THE BIG BANG
(continued)

Complication in the Primordial Soup
(Life Messengers: Destined for Greatness)

AN ATOM: The smallest particle of an element that combines with similar particles of other elements to produce compounds: Atoms combine to form molecules.

Here's proof which shows the utter impossibility of the first living cell coming about by evolution. The protein molecules which go to make up a cell each contain thousands of atoms of a half dozen different elements. Think how impossible it would be for the right number of atoms of the right 6 elements to come together accidentally.

In the supposed churning of the prehistoric seas the right number of atoms of each of the 6 right elements would have had to accidentally come together at the same time, at the same place, omitting from their number all atoms from all the other 86 elements in nature.

Also, these thousands of atoms of 6 different elements would have had to come together in the right sequence and order if they were to form a protein molecule!

Let's restate that:

To believe in chance or spontaneous creation, one must believe that the right number of atoms of the right 6 elements came together accidentally (thousands of them) at the right time, at the right place, in exactly the right sequence, omitting from their number all atoms from all the other 86 elements in nature, to form one protein molecule.

The eminent scientist, Charles-Eugene Guye once calculated the probability of the accidental or spontaneous creation of a single protein molecule on earth.  He said that it might happen once in 10 to the 243 years.

That's the figure 10 followed by 243 zeros!

That's millions of billions of years for the possible forming of one molecule But you'd still have a dead molecule.

Then consider the fact that there are millions of protein molecules in the most simple cell. These millions of molecules and other particles of the cell would also need to be formed at the same place and the same time. 

The odds against that happening accidentally would be a number I doubt the entire world could contain.  But then you'd still have dead proteins in a dead cell.

But for the sake of argument, let us assume that somehow in this primordial soup, life did form and evolved and slowly all sorts of animals evolved.  Let's just take a look at one of these animals that evolved, the elephant.  Here are some questions that need to be asked.

1. Was this elephant that evolved a pink elephant or a blue elephant?  For those who do not understand colors, was this elephant a male or female elephant?  Let's just say for argument's sake, that it was a female.

1. In order to have baby elephants, wouldn't there have to be a male elephant that evolved, too, would there not be?

1. To further complicate matters, would not the male elephant have to evolve about the same time?

1. To further complicate matters even more, would not the male elephant have to evolve in the same place? 

Hmmmm!  With no God, this would have had to have been a pretttttttty lucky happening.  But you know what is really amazing?  This had to happen to EVERY species of fish, birds and animals that have a male and female counterpart of which 99.9% do.  All species had to have:

1. Two evolve of that species of the same fish, bird or animal
2. at the same time,
3. at the same place and
4. one would have had to evolve as a male and
5. the other would have had to evolve as a female. 

Whew!  That is REALLY luck!  Ah, but then, maybe half the rock on the earth was pink and the other half was blue and from the pink and blue rocks evolved the male and female counter parts!  Ah, that is it!  That is the answer!  Evolutionist tell the Creationists, "You believe that all dogs came from just two dogs."  Well, let me tell you what the Evolutionists believe.  They believe all dogs came from a rock.  Hmmmm!  Who has the far out belief?

But of course, not all evolutionists believe that things evolved over a long period of time, but those folks from the "Punctuated Equilibrium" side, believe that it is the mode in which we got different species.  Note the following:

More Trouble for the Theory of Evolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
Punctuated equilibrium, bottom, consists of morphological stability and rare bursts of evolutionary change.

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most sexually reproducing species will experience little evolutionary change for most of their geological history (in an extended state called stasis). When evolution occurs, it is localized in rare, rapid events of branching speciation (called cladogenesis). Cladogenesis is simply the process by which species split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous.

In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper was built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis, as well as their own empirical research.   Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

So, in a nutshell, they are telling us there was not gradual evolution of one species to another.  They are saying that in a short time, one species split into two distinct species.  Hmmmmm!   With this in mind, let's take a look at what the National Geographic News says, and then we will put this all together.

Whales Evolved From Tiny Deer-like Mammals, Study Says James Owen for National Geographic News - December 19, 2007

The nearest ancestors of Earth's largest-ever animals were tiny deer-like creatures that jumped into rivers to flee prehistoric predators, a new study suggests.
The fossils show distinct features that suggest the ancient ungulates, or hoofed mammals, are the long-sought "missing links" in the evolution of whales, the scientists report in tomorrow's issue of the journal Nature.

"Ballast" Bones

In particular, the structure of the animal's skull and ears show that Indohyus was closely related to whales, the study team said.

These findings were "very surprising," given Indohyus' deer-like appearance, Thewissen said.

WHAT!?  So, over a short period of time the Indohyus, through Cladogenesis, split into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.  You mean to say that a Indohyus had a baby whale or maybe the whale was the baby (#1), of a baby (#2), of a baby (#3), of a baby (#4), of a baby (#5), of a baby (#6), and even a hundred more babies (#106) and out came a whale?   Hmmmm!   Did the transformation take place after the first baby, or did it take 106 babies.  If a small transformation took a 106 babies aren't we getting into a gradual transformation?  But if indeed a Indohyus gave birth to a whale, it certainly gets rid of the problem of the "missing-links" in the fossil record.  Hmmmm!   Did the transformation take place after the first baby, or did it take 106 babies.

As I sit here and think about it, it takes more "faith" in evolution than to believe in God.  Truly, evolution is a religion for it involves a tremendous amount of faith.  I think it is easier to believe in an eternal God who created everything.  So now, let us take a look at the Creation side of this whole matter.

Psalms 19:1 - The heavens declare the glory of God: the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Does the cosmos testify to God's existence?  Some "thinkers" believe that it does.  In his book Scaling the Secular City:  A Defense of Christianity, J.P. Moreland outlines one way to reason from the universe's existence to God's existence.  He builds his argument upon these three premises:

1.        The universe had a beginning.
2.        The beginning of the universe was caused.
3.        The cause of the beginning of the universe was personal.

How does this argument work?

The Universe Had a Beginning

Philosophy and reasoning prove that the universe had a beginning and the cause of that beginning must have been personal.

Consider Eternity:  Here is how philosophy can help establish the claim that the universe had a beginning.  Let's assume that after you die the time you spend in eternity is marked by days.  after the first day of your eternal life, could it be said that you've lived eternally?

No, for you've only lived one day in eternity.  You haven't lived eternally.  But even after you've lived for a trillion days it could not be said that you've lived for eternity.  As a matter of fact, no matter how long you live in eternity, it could never be said that you've lived for eternity, for there would always be tomorrow, another day.  This illustrates the fact that you can't cross or exhaust an infinite amount of time.  It's simply impossible.

Now Consider Time:  Since the past ends in the present, then the past has to be finite, not infinite.  Otherwise an actual infinite amount of time would have passed to get to the present.  But that's impossible.  As we've seen, an infinite amount of time can't be crossed or exhausted.  Yet the past ends int he present, so time hasn't always been.  There was a time when time began.

Since time had a beginning, and since our universe exists in space and time, our universe, then had to have a beginning, too.  This is how philosophy shows that the universe had a beginning.

Both the bible and the Big Bang Theory Supports Philosophy Conclusion: Now, both the Bible and the Big Bang Theory claims that everything in our present universe had a beginning.  The Big Bang theory says that at one time everything was compacted into a single mathematical point which came from nothing which exploded into being.  The Bible claims that God created everything from nothing in the beginning.

Second Law of Thermodynamics Supports Philosophy Conclusion: Besides the two approaches to the beginning of the universe there is another scientific argument used to support the claim that the universe had a beginning appeals to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system the amount of energy available to do work is always decreasing.  If the whole realm of nature is all that there is, then it's a closed system no matter how vast it may be, and this law of thermodynamics applies.

Think of it this way: If we liken the universe to a massive cosmic campfire, then there is coming a time when the fire will go out.   For this very reason, then, the universe could not have existed forever.  Otherwise its fire would have gone out long ago.  Since the fire is still burning, the universe had to have a beginning some finite time ago.

Conclusion: Considering the scientific arguments based on the Big Bang Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and considering the philosophical argument about the past being finite, we can conclude that the universe had a beginning.


The Beginning of the Universe Was Caused

If we have these arguments we have established that the universe did not always exist, then we have to consider what caused the universe to be.  That brings us to the point that the beginning of the universe was caused. 

Potentiality: Now it may seem quite evident to most that if the universe began, then something caused the universe to be.  After all, something doesn't come from nothing.  But what is obvious to most is occasionally denied by some.

In Moreland's book Does God Exist?, William Lane Craig offers a good illustration in reply to those who would deny that the beginning of the universe was caused.  He says:

In absolute nothingness, not even potentialities exist, since potentialities are always lodged in something that is actual.  For example, my wife and I have a potential third child; but where does this potentiality lie?  Not in the child himself, who is simply nonexistent, but in the reproductive capacities of our actual bodies.  But that means that if there were absolute nothingness--no matter, no energy, no space, to time, no God--then nothing could come to exist.  There would not exist even the potentiality of the universe.

Something caused the universe to be--the question is what?