The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> I think you missed the point. Our Earth is approx 4 billion years
> old. If everyone died today, then in 1 billion years there will be no
> trace of us whatsoever. The only evidence we could leave to last that
> amount of time would be a structure on the moon where there is no
> atmosphere, but even this is unlikely to survive that long as the
> moon gets periodically bombarded by meteors.
Really? Because we have evidence to date the earth back that long , hence something survived from those times. We know the earth is not now as it was then, we know our very being here has changed the planet, hence we have already left an undeniable presence here - short of the Earth being obliterated.
> Humans do not give meaning to time. Time is here whether we are or
> not. It is part of the fabric of spacetime. We just measure it using
> our lives as a basis for the measurements. One could easily measure
> time in the oscillations of an atom (many thousand a second) or by
> the lifespan of a star (many billions of years). Time does not need
> an observer as it happens anyway. This has been proven with quantum
> mechanics.
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.
> I think you missed the point. Our Earth is approx 4 billion years
> old. If everyone died today, then in 1 billion years there will be no
> trace of us whatsoever. The only evidence we could leave to last that
> amount of time would be a structure on the moon where there is no
> atmosphere, but even this is unlikely to survive that long as the
> moon gets periodically bombarded by meteors.
Really? Because we have evidence to date the earth back that long , hence something survived from those times. We know the earth is not now as it was then, we know our very being here has changed the planet, hence we have already left an undeniable presence here - short of the Earth being obliterated.
> Humans do not give meaning to time. Time is here whether we are or
> not. It is part of the fabric of spacetime. We just measure it using
> our lives as a basis for the measurements. One could easily measure
> time in the oscillations of an atom (many thousand a second) or by
> the lifespan of a star (many billions of years). Time does not need
> an observer as it happens anyway. This has been proven with quantum
> mechanics.
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.
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.
> 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.
Belldandy wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> 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.
>
> Proof? Oh dear other than a few myths and half baked conspiracy
> theories there is none.
>
> Humans give meaning to time, we even invented the concept ourselves
> to order our societies and lives. Without us all those millions of
> years are meaningless anyway.
I think you missed the point. Our Earth is approx 4 billion years old. If everyone died today, then in 1 billion years there will be no trace of us whatsoever. The only evidence we could leave to last that amount of time would be a structure on the moon where there is no atmosphere, but even this is unlikely to survive that long as the moon gets periodically bombarded by meteors.
Humans do not give meaning to time. Time is here whether we are or not. It is part of the fabric of spacetime. We just measure it using our lives as a basis for the measurements. One could easily measure time in the oscillations of an atom (many thousand a second) or by the lifespan of a star (many billions of years). Time does not need an observer as it happens anyway. This has been proven with quantum mechanics.
> Tallan wrote:
> 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.
>
> Proof? Oh dear other than a few myths and half baked conspiracy
> theories there is none.
>
> Humans give meaning to time, we even invented the concept ourselves
> to order our societies and lives. Without us all those millions of
> years are meaningless anyway.
I think you missed the point. Our Earth is approx 4 billion years old. If everyone died today, then in 1 billion years there will be no trace of us whatsoever. The only evidence we could leave to last that amount of time would be a structure on the moon where there is no atmosphere, but even this is unlikely to survive that long as the moon gets periodically bombarded by meteors.
Humans do not give meaning to time. Time is here whether we are or not. It is part of the fabric of spacetime. We just measure it using our lives as a basis for the measurements. One could easily measure time in the oscillations of an atom (many thousand a second) or by the lifespan of a star (many billions of years). Time does not need an observer as it happens anyway. This has been proven with quantum mechanics.
Tallan wrote:
> 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.
Proof? Oh dear other than a few myths and half baked conspiracy theories there is none.
Humans give meaning to time, we even invented the concept ourselves to order our societies and lives. Without us all those millions of years are meaningless anyway.
> 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.
Proof? Oh dear other than a few myths and half baked conspiracy theories there is none.
Humans give meaning to time, we even invented the concept ourselves to order our societies and lives. Without us all those millions of years are meaningless anyway.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Strafio wrote:
> It's a sort of courtesy thing, seeing as I'm expecting him to answer
> all of mine. :-)
Heh, I made that mistake at first too :^)
His questions are just tripe stolen from some other web site - he just posts it to distract people from the fact that he can't competently argue anything on grounds of reason himself.
I noticed a URL at the bottom of his last big post as I skimmed over it, suggesting it's not his own work again - though since catching him stealing other peoples' work and passing it off as his own before, I've not really got time for anything he says.
He's either not a christian, or one of those very small minded ape-like christians who claim moral superiority over everyone else yet can't even respect the basic rules of their god ('thou shalt not steal', FF).
> It's a sort of courtesy thing, seeing as I'm expecting him to answer
> all of mine. :-)
Heh, I made that mistake at first too :^)
His questions are just tripe stolen from some other web site - he just posts it to distract people from the fact that he can't competently argue anything on grounds of reason himself.
I noticed a URL at the bottom of his last big post as I skimmed over it, suggesting it's not his own work again - though since catching him stealing other peoples' work and passing it off as his own before, I've not really got time for anything he says.
He's either not a christian, or one of those very small minded ape-like christians who claim moral superiority over everyone else yet can't even respect the basic rules of their god ('thou shalt not steal', FF).
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!
> 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!
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.
One question for you, ForestFan (not a whole essay full).
You state that the second theory of thermodynamics disproves evolution. Please explain this in a short, concise answer showing how one theory is applied to the other with that conclusion. Include any mathematical equations, and all intermediate calculations. No analogies please, pure evidence only.
You state that the second theory of thermodynamics disproves evolution. Please explain this in a short, concise answer showing how one theory is applied to the other with that conclusion. Include any mathematical equations, and all intermediate calculations. No analogies please, pure evidence only.
Page: