Evolution is not defensible scientifically To start we have to define some terms: Stupid: Lacking normal intelligence: foolish: silly: bad idea: Evolution lacks common sense and it lacks intelligence. Evolutionist Richard Dawking, Most lump evolution into one incoherent definition, but really it has six. To really understand why we have to define some more terms. And the first five are pure religious. Only the last, micro 'evolution' or variation is observable and factual. All evidence for evolution only uses variation to claim truth to the other five kinds. 1. Cosmic evolution - The origin of time space and matter. Big Bang. Before you can have a coherent theory of Evolution you need to establish how time, space and matter came about. It's a continuum, you can't have one without the other. Can't have space without time etc... If you have time but no space, where are you going to put it ? If you have space, but no time when are you going to put it ? The Big Bang theory states that all the energy and matter in existence was inherent in a little dot about the size of a period. And before this was literally noting, literally. And this noting blew up, out and is still expanding. From time magazine, Time, space, matter cannot create itself. It needs an outside force to be created. It also assumes that from this explosion order was created. Who's ever seen a big bang create order ? Bing bangs create big messes. The Second Law of Thermal Dynamics tells us everything is falling apart. Everything tends toward disorder. Nothing gets better by itself. The humanist manifesto regards the universe as self existing and not created. To say the universe is self existing is stupid. That violates the Second law of Thermal Dynamics. Evolutionist say that you can add energy and overcome this law. They assume that adding it (assuming an that the universe is an open system) will over come the 2nd law. 1. The universe is a closed system by definition 2. adding energy is only destructive without a complex mechanism to harness the energy. Evolutionist also say evolution can over come this by adding energy from the sun. The Japanese add a lot of energy to Peal Harbor in 1941 and that did not organize anything. We returned the favor a few years later, added energy to a few of their cities...did not organize anything still. Adding energy is destructive. The sun's energy will destroy so it is not the solution to evolution. To assume to add energy to over come the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics is stupid. It is not that simple. Evolutionist assume that if you give enough time, things get better. Give things time and they actually get worse. Text books say the dot (big bang dot) was spinning, and then exploded. A spinning object that breaks apart will send all the fragments off spinning in the same direction, according and ruled by The Law of Conservation on Angular Momentum. The fragments cannot collide either, and the longer you wait the further it they spread and distance from fragment to fragment. Just as if a hand grenade explodes, the fragments never hit one another in the field someplace. 1. Venus, Uranus and possibly Pluto rotate backward form the other six planets. 2. 8 of the 91 known moons rotate backward. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. 3. Some galaxies spin backward. 4. Bing Bang theory is stupid. Text books say as earth formed its surface was hot and there were large pools of bubbling lava. Was the earth really ever a hot molten mass ? Dr. Robert Gentry has done lots of study on the Granite rock around the world. He found they all contain Radio Plutonium Halo's with an extremely short half life. He proved they were never a hot molten mass. If you melt Granite rock and let it cool down again it does not turn back into granite again. We still have Granite all over the world. This tell us positively that the earth was never had a hot molten, bubbling lava pool. 2. Chemical Evolution - The origin of higher elements from hydrogen. They say the Big Bang created Hydrogen and some Helium. Evolutionist think the Periodic Table of Elements came from this big bang. Assuming all the elements formed from Hydrogen, some Helium. Atoms of Hydrogen in the proto sun were fused to make Helium. This can happen. Though it is stupid to think that can form all the elements. Hydrogen fuses to Helium. But, you cannot fuse past Iron though. How did we get all the elements ? Evolutionist assume for example, that we got Uranium from Hydrogen. This lacks normal intelligence. It's chemically impossible. Chemical evolution is not observed, it is purely theoretical. 3. Stellar Evolution - Origin of stars and planets. Text books say 18 - 20 (8 or 14 it changes all the time) billions years ago the big bang formed the galaxies. We got a serious problem here. This nothing exploded while it was spinning and formed all the galaxies. Problems are many for this theory: 1. The big bang cannot make nice neat, orderly galaxies. The galaxies are incredibly designed, to the galaxies level all the way down to the molecular level. 2. We see a Star blow up about every thirty years. When this happens we call it a Nova or Super Nova. If universe is billions of years old, why are there less than 300 Super Nova rings discovered ? (dead stars) There should be several hundred million of them. Are the Stars wrong or the evolution theory ? Stupid. 3. They say new Stars are constantly being born in clouds of gas and dust. First of all, this not ever observed. - Martin Harwilt, Science, Vol 231 7 March 1986 p. 1201 - 1202 4. Evolutionist assume you can get dust and squeeze it together to make a Star. But if you try to squeeze gas together and the pressure will drive it apart, as stated by laws like Boyle's Gas Law. 5. Nobody has ever seen gasses turn into solids by there own gravitational force. 6. If Stars Evolve, Star births should equal Star deaths. Novas and Super Novas are Star deaths. Some have been observed. Where is the evidence for Star births ? We are seeing one die every thirty years and not one has ever been seen being formed. 7. Evolutionist think that losing Stars every thirty years and never replacing them will lead to having over 70 sextillion Stars. (like keep spending money and you'll be rich lol) 8. Scientist think they see this formation. But what they are seeing is a spot getting brighter, and they assume it's a Star forming. It could be a dust cloud clearing in front of it or another Super Nova going on. All they are seeing is a spot getting brighter.