The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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?
> 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?
Cyclone wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> My books better than yours! It's been compunded by years of blind
> faith! That makes it true! YAY!
>
> Doubting the Bible, Cyclone?
>
> Good to see blind faith isn't distorting your powers of perception...
Nope, if you want scientifically sound, read the Bible, if you want to know you have evolved from sea-slimes read some evolutionist.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> My books better than yours! It's been compunded by years of blind
> faith! That makes it true! YAY!
>
> Doubting the Bible, Cyclone?
>
> Good to see blind faith isn't distorting your powers of perception...
Nope, if you want scientifically sound, read the Bible, if you want to know you have evolved from sea-slimes read some evolutionist.
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?
> 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?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> No the Bible is quite correct,
>
> To idiots that blindly follow Forest Fan.
>
> just like this verse, just seven words
> in length, but it says all you need to know about
> "evolution" scientists.
>
> "Professing to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
>
> Yet again, why quote bible passages to people who think it is nothing
> but a manual of how to run your life 2000 years ago, and with
> increasing irrelevance now?
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, Millennium, Lake of Fire, Anti-Christ, False Prophet, Mark of the Beast (which is just becoming available), Wars with Russia, New Jerusalem and future of Israel.
Now that's relevance.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> No the Bible is quite correct,
>
> To idiots that blindly follow Forest Fan.
>
> just like this verse, just seven words
> in length, but it says all you need to know about
> "evolution" scientists.
>
> "Professing to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22
>
> Yet again, why quote bible passages to people who think it is nothing
> but a manual of how to run your life 2000 years ago, and with
> increasing irrelevance now?
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, Millennium, Lake of Fire, Anti-Christ, False Prophet, Mark of the Beast (which is just becoming available), Wars with Russia, New Jerusalem and future of Israel.
Now that's relevance.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Monkeys?
Bible?
See, we can at least look at your side before dismissing it...
> Monkeys?
Bible?
See, we can at least look at your side before dismissing it...
Forest Fan wrote:
> Cyclone wrote:
> My books better than yours! It's been compunded by years of blind
> faith! That makes it true! YAY!
>
> Doubting the Bible, Cyclone?
Good to see blind faith isn't distorting your powers of perception...
> Cyclone wrote:
> My books better than yours! It's been compunded by years of blind
> faith! That makes it true! YAY!
>
> Doubting the Bible, Cyclone?
Good to see blind faith isn't distorting your powers of perception...
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.
> 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.
Rosalind wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> But that website is evolution biased,
>
> Did you even read it?
>
> How are you going to be able to weigh up all the evidence if you wont
> listen to one side of the story?
>
> I read your side.
Yeh, but Pandaemonium doesn't want links to biased sites, we can't have it both ways, so are we going to continue to link to these sites, or not link at all?
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> But that website is evolution biased,
>
> Did you even read it?
>
> How are you going to be able to weigh up all the evidence if you wont
> listen to one side of the story?
>
> I read your side.
Yeh, but Pandaemonium doesn't want links to biased sites, we can't have it both ways, so are we going to continue to link to these sites, or not link at all?
Monkeys?
Forest Fan wrote:
> But that website is evolution biased,
Did you even read it?
How are you going to be able to weigh up all the evidence if you wont listen to one side of the story?
I read your side.
> But that website is evolution biased,
Did you even read it?
How are you going to be able to weigh up all the evidence if you wont listen to one side of the story?
I read your side.
Page: