The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> Goatboy, you will be pleased to know we have not evolved from monkeys.
That wasn't the point.
> Goatboy, you will be pleased to know we have not evolved from monkeys.
That wasn't the point.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually evolution tries to tell people we all evolve from monkeys,
> which has lead to certain racist comments in today's society.
------------
No, do not try and shrug it off racist.
The example provided in your cut and paste is attempting to disprove evolution by offering the findings of a Dr Nutall, who says the findings are wrong because pig evolved from fish and "blacks evolved from monkeys!"
Take your narrow minded hatred somewhere else, and I hope you are physically assaulted along the way.
> Actually evolution tries to tell people we all evolve from monkeys,
> which has lead to certain racist comments in today's society.
------------
No, do not try and shrug it off racist.
The example provided in your cut and paste is attempting to disprove evolution by offering the findings of a Dr Nutall, who says the findings are wrong because pig evolved from fish and "blacks evolved from monkeys!"
Take your narrow minded hatred somewhere else, and I hope you are physically assaulted along the way.
Goatboy, you will be pleased to know we have not evolved from monkeys.
Actually evolution tries to tell people we all evolve from monkeys, which has lead to certain racist comments in today's society.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Another article about Evolution.
Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys!
-----------
That is quite possibly one of the most moronically offensive things I've read here in the 3 years I've been posting.
"Black people are related to monkeys!" is the findings of a person you are promoting?
So racism is excused in religion, and tolerated in a family forum?
Whilst I am a "think what you like" person, and have such ignored your idiocy, I absolutely object to your suggestion that anybody should take seriously the findings of somebody that suggests, rather than we are all descendants of monkeys, that is merely true for blacks.
How dare you promote racism to try and convince anybody you are a tolerant and understanding person.
That is vile and inexcusable.
You have done nothing but post swathes of cut'n'pastes in an effort to force your blinkered fundamentalism down our throats and have been warned by staff for spamming.
But to actively encourage and promote racist beliefs is sickening.
Far from being a righteous person, you are an intolerant bigot, racist and a fundamentalist.
Please do not EVER post articles with similar odious content you detestable little bigot.
I have reported this post rather than the enormous post you made so as to highlight exactly why I object in the strongest possible terms to your racist, halfwit babblings.
If you truly were a "good" person, then you would have the decency to read what it is you post.
Shame on you racist fool.
> Another article about Evolution.
Any learned scientist should be familiar with the rather embarrassing test conclusions of Dr. Nutall back in 1904. Nutall's tests concluded that baboons and hoofed animals are related to whales, that pigs are related to tigers, and that black people are related to monkeys!
-----------
That is quite possibly one of the most moronically offensive things I've read here in the 3 years I've been posting.
"Black people are related to monkeys!" is the findings of a person you are promoting?
So racism is excused in religion, and tolerated in a family forum?
Whilst I am a "think what you like" person, and have such ignored your idiocy, I absolutely object to your suggestion that anybody should take seriously the findings of somebody that suggests, rather than we are all descendants of monkeys, that is merely true for blacks.
How dare you promote racism to try and convince anybody you are a tolerant and understanding person.
That is vile and inexcusable.
You have done nothing but post swathes of cut'n'pastes in an effort to force your blinkered fundamentalism down our throats and have been warned by staff for spamming.
But to actively encourage and promote racist beliefs is sickening.
Far from being a righteous person, you are an intolerant bigot, racist and a fundamentalist.
Please do not EVER post articles with similar odious content you detestable little bigot.
I have reported this post rather than the enormous post you made so as to highlight exactly why I object in the strongest possible terms to your racist, halfwit babblings.
If you truly were a "good" person, then you would have the decency to read what it is you post.
Shame on you racist fool.
After reading this letter I must question the intelligence and credentials of the writer.
This is scientific garbage. Apart from where the laws are stated, the interpretation of them is pathetic.
if you have an ounce of intelligence then you should see the stupidity present... being both student of physics and biology I can see where the letter has slipped up.. let's face it DOUGHMAN or whatever isnt that bright.
It seems customary to quote the entire letter and sit for an our pointing out everything that is incorrect by inserting my own statements in here and there but I will break with convention and just say I cant be bothered, after all why would I want to educate those who would just reject everything I say with a bunch of fallousies.
This is scientific garbage. Apart from where the laws are stated, the interpretation of them is pathetic.
if you have an ounce of intelligence then you should see the stupidity present... being both student of physics and biology I can see where the letter has slipped up.. let's face it DOUGHMAN or whatever isnt that bright.
It seems customary to quote the entire letter and sit for an our pointing out everything that is incorrect by inserting my own statements in here and there but I will break with convention and just say I cant be bothered, after all why would I want to educate those who would just reject everything I say with a bunch of fallousies.
Right, I'll do that next time loki.
No, that would be considered spamming. Please do not reproduce huge swathes of text from other sites. As you've already been told, paste a link then give your own thoughts on the matter if you so desire.
No just there for everyone to see, I prefer posting the article, it means everyone can view it as they scroll down and not miss it.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Another article about Evolution.
>
> Evolution:
> Fact or Fiction?
Probably best to post a link, then your own thoughts on the article. This is spamming at its worst.
> Another article about Evolution.
>
> Evolution:
> Fact or Fiction?
Probably best to post a link, then your own thoughts on the article. This is spamming at its worst.
Page: