Ken at Creation Outreach

I was checking out some different Spokane websites and came across this wonder of wonders called Creation Outreach, written by Ken Clark.  Since I’m still waiting for election results (although thankfully it looks like Laura Carder is going to lose) I need something to write about.  So I thought I would occasionally pick apart one of Mr. Clarks arguments when there’s nothing else going on. 

I though I’d start with his article titled “Seven Powerful Evidences Confirming Creation”.   If you check out his article you’ll notice I haven’t written about everything but it’s a long article and my IQ drops by about 5 points for every minute I read, so I have to do it sparingly.

He claims that the first and second laws of thermodynamics prove creation.  He must of been in a rush because he doesn’t even offer a single sentence on how the first law proves creation.  He says this about the second “The Second Law says whenever energy changes forms, though no energy is lost, it becomes more random and less useful. Or put another way, any physical system left to itself tends to move spontaneously toward disorganization. That is, entropy increases. But, evolution requires the opposite of this, a spontaneous decrease in randomness and an escalating complexity of life”.

Now I’m not a chemist or physicist and have spent little time studying these subject.  So I went to the experts at Occidental College in L.A. and found this great article.

“There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS — yes, predicts firmly — the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure by its predictions. It only demands a "spreading out" of energy when such ordered compounds are formed spontaneously”.

This ringleader of senselessness then has the gall to say that there is no fossil evidence for evolution.  That’s only true if you’re reading a textbook from the early nineteenth century.  How do you explain the complete lack of human/rabbit/dog/etc. fossils during the time of dinosaurs?  Of course, the only way to explain it is evolution.  Here’s Richard Dawkins with a little evidence:

He then throws in this gem of silliness “IN LESS THAN 10,000 YEARS Almost all dating methods favor a young Earth. Evolution requires billions of years to achieve even a ghost of a chance. And it is only that, a ghost.”   I guess he’s trying to say that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.  I like the fact that earlier he was perfectly happy to throw around science terms and now he spits in its face.  There’s absolutely no proof for a 10,000 year old Earth (which is of course why he provides none).  I don’t know what dating methods he’s speaking of, I imagine he read about them in the bottom of a beer can, because alcohol is needed to believe this.  The fact is that if the Earth was only 10,000 years old, all the continents would be attached and the Grand Canyon wouldn’t exist.

To prove his lunacy he then said the world was created by God because the bible said so!!!!  Why did nobody tell me this, now we have the answer, no more reason for science.  What an idiot.  If you want to believe in the Bible and ignore reason that’s all good, but to try to hold it up as some sort of proof for anything is ridiculous.  I’m curious why out of all the gods and creation myths in the world how does he come to the conclusion that the Bible is the correct one.  Could it be because he was raised to believe?  Which makes it sort of funny when he’s constantly going on about keeping an open-mind.  I’m not sure he knows the definition.