Viewing Thread:
"More evolution flaws"

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.

loki wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Mitcondrial eve is evidence FOR evolution NOT against it.
>
> Well as EVE, as Creatonists say was the first human (of any sort),
> this is proof of Creation, not Evolution.
>
> Heh, don't you get it. Scientists nicknamed her Eve as a jokey
> reference to the old creation myths of the first woman. That's hardly
> proof. It's just a literary allusion.

Well that would just make things more confusing as science struggles to fight itself, with the tons of evidence now weighing up against the sea-slime cult centred theory.

loki wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> loki wrote:
> 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. You just made that up. Stop telling lies, it's bad
> for
> your soul.
>
> Strong claim loki and a false claim, as this article proves;
>
> All that article confirms is that we all have common ancestors.
> That's a fundamental part of evolutionary theory. Science doesn not
> tell us that our OLDEST ancestors were a man and a woman. THat is
> either a lie or just you completely misunderstanding again.
>
> And can't you ever reply to a post in your own words to explain what
> you understand. Posting other people's work doesn't help becuase it
> just reinforces the impression that you don't actually understand any
> of it yourself.
>
> The Mitochondrial Eve argument back up evolutionary theory, it in no
> way says that she had no ancestors.

Well loki as you now believe Mitochondrial Eve, lived and as it has been proven she lived 6000 years ago as our oldest ancestor, there is only one theory that fits with; "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Genesis 1:26&27

Now that is a logical theory.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Mitcondrial eve is evidence FOR evolution NOT against it.
>
> Well as EVE, as Creatonists say was the first human (of any sort),
> this is proof of Creation, not Evolution.

Heh, don't you get it. Scientists nicknamed her Eve as a jokey reference to the old creation myths of the first woman. That's hardly proof. It's just a literary allusion.

Forest Fan wrote:
> I mean we are discussing SCIENCE here.

Poem yes, but if I followed and had faith in the Viking religion, then its just as scientific as your blind faith in, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Now you see, think for a moment that the above "in the beginning" quote from the bible could be *shock* Incorrect, then your entire argument and "science" comes crashing down like a house of cards.

Rosalind wrote:
> OOPs that turned into a bit of a lecture....
>
> sorry.

Did really and somehow you tried to turn EVIDENCE for Creation into evidence for Evolution, just because there is none, typical.

Forest Fan wrote:
> loki wrote:
> 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. You just made that up. Stop telling lies, it's bad
> for
> your soul.
>
> Strong claim loki and a false claim, as this article proves;

All that article confirms is that we all have common ancestors. That's a fundamental part of evolutionary theory. Science doesn not tell us that our OLDEST ancestors were a man and a woman. THat is either a lie or just you completely misunderstanding again.

And can't you ever reply to a post in your own words to explain what you understand. Posting other people's work doesn't help becuase it just reinforces the impression that you don't actually understand any of it yourself.

The Mitochondrial Eve argument back up evolutionary theory, it in no way says that she had no ancestors.

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> OR [URL] http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html [/URL]
>
> Yet again, from a Christian website, and hence biased towards your
> faith. Have you any links from independent sources?
>
> Thought not.

So, Evolutionists only give links to Evolution website, so you can't really use that arguement Pandaemonium, now can you?

Rosalind wrote:
> loki wrote:
> Rosalind wrote:
> If your interested, Mitochondrial eve (and her male equivalent - I
> forget his name)...
>
> At a guess Mitochondrial Adam? Or would that be too obvious?
>
> No it doesn't work like that.
>
> Mitochondrial eve is so called because the DNA in our mitochondria is
> inherited directly from our Mother (as opposed to our other DNA which
> is a mix of Mother and Father).
>
> This being so the only variation in our mitochondrial DNA comes from
> mutations, there is NO other way for variation to occur. This being
> so, and with scientist knowing the rate at which mutations in DNA
> occur, we can guesstimate how long ago all our mitochondrial DNA was
> the same (i.e, came from the same woman.) The same is not true in
> the case of men, and although there is a male equivalent, it isn't
> based on the same principles and is much more recently discovered
> (and I don't know much about him.)
>
> Mitochondrial eve is supposed to be the latest (not only) Woman from
> who all modern humans are decended. But logic suggests that even in
> the time of M.eve there was a wiman from who all her contemparies
> were evolved.

We all come from Adam and Eve, they did not "evolve" from anyone, because they were just made, they didn't evolve.
>
> Mitcondrial eve is evidence FOR evolution NOT against it.

Well as EVE, as Creatonists say was the first human (of any sort), this is proof of Creation, not Evolution.

Forest Fan wrote:
> OR [URL] http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html [/URL]

Yet again, from a Christian website, and hence biased towards your faith. Have you any links from independent sources?

Thought not.

I mean we are discussing SCIENCE here.