The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
FF, I doubt you even have the faintest idea what the 1st law of thermodynamics is, let alone the second.
You're just quoting some fat hippy who sent a letter to some people.
If we all started a topic and based all our views on some letter, so full of bullshite it's quite hard to see the letters, that got sent somewhere, well - we'd all be as retarded as you.
You're just quoting some fat hippy who sent a letter to some people.
If we all started a topic and based all our views on some letter, so full of bullshite it's quite hard to see the letters, that got sent somewhere, well - we'd all be as retarded as you.
I will try to keep this short, but quotes may force it into a mammoth post!
Forest Fan wrote:
> Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let
> us first address the matter from a point of logic and common
> understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big
> ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think
> that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I
> know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all;
> the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the
> ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in
> the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves
> out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary
> process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the
> seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
>
> You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the
> crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there
> is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other
> productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you
> would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and
> built by human skill.
Scientists have used the theory of evolution to create specific circuit boards. For example, one guy built a very simple circuit board with an input and output. The idea was to create a circuit that could take one input and split it into two different outputs, depending on the signal of the input. It would take this guy ages to design such a complicated board himself, so he built the simple input/output one and mutated it randomly. As with the eyeball experiment, take the result that best performs the given task and use it as the basis for the next generation. Rinse and repeat.
The result (after alot of generations) was a boad that performend the given task. Furthermore, the scientist could not work out how it worked, just that it did. It was incredibly much simpler, requiring far fewer components than what the guy could have designed himself. Also, there was a part of the circuit that was completely separate from the main circuit
and so thought to be completely useless as there was no physical link between the two. Taking this part out, however, caused the circuit to stop working so this completely seperate circuit was in fact needed. No one knows why.
Expand on this and you have your 'ship'.
Evolution works on electronics as well as squishy protoplasm.
> Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar
> system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some
> mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence
> at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other
> hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is
> transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is
> laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He
> Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and
> atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of
> creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape
> from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’
> account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts
> itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the
> first cause would become also the second cause, which is a
> mathematical absurdity.
You don't know where God came from. I don't know how the big bang started. We all need a little blind faith!
I will stop here for now otherwise I might bore people too much. There should really be a max size to these posts! I will continue in a while, where I left off. Please in future keep posts (relatively) short!
Forest Fan wrote:
> Before exploring the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, let
> us first address the matter from a point of logic and common
> understanding. Let’s imagine: we stand together on the wharf as a big
> ocean liner draws alongside, and I say to you, “A lot of people think
> that ship is the result of someone’s carefully designed plans, but I
> know better. There was really no intelligence at work on it at all;
> the iron, by some mysterious process, gradually came out of the
> ground and fashioned itself into plates; slowly holes were formed in
> the edges of these plates, and rivets appeared, flattened themselves
> out on either side, and after a great time, by this same evolutionary
> process, the engines were in place, and one day some men on the
> seashore found her floating quietly in a sheltered cove.”
>
> You would probably consider me a lunatic, and move further into the
> crowd to escape my senseless chatter. Why, you know that where there
> is a design there must be a designer, and, having seen other
> productions of the human mind just like the steamer in question, you
> would refuse to believe it was not planned by human intelligence and
> built by human skill.
Scientists have used the theory of evolution to create specific circuit boards. For example, one guy built a very simple circuit board with an input and output. The idea was to create a circuit that could take one input and split it into two different outputs, depending on the signal of the input. It would take this guy ages to design such a complicated board himself, so he built the simple input/output one and mutated it randomly. As with the eyeball experiment, take the result that best performs the given task and use it as the basis for the next generation. Rinse and repeat.
The result (after alot of generations) was a boad that performend the given task. Furthermore, the scientist could not work out how it worked, just that it did. It was incredibly much simpler, requiring far fewer components than what the guy could have designed himself. Also, there was a part of the circuit that was completely separate from the main circuit
and so thought to be completely useless as there was no physical link between the two. Taking this part out, however, caused the circuit to stop working so this completely seperate circuit was in fact needed. No one knows why.
Expand on this and you have your 'ship'.
Evolution works on electronics as well as squishy protoplasm.
> Yet there are men not considered fools who tell us that the solar
> system evolved from its nebulous state by chance, that in some
> mysterious way it came – that there was really no higher intelligence
> at work on it; they tell us they know no God but nature, on the other
> hand there are many thoughtful men who believe that God is
> transcendent; that is, while He reveals Himself in nature, in that is
> laws and principles are expressions of His power and wisdom, He
> Himself is essentially the sum of them all. Evolutionists and
> atheists offer us the anomaly of design without a designer, of
> creation without a Creator, of effect without a cause, and to escape
> from this dilemma ask, “If God be considered the ‘first great cause,’
> account for Him, who made God?” Now, such a question contradicts
> itself, for it is evident no cause could make the first cause, or the
> first cause would become also the second cause, which is a
> mathematical absurdity.
You don't know where God came from. I don't know how the big bang started. We all need a little blind faith!
I will stop here for now otherwise I might bore people too much. There should really be a max size to these posts! I will continue in a while, where I left off. Please in future keep posts (relatively) short!
Forest Fan wrote:
> All your pointless arguements still do not answer my question, why
> does evolution contradict the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS?
We've just explained.
It DOESN'T contradict the second law of Thermodynamics.
Entropy supports evolution fine.
It's just that Doughboy didn't understand Entropy. :-)
> All your pointless arguements still do not answer my question, why
> does evolution contradict the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS?
We've just explained.
It DOESN'T contradict the second law of Thermodynamics.
Entropy supports evolution fine.
It's just that Doughboy didn't understand Entropy. :-)
Forest Fan wrote:
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
I never stated that evolution was the correct theory. I merely have demonstrated that evolution is an entirely plausible system for evolving higher life forms from simpler ones over time.
In the eyeball experiment, they did recreate an eyeball as we know it, but they then evolved it further to see what would happen. Thus the conclusion that evolution could have done alot better with the eyeball design, but once it reached a satisfactory design it stopped there.
As for my comment above, do you deny that evolution is a possiblity? (ignoring the fact that it goes directly against Creationism, taking it as a scientific theory separate from anything else}.
I will now attempt to read your monster of a post, and will comment on it shortly.
> So this proves evolution of the eyeball, even though it end up
> DIFFERENT than ours? You will have to try harder, mate.
I never stated that evolution was the correct theory. I merely have demonstrated that evolution is an entirely plausible system for evolving higher life forms from simpler ones over time.
In the eyeball experiment, they did recreate an eyeball as we know it, but they then evolved it further to see what would happen. Thus the conclusion that evolution could have done alot better with the eyeball design, but once it reached a satisfactory design it stopped there.
As for my comment above, do you deny that evolution is a possiblity? (ignoring the fact that it goes directly against Creationism, taking it as a scientific theory separate from anything else}.
I will now attempt to read your monster of a post, and will comment on it shortly.
All your pointless arguements still do not answer my question, why does evolution contradict the SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS?
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
>
> Nope, I let GOD do that.
>
> *Wipes away tear*
> Never laughed so hard.
Heh :^)
> Forest Fan wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
>
> Nope, I let GOD do that.
>
> *Wipes away tear*
> Never laughed so hard.
Heh :^)
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics
>
-From original post:
> 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.
>
>
> So this argument goes thus:
> Without outside control, the the laws of entropy, an environment
> changes from 'order' to 'disorder'.
>
> Tackling this argument, first we examine what we mean by 'order'.
> Why do we consider "man, plants, and animals" to show
> order, while anything else is, in comparison, disorder?
> Because of our subjectibe viewpoint - we select a particular state of
> matter as our 'ideal', and so consider that superior.
>
> For a hypothetical analogy - imagine an alien observing the earth as
> it is today. This alien comes from a very different planet, perhaps
> his form of life is based on a fundamental sturcture different to out
> DNA. From his viewpoint, we are some inferior state of disorder.
>
> The label 'order' becomes a completely subjective idea. In an
> objective context there is neither order nor disorder, only
> alternative states.
>
>
> To put this in context of the analogy of cleaning your room, if you
> were never to tidy up, but instead to repeatedly move all items in
> the room to random positions, then at some time they would eventually
> be in a position you could call 'order'.
>
> This is basically an exaple of the idea that sitting infinite monkeys
> in front of infinite typewriters, you'll eventually get the complete
> works of Shakespeare.
> In fact, this theory directly supports how we go from primordeal soup
> to the first DNA in the argument above.
>
>
>
> A more strictly scientifically based interpretation of the law of
> entropy, and its limitations, can be shown with the example of
> diffustion.
>
> You have a container of molecules of a gas, and a container with
> literally nothing, a vacuum, inside, the two containers seperated by
> a dividing barrier.
> If you remove the barrier, the gas will diffuse to spread out and
> fill the whole space. You could consider this to be going from a
> state of 'order' to 'disorder'.
>
> However, if in the second container you have another gas which is
> know to react with the first, for example, hydrogen in one, chlorine
> gas in the other, when the barrier is removed first the gases will
> diffuse, then they will react to form HCl, hydrochloric gas.
> If we consider that when the atoms form HCl gas they are in a state
> of 'order', then moving from the disorder of the 2 diffused gases to
> the HCl is a movement from 'disorder' to 'order'.
> Science proves that this does happen, of course, showing a limitation
> of the law of entropy as interpretted by those who do not believe in
> evolution.
>
> Of course, the movement from those 2 diffused gasses to HCl shows the
> same principles by which atoms move from 'disorder' in the primordeal
> soup to 'order' in strands of DNA, and in "man, plants, and
> animals".
>
>
> Thus the law of entropy on that very limited scientific basis, and on
> the wider 'tidyness of my bedroom' ideas, in no way disproves
> evolution, but in fact allows us to show yet more conclusively how
> evolution actually works.
You should try to understand these physical laws before you try to use them to argue your case.
Evolution does nothing to contradict the laws of entropy. Different molecules have innate properties that make certain reactions more likely to happen. Entropy doesn't deny this.
Every argument you've put up here has been categorically dismantled. Some have even shown you actually do believe in evolution, you just can't admit it to yourself!
Edit to add: Strafio's post (below) shows excellently where you and Doughboy have misunderstood the physics too.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics
>
-From original post:
> 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.
>
>
> So this argument goes thus:
> Without outside control, the the laws of entropy, an environment
> changes from 'order' to 'disorder'.
>
> Tackling this argument, first we examine what we mean by 'order'.
> Why do we consider "man, plants, and animals" to show
> order, while anything else is, in comparison, disorder?
> Because of our subjectibe viewpoint - we select a particular state of
> matter as our 'ideal', and so consider that superior.
>
> For a hypothetical analogy - imagine an alien observing the earth as
> it is today. This alien comes from a very different planet, perhaps
> his form of life is based on a fundamental sturcture different to out
> DNA. From his viewpoint, we are some inferior state of disorder.
>
> The label 'order' becomes a completely subjective idea. In an
> objective context there is neither order nor disorder, only
> alternative states.
>
>
> To put this in context of the analogy of cleaning your room, if you
> were never to tidy up, but instead to repeatedly move all items in
> the room to random positions, then at some time they would eventually
> be in a position you could call 'order'.
>
> This is basically an exaple of the idea that sitting infinite monkeys
> in front of infinite typewriters, you'll eventually get the complete
> works of Shakespeare.
> In fact, this theory directly supports how we go from primordeal soup
> to the first DNA in the argument above.
>
>
>
> A more strictly scientifically based interpretation of the law of
> entropy, and its limitations, can be shown with the example of
> diffustion.
>
> You have a container of molecules of a gas, and a container with
> literally nothing, a vacuum, inside, the two containers seperated by
> a dividing barrier.
> If you remove the barrier, the gas will diffuse to spread out and
> fill the whole space. You could consider this to be going from a
> state of 'order' to 'disorder'.
>
> However, if in the second container you have another gas which is
> know to react with the first, for example, hydrogen in one, chlorine
> gas in the other, when the barrier is removed first the gases will
> diffuse, then they will react to form HCl, hydrochloric gas.
> If we consider that when the atoms form HCl gas they are in a state
> of 'order', then moving from the disorder of the 2 diffused gases to
> the HCl is a movement from 'disorder' to 'order'.
> Science proves that this does happen, of course, showing a limitation
> of the law of entropy as interpretted by those who do not believe in
> evolution.
>
> Of course, the movement from those 2 diffused gasses to HCl shows the
> same principles by which atoms move from 'disorder' in the primordeal
> soup to 'order' in strands of DNA, and in "man, plants, and
> animals".
>
>
> Thus the law of entropy on that very limited scientific basis, and on
> the wider 'tidyness of my bedroom' ideas, in no way disproves
> evolution, but in fact allows us to show yet more conclusively how
> evolution actually works.
You should try to understand these physical laws before you try to use them to argue your case.
Evolution does nothing to contradict the laws of entropy. Different molecules have innate properties that make certain reactions more likely to happen. Entropy doesn't deny this.
Every argument you've put up here has been categorically dismantled. Some have even shown you actually do believe in evolution, you just can't admit it to yourself!
Edit to add: Strafio's post (below) shows excellently where you and Doughboy have misunderstood the physics too.
Forest Fan wrote:
>Look
> forward to see how you can explain this blatant contradiction of
> science.
Ahahahahaha.
Dear Lord almighty, you're bloody hilarious.
But also the most arrogant, stupid and narrow-minded person I've ever spoken to.
So that kinda takes the shine off it.
>Look
> forward to see how you can explain this blatant contradiction of
> science.
Ahahahahaha.
Dear Lord almighty, you're bloody hilarious.
But also the most arrogant, stupid and narrow-minded person I've ever spoken to.
So that kinda takes the shine off it.
Forest Fan wrote:
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
>
> Nope, I let GOD do that.
*Wipes away tear*
Never laughed so hard.
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> See, in his world, putting people into neatly-labled boxes is the
> most important thing - so you can descriminate more easily.
>
> Nope, I let GOD do that.
*Wipes away tear*
Never laughed so hard.
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. :-)
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: