The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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 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...?
My example doesn't disprove anything, it simply shows that if you believe in DNA being passed on and mutations, which (I think...) are the reason for many genetically inherited diseases, then evolution of a species is pretty much fact.
Even if evolution does take place it doesn't 'prove' there is no God or whatever, frankly you can believe in your God and creationalism all you want, there really isn't any way to prove there's no omnipotent being out there, and as I have said before, even if there was, I see no reason why we should worship him/her/it.
I'm just pointing out that most of the arguments you're levelling at people who don't believe in God are flawed. I assume you don't have any problem with those who believe in other faiths, so what's your problem with people who choose to believe in something other than a religion?
Also, when debating stuff, it helps to have more of an argument than rubbish statements like "God knows all" or "Man cannot make judgements, only God can" and the like. If the people you're talking to belived in the existence of God they wouldn't be arguing against your creationalism stuff, and your religious one-liners don't answer any questions...
Even if evolution does take place it doesn't 'prove' there is no God or whatever, frankly you can believe in your God and creationalism all you want, there really isn't any way to prove there's no omnipotent being out there, and as I have said before, even if there was, I see no reason why we should worship him/her/it.
I'm just pointing out that most of the arguments you're levelling at people who don't believe in God are flawed. I assume you don't have any problem with those who believe in other faiths, so what's your problem with people who choose to believe in something other than a religion?
Also, when debating stuff, it helps to have more of an argument than rubbish statements like "God knows all" or "Man cannot make judgements, only God can" and the like. If the people you're talking to belived in the existence of God they wouldn't be arguing against your creationalism stuff, and your religious one-liners don't answer any questions...
See?
Memorandum! wrote:
> Forest Fan, your replies are akin to that of a 12-year-old.
And I thought sarcasm was good.
> Forest Fan, your replies are akin to that of a 12-year-old.
And I thought sarcasm was good.
Forest Fan, your replies are akin to that of a 12-year-old.
Sibs wrote:
> No, you have not answered the questions. You said a creatures adapt by
> passing on DNA when they breed (ie. black and white people make a
> mixed race baby you said), and then said the baby has not evolved as
> it has not changed during its lifetime... How is that relevant to
> evolution? As far as I'm aware evolution never stated a creature
> miraculously changed its DNA somewhere in its life and passed on that
> change. Infact, the version I leanrt at GCSE was that this definitely
> didn't happen.
> 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?
> So please tell me again how your example disproves anything...?
So please tell me again how your example disproves anything...?
> No, you have not answered the questions. You said a creatures adapt by
> passing on DNA when they breed (ie. black and white people make a
> mixed race baby you said), and then said the baby has not evolved as
> it has not changed during its lifetime... How is that relevant to
> evolution? As far as I'm aware evolution never stated a creature
> miraculously changed its DNA somewhere in its life and passed on that
> change. Infact, the version I leanrt at GCSE was that this definitely
> didn't happen.
> 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?
> So please tell me again how your example disproves anything...?
So please tell me again how your example disproves anything...?
No, you have not answered the questions. You said a creatures adapt by passing on DNA when they breed (ie. black and white people make a mixed race baby you said), and then said the baby has not evolved as it has not changed during its lifetime... How is that relevant to evolution? As far as I'm aware evolution never stated a creature miraculously changed its DNA somewhere in its life and passed on that change. Infact, the version I leanrt at GCSE was that this definitely didn't happen.
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.
So please tell me again how your example disproves anything...?
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.
So please tell me again how your example disproves anything...?
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Ages ago, Loquacious Duck wrote:
> .........
> I mentioned at the start that I had some questions for you too. I'd
> like to get a better picture of where you disagree with the science
> of evolution, by seeing your argument from a slightly different
> angle:
>
> 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".
> FF, you came here and posted a huge topic filled with a garbled
> misunderstanding of scientific principles - not disagreeing with the
> principles, failing even to understand them.
> We all picked through that post, several of us, myself included, went
> to lengths to point out where that original post went wrong, to show
> you the actual scientific basis for evolution, and to try to answer
> some of your questions.
> You didn't respond to anything said in any of those posts.
> I even threw in some questions for you, which you didn't even
> acknowledge.
> This leads me to believe you've not even bothered to read them.
> Despite everyone reading an equally long and far more garbled post
> that you made.
> If there is a god, I'll bet he thinks you're a bit of a nob :^p
I've answered all your questions now then.
As I have already stated man does not have righteous judgement, only GOD.
> Ages ago, Loquacious Duck wrote:
> .........
> I mentioned at the start that I had some questions for you too. I'd
> like to get a better picture of where you disagree with the science
> of evolution, by seeing your argument from a slightly different
> angle:
>
> 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".
> FF, you came here and posted a huge topic filled with a garbled
> misunderstanding of scientific principles - not disagreeing with the
> principles, failing even to understand them.
> We all picked through that post, several of us, myself included, went
> to lengths to point out where that original post went wrong, to show
> you the actual scientific basis for evolution, and to try to answer
> some of your questions.
> You didn't respond to anything said in any of those posts.
> I even threw in some questions for you, which you didn't even
> acknowledge.
> This leads me to believe you've not even bothered to read them.
> Despite everyone reading an equally long and far more garbled post
> that you made.
> If there is a god, I'll bet he thinks you're a bit of a nob :^p
I've answered all your questions now then.
As I have already stated man does not have righteous judgement, only GOD.
Ages ago, Loquacious Duck wrote:
> .........
> I mentioned at the start that I had some questions for you too. I'd
> like to get a better picture of where you disagree with the science
> of evolution, by seeing your argument from a slightly different
> angle:
>
> Do you believe that organisms pass on some characterisics to their
> offspring through their DNA ?
>
> 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) ?
>
> Do you accept that this effect will, over time, ensure that organisms
> will change to be better adapted to their environment ?
>
>
> If you do accept all the above, where do we 'evolutionists' lose you
> ?
Any thoughts on these yet?
FF, you came here and posted a huge topic filled with a garbled misunderstanding of scientific principles - not disagreeing with the principles, failing even to understand them.
We all picked through that post, several of us, myself included, went to lengths to point out where that original post went wrong, to show you the actual scientific basis for evolution, and to try to answer some of your questions.
You didn't respond to anything said in any of those posts.
I even threw in some questions for you, which you didn't even acknowledge.
This leads me to believe you've not even bothered to read them.
Despite everyone reading an equally long and far more garbled post that you made.
:^p
> .........
> I mentioned at the start that I had some questions for you too. I'd
> like to get a better picture of where you disagree with the science
> of evolution, by seeing your argument from a slightly different
> angle:
>
> Do you believe that organisms pass on some characterisics to their
> offspring through their DNA ?
>
> 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) ?
>
> Do you accept that this effect will, over time, ensure that organisms
> will change to be better adapted to their environment ?
>
>
> If you do accept all the above, where do we 'evolutionists' lose you
> ?
Any thoughts on these yet?
FF, you came here and posted a huge topic filled with a garbled misunderstanding of scientific principles - not disagreeing with the principles, failing even to understand them.
We all picked through that post, several of us, myself included, went to lengths to point out where that original post went wrong, to show you the actual scientific basis for evolution, and to try to answer some of your questions.
You didn't respond to anything said in any of those posts.
I even threw in some questions for you, which you didn't even acknowledge.
This leads me to believe you've not even bothered to read them.
Despite everyone reading an equally long and far more garbled post that you made.
:^p
Lindgren wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Lindgren wrote:
> What have evolution and my Physics course got to do with each other
> though? Zilch!
>
> But your an evolutionist though?
>
> I believe in science, and what is proven undoubtedly by science.
So, your not an evolutionist then?
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Lindgren wrote:
> What have evolution and my Physics course got to do with each other
> though? Zilch!
>
> But your an evolutionist though?
>
> I believe in science, and what is proven undoubtedly by science.
So, your not an evolutionist then?
Page: