Viewing Thread:
"More evolution flaws"

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.

But the links he made with other animals and their evolution, for example the horse, are all proven to be true. You can also quite easily see how humans have evolved from prehistoric times and the humans then are physically different to what we are now. Adam and Eve were apparently meant to be like you and I, when clearly that cannot be physicallly true. You can't argue with that kind of solid scientific evidence because it is there to see with your own eyes.

Meka Dragon wrote:
> I remember when I evolved.
>
> My testicles were sore for a month!

But did it change your genes. Science would say.... no!

I remember when I evolved.

My testicles were sore for a month!

Lindgren wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
>
> So, your not an evolutionist then?
>
> I believe in Darwin's theories, as fossils have shown that his
> theories are indeed correct.

But even he agreed it was preposterous that people would actually agree we all came from monkeys. He says he was a foolish young man and people made a religion out of his theories, he actually did not believe we evolved from monkeys, but he simply observed the findings.

Darwin was a believer and had ambitions of becoming a minister.

Forest Fan wrote:

> So, your not an evolutionist then?

I believe in Darwin's theories, as fossils have shown that his theories are indeed correct.

Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Do you believe that organisms pass on some characterisics to their
> offspring through their DNA ?
>
> Yes
>
>
> Do you accept that an organism can have characteristics which aid
> its
> survival, giving it a better chance of living to produce offspring
> (thus passing those characteristics on to the next generation) ?
>
> Adaptation is fact, yes. Like if a white and black couple have
> a
> baby, the baby will be mixed race, however the baby in no way has
> evolved. As he started off as NOTHING and just was created as he
> was,
> never changed.
>
> Do you accept that this effect will, over time, ensure that
> organisms
> will change to be better adapted to their environment ?
>
> Adapt, but not evolve.
>
> If you do accept all the above, where do we 'evolutionists' lose
> you?
>
> The fact we all evolve from a single ameoba and sea slime, which
> breaks its own rules of science. Is complete guesswork and after
> years of this theory have a gap of BILLIONS of years of missing
> links
> in the EVOLUTIONISTS theory.
>
> Any thoughts on these yet?
>
> Adaptation has always existed, but this in no way has made me
> link
> adaptation to "evolution".
>
>
>
> Okay, some progress :^)
>
> So you've acknowledged that organisms change, generation on
> generation, to become better suited to their environment.
>
> You call this adaptation. This IS evolution.
>
>
>
> One last question:
> Do you believe that DNA can make 'errors' when replicating,
> essentially changing the DNA's sequence?
> (Ie, genetic mutations, where part of the DNA strand can be missed
> out, copied twice or copied in the wrong sequence during replication)

Adaptation is NOT the same as evolution. Even evolutionist scientists agree with me, "The molecular basis of adaptation is a major focus of evolutionary biology, yet the dynamic process of adaptation has been explored only piecemeal. Experimental evolution of two bacteriophage lines under strong selection led to over a dozen nucleotide changes genomewide in each replicate. At least 96 percent of the amino acid substitutions appeared to be adaptive, and half the changes in one line also occurred in the other. However, the order of these changes differed between replicates, and parallel substitutions did not reflect the changes with the largest beneficial effects or indicate a common trajectory of adaptation." Source: National Library of Medicine

Sibs wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Why was the DNA mutated in the first place?
>
> I don't know. But many scientists seem to belive mutations take place
> in DNA for some reason... (though they're probably all evolutionist
> propaganda-spreaders aren't they...?) I'm sure radiation can alter
> DNA, and isn't cancer also a form of your cells reproducign the DNA
> incorrectly so the wrong cells are formed or something along those
> lines...?

Why would it take place in a random time and be so strong it could better all the other giraffes?

There we go, a simple mis-understanding.

Nothing evolves in it's own lifetime, but the offspring is different to it's parent and so change gradually happens.

And this causes variance in a species, and the types that are most suited to their environment survive and pass these characteristics to their own offspring. Hence survival of the fittest, just as Darwin told it.

:-)

Forest Fan wrote:
> Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Do you believe that organisms pass on some characterisics to their
> offspring through their DNA ?
>
> Yes


> Do you accept that an organism can have characteristics which aid
> its
> survival, giving it a better chance of living to produce offspring
> (thus passing those characteristics on to the next generation) ?
>
> Adaptation is fact, yes. Like if a white and black couple have a
> baby, the baby will be mixed race, however the baby in no way has
> evolved. As he started off as NOTHING and just was created as he was,
> never changed.
>
> Do you accept that this effect will, over time, ensure that
> organisms
> will change to be better adapted to their environment ?
>
> Adapt, but not evolve.
>
> If you do accept all the above, where do we 'evolutionists' lose
> you?
>
> The fact we all evolve from a single ameoba and sea slime, which
> breaks its own rules of science. Is complete guesswork and after
> years of this theory have a gap of BILLIONS of years of missing links
> in the EVOLUTIONISTS theory.
>
> Any thoughts on these yet?
>
> Adaptation has always existed, but this in no way has made me link
> adaptation to "evolution".



Okay, some progress :^)

So you've acknowledged that organisms change, generation on generation, to become better suited to their environment.

You call this adaptation. This IS evolution.



One last question:
Do you believe that DNA can make 'errors' when replicating, essentially changing the DNA's sequence?
(Ie, genetic mutations, where part of the DNA strand can be missed out, copied twice or copied in the wrong sequence during replication)

Forest Fan wrote:
> The example was a giraffe. How did it get a long neck? At first a
> theory was that giraffes stretched for high branches, so when they
> reproduced they passed on the longer neck. But stretching its neck
> doesn't change DNA, so this trait cannot be passed on. Instead, at
> some point a giraffe was born with mutated DNA (ie. the change
> ocurred as it was concieved as in your black/white baby example)
> giving a longer than normal neck. This was beneficial, so through
> 'survival of the fittest' this giraffe was more likely to survive,
> and pass on it's mutated DNA.
>
> Why was the DNA mutated in the first place?

Because it was not properly replicated in the male or female gamete.