I find this is an excellent explanation:

From: Norman W

I don’t know if the staff ever responds to these comments, but I have a question I have not seen addressed, yet. Since a singularity (a black hole) is by definition something from which nothing can escape, not even light, how can the largest singularity of all (the original compression of all matter in the universe) have an explosion of such great consequence that “everything” escapes from it? Is that not counter intuitive? How can “science” explain things “science” has said cannot happen? Are we to assume there is an explosive force greater than that contained in the stars?

Response:
Thank you Norman for your very intuitive question. I have been asking this question for years.
Let’s start with astronomy and physics. I’m not an astronomer or physicist, but I have friends who are and have talked to them in depth about how evolution defies the laws of physics. Some of them are PhD professors at various universities and some are or have been employed in very prominent government laboratories including Sandia and Los Alamos, both in New Mexico.
What they have explained to me over the years is that evolutionary cosmology has a huge problem at their very beginnings. We know that the laws of physics dictate that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can be utilized and altered, but all of the matter and energy in the universe today is the same as when the universe was formed. The question they really can’t answer is how did it come to be in the first place?
They believe that before the Big Bang, that all of the energy and matter in the entire universe was contained in a tiny compressed ball no larger than the head of a pin and somehow (they can’t explain the trigger) it exploded (Big Bang) and billions of years later here we are.
They can’t explain from where it all came from to begin with and how it exploded. They have no evidence of the tiny speck of all matter and energy that existed prior to the Big Bang.
The laws of astrophysics says that there has to be some kind of force or energy that holds the universe together. They theorize that it’s dark matter and dark energy, but they have no evidence that either exists. The only evidence they have is in their belief that it exists. Hence, what we are able to observe and measure says that there is no such thing as dark energy or dark matter, but they believe it anyway. And they call this science and the belief in God and creation a faith?
Another problem with the laws of physics has to do with how atoms and molecules react in a vacuum. According to known laws, all of the matter and energy released from the Big Bang should have continued to spread out from each other. Yet evolutionary theory requires that they actually coalesce together into larger balls of gas and eventually into stars and planets. This is opposite to what we know to happen in a vacuum and thus another violation of a law of science.
Now let’s turn to the laws of biology. I do have some knowledge in this area as I have a BS in wildlife and fisheries biology and a MS in biology with my thesis topic being population genetics. I’ve studied the molecular biology of the cell and everything I’ve learned tells me that evolution goes against the basic laws of biology.
One of the most basic tenets of biology is that life cannot arise from non-life, but evolution has to start with some form of spontaneous generation. They know and teach this basic law of biology in every school and college in the nation. Then they contradict themselves and teach that life actually did arise from non-life in the beginning and did so many times.
Evolution also defies the laws of information whose basic tenet is that information can only come from another source of information and ultimately from a source of intelligence. In simpler language, information such as DNA and RNA cannot just randomly form by itself. There had to have been a source of intelligence that created it in the first place and we all know that evolution is a mindless and unintelligent natural process.
Geological laws also present a problem for evolution. For nearly three centuries, the law of uniformitarianism has been used as one of the primary evidences for evolution and the age of the earth. The law states that the present is the key to the past and what we observe today took hundreds of millions of years of slow and gradual process to create. They look at some water systems and their annual flooding and layering deposits to extrapolate into millions of years of deposition all over the face of the earth. Yet, what we really see today are catastrophic events that have the most impact on the earth’s surface. We’ve observed how volcanic eruptions can completely change a landscape for many miles, including many feet of finely layered deposits and intricately carved canyons similar in structure to the Grand Canyon. We’ve seen how torrential rains and flash flooding have carved canyons out of solid rock.
So I guess in one aspect the present is the key to the past, only evolutionists don’t want to admit it in the same context that creationists do.
These are only a few examples of how the basic tenets of evolution go against the very laws of science that they know, accept and teach. The standard response I hear from them is that it happened then but cannot happen now. If that isn’t a blind faith, I don’t know what is. It’s definitely not science as they have no facts or evidence to prove any of their anti-laws of science tenets.
On the other hand, these laws of science are easily explained by using God’s Word. In the beginning, God created the earth, the universe and all of life. He also established a covenant with the physical laws of the universe and it is He who holds everything together (Hebrews 1).
So who really has a blind faith and whose origins belief is best supported by the laws of science and from what we observe?