Creation (Pro) vs Evolution (Con)

Refuting the Evolutionary paradigm: Big Bang theory: Our universe is thought to have begun as aninfinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - asingularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don'tknow. [2] In this theory, matter already exists. It is not created. (Newtonian conservation law is broken) Matter is compacted into a singularity without cause. (1st thermodynamic law broken)[5] Matter is increasing in speed and energy (Ignores entropic law/second law ofthermodynamics broken.) [6] The mass is super-heated from nothing. (Zeroth Law of thermodynamics broken). [4] The theory is so broken; it requires crutch theories (inflation models). Unfortunately, these “crutches” are just as broken as the parent theory. Consider this source, which states that we have eliminated “new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, stochastic inflation, modified gravity, and their sub-variants. At the end of which, we have no evidence that inflation ever happened.” [3] The theory is mathematically unsound. “Every experiment that’s ever been done (on this subject) verifies the conservation of mass and energy.” [1] The theory is not scientific.”Beyond inference, we’ve got very little to work with as far as the big bang goes” [1] This sources continues to explain: “Depending on results from the Large Hadron Collider, due to be completed at Geneva in 2005, it may be possible to determine whether we are in living in a (mem)brane universe in 11 dimensions of space time.” [3] The 2005 results are posted below. String theory(M-theory): "For some great physicists, it is the difference between getting a Nobel prize and admitting they spent their lives on the wrong track." Ellis agrees: "I've been working on it for almost 30 years now, and I can imagine that some people mightget a little bit nervous." [7] The LHC has disproved the core argument for singularity sourced string theory. Physicists are now attempting to advance splinter theories of the original model. [8] The Higgs boson mechanism has narrowed down the perimeter for where the Higgs particle might be found. If it fails to locate the particle, the theory falls apart. The article calls this the “endgame” for this theory. The source is quoted as saying: ”If it exists, it has to be there. And if it’s not there, it will be known to be science fiction by December.” [9] The source continues toexplain that “In just five months of the LHC running, the two teams have eliminated – at a 95 percent confidence level – most of the range of possible masses the Higgs could have.” Only 5% to go, yikes, not looking good. This source proclaims the death of symmetry string theory, but makes the hopeful claim that “there are a few versions of supersymmetry, which are more complex than the basic mass-energy level version that has apparently just been ruled out. So different flavors of supersymmetry could still be true.” Such faith! [10] String theory demands 11 dimensions of time, space and matter. The theory demands that mass in these 11 dimensions is uniformly required for a stablemechanism. Unfortunately, the mechanism cannot be observed in the physicaluniverse or in the LHC. So to overcome the problem, the solution was to simplyignore the higher dimensions of mass. The “announcement was that in all higher dimensions (254, 510, 1022, etc.), the putative elements do NOT exist.” Back to the drawing board. The vacuum energy problem. This essentially states that the energy associated with mass is needed to create mass in the first place. What came first? The mass needed to produce the energy, or the energy needed to produce the mass? Paradox. [8] First Life: The origin of life cannot be observed and despite ferverousexperimentation, it has not been duplicated in controlled environments. The attempt to manipulate abiogenesis is shrouded in fraud, as recognized by respected science journals. –Scientific American [15] Attempts to recreate life resulted in the formation of Cyanide and formaldehyde, both extremely toxic to life and inherently destructiveto the formation of amino acids. The odds of abiogenesis are “one in 10^89,900, still essentially zero.” [17] Increased Complexity:"One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extremeperfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, bothof which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leavingevidence of how they evolved." [12] Secular science is gradually accepting the fallacy of macroevolution. The website http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...;has a growing list of secular scientists that are petitioning the Darwinian paradigm. They are quoted as saying: “We know intuitively that Darwinism canaccomplish some things, but not others. The question is what is that boundary?”The boundary, quite obviously, is the observable variation within a species. The creation of new species is simply not observed or plausible. The ancestral link between humans and primates is ambiguous. The source claims:” In a significant number of cases, evolutionary trees based on DNA sequences show that humans are more closely related to gorillas or orangutans than chimpanzees—again, all depending on which DNA fragment is used for the analysis. The overall outcome is that no clear path of common ancestry between humans and various primates exists, so no coherent model of primate evolution can be achieved.” Accredited science journals are abandoning contemporary dogmas of “missing links”, which strangely enough, is rooted by creationistic scrutiny. [13] "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." – Sensible Scientist [14] A list of prominent names in science that have protested the Darwinian paradigm: http://www.discovery.org... Geology - Provided is a list of limiting factors. A limiting factor can be compared to a date, printed on a minted coin. You know for a fact, the coin is no older than the date. The provided limiting factors agree on an earth, much younger than presented in your argument. I would elaborate, but I'm running out of character space. I'd gladly elaborate in the next round. Argument to be extended. http://www.earthage.org... Vestigial structures: Please provide a list of vestiges that support the darwinian paradigm. References: http://www.askamathematician.com... [1] http://big-bang-theory.com...[2] http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org... [3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [4] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [5] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... [6] http://www.nature.com... [7] http://technoccult.net... [8] http://www.physorg.com... [9] http://www.popsci.com... [10] Reznick,David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge betweenmicroevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842. [12] http://www.answersingenesis.org... [13] http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org... [14] http://www.scientificamerican.com... [15] http://www.talkorigins.org... [16] http://www.cs.unc.edu... [17]