The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Yes, as these prophecies are being fuffiled (like techonology for the
> Mark of the Beast ready in the States) will be here VERY
> soon.
Which is what exactly? You know it's being developed in the States, so what form will it take?
> Yes, as these prophecies are being fuffiled (like techonology for the
> Mark of the Beast ready in the States) will be here VERY
> soon.
Which is what exactly? You know it's being developed in the States, so what form will it take?
loki wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> If it was our last common ancestor as you say, who were Eve's
> parents?
>
> Eve's parents were our penultimate common ancestors. What's so hard
> to understand about that?
No, loki who were Eve's parents? What were they made from, i.e. were they half ape or half slime? Please answer the question.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> If it was our last common ancestor as you say, who were Eve's
> parents?
>
> Eve's parents were our penultimate common ancestors. What's so hard
> to understand about that?
No, loki who were Eve's parents? What were they made from, i.e. were they half ape or half slime? Please answer the question.
Cyclone wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Because the Bible, as well as being the Word of God is Truth, as for
> the irrelevance part, I hardly think it is, as it forsees the
I'll quote verses that apply to the relevant points;
>
> Rapture
> of believers,
>
> Where?
"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will RISE first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
>
> Millennium,
>
> Or this convieniently fits on with, um, a calendar.......
"Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a THOUSAND YEARS." Revelation 20:4
>
> Lake of Fire,
>
> where?
Then death and Hades were thrown into the LAKE OF FIRE. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the LAKE OF FIRE. Revelation 20:14&15
>
> Anti-Christ,
>
> where?
"And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the ANTICHRIST. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward." 2 John 1:6-8
>
> False Prophet,
>
> Where?
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the FALSE PROPHET are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20:10
>
> Mark of the Beast (which is just becoming available)
>
> What, at Marks & Sparks?
Nope
"And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a MARK on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the MARK, either the name of the BEAST or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the BEAST, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six." Revelation 13:16-18
>
> , Wars with
> Russia,
When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, GOG AND MAGOG, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them." Revelation 20:7-9
Gog and Magog being modern day Russia.
>
> When in the last 50 years? Who with Russia?
>
> New Jerusalem and future of Israel.
>
> What?
"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." Revelation 3:12
>
> Now that's relevance.
>
> Is it?!
Yes, as these prophecies are being fuffiled (like techonology for the Mark of the Beast ready in the States) will be here VERY soon.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Because the Bible, as well as being the Word of God is Truth, as for
> the irrelevance part, I hardly think it is, as it forsees the
I'll quote verses that apply to the relevant points;
>
> Rapture
> of believers,
>
> Where?
"For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will RISE first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord." 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17
>
> Millennium,
>
> Or this convieniently fits on with, um, a calendar.......
"Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a THOUSAND YEARS." Revelation 20:4
>
> Lake of Fire,
>
> where?
Then death and Hades were thrown into the LAKE OF FIRE. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the LAKE OF FIRE. Revelation 20:14&15
>
> Anti-Christ,
>
> where?
"And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the ANTICHRIST. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward." 2 John 1:6-8
>
> False Prophet,
>
> Where?
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the FALSE PROPHET are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20:10
>
> Mark of the Beast (which is just becoming available)
>
> What, at Marks & Sparks?
Nope
"And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a MARK on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the MARK, either the name of the BEAST or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the BEAST, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six." Revelation 13:16-18
>
> , Wars with
> Russia,
When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, GOG AND MAGOG, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them." Revelation 20:7-9
Gog and Magog being modern day Russia.
>
> When in the last 50 years? Who with Russia?
>
> New Jerusalem and future of Israel.
>
> What?
"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name." Revelation 3:12
>
> Now that's relevance.
>
> Is it?!
Yes, as these prophecies are being fuffiled (like techonology for the Mark of the Beast ready in the States) will be here VERY soon.
There has been research showing that all the variations in humans could have come from just one original pair of humans. All the different colours, buils, everything. I can't remember the details now, but it did surprise me to see science admit that.
It was on TV a few years back, did anyone else see it?
It was on TV a few years back, did anyone else see it?
Tallan wrote:
> think of a morphing program turning a monkey into a man
*is living proof*
> think of a morphing program turning a monkey into a man
*is living proof*
Why doesn't everyone just shut the fnck up and I agree to disgree?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Nope, science tells us, our OLDEST ancestors were a man and a woman.
> They themselves had no ancestors, because they were the first humans,
> they were not half monkey / half human or half slime / half human,
> but fully human just like anybody else; hence there was no-one before
> them, no-one to have evolved from.
No it doesn't. That is a complete lie.
Science tells us that we evolved from apes. This was a gradual change over a long time and there is no distinct point at which you can say "here is where the monkey stops and the man begins". They are blended in over time (think of a morphing program turning a monkey into a man and then think that every single frame of that clip is a thousand years or more of the species living, dying and reproducing).
> Nope, science tells us, our OLDEST ancestors were a man and a woman.
> They themselves had no ancestors, because they were the first humans,
> they were not half monkey / half human or half slime / half human,
> but fully human just like anybody else; hence there was no-one before
> them, no-one to have evolved from.
No it doesn't. That is a complete lie.
Science tells us that we evolved from apes. This was a gradual change over a long time and there is no distinct point at which you can say "here is where the monkey stops and the man begins". They are blended in over time (think of a morphing program turning a monkey into a man and then think that every single frame of that clip is a thousand years or more of the species living, dying and reproducing).
Forest Fan wrote:
> If you want science, Creation is the way.
Creation is religion, not science you numbnut.
> If you want science, Creation is the way.
Creation is religion, not science you numbnut.
Forest Fan wrote:
{Lots of rubbish about cows and grasshoppers}
Right, you say that this is not evolution because man has altered the environment. That is absolute rubbish!
It does not matter how the environment is altered, either through natural or man-made alterations, it is the fact that the environment has changed that is the important part, and as a result the species in question has evolved to cope with the new environment.
The only reason human changes in the environment were chosen as the example is because humans have changed the environment so quickly it is easy to see a species changing to survive over a short period of time (decades rather than millenia).
{Lots of rubbish about cows and grasshoppers}
Right, you say that this is not evolution because man has altered the environment. That is absolute rubbish!
It does not matter how the environment is altered, either through natural or man-made alterations, it is the fact that the environment has changed that is the important part, and as a result the species in question has evolved to cope with the new environment.
The only reason human changes in the environment were chosen as the example is because humans have changed the environment so quickly it is easy to see a species changing to survive over a short period of time (decades rather than millenia).
Define "common".
Please.
Please.
Page: