Laws vs Theories

global warming data depends on location of thermometers multiple sources of credible evidence that dragons were real and establishment bias so strong that scientific laws are ignored for the sake of their sacred theory

The graph above is from Justin Hart’s substack “Rational Ground”

As you can see, there is no clear temperature trend in US data. “Fortunately, we have the CRN reference network, a set of well-sited, continuous duration stations. This is the best, clearest, cleanest signal we have in US data using actual thermometers.”

I just read “Dragons or Dinosaurs” by Darek Isaacs. What a delightful read, although it will be troubling to some, because it so thoroughly and convincingly undercuts the fanciful, imaginative, and theoretical dating methods of those who say that dinosaurs and many other things went extinct millions and millions of years ago.

scientific laws

The word “law” is usually a legal term, but it can also be used as a scientific term, depending on context.

Why is the law of gravity called a law? Because it describes a truth to which we don’t know any exceptions.

A hypothesis is a conjecture; a guess; a theory is a hypothesis that has been given only a little more credence than a guess.

A scientific law describes a proven scientific fact.

It is a misnomer to call a theory a proven fact. If it was proven, it would be called a law; not a theory.

If you’re wondering where I’m going with this, and you may have guessed by now, it’s to compare the theory of evolution with scientific laws.

Ironically, even though educators who love the theory of evolution call it a ‘proven fact’, it’s actually quite the opposite. Actually, all the proof is against it. Let me show you…

genetics

There are two laws of genetics that are obvious to all of us. All you have to do is look around. Life begets life, and like begets like.

Life comes from life. No one has ever observed any non-living matter becoming alive. Postulating millions of years with no proof (radiometric dating is based on assumptions which cannot be proven) and imagining that life could spontaneously pop up is not science; it’s a product of the overactive imaginations of people who will come up with almost anything rather than believe in a Creator God.

And no one has ever observed a different kind of life to have come from another kind.

That’s why we call them laws; not theories. These two undeniable laws fly in the face of the theory of evolution – that life came from non-life and that one kind can change into another kind.

I like to describe the laws of genetics in very simple terms – rocks don’t turn into people, and apples don’t come from orange trees.

physics

There are also two laws of energy. The 1^st is the law of conservation of energy. This flies in the face of the nonsense theory that the universe came from nothing, and then it all exploded into something. Talk about imagination!

Then there is the  2^nd law of thermodynamics. This is based on the fact that heat energy goes ‘downhill’. Heat always flows from a warmer body to a colder body. It can be generalized to say that without input from outside a system, order goes toward disorder. We’ve never observed matter to organize itself into a higher state of order. Never.

A classic, very simple and intuitive argument puts it this way: Even if you had all the parts for a Boeing 747 together in a pile, adding unguided, random energy to the pile will not make an airplane. In fact, the more undirected energy you add, like a stick of dynamite, the less it would help.

Things left to themselves fall apart, they wear out, they rust, they decay, etc.

“Entropy” is defined as a state of disorder. The 2^nd law of thermodynamics is saying that in a closed system, entropy is always increasing. The only exception is, of course, if energy is added to the system, thus delaying the decay. This is not theory. It’s a universal scientific law; a real proven fact. It’s one of the most fundamental laws of physics. Therefore, it takes quite an imagination to suppose that energy is added by some unknown, undirected, random outside force to each of the millions of steps in the hypothetical progression of life from simple to complex.

probability

Let’s look at one more example.

The laws of mathematical probability. This is a little different, which is why the word ‘probability’ is used.

Mathematics says that the odds of flipping a coin heads or tails are 50-50. In the short run, we will see exceptions, that’s why I say it’s a little different. But as the run is lengthened to more and more trials, the mathematically predicted outcome becomes closer and closer to proving out. If we flip the coin 10 times, we could possibly see quite a variation from what the math predicts. But if we flip it 100 times, we are much more apt to see results very close to 50-50. If 1000 times, it’s even closer. A million times, and it’s almost guaranteed. An infinite number of times, and the odds are infinitely against any variation from the 50-50 outcome.

mutations

If we apply the laws of probability to the theory of evolution, which might better be called the theory of imaginations, problems pop up all over the place.

Take mutations, for example. Most mutations are harmful. Some are neutral. And some are claimed to be beneficial, although that is usually debatable. (Seedless oranges are beneficial for us, but not for the orange which can’t reproduce itself without seeds. Antibiotic resistance may be benefit a bacteria against an antibiotic, but the mutation leaves the organism weaker and less “fit” in a normal environment.)

Evolution supposedly progresses because of beneficial mutations being passed on to the next generations. But common sense, and the laws of probability, says that if even a slight majority of mutations is harmful, we’re going to see backward results; not forward. I’d call that devolution. It’s the old story of imagining two steps backward for every step forward. The number of mutations that it would take to change the scales of a dinosaur into the feathers of a bird are mind-boggling. The laws of probability are against it. A whole book could be written on the near zero probability of the thousands of steps required in the so-called progression of life from so-called simple forms to so-called more complex forms.

3.2 billion

That’s how many base pairs are estimated to be in the human DNA in each cell! The sequence of the amino acids and nucleotides in DNA is crucial. One mutation, or mistake in the sequence of one nucleotide in a necessary gene could be fatal. (a heart defect, for example) We might think of amino acids as the letters, and nucleotides the words, and genes as the sentences. In order to list all those letters, a person would have to type 60 words per minute, 8 hours a day, for about 50 years! Without any typos!

mutations in DNA that forms proteins

New evidence against evolution keeps unfolding. A recent study of yeast cells at the U of Michigan found that even mutations in the DNA that previously were thought to be neutral are actually 75% “significantly deleterious”! Their opinion is that 1.3% are “significantly beneficial”. So it’s 75 steps backward to every 1.3 steps forward?

mutations in non-coding DNA

A large part of our genome is “non-coding” DNA. This is the real brains behind the brains of the amazing amount of intelligence embedded in our DNA in every cell in our bodies. Non-coding DNA at first was totally misunderstood. Since it didn’t make proteins, it was called “junk” DNA. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The so-called non-coding DNA that we’ve been able to decipher actually does have very important functions. Many of the sequences in this DNA are what controls the production of protein by turning the protein-making genes on or off. A study by The Institute of Cancer Research, London, stated

“Scientists have found that non-coding 'junk' DNA, far from being harmless and inert, could potentially contribute to the development of cancer. Their study has shown how non-coding DNA can get in the way of the replication and repair of our genome, potentially allowing mutations to accumulate. It has been previously found that non-coding or repetitive patterns of DNA – which make up around half of our genome – could disrupt the replication of the genome.”

bias

Scientific evidence and laws negate the possibility of theory of evolution, and the evidence keeps piling up as biological knowledge increases. It takes an incredible level of bias to believe in the imaginations of the theory of evolution in the face of all the actual evidence against it.

I can’t help but compare this with the bias of people who refuse to accept Jesus as the Son of God. I like the way Darek Isaacs puts it in “Dragons or Dinosaurs”:

“Jesus Christ is the most documented person in all of history. That documentation includes His appearances after His death and resurrection. In fact, the evidence is so powerful to the historical fact of Jesus Christ and His resurrection, and the eyewitness evidence is so widespread and documented through so many different sources that it is obviously clear that God went to great lengths so we would not have to prove His existence. He already has.” p.209

the connection

There is a connection. If Jesus is who He said He is, then He is not only Love; He is also Master and Judge, and we as His creation are accountable to Him. Those who do not want to be held accountable are biased against Him. So they have to come up with some alternative to explain our existence, no matter how fanciful or far-fetched - and so they have the same bias against any scientific evidence that would prove that we were created by God and did not ‘evolve’ by random, meaningless, chance.

next week - giving up on 99% of social media, TV, movies, most novels, and politics, and trying to focus on things that really matter

note - I accidentally stuck another ‘subscribe’ button below, and can’t figure out how to delete it…sorry