If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

The Second Law of Theromdynamics Makes Evolution Impossible

You have probably heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Do you understand it? It's not to hard to understand. If you paint a fence white, after a few years, the paint is looking pretty bad. That's what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is all about.

The Evolutionists will tell you a half truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Evolutionists will tell the half truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the Earth is an open system." This is a clever lie. Here is the part of the truth that they are withholding: the Second Law of Thermodynamics was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Not only that, but we are not talking about the Earth. The Earth is just a subsystem of a much larger system called the Universe. The Universe is an isolated system. Evolutionists claim that Evolution took place in this isolated system, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that their story is a myth.

More information on the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be found here & here & here & here & here

If you walked into a small town with computers, machinery, and such like, but there were no people around, would you assume that natural forces created the city? No. That's because you understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Suppose someone said that the power of the sun beating on the earth had made the city pop into existence, what would you think about that person? Suppose that person had a doctor's degree and was teaching at a leading university, would you believe him then?

If you found out about something that was much more complex than a large city with miniature robots and machines and computers more amazing than anything yet developed by IBM, would you assume that natural forces created it? Would you assume that it popped into existence by accident with all it's intricate interrelated parts working perfectly? I would hope not. What we are describing is the most simple cell that exists, and no sane person would think that something as complex as this had come into existence from natural forces. Suppose a professor at the university had told you that a cell popped into existence one day, would you believe him? I would hope not.

If you take all your files out of the file cabinets and stack them in neat stacks on your front lawn, then let six years pass, how much information will you still have? Less than what you started with, wouldn't you? That's the Second Law in action.

Let's say you put your files on the front lawn and wait ten years, would information be added then? What if you waited millions of years, would information be added after millions of years? Suppose that you added energy in the form of solar energy to your files over millions of years, would that add to your information? Evolution teaches that it would. (Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

Very few people actually believe Darwin's theory. Almost all Americans believe in creation. And the people who are getting all the government money at the universities wonder why they aren't able to convince more people that their theory makes sense. Duh!

Natural forces do not add to information or organization. They make things random over time. Some people once thought there were exceptions to this rule, but they were wrong. Even the supposed exceptions all show a loss of information. Random processes never add information. That's the Second Law. It always holds true.

Evolution says that random processes add information. Science disagrees with evolution on this point. Evolution cannot survive as a theory unless random processes would add information to the cells. Because evolution is a religion and not science, evolutionists will argue for evolution even though science proves that evolutionism is a myth. These cult followers of evolution will defend their religion and try to stop anyone else from talking about anything that shows their religion to be bogus. That's the nature of closed-minded dogmatism.

The problem for evolutionists is that random processes never add information. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that natural processes result in a loss of information; never an increase.

Questions and Answer from Site Visitor:

Question:

In context of the second law of thermodynamics, what do you think about the possible "discovery" of the "God-Particles" recently? Does this energy converter (Higgs Boson) prove to be the "missing link" of evolution? From my reading it helps me identify that "all things were created by Him, for Him, and through Him" but of course the general secular conclusion would be that this is an essential component to evolution-ism/big bang theory.

Answer:

Thank you for your question. I think that you need a more technical answer than I would be qualified to give. On SeekFind.net, I have tried to take the technical and bring it down to a level where the average reader could understand. My grandchildren would question whether or not I have done that effectively. At any rate, I think that if you were to read these few articles you would come away with a very good technical understanding of the issue and you would be able to answer those who challenge what God is plainly saying through His Word and through His creation (science).

have scientists found the god-particle
Is higgs-boson a blow to Christianity/
Another article on higgs-boson that is worth reading
Did the so-called god-particle create matter/
The God of particles
It's a matter of mass

Question:

How can we use thermodynamics and complex system theories to explain the apparent contradiction between the city seen as a brain and or parasite and what could be the implications for sustainability?

Answer:

What are the implications for sustainability of complex systems that we find in all living things if we were to assume millions of years and no Almighty Creator God? To begin with, there would be no way to get started. There is no way to create the new information and complex structure that would be needed to get started. We would have to make up creative stories and sell those stories to the public. Even if Almighty God had created everything millions of years ago in a perfect form, there is still no way to add genetic information. Nothing would be left of it by the Twenty-First Century because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

What are the implications for sustainability of the complex systems that we find in living things if we assume that Almighty God created the various kinds of plants and animals several thousand years ago? The mechanisms and information and programming in the cells would have been well designed and complete at that time. The mechanisms, which observation has discovered, for sustaining and protecting the mechanisms and information and programming would also be in place and operating. There is no way to know the details of what the world was like before the fall when Adam and Eve sinned, but at the moment of the fall, everything would have been very good. Then, things changed and deterioration started to take place. From what we can see, there are still mechanisms in place to slow down the loss of information and organization. However, the effects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics can still be seen in birth defects, extinctions, etc.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that the information in the cell, regardless of the kind of living thing, would eventually be damaged at a time when such damage would be passed on to future generation. That damage would not add information but would rather cause some information to be lost. Since there is no known mechanism for adding information, the damage would be continually passed from generation to generation. It appears, however, that in the complex organization of cells, mechanisms are built in that have the ability to avoid changes and keep the cells as they were originally created. If the damage to cells is severe enough, then the organisms will die when conditions make it harder for them to compete with undamaged organisms. Another interesting discovery is the ability of the programming of the cells to allow organisms to adapt to changing conditions as a mechanism for sustainability.

Biology textbooks teach that mutations added the high-quality genetic information needed to transmutate a fish into a monkey--even though experiments have shown that mutations merely corrupt the information that is already present. http://creationrevolution.com/2010/11/mutation-study-contradicts-evolution/

Actual/Observed: natural selection is a conservative force that is more likely to keep animals the same (a possible reason for stasis in the fossil record, if it is taken as a record of time, and not a record of sudden catastrophe), and mutations, due to their random nature, cannot add new genetic information.   It is illegitimate to use Natural Selection to support Evolution.  Natural Selection supports a young Earth and a Creator and Evolutionists ought to be ashamed for twisting it to fit their dogma when the actual observations show Evolution to be impossible.   http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_can%27t_be_falsified_%28Talk.Origins%29

As we teach here, natural selection does occur in nature, but it does not add any new genetic information that would eventually turn one kind of living thing into another over time. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/11/feedback-is-christian-orthodoxy-a-cult

This idea that mutations can provide new genetic information is based on consensus, not science. http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Missing.html
Genetic 'Crossing-over' Is No Help to Evolution. http://www.icr.org/article/genetic-crossing-over-no-help-evolution/

Natural selection can only operate on the genetic material already present in a population of organisms. It cannot create new genetic information and subsequently change one kind of organism into another. http://www.icr.org/natural-selection/

Voodoo Economics. They pull information out of recombination and mutation (see a similar theory reported here July 9). They admit that the vast majority of mutations are lethal, harmful or (at best) neutral, but fail to give one example of a mutation that, even with recombination, generates anything that is useful or even interesting. They admit that "Mutation alone results in native sequences that are far from optimal," but the word optimal (used often in the paper) implies information (think about it). You cannot get information out of nothing. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm

That is what is being done with Pop! World. The authors are intentionally appealing to the baser video-game instincts of students rather than their intellect, character, or understanding. They attempt to slide a controversial world-view into their minds by making it sound fun and easy. But what they leave out of their visualized evolution screen is far more important than what they put in: e.g., (1) no gains in genetic information can come from random, unguided processes; (2) lizard color changes are mere horizontal variations rather than upward gains in complexity; (3) mutations are more likely to kill off a population than make it more fit (whatever fitness means); and more. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm

The second law of thermodynamics (2TD), what Sir Arthur Eddington called the supreme law of nature, does not permit evolution, argued Granville Sewall in The American Spectator; in fact, evolution violates it "in a most spectacular way." A mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, Sewall explained that 2TD applies to much more than heat flow; it applies to every real system. creationsafaris

Some evolutionists complain that the cell acts like a clumsy Rube Goldberg device. Notice what the engineers said, though: the smaller the parts, the more design and care was required. And the whole set was irreducibly complex, in that a failure of one part would bring the rest of the production to a halt. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm

Half-Truth: The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system. (It was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Furthermore, the universe, in which evolution is alleged to have occurred, is an isolated system.) http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

The second law of thermodynamics applies to living systems just as much as it ever did, and Prigogine never claimed he had found a solution to the spontaneous assemblage of the high degree of order that a living cell would require to emerge from chaos. In fact, he said quite the opposite: "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures." The kind of order in life is functional information, a different category of order altogether than that in a crystal or vortex. Just as a dissipative structure will never produce a written text or a symphony, it cannot produce a living cell. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0703.htm

Some have tried to imagine exceptions to the Second Law at some time or times in the past, which allowed evolution to proceed in spite of entropy, but such ideas are nothing but wishful thinking. http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/

The "obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization" is, of course, only an assumption of evolutionists. The real tendency in the natural world, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is from order and organization to disorder. http://www.icr.org/article/thermodynamics-origin-life-part-i/

Whenever the ordering of a local system results in beauty, symmetry, or function, this requires a pre-designed code, and does not happen by chance. Each physical agent operating at a higher level must function with greater order and power than the effect it produces. The ultimate cause which controls all secondary processes must have infinite power and organizing intelligence. Such a first cause is called God. Thus God either directly or by secondary processes produces order. http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-snowflake/

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological sciences are not equal to that task. http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-biologically-impossible/

Evolution has a very real information problem.

Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer: http://www.icr.org/article/entropy-open-systems/

Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information). Genetic drift, or gene shuffling, only involves the shuffling of existing genes within a kind. It does not explain the origination of any gene. Another textbook states: "New alleles |genes| originate only by mutation."3 The only way for organisms to acquire DNA other than what they inherited from their parents is for their DNA to change, or mutate. If their DNA doesn't change, living things could never change regardless of how much time passes. http://www.icr.org/article/mutations-raw-material-for-evolution/

Yet even this 'simple' organism has far too much information to be expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino acid residues long.5 This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above needs at least 256 proteins... NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating entities--therefore it cannot explain their origin. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/196.asp