The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Except it doesn't change the fact, evolution is fundamentally
> impossible.
>
> Please explain how you reached this conclusion. And no religious
> quotes please, just scientific facts thankyou.#
Every creation, must have a creator. They don't just "appear".
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Except it doesn't change the fact, evolution is fundamentally
> impossible.
>
> Please explain how you reached this conclusion. And no religious
> quotes please, just scientific facts thankyou.#
Every creation, must have a creator. They don't just "appear".
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> It was quite an arrogant comment, a presumptious one if you will,
> but
> a comment I have the full backing of the Lord, behind because NO ONE
> DOES GOOD.
>
> Only by the rules you have set yourself. I live my life by socially
> acceptable standards and the law of the land. I do not believe in
> your religion and so I have done no wrong.
It doesn't change the fact you and everyone else today are sinners and will NEVER get into Heaven, by "good works".
>
> "They have all turned aside, together they have become
> corrupt;
> There is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE." Psalm
> 14:3
>
> "Not even one", means you or me or anyone else are not
> good. Jesus was and is the only "good" in this fallen
> world.
>
> Your religion sees that everyone is born with sin. How is this fair?
> Your god sets you up to fail from the outset.
No, He was quite happy without any sin, when Eve and Adam took of that fruit, sin entered the world and damaged the humans.
>
>
> What about the sins Tallan? You can't just sin for seventy years,
> die
> and then have them just die, they have to have a place.
>
> I do not sin. Very much.
> Why can I not just die, leave my caporial body and go party? WHy must
> my sins follow me? They don't follow me about now, so why when I
> die?
"I do not sin." So Tallan is sinless....
"Very Much." Ah... so Tallan is a sinner, like everyone else...
Without disrepect Tallan, you are using the simplest, theory. You can't pick and choose to go out of existence, because man is eternal like God. Your sins follow you, because they have to be somewhere. But your sins DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW YOU. If you trust in Jesus He will take away the sins. Your sins do follow you around now, the only way to shift them is with Jesus.
>
>
> Heaven is a pure gold and precious stone made city, with no temple,
> no sea, with rivers and trees. We are told that no one can guess how
> wonderful Heaven is.
>
> That description doesn't sound exactly brilliant to me. So its made
> of gold and gems? So? If there is an abundance of these materials in
> heaven then they cease to be precious, merely commonplace. No sea? I
> like the sea. I like rivers and trees as well though.
Like, with the verse, below we are told pitifully little about it. Not, because God doesn't want us to know, just that no words can do the glory of Heaven, adequate.
>
> "but just as it is written,
> "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
> AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
> ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." 1
> Corinthians 2-9
>
> Which means you can do? Give me a good reason for wanting to go to
> your heaven.
I can give you more than one...
1) Dwelling with God for eternity
2) Dwelling with Jesus for eternity
3) Living in perfection for eternity
4) Avoiding the Lake of Fire
5) Working for the Lord
6) Serving the Lord
7) Meeting Old Testament characters like Moses, Elijah and New Testament ones like John and Luke.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> It was quite an arrogant comment, a presumptious one if you will,
> but
> a comment I have the full backing of the Lord, behind because NO ONE
> DOES GOOD.
>
> Only by the rules you have set yourself. I live my life by socially
> acceptable standards and the law of the land. I do not believe in
> your religion and so I have done no wrong.
It doesn't change the fact you and everyone else today are sinners and will NEVER get into Heaven, by "good works".
>
> "They have all turned aside, together they have become
> corrupt;
> There is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE." Psalm
> 14:3
>
> "Not even one", means you or me or anyone else are not
> good. Jesus was and is the only "good" in this fallen
> world.
>
> Your religion sees that everyone is born with sin. How is this fair?
> Your god sets you up to fail from the outset.
No, He was quite happy without any sin, when Eve and Adam took of that fruit, sin entered the world and damaged the humans.
>
>
> What about the sins Tallan? You can't just sin for seventy years,
> die
> and then have them just die, they have to have a place.
>
> I do not sin. Very much.
> Why can I not just die, leave my caporial body and go party? WHy must
> my sins follow me? They don't follow me about now, so why when I
> die?
"I do not sin." So Tallan is sinless....
"Very Much." Ah... so Tallan is a sinner, like everyone else...
Without disrepect Tallan, you are using the simplest, theory. You can't pick and choose to go out of existence, because man is eternal like God. Your sins follow you, because they have to be somewhere. But your sins DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW YOU. If you trust in Jesus He will take away the sins. Your sins do follow you around now, the only way to shift them is with Jesus.
>
>
> Heaven is a pure gold and precious stone made city, with no temple,
> no sea, with rivers and trees. We are told that no one can guess how
> wonderful Heaven is.
>
> That description doesn't sound exactly brilliant to me. So its made
> of gold and gems? So? If there is an abundance of these materials in
> heaven then they cease to be precious, merely commonplace. No sea? I
> like the sea. I like rivers and trees as well though.
Like, with the verse, below we are told pitifully little about it. Not, because God doesn't want us to know, just that no words can do the glory of Heaven, adequate.
>
> "but just as it is written,
> "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
> AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
> ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." 1
> Corinthians 2-9
>
> Which means you can do? Give me a good reason for wanting to go to
> your heaven.
I can give you more than one...
1) Dwelling with God for eternity
2) Dwelling with Jesus for eternity
3) Living in perfection for eternity
4) Avoiding the Lake of Fire
5) Working for the Lord
6) Serving the Lord
7) Meeting Old Testament characters like Moses, Elijah and New Testament ones like John and Luke.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Except it doesn't change the fact, evolution is fundamentally
> impossible.
Please explain how you reached this conclusion. And no religious quotes please, just scientific facts thankyou.
> Except it doesn't change the fact, evolution is fundamentally
> impossible.
Please explain how you reached this conclusion. And no religious quotes please, just scientific facts thankyou.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Read 'evolutionary changes'. Our gene pool may alter slightly but
> there are no evolutionary changes within the species, or at least
> any
> changes that do arise give no significant benefit to become
> predominant.
>
> If there are no evolutionary changes within the species, and with our
> species having a common ancestor (as we have already proved) then why
> would it just tale off? Either the human race NEVER evolved or it is
> CONSTANTLY evolving. You are just saying we evolved a few million
> years ago, but now you can see it is impossible, you are saying we
> are no longer evolving, hence you mix Evolution with Creation.
> Tallan, Evolution believes we are currently evolving. Which is it,
> Evolution or Creation?
Back to basics again. Random mutations appear in a species genepool, sometimes giving rise to different traits withtin the species. When a species is in an environment of competition of survival, any single member that has a genetic advantage for survival (be that faster speed, better hearing, more intelligence, whatever), then that member has a higher rate of survival, and so is more likely to survive to adulthood, reploduce and pass on its 'enhanced' genes. If the species is in an environment of no competition of survival (modern humans for example), then any mutations will not give a higher rate of survival and so will not become predominnt in the genepool. Do you understand this concept, or do you need further explanation?
> The dust is from the "ground" as the Bible correctly shows
> us and NASA also proved.
Yes. And where did the ground come from, indeed all the atoms in the universe? They are created in the nuclear hearts of suns. Suns that have lived and died before even this world existed. Only the lowest atoms existed originally, carbon I think and a couple of others. Nuclear fusion and nuclear fission have created the rest.
> Read 'evolutionary changes'. Our gene pool may alter slightly but
> there are no evolutionary changes within the species, or at least
> any
> changes that do arise give no significant benefit to become
> predominant.
>
> If there are no evolutionary changes within the species, and with our
> species having a common ancestor (as we have already proved) then why
> would it just tale off? Either the human race NEVER evolved or it is
> CONSTANTLY evolving. You are just saying we evolved a few million
> years ago, but now you can see it is impossible, you are saying we
> are no longer evolving, hence you mix Evolution with Creation.
> Tallan, Evolution believes we are currently evolving. Which is it,
> Evolution or Creation?
Back to basics again. Random mutations appear in a species genepool, sometimes giving rise to different traits withtin the species. When a species is in an environment of competition of survival, any single member that has a genetic advantage for survival (be that faster speed, better hearing, more intelligence, whatever), then that member has a higher rate of survival, and so is more likely to survive to adulthood, reploduce and pass on its 'enhanced' genes. If the species is in an environment of no competition of survival (modern humans for example), then any mutations will not give a higher rate of survival and so will not become predominnt in the genepool. Do you understand this concept, or do you need further explanation?
> The dust is from the "ground" as the Bible correctly shows
> us and NASA also proved.
Yes. And where did the ground come from, indeed all the atoms in the universe? They are created in the nuclear hearts of suns. Suns that have lived and died before even this world existed. Only the lowest atoms existed originally, carbon I think and a couple of others. Nuclear fusion and nuclear fission have created the rest.
Forest Fan wrote:
> It was quite an arrogant comment, a presumptious one if you will, but
> a comment I have the full backing of the Lord, behind because NO ONE
> DOES GOOD.
Only by the rules you have set yourself. I live my life by socially acceptable standards and the law of the land. I do not believe in your religion and so I have done no wrong.
> "They have all turned aside, together they have become
> corrupt;
> There is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE." Psalm
> 14:3
>
> "Not even one", means you or me or anyone else are not
> good. Jesus was and is the only "good" in this fallen
> world.
Your religion sees that everyone is born with sin. How is this fair? Your god sets you up to fail from the outset.
> What about the sins Tallan? You can't just sin for seventy years, die
> and then have them just die, they have to have a place.
I do not sin. Very much.
Why can I not just die, leave my caporial body and go party? Why must my sins follow me? They don't follow me about now, so why when I die?
> Heaven is a pure gold and precious stone made city, with no temple,
> no sea, with rivers and trees. We are told that no one can guess how
> wonderful Heaven is.
That description doesn't sound exactly brilliant to me. So its made of gold and gems? So? If there is an abundance of these materials in heaven then they cease to be precious, merely commonplace. No sea? I like the sea. I like rivers and trees as well though.
> "but just as it is written,
> "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
> AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
> ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." 1
> Corinthians 2-9
Which means you can do? Give me a good reason for wanting to go to your heaven.
{Edited for spelling}
> It was quite an arrogant comment, a presumptious one if you will, but
> a comment I have the full backing of the Lord, behind because NO ONE
> DOES GOOD.
Only by the rules you have set yourself. I live my life by socially acceptable standards and the law of the land. I do not believe in your religion and so I have done no wrong.
> "They have all turned aside, together they have become
> corrupt;
> There is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE." Psalm
> 14:3
>
> "Not even one", means you or me or anyone else are not
> good. Jesus was and is the only "good" in this fallen
> world.
Your religion sees that everyone is born with sin. How is this fair? Your god sets you up to fail from the outset.
> What about the sins Tallan? You can't just sin for seventy years, die
> and then have them just die, they have to have a place.
I do not sin. Very much.
Why can I not just die, leave my caporial body and go party? Why must my sins follow me? They don't follow me about now, so why when I die?
> Heaven is a pure gold and precious stone made city, with no temple,
> no sea, with rivers and trees. We are told that no one can guess how
> wonderful Heaven is.
That description doesn't sound exactly brilliant to me. So its made of gold and gems? So? If there is an abundance of these materials in heaven then they cease to be precious, merely commonplace. No sea? I like the sea. I like rivers and trees as well though.
> "but just as it is written,
> "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
> AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
> ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." 1
> Corinthians 2-9
Which means you can do? Give me a good reason for wanting to go to your heaven.
{Edited for spelling}
Lindgren wrote:
> A simple definition of evolution, (let me know what you think of this
> loki)
>
> "Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> next."
And Creation can be defined in TEN yes TEN words, the first ten in the Bible;
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
>
> I don't see a whole lot wrong with that statement, it defines
> evolution very well in relatively simple terms.
Except it doesn't change the fact, evolution is fundamentally impossible.
>
> It came from Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989
> Worth Publishers, p.974
>
> It conveys the essence of evolution and shows how evolution is
> observed, by detecting a change in frequency of genes in a
> population.
>
> It is one of the best definitions of evolution I have ever come
> across.
And the best definition of the Truth, as with other subjects, is the Word of Truth, of God's Word, the Bible.
> A simple definition of evolution, (let me know what you think of this
> loki)
>
> "Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
> frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
> next."
And Creation can be defined in TEN yes TEN words, the first ten in the Bible;
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1
>
> I don't see a whole lot wrong with that statement, it defines
> evolution very well in relatively simple terms.
Except it doesn't change the fact, evolution is fundamentally impossible.
>
> It came from Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989
> Worth Publishers, p.974
>
> It conveys the essence of evolution and shows how evolution is
> observed, by detecting a change in frequency of genes in a
> population.
>
> It is one of the best definitions of evolution I have ever come
> across.
And the best definition of the Truth, as with other subjects, is the Word of Truth, of God's Word, the Bible.
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But someone on this forum said we are "evolving". Which is
> it Tallan?
>
> Read 'evolutionary changes'. Our gene pool may alter slightly but
> there are no evolutionary changes within the species, or at least any
> changes that do arise give no significant benefit to become
> predominant.
If there are no evolutionary changes within the species, and with our species having a common ancestor (as we have already proved) then why would it just tale off? Either the human race NEVER evolved or it is CONSTANTLY evolving. You are just saying we evolved a few million years ago, but now you can see it is impossible, you are saying we are no longer evolving, hence you mix Evolution with Creation. Tallan, Evolution believes we are currently evolving. Which is it, Evolution or Creation?
>
>
> As I have an "ounce of intelligence" I accepted the fact
> that humans come from THE DUST OF THE EARTH, as in the Bible. Our
> properties are exactly the same and in 1982 NASA proved this after
> years of mockery. We do not have the same properties as sea slimes.
>
> Yes, we are all made of the same stuff. Us, dogs, cats, trees,
> flowers and eve 'sea slime' as you so elegantly put it. We are all
> made of the same atomic compounds, all of which were formed in the
> hearts of stars millions of years ago. We are, literally, made of
> stardust.
As the Bible correctly says, "dust", not "stardust",
"Then the LORD God formed man of DUST from the GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Genesis 2:7
The dust is from the "ground" as the Bible correctly shows us and NASA also proved.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But someone on this forum said we are "evolving". Which is
> it Tallan?
>
> Read 'evolutionary changes'. Our gene pool may alter slightly but
> there are no evolutionary changes within the species, or at least any
> changes that do arise give no significant benefit to become
> predominant.
If there are no evolutionary changes within the species, and with our species having a common ancestor (as we have already proved) then why would it just tale off? Either the human race NEVER evolved or it is CONSTANTLY evolving. You are just saying we evolved a few million years ago, but now you can see it is impossible, you are saying we are no longer evolving, hence you mix Evolution with Creation. Tallan, Evolution believes we are currently evolving. Which is it, Evolution or Creation?
>
>
> As I have an "ounce of intelligence" I accepted the fact
> that humans come from THE DUST OF THE EARTH, as in the Bible. Our
> properties are exactly the same and in 1982 NASA proved this after
> years of mockery. We do not have the same properties as sea slimes.
>
> Yes, we are all made of the same stuff. Us, dogs, cats, trees,
> flowers and eve 'sea slime' as you so elegantly put it. We are all
> made of the same atomic compounds, all of which were formed in the
> hearts of stars millions of years ago. We are, literally, made of
> stardust.
As the Bible correctly says, "dust", not "stardust",
"Then the LORD God formed man of DUST from the GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Genesis 2:7
The dust is from the "ground" as the Bible correctly shows us and NASA also proved.
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> I am a good person.
>
> No you are not and I can say that with perfect confidence.
>
> You do not even know me. You are arrogant and self-righteous,
> qualities that by your god will see you burn in hell for an
> eternity.
>
It was quite an arrogant comment, a presumptious one if you will, but a comment I have the full backing of the Lord, behind because NO ONE DOES GOOD.
"They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE." Psalm 14:3
"Not even one", means you or me or anyone else are not good. Jesus was and is the only "good" in this fallen world.
>
> I am not going to heaven. I am going to Paradise.
>
> Not without Jesus your not.
>
> Jesus has nothing to do with what I believe. I am going to Paradise
> when I die. I care not for what you or your god do.
What about the sins Tallan? You can't just sin for seventy years, die and then have them just die, they have to have a place.
>
> What can you do in heaven?
>
> Work and serve the Lord.
>
> Are you subject to the same strict
> lifestyle that you have fashioned for yourself now?
>
> No, won't be any taxes in Heaven!
>
> So the point of living a 'clean' life and having zero fun gets you
> what? More of the same for an eternity? Thats why I am not going to
> heaven. It sounds worse than hell. Slave, that is all you are. A
> slave to your religion. A slave for eternity.
Heaven is a pure gold and precious stone made city, with no temple, no sea, with rivers and trees. We are told that no one can guess how wonderful Heaven is.
"but just as it is written,
"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." 1 Corinthians 2-9
> Forest Fan wrote:
> I am a good person.
>
> No you are not and I can say that with perfect confidence.
>
> You do not even know me. You are arrogant and self-righteous,
> qualities that by your god will see you burn in hell for an
> eternity.
>
It was quite an arrogant comment, a presumptious one if you will, but a comment I have the full backing of the Lord, behind because NO ONE DOES GOOD.
"They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;
There is NO ONE who does good, NOT EVEN ONE." Psalm 14:3
"Not even one", means you or me or anyone else are not good. Jesus was and is the only "good" in this fallen world.
>
> I am not going to heaven. I am going to Paradise.
>
> Not without Jesus your not.
>
> Jesus has nothing to do with what I believe. I am going to Paradise
> when I die. I care not for what you or your god do.
What about the sins Tallan? You can't just sin for seventy years, die and then have them just die, they have to have a place.
>
> What can you do in heaven?
>
> Work and serve the Lord.
>
> Are you subject to the same strict
> lifestyle that you have fashioned for yourself now?
>
> No, won't be any taxes in Heaven!
>
> So the point of living a 'clean' life and having zero fun gets you
> what? More of the same for an eternity? Thats why I am not going to
> heaven. It sounds worse than hell. Slave, that is all you are. A
> slave to your religion. A slave for eternity.
Heaven is a pure gold and precious stone made city, with no temple, no sea, with rivers and trees. We are told that no one can guess how wonderful Heaven is.
"but just as it is written,
"THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM." 1 Corinthians 2-9
Forest Fan wrote:
> But someone on this forum said we are "evolving". Which is
> it Tallan?
Read 'evolutionary changes'. Our gene pool may alter slightly but there are no evolutionary changes within the species, or at least any changes that do arise give no significant benefit to become predominant.
> As I have an "ounce of intelligence" I accepted the fact
> that humans come from THE DUST OF THE EARTH, as in the Bible. Our
> properties are exactly the same and in 1982 NASA proved this after
> years of mockery. We do not have the same properties as sea slimes.
Yes, we are all made of the same stuff. Us, dogs, cats, trees, flowers and eve 'sea slime' as you so elegantly put it. We are all made of the same atomic compounds, all of which were formed in the hearts of stars millions of years ago. We are, literally, made of stardust.
> But someone on this forum said we are "evolving". Which is
> it Tallan?
Read 'evolutionary changes'. Our gene pool may alter slightly but there are no evolutionary changes within the species, or at least any changes that do arise give no significant benefit to become predominant.
> As I have an "ounce of intelligence" I accepted the fact
> that humans come from THE DUST OF THE EARTH, as in the Bible. Our
> properties are exactly the same and in 1982 NASA proved this after
> years of mockery. We do not have the same properties as sea slimes.
Yes, we are all made of the same stuff. Us, dogs, cats, trees, flowers and eve 'sea slime' as you so elegantly put it. We are all made of the same atomic compounds, all of which were formed in the hearts of stars millions of years ago. We are, literally, made of stardust.
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But if evolution was taking place as you have alleged, why was there
> no change between Eve's parents and her?
>
> Evolution does not necessarily take place one generation to the next.
> Species can remain unchanged for thousands of generations, or go
> through drastic changes within a few hundred years. As humans have
> evolved to the point where we can tailor the environment to our
> needs, we need no longer evolve as any evolution gives us no more of
> an advantage.
But someone on this forum said we are "evolving". Which is it Tallan?
>
> If you had an ounce of intelligence you would have known this about
> this theory. Obviously you just don't know anything about that which
> you wish to disprove, ergo your arguments are always wrong.
As I have an "ounce of intelligence" I accepted the fact that humans come from THE DUST OF THE EARTH, as in the Bible. Our properties are exactly the same and in 1982 NASA proved this after years of mockery. We do not have the same properties as sea slimes.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But if evolution was taking place as you have alleged, why was there
> no change between Eve's parents and her?
>
> Evolution does not necessarily take place one generation to the next.
> Species can remain unchanged for thousands of generations, or go
> through drastic changes within a few hundred years. As humans have
> evolved to the point where we can tailor the environment to our
> needs, we need no longer evolve as any evolution gives us no more of
> an advantage.
But someone on this forum said we are "evolving". Which is it Tallan?
>
> If you had an ounce of intelligence you would have known this about
> this theory. Obviously you just don't know anything about that which
> you wish to disprove, ergo your arguments are always wrong.
As I have an "ounce of intelligence" I accepted the fact that humans come from THE DUST OF THE EARTH, as in the Bible. Our properties are exactly the same and in 1982 NASA proved this after years of mockery. We do not have the same properties as sea slimes.
Page: