The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
cookie monster wrote:
> You find it easier to accept that an omnipotent being who no-one has
> ever seen created the earth and all life on this planet, rather than
> it evolving over the course of 18 billion years?
But another evolutionist, told me the earth is 4 billion years old, another told me it was 1 trillion years old, another told me it was 300 million years old and another told me it was 5 million years old. I am confused by all these evolutionists, contradicting each other. How old is the earth according to evolutionists?
> You find it easier to accept that an omnipotent being who no-one has
> ever seen created the earth and all life on this planet, rather than
> it evolving over the course of 18 billion years?
But another evolutionist, told me the earth is 4 billion years old, another told me it was 1 trillion years old, another told me it was 300 million years old and another told me it was 5 million years old. I am confused by all these evolutionists, contradicting each other. How old is the earth according to evolutionists?
You find it easier to accept that an omnipotent being who no-one has ever seen created the earth and all life on this planet, rather than it evolving over the course of 18 billion years?
cookie monster wrote:
> It pains me everyday to know there are people out there who still cant
> accept evolution.
I have the same problem with EVOLUTIONISTS.
> It pains me everyday to know there are people out there who still cant
> accept evolution.
I have the same problem with EVOLUTIONISTS.
It pains me everyday to know there are people out there who still cant accept evolution.
*Sob* Why do you hurt me? ;^)
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Never watched it, sorry.
>
>
> Surely we get more of a response than this?
> I, and a few others, took fricking ages replying to this topic, at
> least an acknowledgement you read them would be nice!
>
> :^D
I read them...
Forest Fan
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Never watched it, sorry.
>
>
> Surely we get more of a response than this?
> I, and a few others, took fricking ages replying to this topic, at
> least an acknowledgement you read them would be nice!
>
> :^D
I read them...
Forest Fan
Forest Fan wrote:
> Never watched it, sorry.
Surely we get more of a response than this?
I, and a few others, took fricking ages replying to this topic, at least an acknowledgement you read them would be nice!
:^D
> Never watched it, sorry.
Surely we get more of a response than this?
I, and a few others, took fricking ages replying to this topic, at least an acknowledgement you read them would be nice!
:^D
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> "Double Helix" BBC2 12.10am tonight. about cracking the
> genetic code. part 2 of 2. wish I'd known about it, I missed the
> first one. sounds very interesting though.
>
> Although you're not about, I would suggest you give it a watch,
> Forest Fan, it may unpucker the 'closed tight as a snare drum' entity
> that is your mind.
Never watched it, sorry.
> "Double Helix" BBC2 12.10am tonight. about cracking the
> genetic code. part 2 of 2. wish I'd known about it, I missed the
> first one. sounds very interesting though.
>
> Although you're not about, I would suggest you give it a watch,
> Forest Fan, it may unpucker the 'closed tight as a snare drum' entity
> that is your mind.
Never watched it, sorry.
Would the first law of thermodynamics not create an even stronger argument for the creationists to answer?
As is pointed out below, to use it as an argument against Darwin and the oft forgotten Mendel's work is not to understand at least one of the concepts. Creation occurred because of the most unimaginably small particles joining together in an unimaginably precise way - a re-arranging of what was already there after the fallout of the creation of the universe; rather than something just popping out of thin air. There's nothing that special in the physical ingredients of any form of life when you break it down far enough, it's just arranged in a special way.
Then again, humans know almost nothing. The answer's out there, it may not be something we can even imagine at the moment, but I really can't see it being anything that'll cheer up the Church. Ignorance will always fill the vacuum, and the Church has been very good at keeping their bandwagon rolling.
As is pointed out below, to use it as an argument against Darwin and the oft forgotten Mendel's work is not to understand at least one of the concepts. Creation occurred because of the most unimaginably small particles joining together in an unimaginably precise way - a re-arranging of what was already there after the fallout of the creation of the universe; rather than something just popping out of thin air. There's nothing that special in the physical ingredients of any form of life when you break it down far enough, it's just arranged in a special way.
Then again, humans know almost nothing. The answer's out there, it may not be something we can even imagine at the moment, but I really can't see it being anything that'll cheer up the Church. Ignorance will always fill the vacuum, and the Church has been very good at keeping their bandwagon rolling.
I don't see how the first law of thermodynamics proves anything. The 'Big Bang' theory is not disproved by the first law of thermodynamics, as the theory is that all matter originated from one point in space of infinite mass, which exploded (don't ask me how, I don't know). The explosion caused matter to be pushed out, expanding the universe. Which is why the universe is still expanding today. I do A-Level Physics, and no I may not be great at it, but I don't see there to be any incpnsistencies wth the Big Bang theory of the Universe and the first law of thermodynamics.
As to the whole evolution rant, I don't do Biology, and don't know much about the composition of living cells at an atomic level, but everything is composed of atoms, is it so inconcievable that in an explosion that created the universe, some atoms combined in such a way to create living cells...? Maybe it is, I really don't know. But point is living cells multiply. And there is obviously evolution. We see mutations every day, in people with genetically inherited diseases. These are 'bad' mutations, but over the course of billions of years there have obviously been some beneficial mutations, which if they give an organism a better chance of survival, mean that organism has better chance to reproduce and therefore pass on its beneficial mutation. If you accept that mutations can occur in genes, then that is accepting that evolution, on some scale at least, exists.
The very fact you describe it as a creationalist 'scoring a point' kind of implies that you don't care about an intelligent debate based on fact, as long as 'your side' wins the argument...
I find it funny how some people want to force their religion on everyone. Surely if other people don't want to believe in God or whatever, you can accpet that and just leave them to live their lives. Converting more of them just means less space for you in heaven after all...
As to the whole evolution rant, I don't do Biology, and don't know much about the composition of living cells at an atomic level, but everything is composed of atoms, is it so inconcievable that in an explosion that created the universe, some atoms combined in such a way to create living cells...? Maybe it is, I really don't know. But point is living cells multiply. And there is obviously evolution. We see mutations every day, in people with genetically inherited diseases. These are 'bad' mutations, but over the course of billions of years there have obviously been some beneficial mutations, which if they give an organism a better chance of survival, mean that organism has better chance to reproduce and therefore pass on its beneficial mutation. If you accept that mutations can occur in genes, then that is accepting that evolution, on some scale at least, exists.
The very fact you describe it as a creationalist 'scoring a point' kind of implies that you don't care about an intelligent debate based on fact, as long as 'your side' wins the argument...
I find it funny how some people want to force their religion on everyone. Surely if other people don't want to believe in God or whatever, you can accpet that and just leave them to live their lives. Converting more of them just means less space for you in heaven after all...
Page: