The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Mystique wrote:
> Just because some dude has written it down doesn't mean it's true you
> know.
And that "dude" was God directing Moses.
> Just because some dude has written it down doesn't mean it's true you
> know.
And that "dude" was God directing Moses.
Mystique wrote:
> Just because some dude has written it down doesn't mean it's true you
> know.
It is written as fact, not theory. You don't have to accept that, but I choose to accept the matter of fact way it is written.
> Just because some dude has written it down doesn't mean it's true you
> know.
It is written as fact, not theory. You don't have to accept that, but I choose to accept the matter of fact way it is written.
Just because some dude has written it down doesn't mean it's true you know.
Hacker wrote:
> Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Thou shalt not steal, Forest Fan. And thou probably shalt not try to
> lie about it afterwards either.
>
> :^)
>
> Forest fan lies as well. I just got here, but from what i can see
> this fan bloke seems a bit of a we!rdo, does he believe in the bible
> and god creating the world?
It's what it says in Genesis 1:1, I suggest you look that up.
> Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Thou shalt not steal, Forest Fan. And thou probably shalt not try to
> lie about it afterwards either.
>
> :^)
>
> Forest fan lies as well. I just got here, but from what i can see
> this fan bloke seems a bit of a we!rdo, does he believe in the bible
> and god creating the world?
It's what it says in Genesis 1:1, I suggest you look that up.
And i just joined ff's club. o well.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Thou shalt not steal, Forest Fan. And thou probably shalt not try to
> lie about it afterwards either.
>
> :^)
Forest fan lies as well. I just got here, but from what i can see this fan bloke seems a bit of a we!rdo, does he believe in the bible and god creating the world?
> Thou shalt not steal, Forest Fan. And thou probably shalt not try to
> lie about it afterwards either.
>
> :^)
Forest fan lies as well. I just got here, but from what i can see this fan bloke seems a bit of a we!rdo, does he believe in the bible and god creating the world?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Except I DIDN'T COPY IT!
What's this? Forest Fan ignoring proof and, without giving any justification, screaming that he's right?
Familiar?
www.inplainsite.org/html/ -SPACE- overview_of_christianity.html (looks like it won't fit in the link thing this time, so you'll have to paste it :^S ) contains a *vast* chunk of text, exactly the same as your post, word for word.
(See my post below somewhere to locate the copied bit exactly)
So what's happened? Is it a freak coincidence that your post happened to accidentally be exactly the same as several paragraphs of somebody else's work?
Or did god write it, then put it in both your and the genuine author's heads?
Thou shalt not steal, Forest Fan. And thou probably shalt not try to lie about it afterwards either.
:^)
> Except I DIDN'T COPY IT!
What's this? Forest Fan ignoring proof and, without giving any justification, screaming that he's right?
Familiar?
www.inplainsite.org/html/ -SPACE- overview_of_christianity.html (looks like it won't fit in the link thing this time, so you'll have to paste it :^S ) contains a *vast* chunk of text, exactly the same as your post, word for word.
(See my post below somewhere to locate the copied bit exactly)
So what's happened? Is it a freak coincidence that your post happened to accidentally be exactly the same as several paragraphs of somebody else's work?
Or did god write it, then put it in both your and the genuine author's heads?
Thou shalt not steal, Forest Fan. And thou probably shalt not try to lie about it afterwards either.
:^)
Forest Fan wrote:
> But the second law of thermodynamics states it is not "an
> entirely plausible system".
2nd rule of thermodynamics:
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered.
Eg cold ice cube in a hot room., heat travels to the ice cube until both ice cube and room share same temperature. I have done the math on this. It is complicated yet so cool, especially modelling it on a pc.
Definition of entropy:
Entropy just measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes – as a function of temperature. (Often, it’s a simple equation, Entropy change = “energy dispersed”/ T.)
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. The two are mutually exclusive.
> Evolution of the eyeball alone is impossible. An eye either works or
> does not. Babies are born with the full size of their eyes, WHEN
> could the evolving take place?
Evolution is a process that takes millenia. Not 9 months. The eyeball in your above example has already evolved, and is now in full production. The theory is quite straight forward. A simple organism, say plankton, needs sunlight to survive. It therefore stands to reason that a plankton that can detect light better has more of a chance of survival, and as such reproduction, than its sibling as it can find sunlight more efficiently. This plankton is a random mutation from its parents that has made it better. It therefore survives to reproduce where its siblings do not. All future generations from this plankton are now better equiped to detect sunlight. A thousand years or so later, after many generations, and many random mutations that occur, one mutation appears that is even better at detecting sunlight. Again, rinse and repeat for a few million years and you will have an organism evolving that can detect light, or 'see' in the visible spectrum. Obviously as it evolves sight, the being is also evolving all other survival traits. The best eqipped survive, the feeble die out.
If our eyes continue to evolve we would most likely end up with two lenses in our eyes. But evolution will only evolve when a design does not perform well enough to survive. It doesn't push for perfection.
> I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE.
Fair enough. Like I said, everyone needs something to believe in. Science is my religion.
> The
> whole theory is based upon IF's, BUT's and MAYBE's. The second law of
> thermodynamics is not the only impossibility with evolution, but it
> is the most CONCRETE IMPOSSIBILITY.
Evolution is not an impossibility. Just as the existence of god is not an impossibility. If you had an open mind you would accept that evolution is a viable possibility. I accept that God may exist.
> But the second law of thermodynamics states it is not "an
> entirely plausible system".
2nd rule of thermodynamics:
Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered.
Eg cold ice cube in a hot room., heat travels to the ice cube until both ice cube and room share same temperature. I have done the math on this. It is complicated yet so cool, especially modelling it on a pc.
Definition of entropy:
Entropy just measures the spontaneous dispersal of energy: how much energy is spread out in a process, or how widely spread out it becomes – as a function of temperature. (Often, it’s a simple equation, Entropy change = “energy dispersed”/ T.)
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. The two are mutually exclusive.
> Evolution of the eyeball alone is impossible. An eye either works or
> does not. Babies are born with the full size of their eyes, WHEN
> could the evolving take place?
Evolution is a process that takes millenia. Not 9 months. The eyeball in your above example has already evolved, and is now in full production. The theory is quite straight forward. A simple organism, say plankton, needs sunlight to survive. It therefore stands to reason that a plankton that can detect light better has more of a chance of survival, and as such reproduction, than its sibling as it can find sunlight more efficiently. This plankton is a random mutation from its parents that has made it better. It therefore survives to reproduce where its siblings do not. All future generations from this plankton are now better equiped to detect sunlight. A thousand years or so later, after many generations, and many random mutations that occur, one mutation appears that is even better at detecting sunlight. Again, rinse and repeat for a few million years and you will have an organism evolving that can detect light, or 'see' in the visible spectrum. Obviously as it evolves sight, the being is also evolving all other survival traits. The best eqipped survive, the feeble die out.
If our eyes continue to evolve we would most likely end up with two lenses in our eyes. But evolution will only evolve when a design does not perform well enough to survive. It doesn't push for perfection.
> I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE.
Fair enough. Like I said, everyone needs something to believe in. Science is my religion.
> The
> whole theory is based upon IF's, BUT's and MAYBE's. The second law of
> thermodynamics is not the only impossibility with evolution, but it
> is the most CONCRETE IMPOSSIBILITY.
Evolution is not an impossibility. Just as the existence of god is not an impossibility. If you had an open mind you would accept that evolution is a viable possibility. I accept that God may exist.
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE.
Well shut the feck up then and let people hold their views as we have yours.
>
> I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE.
Well shut the feck up then and let people hold their views as we have yours.
Forest Fan wrote:
> I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE. The
> whole theory is based upon IF's, BUT's and MAYBE's. The second law of
> thermodynamics is not the only impossibility with evolution, but it
> is the most CONCRETE IMPOSSIBILITY.
No no no! This time READ what I post! :-P
Evolution doesn't break the second law of Thermodynamics or whatever it's called. I answered this to Doughboy's letter:
Doughboy wrote:
> 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.
That energy spreads around. Yep. :-)
> 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.
Aye up!
Who said anything about life being about order?
Who said anything about order being about complexity?
You (and Doughboy) seem to lack knowledge of chaos.
It's not COMPLETELY random, just seemingly random because it's so complex.
And order rises out of the randomness in the forms of "never exactly the same, but similar" patterns.
Take for instance photons. We can't see what they do, we can just detect where they start (where the experimentalist ejects them) and where they end up (where the sensor picks them up).
What they do, and where they go is seemlingly random.
Yet put a load of them together than although the same chaos ensues, order crops up in the form of waves.
So we can measure light in waves, even though it is made up of billions of randomly moving photon light particles.
Sea waves and ripples in water are another good example.
The individual water particles are moving around "randomly" (not really randomly because at an atomic scale, their paths follows the mechanics) as far as we can see. But patterns emerge in the randomness and that's what chaos is.
No two ripples or waves are the same, but often sort of similar.
Worth reading into chaos.
> 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.
It doesn't make life impossible.
Quite the opposite.
This randomness allows more possibilities to happen (wheras order would have little change) which would eventually result in life.
And although life is chaotic, order forms through the chaos and patterns emerge.
Take the fact that the biggest African cities were often located by a river. Did the original settlers think "Okay, let's build all our big cities by the river", or did the inhabitants just randomly settle anywhere, and the people who settled by the river had the most sucess in living, so more people went to those river settlements.
And so they became the largest.
Understand? :-)
> 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.
No it doesn't!
Learn your sceince properly! :-P
> 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.
It is?
> 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.
Not decay. SPREAD!
> 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.
So energy spreads, and information gets distorted as it gets passed around (just like in Chinese whispers!! :-)).
That doesn't disprove evolution.
There you go.
People just don't understand entropy. :-)
> I accept EVOLUTION as a RELIGION, but NOT as SCIENCE. The
> whole theory is based upon IF's, BUT's and MAYBE's. The second law of
> thermodynamics is not the only impossibility with evolution, but it
> is the most CONCRETE IMPOSSIBILITY.
No no no! This time READ what I post! :-P
Evolution doesn't break the second law of Thermodynamics or whatever it's called. I answered this to Doughboy's letter:
Doughboy wrote:
> 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.
That energy spreads around. Yep. :-)
> 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.
Aye up!
Who said anything about life being about order?
Who said anything about order being about complexity?
You (and Doughboy) seem to lack knowledge of chaos.
It's not COMPLETELY random, just seemingly random because it's so complex.
And order rises out of the randomness in the forms of "never exactly the same, but similar" patterns.
Take for instance photons. We can't see what they do, we can just detect where they start (where the experimentalist ejects them) and where they end up (where the sensor picks them up).
What they do, and where they go is seemlingly random.
Yet put a load of them together than although the same chaos ensues, order crops up in the form of waves.
So we can measure light in waves, even though it is made up of billions of randomly moving photon light particles.
Sea waves and ripples in water are another good example.
The individual water particles are moving around "randomly" (not really randomly because at an atomic scale, their paths follows the mechanics) as far as we can see. But patterns emerge in the randomness and that's what chaos is.
No two ripples or waves are the same, but often sort of similar.
Worth reading into chaos.
> 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.
It doesn't make life impossible.
Quite the opposite.
This randomness allows more possibilities to happen (wheras order would have little change) which would eventually result in life.
And although life is chaotic, order forms through the chaos and patterns emerge.
Take the fact that the biggest African cities were often located by a river. Did the original settlers think "Okay, let's build all our big cities by the river", or did the inhabitants just randomly settle anywhere, and the people who settled by the river had the most sucess in living, so more people went to those river settlements.
And so they became the largest.
Understand? :-)
> 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.
No it doesn't!
Learn your sceince properly! :-P
> 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.
It is?
> 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.
Not decay. SPREAD!
> 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.
So energy spreads, and information gets distorted as it gets passed around (just like in Chinese whispers!! :-)).
That doesn't disprove evolution.
There you go.
People just don't understand entropy. :-)
Page: