For we, the ones believing, enter into the rest, even as He said, "As I swore in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest," though the works had come into being from the foundation of the world. [LXX-Psa. 94:11; MT-Psa. 95:11 ]  Hebrews 4:3


What are some of the reasons for unbelief?  For losing faith? I will list some of the major reasons for this difficulty.




This is a very broad deceptive teaching and belief.  In order to believe this theory you must renounce the Creator of the universe.  This theory is actually un-provable by every standard. 


"Scientists may speculate about the past or future but they can only actually observe the present. Obviously, then, the widespread assumption that evolution is an established fact of science is absolutely false. Thus, evolution can only be correctly labeled as a belief, a subjective philosophy of origins, the religion of many scientists. Despite this fact, most of today’s scientists and teachers still insist that evolution is an established fact of science.

Simply stated, evolution may be defined as an imagined process by which living things formed by themselves without a creator and then somehow improved by themselves. According to this belief, all bacteria, plants, animals, and humans have arisen by mere chance from a single, remote ancestor that somehow came into existence. All of this is supposed to have occurred accidentally without the benefit of any intelligence or planning. The basic premise of this “molecule- to-man” theory is that hydrogen gas, given enough time, will eventually turn into people. Diametrically opposed to this viewpoint, Biblical creationism postulates an initial special creation by G-d through which all the laws, processes, and entities of nature were brought into existence as described in the book of Genesis.

An important point worthy of contemplation is the fact that throughout history every age has been beset with false ideas. For example, it was believed for 15 centuries that the sun and other planetary bodies revolved around the earth. This idea was known as the *geocentric theory and, of course, we now know this supposition to be completely false. During the 17th and 18th centuries another theory was universally accepted and taught as an established fact of science in much the same way that evolution is today. This theory was known as the *phlogiston theory. it stated that every substance which burned contained the magic ingredient phlogiston, which gave it combustibility. This erroneous idea was later refuted by the French chemist, Lavoisier, who demonstrated conclusively that oxygen was the key element involved in combustion."  [From the book, The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse]


*Geocentric model
(Redirected from Geocentric theory)
The geocentric model (in Greek: geo = earth and centron = centre) of the universe is a paradigm which places the Earth at its center. Common in ancient Greece after the discovery of the approximately spherical shape of Earth, it was believed by both Aristotle and Ptolemy. Most Greeks assumed that the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets orbit Earth. Similar ideas were held in ancient China.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


*phlogiston theory

phlogiston theory , hypothesis regarding combustion. The theory, advanced by J. J. Becher late in the 17th cent. and extended and popularized by G. E. Stahl, postulates that in all flammable materials there is present phlogiston, a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight that is given off in burning. “Phlogisticated” substances are those that contain phlogiston and, on being burned, are “dephlogisticated.” The ash of the burned material is held to be the true material. The theory received strong and wide support throughout a large part of the 18th cent. until it was refuted by the work of A. L. Lavoisier, who revealed the true nature of combustion. Joseph Priestley, however, defended the theory throughout his lifetime. Henry Cavendish remained doubtful, but most other chemists of the period, including C. L. Berthollet, rejected it.


Coupled with the above information the evolution theory disintegrates with the following information.  Evolutionists want you to believe that hydrogen gas coupled with extended time allocations, human beings will be brought forth.  Where is the proof of that anywhere to be found?  Our body is composed of the elements found in the earth's soil.  Also included in this human body make-up is water.  Right at two-thirds, water is the largest percentage of the human bodies composition.  We cannot neglect these passages in Genesis


Gen 2:7 And Yahweh Elohim formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until your return to the ground. For you have been taken out of it; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.


From H6080; dust (as powdered or gray); hence clay, earth, mud: - ashes, dust, earth, ground, mortar, powder, rubbish.

Composition of the adult human body.
(For a body weight of 65-70 kg.)

    Major Constituents                     Approx. amount %
Water 41 kg.                                      63
Protein 10 kg.                                     16
Fat 9 kg.                                           15
Carbohydrates 0.5 kg.                          0.7
Minerals 4.5 kg.                                  3.7




Mass of element
in a 70-kg person

Volume of
purified element

Element would
comprise a cube
this long
on a side:


43 kg

37 L

33.5 cm


16 kg

7.08 L

19.2 cm


7 kg

98.6 L

46.2 cm


1.8 kg

2.05 L

12.7 cm


1.0 kg

645 mL

8.64 cm


780 g

429 mL

7.54 cm


140 g

162 mL

5.46 cm


140 g

67.6 mL

4.07 cm


100 g

103 mL

4.69 cm


95 g

63 mL

3.98 cm


19 g

10.9 mL

2.22 cm


4.2 g

0.53 mL

8.1 mm


2.6 g

1.72 mL

1.20 cm


2.3 g

0.32 mL

6.9 mm


1.0 g

0.43 mL

7.5 mm


0.68 g

0.44 mL

7.6 mm


0.32 g

0.13 mL

5.0 mm


0.26 g

64.2 µL

4.0 mm


0.12 g

10.6 µL

2.2 mm


72 mg

8.04 µL

2.0 mm


60 mg

22 µL

2.8 mm


50 mg

5.78 µL

1.8 mm


40 mg

4.85 µL

1.7 mm


22 mg

6.12 µL

1.8 mm


20 mg

4.06 µL

1.6 mm


20 mg

3.48 µL

1.5 mm


20 mg

4.41 µL

1.6 mm


18 mg

7.69 µL

2.0 mm


15 mg

1.69 µL

1.2 mm


15 mg

3.13 µL

1.5 mm


14 mg

1.95 µL

1.3 mm


12 mg

1.61 µL

1.2 mm


7 mg

1.21 µL

1.1 mm


7 mg

13.1 µL

2.4 mm


6 mg

3.2 µL

1.5 mm


6 mg

0.44 µL

0.8 mm


5 mg

0.94 µL

1.0 mm


5 mg

0.49 µL

0.8 mm


3 mg

0.34 µL

0.7 mm


2 mg

0.30 µL

0.7 mm


2 mg

0.19 µL

0.6 mm


1.5 mg

0.18 µL

0.6 mm


1 mg

0.15 µL

0.54 mm


0.8 mg

0.13 µL

0.51 mm


0.7 mg

0.12 µL

0.49 mm


0.7 mg

0.11 µL

0.48 mm


0.6 mg

0.13 µL

0.51 mm


0.5 mg

51 nL

0.37 mm


0.5 mg

42 nL

0.35 mm


0.4 mg

55 nL

0.38 mm


0.2 mg

10 nL

0.22 mm


0.2 mg

67 nL

0.41 mm


0.2 mg

12 nL

0.23 mm


0.11 mg

18 nL

0.26 mm


0.1 mg

8.5 nL

0.20 mm


0.1 mg

5.3 nL

0.17 mm


50 µg

6.7 nL

0.19 mm


36 µg

20 nL

0.27 mm


20 µg

1.0 nL

0.10 mm


Raw data from which this table was made are from Emsley, John, The Elements, 3rd ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998.


Oxygen is the most abundant element in the earth's crust and in the body. The body's 43 kilograms of oxygen is found mostly as a component of water, which makes up 70% of total body weight. Oxygen is also an integral component of all proteins, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), carbohydrates, and fats.

Rubidium is the most abundant element in the body (0.68 g) that has no known biological role (silicon, which is slightly more abundant, may or may not have a metabolic function).

Vanadium is the body's least abundant element (0.11 mg) that has a known biologic role, followed by cobalt (3 mg), the latter being a constituent of vitamin B12.

The last of the body's elements to be discovered was fluorine, by Moissan in 1886



Where do you suppose these elements are found?  Where does the water in our bodies come from?  The earth of course! 


But do the Evolutionist believe the facts?  Dr. Morris states the following.


Evolution and the Physical Sciences

Not to be outdone, evolutionists in the physical sciences (especially physics, chemistry; and astronomy) have developed even more fantastic explanations for the evolution of the universe, the elements, the stellar heavens, complex molecules, and finally life.
The actual evidences supporting these evolutionary speculations, however, are even more illusory than those supporting biological evolution, since they are based on the most indirect sorts of observations.
As noted in the previous section, the present consensus suggests that the entire cosmos suddenly evolved out of nothing, first as an infinitesimal particle of space/time, which proceeded rapidly through an inflationary stage, then through an incredibly hot ‘big bang,” followed by universal expansion into its present form.

In the first moments of the Big Bang, so the story goes, all the elementary particles of matter evolved, then the simplest of the chemical elements, hydrogen. The energy of the primeval explosion was also able to develop helium, but the heavier elements had to await the evolution of the first stars and their disintegration into supernova explosions. In the meantime, many stars and galaxies somehow evolved from the expanding hydrogen, accumulating by unknown evolutionary pressures into galactic clusters.
The heavier elements generated from supernovas may evolve into planetary systems (although the planets of our own solar system are the only ones actually observed in the universe), and then the complex molecules evolving on some planets may somehow evolve into living cells (but no life forms have yet been observed anywhere in the universe except on Earth).

This remarkable pre-biological evolutionary scenario is actually believed in varying degrees by great numbers of Ph.D. astronomers, biochemists, mathematical physicists, and others in the physical sciences.
Its “evidence,” however, is entirely mathematical, since none of these evolutionary stages have ever been observed, nor could they ever be reproduced in the laboratory.
As far as the origin from non-living chemicals of the first form of life is concerned, the idea that this could have happened by natural processes is completely fanciful, even though schoolchildren everywhere are taught that this happened in the primeval oceanic soup about four billion years ago. The fascinating comments of Sir Fred Hoyle are relevant in this connection:

I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles. . . . It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern mathematical miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics.
The Long War Against G-d  by Henry M. Morris pp 28-29


Several items of interest emerge from the preceding statements.  The first is the so-called "Big Bang"  This idea/theory never considers Yahweh's explanation in His written account. 


Gen 1:1 בראשׁית ברא אלהים את השׁמים ואת הארץ׃

Gen 1:2 והארץ היתה תהו ובהו וחשׁך על־פני תהום ורוח אלהים מרחפת על־פני המים׃

Gen 1:1
In the beginning Elohim created the heavens and the earth.

Gen 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. Elohim's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

Now!  You are looking at two creations here.  Genesis 1:1 was the first creation.  Genesis 1:2 is the re-creation after it became a waste and desolation.



A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is,
be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.


From an unused root
meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.


From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially)
an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.


That is your big bang.  This is also known as the Gap Theory.  The time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.  Who destroyed the first creation?  Satan? 

Isaiah 45:18 For thus says Yahweh who created the heavens, the Elohim who formed the earth and made it, who established it and didn't create it a waste, who formed it to be inhabited: I am Yahweh; and there is no one else.


 Originally the earth was created to be a habitable planet.  It was destroyed by Satan in his rebellion against Yahweh's authority and system of government. 


There are two books with extensive information concerning the destruction of the cosmos and also earth's destruction.  These books are rather lengthy and well documented.  If you have time, you could read them for good clarity on these cataclysmic events.  They are Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval both books are by Immanuel Velikovski


I would like to present some evidence from the physics perspective. The scientific discipline of physics deals with matter and energy.  The fields of mechanics, acoustics, optics, heat, electricity, radiation.  This also includes atomic structure and nuclear phenomena.  I will now close this part with some Physics 101.  If you remember your Physics lessons you will remember the laws of thermodynamics, if not, here they are:




A. Introduction:

 We now turn to the scientific discipline of physics to ponder additional factual evidence, which also serves to refute evolution and support Biblical creationism. These facts are taken from the first and second laws of thermodynamics. These two laws are proven scientific laws which have been tested repeatedly under all types of systems. No reputable scientist doubts their validity and full applicability.

B. The First Law of Thermodynamics

The first law of thermodynamics is known as the Law of Energy Conservation. It states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created nor destroyed. This law teaches conclusively that the universe did not create itself! There is absolutely nothing in the present economy of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin. This scientific fact is in direct contradiction with the basic concept of naturalistic, innovative evolution. The present structure of the universe is one of conservation, not innovation as required by the theory of evolution.


Although scientists cannot account for the origin of energy and matter or why the total energy is conserved, the Bible offers an explanation. G-d alone can truly create. Man can only re-fashion pre-existing materials. Since G-d has ceased from His creative works (Genesis 2:3), energy can no longer be created. The reason energy cannot be destroyed is because G-d is “upholding all things by the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). He preserves and keeps in store His creation (Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7).


C. The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

After being stunned by the first law of thermodynamics, the theory of evolution is to receive its fatal blow from the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is known as the Law of Energy Decay. It states that every system left to its own devices tends to move from order to disorder. In other words, the universe is proceeding in a downward, degenerating direction of decreasing organization. Material possessions deteriorate and all living organisms eventually return to dust, a state of complete disorder. Given enough time, all of the energy of the universe will become random low-level heat energy and the universe will have died what is commonly referred to as a heat- death.

A process that results in a more ordered and complex product, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, might be possible but would necessarily be very limited, rare, and temporary in effect. But evolution requires billions of years of constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics to be considered even remotely feasible! Thus, we find that the second law of thermodynamics renders the theory of evolution not only statistically highly improbable, but virtually impossible. In the words of British astronomer, Arthur Eddington:

"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

The principle of increasing entropy (increasing disorder and randomness) from the second law of thermodynamics is interpreted by many creationists to be a direct result of the curse placed on creation due to the Fall of man (Genesis 3:17-1 9). Creationists also believe that the creation will ultimately be released from this bondage to decay and corruption (Romans 8:18-23).
The second law of thermodynamics constitutes a grave problem for evolutionists, and it is not surprising to find that they usually choose to ignore it. When pressed for an explanation, two arguments are usually given to circumvent this law of nature.
The first argument is that the second law does not apply to open systems such as the earth. The argument is that the sun supplies the earth with more than enough energy to offset the loss of energy due to entropy. Al-though this may at first seem to be a reasonable argument, it has two major flaws. First, as Dr. Henry M. Morris points out, it confuses quantity of energy with conversion of energy.  Naturally there is enough energy to fuel an imagined evolutionary process, but that is not the question. The question is how does the sun’s energy sustain evolution. The mere availability of energy does not automatically insure the development of orderly structural growth. Some kind of directional program mechanism is required to transform energy into the energy required to produce increased organization. For instance, a pile of lumber, bricks, nails, and tools will not automatically evolve into a building apart from a directing code, despite the fact that it is an open system receiving more than enough energy from the sun to carry out the job. And remember, a complex building is impossibly primitive compared with even the simplest living cell. Second, there is no such thing as a closed system. Therefore, to argue that the second law is inapplicable to open systems such as the earth is meaningless since all other systems are also open.
The second argument used to reconcile the entropy principle with evolution is that the second law does not apply to living systems. The phenomena of life, admittedly, does appear to exhibit a remarkable contrast to the entropy principle. A seed, for example, develops into a tree and an embryo grows into an adult. However, as Dr. Henry M. Morris points out, the growth process is actually not a contradiction of the second law:

“The growth process is really only an out- working of the marvelous structure of the germ cell, which has within itself the encoded ‘information’ necessary to assimilate incoming chemicals and gradually build upon itself a structure like that of the parent organism. It does not really constitute an increase of order, but rather an outward manifestation of the marvelous complexity of the genetic system and the environmental energies it is able to utilize.” Biblical Cosmology And Modern Science  Dr. Henry M. Morris

Thus, we find that life really is not increasing in complexity contrary to the second law of thermodynamics. Rather adult organisms are simply the unfolding, outward expression of the pre-existing order in the genes. The blueprints for the growth and development of the adult organism were already present in the genes of the parents.
The origin of life from this pre-existing order in DNA does not present any difficulty for the creationist. The evolutionist, however, finds himself faced with an indomitable problem. How did life begin without the pre-existence of such intelligent order and design? This question must forever haunt the atheistic evolutionist.
It should also be noted that apparent decreases of entropy can only be produced at the expense of a still greater increase of entropy in the external environment. Thus, the entire system as a whole continues to run down as required by the second law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, such processes are only temporary and eventually succumb to death and disintegration. Life forms attempt to postpone the second law of thermodynamics, but entropy eventually wins out. After all, biological systems and processes are merely complex chemical and physical processes, and to these the laws of thermodynamics do certainly apply. Dr. Harold Blum, an evolutionary biochemist, has recognized this fact and writes:

“No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world.”

Thus, we find that the second law of thermodynamics completely negates the concept of organic evolution. The creation model, however, predicts that the second law of thermodynamics will be operative and is thus, once again, substantiated by the facts of science.

D. Summary

The two most reliable scientific laws, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, prove that conservation and deterioration are the processes that characterize and direct the physical universe. These facts are in direct contradiction with the expectations and requirements of the evolutionary framework which hopes for a universe which is getting better and better, progressing ever-upward. Thus, the evolutionary model of origins is scientifically indefensible. It is now seen as an antiquated theory which has finally crumbled beneath the ever-accumulating weight of evidence against it. At the same time, however, Biblical creationism does correlate with the evidence at hand. We conclude with a noteworthy quote from Dr. Henry M. Morris:  Creation; Acts, facts, Impacts

"...the Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time, the available energy would have been progressively greater until, finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this. At this point both energy and time must have come into existence. Since energy could not create itself, the most scientific and logical conclusion to which we could possibly come is that: ‘In the beginning, G-d created the heaven and the earth.”


 I included the entire chapter as one unit.  The information was too important to be segmented.  The entire chapter was taken from the book: The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Read carefully the preceding information carefully.  Know what you are up against with this so-called Evolution Theory.  Be ready to answer with relevant information countermanding this evil lie.




Yours in Yahshua, Hawke



©  Truth on the Net Dot Com 2005-13