The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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.
> 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 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.
> 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.
> 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 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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."
I don't see a whole lot wrong with that statement, it defines evolution very well in relatively simple terms.
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.
"Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
I don't see a whole lot wrong with that statement, it defines evolution very well in relatively simple terms.
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.
Ju§t Tinkª wrote:
> Me and Loki should collaberate on some kind of affair.
An evolution vs. evolution debate. You could discuss/guess what sea-slime you believe you evolved from.
> Me and Loki should collaberate on some kind of affair.
An evolution vs. evolution debate. You could discuss/guess what sea-slime you believe you evolved from.
loki wrote:
> We were talking about Mitochondrial Eve, not your mythological Eve
> from Genesis. Do keep up.
Eve was just created, she had no ancestors, anyway here is some CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC PROOF, to put the old wives tale of evolution to rest.
Evolution says we evolve from sea-slime, Creation says we were created from dust
"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
Scientists laughed at this simple statement for many years not able to imagine how a complex being could be composed of the elements of the earth. In 1982 researchers at NASA’s Ames Research Centre confirmed the biblical account by proving that every single element found in the human body exists within ordinary soil! The word of God is always true.
Sea slime, never comes into it.
Thanks to http://www.icpf.org/fisherman/Nov2002/article4.htm
> We were talking about Mitochondrial Eve, not your mythological Eve
> from Genesis. Do keep up.
Eve was just created, she had no ancestors, anyway here is some CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC PROOF, to put the old wives tale of evolution to rest.
Evolution says we evolve from sea-slime, Creation says we were created from dust
"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
Scientists laughed at this simple statement for many years not able to imagine how a complex being could be composed of the elements of the earth. In 1982 researchers at NASA’s Ames Research Centre confirmed the biblical account by proving that every single element found in the human body exists within ordinary soil! The word of God is always true.
Sea slime, never comes into it.
Thanks to http://www.icpf.org/fisherman/Nov2002/article4.htm
Me and Loki should collaberate on some kind of affair.
We were talking about Mitochondrial Eve, not your mythological Eve from Genesis. Do keep up.
loki wrote:
> That's not what it means at all. Just because we're not related to
> someone it doesn't mean that they didn't exist! If M. Eve existed,
> then so did her parents. And here parent's parents. And so on.
But it doesn't work like that, because Eve was CREATED.
> That's not what it means at all. Just because we're not related to
> someone it doesn't mean that they didn't exist! If M. Eve existed,
> then so did her parents. And here parent's parents. And so on.
But it doesn't work like that, because Eve was CREATED.
That's not what it means at all. Just because we're not related to someone it doesn't mean that they didn't exist! If M. Eve existed, then so did her parents. And here parent's parents. And so on.
loki wrote:
> Absolutely nothing. She was just an ordinary human being. One of a
> group of humans. She wasn't the first human. She is just the first
> person that you reach when you trace back mankind's family tree that
> everyone is related too. Albeit very distantly.
Then what do you know about people before loki, by that logic, we can not know for sure of anyone BEFORE Eve, hence what Creationists believe, further disproof of "evolution".
> Absolutely nothing. She was just an ordinary human being. One of a
> group of humans. She wasn't the first human. She is just the first
> person that you reach when you trace back mankind's family tree that
> everyone is related too. Albeit very distantly.
Then what do you know about people before loki, by that logic, we can not know for sure of anyone BEFORE Eve, hence what Creationists believe, further disproof of "evolution".
Page: