The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
>
> Yep, highly unreliable though.
it is quite precise.
>
> Yep, highly unreliable though.
it is quite precise.
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> If they are going to have some science in them, all right.
>
> Ever heard of carbon dating?
Yep, highly unreliable though.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> If they are going to have some science in them, all right.
>
> Ever heard of carbon dating?
Yep, highly unreliable though.
Memorandum! wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Memorandum! wrote:
> Again, if you believe that God came from nowhere, you can believe
> that
> matter came from nowhere.
>
> But GOD DOESN'T come from nowhere.
>
> where does he come from then?
> If he's always existed, I see no reason for you to find it difficult
> to believe the same of the universe or matter.
>
> You can't say "oh the universe couldn't all come out of chance
> from nowhere, it had to be created" and then say the complete
> opposite for God - "He's always existed, essentially appearing
> from nowhere."
>
> If the universe had to be created, why didn't God have to be created,
> eh?
Because He has never started.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Memorandum! wrote:
> Again, if you believe that God came from nowhere, you can believe
> that
> matter came from nowhere.
>
> But GOD DOESN'T come from nowhere.
>
> where does he come from then?
> If he's always existed, I see no reason for you to find it difficult
> to believe the same of the universe or matter.
>
> You can't say "oh the universe couldn't all come out of chance
> from nowhere, it had to be created" and then say the complete
> opposite for God - "He's always existed, essentially appearing
> from nowhere."
>
> If the universe had to be created, why didn't God have to be created,
> eh?
Because He has never started.
Forest Fan wrote:
> So what, the fact that evolution cannot explain the very principles
> of time, space and matter
It's not meant to explain time, space and matter.
It's there to explain how life started out and develloped.
> makes it more genuine than a book which can
> explain CREATION, in its first 10 words?
In 10 words, I could tell you that it snows because the moon is spitting on you. So THAT explanation must be geniune too!
> The fact is if you believe that just one amino acid was always there,
> you must be able to believe that a GOD was always there.
No it wasn't always there.
It was formed by Chemical reactions.
God might have also always been there too, but that's irrelevant in the theory of evolution.
> This is what the BIBLE says about athiests:
>
> "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
> They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who
> does good." Psalm 14:1
None of us here have used evolution to disprove God.
Because you can't proove or disprove God.
I believe in God, but if there IS such thing as absolute truth (which I doubt there is) then it's sure as not in the Bible.
> So what, the fact that evolution cannot explain the very principles
> of time, space and matter
It's not meant to explain time, space and matter.
It's there to explain how life started out and develloped.
> makes it more genuine than a book which can
> explain CREATION, in its first 10 words?
In 10 words, I could tell you that it snows because the moon is spitting on you. So THAT explanation must be geniune too!
> The fact is if you believe that just one amino acid was always there,
> you must be able to believe that a GOD was always there.
No it wasn't always there.
It was formed by Chemical reactions.
God might have also always been there too, but that's irrelevant in the theory of evolution.
> This is what the BIBLE says about athiests:
>
> "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
> They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who
> does good." Psalm 14:1
None of us here have used evolution to disprove God.
Because you can't proove or disprove God.
I believe in God, but if there IS such thing as absolute truth (which I doubt there is) then it's sure as not in the Bible.
Forest Fan wrote:
> If they are going to have some science in them, all right.
Ever heard of carbon dating?
> If they are going to have some science in them, all right.
Ever heard of carbon dating?
Forest Fan wrote:
> You still have failed to answer where this matter, whether compressed
> or otherwise came from. Please stop avoiding the question and just
> answer it.
No-one knows for sure.
It may have been in existence for ever but you cannot use time to define it as time is wrapped around it. Outside of it there is no time or space. I don't expect you to be able to comprehend this theory.
It may be the death of an alternate reality adjacent to ours (see string theory).
It may be something else. Currently we can see as far back as a few moments after the big bang.
> You still have failed to answer where this matter, whether compressed
> or otherwise came from. Please stop avoiding the question and just
> answer it.
No-one knows for sure.
It may have been in existence for ever but you cannot use time to define it as time is wrapped around it. Outside of it there is no time or space. I don't expect you to be able to comprehend this theory.
It may be the death of an alternate reality adjacent to ours (see string theory).
It may be something else. Currently we can see as far back as a few moments after the big bang.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Memorandum! wrote:
> Again, if you believe that God came from nowhere, you can believe
> that
> matter came from nowhere.
>
> But GOD DOESN'T come from nowhere.
where does he come from then?
If he's always existed, I see no reason for you to find it difficult to believe the same of the universe or matter.
You can't say "oh the universe couldn't all come out of chance from nowhere, it had to be created" and then say the complete opposite for God - "He's always existed, essentially appearing from nowhere."
If the universe had to be created, why didn't God have to be created, eh?
> Memorandum! wrote:
> Again, if you believe that God came from nowhere, you can believe
> that
> matter came from nowhere.
>
> But GOD DOESN'T come from nowhere.
where does he come from then?
If he's always existed, I see no reason for you to find it difficult to believe the same of the universe or matter.
You can't say "oh the universe couldn't all come out of chance from nowhere, it had to be created" and then say the complete opposite for God - "He's always existed, essentially appearing from nowhere."
If the universe had to be created, why didn't God have to be created, eh?
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
>
>
> Another one for you:
>
> Quote:
> Ruins of 7,000 BC civilisation discovered in Balochistan
> The News, 2/2/2002
>
> ISLAMABAD: International archaeologists have discovered a rich
> civilisation
> dating back to around 7,000 BC at Mehrgarh, Balochistan, that may
> have links
> to Moenjodaro in the Indus valley.
>
> This was revealed by Prof Jean-Francois Jarrige, a noted French
> Archaeologist and Director at the prestigious Musee Guimet, National
> Museum
> of Asian Arts in Paris. Jarrige and his team, working at Mehrgarh for
> the
> last 30 years, made the discovery of one of the oldest civilisation
> during
> excavation there. While giving a presentation on his recent
> discoveries at
> the Islamabad Club Auditorium, he said Pakistan is a country with
> rich
> archaeological sites of international interest like Mehrgarh to
> discover.
> Highlighting his discoveries, he said some ancient buildings were
> found in
> very good condition in Pakistan, Eastern Iran and India, which showed
> that
> the people were living in well-built and organised houses.
>
> He also showed a long brick with a fingerprint which depicts that
> people
> were using their hands to properly adjust the bricks used for
> construction.
> Later, these bricks become smaller, he added. He disclosed that his
> team had
> also discovered about 30 graves from the Mehrgarh site as majority of
> them
> were females with the age from 18 to 22. He also showed slides of
> some
> discoveries found from the site of excavation, including clay pots,
> stones,
> skeletons, ornaments, building structures and other articles of human
> use.
>
> [URL]http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/cyberclub/2002-February/002246.html[/URL]
The age of the universe is almost 6000 years, one fingerprint, is not evidence, Tallan of the earth being a thousand years older than that. Early descendants of Adam and Eve would have lived in Asia and around it, this is again guesswork, which has resulted in an estimated answer. Not proof.
> Want any more? I can keep going...
If they are going to have some science in them, all right.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
>
>
> Another one for you:
>
> Quote:
> Ruins of 7,000 BC civilisation discovered in Balochistan
> The News, 2/2/2002
>
> ISLAMABAD: International archaeologists have discovered a rich
> civilisation
> dating back to around 7,000 BC at Mehrgarh, Balochistan, that may
> have links
> to Moenjodaro in the Indus valley.
>
> This was revealed by Prof Jean-Francois Jarrige, a noted French
> Archaeologist and Director at the prestigious Musee Guimet, National
> Museum
> of Asian Arts in Paris. Jarrige and his team, working at Mehrgarh for
> the
> last 30 years, made the discovery of one of the oldest civilisation
> during
> excavation there. While giving a presentation on his recent
> discoveries at
> the Islamabad Club Auditorium, he said Pakistan is a country with
> rich
> archaeological sites of international interest like Mehrgarh to
> discover.
> Highlighting his discoveries, he said some ancient buildings were
> found in
> very good condition in Pakistan, Eastern Iran and India, which showed
> that
> the people were living in well-built and organised houses.
>
> He also showed a long brick with a fingerprint which depicts that
> people
> were using their hands to properly adjust the bricks used for
> construction.
> Later, these bricks become smaller, he added. He disclosed that his
> team had
> also discovered about 30 graves from the Mehrgarh site as majority of
> them
> were females with the age from 18 to 22. He also showed slides of
> some
> discoveries found from the site of excavation, including clay pots,
> stones,
> skeletons, ornaments, building structures and other articles of human
> use.
>
> [URL]http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/cyberclub/2002-February/002246.html[/URL]
The age of the universe is almost 6000 years, one fingerprint, is not evidence, Tallan of the earth being a thousand years older than that. Early descendants of Adam and Eve would have lived in Asia and around it, this is again guesswork, which has resulted in an estimated answer. Not proof.
> Want any more? I can keep going...
If they are going to have some science in them, all right.
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
> The oldest human remains are that of Otzi, the Ice man.
>
>
> Quote:
> "Marine scientists in India say an archaeological site off
> India's western coast may be up to 9,000 years old.
"may be", being the operative phrase, Tallan. I'm sorry, but I don't believe something according to "may be", it just can't be fact.
> The revelation comes about 8 months after acoustic images from the
> sea-bed suggested the presence of built-up structures resembling the
> ancient Harappan civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.
>
> The Harappan civilisation is the oldest in the subcontinent.
>
> Although Palaeolithic sites dating back around 20,000 years have been
> found on the coast of India's western state of Gujarat before, this
> is the first time there are indications of man-made structures as old
> as 9,500 years found deep beneath the sea surface. "
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1763950.stm
"indication", again it is not a strong enough arguement. There is absolutely NO facts above, it is purely guesswork according to one scientist.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
> The oldest human remains are that of Otzi, the Ice man.
>
>
> Quote:
> "Marine scientists in India say an archaeological site off
> India's western coast may be up to 9,000 years old.
"may be", being the operative phrase, Tallan. I'm sorry, but I don't believe something according to "may be", it just can't be fact.
> The revelation comes about 8 months after acoustic images from the
> sea-bed suggested the presence of built-up structures resembling the
> ancient Harappan civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.
>
> The Harappan civilisation is the oldest in the subcontinent.
>
> Although Palaeolithic sites dating back around 20,000 years have been
> found on the coast of India's western state of Gujarat before, this
> is the first time there are indications of man-made structures as old
> as 9,500 years found deep beneath the sea surface. "
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1763950.stm
"indication", again it is not a strong enough arguement. There is absolutely NO facts above, it is purely guesswork according to one scientist.
Forest Fan wrote:
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
Another one for you:
Quote:
Ruins of 7,000 BC civilisation discovered in Balochistan
The News, 2/2/2002
ISLAMABAD: International archaeologists have discovered a rich civilisation
dating back to around 7,000 BC at Mehrgarh, Balochistan, that may have links
to Moenjodaro in the Indus valley.
This was revealed by Prof Jean-Francois Jarrige, a noted French
Archaeologist and Director at the prestigious Musee Guimet, National Museum
of Asian Arts in Paris. Jarrige and his team, working at Mehrgarh for the
last 30 years, made the discovery of one of the oldest civilisation during
excavation there. While giving a presentation on his recent discoveries at
the Islamabad Club Auditorium, he said Pakistan is a country with rich
archaeological sites of international interest like Mehrgarh to discover.
Highlighting his discoveries, he said some ancient buildings were found in
very good condition in Pakistan, Eastern Iran and India, which showed that
the people were living in well-built and organised houses.
He also showed a long brick with a fingerprint which depicts that people
were using their hands to properly adjust the bricks used for construction.
Later, these bricks become smaller, he added. He disclosed that his team had
also discovered about 30 graves from the Mehrgarh site as majority of them
were females with the age from 18 to 22. He also showed slides of some
discoveries found from the site of excavation, including clay pots, stones,
skeletons, ornaments, building structures and other articles of human use.
[URL]http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/cyberclub/2002-February/002246.html[/URL]
Want any more? I can keep going...
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
Another one for you:
Quote:
Ruins of 7,000 BC civilisation discovered in Balochistan
The News, 2/2/2002
ISLAMABAD: International archaeologists have discovered a rich civilisation
dating back to around 7,000 BC at Mehrgarh, Balochistan, that may have links
to Moenjodaro in the Indus valley.
This was revealed by Prof Jean-Francois Jarrige, a noted French
Archaeologist and Director at the prestigious Musee Guimet, National Museum
of Asian Arts in Paris. Jarrige and his team, working at Mehrgarh for the
last 30 years, made the discovery of one of the oldest civilisation during
excavation there. While giving a presentation on his recent discoveries at
the Islamabad Club Auditorium, he said Pakistan is a country with rich
archaeological sites of international interest like Mehrgarh to discover.
Highlighting his discoveries, he said some ancient buildings were found in
very good condition in Pakistan, Eastern Iran and India, which showed that
the people were living in well-built and organised houses.
He also showed a long brick with a fingerprint which depicts that people
were using their hands to properly adjust the bricks used for construction.
Later, these bricks become smaller, he added. He disclosed that his team had
also discovered about 30 graves from the Mehrgarh site as majority of them
were females with the age from 18 to 22. He also showed slides of some
discoveries found from the site of excavation, including clay pots, stones,
skeletons, ornaments, building structures and other articles of human use.
[URL]http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/cyberclub/2002-February/002246.html[/URL]
Want any more? I can keep going...
Page: