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.

Ever seen Star Trek : Generations?

I would be more inclined to believe in heaven as being a nexus, as depicted in that film. Sort of like a rift in time and space, a doorway to another dimension. Within this nexus time ceases to exist, and the entire perceived reality is governed by your own thoughts and desires.

So you see, in this way, I am very open minded. I can bend my imagination to accommodate many concepts, providing they have some scientific basis, that even though may in their entirety be beyond my grasp, are still understandable in basic terms.

Asking me to blindly believe in such things as heaven and hell, with no scientific basis or explanation whatsoever, is asking too much though. And trying to force me to believe it by threatening me with such rubbish as 'eternal agony' and 'endless suffering' is not only rather stupid, but is also the hallmark of many ruthless dictators throughout history.

Even if a God existed, the chance that it would be the kind of Deity as "described" by us humans, is remote.

Also I don't understand why evolution would prove that God does not exist. I cannot take any arguement against religion seriously if the basis for claiming there is no God is based upon the Bible. The stories within Genesis are not meant to be taken literally. One does not gain any intellectual merit in pointing out the genetic impossibility of Adam or Eve, Noah's Ark or that everyone lived for about 150 years.

Maybe a God does exist and is wondering how it came to be.

We will never be able to poove that there is no God. You can't prove that something doesn't exist.

You can however prove that something does exist. You could prove that God exists. Nobody has ever proved that God exists. Therefore I think that puts you at a distint disadvantage.

Edit: My spellings sucks

Forest Fan wrote:
> I believe that this dialogue began with a question of
> whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives
---------

Here is why this thread, your friend and your arguments are baseless, filled with inconsistencie, poorly thought out and designed purely to highlight the staggering ignorance of fundamentalists.

Read it again. Got it?

You're attempting to disprove science with?.....Science
And you're attempting to prove a religious concept with?...Science

*slow clap*
Go back to your hut, Reverand Jones, and continue awaiting the finale.

The list for "flaws with religion" is one we could all present to you, and altough Evolution isn't a perfect theory, god is about as water tight as my grandad.

Strafio wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> I can give a real life example of evolution in action if you want,
> forestfan.
>
> Is it the Super Bugs?
> I've tried that one. It sort of got ignored. :-)

Hehe yeah that was the one.

Snufkin wrote:
> it made you think about the authenticity of the rest of the bible.

It did indeed, certainly consolidated my previous thoughts.

Tallan wrote:
> I can give a real life example of evolution in action if you want,
> forestfan.

Is it the Super Bugs?
I've tried that one. It sort of got ignored. :-)

it made you think about the authenticity of the rest of the bible.

I can give a real life example of evolution in action if you want, forestfan.