The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hedfix wrote:
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --God isn't all
> knowing?
>
> = Maybe God isn't there at all?
>
> You forgot the point about him possibly not being able to be
> everywhere at once, although I suppose that falls into 'all
> powerful'.
God is everywhere at once, because He is outside time, so He can see the whole universe at once.
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --God isn't all
> knowing?
>
> = Maybe God isn't there at all?
>
> You forgot the point about him possibly not being able to be
> everywhere at once, although I suppose that falls into 'all
> powerful'.
God is everywhere at once, because He is outside time, so He can see the whole universe at once.
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --God isn't all
> knowing?
>
> = Maybe God isn't there at all?
You forgot the point about him possibly not being able to be everywhere at once, although I suppose that falls into 'all powerful'.
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --God isn't all
> knowing?
>
> = Maybe God isn't there at all?
You forgot the point about him possibly not being able to be everywhere at once, although I suppose that falls into 'all powerful'.
Morbo wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> God made an all perfect world, without death or pestilence. It was
> MAN'S sin, OUR sin that contaminated GOD'S beautiful creation,
> allowing in death and pestilence.
>
> and how many years ago was that? for an all knowing and all loving
> entity he sure likes to hold a grude.
It was about 6000 years ago.
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Nothing is too difficult for him, BUT man has to learn their lesson,
> for sinning against GOD.
>
> again how long can he hold a grudge
He can never forgive sin, unless you ask for repentance.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> God made an all perfect world, without death or pestilence. It was
> MAN'S sin, OUR sin that contaminated GOD'S beautiful creation,
> allowing in death and pestilence.
>
> and how many years ago was that? for an all knowing and all loving
> entity he sure likes to hold a grude.
It was about 6000 years ago.
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Nothing is too difficult for him, BUT man has to learn their lesson,
> for sinning against GOD.
>
> again how long can he hold a grudge
He can never forgive sin, unless you ask for repentance.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> God made an all perfect world, without death or pestilence. It was
> MAN'S sin, OUR sin that contaminated GOD'S beautiful creation,
> allowing in death and pestilence.
and how many years ago was that? for an all knowing and all loving entity he sure likes to hold a grude.
>
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Nothing is too difficult for him, BUT man has to learn their lesson,
> for sinning against GOD.
again how long can he hold a grudge
> Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
>
> God made an all perfect world, without death or pestilence. It was
> MAN'S sin, OUR sin that contaminated GOD'S beautiful creation,
> allowing in death and pestilence.
and how many years ago was that? for an all knowing and all loving entity he sure likes to hold a grude.
>
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
>
> Nothing is too difficult for him, BUT man has to learn their lesson,
> for sinning against GOD.
again how long can he hold a grudge
Whitestripes DX wrote:
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
God made an all perfect world, without death or pestilence. It was MAN'S sin, OUR sin that contaminated GOD'S beautiful creation, allowing in death and pestilence.
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
Nothing is too difficult for him, BUT man has to learn their lesson, for sinning against GOD.
> Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --God isn't all
> knowing?
God sees all and hears all, however HE is allowing man's sins on this earth, until HE comes back to judge the world, where those who followed HIM go to SINLESS paradise and those who rejected Him go to a lost eternity.
> = Maybe God isn't there at all?
Are you Agnostic?
> Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had
> Epicuras yet:
>
> People suffer so:
>
> Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --God
> isn't all loving?
God made an all perfect world, without death or pestilence. It was MAN'S sin, OUR sin that contaminated GOD'S beautiful creation, allowing in death and pestilence.
> Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --God isn't all
> powerful?
Nothing is too difficult for him, BUT man has to learn their lesson, for sinning against GOD.
> Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --God isn't all
> knowing?
God sees all and hears all, however HE is allowing man's sins on this earth, until HE comes back to judge the world, where those who followed HIM go to SINLESS paradise and those who rejected Him go to a lost eternity.
> = Maybe God isn't there at all?
Are you Agnostic?
Can't be bothered to read every page so I don't know if you've had Epicuras yet:
People suffer so:
Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --> God isn't all loving?
Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --> God isn't all powerful?
Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --> God isn't all knowing?
= Maybe God isn't there at all?
People suffer so:
Maybe God doesn't care about human suffering or is causing it --> God isn't all loving?
Maybe God can't do anything about human suffering --> God isn't all powerful?
Maybe God doesn't know about human suffering --> God isn't all knowing?
= Maybe God isn't there at all?
Light wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
>
>
> To quote Bill Hicks
> "Ever noticed how creationists look really
> unevolved?"
>
> Beat me to it you little....
>
> Y'know where he has to strap himself into a chair to listen to
> creationist theories? I entirely empathise with what he meant now....
It really is not much of an insult, as creationists don't believe they did evolve!
> Goatboy wrote:
>
>
> To quote Bill Hicks
> "Ever noticed how creationists look really
> unevolved?"
>
> Beat me to it you little....
>
> Y'know where he has to strap himself into a chair to listen to
> creationist theories? I entirely empathise with what he meant now....
It really is not much of an insult, as creationists don't believe they did evolve!
Goatboy wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> the creationist will fit it into the last few thousand
> years, with great ease.
> -------
>
> To quote Bill Hicks
> "Ever noticed how creationists look really
> unevolved?"
Good quote. I completely agree with it, except it applies for everyone, be it creationist or evolutionst.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> the creationist will fit it into the last few thousand
> years, with great ease.
> -------
>
> To quote Bill Hicks
> "Ever noticed how creationists look really
> unevolved?"
Good quote. I completely agree with it, except it applies for everyone, be it creationist or evolutionst.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Here are some points for Maverick42, that I have specially prepared,
> which have been simplified... several times...
>
> There you go, nice and simple.
>
> Ah, very nice and dandy.
>
> But you're completely missing the point. This is a thread about
> evolution and fact. What I asked for was a concise version of what
> facts you believe to prove evolution wrong, not some massive essay
> from Dr. Bible Man.
>
> 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.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Here are some points for Maverick42, that I have specially prepared,
> which have been simplified... several times...
>
> There you go, nice and simple.
>
> Ah, very nice and dandy.
>
> But you're completely missing the point. This is a thread about
> evolution and fact. What I asked for was a concise version of what
> facts you believe to prove evolution wrong, not some massive essay
> from Dr. Bible Man.
>
> 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.
Strafio wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> You can't disprove God, you got that right. The Bible is written as
> fact, it is a non-fiction book, an account if you will.
>
> There you go. A historical account. BUT, the Old Testament was only
> compiled about a thousand or so years before Jesus, so a lot of
> must've been passed down by word of mouth before, and I'm sure you've
> played Chinese whispers.
But GOD directed the book, HE gave the WORD of GOD, to the authors first hand.
> I reckon that it's more or less a rough historical account from
> Abraham, but anything before that it purely myth.
If you believe it is an historic account, then just accept the first verse Moses wrote in the BIBLE.
> The five
> books of Moses again are written as fact, the Torah is extremely
> useful, not only as an account of the Tabernacle, but also it
> explains the origin of the earth.
>
> They were written as fact, but does that mean that they go the facts
> right? I'm sure Moses THOUGHT they were right, and perhaps it is what
> God told him, but perhaps God (if you don't believe then you can say
> God was the name of Moses' skitzophrenic side) gave him a simpler
> story that he could fathom, rather than hammer him with the full
> details of nature.
It is a FACTUAL book. "God created", is included in this FACTUAL book, we cannot understand GOD having been here for all eternity, BUT we can understand the origin of the universe; God.
> No man alive today or no book alive
> today can say they were there when the "big bang" happened
> or was any man or book there when God created the earth, EXCEPT the
> BIBLE and Genesis, it is written as fact, a historic account.
> Genesis
> is our only account of what happened at the beginning of the world,
> as in Genesis 1:1.
>
> It's written as fact, because people REALLY did believe it happened.
> They got it wrong though
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!
> How about the "facts" from the Ancient Greek myths about
> Zeus making man out of clay and then everything being good until
> Pandora opened a box (like Eve took an apple). Or the
> Roman/Egyptian/Gaul/Viking etc which all claim to have the beginning
> of the world contained within their mythology.
"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.
> The difference with evolution, and the scientific view of the world
> being made, is that people observed nature and geology, and the way
> the world works, and sort of worked out how the world must've formed
> from there, the same way other planets in the universe formed.
But man doesn't need to work out how the universe was formed, GOD told us!
> 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.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> You can't disprove God, you got that right. The Bible is written as
> fact, it is a non-fiction book, an account if you will.
>
> There you go. A historical account. BUT, the Old Testament was only
> compiled about a thousand or so years before Jesus, so a lot of
> must've been passed down by word of mouth before, and I'm sure you've
> played Chinese whispers.
But GOD directed the book, HE gave the WORD of GOD, to the authors first hand.
> I reckon that it's more or less a rough historical account from
> Abraham, but anything before that it purely myth.
If you believe it is an historic account, then just accept the first verse Moses wrote in the BIBLE.
> The five
> books of Moses again are written as fact, the Torah is extremely
> useful, not only as an account of the Tabernacle, but also it
> explains the origin of the earth.
>
> They were written as fact, but does that mean that they go the facts
> right? I'm sure Moses THOUGHT they were right, and perhaps it is what
> God told him, but perhaps God (if you don't believe then you can say
> God was the name of Moses' skitzophrenic side) gave him a simpler
> story that he could fathom, rather than hammer him with the full
> details of nature.
It is a FACTUAL book. "God created", is included in this FACTUAL book, we cannot understand GOD having been here for all eternity, BUT we can understand the origin of the universe; God.
> No man alive today or no book alive
> today can say they were there when the "big bang" happened
> or was any man or book there when God created the earth, EXCEPT the
> BIBLE and Genesis, it is written as fact, a historic account.
> Genesis
> is our only account of what happened at the beginning of the world,
> as in Genesis 1:1.
>
> It's written as fact, because people REALLY did believe it happened.
> They got it wrong though
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!
> How about the "facts" from the Ancient Greek myths about
> Zeus making man out of clay and then everything being good until
> Pandora opened a box (like Eve took an apple). Or the
> Roman/Egyptian/Gaul/Viking etc which all claim to have the beginning
> of the world contained within their mythology.
"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.
> The difference with evolution, and the scientific view of the world
> being made, is that people observed nature and geology, and the way
> the world works, and sort of worked out how the world must've formed
> from there, the same way other planets in the universe formed.
But man doesn't need to work out how the universe was formed, GOD told us!
> 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.
Page: