The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>You can't deny Jesus is real.
- Jesus isn't real -
That's wasn't too hard.
>You can't deny Jesus is real.
- Jesus isn't real -
That's wasn't too hard.
If David Blaine was around 2000 years ago able to perform his illusions, he would have been considered a god (or son of).
Question: How can he die for OUR sins? That's talking as if he was dying after they had been commited.
It would be like an Egyption dying for your meal tonight. He had no idea you even existed and his consequence more than likely had no effect on your present situation with regards to your meal.
Question: How can he die for OUR sins? That's talking as if he was dying after they had been commited.
It would be like an Egyption dying for your meal tonight. He had no idea you even existed and his consequence more than likely had no effect on your present situation with regards to your meal.
Black Glove wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> No, you have the CHOICE. Do you want to have THIS WORLD or the NEXT
> WORLD? It is a perfectly fair choice, most people follow this world
> and that is what they end up with. It is a perfectly fair concepy.
> Your sins have to be somewhere, either on that cross or in Hell.
> It's
> your choice.
>
> Eternal life in Heavenly bliss or Hell-fire flesh-bubbling torment.
> equivalent:
> A three-course meal or a maggot.
Why don't you take the three-course meal or Heavenly bliss?
> I don't believe there is a choice because I don't believe in Jesus
> and the whole Jehovah shubang. But, of course, that's my choice. For
> me, Christianity is a over-simplified black or white religion
> invented by sneeks in order to control the masses. It worked for a
> while, but like all devious delusions - it will eventually perish.
Actually the unbelievers will perish, religion will perish but Jesus is eternal. You can't deny Jesus is real. The idea of being saved is simple, your sins are somewhere on the cross or with you in Hell. "Masses" is the Catholic idea.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> No, you have the CHOICE. Do you want to have THIS WORLD or the NEXT
> WORLD? It is a perfectly fair choice, most people follow this world
> and that is what they end up with. It is a perfectly fair concepy.
> Your sins have to be somewhere, either on that cross or in Hell.
> It's
> your choice.
>
> Eternal life in Heavenly bliss or Hell-fire flesh-bubbling torment.
> equivalent:
> A three-course meal or a maggot.
Why don't you take the three-course meal or Heavenly bliss?
> I don't believe there is a choice because I don't believe in Jesus
> and the whole Jehovah shubang. But, of course, that's my choice. For
> me, Christianity is a over-simplified black or white religion
> invented by sneeks in order to control the masses. It worked for a
> while, but like all devious delusions - it will eventually perish.
Actually the unbelievers will perish, religion will perish but Jesus is eternal. You can't deny Jesus is real. The idea of being saved is simple, your sins are somewhere on the cross or with you in Hell. "Masses" is the Catholic idea.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Nope, that's not true. Let me give you an example... You set out a
> science experiment, but you have done this experiment times before.
> You know what the result will be. You do nothing different different
> and you make the experiment a completely FAIR TEST. The outcome you
> knew would happen, does. Now, that doesn't stop it being a fair test,
> does it?
>
> The same applies for God, He has set out a FAIR TEST. He know what
> the result will be, but does nothing unfair. Rather He tests us,
> knowing the outcome.
That is completely irrelevant. You have said many many times when people site scientific analysis that they are only guesses. Well, they're more than that, they are very educated guesses by people who generally know a hell of a lot about the subject they're talking about... But that's beyond the point. Humans are not perfect, and as such, we cannot take into account every single variable in an experiment. We try to carry out a fair test, but if you took GCSE science you should know that no experiment is completely fair, and that you can get anomalous results. Obviously there's a reason for these anomalous results, they just show that we haven't been able to take every variable into account.
However, God apparently is perfect. Not only could he take into account every different variable (and change them to his will better than any human ever could...) but he knows the future as he is omnipotent... so comparing him knowing the result to our test, and scientists repeating experiments even though they "know" the outcome is completely unjustified. The scientists have a hypothesis about the outcome, based on their previous experience, they do not know the result for certain because they cannot take into account every variable, and even if they could, they may not know how some variables effect the outcome.
And I'm not debating whether or not God has laid out a "fair test" or not, I'm debating the point of him carrying out the test given that he is meant to be omnipotent, and hence knowing the result for certain (as opposed to simply having a reliable hypothesis...)
> Nope, that's not true. Let me give you an example... You set out a
> science experiment, but you have done this experiment times before.
> You know what the result will be. You do nothing different different
> and you make the experiment a completely FAIR TEST. The outcome you
> knew would happen, does. Now, that doesn't stop it being a fair test,
> does it?
>
> The same applies for God, He has set out a FAIR TEST. He know what
> the result will be, but does nothing unfair. Rather He tests us,
> knowing the outcome.
That is completely irrelevant. You have said many many times when people site scientific analysis that they are only guesses. Well, they're more than that, they are very educated guesses by people who generally know a hell of a lot about the subject they're talking about... But that's beyond the point. Humans are not perfect, and as such, we cannot take into account every single variable in an experiment. We try to carry out a fair test, but if you took GCSE science you should know that no experiment is completely fair, and that you can get anomalous results. Obviously there's a reason for these anomalous results, they just show that we haven't been able to take every variable into account.
However, God apparently is perfect. Not only could he take into account every different variable (and change them to his will better than any human ever could...) but he knows the future as he is omnipotent... so comparing him knowing the result to our test, and scientists repeating experiments even though they "know" the outcome is completely unjustified. The scientists have a hypothesis about the outcome, based on their previous experience, they do not know the result for certain because they cannot take into account every variable, and even if they could, they may not know how some variables effect the outcome.
And I'm not debating whether or not God has laid out a "fair test" or not, I'm debating the point of him carrying out the test given that he is meant to be omnipotent, and hence knowing the result for certain (as opposed to simply having a reliable hypothesis...)
Forest Fan wrote:
> Listen, do you want to be forced into following JESUS?
No.
So leave us alone already.
> Listen, do you want to be forced into following JESUS?
No.
So leave us alone already.
Forest Fan wrote:
> No, you have the CHOICE. Do you want to have THIS WORLD or the NEXT
> WORLD? It is a perfectly fair choice, most people follow this world
> and that is what they end up with. It is a perfectly fair concepy.
> Your sins have to be somewhere, either on that cross or in Hell. It's
> your choice.
Eternal life in Heavenly bliss or Hell-fire flesh-bubbling torment.
equivalent:
A three-course meal or a maggot.
I don't believe there is a choice because I don't believe in Jesus and the whole Jehovah shubang. But, of course, that's my choice. For me, Christianity is a over-simplified black or white religion invented by sneeks in order to control the masses. It worked for a while, but like all devious delusions - it will eventually perish.
> No, you have the CHOICE. Do you want to have THIS WORLD or the NEXT
> WORLD? It is a perfectly fair choice, most people follow this world
> and that is what they end up with. It is a perfectly fair concepy.
> Your sins have to be somewhere, either on that cross or in Hell. It's
> your choice.
Eternal life in Heavenly bliss or Hell-fire flesh-bubbling torment.
equivalent:
A three-course meal or a maggot.
I don't believe there is a choice because I don't believe in Jesus and the whole Jehovah shubang. But, of course, that's my choice. For me, Christianity is a over-simplified black or white religion invented by sneeks in order to control the masses. It worked for a while, but like all devious delusions - it will eventually perish.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Black Glove wrote:
> But if we believe in the teachings of The Bible then we ARE being
> 'forced' into following Jesus because what is the alternative!
> Hell-fire. It's subtle blackmail. All this talk of free-will
> is a sham. From a Christian point of view, if we don't obey we
> perish. There's no real choice.
>
>
> Fft. And just how do you suppose you control people if they realise
> they have a choice?
>
> This is why your cult is never going to go national ;^)
The free-will, is that you either accept Jesus and let Him take away your sins or reject Him and pay the price yourself for your sins.
> Black Glove wrote:
> But if we believe in the teachings of The Bible then we ARE being
> 'forced' into following Jesus because what is the alternative!
> Hell-fire. It's subtle blackmail. All this talk of free-will
> is a sham. From a Christian point of view, if we don't obey we
> perish. There's no real choice.
>
>
> Fft. And just how do you suppose you control people if they realise
> they have a choice?
>
> This is why your cult is never going to go national ;^)
The free-will, is that you either accept Jesus and let Him take away your sins or reject Him and pay the price yourself for your sins.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> I have a question for you Forest Fan.
>
> When the Jews were God's people, why did they never think that they
> would go to heaven? Heaven is something simply not featured in
> Judaism.
The Jews are STILL God's chosen people, which is why He is coming back to Jerusalem; hence the unsteady state of Israel.
> But yet, now that is Christians hope? Why would God change his
> purpose, that there would be perfect humans living forever on Earth?
> Why did Jesus talk about the resurrection?
He hasn't. The Jews are still God's chosen people. They should all believe in Jesus; I do. Whether Jew or Gentile; Jesus is the only way to Heaven.In the New Earth there the believers will be sinless, but that is not until the New Earth. The resurrection shows He is still alive and is in Heaven.
> I just want you to think here.
> I have a question for you Forest Fan.
>
> When the Jews were God's people, why did they never think that they
> would go to heaven? Heaven is something simply not featured in
> Judaism.
The Jews are STILL God's chosen people, which is why He is coming back to Jerusalem; hence the unsteady state of Israel.
> But yet, now that is Christians hope? Why would God change his
> purpose, that there would be perfect humans living forever on Earth?
> Why did Jesus talk about the resurrection?
He hasn't. The Jews are still God's chosen people. They should all believe in Jesus; I do. Whether Jew or Gentile; Jesus is the only way to Heaven.In the New Earth there the believers will be sinless, but that is not until the New Earth. The resurrection shows He is still alive and is in Heaven.
> I just want you to think here.
Sibs wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> He did not create Heaven, the earth would have been perfect, so
> there
> would be no reason to create Heaven. Heaven is only there for the
> people who have been redeemed from sin. Hell was there, but only for
> the fallen angel; Satan and his evil spirits.
>
> Erm... so how did heaven get there if God didn't create it...?
He doesn't need creation, He never needed a beginning. He never needed someone to create Him, because He is above everyone else.
> The earth would have been perfect, yes. Heaven is perfect as well
> and
> Hell is torment. God can create anything, what's the problem with
> that?
>
> Nothing really. But as far as I know the Bible makes a big deal of
> how God made Earth, then there's no mention of where Heaven and Hell
> came from... which just seems odd.
Hell was designed only for the devil and his angels. However if man turns from God, they join the devil in Hell.
> He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to
> know how strong they were.
>
> But he's omnipotent. Beyond the limits of time. So he would know Man
> was going to fail the test before they even took it. So why bother
> carrying on with some charade of a test to see the outcome when you
> already know the outcome? It's pointless. And also, from my
> understanding, our lives on Earth are sposed to be some kind of test
> to see whether or not we get into Heaven? But if God really is
> omnipotent he already knows before we have even been born if we'll
> end up in Heaven / Hell. So the whole 'test' thing on Earth is again,
> a charade.
That is what I am saying. He knew man would disobey against Him, but still wanted Man to inhabit His earth He was going to create. He knows if our names will be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, which is where the names of the saved are, but He wants everyone to come to Christ. However God is realistic, He knows most of mankind will not follow the Lord.
> If God is omnipotent, he is present in every dimension of space and
> time. And for any being to be at every point in space and time it
> means that the future is already set, because if there was any
> uncertainty, then the omnipotent being would not know what the future
> holds and would hence not be omnipotent... So if there really is an
> omnipotent being that is beyond the limits of time and space, then as
> has already been pointed out with another argument (the whole
> 'Blackmail' issue) we have no free-will. Becuase if the future has
> already been set, short of humankind finding a way to see the
> future/change the past, we can only go down the set path that God
> knows we will go down. Hence there is no real choice, just an
> illusion. If we are heading towards a pre-set future, all our actions
> are also pre-defined, meaning no matter how much we ponder what to do
> in any given situation, we will always do what has already been set,
> without even being aware of it...
Nope, that's not true. Let me give you an example... You set out a science experiment, but you have done this experiment times before. You know what the result will be. You do nothing different different and you make the experiment a completely FAIR TEST. The outcome you knew would happen, does. Now, that doesn't stop it being a fair test, does it?
The same applies for God, He has set out a FAIR TEST. He know what the result will be, but does nothing unfair. Rather He tests us, knowing the outcome.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> He did not create Heaven, the earth would have been perfect, so
> there
> would be no reason to create Heaven. Heaven is only there for the
> people who have been redeemed from sin. Hell was there, but only for
> the fallen angel; Satan and his evil spirits.
>
> Erm... so how did heaven get there if God didn't create it...?
He doesn't need creation, He never needed a beginning. He never needed someone to create Him, because He is above everyone else.
> The earth would have been perfect, yes. Heaven is perfect as well
> and
> Hell is torment. God can create anything, what's the problem with
> that?
>
> Nothing really. But as far as I know the Bible makes a big deal of
> how God made Earth, then there's no mention of where Heaven and Hell
> came from... which just seems odd.
Hell was designed only for the devil and his angels. However if man turns from God, they join the devil in Hell.
> He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to
> know how strong they were.
>
> But he's omnipotent. Beyond the limits of time. So he would know Man
> was going to fail the test before they even took it. So why bother
> carrying on with some charade of a test to see the outcome when you
> already know the outcome? It's pointless. And also, from my
> understanding, our lives on Earth are sposed to be some kind of test
> to see whether or not we get into Heaven? But if God really is
> omnipotent he already knows before we have even been born if we'll
> end up in Heaven / Hell. So the whole 'test' thing on Earth is again,
> a charade.
That is what I am saying. He knew man would disobey against Him, but still wanted Man to inhabit His earth He was going to create. He knows if our names will be written in the Lamb's Book of Life, which is where the names of the saved are, but He wants everyone to come to Christ. However God is realistic, He knows most of mankind will not follow the Lord.
> If God is omnipotent, he is present in every dimension of space and
> time. And for any being to be at every point in space and time it
> means that the future is already set, because if there was any
> uncertainty, then the omnipotent being would not know what the future
> holds and would hence not be omnipotent... So if there really is an
> omnipotent being that is beyond the limits of time and space, then as
> has already been pointed out with another argument (the whole
> 'Blackmail' issue) we have no free-will. Becuase if the future has
> already been set, short of humankind finding a way to see the
> future/change the past, we can only go down the set path that God
> knows we will go down. Hence there is no real choice, just an
> illusion. If we are heading towards a pre-set future, all our actions
> are also pre-defined, meaning no matter how much we ponder what to do
> in any given situation, we will always do what has already been set,
> without even being aware of it...
Nope, that's not true. Let me give you an example... You set out a science experiment, but you have done this experiment times before. You know what the result will be. You do nothing different different and you make the experiment a completely FAIR TEST. The outcome you knew would happen, does. Now, that doesn't stop it being a fair test, does it?
The same applies for God, He has set out a FAIR TEST. He know what the result will be, but does nothing unfair. Rather He tests us, knowing the outcome.
Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Nope, it was the WORD of GOD, who WAS there.
>
> You're placing a lot of faith in this book being the word of God.
> What evidence is there that it's the word of God?
> The book says so. That is all.
Well, whether or not you believe it is the word of God, as I do, it is still a factual account. You believe stories about the Pharisees in it as fact, why not the part where it says, "God created".
> Exactly CREATION.
>
> The idea that every primitive religion used to explain the world.
>
>
> Except it tells us the age of the universe.
>
> No it doesn't. It gives a guess for the age of the Universe.
> Based on scientific analysis on fossils, it doesn't have a CLUE.
Scientific "analysis", i.e. a guess is not proof. As for fossils it's too general, give me a question about one type of fossil. I do know that no fossils have been conculsively proved to be "millions" of years old, rather guesses made by SCIENTISTS; thus it is called SCIENCE, even though it is just a guess.
> GOD told the man.
>
> I'm sure he did...
>
>
>
> So you honestly believe you come from chemicals? No chemicals can
> ever form human life.
>
> It's how it happened.
> Sure, it doesn't happen in one step in one instant, but small changes
> over time lead to bigger changes. You start with some chemical
> reactions which by chance create some DNA. Roughly a billion or so
> years later and this DNA becomes us.
But that does not explain the perfection of the universe's dimensions? Why is this universe so perfectly suspended by gravity or protected from the sun?
> Comprendé? :-)
No, still cannot understand how you can believe we come from sea slimes.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Nope, it was the WORD of GOD, who WAS there.
>
> You're placing a lot of faith in this book being the word of God.
> What evidence is there that it's the word of God?
> The book says so. That is all.
Well, whether or not you believe it is the word of God, as I do, it is still a factual account. You believe stories about the Pharisees in it as fact, why not the part where it says, "God created".
> Exactly CREATION.
>
> The idea that every primitive religion used to explain the world.
>
>
> Except it tells us the age of the universe.
>
> No it doesn't. It gives a guess for the age of the Universe.
> Based on scientific analysis on fossils, it doesn't have a CLUE.
Scientific "analysis", i.e. a guess is not proof. As for fossils it's too general, give me a question about one type of fossil. I do know that no fossils have been conculsively proved to be "millions" of years old, rather guesses made by SCIENTISTS; thus it is called SCIENCE, even though it is just a guess.
> GOD told the man.
>
> I'm sure he did...
>
>
>
> So you honestly believe you come from chemicals? No chemicals can
> ever form human life.
>
> It's how it happened.
> Sure, it doesn't happen in one step in one instant, but small changes
> over time lead to bigger changes. You start with some chemical
> reactions which by chance create some DNA. Roughly a billion or so
> years later and this DNA becomes us.
But that does not explain the perfection of the universe's dimensions? Why is this universe so perfectly suspended by gravity or protected from the sun?
> Comprendé? :-)
No, still cannot understand how you can believe we come from sea slimes.
Page: