The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Tallan wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Well in the UK average male lifespan is 76 years and longer for
> women.
> A lifetime may be incomprehensible compared to history BUT mankind
> has done more in it's existence than anything else has, so in a way
> even a lifetime has vast significance now.
>
> There is no conclusive proof to show this. A civilisation may have
> evolved much farther than ours on this Earth, some point in its
> history. If this civilisation fell, then a few million years, a
> billion at most, and there would be no evidence of it at all. Time
> ravishes all. Look at the 'ancient' civilisations of our time. What
> is left of them? In a few thousand years? Lob in a meteor strike, a
> couple of ice ages, extend this to a billion years and there would be
> nothing.
"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.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Well in the UK average male lifespan is 76 years and longer for
> women.
> A lifetime may be incomprehensible compared to history BUT mankind
> has done more in it's existence than anything else has, so in a way
> even a lifetime has vast significance now.
>
> There is no conclusive proof to show this. A civilisation may have
> evolved much farther than ours on this Earth, some point in its
> history. If this civilisation fell, then a few million years, a
> billion at most, and there would be no evidence of it at all. Time
> ravishes all. Look at the 'ancient' civilisations of our time. What
> is left of them? In a few thousand years? Lob in a meteor strike, a
> couple of ice ages, extend this to a billion years and there would be
> nothing.
"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.
Maverick42 wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> Forest Fan, you haven't proved a single thing in this entire thread.
>
> Do you know the meaning of the word "fact"?
>
> Here are some questions, I would like FACTUAL answers to, if you
> know
> the answer to them.
>
> No, sod off.
>
> I'm sick of this. People put forward valid points, only to find you
> throw off the discussion with some 2000 word post quoted from a
> website, which is further evidence that you know b*gger all about
> what you're talking about.
>
> Here's an idea, use your own knowledge to construct a 100-200 word
> point just like everyone else is, rather than posting a load of crap
> that you can't understand, and no person with a life will bother to
> even look at.
>
> Present to me a concise version of your "facts", and maybe
> I'll take a look at them. Until then, I've really got better things
> to be doing.
Here are some points for Maverick42, that I have specially prepared, which have been simplified... several times...
- GOD created this world (Genesis 1:1)
- GOD created all the animals (Genesis 1:21)
- GOD created man (Genesis 1:27)
- GOD knows all, like the number of hairs on your head (Matthew 10:30)
- GOD sent His son JESUS, because of His love (Galatians 4:4)
- GOD so loved the world that He sent His Son for our sins (John 3:16)
- GOD will send His Son JESUS to earth again (Matthew 24:30)
There you go, nice and simple.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Maverick42 wrote:
> Forest Fan, you haven't proved a single thing in this entire thread.
>
> Do you know the meaning of the word "fact"?
>
> Here are some questions, I would like FACTUAL answers to, if you
> know
> the answer to them.
>
> No, sod off.
>
> I'm sick of this. People put forward valid points, only to find you
> throw off the discussion with some 2000 word post quoted from a
> website, which is further evidence that you know b*gger all about
> what you're talking about.
>
> Here's an idea, use your own knowledge to construct a 100-200 word
> point just like everyone else is, rather than posting a load of crap
> that you can't understand, and no person with a life will bother to
> even look at.
>
> Present to me a concise version of your "facts", and maybe
> I'll take a look at them. Until then, I've really got better things
> to be doing.
Here are some points for Maverick42, that I have specially prepared, which have been simplified... several times...
- GOD created this world (Genesis 1:1)
- GOD created all the animals (Genesis 1:21)
- GOD created man (Genesis 1:27)
- GOD knows all, like the number of hairs on your head (Matthew 10:30)
- GOD sent His son JESUS, because of His love (Galatians 4:4)
- GOD so loved the world that He sent His Son for our sins (John 3:16)
- GOD will send His Son JESUS to earth again (Matthew 24:30)
There you go, nice and simple.
Galacticdramon wrote:
> People say that the Science and Religion sides of Evolution are
> completely different. But I've heard of things such as "Science
> of Religion". Does that mean they CAN be rolled into one if you
> believe the right things?
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. Evolution provides people with a "purpose" in life which is do as much as you and enjoy life to the full through wordly pleasures. This is what GOD says about this very scenario...
"So he said, "I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry."' But God said to him, "Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?" Luke 12:18-20
> People say that the Science and Religion sides of Evolution are
> completely different. But I've heard of things such as "Science
> of Religion". Does that mean they CAN be rolled into one if you
> believe the right things?
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. Evolution provides people with a "purpose" in life which is do as much as you and enjoy life to the full through wordly pleasures. This is what GOD says about this very scenario...
"So he said, "I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry."' But God said to him, "Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?" Luke 12:18-20
People say that the Science and Religion sides of Evolution are completely different. But I've heard of things such as "Science of Religion". Does that mean they CAN be rolled into one if you believe the right things?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> Well in the UK average male lifespan is 76 years and longer for
> women.
> A lifetime may be incomprehensible compared to history BUT mankind
> has done more in it's existence than anything else has, so in a way
> even a lifetime has vast significance now.
>
> A number picked at random. It may be 76 years and longer for women
> now, but not 2000 years ago. I picked this number so that people
> reading would immediately grasp the length of time, althought they
> will not have lived it.
>
> I stand by my reasoning that a lifetime is a blink of the eye
> compared to millions of years of evolution, and thus almost
> meaningless.
And you honestly believe that is all to life? Meaningless, all I can say, is what a sad life that is.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Well in the UK average male lifespan is 76 years and longer for
> women.
> A lifetime may be incomprehensible compared to history BUT mankind
> has done more in it's existence than anything else has, so in a way
> even a lifetime has vast significance now.
>
> A number picked at random. It may be 76 years and longer for women
> now, but not 2000 years ago. I picked this number so that people
> reading would immediately grasp the length of time, althought they
> will not have lived it.
>
> I stand by my reasoning that a lifetime is a blink of the eye
> compared to millions of years of evolution, and thus almost
> meaningless.
And you honestly believe that is all to life? Meaningless, all I can say, is what a sad life that is.
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!
> 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!
The only problem with telling fighting (metaphorically) someone who believe in God with Science is that there is the possibility that someone created something and man has simply found out how it works - magic is only magic until you know how to do it yourself, after which it is science.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Where did the space for the universe come from?
>
> Comprehensive spanking of Forest Fans ass Tallan. 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.
You have sidetracked, written a little fairy story and managed to completely ignore the question.
Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
> Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Where did the space for the universe come from?
>
> Comprehensive spanking of Forest Fans ass Tallan. 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.
You have sidetracked, written a little fairy story and managed to completely ignore the question.
Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
Tallan wrote:
> Would you be interested, if I showed you from The Textbook, how to
> eqip yourself mentally in order to look at this world from a veiw to
> understanding how everything works, metaphorically taking it appart
> to see what makes it tick? If so, enrole in a science evening class.
> Or you could just say that 'God did it'.
Tallan, mate, you have answered about half the questions and not well. See, there are a lot of things that you evolutionists can't explain.
> Would you be interested, if I showed you from The Textbook, how to
> eqip yourself mentally in order to look at this world from a veiw to
> understanding how everything works, metaphorically taking it appart
> to see what makes it tick? If so, enrole in a science evening class.
> Or you could just say that 'God did it'.
Tallan, mate, you have answered about half the questions and not well. See, there are a lot of things that you evolutionists can't explain.
Belldandy wrote:
> Well in the UK average male lifespan is 76 years and longer for women.
> A lifetime may be incomprehensible compared to history BUT mankind
> has done more in it's existence than anything else has, so in a way
> even a lifetime has vast significance now.
This is the concept that man was created to rule the animals. This is what GOD always intended, except He wanted man to never see death.
> Well in the UK average male lifespan is 76 years and longer for women.
> A lifetime may be incomprehensible compared to history BUT mankind
> has done more in it's existence than anything else has, so in a way
> even a lifetime has vast significance now.
This is the concept that man was created to rule the animals. This is what GOD always intended, except He wanted man to never see death.
Page: