The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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.
> 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.
Pandaemonium 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, that's a belief in creationalism, and not science at all.
The science parts tell us, the perfectly formed human had NO ancestors, thus disproof of evolution and with one theory left, namely the fact stated in Genesis 1:1, CREATION wins through.
> 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, that's a belief in creationalism, and not science at all.
The science parts tell us, the perfectly formed human had NO ancestors, thus disproof of evolution and with one theory left, namely the fact stated in Genesis 1:1, CREATION wins through.
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, that's a belief in creationalism, and not science at all.
> 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, that's a belief in creationalism, and not science at all.
loki wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Because science tells us, our oldest ancestor was a completely
> perfectly formed human, which had no ancestors; hence disproof that
> the humans evolved from monkeys or otherwise. Science has proved man
> was just there, and DID NOT evolve, which fits with Creation.
>
> No it doesn't. It tells us that there was once a human being
> (nicknamed mitachondrial eve or summat) that we are all descended
> from. She had ancestors just like everyone else. It's just that it's
> her offspring that most successfully reproduced and prospered.
>
> Where does science tell us that we descended from someone with no
> ancestors? Nowhere. You just made that up. What's the point of a
> discussion if you just make up facts and lies. You just don't
> understand the basic concepts. The fact that you don't understand
> something doesn't count as proof of God.
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.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Because science tells us, our oldest ancestor was a completely
> perfectly formed human, which had no ancestors; hence disproof that
> the humans evolved from monkeys or otherwise. Science has proved man
> was just there, and DID NOT evolve, which fits with Creation.
>
> No it doesn't. It tells us that there was once a human being
> (nicknamed mitachondrial eve or summat) that we are all descended
> from. She had ancestors just like everyone else. It's just that it's
> her offspring that most successfully reproduced and prospered.
>
> Where does science tell us that we descended from someone with no
> ancestors? Nowhere. You just made that up. What's the point of a
> discussion if you just make up facts and lies. You just don't
> understand the basic concepts. The fact that you don't understand
> something doesn't count as proof of God.
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.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Because science tells us, our oldest ancestor was a completely
> perfectly formed human, which had no ancestors; hence disproof that
> the humans evolved from monkeys or otherwise. Science has proved man
> was just there, and DID NOT evolve, which fits with Creation.
No it doesn't. It tells us that there was once a human being (nicknamed mitachondrial eve or summat) that we are all descended from. She had ancestors just like everyone else. It's just that it's her offspring that most successfully reproduced and prospered.
Where does science tell us that we descended from someone with no ancestors? Nowhere. You just made that up. What's the point of a discussion if you just make up facts and lies. You just don't understand the basic concepts. The fact that you don't understand something doesn't count as proof of God. All it actually proves is your ignorance of the subject matter.
> Because science tells us, our oldest ancestor was a completely
> perfectly formed human, which had no ancestors; hence disproof that
> the humans evolved from monkeys or otherwise. Science has proved man
> was just there, and DID NOT evolve, which fits with Creation.
No it doesn't. It tells us that there was once a human being (nicknamed mitachondrial eve or summat) that we are all descended from. She had ancestors just like everyone else. It's just that it's her offspring that most successfully reproduced and prospered.
Where does science tell us that we descended from someone with no ancestors? Nowhere. You just made that up. What's the point of a discussion if you just make up facts and lies. You just don't understand the basic concepts. The fact that you don't understand something doesn't count as proof of God. All it actually proves is your ignorance of the subject matter.
loki wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Isn't perfect, Evolution is a flawed cult of a theory. The idea we
> all evolved from a single cell is impossible, escepcially as science
> tells us we all have a common ancestor of a man and woman.
>
> Huh? Please explain this in more detail, it makes no sense to me.
>
> Yes, we do all have common ancestors. How does this contradict the
> idea that those ancestors were descended from a single celled
> organism?
Because science tells us, our oldest ancestor was a completely perfectly formed human, which had no ancestors; hence disproof that the humans evolved from monkeys or otherwise. Science has proved man was just there, and DID NOT evolve, which fits with Creation.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Isn't perfect, Evolution is a flawed cult of a theory. The idea we
> all evolved from a single cell is impossible, escepcially as science
> tells us we all have a common ancestor of a man and woman.
>
> Huh? Please explain this in more detail, it makes no sense to me.
>
> Yes, we do all have common ancestors. How does this contradict the
> idea that those ancestors were descended from a single celled
> organism?
Because science tells us, our oldest ancestor was a completely perfectly formed human, which had no ancestors; hence disproof that the humans evolved from monkeys or otherwise. Science has proved man was just there, and DID NOT evolve, which fits with Creation.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Isn't perfect, Evolution is a flawed cult of a theory. The idea we
> all evolved from a single cell is impossible, escepcially as science
> tells us we all have a common ancestor of a man and woman.
Huh? Please explain this in more detail, it makes no sense to me.
Yes, we do all have common ancestors. How does this contradict the idea that those ancestors were descended from a single celled organism?
> Isn't perfect, Evolution is a flawed cult of a theory. The idea we
> all evolved from a single cell is impossible, escepcially as science
> tells us we all have a common ancestor of a man and woman.
Huh? Please explain this in more detail, it makes no sense to me.
Yes, we do all have common ancestors. How does this contradict the idea that those ancestors were descended from a single celled organism?
Forest Fan wrote:
> And this comes from an.... evolutionist!
And this comes from a.... creationalist!
Your point being?
Let me ask you one question. If there were *any* possibility of creationalism being scientifically possible outside of the bible, why is it that there are not a vast amount of *more* serious academic investigations into it? I'm talking papers upon papers of serious investigation, not a few scientists who have found god bending the truth to suit their needs?
Thought so.
> And this comes from an.... evolutionist!
And this comes from a.... creationalist!
Your point being?
Let me ask you one question. If there were *any* possibility of creationalism being scientifically possible outside of the bible, why is it that there are not a vast amount of *more* serious academic investigations into it? I'm talking papers upon papers of serious investigation, not a few scientists who have found god bending the truth to suit their needs?
Thought so.
If you want science, Creation is the way.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> OR [URL]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3851.asp[/URL]
>
> Can you not just post the link in the first place?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?
>
> And further, the problem I've got with these articles you are posting
> is that they all sound like a shopping channel extended advert for
> god.
>
> A happy smiling wholesome american host, pearly white teeth almost
> singing, "Just thank the Lord you haven't got a 'hospital
> infection'. Some of the pills now made for fighting hospital
> superinfections cost $90 each!"
>
> "Just turn to the good lord and everything will be a-ok"
>
> Its really hard to take them seriously. (Oh, the science is bulls''''
> too)
And this comes from an.... evolutionist!
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> OR [URL]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3851.asp[/URL]
>
> Can you not just post the link in the first place?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?
>
> And further, the problem I've got with these articles you are posting
> is that they all sound like a shopping channel extended advert for
> god.
>
> A happy smiling wholesome american host, pearly white teeth almost
> singing, "Just thank the Lord you haven't got a 'hospital
> infection'. Some of the pills now made for fighting hospital
> superinfections cost $90 each!"
>
> "Just turn to the good lord and everything will be a-ok"
>
> Its really hard to take them seriously. (Oh, the science is bulls''''
> too)
And this comes from an.... evolutionist!
Page: