce Kaye

If there is one thing physicists are sure about, it is that nothing violates the second law of thermodynamics. If you have a theory that seems to, your theory is wrong. Sir Arthur Eddington made the point rather amusingly, in a passage which I have quoted on page 135 of my new book, Unweaving the Rainbow. This was probably the passage that you heard me quoting when you came into my Richard Dimbleby Lecture (indeed, Unweaving the Rainbow has the same subtitle as my Dimbleby Lecture: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder).

Your letter seems to confuse Darwinian evolution with the big bang theory. The big bang theory is about how the universe came into existence. It has no connection with Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution is how life emerged much later in that universe. I am not enough of a physicist to explain why the big bang does not violate the second law. I have no doubt that any competent physicist could tell you. But I can explain why Darwinian evolution doesn't. It is because the second law only applies to a closed system. An open system, in which energy is supplied from outside, can of course increase it's order, using the supplied energy to do so. That is what you are doing when you use a bunsen burner to heat a test-tube. Life's bunsen burner is the sun. Order increases locally on earth, but the debt is paid by an increase in disorder in the universe as a whole.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins

Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science: Richard Dawkins D.Sc.

WHAT A REVELATION!

THERE YOU HAVE IT - THE TRUTH!

However, first I must acknowledge a "slip of the pen". In my original letter I mistakenly referred to "Darwinian Evolution" when I should have said simply "evolution" or "the origin of the universe". He was quite right to point it out. I note with amusement how quick he was to seize on my mistake and answer clearly the query I was not making. It is an easy point to answer and it is true that if Darwinian evolution had taken place it would not have been in a closed system - we agree on that. Now let's examine the real meat:

You can clearly see in the first paragraph of his letter that he is admitting that nothing violates the second law. Good - there can be no doubt he agrees with that. Yet the theory of evolution - that is the origin of the universe through the big bang - does violate the second law by creating an ordered universe from an explosion, but he will not admit it! He cannot because he will have to believe in God.

Yet hidden away in the middle of his second paragraph is his admission that he does not know how the big bang theory does not violate the second law. In other words he believes it does not. You see, as I've said; evolution is just a belief and is no more scientific than following your "stars" in the newspaper. It is contrary to the second law, yet he preaches it.

WHAT IS HE REALLY SAYING?

It is simple, isn't it? He's saying he believes evolution took place in all it's forms. He believes the big bang happened. He does not believe in God or the Bible so he simply has to believe in evolution. He will bend the facts all ways to support his atheism. Evolution is a belief that cannot be proved because it is unscientific and they have the nerve to tell us that the Bible is unscientific - what nonsense!

He says he has no doubt that a competent physicist could tell me how the second law does not violate the big bang theory. This is a real telltale sentence. He cannot think of a physicist who could tell me and he has obviously never found one himself but he's sure there is one somewhere. Perhaps he has never had it explained to him!

The Bible says we should test everything before accepting things as truth. This would be good advice for atheists.

We can see that these militant atheists sell evolution to the gullible public who are eager to believe them. Another such presenter is David Attenborough. He makes excellent nature programmes and explains with such clarity as to preclude all misunderstanding. Yet every so often drops in the odd three or four million years. It sounds so convincing and the public believe him. We will return to Darwinian evolution later in this study.

Let us return to Professor Dawkins. Will he now admit his "science" is just atheistic propaganda? Here is a copy of another letter I wrote to him.

7th January 1999

Dear Professor Dawkins

Many thanks for your letter dated the 4th Janauary. It was kind of you to take the trouble to reply.

First, let me say that I had obviously made a "slip of the pen" when saying Darwinian evolution when I should have said just evolution or the origin of the universe and you were quite right to point it out. Therefore we have no disagreement in that IF Darwinian evolution took place it would have been in an open system of course and the second law would not have applied. You were quick to answer this easy slip of mine - but not so quick to answer my main point.

The big bang theory runs contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. There can be no doubt about that. You cannot get an ordered universe from an explosion - you simply cannot! You know that and I know that. You admitted in your lecture and in your last letter to me that if a theory violates the second law IT IS WRONG. You further admit that you do not know enough about physics to explain to me why the big bang does not violate (the) second law and that there must be a physicist somewhere who can explain it. I have not found one. Is it because the second law is being violated and there can never be an explanation for something that never took place. In your own words "...your theory is wrong".

I do not need to tell you that the study of science is only possible because the structures and interactions of matter are governed by immutable laws. No one has ever observed a situation where the laws of science do not apply - except , that is, the evolution of the universe you would have us believe! The truth is the theory is at odds with all the basic laws of science and should be abolished but it is not, it is taught as fact. This is not science but atheistic propaganda.

You must also know, Doctor Dawkins, that there is a third fundamental quantity - information. The big bang needs all three; matter, energy AND information. If a big bang blasts off willy-nilly into space it would end in even more chaos as I know you must know. There would certainly be plenty of matter and energy around and chaos too. When you build a house the builder does not just use his energy by throwing the bricks in the general direction of the building plot, he would just end up with a pile of bricks. He needs information - an architect and a plan of action. As I know you know, the big bang would also need information to end up with an ordered universe. THAT INFORMATION IS GOD and if ever there was proof God exists it would be in any big bang in space resulting in an ordered universe. Think about that - EVERY TIME YOU SAY THE BIG BANG TOOK PLACE, YOU ARE PROVING GOD EXISTS!!!

I do not believe the earth and universe are billions of years old. As a rational Bible believing Christian I believe they are only a few thousand years old and I have science on my side. I challenge you to prove me wrong. I list below a very brief summary of the scientific reasons why I believe what I do. I know you will understand each of these points so I will not elaborate on them.

The universe and earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old because:

1. It violates the first law of thermodynamics because nothing INSIDE of the universe is capable of bringing the universe into being.

2. It violates the second law for reasons already discussed; the big bang would have produced more chaos not order. If you claim the universe is infinitely old or had no beginning then it would have reached a state of complete disorder with no energy left. As it has not it proves that it is not infinitely old and did have a beginning.

3. It violates the third law because if you add raw energy to an open system it is not a recipe for increased order. Therefore the big bang or primeval soup could not have produced life.

4. It violates the law of cause and effect because the big bang creates matter and energy out of nothing.

5. It is mathematical nonsense. The chances of a single molecule of protein-like substance forming by accident is 10 to the power of 320 to 1.

6. 27.5 billion tons of sediment reach the seas each year which means the continents are being eroded each 14 million years. You say the continents have existed for 1 billion years which means the continents would have been eroded over 70 times and produced a covering of 18.5 miles but the average depth of sediment is .56 miles. Where has it all gone?

7. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, showing the earth would not have been able to support life 10,000 years ago.

8. The moon is still not yet in thermal equilibrium, it would be if it was anything like the age you claim.

9. Roche law shows the earth/moon system cannot be more than 2 billion years old.

10. The amount of lunar dust shows the earth to be only a few thousand years old.

11. Short term comets would have completely evaporated in less than a million years. (The so-called "Ort cloud" of potential comets circling the planetary system is really no answer, just imagination!)

12. Over 100 million globular clusters in the Milky Way are moving so fast that they would have escaped the Milky Way in about 1 million years. As they are still within it the universe must be quite "young".

13. The lack of distortion in the spherical shape of globular clusters shows they have not been around for anything like billions of years.

14. The missing matter shows the same as above.

15. Spiral galaxies have not completed anything like 100 rotations but a maximum of 2 according to observations of the spirals.

16. Bridges between galaxy clusters would not be there if they were more than half a million years old. Indeed, they would have been touching each other.

17. The "missing mass" problem cannot be satisfactorily explained.

18. The rate of the slowing down of the earth's rotation shows the earth cannot have supported life 300,000 years ago.

19. The amount of nickel in the oceans tells us the earth is no more than 9,000 years old.

20. Radiometric dating ages are shown to be fantasy because of the reduction in c. This throws into question the whole atomic time scale.

I am sure you know that Darwin said that a single cell could have sprung into life from non-living matter which is simply not possible. He said the slits in the side of the neck marked the position of the former gills in the higher vertebrata. As you must know this is absolute nonsense. He also said that no living species would transmit it's unaltered likeness into the future - how wrong can he be?

Time will not permit more examples but I have many more on Darwinian evolution for you to answer. The gullible public will not think to challenge you with these facts.

I believe in a special creation, now that is real science. Anything other than this is pure speculation. Evolution, whether of the universe or Darwinian is only a belief.

Doctor Dawkins I know you are a clever man and I put these challenges to you with respect. I pray you will look at them with an open mind. You just could be wrong about your belief in uniformitarianism you know.

With Christian greetings.

Yours sincerely

R Bryce Kaye.

I waited two and a half months but no reply came. I am, of course, not at all surprised. Indeed his silence is deafening.

I wrote to him one last time:

17 March 1999

Dear Professor Dawkins

Further to my letter dated 7th January 1999 and my challenge to you. Your silence is deafening.

In our correspondence we have clearly established that you cannot really explain how science supports the evolution of the universe. Yet you preach it as if science does support it. Bearing in mind your title it would seem to me that you have failed in your key objective. At the very least I do feel you should acknowledge before you start any discussion that evolution is just a belief, not supported by science. Viewers may then realise that what they are hearing is just atheistic propaganda. I think that would be fair - don't you?

Jesus Christ died even for atheists. Jesus loves you even though you are against him. He allows you the freedom to speak against Him - for now. There will come a time when the door will close with a sound as deafening as your silence is now. Then it will be too late. It is a terrible thing to campaign against the living God. I can assure you He is alive and well - I spoke to Him this morning.

You are an atheists because you cannot understand spiritual things. The Bible says they are foolishness to you. However, you may be interested to know that our correspondence is a fulfilment of Psalm 8:2.

I pray that Jesus will bless you and soften your heart towards Him. I pray that you will come to realise that if you do not acknowledge Jesus as your Saviour before you die, you will pay the terrible price unbelievers pay.

One day you will have to bow your knees before Jesus and acknowledge He is Lord. Better do it before you die (as you surely will) so that he can still save you from the wrath to come.

With Christian greetings

Yours sincerely

R Bryce Kaye

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS:

In the next study, "The Science of Creation",  we will go into much more detail about what the Bible says really happened. For now let us look at how the Bible relates to science.

THE BIBLE SAYS GOD CREATED THE EARTH IN 6 DAYS - CAN THIS REALLY BE TRUE?

Can it be in accordance with the laws of science? Don't forget the account of creation was written in the book of Genesis which was abridged by Moses some 3,630 years ago. This in turn was taken from much earlier source material written by Adam over 6,000 years ago. Adam and Moses knew nothing about the laws of thermodynamics formulated as a result of studies in the 19th century.

We have seen that the law of cause and effect states that the effect cannot be greater than the cause. Clearly the Bible is saying that God is the First Cause (the Creator) of the earth and universe which stretches beyond the limits of detection. This means He must be greater than that which He has created - agreed? There is no place in the universe free from God, the First Cause of space. He is everywhere because He is not governed by space. He is omnipresent - everywhere all at the same time which is what the Bible says. Every effect can be traced back to the First Cause. This, incidentally, answers the question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This is in accordance with the law of cause and effect and therefore it is scientific - agreed?

God created time so He must be outside of time in accordance with the same law. This is what the Bible says. He is eternal. He knows the end from the beginning. God has always been around because there is no time that can contain God. Time was only created for this earth as we shall see.

God created all the energy in the universe. This includes the radiant energy of our sun and the gravitational attraction between the planets, galaxies and galaxy clusters. The First Cause of energy cannot be less than the sum total of energy in the universe! This makes God omnipotent according to the same law.

God created love which gives you some idea of how much He loves YOU. He created personalities, interest, senses of humour, senses of right and wrong, All these things and millions more came as a result of the First Cause which is why God is omniscient - all knowing. Are you getting the message yet?

The first law of thermodynamics, as we have seen, means that there is nothing in the universe capable of bringing it into being. It must have been Something outside of the universe, i.e., God, which is what the Bible says.

The second law says that the universe has to have had a beginning and is not infinitely old otherwise it would not be here now. The evidence is all around us on a starry night. The applied logic from this second law is that it was created, which is what the Bible says.

The third law tells us that uncontrolled energy blasting off willy-nilly in space will end up even more chaotic and things will go down hill fast. Evolutionists try tell us the exact opposite happened and that it ended up with people, computers and yes, Doctor Dawkins but this is unscientific according to the third law.

I'll tell you what is scientific though: The book of Jeremiah chapter 10, verse 12 and written about 625 BC tells us that God created everything by His power, wisdom and understanding. That is energy plus information and that is scientific.

THE MORE POWER AND INFORMATION ONE HAS TO DO A JOB, THE QUICKER IT WILL BE DONE AND THE BETTER THE RESULT. AN OMNIPOTENT AND OMNISCIENT GOD WOULD BE ABLE TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE INSTANTLY AND TO PERFECTION.[2]

Look, I'm not pretending the Bible is a book of science, it is not. It's a book showing the way to eternal salvation. Actually, I'm glad it isn't a science book because from what I've seen, science books become out dated very quickly. Yet the Bible stands the test of time. It is never outdated.

SOME FACTS FOR YOU TO CHECK:

The Hindus believed the earth was flat and supported on the backs of four very large elephants. In turn the elephants were stood on the back of a very large turtle which was swimming in the sea. Don't laugh! This is serious. This conclusion was arrived at because of observation. They knew no better and formulated their beliefs according to what they observed. Elephants were able to support very large loads and so on. You see, they knew no better because they had no God to teach them as the Hindu gods are man-made. Yet in a similar period the Bible was saying the earth was a ball or globe and suspended in space (Job 26:7 and Isaiah 40:22). There is no doubt about this, these books were in existence at that time. The Bible was correct and still is.

Ancient records show people believed there were only about 1000 stars. Yet the Bible said that Abraham's descendants would be uncountable as the stars in heaven... (Genesis 22:17).

The book of Job circa 2300 BC says that Pleiades were bound and Orion was loose (Job 38:31). Now we are told[4] Pleiades will always look the same from earth but Orion is indeed moving apart. The Bible is full of statements like this and it is certainly not an out of date book, quite the reverse.

MY COMPUTER.

I bought this computer and formulated this web site on it in 1999. You will know that computers are quite expensive and a great deal of skill has gone into building them. However, according to evolutionists I should have just bought all the raw material, the metal, the plastic, the wire, the glass etc. and put it all in a blanket and my wife and I should have propelled it into the air many times. If we do that often enough eventually it will come together as a complete computer! Silly isn't it? - but that's the logic behind the big bang!

Our vast universe shows all the signs of being designed and so there must be a Designer. It needed information. Likewise the smallest parts of the universe are designed too. For example I read the other day that a single E-Coli bacterium contains 4.7 million chemical units! Evolutionists would have us believe it came into being by chance. It's mathematical nonsense.

EVOLUTION BY CHANCE IS MATHEMATICAL NONSENSE.

We have seen that we have to test everything as the Bible says so let's do that. If you believe in evolution then you believe that given enough time, chance can produce anything; spiders, dogs, cats, bees, people, you and me. In one school "science" text book it actually stated that given enough time, a monkey tapping away at a typewriter would eventually write words, sentences and even whole books. Now that is quite disgraceful to fill young minds with such rubbish. David C C Watson did as the Bible said and tested that and I relay here what he came up with:

A typewriter has 60 keys. To produce the word "PEANUT" by chance:-

To hit the letter "P" would be a 1 in 60 chance.

To hit the letters "PE" in that order would be a 1 in 60 x 1 in 60 = 1 in 3,600 chance.

To produce the word "PEANUT" would be a 1 in 46,656,000,000 chance.

If our Darwinian monkey typed at the rate of 3 letters per second it would take 450 years to produce "PEANUT".

To type the phrase "PEANUTS AND TYPEWRITERS" (23 letters and spaces) would take 1,000,000 monkeys over 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years each typing at a rate of 3 letters per second. This time period is 100, 000,000,000,000,000 times as long as the evolutionist's supposed age of the earth of 4,500,000,000 years!

Going back to that text book: How long would it take that monkey typing at 3 letters per second to write a complete book? Well, I'll leave you to work that out. How far would the zeros stretch around the world?

Now be honest with yourself. How long do you think it would take the earth and universe to form by chance?

THEY SAY CHANCE IS A FINE THING - WELL IT IS UNTIL SOMEONE WORKS IT OUT! DO YOU REALLY THINK PURE CHANCE FORMED US? IT IS MATHEMATICALLY UNREASONABLE TO THINK THIS!

MATHEMATICS REALLY DO PROVE THAT EVOLUTION IS NONSENSE.

Charles Eugene Guye, a Swiss mathematician, has calculated the chances of a single molecule of a protein-like substance being formed by accident at 10/320 to 1. That means that the odds against even one molecule evolving would be: 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Doctor Meuller, another mathematician, estimated the probability of one horse evolving at 1 in 1 followed by 1 million zeros. Now I'm not about to try typing a million zeros, much as I would like to make the point as strongly as possible. The above 320 were enough! This would be a thousand, thousand zeros that would fill 15 A4 pages. Then our horse would need a female horse.... etc.... etc. Go on - admit it is nonsense!

TO SEE THE CREATION IS TO KNOW THERE IS A CREATOR!

Pierre-Paul Grasse, Past-President of the French Academy of Sciences said;[5]

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."

SIR ISAAC NEWTON, English physical scientist and mathematician is said to be the greatest scientist of all time. Certainly he was one of the greatest figures in the entire history of science. He was born the son of a farmer on Christmas Day in 1642 at Woolsthorpe near Grantham. He studied at Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1667 he was elected a fellow of Trinity College. His teacher, Isaac Barrow said of Newton that he was a man of "quite exceptional ability." Indeed, he resigned his chair, the Lucasian Professorship of Mathematics, so that Newton, at the age of only 26, could succeed him.

To list Sir Isaac Newton's achievements would simply take too much time. However, he is well known for his work on the telescope and optics, developing the particle theory of propagation of light. He made the first reflecting telescope. He is perhaps most famous for his work on gravitation and astronomy that even as a young man on the farm he had been considering the main problem of motion. He developed the universal law of gravity; that every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force proportional to it's mass and decreasing as the square of the distance increases. He discovered that it was this force that held the sun, moon and earth in orbit. He is famous for his three laws of motion. He died on 20th March 1727 aged 84 leaving behind him gigantic discoveries. He is buried in Westminster Abbey.

He was the hero of my House Master at school who continually referred to Newton during our physics lesson. Both my House Master and Sir Isaac Newton were Christians although Newton perhaps less conventionally. In spite of his giant intellect he had difficulty understanding the Trinity - but that requires the Holy Spirit not intellect. However, Newton's deep faith in God and Jesus as his Saviour is reflected in these two statements he made:

"We account the scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any (secular) history whatsoever." Later he said; "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being (Who) governs all things, not just as soul of the world, but as Lord over all."

----------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Much of this can be verified at the Creation Science Movement, PO Box 888, PORTSMOUTH, PO6 2YD, UK. They will be pleased to tell you how you can acquire related material. I also suggest you visit the Creation Science Exhibition at The Hard, Portsmouth.

[2] From the writings of David Rosevear, C.Chem., Ph.D., F.R.C.S.

[3] Point at which the particles whose motion constitutes heat, would be at rest, estimated at -273-7 degrees C.

[4] Sir Fred Hoyle (British Astronomer) said that Orion was moving apart and the Pleiades (Seven Sisters) would look the same millions of years from now.

[5] "Evolution of Living Organisms", Academic Press, New York, 1977, page 107.