The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
yes, animals do have an abstract concept of time, not as precise as we do, true, but they do understand the passage of time in a way.
They know the difference between night and day, and they know when new seasons are approaching. The way animals sense time is far more subtle and instinctual than the way we do. Over millions of years of evolution we have needed our instincts less and less - they are still there, but are much less pronounced. Now we use maths and timepieces to tell us what time it is, when we would have once used only our instincts.
They know the difference between night and day, and they know when new seasons are approaching. The way animals sense time is far more subtle and instinctual than the way we do. Over millions of years of evolution we have needed our instincts less and less - they are still there, but are much less pronounced. Now we use maths and timepieces to tell us what time it is, when we would have once used only our instincts.
Forest Fan wrote:
> So what, the fact that evolution cannot explain the very principles
> of time, space and matter makes it more genuine than a book which can
> explain CREATION, in its first 10 words?
>
> 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.
Do you actually read anything anyone posts? I have answered both of those time and again.
> So what, the fact that evolution cannot explain the very principles
> of time, space and matter makes it more genuine than a book which can
> explain CREATION, in its first 10 words?
>
> 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.
Do you actually read anything anyone posts? I have answered both of those time and again.
Forest Fan wrote:
> "no conclusive proof", that my friend Tallan, pretty much
> sums up evolution I'm afraid. It pointlessly goes around in circles,
> breaking as many laws of science as possible, brainwashing children
> and still holding no answers to our very existence.
Again you read a sentence and quote it, without having fully understood the article it was written in. How many more times?
> "no conclusive proof", that my friend Tallan, pretty much
> sums up evolution I'm afraid. It pointlessly goes around in circles,
> breaking as many laws of science as possible, brainwashing children
> and still holding no answers to our very existence.
Again you read a sentence and quote it, without having fully understood the article it was written in. How many more times?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> The thing these
> people can't understand is the concept of time. Out lifespan is on
> average 70 years. Once you try to compare that with, say, 40 million
> years, or approximately 580,000 times our lifespan, its
> incomprehensible.
>
> Oh, how I have tried to make him realise this!
>
> It doesn't prove a thing, all it proves it that you don't realise man
> has only been alive 6000 years!
So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
> Tallan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> The thing these
> people can't understand is the concept of time. Out lifespan is on
> average 70 years. Once you try to compare that with, say, 40 million
> years, or approximately 580,000 times our lifespan, its
> incomprehensible.
>
> Oh, how I have tried to make him realise this!
>
> It doesn't prove a thing, all it proves it that you don't realise man
> has only been alive 6000 years!
So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't
> have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
I have already told you, the entire matter in the universe was at one point condensed into a singularity. Do you know the effect gravity can have on spacetime? If you did, (and this has been proven through experiments, not belief), then you would realise that that amount of matter in such a small space creates so much gravity that the entire space and time (see spacetime) is pulled in by the gravity and is therefore wrapped in on itself.
> Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't
> have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
I have already told you, the entire matter in the universe was at one point condensed into a singularity. Do you know the effect gravity can have on spacetime? If you did, (and this has been proven through experiments, not belief), then you would realise that that amount of matter in such a small space creates so much gravity that the entire space and time (see spacetime) is pulled in by the gravity and is therefore wrapped in on itself.
Belldandy wrote:
> Duh, I'm sorry but time only exists in the context of humans. You
> think animals measure time as we do, nope they just (unless trained
> by humans of course) have a way of measuring their lives. Without us
> atoms, time, anything, does not exist because without us they have no
> context. We give names to things to give them meanings which mean
> something to us, but only us.
No, time does exist. Maybe not 'minutes' and 'hours' as these are human measurements of time, but time itself does exist. Time is but the fourth dimension in width/length/height/time. If we did not exist, would length cease to exist?
> Duh, I'm sorry but time only exists in the context of humans. You
> think animals measure time as we do, nope they just (unless trained
> by humans of course) have a way of measuring their lives. Without us
> atoms, time, anything, does not exist because without us they have no
> context. We give names to things to give them meanings which mean
> something to us, but only us.
No, time does exist. Maybe not 'minutes' and 'hours' as these are human measurements of time, but time itself does exist. Time is but the fourth dimension in width/length/height/time. If we did not exist, would length cease to exist?
cookie monster wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The truth is, that evolution, just like any other religion is just
> that, a religion. Some scientists admit it is a religion, but others
> insist it is a theory.
>
> If evolution is a religion you can spank my ass and call me
> timmothy.
Evolution is a religion, just like being a CREATIONIST. Except your GOD is sea slime, but my GOD is JESUS.
> Evolution provides people with a
> "purpose" in life which is do as much as you and enjoy
> life
>
> I see no way that evolution provides a purpose in life, heck i
> believe in evolution, but i see life as pretty pointless in the
> scheme of things.
Exactly, so you can quite easily override your conceisence, because you believe you won't have to face up to anyone, but then, what would be the purpose of life?
"And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment," Hebrews 9:27
> to the full through wordly pleasures.
>
> Like reading the dictionary everyday?
If what you read is dirty, it is a WORDLY PLEASURE.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The truth is, that evolution, just like any other religion is just
> that, a religion. Some scientists admit it is a religion, but others
> insist it is a theory.
>
> If evolution is a religion you can spank my ass and call me
> timmothy.
Evolution is a religion, just like being a CREATIONIST. Except your GOD is sea slime, but my GOD is JESUS.
> Evolution provides people with a
> "purpose" in life which is do as much as you and enjoy
> life
>
> I see no way that evolution provides a purpose in life, heck i
> believe in evolution, but i see life as pretty pointless in the
> scheme of things.
Exactly, so you can quite easily override your conceisence, because you believe you won't have to face up to anyone, but then, what would be the purpose of life?
"And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment," Hebrews 9:27
> to the full through wordly pleasures.
>
> Like reading the dictionary everyday?
If what you read is dirty, it is a WORDLY PLEASURE.
Strafio wrote:
> He's not even reading our arguments anymore.
>
> Forest Fan, evolution doesn't have ALL the answers, but it gives
> genuine answers rather than make them up.
>
> How about that?
So what, the fact that evolution cannot explain the very principles of time, space and matter makes it more genuine than a book which can explain CREATION, in its first 10 words?
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.
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
> He's not even reading our arguments anymore.
>
> Forest Fan, evolution doesn't have ALL the answers, but it gives
> genuine answers rather than make them up.
>
> How about that?
So what, the fact that evolution cannot explain the very principles of time, space and matter makes it more genuine than a book which can explain CREATION, in its first 10 words?
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.
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
He's not even reading our arguments anymore.
Forest Fan, evolution doesn't have ALL the answers, but it gives genuine answers rather than make them up.
How about that?
Forest Fan, evolution doesn't have ALL the answers, but it gives genuine answers rather than make them up.
How about that?
Forest Fan wrote:
> The truth is, that evolution, just like any other religion is just
> that, a religion. Some scientists admit it is a religion, but others
> insist it is a theory.
If evolution is a religion you can spank my ass and call me timmothy.
> Evolution provides people with a
> "purpose" in life which is do as much as you and enjoy life
I see no way that evolution provides a purpose in life, heck i believe in evolution, but i see life as pretty pointless in the scheme of things.
> to the full through wordly pleasures.
Like reading the dictionary everyday?
> The truth is, that evolution, just like any other religion is just
> that, a religion. Some scientists admit it is a religion, but others
> insist it is a theory.
If evolution is a religion you can spank my ass and call me timmothy.
> Evolution provides people with a
> "purpose" in life which is do as much as you and enjoy life
I see no way that evolution provides a purpose in life, heck i believe in evolution, but i see life as pretty pointless in the scheme of things.
> to the full through wordly pleasures.
Like reading the dictionary everyday?
Page: