The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
I think that exquisite post will give him eternal ass-forkin'.
Can I not believe in God and evolution, which I do.
Don't thank him, he's already damned you to an existence of eternal agony.
Hi Forest Fan.
I've never read the christianity thread, not really my kind of thing, but I would like to try to answer the questions you raise about evolution, and ask you a couple of questions of my own.
Forest Fan wrote:
> The First Law of Thermodynamics
> ....
> 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.
So the question is thus:
How could the first living organisms appear on a planet without life?
The fundamental physical molecules of life as we know it are DNA strands.
Their cruicial characteristic is that they are able to divide, and thus replicate (see stuff on cell reproduction to see specifically how this works).
When you have the first DNA strand, it's not hard to see how the principles of evolution allow the DNA to very gradually develop into longer, more complicated strands of DNA, and to eventually produce protiens which can form cells, the first cellular organisms.
When these cells evolve to 'stick' together in groups, the first multi-celled organisms appear.
Then it's all downhill to council estates and politicians :^)
So how do we get that crucial first strand of DNA?
It's really not that complicated. Remember we don't need the long, vastly complex DNA strands we see today. Something much shorter is sufficient, there's plenty of time for mutations in reproduction to create longer strands.
So we have some ancient primordial soup, with high temperatures and a mixture of all kinds of atoms. With the high temperatures there's plenty of energy to drive chemical reactions between these atoms, and over millions of years it's reasonable to suppose a very basic DNA-type molcule will form.
Not very glamorous or exciting, but it's as simple as that. From the seredipitous formation of what we would call the first DNA, genetic mutaions and variations in division and reproduction take care of the rest.
> 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.
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.
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 ?
Thanks for reading,
Duck
I've never read the christianity thread, not really my kind of thing, but I would like to try to answer the questions you raise about evolution, and ask you a couple of questions of my own.
Forest Fan wrote:
> The First Law of Thermodynamics
> ....
> 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.
So the question is thus:
How could the first living organisms appear on a planet without life?
The fundamental physical molecules of life as we know it are DNA strands.
Their cruicial characteristic is that they are able to divide, and thus replicate (see stuff on cell reproduction to see specifically how this works).
When you have the first DNA strand, it's not hard to see how the principles of evolution allow the DNA to very gradually develop into longer, more complicated strands of DNA, and to eventually produce protiens which can form cells, the first cellular organisms.
When these cells evolve to 'stick' together in groups, the first multi-celled organisms appear.
Then it's all downhill to council estates and politicians :^)
So how do we get that crucial first strand of DNA?
It's really not that complicated. Remember we don't need the long, vastly complex DNA strands we see today. Something much shorter is sufficient, there's plenty of time for mutations in reproduction to create longer strands.
So we have some ancient primordial soup, with high temperatures and a mixture of all kinds of atoms. With the high temperatures there's plenty of energy to drive chemical reactions between these atoms, and over millions of years it's reasonable to suppose a very basic DNA-type molcule will form.
Not very glamorous or exciting, but it's as simple as that. From the seredipitous formation of what we would call the first DNA, genetic mutaions and variations in division and reproduction take care of the rest.
> 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.
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.
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 ?
Thanks for reading,
Duck
Forest Fan wrote:
> 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.
I think that you are missing the obvious point: Darwin made the first attempt at describing the process of natural selection. A species will adapt to its environment through a series of "mutations". For example within a species of animal (with short necks that feed on the leaves of certain trees), there may be certain individual animals which express unusual characteristics, such as longer necks. These individuals will be more successfull than the short neck animals from the same species, as there is less competition for food: they can reach to the leaves higher up on the tree. This successfull animals will breed and their genes will be passed onto the next generation. This next gen will possess many of the characteristics that their genes express (provided by their parents), thus they are likely to have longer necks than the other short neck animals of their species. Thus they will be more successfull...
Over a period of time it can then be argued that the (new) species has evolved (from the original) due to the process of natural selection.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics
>
> The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation.
> 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.
"Evolution" isn't a process where an animal suddenly morphs into another type of animals for no apparent reason. (Don't get me started on mitochondria and our symbiotic relationship). Anyway I thought that the carbon cycle (eutrohpication etc) gave a good explanation of the whole, energy from sun-plant-animal-death-cycle.
If there is no evidence of evolution (or natural selection) why is it that people who are born in extremely hot countries are black? A co-incidence that black Africans live in a country where being white skinned is potentially hazardous to one's health.
In the time of Darwin, scientists
> believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate
> objects.
In the time of Christ people thought that the Earth was flat and that the Sun "went round" the Earth; we were at the epicentre of the universe and people got sick because they sinned.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics
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.
I can see where you are coming from with this question: how they feck did life actually begin on Earth, assuming that it was nothing but a primordial soup to begin with? After all the Earth itself took many millenium to form from the component atoms that were zipping aroung the universe (and moulded by gravity etc).
I'm off to the pub so I'll have to get my thinking cap on.
> 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.
I think that you are missing the obvious point: Darwin made the first attempt at describing the process of natural selection. A species will adapt to its environment through a series of "mutations". For example within a species of animal (with short necks that feed on the leaves of certain trees), there may be certain individual animals which express unusual characteristics, such as longer necks. These individuals will be more successfull than the short neck animals from the same species, as there is less competition for food: they can reach to the leaves higher up on the tree. This successfull animals will breed and their genes will be passed onto the next generation. This next gen will possess many of the characteristics that their genes express (provided by their parents), thus they are likely to have longer necks than the other short neck animals of their species. Thus they will be more successfull...
Over a period of time it can then be argued that the (new) species has evolved (from the original) due to the process of natural selection.
> The First Law of Thermodynamics
>
> The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation.
> 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.
"Evolution" isn't a process where an animal suddenly morphs into another type of animals for no apparent reason. (Don't get me started on mitochondria and our symbiotic relationship). Anyway I thought that the carbon cycle (eutrohpication etc) gave a good explanation of the whole, energy from sun-plant-animal-death-cycle.
If there is no evidence of evolution (or natural selection) why is it that people who are born in extremely hot countries are black? A co-incidence that black Africans live in a country where being white skinned is potentially hazardous to one's health.
In the time of Darwin, scientists
> believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate
> objects.
In the time of Christ people thought that the Earth was flat and that the Sun "went round" the Earth; we were at the epicentre of the universe and people got sick because they sinned.
> The Second Law of Thermodynamics
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.
I can see where you are coming from with this question: how they feck did life actually begin on Earth, assuming that it was nothing but a primordial soup to begin with? After all the Earth itself took many millenium to form from the component atoms that were zipping aroung the universe (and moulded by gravity etc).
I'm off to the pub so I'll have to get my thinking cap on.
Are we really doing this?
Is this a wind up Forest Fan?
We know, you know, and if there's a God - God knows that you don't know anything about evolution, so what's the point in a debate about it?
Is this a wind up Forest Fan?
We know, you know, and if there's a God - God knows that you don't know anything about evolution, so what's the point in a debate about it?
And let's finally get down to brass tacs here, forest fan.
You have up to now ignored pretty much all of my posts, which is yet another example of your ignorance to others theories and opinions.
Your patronising and obnoxious manner in forcing religion down peoples throats on this forum is about as popular as Leprosy. I have always been an open-minded person, and although I denounce religion, there has always been a part of me, that has said 'What if?'.
This being the case, I am pretty tolerant of others beliefs, but your frank inability to listen to the fact that not everyone shares your close-minded view, or that they have a RIGHT not to share them, displays a rather sorry personality trait.
I once made a topic on here denouncing religion, but I can see that is wrong now - people have a right to believe what they want to. But your pure arrogance and spouting of crap about us all being judged and going to hell, serves only to anger the majority of the users on here. Yet you still return to do it again and again. You must like being despised, it is the only explanation. You are making your religion look bad my friend.
Why don't you just accept that not everyone shares your view, and that no matter how much ranting and patronising you do, they won't be converted, and stop being a complete nob?
If you ignore this, that is your choice, but it will once again show me just how stupid you really are.
You have up to now ignored pretty much all of my posts, which is yet another example of your ignorance to others theories and opinions.
Your patronising and obnoxious manner in forcing religion down peoples throats on this forum is about as popular as Leprosy. I have always been an open-minded person, and although I denounce religion, there has always been a part of me, that has said 'What if?'.
This being the case, I am pretty tolerant of others beliefs, but your frank inability to listen to the fact that not everyone shares your close-minded view, or that they have a RIGHT not to share them, displays a rather sorry personality trait.
I once made a topic on here denouncing religion, but I can see that is wrong now - people have a right to believe what they want to. But your pure arrogance and spouting of crap about us all being judged and going to hell, serves only to anger the majority of the users on here. Yet you still return to do it again and again. You must like being despised, it is the only explanation. You are making your religion look bad my friend.
Why don't you just accept that not everyone shares your view, and that no matter how much ranting and patronising you do, they won't be converted, and stop being a complete nob?
If you ignore this, that is your choice, but it will once again show me just how stupid you really are.
Yes your right, if you said something apeard from nowhere I would call you a liar...
So 500 fish and water anyone?
So 500 fish and water anyone?
Who said that people who believe in evolution only look to Darwin? Darwin got the ball rolling, hence being known as the godfather of evolution, but he's not the be all and end all.
And ignorance.
Page: