The Big-Bang Theory...

contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The very idea that a primeval cosmic explosion could somehow generate a highly ordered and complex universe is preposterous on the very face of it. Explosions produce disorder, and this ultimate explosion would surely have generated the ultimate disorder, as the primeval state of the universe. The hypothetical initial state of the universe may have been energized, but it was also totally unorganized. There is no "information" in randomly moving particles, and no "structure" in an explosion.

To the evolutionist, the universe is a closed system, with no external agent to organize it into its present infinite array of complex galaxies and suns, and, at least on one planet, a marvelous variety of living systems. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there is absolutely no natural way that such a completely isolated sytem as the universe could increase in information and organized complexity.

British astronomer, Paul Davies, has said:

"The greatest puzzle is where all the in the universe came from originaly. How did the cosmos get wound up, if the second law of thermodynamics predicts asymmetric unwinding towards disorder?....

There is good evidence that the primeval universe was not ordered, but highly chaotic; a relic of the primordial chaos survives in a curious radiation from space, believed to be the last fading remnant of the primeval heat, and the characteristics of its spectrum reveal that in the earliest moments fo the universe the cosmological material was completely unstructured."

The Big Bang theory and the Steady-State Theory is repudiated by one of the most basic principles of science, the Second Law. This Law indicates that since the universe is "running down," it must have been "woundup," or created. The First Law testifies that the universe could not have created itself.

The laws of thermodynamics are science; the evolutionary theories of cosmic origins are mere philosophical speculations which have been devised essentially for avoiding the testimony of true science, which points specifically and directly to true prieval creation. And yet evolutionists have the nerve to say that creation is based on religion, while evolution is based on science!!

The real situation is exactly reverse.

The testimony of the true facts of science is thus in full support of the Creation Model. That is, at some point of time, say T0, the Space/Mass/Time cosmos was simply CREATED, brought into existence in fully developed and functioning form right at the beginning. The complex structures of its immense variety of stars and galaxies did not evolve at all. They were simply created, with any changes since that time limited to processes of decay, NOT developement.

As can be observed, stars, galaxies, have been stable, with no evolutionary changes since the beginning of recorded history. All observed changes (e.g., novas, meteorites, etc.) represent disintegration processes, not evolutionay process. As I've stated many times. Neither Creation or Evolution can be scientifically proven, but Creation has a stronger case.