The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Black Glove wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Not really, He jsut wanted to give us FREE-WILL, He does not force
> us
> to follow Him, but in the end everyone has to meet before Him.
>
> Well if I ever come face-to-face with God I will ask Him this: How
> was it possible for one of your Angels, one of your perfect
> creations, to fall from your side into rebellion, not just into doubt
> but into utter and complete evil [viz the Devil] when evil did not
> exist? Was there a flaw in your divine plan? If so, you are not
> perfect, thus you are not God.
Once again Black Glove, this is the concept of FREE-WILL. God gave the angels free-will. Satan was perfect just like every other angel, however he thought he could become better than God and disobeyed God.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Not really, He jsut wanted to give us FREE-WILL, He does not force
> us
> to follow Him, but in the end everyone has to meet before Him.
>
> Well if I ever come face-to-face with God I will ask Him this: How
> was it possible for one of your Angels, one of your perfect
> creations, to fall from your side into rebellion, not just into doubt
> but into utter and complete evil [viz the Devil] when evil did not
> exist? Was there a flaw in your divine plan? If so, you are not
> perfect, thus you are not God.
Once again Black Glove, this is the concept of FREE-WILL. God gave the angels free-will. Satan was perfect just like every other angel, however he thought he could become better than God and disobeyed God.
Forest Fan wrote: >
> Not really, He jsut wanted to give us FREE-WILL, He does not force us
> to follow Him, but in the end everyone has to meet before Him.
Well if I ever come face-to-face with God I will ask Him this: How was it possible for one of your Angels, one of your perfect creations, to fall from your side into rebellion, not just into doubt but into utter and complete evil [viz the Devil] when evil did not exist? Was there a flaw in your divine plan? If so, you are not perfect, thus you are not God.
> Not really, He jsut wanted to give us FREE-WILL, He does not force us
> to follow Him, but in the end everyone has to meet before Him.
Well if I ever come face-to-face with God I will ask Him this: How was it possible for one of your Angels, one of your perfect creations, to fall from your side into rebellion, not just into doubt but into utter and complete evil [viz the Devil] when evil did not exist? Was there a flaw in your divine plan? If so, you are not perfect, thus you are not God.
Black Glove wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to
> know how strong they were.
>
> So God has been playing a silly game with us feeble humans for the
> past many thousands of years just to test us, just to see if we'll
> believe or not.
> He 'allows' the Devil to exist - the so-called chief causer of evil
> and pain, just so He(God) can test us.
Yes, for FREE-WILL. Tell me this, do you want FREE-WILL?
>
> Wow. What a great God He is!
>
> If this was so I can only conclude that God is playing a silly little
> game.
> 'Will they, won't they' - it's like a heavenly game show.
Not really, He jsut wanted to give us FREE-WILL, He does not force us to follow Him, but in the end everyone has to meet before Him.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to
> know how strong they were.
>
> So God has been playing a silly game with us feeble humans for the
> past many thousands of years just to test us, just to see if we'll
> believe or not.
> He 'allows' the Devil to exist - the so-called chief causer of evil
> and pain, just so He(God) can test us.
Yes, for FREE-WILL. Tell me this, do you want FREE-WILL?
>
> Wow. What a great God He is!
>
> If this was so I can only conclude that God is playing a silly little
> game.
> 'Will they, won't they' - it's like a heavenly game show.
Not really, He jsut wanted to give us FREE-WILL, He does not force us to follow Him, but in the end everyone has to meet before Him.
Forest Fan wrote:
> He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to
> know how strong they were.
So God has been playing a silly game with us feeble humans for the past many thousands of years just to test us, just to see if we'll believe or not.
He 'allows' the Devil to exist - the so-called chief causer of evil and pain, just so He(God) can test us.
Wow. What a great God He is!
If this was so I can only conclude that God is playing a silly little game.
'Will they, won't they' - it's like a heavenly game show.
> He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to
> know how strong they were.
So God has been playing a silly game with us feeble humans for the past many thousands of years just to test us, just to see if we'll believe or not.
He 'allows' the Devil to exist - the so-called chief causer of evil and pain, just so He(God) can test us.
Wow. What a great God He is!
If this was so I can only conclude that God is playing a silly little game.
'Will they, won't they' - it's like a heavenly game show.
Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But GOD directed the book, HE gave the WORD of GOD, to the authors
> first hand.
>
> Who says?
> The people who wrote it?
> So you're relying on the Bible on being correct that is WAS the word
> of God in the writers head.
Yep.
> If you believe it is an historic account, then just accept the first
> verse Moses wrote in the BIBLE.
>
> Ahem. I said from Abraham onwards. Anything earlier was purely
> guesswork.
Nope, it was the WORD of GOD, who WAS there.
>
>
> How do you know, were you there? NO! Was Charles Darwin there? NO!
> Were any scientists there? NO! Did anyone write an account about the
> universe, as it happened? NO! What is the only book, that explains
> someone who WAS THERE when the universe was created? THE BIBLE! Who
> does THE BIBLE say was there? GOD! What does GOD say about the
> origin
> of the universe? "In the beginning GOD CREATED". Is this
> our only account of what HAPPENED? YES!
>
> And the people who wrote the Bible were there?
> I see... it all makes sense now...
Nope, but GOD directed them, who WAS there.
>
> The Bible isn't the only book that explains creation.
> Every religion has a book that explains creation.
Exactly CREATION.
>
>
> "facts" from "myths", you don't get too many of
> them Strafio. There are no "factual" myths, by the way,
> just like the mythical tooth fairy! Who said anything about Eve
> eating an apple? Within "mythology" you believe
> "facts"? You can't mix non-fiction with fiction, it
> doesn't
> work Strafio.
>
> Come again?
> Basically, every religion used to spout their story of creation as
> "fact". Because it was a story passed on through the ages
> of that civilisation, it is classed as a myth, mythology.
> Genesis is Jewish mythology.
> Whether you believe it to be true is your concern but it has no
> further evidence than the mythology of other religions and races.
Except it tells us the age of the universe.
>
>
> But man doesn't need to work out how the universe was formed, GOD
> told us!
>
> No he didn't. A man THOUGHT God told him and decided to stop thinking
> because of it.
GOD told the man.
>
> You could say it was chance, but with so many planets in the
> universe, it was a pretty GOOD chance that atleast ONE planet would
> sustain life.
> And that planet happened to be this one. :-)
>
> Nothing ever just produces life, life doesn't just appear, it has to
> be made.
>
> Yep. Made by chemical reactions first to create the DNA, followed
> by... etc
> millions of year later - ME! :-)
So you honestly believe you come from chemicals? No chemicals can ever form human life.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But GOD directed the book, HE gave the WORD of GOD, to the authors
> first hand.
>
> Who says?
> The people who wrote it?
> So you're relying on the Bible on being correct that is WAS the word
> of God in the writers head.
Yep.
> If you believe it is an historic account, then just accept the first
> verse Moses wrote in the BIBLE.
>
> Ahem. I said from Abraham onwards. Anything earlier was purely
> guesswork.
Nope, it was the WORD of GOD, who WAS there.
>
>
> How do you know, were you there? NO! Was Charles Darwin there? NO!
> Were any scientists there? NO! Did anyone write an account about the
> universe, as it happened? NO! What is the only book, that explains
> someone who WAS THERE when the universe was created? THE BIBLE! Who
> does THE BIBLE say was there? GOD! What does GOD say about the
> origin
> of the universe? "In the beginning GOD CREATED". Is this
> our only account of what HAPPENED? YES!
>
> And the people who wrote the Bible were there?
> I see... it all makes sense now...
Nope, but GOD directed them, who WAS there.
>
> The Bible isn't the only book that explains creation.
> Every religion has a book that explains creation.
Exactly CREATION.
>
>
> "facts" from "myths", you don't get too many of
> them Strafio. There are no "factual" myths, by the way,
> just like the mythical tooth fairy! Who said anything about Eve
> eating an apple? Within "mythology" you believe
> "facts"? You can't mix non-fiction with fiction, it
> doesn't
> work Strafio.
>
> Come again?
> Basically, every religion used to spout their story of creation as
> "fact". Because it was a story passed on through the ages
> of that civilisation, it is classed as a myth, mythology.
> Genesis is Jewish mythology.
> Whether you believe it to be true is your concern but it has no
> further evidence than the mythology of other religions and races.
Except it tells us the age of the universe.
>
>
> But man doesn't need to work out how the universe was formed, GOD
> told us!
>
> No he didn't. A man THOUGHT God told him and decided to stop thinking
> because of it.
GOD told the man.
>
> You could say it was chance, but with so many planets in the
> universe, it was a pretty GOOD chance that atleast ONE planet would
> sustain life.
> And that planet happened to be this one. :-)
>
> Nothing ever just produces life, life doesn't just appear, it has to
> be made.
>
> Yep. Made by chemical reactions first to create the DNA, followed
> by... etc
> millions of year later - ME! :-)
So you honestly believe you come from chemicals? No chemicals can ever form human life.
Sibs wrote:
> Okay, Mr. Foresty Fan... So God makes a perfect world, there's no
> nasty death or anything, and Mr Adam and Mrs Eve wander around some
> garden in the buff. God also creates Heaven and Hell... Why
> exactly...? If there's no death, there's no afterlife... What, were
> they just backups incase man decided to sin, and he had to punish
> them by sending people to hell...
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.
> and if the world was perfect, what is heaven...? Isn't that sposed to
> be perfect...? So, in effect, God created heaven (a perfect
> world...), Earth (a perfect world...), and Hell (a nasty place that
> will only be used in the event that mankind is naughty...) That's a
> hella lot of creating eh?
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?
> AND if God is beyond the limits of time, he would have KNOWN man
> would do that eating of the forbidden fruit (which by the way is
> stupid... why create a "forbidden fruit"... if the world he
> created was perfect, why would any part of it be forbidden...?)
> BEFORE he even created man...
He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to know how strong they were.
> Frankly there's so many loopholes in this whole omnipotent thing I
> don't really know where to start.
You haven't "exposed" any in this post.
> Okay, Mr. Foresty Fan... So God makes a perfect world, there's no
> nasty death or anything, and Mr Adam and Mrs Eve wander around some
> garden in the buff. God also creates Heaven and Hell... Why
> exactly...? If there's no death, there's no afterlife... What, were
> they just backups incase man decided to sin, and he had to punish
> them by sending people to hell...
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.
> and if the world was perfect, what is heaven...? Isn't that sposed to
> be perfect...? So, in effect, God created heaven (a perfect
> world...), Earth (a perfect world...), and Hell (a nasty place that
> will only be used in the event that mankind is naughty...) That's a
> hella lot of creating eh?
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?
> AND if God is beyond the limits of time, he would have KNOWN man
> would do that eating of the forbidden fruit (which by the way is
> stupid... why create a "forbidden fruit"... if the world he
> created was perfect, why would any part of it be forbidden...?)
> BEFORE he even created man...
He DID. He knew they would disobey GOD, but He had to test them, to know how strong they were.
> Frankly there's so many loopholes in this whole omnipotent thing I
> don't really know where to start.
You haven't "exposed" any in this post.
Forest Fan wrote:
> But GOD directed the book, HE gave the WORD of GOD, to the authors
> first hand.
Who says?
The people who wrote it?
So you're relying on the Bible on being correct that is WAS the word of God in the writers head.
> If you believe it is an historic account, then just accept the first
> verse Moses wrote in the BIBLE.
Ahem. I said from Abraham onwards. Anything earlier was purely guesswork.
> How do you know, were you there? NO! Was Charles Darwin there? NO!
> Were any scientists there? NO! Did anyone write an account about the
> universe, as it happened? NO! What is the only book, that explains
> someone who WAS THERE when the universe was created? THE BIBLE! Who
> does THE BIBLE say was there? GOD! What does GOD say about the origin
> of the universe? "In the beginning GOD CREATED". Is this
> our only account of what HAPPENED? YES!
And the people who wrote the Bible were there?
I see... it all makes sense now...
The Bible isn't the only book that explains creation.
Every religion has a book that explains creation.
> "facts" from "myths", you don't get too many of
> them Strafio. There are no "factual" myths, by the way,
> just like the mythical tooth fairy! Who said anything about Eve
> eating an apple? Within "mythology" you believe
> "facts"? You can't mix non-fiction with fiction, it doesn't
> work Strafio.
Come again?
Basically, every religion used to spout their story of creation as "fact". Because it was a story passed on through the ages of that civilisation, it is classed as a myth, mythology.
Genesis is Jewish mythology.
Whether you believe it to be true is your concern but it has no further evidence than the mythology of other religions and races.
> But man doesn't need to work out how the universe was formed, GOD
> told us!
No he didn't. A man THOUGHT God told him and decided to stop thinking because of it.
> You could say it was chance, but with so many planets in the
> universe, it was a pretty GOOD chance that atleast ONE planet would
> sustain life.
> And that planet happened to be this one. :-)
>
> Nothing ever just produces life, life doesn't just appear, it has to
> be made.
Yep. Made by chemical reactions first to create the DNA, followed by... etc
millions of year later - ME! :-)
> But GOD directed the book, HE gave the WORD of GOD, to the authors
> first hand.
Who says?
The people who wrote it?
So you're relying on the Bible on being correct that is WAS the word of God in the writers head.
> If you believe it is an historic account, then just accept the first
> verse Moses wrote in the BIBLE.
Ahem. I said from Abraham onwards. Anything earlier was purely guesswork.
> How do you know, were you there? NO! Was Charles Darwin there? NO!
> Were any scientists there? NO! Did anyone write an account about the
> universe, as it happened? NO! What is the only book, that explains
> someone who WAS THERE when the universe was created? THE BIBLE! Who
> does THE BIBLE say was there? GOD! What does GOD say about the origin
> of the universe? "In the beginning GOD CREATED". Is this
> our only account of what HAPPENED? YES!
And the people who wrote the Bible were there?
I see... it all makes sense now...
The Bible isn't the only book that explains creation.
Every religion has a book that explains creation.
> "facts" from "myths", you don't get too many of
> them Strafio. There are no "factual" myths, by the way,
> just like the mythical tooth fairy! Who said anything about Eve
> eating an apple? Within "mythology" you believe
> "facts"? You can't mix non-fiction with fiction, it doesn't
> work Strafio.
Come again?
Basically, every religion used to spout their story of creation as "fact". Because it was a story passed on through the ages of that civilisation, it is classed as a myth, mythology.
Genesis is Jewish mythology.
Whether you believe it to be true is your concern but it has no further evidence than the mythology of other religions and races.
> But man doesn't need to work out how the universe was formed, GOD
> told us!
No he didn't. A man THOUGHT God told him and decided to stop thinking because of it.
> You could say it was chance, but with so many planets in the
> universe, it was a pretty GOOD chance that atleast ONE planet would
> sustain life.
> And that planet happened to be this one. :-)
>
> Nothing ever just produces life, life doesn't just appear, it has to
> be made.
Yep. Made by chemical reactions first to create the DNA, followed by... etc
millions of year later - ME! :-)
Okay, Mr. Foresty Fan... So God makes a perfect world, there's no nasty death or anything, and Mr Adam and Mrs Eve wander around some garden in the buff. God also creates Heaven and Hell... Why exactly...? If there's no death, there's no afterlife... What, were they just backups incase man decided to sin, and he had to punish them by sending people to hell...
and if the world was perfect, what is heaven...? Isn't that sposed to be perfect...? So, in effect, God created heaven (a perfect world...), Earth (a perfect world...), and Hell (a nasty place that will only be used in the event that mankind is naughty...) That's a hella lot of creating eh?
AND if God is beyond the limits of time, he would have KNOWN man would do that eating of the forbidden fruit (which by the way is stupid... why create a "forbidden fruit"... if the world he created was perfect, why would any part of it be forbidden...?) BEFORE he even created man...
Frankly there's so many loopholes in this whole omnipotent thing I don't really know where to start.
and if the world was perfect, what is heaven...? Isn't that sposed to be perfect...? So, in effect, God created heaven (a perfect world...), Earth (a perfect world...), and Hell (a nasty place that will only be used in the event that mankind is naughty...) That's a hella lot of creating eh?
AND if God is beyond the limits of time, he would have KNOWN man would do that eating of the forbidden fruit (which by the way is stupid... why create a "forbidden fruit"... if the world he created was perfect, why would any part of it be forbidden...?) BEFORE he even created man...
Frankly there's so many loopholes in this whole omnipotent thing I don't really know where to start.
Forest Fan wrote:
> You can't disprove God, you got that right.
You can't conclusively prove he exists either.
> You can't disprove God, you got that right.
You can't conclusively prove he exists either.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> Did you read what I wrote or is it that you don't have a clue what
> you're talking about?
>
> Nope, could you re-post it please.
Hah! We have it in writing!
Forest Fan actually doesn't listen to a word we're saying!
Well, no, I'm not going post it again. For the very reason I've just put above. You haven't a clue what you're talking about, have presented no facts to prove evolution wrong and have an incredibly narrow mind.
In general, this argument is going around in circles.
> Maverick42 wrote:
> Did you read what I wrote or is it that you don't have a clue what
> you're talking about?
>
> Nope, could you re-post it please.
Hah! We have it in writing!
Forest Fan actually doesn't listen to a word we're saying!
Well, no, I'm not going post it again. For the very reason I've just put above. You haven't a clue what you're talking about, have presented no facts to prove evolution wrong and have an incredibly narrow mind.
In general, this argument is going around in circles.
Page: