The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> So the idea we all evolved from ameoba is "intelligence and
> perection", even though it breaks the rules of thermo-dynamics
> and has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
Huh?
Explain to me how the theory of evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics? You're original post made little sense. As far as I know, the theory of entropy simply deals with transfer of energy, it has nothing to do with complexity of organisms. Other than that over time, complex systems will inevitably break down until the universe reaches heat death. It does not contradict the evolution of complex systems in the meantime. As far as I can tell, your whole argument is spurious.
> So the idea we all evolved from ameoba is "intelligence and
> perection", even though it breaks the rules of thermo-dynamics
> and has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
Huh?
Explain to me how the theory of evolution contradicts the laws of thermodynamics? You're original post made little sense. As far as I know, the theory of entropy simply deals with transfer of energy, it has nothing to do with complexity of organisms. Other than that over time, complex systems will inevitably break down until the universe reaches heat death. It does not contradict the evolution of complex systems in the meantime. As far as I can tell, your whole argument is spurious.
Here is a thought on evolution in relation to survival of the fittest.
Someone shoot Forest Fan.
Then I would praise the lord.
Someone shoot Forest Fan.
Then I would praise the lord.
cookie monster wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> The carnivores would not have survived on such a diet.
>
> Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
>
> Vegtarians survive fine.
>
> Of course they do, they have evolved methods of extracting the
> nutrients they need from their food. Carnivores would be missing
> vital metabolic enzymes. The berries would make them sick, and they
> would starve to death.
But God made all the berries and He saw that they were good.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> The carnivores would not have survived on such a diet.
>
> Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
>
> Vegtarians survive fine.
>
> Of course they do, they have evolved methods of extracting the
> nutrients they need from their food. Carnivores would be missing
> vital metabolic enzymes. The berries would make them sick, and they
> would starve to death.
But God made all the berries and He saw that they were good.
Forest Fan wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> The carnivores would not have survived on such a diet.
>
> Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
>
> Vegtarians survive fine.
Of course they do, they have evolved methods of extracting the nutrients they need from their food. Carnivores would be missing vital metabolic enzymes. The berries would make them sick, and they would starve to death.
> cookie monster wrote:
> The carnivores would not have survived on such a diet.
>
> Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
>
> Vegtarians survive fine.
Of course they do, they have evolved methods of extracting the nutrients they need from their food. Carnivores would be missing vital metabolic enzymes. The berries would make them sick, and they would starve to death.
cookie monster wrote:
> The carnivores would not have survived on such a diet.
>
> Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
Vegtarians survive fine.
> The carnivores would not have survived on such a diet.
>
> Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
Vegtarians survive fine.
The carnivores would not have survived on such a diet.
Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
Unless maybe god gave them magic berries.
cookie monster wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> At the beginning of the earth the lion and lamb would be peaceful,
> etc. No animals would be eaten.
>
> So what did they live on?
>
> Fruit and berries?
They were vegetarians, so yes; fruit and berries would have been on the menu.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> At the beginning of the earth the lion and lamb would be peaceful,
> etc. No animals would be eaten.
>
> So what did they live on?
>
> Fruit and berries?
They were vegetarians, so yes; fruit and berries would have been on the menu.
Deafpanda wrote:
> BTW forest fan, I forgot to mention, I agree with your analogy, it is
> only the traditional Christian God I take issue with.
What, that we are all sinners Deafpanda?
> BTW forest fan, I forgot to mention, I agree with your analogy, it is
> only the traditional Christian God I take issue with.
What, that we are all sinners Deafpanda?
Deafpanda wrote:
> The idea of a personal, creator God for me is one of the most
> unjustified and inconsistent viewpoints, and one which thankfully is
> declining.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. Atheists
> are as bad as theists - both hold very strong beliefs about the
> existence of God with circumstantial evidence.
>
> But God as a personal entity - a kind of super-human is bizarre.
>
> Why, if there is a higher power, would it be humanoid (in the case of
> God creating mankind in his own image...) - surely, intuitively, a
> higher power would be completely incomprehensible to all of us
> mortals.
>
> I have no problem with theists who claim the existence of God through
> personal experience - God as an inexplicable, all-encompassing
> meta-entity, but a creative god holds no water.
>
> If your all-good God created the universe however many thousands of
> years ago creationists would claim, why did he deceive us by giving
> us carbon-dating? Would He mislead us in this way?
>
> The Bible is outdated. People of it's time had no grasp of science -
> they had no idea of space, they thought they were alone in the
> universe and looked to the skies for inspiration. Being somewhat
> less enlightened than we are today, they were duped into accepting
> that what is essentially another, more powerful person was
> controlling them.
>
> With the ascent of science, it is a pity that scince's disciples are,
> in the main, rejecting anything beyong the realm of matter and
> energy, through lack of proof.
>
> For me, the oddities of our scientific discoveries are the best
> evidence for something beyond the material universe. For one, there
> is heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the universe's attempt to
> escape further measurement. And for me, EVOLUTION ITSELF is one of
> the best reasons to believe in a higher power. Evolution can be
> expressed as the programming of all matter to tend toward
> intelligence and perfection - the laws of physics which compel
> hydrogen to become every other element allow the formation of amino
> acids which will inevitably, given the right conditions, which we
> have, build into life, something so bizarre and seemingly unlikely.
So the idea we all evolved from ameoba is "intelligence and perection", even though it breaks the rules of thermo-dynamics and has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
> The idea of a personal, creator God for me is one of the most
> unjustified and inconsistent viewpoints, and one which thankfully is
> declining.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. Atheists
> are as bad as theists - both hold very strong beliefs about the
> existence of God with circumstantial evidence.
>
> But God as a personal entity - a kind of super-human is bizarre.
>
> Why, if there is a higher power, would it be humanoid (in the case of
> God creating mankind in his own image...) - surely, intuitively, a
> higher power would be completely incomprehensible to all of us
> mortals.
>
> I have no problem with theists who claim the existence of God through
> personal experience - God as an inexplicable, all-encompassing
> meta-entity, but a creative god holds no water.
>
> If your all-good God created the universe however many thousands of
> years ago creationists would claim, why did he deceive us by giving
> us carbon-dating? Would He mislead us in this way?
>
> The Bible is outdated. People of it's time had no grasp of science -
> they had no idea of space, they thought they were alone in the
> universe and looked to the skies for inspiration. Being somewhat
> less enlightened than we are today, they were duped into accepting
> that what is essentially another, more powerful person was
> controlling them.
>
> With the ascent of science, it is a pity that scince's disciples are,
> in the main, rejecting anything beyong the realm of matter and
> energy, through lack of proof.
>
> For me, the oddities of our scientific discoveries are the best
> evidence for something beyond the material universe. For one, there
> is heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the universe's attempt to
> escape further measurement. And for me, EVOLUTION ITSELF is one of
> the best reasons to believe in a higher power. Evolution can be
> expressed as the programming of all matter to tend toward
> intelligence and perfection - the laws of physics which compel
> hydrogen to become every other element allow the formation of amino
> acids which will inevitably, given the right conditions, which we
> have, build into life, something so bizarre and seemingly unlikely.
So the idea we all evolved from ameoba is "intelligence and perection", even though it breaks the rules of thermo-dynamics and has NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually everything was fine, man had no shame. But God shamed man,
> like when they breeded with relatives.
>
> this has nothing whatsoever to do with shame - that is a purely human
> concept. what I am talking about is basic biology theories, that
> have been confirmed over time to become biology FACT. people don't
> avoid procreating with their relatives just because it is morally
> wrong, but because it is dangerous for the species.
>
> What fathers and daughters?
>
> Adam and his daughter, Eve and her son, the daughter and their son,
> procreating.
>
> Well the LORD looked after mankind, and let them rule the world over
> the animals.
>
> that comes nowhere close to answering my query and is an extremely
> vague statement.
>
> Someone had to look after his animals, and he chose man.
>
> so why was man not also chosen to look after the dinosaurs?
>
> Everyone was peaceful, the dinosaurs would be peaceful with the
> humans.
>
> so why were they wiped out? because they couldn't handle a different
> climate? that is true of pretty much any creature you could name,
> including humans.
Dinosaurs are suited to a certain climate, humans are better adapters.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Actually everything was fine, man had no shame. But God shamed man,
> like when they breeded with relatives.
>
> this has nothing whatsoever to do with shame - that is a purely human
> concept. what I am talking about is basic biology theories, that
> have been confirmed over time to become biology FACT. people don't
> avoid procreating with their relatives just because it is morally
> wrong, but because it is dangerous for the species.
>
> What fathers and daughters?
>
> Adam and his daughter, Eve and her son, the daughter and their son,
> procreating.
>
> Well the LORD looked after mankind, and let them rule the world over
> the animals.
>
> that comes nowhere close to answering my query and is an extremely
> vague statement.
>
> Someone had to look after his animals, and he chose man.
>
> so why was man not also chosen to look after the dinosaurs?
>
> Everyone was peaceful, the dinosaurs would be peaceful with the
> humans.
>
> so why were they wiped out? because they couldn't handle a different
> climate? that is true of pretty much any creature you could name,
> including humans.
Dinosaurs are suited to a certain climate, humans are better adapters.
Page: