The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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?
> 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?
Ahh, you didn't make yourdelf clear.
Didn't I say all that stuff in the post I made?
Maybe not.
I'm tired, glad it's friday.
Didn't I say all that stuff in the post I made?
Maybe not.
I'm tired, glad it's friday.
Rosalind wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
>
> You are under the misconception that "eve" as in
> Mitochondrial Eve was a single person. They were not.
>
> Mitochondiral Eve was a single female human.
Sorry, didn't make myself clear, The "Mitochondiral Eve" may well have been a single person, but a single person living in a community of similar individuals.
"And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today."
> Pandaemonium wrote:
>
> You are under the misconception that "eve" as in
> Mitochondrial Eve was a single person. They were not.
>
> Mitochondiral Eve was a single female human.
Sorry, didn't make myself clear, The "Mitochondiral Eve" may well have been a single person, but a single person living in a community of similar individuals.
"And this is where the confusion sets in. A single organism can't populate a planet (arguments about amoeba aside). The evidence didn't suggest a single woman living in isolation from members of her own species. What it suggested was a genetic bottleneck – a period in human history when the population was so small that the genetic expressions of a single woman could have an impact on all humans living on the planet today."
Pandaemonium wrote:
>
> You are under the misconception that "eve" as in
> Mitochondrial Eve was a single person. They were not.
Mitochondiral Eve was a single female human.
>
> You are under the misconception that "eve" as in
> Mitochondrial Eve was a single person. They were not.
Mitochondiral Eve was a single female human.
BUT THE POPE IS AN UNBELIEVER THEN!
DENOUNCE HIM AND SEIZE THE VATICAN IN A RAIN OF BLOOD!
Haha!
I do like their farewell;
'I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you'
DENOUNCE HIM AND SEIZE THE VATICAN IN A RAIN OF BLOOD!
Haha!
I do like their farewell;
'I cordially invoke an abundance of divine blessings upon you and upon all who are close to you'
Even Pope John Paul II has denounced creationalism Forest Fan.
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02tc.htm
[URL]http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02tc.htm[/URL]
And that's all I really have to say on the subject.
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02tc.htm
[URL]http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02tc.htm[/URL]
And that's all I really have to say on the subject.
Right Cyclone, I'll answer that question at lunch and all the others that pile up, but I have to go do some work now. Bye, keep the questions coming in.
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
Rapture
> of believers,
Where?
Millennium,
Or this convieniently fits on with, um, a calendar.......
Lake of Fire,
where?
Anti-Christ,
where?
False Prophet,
Where?
>
Mark of the Beast (which is just becoming available)
What, at Marks & Sparks?
, Wars with
> Russia,
When in the last 50 years? Who with Russia?
New Jerusalem and future of Israel.
What?
>
> Now that's relevance.
Is it?!
> > 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
Rapture
> of believers,
Where?
Millennium,
Or this convieniently fits on with, um, a calendar.......
Lake of Fire,
where?
Anti-Christ,
where?
False Prophet,
Where?
>
Mark of the Beast (which is just becoming available)
What, at Marks & Sparks?
, Wars with
> Russia,
When in the last 50 years? Who with Russia?
New Jerusalem and future of Israel.
What?
>
> Now that's relevance.
Is it?!
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> If it was our last common ancestor as you say, who were Eve's
> parents?
>
> You are under the misconception that "eve" as in
> Mitochondrial Eve was a single person. They were not.
>
> Who then?
>
> THEIR biological parents. See, its simple isn't it?
Who were what, half sea-slime, half-ape, what were they?
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> If it was our last common ancestor as you say, who were Eve's
> parents?
>
> You are under the misconception that "eve" as in
> Mitochondrial Eve was a single person. They were not.
>
> Who then?
>
> THEIR biological parents. See, its simple isn't it?
Who were what, half sea-slime, half-ape, what were they?
Cyclone wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Monkeys?
>
> Bible?
>
> See, we can at least look at your side before dismissing it...
Yeh, that's what I want, both sides of the arguement agreeing to look at each others material, but Pandaemonium doesn't like that.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Monkeys?
>
> Bible?
>
> See, we can at least look at your side before dismissing it...
Yeh, that's what I want, both sides of the arguement agreeing to look at each others material, but Pandaemonium doesn't like that.
Page: