The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> 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.
> 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.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Where did the space for the universe come from?
All the matter was initially condensed into a singularity. This was so super dense that it curved spacetime around in on itself. When the matter expanded, so did spacetime.
> Where did matter come from?
This singularity.
> Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia,
> etc.)?
Always have existed. The
> How did matter get so perfectly organized?
See the laws.
> Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
The explosion of the singularity.
> When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
random ordering of chemicals/elements into a particular pattern.
> When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
This randoming ordering 'programmed' life that way.
> With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
> reproduce?
Asexual. Means it split itself in two.
> Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince
> this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of
> survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the
> species? How do you explain this?)
Continuation of the species.
> How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new,
> improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce
> Chinese books.)
Randomness. Randomly mutate the english letters for long enough and you will have chinese letters at some point. Evolution has something God never had, and that is time.
> Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals
> prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
>
> Natural selection only works with the genetic information available
> and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the
> increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if
> evolution were true?
>
> When, where, why, and how did:
> Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and
> three-celled intermediates?)
multi-cell is 2+ cells.
> Single-celled animals evolve?
The old random chemical trick again I'm afraid.
> Fish change to amphibians?
Over several million years.
> Amphibians change to reptiles?
> Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive
> organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all
> very different!)
Random mutations, any that provide that animal with a better chance of survival get passed on. Again, over millions of years.
> How did the intermediate forms live?
Better than their ancestors.
> When, where, why, how, and from what did:
> Whales evolve?
> Sea horses evolve?
> bats evolve?
> Eyes evolve?
>
> Ears evolve?
> Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
>
> Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the
> others)?
> The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the
> ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s
> resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
> The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
> The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the
> perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
> DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
> The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest
> the cellulose?
> The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
> The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the
> bones?
> The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
> The immune system or the need for it?
You may as well bloody well ask us to detail every single living things evoultion, all the evolutionary dead-ends, and every single damn thing that ever lived. How the hell did God create humans? Can you show me the blueprints? The methods He used?
> There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an
> evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution
> is the only explanation for these relationships?
All can be explained. Its just that you don't seem to appreciate just how big a task this is.
> How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals
> develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
The simple answer: those that did survived better.
> When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy,
> guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
An extension of the primitive emotions, eg fear (survival tactic), need for grouping together (survival), etc...
> *How did photosynthesis evolve?
>
> *How did thought evolve?
Evolution of the brain.
> *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
>
> *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other
> eight or ten kinds?
>
> What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living
> coelacanth in my aquarium?
>
> *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved
> true?
>
> *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
We can show that with the right tools we can create anything from its atomic 'building blocks'.
> *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
No. I believe everything came from something. Its just a case of finding what came before. What came before man? Ape. What came before the earth? Other plantes/suns/systems that have lived and died, collided, exploded and finally formed our planet. What was here before that? A point singularity of all the mass in the universe. And before that? There is no before that due to the nature of spacetime and how it was all curved in on itself. There are other fractal universes out there though
> After you have answered the preceding questions, please look
> carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following
> questions.
>
>
> Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically
> provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way
> you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your
> science?)
Yes, yes (until someone proves otherwise, its called scientific advancement), yes. Science, my religion is something else entirely...
> Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says,
> "God must have designed it"?
No faith. Scientific fact
> Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God
> is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of
> science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He
> did?
>
> Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as
> fact?
>
> What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society,
> attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
I don't 'believe' in evolution to gain anything (such as eternal life, etc). I 'believe' in it as it fits all available evidence and is somehow more satisfying than saying 'God did it'. Saying 'God did it' to me is like hiding my head in the sands and not wanting to contemplate how things work, just accepting that they do.
> Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
> It is all they have been taught.
I have a well rounded education.
> They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
I am a moral person thankyou.
> They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or
> status or grade point average.
> They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
> Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their
> political agenda.
Clutching at straws here. Science does not dictate how we live our lives, it explains it. Religion controls, science explains.
> Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or
> inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we
> don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation,
> archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution,
> vestigial organs, etc.)?
What, as opposed to hearsay? And an ancient manuscript that could have been written by anybody?
As a religious person, you say 'I believe'; as a scientist I say 'prove it'.
> Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as
> fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other
> theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What has this to do with this debate?
> What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents
> said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both
> possibilities are frightening."
Nothing.
> Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being
> presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach
> religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?
> It is just a religious worldview.
Didn't know they were. Evolution is not in the strict sense a religion. It is based on evidence not belief.
> Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t
> it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and
> forgiveness?
Nice try.
> Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have
> your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to
> Heaven? If so, call me.
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'.
> Where did the space for the universe come from?
All the matter was initially condensed into a singularity. This was so super dense that it curved spacetime around in on itself. When the matter expanded, so did spacetime.
> Where did matter come from?
This singularity.
> Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia,
> etc.)?
Always have existed. The
> How did matter get so perfectly organized?
See the laws.
> Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
The explosion of the singularity.
> When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
random ordering of chemicals/elements into a particular pattern.
> When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
This randoming ordering 'programmed' life that way.
> With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
> reproduce?
Asexual. Means it split itself in two.
> Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince
> this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of
> survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the
> species? How do you explain this?)
Continuation of the species.
> How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new,
> improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce
> Chinese books.)
Randomness. Randomly mutate the english letters for long enough and you will have chinese letters at some point. Evolution has something God never had, and that is time.
> Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals
> prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
>
> Natural selection only works with the genetic information available
> and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the
> increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if
> evolution were true?
>
> When, where, why, and how did:
> Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and
> three-celled intermediates?)
multi-cell is 2+ cells.
> Single-celled animals evolve?
The old random chemical trick again I'm afraid.
> Fish change to amphibians?
Over several million years.
> Amphibians change to reptiles?
> Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive
> organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all
> very different!)
Random mutations, any that provide that animal with a better chance of survival get passed on. Again, over millions of years.
> How did the intermediate forms live?
Better than their ancestors.
> When, where, why, how, and from what did:
> Whales evolve?
> Sea horses evolve?
> bats evolve?
> Eyes evolve?
>
> Ears evolve?
> Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
>
> Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the
> others)?
> The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the
> ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s
> resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
> The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
> The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the
> perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
> DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
> The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest
> the cellulose?
> The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
> The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the
> bones?
> The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
> The immune system or the need for it?
You may as well bloody well ask us to detail every single living things evoultion, all the evolutionary dead-ends, and every single damn thing that ever lived. How the hell did God create humans? Can you show me the blueprints? The methods He used?
> There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an
> evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution
> is the only explanation for these relationships?
All can be explained. Its just that you don't seem to appreciate just how big a task this is.
> How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals
> develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
The simple answer: those that did survived better.
> When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy,
> guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
An extension of the primitive emotions, eg fear (survival tactic), need for grouping together (survival), etc...
> *How did photosynthesis evolve?
>
> *How did thought evolve?
Evolution of the brain.
> *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
>
> *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other
> eight or ten kinds?
>
> What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living
> coelacanth in my aquarium?
>
> *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved
> true?
>
> *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
We can show that with the right tools we can create anything from its atomic 'building blocks'.
> *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
No. I believe everything came from something. Its just a case of finding what came before. What came before man? Ape. What came before the earth? Other plantes/suns/systems that have lived and died, collided, exploded and finally formed our planet. What was here before that? A point singularity of all the mass in the universe. And before that? There is no before that due to the nature of spacetime and how it was all curved in on itself. There are other fractal universes out there though
> After you have answered the preceding questions, please look
> carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following
> questions.
>
>
> Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically
> provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way
> you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your
> science?)
Yes, yes (until someone proves otherwise, its called scientific advancement), yes. Science, my religion is something else entirely...
> Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says,
> "God must have designed it"?
No faith. Scientific fact
> Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God
> is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of
> science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He
> did?
>
> Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as
> fact?
>
> What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society,
> attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
I don't 'believe' in evolution to gain anything (such as eternal life, etc). I 'believe' in it as it fits all available evidence and is somehow more satisfying than saying 'God did it'. Saying 'God did it' to me is like hiding my head in the sands and not wanting to contemplate how things work, just accepting that they do.
> Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
> It is all they have been taught.
I have a well rounded education.
> They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
I am a moral person thankyou.
> They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or
> status or grade point average.
> They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
> Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their
> political agenda.
Clutching at straws here. Science does not dictate how we live our lives, it explains it. Religion controls, science explains.
> Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or
> inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we
> don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation,
> archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution,
> vestigial organs, etc.)?
What, as opposed to hearsay? And an ancient manuscript that could have been written by anybody?
As a religious person, you say 'I believe'; as a scientist I say 'prove it'.
> Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as
> fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other
> theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What has this to do with this debate?
> What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents
> said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both
> possibilities are frightening."
Nothing.
> Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being
> presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach
> religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?
> It is just a religious worldview.
Didn't know they were. Evolution is not in the strict sense a religion. It is based on evidence not belief.
> Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t
> it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and
> forgiveness?
Nice try.
> Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have
> your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to
> Heaven? If so, call me.
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'.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Memorandum! wrote:
> I like how Forest Fan loves to ask questions but isn't so fond of
> answering them.
>
> I could say exactly the same about you.
Hey, whenever I post the answers to your questions, you ignore them.
> Memorandum! wrote:
> I like how Forest Fan loves to ask questions but isn't so fond of
> answering them.
>
> I could say exactly the same about you.
Hey, whenever I post the answers to your questions, you ignore them.
Strafio wrote:
> He does seem so skim them sometimes.
>
> I've had to prove his "second law of thermodynamics proves
> evolution false" argument wrong about 3 times! :-D
I've done it once as well I think.
> He does seem so skim them sometimes.
>
> I've had to prove his "second law of thermodynamics proves
> evolution false" argument wrong about 3 times! :-D
I've done it once as well I think.
He does seem so skim them sometimes.
I've had to prove his "second law of thermodynamics proves evolution false" argument wrong about 3 times! :-D
Still, he doesn't do too badly considering all the questions he gets thrown at him a day. :-)
I've had to prove his "second law of thermodynamics proves evolution false" argument wrong about 3 times! :-D
Still, he doesn't do too badly considering all the questions he gets thrown at him a day. :-)
He didnt answer lots of mine from days ago. My guess is he had no answer for them.
It's a sort of courtesy thing, seeing as I'm expecting him to answer all of mine. :-)
Fair play to you Strafio, I wouldn't have the patience or energy to answer them all!
Firstly, let's leave FF over this copying farce.
He never said that it was his work in the first place.
And perhaps his brother works for that sight, or perhaps his circle of believers all call each other "brother"... perhaps! ;-)
By the way Forest Fan, have you accepted the fact that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics has nothing on evolution yet?
Hoping that you have, I'll try the next bit.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Here are some questions, I would like FACTUAL answers to, if you know
> the answer to them.
Here goes. :-)
> Questions for Evolutionists
> The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic
> questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is
> a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe.
> Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion
> masquerading as science.
Ahem. I think that the only reason why ANYONE EVER accepted it was because it made perfect sense. And the ONLY reason why ANYONE EVER rejected it was because they thought it clashed with their religious belief.
> The following questions were distributed to
> the 750-plus people who attended my debate at Winona State University
> in Winona, Minnesota, on January 9, 1993. (The videotaped debate is
> #6, $9.95.) Questions added since the debate remarked with an
> asterisk (*).
> Where did the space for the universe come from?
Space is nothingness. Just nothingness.
Where the universe came from, no one knows, not actually haveing been there. The Big Bang seems like the best explanation of the universe' start so far, but no one can know for sure.
> Where did matter come from?
Again, for some reason or other, no one was there to witness it happening.
> Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia,
> etc.)?
Matter is attracted to other matter.
That's all gravity is. It's called laws, but don't be thinking that matter follows them just to stay on the good side of the sub-atomic police, ;-)
> How did matter get so perfectly organized?
It's not perfectly organised.
How did it form how it is today?
Well, it interacted with other matter.
Interactions that made stable results remained stable results.
The matter involved in unstable reactions just reverted back into basic matter to try other interactions.
> Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Energy is like matter. As far as we're concerned, it's always been there.
> When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Well, when chemicals reacted together to form a DNA molecule, that's when life began. The most likely place for life to form first was in the sea, so we guess. And why? Well, with all the chemical reactions happining, one of them was bound to form DNA sooner or later.
> When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Not sure myself, but once a strand of DNA was complex enough to direct more chemical reactions for forming more DNA I suppose.
> With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
> reproduce?
Well, I guess nature had to wait until atleast 2 of the species had evolved this way before they could start reproducing like that.
> Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince
> this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of
> survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the
> species? How do you explain this?)
The species that evolved an instinct to reproduce, reproduced, while the ones that didn't didn't reproduce and died out.
Besides, life THAT early wasn't intelligent enough to think of the consequences of reproduction, like competition for food etc.
> How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new,
> improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce
> Chinese books.)
Mutations happen, and once in a while it's for the best.
Recombining English letters won't write Chinese books, because there are no English letters in Chinese, but if you randomly put English letters together, you will eventually come across words from various languages that use these sets of letters.
> Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals
> prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
No. The similarities but subtle differences support natural evolution more than creation, but you COULD say that it was because of a common creator, it that's what you wanted to believe.
> Natural selection only works with the genetic information available
> and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the
> increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if
> evolution were true?
Survival requires to be the best at finding food, avoiding predators/other causes of death and reproduction. Sometimes, to get ahead in the playing field, requires a more complex play.
> When, where, why, and how did:
> Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and
> three-celled intermediates?)
Maybe plants with just two cells or three cells weren't stable enough to survive, so only when one came out with more that the mutant survived and reproduced.
> Single-celled animals evolve?
I don't think an animal CAN be single celled. :-)
> Fish change to amphibians?
When competition became too fierce in the sea and they found it easier to live on the land. :-)
> Amphibians change to reptiles?
Some amphibians evolved to become bigger and the change in size brought a whole new load of factors into their survival - I think temperature control of the body was a major one.
> Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive
> organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all
> very different!)
Then maybe birds didn't evolved directly from reptiles.
> How did the intermediate forms live?
> When, where, why, how, and from what did:
> Whales evolve?
> Sea horses evolve?
> bats evolve?
> Eyes evolve?
> Ears evolve?
> Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
We don't know the exact details, but it would've been one step at a time.
> Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the
> others)?
> The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the
> ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s
> resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
> The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
> The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the
> perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
> DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
> The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest
> the cellulose?
> The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
> The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the
> bones?
> The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
> The immune system or the need for it?
The chances are, in each case, they evolved together, to support each other.
Started off very primitive and inefficient, and gradually got better through natural selection.
> There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an
> evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution
> is the only explanation for these relationships?
There are? You sure?
People never say that evolution is the only possibility, but it's the best explanation we have so far. And although we don't have ALL the answers, it's still a lot more credible than an ancient Jewish myth.
> How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals
> develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
Chance. The animals and plants that blended in with their background were less likely to be caught out by predators, so they survived and reproduced.
I guess you could say it was mother nature's design.
> When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy,
> guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
They would. If you read the new scientist, people are always coming up with explanations why such feelings would benefit the survival of early man.
> *How did photosynthesis evolve?
An organism found a way of making sugar using water and the energy of light. From there it was enabled to become more complex as the chemical energy could now be transported within the organism in the form of sugar.
> *How did thought evolve?
Nature has it's problems for the living creature. Creatures that can think can work out a way around these problems.
The deer who can think can work out what it can/can't eat, and to run if it see's a tiger. The deer who can't eat's poison berries and then get's eaten by the tiger. No reproduction for that one.
> *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
Plants with nectar attracted insects to polinate it.
Petals were like a sign saying "get your nectar here" so they evolved to make their advertisements as big as possible without being so big as to be heavy for the plant to hold.
> *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other
> eight or ten kinds?
Come again?
Different types of evolutionist?
Basically, the way I see it, nature has evolved.
Some people may argue over certain details but it's not like a religion because people are open to new evidence rather than take the first thing written as set-in-stone fact.
> What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living
> coelacanth in my aquarium?
I'd have asked you what a coelacanth is.
> *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved
> true?
I've no idea.
> *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
Directly? None.
But hydrogen become something else, and that becoming something else, and over billions of years that something else building into something as complex as us, that's nature. :-)
> *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Not nothing. But matter did start basic and simple and gradually built itself into more complex structures.
The same way nearly EVERYTHING starts and ends up.
> After you have answered the preceding questions, please look
> carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following
> questions.
>
>
> Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically
> provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way
> you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your
> science?)
They reflect science.
Some of it is provable, some of it is just educated guesswork.
At the end of the day, I'm not an expert biologist, evolutionist, geolegist or anyone else who knows the full details.
But I like to think my answers weren't TOO far off the mark. :-)
> Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says,
> "God must have designed it"?
Less.
I've given reason's and a very possible scenario which coincides with modern science. Believing that God designed it is trusting an ancient Jewish myth.
> Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God
> is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of
> science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He
> did?
It's possible. No one knows for sure how it started.
To fit in with my picture of the formation of the universe, this "creator" could possibly have started it all with the big bang.
Perhaps by mixing hydrogen and oxygen with a giant wooden spoon. ;-)
> Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as
> fact?
Yep. Because it is the best explanation we have so far, even if it isn't 100% proven yet (although evolution has been witnessed - Superbugs, for example).
> What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society,
> attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
People have a better understanding of nature. Whether this coincides with their previous beliefs is down to their own personal nature.
> Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
> It is all they have been taught.
> They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
> They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or
> status or grade point average.
> They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
> Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their
> political agenda.
None of them.
It is the best explanation we have.
It makes the best sense out of all the theories put forward so far.
> Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or
> inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we
> don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation,
> archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution,
> vestigial organs, etc.)?
What's out-dated, disproved and questionable? ALL of evoutions evidence?
Well if you've got something better (which doesn't require blind faith in Jewish mythology!) then let's hear it.
> Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as
> fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other
> theories of origins (like divine creation)?
Only if "divine creation" includes the "facts" of creation from ALL religious faiths equally. Muslim, Jew, Ancient Greek, Egyptian, Gaul, etc. :-)
> What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents
> said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both
> possibilities are frightening."
Accepting evolution won't leave you burning in hell.
I promise.
> Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being
> presented in public schools?
No one's afraid of anything. They just want to be honest that's all.
> If we are not supposed to teach
> religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?
> It is just a religious worldview.
Now it's not you mong. It's the most scientific theory to day.
Yes, you CAN pick out odd flaws and some questions aren't fully answered, but so far it seems like the truth, which is why most people, bar die hard creationists who look at evidence as a means of proving their point rather than finding the truth.
> Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t
> it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and
> forgiveness?
I'm starting to think I know him better than you! :-P
> Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have
> your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to
> Heaven? If so, call me.
We all know the story.
And how would YOU know how to get into heaven.
You base all your faith on a single book that has firstly been passed down by word of mouth for years before it was written, and before it was presented as the bible you know, Roman authorities doctored it to suit their own personal wants and needs for the society they wanted to control.
The thing is, the reason why you are wrong is because you only see one way. When you narrow it down to one way, unless you are 100% right, then you are wrong. If you leave it open and just take the best from where all theories and religions agree, that's when you've absorbed everything that God has given mankind and given your best based on that.
Do you think that God would be unable to communicate to anyone except for ONE race of people?
Ofcourse THEY thought that they were his chosen race but I like to think he liked all of mankind, and appeared to all peoples in various ways.
And everytime, his message was the same:
Your life after death is judged by how you treat your fellow man.
The roots of EVERY major religion revolve around that.
Why are you taking that ONE book for truth and ignoring everything else?
He never said that it was his work in the first place.
And perhaps his brother works for that sight, or perhaps his circle of believers all call each other "brother"... perhaps! ;-)
By the way Forest Fan, have you accepted the fact that the 2nd law of Thermodynamics has nothing on evolution yet?
Hoping that you have, I'll try the next bit.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Here are some questions, I would like FACTUAL answers to, if you know
> the answer to them.
Here goes. :-)
> Questions for Evolutionists
> The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic
> questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is
> a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe.
> Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion
> masquerading as science.
Ahem. I think that the only reason why ANYONE EVER accepted it was because it made perfect sense. And the ONLY reason why ANYONE EVER rejected it was because they thought it clashed with their religious belief.
> The following questions were distributed to
> the 750-plus people who attended my debate at Winona State University
> in Winona, Minnesota, on January 9, 1993. (The videotaped debate is
> #6, $9.95.) Questions added since the debate remarked with an
> asterisk (*).
> Where did the space for the universe come from?
Space is nothingness. Just nothingness.
Where the universe came from, no one knows, not actually haveing been there. The Big Bang seems like the best explanation of the universe' start so far, but no one can know for sure.
> Where did matter come from?
Again, for some reason or other, no one was there to witness it happening.
> Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia,
> etc.)?
Matter is attracted to other matter.
That's all gravity is. It's called laws, but don't be thinking that matter follows them just to stay on the good side of the sub-atomic police, ;-)
> How did matter get so perfectly organized?
It's not perfectly organised.
How did it form how it is today?
Well, it interacted with other matter.
Interactions that made stable results remained stable results.
The matter involved in unstable reactions just reverted back into basic matter to try other interactions.
> Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Energy is like matter. As far as we're concerned, it's always been there.
> When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Well, when chemicals reacted together to form a DNA molecule, that's when life began. The most likely place for life to form first was in the sea, so we guess. And why? Well, with all the chemical reactions happining, one of them was bound to form DNA sooner or later.
> When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Not sure myself, but once a strand of DNA was complex enough to direct more chemical reactions for forming more DNA I suppose.
> With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction
> reproduce?
Well, I guess nature had to wait until atleast 2 of the species had evolved this way before they could start reproducing like that.
> Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince
> this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of
> survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the
> species? How do you explain this?)
The species that evolved an instinct to reproduce, reproduced, while the ones that didn't didn't reproduce and died out.
Besides, life THAT early wasn't intelligent enough to think of the consequences of reproduction, like competition for food etc.
> How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new,
> improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce
> Chinese books.)
Mutations happen, and once in a while it's for the best.
Recombining English letters won't write Chinese books, because there are no English letters in Chinese, but if you randomly put English letters together, you will eventually come across words from various languages that use these sets of letters.
> Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals
> prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
No. The similarities but subtle differences support natural evolution more than creation, but you COULD say that it was because of a common creator, it that's what you wanted to believe.
> Natural selection only works with the genetic information available
> and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the
> increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if
> evolution were true?
Survival requires to be the best at finding food, avoiding predators/other causes of death and reproduction. Sometimes, to get ahead in the playing field, requires a more complex play.
> When, where, why, and how did:
> Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and
> three-celled intermediates?)
Maybe plants with just two cells or three cells weren't stable enough to survive, so only when one came out with more that the mutant survived and reproduced.
> Single-celled animals evolve?
I don't think an animal CAN be single celled. :-)
> Fish change to amphibians?
When competition became too fierce in the sea and they found it easier to live on the land. :-)
> Amphibians change to reptiles?
Some amphibians evolved to become bigger and the change in size brought a whole new load of factors into their survival - I think temperature control of the body was a major one.
> Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive
> organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all
> very different!)
Then maybe birds didn't evolved directly from reptiles.
> How did the intermediate forms live?
> When, where, why, how, and from what did:
> Whales evolve?
> Sea horses evolve?
> bats evolve?
> Eyes evolve?
> Ears evolve?
> Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
We don't know the exact details, but it would've been one step at a time.
> Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the
> others)?
> The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the
> ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s
> resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
> The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
> The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the
> perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
> DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
> The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest
> the cellulose?
> The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
> The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the
> bones?
> The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
> The immune system or the need for it?
The chances are, in each case, they evolved together, to support each other.
Started off very primitive and inefficient, and gradually got better through natural selection.
> There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an
> evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution
> is the only explanation for these relationships?
There are? You sure?
People never say that evolution is the only possibility, but it's the best explanation we have so far. And although we don't have ALL the answers, it's still a lot more credible than an ancient Jewish myth.
> How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals
> develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
Chance. The animals and plants that blended in with their background were less likely to be caught out by predators, so they survived and reproduced.
I guess you could say it was mother nature's design.
> When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy,
> guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
They would. If you read the new scientist, people are always coming up with explanations why such feelings would benefit the survival of early man.
> *How did photosynthesis evolve?
An organism found a way of making sugar using water and the energy of light. From there it was enabled to become more complex as the chemical energy could now be transported within the organism in the form of sugar.
> *How did thought evolve?
Nature has it's problems for the living creature. Creatures that can think can work out a way around these problems.
The deer who can think can work out what it can/can't eat, and to run if it see's a tiger. The deer who can't eat's poison berries and then get's eaten by the tiger. No reproduction for that one.
> *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
Plants with nectar attracted insects to polinate it.
Petals were like a sign saying "get your nectar here" so they evolved to make their advertisements as big as possible without being so big as to be heavy for the plant to hold.
> *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other
> eight or ten kinds?
Come again?
Different types of evolutionist?
Basically, the way I see it, nature has evolved.
Some people may argue over certain details but it's not like a religion because people are open to new evidence rather than take the first thing written as set-in-stone fact.
> What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living
> coelacanth in my aquarium?
I'd have asked you what a coelacanth is.
> *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved
> true?
I've no idea.
> *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
Directly? None.
But hydrogen become something else, and that becoming something else, and over billions of years that something else building into something as complex as us, that's nature. :-)
> *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
Not nothing. But matter did start basic and simple and gradually built itself into more complex structures.
The same way nearly EVERYTHING starts and ends up.
> After you have answered the preceding questions, please look
> carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following
> questions.
>
>
> Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically
> provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way
> you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your
> science?)
They reflect science.
Some of it is provable, some of it is just educated guesswork.
At the end of the day, I'm not an expert biologist, evolutionist, geolegist or anyone else who knows the full details.
But I like to think my answers weren't TOO far off the mark. :-)
> Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says,
> "God must have designed it"?
Less.
I've given reason's and a very possible scenario which coincides with modern science. Believing that God designed it is trusting an ancient Jewish myth.
> Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God
> is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of
> science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He
> did?
It's possible. No one knows for sure how it started.
To fit in with my picture of the formation of the universe, this "creator" could possibly have started it all with the big bang.
Perhaps by mixing hydrogen and oxygen with a giant wooden spoon. ;-)
> Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as
> fact?
Yep. Because it is the best explanation we have so far, even if it isn't 100% proven yet (although evolution has been witnessed - Superbugs, for example).
> What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society,
> attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
People have a better understanding of nature. Whether this coincides with their previous beliefs is down to their own personal nature.
> Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
> It is all they have been taught.
> They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
> They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or
> status or grade point average.
> They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
> Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their
> political agenda.
None of them.
It is the best explanation we have.
It makes the best sense out of all the theories put forward so far.
> Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or
> inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we
> don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation,
> archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution,
> vestigial organs, etc.)?
What's out-dated, disproved and questionable? ALL of evoutions evidence?
Well if you've got something better (which doesn't require blind faith in Jewish mythology!) then let's hear it.
> Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as
> fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other
> theories of origins (like divine creation)?
Only if "divine creation" includes the "facts" of creation from ALL religious faiths equally. Muslim, Jew, Ancient Greek, Egyptian, Gaul, etc. :-)
> What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents
> said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both
> possibilities are frightening."
Accepting evolution won't leave you burning in hell.
I promise.
> Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being
> presented in public schools?
No one's afraid of anything. They just want to be honest that's all.
> If we are not supposed to teach
> religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?
> It is just a religious worldview.
Now it's not you mong. It's the most scientific theory to day.
Yes, you CAN pick out odd flaws and some questions aren't fully answered, but so far it seems like the truth, which is why most people, bar die hard creationists who look at evidence as a means of proving their point rather than finding the truth.
> Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t
> it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and
> forgiveness?
I'm starting to think I know him better than you! :-P
> Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have
> your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to
> Heaven? If so, call me.
We all know the story.
And how would YOU know how to get into heaven.
You base all your faith on a single book that has firstly been passed down by word of mouth for years before it was written, and before it was presented as the bible you know, Roman authorities doctored it to suit their own personal wants and needs for the society they wanted to control.
The thing is, the reason why you are wrong is because you only see one way. When you narrow it down to one way, unless you are 100% right, then you are wrong. If you leave it open and just take the best from where all theories and religions agree, that's when you've absorbed everything that God has given mankind and given your best based on that.
Do you think that God would be unable to communicate to anyone except for ONE race of people?
Ofcourse THEY thought that they were his chosen race but I like to think he liked all of mankind, and appeared to all peoples in various ways.
And everytime, his message was the same:
Your life after death is judged by how you treat your fellow man.
The roots of EVERY major religion revolve around that.
Why are you taking that ONE book for truth and ignoring everything else?
Buy yourself a university physics book Forest Fan, I suggest Modern Application of Physics by Giancoli, and you will have the answer to those questions in one neat book!
Page: