Before I step into the primordial soup that is Chemical Evolution, which slips nicely down the logical slope into the quagmire of Abiogenesis, I must preface those future posts with some foundational data. This data is important for context. The foundational data we must examine has to do with the fallacy of Darwinist reification and the age of the earth. In this post, I will focus on reification.Pin It
This post will conclude my look at the Darwinian take on the Birth of Stars by listing further scientific problems with the theory and concluding with the number one problem that is insurmountable for Darwinist believers.Pin It
In my first few posts explaining some of the problems with Stellar Evolution, I detailed the logical problems with the theory and several scientific problems. One of the major conclusions I reached in my personal journey of discovery was that each and every single logical and scientific problem with the collective theories of Darwinian evolution amount to single limiting factors.
Any single limiting factor is enough to refute the entire theory.Pin It
Steller evolution is the theory of the origin of stars, or how stars are born. The theories of stellar evolution can be largely separated into two categories. There are theories that fall into how stars “evolved” as part of the aftermath of the Cosmic Evolution brought about by the Big Bang, and there are other theories about how stars are “evolving” even today.Pin It
I will now disregard facts and reason once again in order to ASSUME that, contrary to logic and every known physical law:
1. the particles DID magically manage to move toward one another and
2. the particles COULD slow down and change directions.
If I were a Darwinist, I would have the uncanny mental ability to ignore logic and facts that refute my theory of creation absent a Creator. In that case, I could focus exclusively on evidence that supports my theory and cling to that evidence with religious zeal and fervor.
In order to understand the Darwinist methodology, one must first understand some basic rules of the scientific process. Good science is simple. Good science is observable. Good science is predictive (models reality) and makes many specific, correct predictions. Good science relies upon very few assumptions and no arbitrary assumptions.Pin It
Matter, like air, can get hot. An absense of matter cannot get hot. Heat is energy. Energy is simply transformed matter. This is why we have the first law of thermodynamics. But nothingness is an absence of matter and and absence of energy. In point of fact, nothing is an absense of everything. Nothing can become neither dense nor hot. Things like air get hot, because air is matter, not an absence of it, and some of the matter in air can be transformed into energy which nothing cannot do since it is nothing.Pin It
There are two main categories of problems with the Big Bang theory, the currently accepted theory of how the universe and all space, time, and matter came into existence. First, there are some clear logical problems. Second, there are thousands of scientific problems. The theory stands in clear violation of physical laws and celestial mechanics.Pin It
In plain English, micro-evolution is what happens when, say for example, corn pollinates and makes slightly different corn in the next generation of … corn. Or when dogs interbreed and make a different breed of dog. Or when human beings have human babies. In other words, it isn’t even evolution. It is simply modification within kind, also called change within kind, also called variation within kind.Pin It