Was the earth created, or, did it get here by accident ???

    -- INTRODUCTION --

It seems like everyone has their own personal interpretation of why things are the way they are. Like, everyone can see a dinosaur bone -- but there are many different explanations of how, and when, it got there. Some people's explanations are fundamentally different than some other people's. We all see the same universe around us, but we all believe in different things. We all live in our own little worlds. What is real?? What is right? Why don't we KNOW what is real?

The fundamental question is: did we get here through creation, or, evolution? That is the most important question which every human must answer in his or her lifetime. Next to this, everything else is just a minor detail. Indeed, almost every decision a person makes every day is based on how he or she answers this question. Each person's personal reality flows from this most basic of all questions.

Perhaps you think you already have everything figured out. Nearly everyone thinks so. We all live in the same universe, right? There is only one reality? Well, then, why do we all live in our own little worlds? We would all describe reality differently. Since we all have come to a different conclusion, does anyone really have anything figured out? You can get millions of different opinions, and no more than one of them can be correct. But then, how can you figure out anything unless you understand entropy?? You can't! Creation or evolution? What do I believe in? Entropy!! I am an Entropist. Read on .....

What if you decide the question is too hard, and you can't learn the answer? Then you still have to live your life according to some principles which you decide. If evolution turns out to be true, then you did well. If creation turns out to be true, then you will go to hell. This is because the scriptures plainly teach us the rules we have to live by in order to avoid hell. Whatever rules and principles you decided on are just not good enough. You can live your life as well as you can, thinking that if creation is true, then god will see that you are a "good" person. And so you think you will go to heaven, if there is one.

But it just doesn't work that way. If creation is true, then the scriptures are undoubtedly true. What they say is that you must do certain things to be saved. If you don't do those things, it does not matter how good of a person you think you are, it does not matter what you are taught, it does not matter whether you are a murderer, or if society says you are a righteous person - you are going to hell. If you choose to not decide between evolution and creation, you still have to decide how to live your life from day to day. Being "good" according to your definition of "good", and hoping for the best, means that you have decided on evolution. There is no in-between.

The main problem with this creation-versus-evolution debate is that each side keeps putting forth evidence to bolster their case. They are always trying to prove something which cannot be proven. And both sides are using the same evidence. But all they come up with is circumstantial arguments and small details. I will not do that. I will not try to prove whether one side is better than the other.

So. Creation claims that the entire universe was created on purpose, by an outside intelligence; while evolution claims that the universe and everything we see in it got here by accident. And there is no alternative; it has to be one or the other. On purpose, or, by accident.

Creation provides a couple of things that are hard to swallow. The thing that bothers me about a literal six-day creation is the observation that galaxies are so far away, and appear to be interacting on large time scales - and light takes a long time to get here from there. But those are only details, and it is not possible to know the answer to every question. They bother me, but they do not contradict any law of physics. Who's to say in what manner the universe was stretched out, if it was created? I have a Genesis page which provides a possible answer to this question.

Another thing that bothers me are the many seeming contradictions in the scriptures. For example, when the Israelites were crossing into the promised land, they were reminded of the ten commandments. Including, "You shall not kill". Then, they were immediately told to commit genocide. Seems like quite a contradiction. How could they obey both things?

Also, the idea that the universe was created is appalling! It means that someone owns His creation - this universe, and us. Me! That means we (you) (me) have to answer to Him. Until you can create your own universe and move out of His, He gets to set the laws. Are you ready to face that? What will happen if you have to meet your maker today? What happens when you meet the judge who re-plays every tiny detail of your life? When everyone gets to know your every thought? When all secrets are revealed? The prospect is not comforting to me.

In contrast, evolution is very comfortable. It means: I am my own boss. No one to answer to except myself. Whatever I think is right, IS right. If I want to tell a lie, it is okay. Evolution means that I am the epitomy of the universe - the greatest god who has ever lived. Survival-of-the-fittest means if I kill off my enemies, I deserve to be the winner. The bully is better than the meek. Only the strong survive. It is very easy to believe in evolution: the vast majority of scientists and schools and books and people tell you to believe in it. And, answering to ourselves for our sins is easy because we define what a sin is. And, evolution means another very good thing - it means we don't have to contemplate the alternative - which is appalling! People like that.

What it all boils down to is; the evolutionist believes that when you die, you never have to wake up and get judged. Many people fervently hope that is the case. Most of us don't want to be judged. That is why so many people gladly believe in evolution, because it offers them an alternative.

When I read the evolutionist's literature I think: "Wow, that's really logical and believable. It must be right". And then when I read the creationist's literature, I think: "Wow, that's really logical and believable. It must be right". Huh? So what IS right? Both sides are telling me what they want me to believe. Both sides are ignoring evidence which makes their case difficult. What should I do? What should I believe in?? Entropy! Entropy is something I can experience and observe, and I have already run experiments with it. Evolution or creation, whichever is true, happened in the past. And so I cannot observe nor experiment with or even KNOW anything about them. But I can observe that there is no evolution going on now, and yes, there is de-volution going on now.

Both evolution and organized religion are alternatives to the true scripture. Evolution says nothing was created. Christians accept creation, since it can't be realisticly denied. But they pretend they have the authority to change the laws we get judged by. They have provided an alternate set of laws from the laws explicitly spelled out in the scripture. Personally, I believe the christians will all go to hell if creation is true. Scripture spells out the laws the Creator expects us to obey. And I don't think that He would change those laws just because some humans demand it of Him.

It's been said that science and religion are about the same things, but they go about finding the answer in different ways. Both attempt to discover the underlying cause and order in the universe. Science demands observation and experimentation to determine facts, and demands that its ideas be falsifiable. Organized religion ultimately rests on untestable faith. But both of those premises are wrong! What is called 'Modern Science' states that the big bang and evolution are facts, but neither is testable nor observable. All of the evidence given to "prove" them can also be explained in different ways. And 'Modern Religion' demands faith, because they do not believe in the scriptures and therefore do not have a leg to stand on. But scripture says that you have no excuse for not believing in creation. It demands that you look at the universe around you and ask where else it could have come from? Scripture wants you to look at the evidence and prove for yourself that the universe HAD to have been created, or else it could not possibly be here. And that is what entropy proves to us. One of the most fundamental Laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, actually forbids evolution.

    -- ENTROPY --

Yes, it is true. The Second Law (entropy) states that heat never goes from a cold place to a warm place, unless you force it to. In summer you have to apply work in an intelligent manner to get heat from the inside of your air-conditioned home to the outside, where the air is much warmer. To move the heat to a warmer place means that your electric bill will be very high. Then in winter you heat your house. And now, the heat always quickly goes outside where it is colder. It has nothing to do with the house - heat always goes to a cooler place from where it is.

Thousands of scientists working for years have never, ever, seen heat go spontaneously (by itself) from a cold place to a warm place. Millions of people have lived on this planet for many years, and we never see heat going from a cold place to a hot place by itself. Heat always moves spontaneously from a warm place to a cold place (which is how your car works). This heat will continue moving until both places are the same temperature. You know this is true, everyone knows it is true, and that is why it is a LAW of Physics - not some mere theory. This is REAL science. Entropy is observed every day, it has been experimented on and with thousands of times, and it is falsifiable.

And even though it is a Law of Thermodynamics (thermodynamics = the study of the motions of heat), it also nicely describes how the universe works. This is because the Laws of Thermodynamics were discovered and described by people working in the field of thermodynamics, and later it was found that they are really the "Laws of Energy". They pertain to everything. Entropy is "The Law of the Universe". For example, information gathering and storage requires that you take randomly positioned molecules and arrange them in an order that contains information (in a form that can be read by a human or a machine). Disorder never organizes itself into meaningful information. This is the same as heat always moving to a cold place. You have to do work in an intelligent manner to get information organized. And guess what? You also have to do work to erase the information you have stored. Therefore you will generate heat in creating, and in destroying, any informaton. Every process increases entropy (the random heat and disorder in the universe).

You have probably heard the Second Law of Thermodynamics is difficult to understand. It is not true. But those who do understand realize in an instant the religion of evolution is impossible. The Second Law proves it. Plain and simple, the Second Law of Thermodynamics says it is impossible for something to organize by accident. Some one has to do it. Then it MUST run down if the creator does not maintain the order. It can not maintain itself by accident. And even more impossible for it to increase in complexity by accident. It can not happen. The only thing hard to understand is that people still believe in evolution!!

This Second Law of Thermodynamics which I am talking about is the same inviolable Law of Physics which the experts always quote in order to prove there is not and can never be a perpetual-motion machine. If accidental evolution was possible, accidental perpetual-motion would be also. Since no one has ever shown how to create a perpetual-motion machine on purpose, you can be sure it does not happen by accident.

Entropy is formally defined with an isolated system, and as the behavior of the system as a whole. So I will redefine it for the purposes of us. ALL real-world processes increase the entropy. The Second Law says that energy will always flow to a region of less energy. Period. It does not matter if the place is isolated, closed, or open. The ONLY way to get entropy to decrease is by purposeful, intelligent action from outside the system.

The universe is larger than we can see, and it is smaller than we can see. Amazing! And yet it appears that the most wonderful, complicated thing in the entire universe is the human being. I am more complex and more difficult to design and build than a super-cluster of galaxies. Wow. It requires information to build me, and even to build an amoeba or a lily. But galaxies kinda fall together almost by themselves. Where did the information come from? Entropy declares it does not arise by chance, and it cannot generate itself. Information must be generated by intelligence.

This image gives you an idea of how entropy works. Entropy causes everything in the left column to become like that in the center. And entropy forbids that in the center to become like that in the right column. "Information" includes knowledge and intelligence. "Gradient" refers to a difference in something. For example, an area where one side is warmer than the other side. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the heat will always go to the cooler area, and it will keep flowing until everything is at exactly the same temperature (no more gradient) - and then everything will stay at exactly the same temperature, heat cannot flow anymore. "Homogenized" means once things get mixed up, they stay that way forever.

To clarify, The Second Law does not prohibit negative entropy. It says neg-entropy ONLY occurs as a result of intelligent, purposeful, intervention from outside the system. Left to itself every system exhibits positive entropy only; and obeys the chart above. The Second Law states what will happen when something occurs at any point in time. Entropy is a concept we use to measure the progress of the Second Law as time goes by. Right now there is a certain amount of entropy, later on there will be more entropy. Entropy is anything (such as energy, information, organization, etc) which has been dissipated into the environment, and can not be used for a useful purpose.

Entropy is the most important thing they didn't teach you in school. It was discovered by thermodynamicists, but it applies to everything. Once the concept was discovered and recognised, it was soon realized that it applies to all fields of study and endeavor. If you give some study, eventually you will see someone saying that there are different "types" of entropy (informational, thermal, statistical, social, physical, algorithmic). But there is only one entropy. The fact that it applies to everything is amazing.

Entropy is not a force, like gravity. It is a principle. It reveals that in every situation, there is a force which moves the present into the future. Everything travels in one direction, the direction of Entropy. Entropy requires that everything be exactly the same as everything else; and if there is any difference between any two things they will change until they are the same. When you have an area that is hot and an area that is cold, that means there is a gradient. Entropy only allows reality to proceed one way - in the direction where everything is the same. So when you have a gradient, the hot will go to the cold until everything is the same temperature. Never does anything spontaneously become different than anything else.

Another ramification of entropy (thermodynamics) is what happens when you fart. You release a pocket of warm methane and other odorous chemicals into a room full of air. The methane is initially organized into a certain area near your butt. But because of the collisions of molecules, the methane disperses around the room until every part of the room has an equal amount of methane in it. That methane will remain permanently dispersed, because that is the state of greatest entropy. That is because as the process of collisions occur, the 2nd Law states that entropy will not decrease. Molecules can't organize themselves together, because that means entropy is decreasing. Therefore the collisions cause the similar molecules to move away from each other. We all know this is true. Entropy always increases.

Many people use the laws of statistics to help to understand entropy. That is because the modern mathematics and computers can't possibly handle the job in real-time, so they use statistics to approximate reality. And that is certainly good to a point - but you have to be careful! Entropy does not follow the laws of statistics!

Statistics begins with the assumption that an event is possible (though it may be improbable), and then calculates the odds of it happening. Thus, the odds of 'something-to-one'. Entropy begins by saying an event is NOT possible - no matter how many times you try - so statistics are NOT applicable. For example, what are the odds that you will wake up tomorrow as a 100-foot-long fire-breathing dragon? Is it something-to-one, or is it just not possible? 'Probability' and 'possibility' are two different things!

The experiment is performed on earth 7 billion times a day, every day. And as far as I know, no human ever woke up 100 feet long, nor was any breathing fire (stinky breath maybe), and certainly none of them were dragons, or anything else other than human beings. Besides that, no dogs or cats or birds woke up as a dragon, 100 feet long or otherwise. There are no odds, the possibility is: zero.

For example, air is composed of a variety of different types of molecules which are all rapidly flying around because of the flow of heat (the fastest will be moving about 1000mph). Now imagine the oxygen molecules floating around the room you are in. They are dispersed (mixed-up) among the other molecules. If entropy could decrease, then it would be possible for these oxygen molecules to gather together in one side of the room. It is statistically possible for them to become organized into a smaller area. The rest of the room would contain the rest of the molecules of the air - themselves organized into a smaller area. And everything would be at the same temperature and pressure. This would mean that entropy had spontaneously decreased.

Now, what if most of the oxygen molecules found themselves on the other side of the room from you? The laws of statistics say that there is a good chance that someone in the world will die of suffocation today as most of the oxygen molecules in his room move away from him. Why, he would be breathing nitrogen and methane and carbon dioxide for the last moments of his life, as he suffocated. Have you ever heard of this thing happening? I haven't.

"Given enough time, all things are possible" is NOT true! Some things will never happen, because they cannot happen. This false statement is based on using statistics to model entropy. They say the odds of something happening are something-to-one. But negative entropy does not have odds: it is impossible for it to happen by itself. Negative entropy MUST be purposely created by an intelligent being. A tornado will never assemble a car, no matter how many times it tries.

Entropy requires that everything becomes mixed up, and stays that way. The state of maximum entropy is when everything is exactly the same as everything else.

Our cars and power plants generate heat by burning something. Then, the heat will move out of the fire towards a cooler place (the environment), and disperses into entropy. We can put a device between the heat and the environment which will convert some of the heat into useful work. Like moving our car, or powering our house. The rest of the heat is lost to entropy. The heat will never concentrate itself in our car's engine - we have to burn gasoline (chemical fuel) to generate the heat. When we do so, we take the molecules previously organized into fuel (at a large entropic cost, with the sun as the original heat source), and release the organization. When it is released it automatically flows and spreads out to a cooler place. We derive useful work from the flow of heat.

Now you might be thinking that cooling the inside of your home is about moving heat to a warmer place (outdoors). But consider how the electricity is created and delivered to your house. Nearly all power plants first generate heat by burning something, like coal, wood, or oil. Nuclear plants generate heat through nuclear reactions. It all starts with some method of generating heat. Once the heat is generated, we can then convert some of the flow of heat into useful work. In this case we will generate electricity by boiling water and running the steam through a turbine connected to a generator. Next we push the electrical force through a copper wire. Then the electricity enters the air-conditioner in your home. There is a large loss of efficiency each step of the way. In each process entropy is created. So you have to realize that there is very much more heat generated by the power plant and the air-conditioner unit than you are able to move out of your house.

Entropy is a concept derived from the Second Law and the First Law, and is a Law of Physics. Only James Clerk Maxwell has ever shown a possible limitation -- for great fun, you should start learning about "Maxwell's Demon". Please! Much has been said about Maxwell's Demon over the years, and it can be most enlightening. Start with the simple explanations, and work yourself into it. In case you have never heard of James Clerk Maxwell, he was one of the handful of greatest scientists of all time. He seemed to be limited only by the shortness of his life. Very seldom has anyone ever explained such an esoteric and important subject in such simple language. I hope you will love learning about him and his demon.

Entropy states that in any physical process, you will tend to lose energy (usually in the form of heat), or you will lose some sort of organization, or you will lose something depending on the process. You lose this energy to the environment, and you cannot retrieve it to do work with. Furthermore, you will NEVER gain useful energy. The best you can do is stay even; but that only works in theoretical calculations - never in real life. Our power economy is based on the flow of heat. Life is based on the flow of heat. Heat is energy. As heat flows from a warm place (the sun) to a cooler place (outer space), we can intercept part of it and do some useful work. The flow of heat is what makes it rain in the summer, and snow in the winter. It makes your car roll up a hill. It pushes a rocket out into space, and it melts ice cubes. Here on earth, we intercept some of the energy flowing from the sun out into space, and everything we have comes from that energy. All life, all of our fuel, everything.

Heat is energy organized into an area, and it flows outwards into a larger area (the cooler place). That energy has become dispersed, less organized. Entropy says the same thing about everything. Knowledge gets lost as it disperses. Gases and all matter automatically move away from an organized place into a larger area, where it is less organized. Matter decays into energy, which moves away and becomes scattered. Complicated things fall apart. Everything organized becomes disorganized. In every process, you lose something.

Any time a process occurs in the universe (any time something happens), something is lost to entropy and becomes unusable. Atom (fission) and thermonuclear (fusion) bombs are a molecular process, the blast is just the release of entropy (in the forms of both heat and disorder). After the blast, most all of the original matter the bomb was made of still remains, and is usable in another process.

Entropy has been called "the Arrow of Time" by some scientists. This is because entropy is the law which determines which way things will work out. Entropy pushes us into the future, and it won't allow us into the past. Since every process increases the entropy of the universe, the past is a place where there is less entropy. And the Law of Entropy says entropy will never decrease. We can't go that way.

Scientific American; June 2008 p50; 'Time's Arrow': "The real challenge is not to explain why the entropy of the universe will be higher tomorrow than it is today, but, to explain why the entropy was lower yesterday and even lower the day before that. We can trace this logic all the way back to the beginning of time in our observable universe."

And they are correct! The bigbang folks have to say entropy was infinite at the bigbang, and then it somehow decreased enough for this universe to come into being. How did it decrease? (Wrong! The wrongly-called "cooling-off" of the universe as it gets larger does not decrease the entropy, because the universe does not change temperature.)

Now let's say you want to construct a device which will intercept some flow of heat, and convert it into useful work. You can do that! But there is a hitch. The work you get is less than the heat energy you have intercepted. Your device will always have an efficiency below 100%. Some energy will always be lost to friction or something. All the heat would flow into entropy anyway. You can only use intelligence to direct part of the flow of heat to some temporarily useful purpose. But don't forget, intelligence itself comes at a huge entropic cost. As does using it to calculate something.

Imagine a waterfall. You can put a wheel under it and get some useful work done, like grinding wheat. Once the water flows over the wheel, you could go get it and carry it back up, and run it over the water-wheel again. But it would require a greater expenditure of energy to carry it back up than you could get from running it over the wheel again. Heat is the same way. Once it flows to a colder place, you would now have to use more work to get it back, than you could get from using it. So in any real process, you have to put in more energy than you get out. The extra energy is entropy. When you tell your computer to save some data, or make a calculation, it produces a lot of heat in the process. When you drive your car, it produces a lot of wasted heat. It is impossible to build a perpetual-motion machine. Entropy in action.

Entropy is that energy in the universe which we can't use, because there is no where left for it to flow to.

The state of maximum entropy is when everything in the universe is at the same temperature as everything else, all the molecules are evaporated, all energy is fully dispersed, and there is no organization or gradient of any kind. Heat will always keep flowing until nothing is warmer than anything else. Gases will always continue dispersing and evaporating until everything in the universe is completely homogenized, and all at the same pressure. There could be no knowledge, or intelligence, or stars.

Some would say that utilization of vacuum energy to produce work is neg-entropy. But that can't be so. The vacuum is said to have an infinite (or nearly so) energy density and pressure. Therefore, anything we do with it allows that energy to spread out - which is positive entropy.

A crystal (such as ice) is not an example of negentropy. Bipolar molecules just like to stick together that way because of magnetic fields in the molecules. It is the natural result of the laws of physics. There is no information involved. Entropy increases because of the loss (spreading out) of energy (heat) to the environment. Someone might want to say that the molecules in the liquid are now in a smaller space and organized into a crystal array when the liquid freezes. But water refutes that. When water freezes it expands, the solid (ice) takes up more space than the liquid.

So now let's compare all that to our universe. The Second Law (entropy) shows that our universe is constantly moving towards maximum entropy. Entropy cannot decrease. This is how our universe works. No one can deny it.

Even the bible teaches us about entropy! Psalm 102:25-27 teaches that the universe will wear out, it will not last forever: "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will have no end." See also Hebrews 1:10-12. Romans 8:20 "For the creation was subjected to vanity [entropy], not of its own will, but by reason of Him who subjected it, 21 in hope that the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of Yahweh. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now." (they knew about entropy!) And there's the Acts Of Thomas: "And the apostle prayed and said: You that did bind this element and gather it into one place and send it forth into diverse lands; that did bring disorder into order" (they knew about negative entropy!). Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [He creates and maintains negative entropy.]

---

ENTROPY ILLUSTRATED:

Someone says: "We are made of molecules, that proves that energy does turn into molecules (matter)". We do know that matter is composed of condensed energy. But no, that only proves that molecules exist. It does not prove how they came to exist. We analyze spectra of stars billions of light-years away (and therefore billions of years in the past), and so we know that entropy has always existed and always ruled the universe. Yet the evolutionist insists that upwards evolution has been occurring all this time on the earth. How incongruent.

Here is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional box full of a gas (which is similar to earth's atmosphere). Notice that all of the molecules of nitrogen (red squares) are organized into the left side of the box, and all of the molecules of oxygen (blue circles) are organized into the right half of the box. Entropy does not allow this situation to occur by accident. These illustrations should remind you of Maxwell's Demon, which I hope you have learned about by now.

At room temperature the molecules are flying around, some very slowly, some as fast as 1000 miles per hour. They are constantly colliding with each other and with the walls of the box. Entropy quickly mixes them up. All of the organization is lost, and every section of the box becomes like the other sections. They each have an equal number of oxygen molecules as nitrogen molecules, and the same number of total molecules (unless you choose a very small section).

You as an intelligent person can put a wall in the middle of the box. The wall has a small door in the middle of it. You can see when a nitrogen molecule approches the door from the right, and you quickly open the door to let it through to the left side. Then you quickly close the door again. You also open the door when an oxygen molecule is heading from the left to the right (as shown). In this manner you eventually re-organize all the molecules on the left and the right. But you must have the wall in the middle to keep them organized, otherwise entropy will quickly mix them up again. This is a perfect demonstration of entropy. It perfectly demonstrates that negative entropy absolutely requires intelligent intervention from outside the system.

Now the box is the universe which we live in. We currently have extreme amounts of negative entropy in this universe. Where did all of that neg-entropy come from? It MUST have come from intelligent intervention from outside the universe (from outside of the box), for that is the only possibility allowed by the Law.

---

    -- EVOLUTION --

According to the big bang thing, the universe started out where everything was at exactly the same temperature, which was infinite. We already know that when something is all at one temperature, it stays there (2nd Law) unless acted on from outside. Because the temperature was infinite, the entropy of the universe was at a maximum. Entropy cannot decrease. Therefore the universe cannot evolve intelligent beings by accident. It would make the universe into a perpetual-motion machine, creating more energy than it uses. We know that this cannot be.

According to evolution, the universe has to spontaneously increase in complexity. It has to automatically make structures (stars, people) from nothing. But that is exactly the opposite of the way the universe actually works. Entropy shows that our universe constantly moves towards dis-order, not towards order. It is hard to believe in a religion which requires the universe to work the way it doesn't work...

If the volume of something with a finite temperature grows, then the temperature of any given cubic inch will drop, because there are now more cubic inches to divide up the same amount of energy. And everything in the volume will still be at the same temperature as everything else in the volume.

No temperature gradient can ever form by itself.

If an expanding big-bang universe was true, the universe as a whole is still at the same infinite temperature it started with. And everything IN the universe would still have infinite temperature and entropy. Why? Because when you start with infinite, you can divide it as many times as you wish and each part is still infinite. Of course this makes evolution from a big bang seem impossible, and absurd to believe in.

And it gets worse for the evolution thingy. You know that the human brain contains a tremendous amount of highly-organized information. Organizing all that information is the creation of negative entropy. Information never organizes itself - you are forcing it to be organized. A lot of heat (entropy) will be generated when you do this. I am certain that NONE of that negative entropy occurred by itself! Something had to force it to happen - work has to be applied in an intelligent way to overcome entropy. What? A Creator, who lives outside the universe He created, is a plausible answer. It seems more plausible than thinking that this place got here by itself, totally by accident...

Many evolutionists insist that negative entropy in one part of a system is perfectly feasible as long as there is a corresponding greater increase in another part of the system to account for it. And that might be true in one of the ways in which the Second Law is mathematically stated (you have to use a lot of variables), but the universe does not work that way. First off, the big bang started off with infinite entropy, so there is no way that one part of it can increase in entropy in order for another part to decrease. Secondly, even if the universe had somehow started out where one side was 'hot' and the other 'cold', the heat always diffuses out evenly. There will not be a spot in the center where negative entropy is occurring, even if the diffusion of the rest of the heat increases in speed.

If upwards evolution were to happen here on earth, with an increase in the entropy of the universe to account for it, there must still be a mechanism by which the negative entropy of our evolution translates out into the universe. None exists. If the earth's balance of entropy is even a little bit negative, something has to force the rest of the universe to spontaneously increase entropy a greater amount.

Entropy never decreases in one part of a system (open, closed, or isolated), it either stays the same or it increases.

Yes, natural selection and survival-of-the-fittest are observed, but they are NOT upwards evolution! Natural selection and survival-of-the-fittest work to remove species, they do not create new ones. They are just as viable whether we got here via evolution or via creation! Also, adaptation to new environments is not evolution. Evolutionists point to different instances and claim they are evolution in action. Like the things which happen with birds, peppered moths, bacteria, stickelback fish, etc. But just because they claim something, doesn't make it true. These are occurrences of natural selection, adaptation, and survival-of-the-fittest. The changes are always things which were present in the genes already.

For example, the genes to make a poodle were already present in the first dogs, and only came out through inbreeding. If you were to take many different types of dogs, from poodles to Great Danes, and breed them back together, you would end up with dogs that are very similar to the original dogs. When a fish evolves blindness because it lives in the dark, it is not upwards evolution. It is devolution. It is losing an ability. No new ability has developed which did not exist before. They say: "we see evolution", but what they really see is: devolution.

There is a lot of variability between members of any species. Not all humans are alike - in fact, there can be substantial differences. This variability within a species gives the power of adaptation of the species to unusual events. Like, when a colony of bacteria are exposed to antibodies, a few of the individuals might survive. Those individuals can not re-produce as diverse of a population as existed before. But at least the species itself propagates. The species was damaged (devolved), but not exterminated. The species does not ever evolve upwards into a new kind of animal (or plant).

Even though they teach evolution as a fact in the schools and literature, it has never been proven. It cannot possibly be proven, unless you were able to travel back in time and observe it happening. Not only have they no proof that we got here by evolution; worse, they have no proof that upwards evolution is even possible. The concept of evolution is nothing more than someone's interpretation of the evidence. What the scientists refer to as 'proof', is nothing more than wishful thinking! It is true. Discussion of evolution is speculation; belief in evolution is religion.

Anyone who tells you that evolution is a proven fact is either lying blatantly, or is woefully ignorant and therefore should not be making such statements.

Even if evolution from dirt, water, sunlight, and a lightning bolt IS how we got here, no scientist will ever be able to prove it. It is scientifically impossible to PROVE evolution. It is unprovable. But, it IS falsifiable. It is possible to prove that evolution is impossible, and therefore it could not have happened, no matter how much evidence you think is backing it up.

Evolution is based on assumptions. They assume the earth is very old, and then provide explanations based on that. They assume the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, and then explain it in a way to "prove" it is very old. They assume rocks are billions of years old, then date them in a way which gives the answers they want. The whole rock-dating scheme is also based on assumptions, for example, the assumed ancient isotope ratios. They always ignore any data which is contrary to their assumptions. One thousand experiments do not prove a theory, but one repeatable experiment can completely disprove and falsify the theory. Entropy is that which can falsify any theory, or any dream (such as evolution and the big-bang as origins of humanity).

Some people doggedly cling to evolution because they believe they see evolution in action as bacteria adapt to antibodies. Bacteria are remarkable life-forms which are different from humans. Their capacity for adaptation to a new environment is greater than ours. When millions of bacteria are exposed to antibodies, a few of them will probably live. Supposedly they had a mutation in their DNA which made them immune to the antibody. So those bacteria will thrive and multiply.

But this is not evolution. It is devolution - the resulting bacteria are not as robust as the originals. They have given up something to survive in the different environment. Released into a normal environment with a batch of normal bacteria, the supposedly "evolved" bacteria will die off, as they can't compete as well. Also, don't forget that they are always bacteria - they never evolve into a new life form. When a bacteria evolves into a gerbil, come and get me - I want to see that!

By the same token, humans can adapt to different environments. People who live in cold environments tend to have more fat, but fat is bad in a hot environment. People develop antibodies to things that we are exposed to. Then our bodies continue to produce these antibodies the rest of our lives. That way a record has been established of some of the different things you've been exposed to. Just because you now have protection from many bad things, that does not mean that you have evolved. You have merely exercised some of your power of adaption.

Since evolutionists can't overcome or deny the Law Of Entropy some of them have taken to trying to re-define it in softer terms. They now talk of the "spreading out of energy" as opposed to the spreading out of molecules. They ignore the fact that they are still talking about the same thing (E=Mc²!). The spreading out of energy is only one of the manifestations of entropy. Entropy has always been about the spreading out of energy and of mass, both. Mass is condensed energy. All particles have a lifetime before they decay into raw energy, which then disperses into entropy.

Another thing they have done is to re-define entropy in a way that makes intelligence just as likely as stupidity. They say that a system has a certain number of 'microstates' that it can be in. Any state is defined as being just as likely as any other state. So by that definition, a highly-organized state is just as likely and has just as much entropy as a highly-disorganized state has. Does that seem backwards? They have re-defined entropy until it doesn't exist any more! That way it can't bother them! But this is just an example of the wrong way to use statistics to explore the reality of entropy.

Evolutionists have come up with a very plausible scenario. Almost everywhere they look they find evidence which can be explained in such a way which backs their claims. They have a mountain of evidence which has been interpreted in such a way as to support them. And they do this by choosing to ignore and suppress any evidence which points away from their evolution/bigbang explanation. And they refuse to admit that there are alternative explanations for the evidence they present. It got this way because the public school system is the world's best brainwashing machine.

Unfortunately for us, evolution is contradicted by lots of observations of what goes on in the present universe. For example, there is no upwards evolution being observed by any scientist: only de-volution is observed (downwards evolution). We never see life coming from non-life. True evolution works by positive mutations of genes, but only negative mutations are observed. The evolutionist has to believe that you can electrocute some organic chemicals, and life starts accidentally, and develops accidentally, and eventually a man says "Hey, I used to be an amoeba, but now I can laugh about it!"

Scientists tell us that today most humans use less than half of their brains. If evolution were true, there would be no reason why humans would evolve such a large brain, and then use only a part of it. By definition, upwards evolution only happens if it is beneficial to the species. But your brain requires a LOT of energy to sustain, even when you are sleeping. And your brain represents an enormous amount of neg-entropy. In order to support your large brain, you have to eat a LOT more food every day. And we all know that food gathering and digesting requires a lot of energy and time every day. So a man who had a smaller brain, but used all of it, would be at an evolutionary advantage over the man with the oversized but partly-used brain. So the bigger brain would not evolve. Our ancestors would have been at a big dis-advantage while evolving the big brain, and then while learning to use it.

It takes an astounding amount of energy to organize a pile of molecules into an educated human brain. If you think that creating organization is not such a big thing, when did you last see it happen by itself? It is enormously unlikely. Do you have a computer? Your computer is a device which does computations and information storage. Your computer does generate a lot of heat in order to perform it's duties. That heat is lost to the environment. There is organized energy (electricity, generated from the flow of heat) going into your computer along with the intelligence and work of many computer programmers, and your intelligently-directed work. And all that is converted partly into organized information, and partly into heat. The heat released from you, the power plant, and the computer, is the entropy generated in the process of creating the organized information in your computer.

There is a famous evolutionist scientist who insists entropy is lowered when snowflakes form, and in his mind that means evolution is a fact. But he did not bother to work out the entropy in his book. He just made a statement, and he expects you to accept it as a fact. Why?

The formation of a snowflake involves a great increase of entropy, as every natural process does. The perfect sphere is nature's best most economical shape. When a snowflake forms the perfect sphere expands into a funny branching structure. No two are alike, which proves it is a random process. The random shape is caused by the way dipolar triangular molecules fall together onto the seed. Who's to say the branching structure is prettier than the sphere? The molecules in the sphere are also randomly arranged, but organized into less space. Ice floats because it is less dense than water. That is because water expands when freezing. Therefore the snowflake takes up more space (volume) than the water drop. Expansion into a greater area is defined as entropy increase.

Yea, and why did he ignore the heat given up by the drop when it freezes? The heat is part of the system, and must be taken into account. It will be expanding out into the universe forever. Tremendous increase of volume equals a tremendous increase of entropy! Later on when the snowflake melts it is intercepting a flow of heat (an increase of entropy) from some other source. All processes increase entropy.

Snowflakes do not mean lower entropy!!! Did I discredit his book? Did I discredit him as a scientist? Any real scientist would quickly figure it out. Is he not a scientist? Is he lying? Why would he lie to you?

I have a question for the evolutionists out there: Let's say you've resolved the question: "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" (Genesis says the chicken came before the egg, the simplest solution to the problem.) So then tell me which came first: the male or the female? Or, how could they have both evolved together? How could it be possible for accidental evolution to produce sexes? Are you going to say that evolution did in fact produce unisexual creatures, but two of them had a mutational cell division; and miraculously, one was male and one was female; and even more miraculously, they both lived, and were even able to find each other; and uncomprehensibly, they knew they had to mate to produce offspring?!? Is it easier to believe the sexes came about because we were created, or that they came about purely by accident? And if you choose the "by accident" scenario, how could this be, when the increased complexity of sex is in violation of the Law of Entropy - the second most well-tested Law of Physics?

    -- The BIG BANG --

There is not one tiny shred of evidence indicating a big bang origin of the universe! Yet they declare it is a fact. The redshift is better explained by a rotation of the universe. Since everything IN the universe is rotating, from atoms to galaxies, it is logical to think that probably the whole universe is also rotating. If so, that would completely negate the need for dark energy, expansion, and so forth. The Cosmic Background Radiation is very much smaller than what the big bang requires and predicts. It is likely to be a more local phenomena. Inflation does not come from any observed fact, it comes from their mathematical models. There is not one tiny shred of evidence indicating a big bang! The big bang is a dream. It is a desperate attempt to show there is no need for a Creator.

There is a poster which sums it up nicely: "Big Bang Theory - In the beginning there was nothing.... which exploded!" The person who denies a Creator must say that once upon a time there was nothing, absolutely nothing. Zero. No time, no space, no energy, no matter. Then, suddenly, there it was! Where did it come from? Nowhere! How did it get there? By itself! The whole universe just popped into existence without a cause! Nothing turned into something, completely by accident!

Think about the big bang scenario: All the mass of the universe packed into a singularity. That singularity MUST be a black hole, so massive that nothing can escape from it, not even light. So how can the whole universe escape? The whole universe escaped from itself!! The more massive the black hole is, the harder it is for anything to escape. The whole thing sounds preposterous, but let's consider it anyways:

The three genies of the big bang are: Inflation, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy. There is not the slightest bit of evidence indicating that any of these exist, yet the modern cosmologists always speak of them as facts. They are imaginary goblins. The big bang is broken, and can not exist without inventing these three genies. The fact that these imaginary genies had to be invented strongly indicates the big bang is imaginary. But since there is no alternative (except creation, which they reject), they prop up the failed model with epicycles. The only way their big bang will work is to violate all the established Laws of Physics.

One thing the cosmologists like to do lately is bandy about their picture of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and claim it PROVES the big bang. But they ignore a couple of very important points. First, the temperature differences are very much smaller than required in order to arrive at our current universe (according to their own big-bang calculations). Indeed, the first satellite (COsmic Background Explorer - COBE) could not see them, even though it was specifically designed to do just that. They had predicted the big bang would leave a certain background, and it wasn't there. They released an image which apparently showed these background fluctuations, but they were also quick to point out that was NOT what the picture actually showed. The media made a frenzy of course, and the facts were quickly "forgotten". So instead of being good scientists and abandoning their "theory" which had zero evidence to support it, they spent millions of more taxpayer dollars to build a far more sensitive satellite (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe - WMAP) in an all-out effort to find ANYTHING, and thereby save face (and make their house payments).

Second, this background radiation is light that was supposedly released when the universe became cool enough, according to the bigbang model. The universe supposedly reached this temperature when it was about basketball-sized. Of course, any light released at that time would have traversed the entire universe and left in an instant. Some say it ocurred when the universe was 300,000 years old, but once again, the light would've traversed the universe and disappeared a long time ago. We could not possibly see it. The Cosmic Microwave Background is obviously caused by something else.

And how about the cosmologists trying to explain how the bigbang could've worked. They composed the bigbang idea based on the ^observed^ 'cosmological red shift' being ^interpreted^ as a Doppler red shift caused by the galaxies flying apart. Then they realized that position is completely untenable, as its execution is a violation of physics. So they decided the red shift is caused by the stretching of space itself as the universe expands (which is also untenable, it is trying to prove something by starting with an unbased and biased assumption). They had lost their only reason for believing in an exploding universe, so they invented something else - the expanding universe. And they expect everyone to be too ignorant to question them! But here it is. When they no longer had a reason to believe in the bigbang, they invented a reason!

At first they said, because of this evidence, we 'believe in' an exploding universe, and therefore in a bigbang. Then they said, the evidence is no good, so there is no reason to believe in a bigbang, but we insist on believing in it anyway! So, given that we do believe in a bigbang, how can we explain it? Weird! It's like they'd do anything to keep from recognizing a creator. And, since they 'believe' based on faith, not proof, 'modern' cosmologists and all of their followers are practicing religion.

And how about inflation? Once they started investigating the concept of the expanding universe, they found out it wouldn't work either!! The cosmologists themselves say that the ONLY way the bigbang will work is to invent the insane concept of inflation in the early universe (look it up!! look up everything I say, convince yourself). Inflation is a violation of physics, yet according to themselves, it is the only way their religion will work! Once again they lost their reason for believing, so they invented a new thing.

Inflation is said to have occurred very early in the life of the universe. As the universe was expanding, it suddenly, for no apparent reason, began expanding at a tremendously faster rate. How could it do that? For something to accelerate, it has to have something to push on. And you can't push on yourself. So almost as soon as it started, inflation ended and the universe suddenly resumed its original rate of expansion. Again, how could it do that?? This is even more bizarre than the acceleration. In order for something to decelerate it has to have something to push or pull on.

It is positively hilarious to listen to these cosmologists (preachers of the modern religion) try to explain it as a "phase change", because "physics worked differently back then", and then expect all of us to accept their word without question. Without question, because they can't answer the question. All they can do is speculate and dream. That is why it is religion. Many people reject what they call "religion" because it is a leap of faith. But evolution and the bigbang are also religion, as they are also a leap of faith because we are talking about the unknowable and unprovable past.

Right now there are many widely-varying versions of the big bang/inflation scenario. The scientists themselves can't agree on it. They each have a different version of how they think things happened - yet they insist that they are speaking about "facts". They insist the big bang and evolution are a fact.

    Okay, let's go ....

The bigbang postulates that everything in the universe was at exactly the same temperature, and completely random, during the bigbang. Nowadays we look around and see that there is a wide range of temperatures, contained in a wide range of organized structures (from atoms to galaxies to brains). The Second Law Of Thermodynamics (entropy) says that order can NOT come from disorder. Structures do not appear spontaneously from random energy, and temperature differences do not occur by themselves.

That is why cosmologists spend millions of your dollars trying to convince you that the early universe did have some structure. They will not try to explain where the structure came from, because there is no way they can. They will not consider alternate explanations of the evidence. They say this is what the evidence means, and that is that. They say the big bang was not uniform in all directions, there was some structure (areas of higher and lower density). But so what? Entropy requires that structure (if it could have existed) would immediately smooth back out. There is no way for it to become even more complex and turn into human beings. The odds of that happening are exactly zero.

So the cosmologists insist that as the universe expanded, a point was reached where molecules formed from pure energy. How can this be? For energy to become condensed (organized) into a molecule it has to gain negative entropy - which is only possible if there is an intelligent outside force, such as a creator. It can not happen by accident on large scales. On the other hand, I have never heard of any law of physics which is contrary to creation.

The big bang folks declare that the universe was originally pure energy. As the universe cooled off after the big bang, that energy became modest enough for particles to form. But, curiously, only part of the energy formed particles. All those particles have a finite lifetime and then they decay back into energy. Hunh?? The universe has continued to do what they call "cooling-off". So by now ALL the energy should have turned into particles. And yet we see the opposite! Even though the universe is supposedly cooler, no particles are forming -- and instead, particles are decaying. Just the opposite of what the big bang predicts. The formation of particles from energy is negative-entropy. The decay of particles into energy is entropy.

Matter (protons and electrons) consists of a certain, easily calculatable, amount of energy (E=Mc2).The big bang consisted of nothing but energy. That energy (they say) somehow turned into matter. If the universe truly is expanding, then the energy was more compressed instantly after the bang started. That would have been an easy time to condense energy into matter. They say that it was too hot at that point, but heat IS energy, so they are wrong. Indeed, the easiest time to have converted the energy into matter was before the bang, when the universe was still a singularity! At that time the entire universe could have been converted into matter - one single giant particle. But no, that wouldn't work for the evolutionists. So they say the universe had to expand greatly first, then some (and only some) of the energy turned into matter. But common sense and logic tell us that after the energy spreads out into a greater area it is more difficult to bring some of it back together so that matter can be created. Plus, the very act of expanding carries inertia. Once expanding, it wants to keep expanding. But they conjecture the exact opposite! Somehow, for no apparent reason, zillions of small pockets of energy suddenly reversed expanding and compressed. Is that somehow believable?

The true source of the observed 'red shift' is probably not an expanding universe. Most likely, it is the result of a rotating universe. The bigbang folks declare that gravity is the dominant long-range force in the universe. They ignore electro-magnetism. By taking magnetism into account, and allowing for the possibility of creation, there is no need to invent 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. It is preposterous to me that educated scientists actually believe they cannot see 96% of the universe around us! If they accepted creation, they would realize there is no need for ridiculous ideas. It is only the assumption of the bigbang which requires dark matter and dark energy. And it is only the rejection of creation which requires the bigbang. Hmmm.....

And here's one they will not, and can not, tackle: Our universe is composed of protons and electrons. Protons have a positive electric charge, and electrons have a negative electric charge. First, no one can explain what "charge" is! Why does an electron always have a -1 charge? So, how could the big bang create all these particles with electric charges? Why are the particles and charges the same size and so forth on this side of the universe as on the other side?

Another reason they invented 'dark matter' is because they have dismissed the work of previous scientists who realized that a normal spiral galaxy would have a "flat" rotation curve. When they then discovered flat galactic rotation curves, they claim that the flat rotation rates of galaxies are "proof" that the galaxy is embedded in a large halo of 'dark matter' which no one can possibly see or detect. They actually EXPECT you to believe this story without question. They do not provide any credible evidence for you to believe that most of the universe is invisible. They give you speculation. It is true! By believing what a human has said, you have been indoctrinated into their religion. It is true. That is why I don't want you to believe me just because I said it - that would make me a cult leader. I want you to go out and learn the truth for yourself.

The big bang does have alternatives, such as the plasma model and the steady state model. But they all require evolution from nothing by accident (negative-entropy). The only alternative to evolution is intelligent creation. If there was not intentional and pre-planned creation, then nothing has to turn into something by some strange accident, which has to turn into our universe, then life has to start up by another bizarre accident, etc, etc, through millions of extremely improbable accidents, until you are here reading my words. Do you really think that is possible?

In physics, the Strong Anthropic Principle posits that the universe seems to have been made just for humans. There are many variables in this universe, and if any of them change just a little bit, then there is no life. Supposedly the big bang just 'happened' to produce this extremely fine-tuned universe the first time. But that would be next to impossible. So rather than admit a possibility of a creator, cosmology simply states that there must be zillions of universes - and of all the random possibilities - this universe just happened to be favorable to life. To the cosmologist who opposes the possibility of creation, the observation that this universe is well constructed for life seems baffling. They can't figure it out, because they reject the possibility of a creator. That's why they HAVE to "believe in" zillions of random universes. And that is why they invented the "multi-verse" concept. So now they will teach this stuff in schools as a fact! They will not admit that they are being un-scientific and religious (does the term 'epicycle' pop into your mind?).

Another huge problem is the life of Sol (the sun, our star). They say that Sol is billions of years old, and has orbited the Milky Way Galaxy sixteen times. Mind you, the spiral arms don't rotate like that. They are density waves which move at a different speed. So what this means is that as the sun goes around and around, it will frequently pass through huge, dense clouds of dust and gas and stars. The clouds of dust and gas would cause the planets to spiral into the sun and be burned. Also, the sun will have many encounters with other stars. The stars would be much closer to the sun than they are now. Some of the stars would be close enough to gravitationally rip the planets from the sun, or at least throw them into chaotic orbits. Both of those facts show that it would be virtually impossible for the sun to retain it's stately collection of planets in their nice, nearly circular orbits for billions of years as it repeatedly passes in and out of the spiral arms.

Right now the sun is below the plane of the disc of the Milky Way. That means that as the sun orbits the Milky Way, it will pass through the thickest parts of the spiral arms on a regular basis. Most of the Milky Way is lethal to life as we know it. If our star was in a different part of the galaxy right now, we'd be toasted. The galaxy is home to thousands of enormous stars which can fry all life on earth from a large distance. One nearby such star is Wolf-Rayet #136. It is only by blind stupid luck (or purposeful intent) that we are currently in one of the rare safe places. So, it seems obvious that life has not existed on earth for billions of years. How could it have? In that time Sol would have passed by many stars that emit millions of times the energy Sol does. It seems certain that the planet would've been sterilized many, many times.

It seems also certain that we'd have had a very good chance of being sterilized by a supernova explosion, in that time. Or maybe even meet a back hole. So, even though we are in a less-dense region, we can still be killed here. When we move into the spiral arms, everything crowds together, so the chance of having the earth sterilized becomes very great. There are very many ways the galaxy can kill us. That is why Stephen Hawking said: "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet." Indeed, if an evolutionist scientist as prominent as Hawking admits it is unlikely for life to last a mere 1000 years or so, how could we expect it to last 4,000,000,000 years??

The fact that we are below the plane of the galaxy is significant. The vast majority of stars are said to form in the dust clouds along the galaxy's mid-plane. To be below that plane shows that the sun must have had gravitational encounters with other stars, but our planetary system seems too circular for that to have happened.

Many main-line cosmologists do admit that the universe is currently running down because of entropy. It is going to die a "heat death". That is the state when everything in the universe is at the same temperature. There will be no life because processes can't run. It will be essentially the same as right after the bigbang, when everything was at the same temperature. So their bigbang postulation becomes self-defeating. They admit that entropy is killing the current universe, yet they fail to address what entropy means about the beginning of the universe. They admit that entropy will kill a living universe, but they don't mention what that means: ^a dead universe will stay dead - FOREVER^.

    -- HMMM... --

Still, the fundamental question is: creation or evolution? That is what I want the answer to. There is no way either model can explain everything, and the 'proof' of either model is outside the bounds of science (science: a body of knowledge gained from experimentation and observation of the present -- speculation of the past can't be proven, so if you have a belief, you accept it on faith alone, therefore it is your religion). So all we can do is evaluate fairly both models in the light of science (facts), and see which model best fits the facts. Each model has strong points and weak points. But both evolution and the bigbang fail miserably. The universe just doesn't operate that way. They are both a violation of entropy. Entropy rules the universe. Although we cannot 'prove' either model, we CAN falsify one of them.

Now let me clarify something. Everything which currently exists is evolving to some extent. Galaxies evolve, and species evolve. The thing in question here is not the micro-evolution, but the religious belief that we all got here by accidentally evolving over billions of years from a big bang or something. The term "evolution" has come to mean the opposite of creation. It means the concept that we got here by purely accidental and naturalistic processes which follow the laws of physics. Most any creationist scientist will agree that what we observe around us is going through changes, the difference between the two models is the starting point.

Many people believe they see negative entropy when a seed grows into a tree, or an animal. It is true that the seed is very small, and as it grows more and more molecules are gathered together into a larger, organized structure. But a very lot of energy is wasted to entropy in the process. Every little process involved in growth and life increases the entropy of the universe. Yes, on the surface it appears as if negative entropy is occurring at the cost of greater entropy in the rest of the environment. Air, water, and soil become organized into a tree. However, this can only occur because of the pre-existing information in the seed. And that information has to come from an intelligent source, a creator outside of the environment. There is no way for a seed to appear by accident, because that would be negative entropy. Just as heat moves to a cooler place, information can be spontaneously lost. While growing from a seed, every animal and plant obeys the Law of Entropy every moment WHILE living and growing, and then we die and completely decompose and disappear. There is no exception to the Law at any point in time.

And here is another thing hinting at creation: A long time ago I saw a science documentary on television about a tree whose fruit ferments on the tree. The researchers learned of this while wondering why the hungry animals in the area were ignoring the trees. The trees had wonderfully ripe and healthy fruits hanging down, ready to eat. The researchers had tested some of the fruit, because they were baffled. During a drought, when all the animals were barely getting any food, they ignored the trees. Then one day, the animals suddenly became interested, and they all started eating.

This was clearly a cooperative agreement among all the different kinds of animals in the area. So when they analyzed the fruits again, they found that they had fermented on the tree. Although near starving, all the animals had ignored the food, knowing that pretty soon they could get drunk!! It seems to me, if evolution was true, then they would have been fighting for the food long before fermentation. This occurred during a drought, when animals were dying from lack of food and water. Survival of the fittest should have demanded that they eat right away, before the other animals ate. Yet, they all seemed to know and cooperate with each other.

In reality, the earth and the universe are ruled by entropy. Entropy is the result of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Law One says we are here and we can't go away (energy cannot be destroyed or created). Something can not come from nothing. Law One says that we can't win, all we can do is tie the game. Law One says that there is nothing (and no one) in the universe who can create or destroy energy. This is the Conservation of Energy Law.

Law Two says we'll decay. We have always been decaying. Everyone knows from common experience that everything gets old and dies. Everything wears out and breaks. That is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even a block of stainless steel will not last forever. The universe and everything in it is always wearing down and wearing out. It is impossible for something that is random to accidentally become organized into intelligence, or a car, or anything else useful. The universe moves towards decay. Chaos remains chaotic. Gases remain dispersed. Law Two says that we can't end up in a tie - no matter how clever or persistent we are, we have to lose the game.

Although the Big Bang claims the universe as a whole was organized into a tiny singularity, entropy was at a maximum because the temperature was infinite and every point IN the universe was exactly the same as every other point. There was infinite temperature, no gradient, no information, and infinite density; thus, infinite entropy. Entropy says it is impossible for such a singularity to produce humans by mere physical laws and forces.

So, here's a trick question -- what got the universe wound up in the first place? Where did all this organization come from? What intelligence created seeds? What do I believe in? I believe in entropy! I don't believe in religion, whether god-worship or evolution-worship. I believe in science. Real science, which is a body of knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. I believe in knowledge, not speculation. Looking at the universe through the knowledge (facts) of entropy, I am forced to accept creation as a viable source of the universe and all that is in it. I fail to see any reason to believe in evolution.

The religion of the big bang and evolution claim that once upon a time the universe had infinite entropy. Everything was exactly the same as everything else. Yet the amount of entropy in the current universe is considerably less than 100%. There are large areas which are not the same as other areas. Here is a vacuum, there a star, there a nebula, etc. Where did all the entropy go?? How did these things come into being?

Mind you, this is not a choice I want to make. It is forced upon me by the scientific evidence. I would rather believe in evolution, but I can't.

    -- RELIGION --

I was raised as a catholic, going to catholic school through most of the sixties, and church all my childhood. Right from the start, the school always taught evolution, and a universe millions of years old. Then on Sunday they pretended to believe in six days of creation by god, but it was so obvious that they did not believe in the bible. It was really sad. I was floundering around trying to find something to believe in, but everything was a lie! Once I saw through the catholic's lie, I learned to see through everyone else's religious lies also.

After that I spent many years learning about lots of religions, including some that don't worship god. So now I am anti-organized-religion, and pro-science. I rejected religion, and accepted that which I can see and verify. It is science which led me to entropy, and all of what entropy implies.

Astonishingly large numbers of supposed 'bible-believers' accept the bigbang/evolution scenario as a fact, and then try to fit the bible into it. It should be the other way around. Evolution can't be a fact unless it fits the scriptures. Who's the authority? Modern men who were not there? People often reject creationism because they reject religion. But they are not the same things. I also reject modern, organized religions, mainly because none of them practice what they preach.

'The Skeptics Society' is a religious organization. They accept evolution without proof. They use skepticizim as an excuse to reject creation. Yet they are not the least bit skeptical about evolution. How incongruous!

And of course, even if a scientist could someday prove that it is possible for evolution TO occur, that still doesn't mean that evolution DID occur. To go from "could have" to "did happen" is a leap of faith, so 'belief' in "did happen" is a religious belief, whether you believe in evolution or creation.

Once you answer the primary question, then you can search for other answers. Like, how DID Noah get all those animals onto the ark? (He didn't - Yahweh commanded the animals to go there, and perhaps put them all into hibernation when they got there). Why does the universe seem so old while scripture indicates the earth is young? How come we see galaxies that are very far away? And so forth.

Scripture teaches that Yahweh created the earth and all that is on it in six days. When He was done, Yahweh declared that His creation was "perfect". Therefore we might think that nothing ever died; animals did not eat each other. We would have to realize that Adam was the perfect man, physically (he just didn't act that way, after he was given a choice). Compared to us, he might have had an IQ of 1000 or more. He would have been the smartest man of all time, but since the world is cursed because of him, it is now running down (devolving). Because of entropy, the human race is losing the race. We are slowly decaying as a species. We today are but a shadow of the people who came before. We have more accumulated knowledge, but far less intelligence.

Science is knowledge (not speculation nor fancy equations) gained from observation and replicable experiments. Let's say we have a box full of gas. We can measure the pressure and the temperature. We can determine what kind of molecules are in the box, and approximately how many. This is knowledge. But we can NEVER determine the past. Let's say the box has 20% Oxygen molecules, 75% Nitrogen, and 5% Carbon-Dioxide by quantity. Right now we observe that they are evenly dispersed throughout the box. Every part of the box is at the same temperature and pressure, and every part has as many Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Carbon-Dioxide molecules as every other part. No part of the box is any different than any other part.

What was the initial state of the contents of the box? Have the molecules always been dispersed? Was the entropy lower at some point? Was the entropy higher at some point, like if there were no molecules, only raw energy, some of which later condensed into molecules? Since we can never observe nor experiment on the past, we can never know the past. Maybe all the Oxygen molecules were in the top of the box, and all the Nitrogen at the bottom. Maybe all the molecules were compacted into one corner of the box, at very high pressure and temperature, while the rest of the box was empty. We do not know, and we can not know. All we can do is make a guess (model), and ask if the laws of physics plus some time can arrive at the current state of the contents of the box.

So if you guess that the molecules were originally crammed into one little corner, and after a certain amount of time the normal laws of physics caused a state of maximum dispersion, and since we observe that current state of maximum dispersion, you might say that your model matches reality. But you could be wrong. There could be other explanations. You do not know if there were any inputs into the box (intelligence and/or energy). Perhaps energy was taken out of the box at some point in time? You do not know how old the box is. You do not know anything about the past.

Now imagine that the box is the universe we live in. Ask those same questions, and you get the same answers. There is no way we can know for a fact what the past was. Sure, we know that molecular collisions in a gas occur in a certain way. You might say that theoretically we can trace those collisions back in time to arrive at the beginning state. But no! Quantum Mechanics shows us that when we made the observations of the contents of the box, we altered the system. So we can not run the system back in time because we do not know what kind of inputs came from outside the box in the past. We do not even know how far back in time to go!

Perhaps the box began with maximum molecular dispersion, but an intelligence outside the box manipulated conditions and created order, and then the intelligence walked away and left the box to itself, and so entropy is causing the box's contents to return to maximum dispersion? Perhaps at some point in the past our box had an input of energy from outside? Perhaps there was originally a larger number of molecules, but some of them decayed into pure energy? We do not know. We can not know. There is no experiment nor any observation which can reveal the past to us. For anyone to say (s)he knows the past condition of our box (or our universe) is speculation, not science! If you believe that person's conclusions you do so on faith, not facts, so you are committing religion.

    -- SCIENCE --

Entropy is a foundation of true science. Entropy is a concept which embodies the Laws of Thermodynamics - everything wears out and dies. Everything!

The Laws of Thermodynamics describe exactly how the universe works. You can look them up anywhere, and you will find that they are 100% accepted by the scientific world as fact. There is not an 'entropy/no-entropy' debate going on, as there is with the perpetual 'creation/evolution' debate. Half of the USA believes in creation by god, half believes in evolution by accident -- but everyone believes in entropy. Since entropy is true, how can I believe in a concept that operates the opposite way (evolution)??

Many say they believe in evolution because there's "a mountain of scientific evidence" supporting it. But that is simply not true. Actually, there is a mountain of scientists telling you that is what the evidence means. They tell you what they want you to believe. They are promoting their own religion, and the religion of those who pay them.

The "mountains of scientific evidence proving evolution" just does not exist! Consider, and you will realize. What does exist is "mountains of scientific evidence" which is arbitrarily interpreted and explained according to the religion of evolution. That same evidence can also be explained in the light of creationism. It is not the evidence that is in question, it is the interpretation of it.

I do not want you to believe something simply because I said so. I am a human who makes mistakes. I want you to consider my words and think "Wow, that's interesting. If it were true, then it would be extremely important for me to know about." And so you would be inspired to investigate the matter. Discover the truth for yourself. That is why I don't quote sources - I want you to go out and find your own. Learn for yourself.

Perhaps you have heard a saying similar to: "Change is the only thing that doesn't change". Well, yes, it seems like everything is always changing. And we know from the Laws of Thermodynamics that change can not increase that which changed. It can stay even, perhaps, in theory. But most likely, when there is a change in something, there will be a downhill element involved. Entropy.

As a matter of fact, there IS a law of physics which states that life can NOT come from non-life. Not under any circumstances! It is the law of biogenesis. This LAW has met the requirements to be a Law of Physics. It makes predictions, and it is fully testable. It has been tested over and over by the evolutionist scientists who are trying very hard to prove that life can come from non-life. No person on earth has ever seen a non-living thing turn into a living thing. Every science experiment has failed, though they were designed to produce life. Modern science has forgotten about Louis Pasteur!

And what do the evolutionists think of that? They ignore it, or they say it only came into effect after life formed on earth. So they decided that there is a law called abiogenesis, meaning that under some kind of so-far-unknown circumstances, life CAN come from non-life. They decided that since evolution is a fact, then that means that abiogenesis is also a fact. This is a typical act of saying that since you want something to be true, therefore, that proves it is true. However, no one on earth has any evidence whatsoever that abiogenesis can occur. So it is absolutely NOT a law of physics, it is not even a theory - it is merely a dream. It used to be called "spontaneous generation", but then the idea was destroyed and shown to be impossible. So rather than be good little scientists, and obey the facts, they changed the name of it to "biopoiesis". Since you have already heard of the impossibility and demise of abiogenesis and spontaneous generation, they had to have a new name which would try to hide the fact that they are still believing and promoting a dream as if it was a fact! Why do "scientists" believe in a dream? Because the only alternative is CREATION! And they refuse to believe in that....

Most people seem to think that scientists always speak facts. But most scientists, especially modern cosmologists, are just as prone to error as the rest of us. And like us, they look at the world through the religion they choose to believe in. They see the things that reinforce their beliefs, and reject the things that don't. And these cosmologists are also often more adamant about their beliefs for two reasons: it is their job, and their funding. If they start rejecting evolution and the big-bang in refereed journals, they will not get published - and so they will lose their funding and their jobs. So they have to print what the journals and the powers-that-be are willing to allow. So they say evolution and the big-bang are facts (don't want to believe me? See the movie "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein).

You have been lied to by the scientific establishment. It is true! Just ask Halton Arp. As far as I know he did not and does not believe in creation. He was a leading, well-respected astronomer, President of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, and a tenured professor in a prestigious university. But when he doubted the big bang, and provided solid evidence to back up his doubts, they took away his job and ran him out of the country! They didn't want to hear that stuff. They don't want to hear any facts, unless it backs up their religion of evolution.

If you want to know the facts, it is up to YOU to get them. One thing the scriptures keep saying is that you should not listen to the words of men, because they will lead you astray. This is very similar to the "Dark Ages", when the catholics controlled the population by keeping them ignorant. To this day, they still control the population by keeping us ignorant. It is a good formula. They hide the facts of entropy. They hide the problems with the big bang/ evolution model of the universe. They hide the fact that no radio-dating methods are scientific (because they are based on assumptions and inaccuracies, and are highly inconsistent). They hide Yahweh's name. They make you think you have great knowledge, but you only know what they told you. People believe what they are told to believe. People like what they are told to like, such as fashion. Who declares what is "in fashion" this week or next? All the gullible sheep follow right along and do what they are told to do. In this case they are told to believe in evolution as opposed to creation, and so that is what they believe.

How did it get this way? Many of the people who created the modern scientific method believed that the universe was created by god. Somewhere along the line, the mainstream scientific concensus became that they had to describe the universe without resorting to miracles. They have now decided that it is a fact that miracles cannot and do not occur, that the universe could not have been and was not created. Well, you might notice that the government does not finance creationist research. They willingly finance almost everything else, though. So if you had your own money, and did some great creationist research, you could get published, right? People would take you seriously, right? Well, don't expect any of the mainstream journals to publish your work, no matter how good it is. You will have to publish in obscure journals which you never heard of before. They might publish your material if they can't get anything else that month. But then you will hear the evolutionists claim that your material is no good because it is only published in questionable journals, never in mainstream journals. Sheesh!

So evolutionist people are saying that the universe popped out of nowhere, all by itself, for no reason at all. And this particular universe has all the correct properties to support life, which is very unlikely. That seems crazy to some other people, so they invent the idea of a multi-verse -- a place where whole universes are popping in-and-out of existence all the time. We live in one of zillions of other universes. There are now so many universes that at least one of them would be capable of supporting life. Does this sound strangely similar to the steady-state universe which they used to believe in? Anyway, they remain committed to the universe-by-accident explanation.

Before the big bang, temperature, density, and entropy were infinite, therefore entropy was at a maximum. Since all the universe was contained into a singularity, there could be no structure from which galaxies and humans were born. In the present universe, both entropy and temperature are finite, so entropy has decreased. How can entropy decrease in a universe where entropy cannot decrease? Perhaps there really wasn't a bigbang, after all....

Now, energy and matter are variations of the same thing (E=Mc2). Energy easily disperses into entropy. Matter is condensed energy - therefore it is negentropy. And the fact that the matter is not dispersed, but organized, is even more negentropy. Which means there is a tremendous amount of negative entropy in the universe! Where did it all come from? It can't get here by itself.

And, of course, the universe itself also could NOT have gotten here by itself. Something which does not exist can not create itself! You can not bring yourself into being. So where did it all come from? It had to have been here eternally, or it got here by accident, or it was created by an outside intelligence. The latter is by far the most likely and reasonable. As far as we know, everything in the universe had a beginning, and therefore the universe itself must have had a beginning. And so, it must have been created. Another clue that this is correct is that SINCE the universe came into being, a tremendous amount of negative entropy has occurred - including the beginning of life on earth in all its intricate forms, in spite of the Law of Entropy.

Science can not pass judgment on the origins of humans, the earth, or the universe, because our origins can not be observed or experimented on (remember, science is a body of knowledge gained through observation and experimentation - speculation is not knowledge). Evolution is not a scientific theory, because a theory is something which, by definition, is answerable or testable by science. Scientists like to CALL evolution a theory, to give it an aura of respectability. There is no such thing as a "Theory of Evolution", it does not exist. What is rammed down everyone's throat these days is really called the "Doctrine of Evolution". They like to SAY the bigbang is a theory, but that doesn't make it so. They don't want to admit that they are practicing religion, because then evolution would be removed from our schools. Science can only be used to evaluate models of origins based on the facts which we can observe and experiment on today  (I said "evaluate": if one chooses to "believe in" either model and live his life by it, he does so by faith, so that is his religion).

Science observes the universe in the present time, and so we can say: How does the current state of the earth compare to what evolution predicts, versus, how does the current state of the earth compare to what creation predicts? That is science!

For example, if evolution were true we would expect to see some sort of universal law or principle of physics which encourages (or at least; allows!) random, disordered systems to move towards systems of increasing order. Because even "evolution by accident" needs to have a method of operating -- but there is nothing! In fact, there is just the opposite - entropy! This is exceedingly important, please read those three sentences a few more times.

So now they try to say that entropy (the 2nd Law) is actually the "driving force" behind evolution! This is an incredibly silly position, as they have already admitted that entropy is killing the universe. But evolutionists have two huge problems - there is nothing to encourage evolution, and entropy forbids evolution - so they grasp at straws as they drown in quicksand, and combine the two problems and call it an 'explanation'. But no mechanism is given, because there isn't one. And there can't possibly be one. So they try to deceive you with wishful thinking.

If creation were true, we can expect that the creator had placed everything in its original order. Negative entropy can only be created by some intelligent source outside of the universe (so that's where seeds came from!). So that now, either everything is still in order, or everything is running down if the creator does not maintain the order. The bible claims everything was created perfect, and because of Adam's sin the universe is not maintained and is therefore running down (devolving - entropy in action). Before Adam sinned every animal ate plants, and no animal died. After Adam sinned the earth was cursed, death began to occur, and the universe began running down from its perfectly ordered state (increasing disorder - "you will surely die"). (Part of the curse was that plants would now bear thorns. Not said, but implied, is that animals suddenly bore teeth and claws suitable for hunting, killing, and eating animals.)

So what does science observe which fits with these two models? Thermodynamics is the basis from which scientific understanding flows. The Laws of Thermodynamics are fundamental -- every serious scientist and physicist believes in them. They might as well be called: "The Laws of Energy". Entropy is the principle derived from the Laws of Thermodynamics, actually it is just a different way of stating the Second Law while obeying the First Law. Entropy FORBIDS "increasing order by accident" (upwards evolution). Entropy demands increasing disorder, and creation demands increasing disorder at the present time. No scientist has ever observed evolution, but they have observed devolution every day. So when we look at the universe in which we live, which model of origins fits the observed facts??

One fundamental truth of organized systems is that the more complex they become, the more likely they are to have problems, and break down. You can toss out a bunch of atoms in one place and expect a star might form, if the external conditions are just right, as stars are not very complex. But what if you expect a DNA molecule to form by accident from randomly distributed atoms? It is extremely unlikely. DNA is very complex. And yet it is only the starting point to expecting amoebas to form. Expecting a man to form, even through trillions of years of evolution, is staggeringly unlikely. Developing a working, highly-complex system by accident is impossible. Some of the creationists like to ask, "How often does a tornado go thru a junkyard and actually 'construct' something from the loose parts?" Never, of course. And that's when the parts already exist, and are already collected into one general area.

Darwin and his contemporaries thought the human cell was basically a bag of jelly with a seemingly useless nucleus. Nowadays we know the animal cell is a horrendously, staggeringly, insanely complicated machine. There is no way it could've evolved into existence by accident. Instead of jelly, we have something as complex as a space shuttle. When was the last time you saw a space shuttle appear from nothing? And even if the pile of parts were there, you would not have the information you need to assemble them. Information does not come from nowhere. Although complicated things like to break down, our cells are amazingly reliable and versatile. Good design! Humans built several space shuttles - one blew up, one burned up, not good odds, but that's what you expect from complicated things. Now try it at nano-scale!!

The bigbang says that all energy was contained in a small volume, but at infinite temperature, so the entropy of the universe was at a maximum. A single human brain contains an ENORMOUS amount of negative entropy. To get from the bigbang to a human brain is a violation of the most fundamental LAW of the universe. It can not happen by accident! Forget mere theories, we're talking about Laws here (please look up the difference between a model, a hypothesis, a scientific theory, and a Law of physics -- when a theory violates a Law, the theory goes into the toilet).

The Big Bang supposedly happened 14.7 billion years ago. This is actually presented as a fact, although it is impossible to prove. Yet it is a fact (according to the Big Bang hypothesis) that we can see galaxies already formed 14 billion years ago. If we can see galaxies 14 billion years ago in one direction, it follows that we can see them that far in every direction. That means that either the Earth is the center of the universe, or the Big Bang model has already failed completely, or both.

This might be a surprise to you, but I am not opposed to the big bang. What I am opposed to is the claim that the big bang is a fact (and I am opposed to evolution completely). I am opposed to the claim that the big bang and the laws of physics naturally led to the universe we see today. It could very well be that Yahweh created the universe 14 billion years ago in a way which now appears to us as the big bang.

For example, up above I trashed on the so-called 'Inflation Theory' as not being a true theory, and as not following the laws of physics. So if you look at it as the Inflation Principle instead, and accept that only a miracle could cause it to occur, and then stop occurring, then it is consistent with creation. It is also consistent with the speculative creation account I supplied on my NOTES page. It is identical with the claim in scriptures that Yahweh "stretched out the heavens" (e.g. Isaiah 40:22 "He that sits upon the circle of the earth ... that stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." and Jeremiah 10:12 "has stretched out the heavens at His discretion". See also Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Psalms 104:2, Job 9:8, Jeremiah 51:15, and Zechariah 12:1).

The big bangers claim that the universe began as a pin-point of infinite energy, and expanded from there. I cannot say that is wrong because I can imagine that Yahweh created such a pin-point of energy, and the laws of physics. Even the big bang had to have something prior to it, to bring it into being. Negative entropy would have had to be created - the laws of physics do not allow it to come about by chance or accident.

They claim that the big bang caused a smooth, homogenous area of pure energy to begin expanding. At some point this energy supposedly cooled off enough for protons and electrons to form, and for molecules to form from them. Er, dare I ask? Why didn't ALL of the energy turn into particles?? Why only some of it? Maybe because a creator would only generate as much neg-entropy as he desired?

Then after the molecules formed the universe continued expanding. This means that the molecules would move away from each other. Yet there had to be some mechanism to bring them together to form stars. Gravity is not that mechanism. Remember that all these molecules are evenly distributed across the universe, and so gravity would have been the same everywhere. Once again, negative entropy has to come from somewhere.

Even if there really was any sort of energy density or any other gradient after the big bang, entropy would quickly smooth it all out long before any stars, galaxies, or people could form. But the cosmologists have to keep searching desperately, for there is no other way for evolution. And there was one who suggested the laws of physics worked the opposite to the way they do now, and that is how galaxies were able to form. But please, when did the laws revert to the way they are now? We see galaxies very far away in space and time, and we can determine that the laws worked the same over there billions of years ago as they do over here right now. Entropy rules the universe, all of it. They say life got started first, then entropy came into play. But that is non-sense. Once entropy comes into play, there is no evolution. They say evolution is still occurring. They say we have entropy and we have evolution, even though they are mutually exclusive concepts. You can NOT have both! Choose. One or the other. But when you choose, remember, entropy is observed every day, and upwards evolution has never been observed. So if you choose evolution, your choice is based on faith only, so it is your religion.

Creationism appears to be compatible with science (observation and experimentation) and with physics. If we believe the universe was created perfect, then was cursed to die because of sin, then the universe we see around us is exactly what we expect to see. Accidental evolution is not compatible. It seems to me, that creationism is the only sensible thing to trust in. There are only two choices. The universe itself acts like it was created, and it seems opposed to evolution.

Scripture says that Yahweh is in everything, and everything is in Yahweh. In my model, therefore, Yahweh is the creator and maintainer of negative entropy, and all energy is Yahweh's energy. Which means that everything which exists - the whole universe and everything in it - is part of Yahweh our Creator. He brought together and sustains everything which is. Not one molecule can exist without his knowledge.

Try this: Imagine a universe in your mind. You can decide what is what, and make things happen. That universe could not exist unless you made it exist. It cannot exist without you. It would never have existed unless you created it. All of that universe is part of you, and part of you is all of that universe you have imagined. Now picture it on a bigger scale - the universe you live in is part of Yahweh. He is what the universe is made out of, and He is the negative entropy which is everything in this universe.

    -- LET US TRY THIS AGAIN --

Our universe is composed of energy, and nothing but energy. So it has to obey the Laws of Energy.

Well, the First Law of Thermodynamics says you can't create nor destroy energy. You can convert it into other types of energy, even into mass (E=Mc²). Conservation Of Energy, and so forth. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in the process of changing energy into different forms, some of that energy is "used-up" by falling into its lowest state. It remains energy, but it has reached a stage from which it is no longer useable. There is no longer a place for that energy to flow to. That quantity of un-usable energy in the universe is called entropy. So entropy is just a concept with which to measure the progress of the Second Law of Energy as time goes by. It tells us how much chaos/ disorder/ etc exists currently.

The Second Law says that entropy is always increasing. It means that order becomes disorder, information gets destroyed, etc. Science magazines regularly run articles describing the inevitable "heat-death" of the universe. A pot of boiling water has more condensed energy than the relatively cool air in the room. So the Second Law says the energy will leave the pot. The water cools, and the air warms. Then, when everything is at equilibrium, when everything is the temperature same as everything else, energy cannot flow.

The big bang had infinite entropy. There could not have been any knowledge or structure, nor any thing which was in any way different from every other thing. How do we then get to a universe where there is a finite amount of entropy? Where did all of the organization and knowledge in our universe come from? How could the amount of entropy in the universe decrease drastically, when the most basic and well-agreed upon Law of Physics says entropy can only increase? Since the universe started out in chaos, where did the chaos go? How did order come from chaos? How did energy leave one area and add itself to another area which had more energy than the first area?

Suddenly, you realize ....

The only way order comes from disorder, the only way knowledge comes from chaos, is when an intelligence from outside the system purposely creates that order. The universe was created. Evolution is impossible. Evolution is currently impossible, and has always been impossible.

Entropy is not just the initial creation, it is all the time. Take as an example a moment 100,000,000 years ago. Supposedly there were a bunch of critters running around, dinosaurs and so forth. Supposedly they evolved upwards into what we see today - humans and whatnot. But if you apply the Laws of Thermodynamics to that moment (or any other moment), you see it is completely and unquestionably impossible for life to evolve upwards into more complex animals and plants. Increased complexity requires an increase in information. That would require entropy to decrease (go in reverse). But it does not, ever, go in reverse unless acted on from outside the system by an intelligent force (in this case the system is our universe).

Hence, not only was the universe created, so was everything IN the universe.

    -- MY CONCLUSION --

Spontaneous negative entropy is impossible according to the universe we live in. All of our experiments and observations support this fact. Neg-entropy is the spontaneous gathering together of randomness and chaos into some kind of organization. It is absolutely required by evolution! Evolution teaches that the universe was completely random, yet evolved upwardly into what we see today. Evolution absolutely requires some method for a non-organized system to organize itself. But the opposite condition exists.

As we look around the world today, we know there is NO WAY that non-organized things organize themselves into something meaningful. It just never happens. There are billions of grains of sand on the beach, but they only turn into castles when a child comes along. The child is the outside intelligence which created the organization of the grains of sand into the castle. Millions of waves big and little do not create castles, because there is no intelligence. Our universe operates the same way.

If we got here by evolution from nothing, somehow life accidentally got started here on earth, or you could believe it was accidentally brought here from some other place from which it started accidentally. If life can start from nothing by accident, why doesn't it keep happening here on earth? Why did life only start once, and then everything descended from there? Why are there no fossils showing the actual act of evolution, one species going into another species? (oh right, that's why Gould invented the "punctuated equilibrium" story) Why don't we see life on other planets in the solar system? After all these "billions of years" it would seem like there'd be thousands of different types of life-forms - life should be bubbling out all over.

We would not have this large brain if evolution were true, unless it was somehow a benefit to us. But look, if we use only a portion of it, then obviously the brain is more trouble than it is worth. So, why do we have such a large brain? I see no good reason to believe we evolved upwards into it. There is every good reason to believe we are de-volving along with the rest of the universe. No human honestly observes upwards evolution. We all observe entropy. We all observe things wearing out and dying.

     Entropy always increases. Entropy rules the universe.

There are questions about creation which we will never know the answer to, if creation is really how we got here. There are also questions about evolution which we would never know the answer to, if we wanted to believe in evolution.

For example, if we wanted to believe in evolution, we'd have to wonder what mechanism puts evil temptations into men's minds? Are we ever tempted to do good? Evil temptations are far stronger. Where do they come from? Devils and demons? Aliens? Why are we being tested, unless, maybe the whole satan thing is true? The mere fact that I keep receiving evil temptations, even after telling myself to quit, strongly supports the claim that satan is god of this world.

Evolution is not provable, but it is falsifiable. In fact, it has already been falsified by entropy. A theory can have thousands of experiments allowing it, but one single repeatable experiment can completely falsify it. There are no exceptions to the Law Of Entropy. Didn't they teach you all about entropy in school? Oh, right, of course not! They knew you'd find out that evolution is a joke. Since evolution cannot be proven, it cannot be believed in - except by blind faith (religion). However, since evolution can be falsified, it can be rejected based on knowledge (science). And it has already been falsified (proven to be false) by entropy, so we can have confidence that we are doing the correct thing when we reject evolution completely.

Darwin's theory of evolution is DEAD! That is correct. Why is the media hiding it from you? Did you know Darwinian evolution has been officially debunked and dead for many years? Darwin is finished. Even the emminent and staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould made that claim in his book. He just failed to say it was the pro-creationist debaters who forced him to admit it.

Certainly, the creation model of the universe fits with observed facts very much better than does the evolution model. As such, it seems silly to 'believe in' evolution or the bigbang. Religion is defined as "placing your cosmological belief in something that can't be proven". Funny, a cult is defined the same way. Since no human can observe or experiment on the past, then no human can know with certainty how we got here. So what you believe, you believe based on facts of what the universe of today tells you, or you believe something a human tells you. Either way, you are practicing religion.

The most important question a person can ask him or her self is: was the universe created, or did it get here by accident? After that, all other questions are just details.

Thermodynamics, the most basic of the Laws of Physics -- agreed upon by pretty much every scientist on the planet -- DEMANDS that the universe was created. Given that, the laws of probability indicate the 'Israelite' scriptures are real. The great religion of "modern science" says the universe got here by accident. The scientists (priests) preach about what they want you to believe in. But no evolution is observed, only devolution is observed. There is no universal law of increasing order, only a universal law of increasing dis-order (entropy, the second law of thermodynamics). Entropy is what would be expected if the universe was created perfect, and has been running down ever since then, like the scripture says. Evolution (evil-lution) requires the universe to allow negative entropy to spontaneously occur, and no human has ever seen that. So, in my opinion, entropy is indisputable scientific proof that the universe and everything in it was created!

Apparently there is no possible way the universe could have evolved here by accident. The scientists/preachers claim that they have "proven" that the universe is very old, but that is only their personal interpretation of the observable facts. They have to claim that, in order for their bigbang/evolution religion to work. Just because they teach evolution in schools does not make it true. They refuse to admit that proof of the origin of the universe is outside the domain of real science attainable by humans.

True science is a body of knowledge based on observation and experimentation, and no one can observe or experiment on the past. 'Belief' in the bigbang/evolution worldview is accepted on FAITH, and as such, is a religion. My views on the religious side of this question can be found HERE. Or go ahead and click the Next Chapter link below.

The fallacy of evolution is removed. Now it is only a cult of people who believe in what a human tells them. Evolution reduces to a faith-based religion. I follow a fact-based religion, entropy. This leaves behind only creation as an explanation of how we got here. Uh-oh! There are two things scarey to contemplate: the finite state of entropy in this universe, and that empty grave. Somehow the universe was created by someone who owns it. No matter what the details are, there really will be a judgment day.

The creation versus evolution debate is ended.

Thank you for reading!

~~  Yahchanan  ~~


++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++

Warning! I am not the first person to say the things I said above. There are very good reasons to believe in creation. If you want independent info on the scientific merits of all of these things contact the Institute For Creation Research in Santee, California. Or in Australia is the Creation Research Institute, a similar place. Or search on the internet, and you can peruse the links on this site. Some of these things are covered in detail, for example in "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb & Morris, which book also provides a long list of other scientific reasons to believe in creation. I have provided what I believe is the best reason (entropy), but there are hundreds of good reasons to believe in creation, when you look at it from an objective, scientific view. For example, see these books:

     Scientific Creationism: Henry Morris ISBN 089051003-2
     The Genesis Flood: John Whitcomb  ISBN 087552338-2
     The Lie, Evolution:  Ken Ham  ISBN 089051158-6
     Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Josh McDowell  ISBN 091895646-3
     The Cult Explosion:  Dave Hunt  ISBN 089081241-1
     The Case for a Creator:  Lee Strobel  ISBN 978-0310241447
     In Six Days:  John F. Ashton  ISBN 978-0890513415
     Science vs. Evolution:  Vance Ferrell