The scientists are unsure whether our universe is a closed or an open universe. But everything that happens, happens because something caused it. (Therefore, chance does not exist, and there would have to be a “beginner” to cause the big bang.) My understanding is that this is about the aftermath of the big bang (which does not give us any clue about what banged, or the cause of the bang or what happened after the bang) but if it happened (I’m not saying it did or didn’t for I wasn’t there observing either) then it would be a chaotic beginning. Evidently, there would be a fireball filling the spaces causing a vacuum that would cause the universe to expand. The scientists have lots of different theories on which they have never agreed. However, most believe that our universe is an open universe in which its expansion would never terminate. If it were a closed universe, its expansion would stop at a certain point and start to shrink. The fact that there was no one observing or recording all this hasn’t made a dent in the atheists addled brain. And it certainly can’t be demonstrated in any lab. It’s still just a theory. Their “Proof” is just another way evolutionists try to explain why the evidence doesn't fit. And they cannot prove their theory in the lab.

It would be interesting to hear what gobble-de-gook the atheists would come up with to explain this question. What got the earth to spinning and what is the fuel that keeps it running at the proper speed? For if the earth spun just a little slower, we would struggle to keep our bodies off the floor. A little faster and coffee wouldn’t stay in our cups, nor pens in our pockets, etc. We would struggle to keep from flying off into space.

Mutations are necessary for Darwin's “natural selection.” But medical science has found that mutations are either fatal, harmful or neutral. The critter is worse off than its ancestors are or there was no benefit. The vast majorities are harmful. Neither are they inherited by offspring (except in some bacteria). Some bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics. But that is not usually due to mutations, but to enzymes that inactivate three poisons in antibiotics. Mutations only give a scrambled version of what you already have. Natural selection (survival of the fittest,) only keeps species strong. Survival of the fittest does not explain -- the arrival of the fittest. And most of the time it is the luckiest that survive. If a snake crawls into a nest and eats 3 of 4 eggs, it doesn't know which was the fittest.

They raised 80,000 generations of fruit fly‘s, They nuked them, micro-waved them, x-rayed them and did every thing they could think of to cause them to mutate. They got fly’s with red eyes, no eyes, two wings, four wings, or no wings, legs and no legs, When the experiment was over they said, “This is as far as we can go. Apparently fruit flies have evolved as far as they can.” Handy deduction, huh?

According to Jonathan Wells’s book on Icons of Evolution, Darwin's theory teaches that humans and fruit flies shared a common ancestor sometime in the past. But the ancestral species split into several species only slightly different from each other. These species would then have evolved in different directions under the influence of natural selection until at least one of them would have become so different from the others that it could be considered a different genus. As generations passed, differences would continue to accumulate until separate families would exist. The four winged fruit fly is used in the textbooks as proof of evolution. But they don’t occur spontaneously, and the extra pair of wings doesn’t have flight muscles, which is a handicap to the fly.

© 04-15-2008 JS  

              Last Article The Fools of Evolution Part VI