The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When you reply quoting, can you please not quote massive blocks of text that are completely and utterly pointless to quote?
It looks terrible, it's irritating because of the amount of scrolling, and it's um, messing up the word count too. If that matters.
So yeah, when you quote, if you need to, can you delete most of it, just leaving a little reference to what you're actually quoting/refering to? It just makes everyone's life a little easier, and I'm lazy so it's great.
Ta.
It looks terrible, it's irritating because of the amount of scrolling, and it's um, messing up the word count too. If that matters.
So yeah, when you quote, if you need to, can you delete most of it, just leaving a little reference to what you're actually quoting/refering to? It just makes everyone's life a little easier, and I'm lazy so it's great.
Ta.
Page:
Still off topic, and there is already a resonably already functioning thread JUST FOR THIS SORT OF TALK. It's the original forest fan thread, ever heard of it? no? go to it.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - doesn't disprove evolution. See your own evolution flaws topic.
Law of Biogenesis - life starts as DNA which is a complex molecule that can form through chemical reactions. I don't know what the Law of Biogenesis states, but life can start with chemical reactions.
Evidence of such simple life has been found on mars in the form of bacterium.
Law of All Kinds - never heard of this one before but it states that pear trees give birth to pears etc.
Well, when parents have a child, is the child an exact replica of the parents? Nope.
There are small changes.
And after countless millions of generations, after so many small changes, the newest generation could end up as a completely different species.
That's evolution or, as you call it, adaption. :-)
We'll take this back to the evolution thread now. :-)
Law of Biogenesis - life starts as DNA which is a complex molecule that can form through chemical reactions. I don't know what the Law of Biogenesis states, but life can start with chemical reactions.
Evidence of such simple life has been found on mars in the form of bacterium.
Law of All Kinds - never heard of this one before but it states that pear trees give birth to pears etc.
Well, when parents have a child, is the child an exact replica of the parents? Nope.
There are small changes.
And after countless millions of generations, after so many small changes, the newest generation could end up as a completely different species.
That's evolution or, as you call it, adaption. :-)
We'll take this back to the evolution thread now. :-)
You mong.
English_Bloke wrote:
> Sorry, I'm thick, what is the second law of thermo-who-ju-fuzz?
"Evolution - Science or Religion?
by
Arlo Moehlenpah, D. Sc.
[email protected]
When I wrote my book Creation Versus Evolution: Scientific and Religious Considerations, I pondered over several other possible titles. Among these were “Evolution – Hoax of the Centuries” and “Have You Been Brainwashed By Evolution?” I do not know how marketable the book would have been with one of these titles, but still feel these phrases have some merit. The reason I believe that the theory of evolution is a hoax is that the public has been brainwashed into believing that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific evidence. In most of the school boards and courts considering Creation versus evolution, the issue has been presented as religion versus science. They argue that Creation should not be taught in public schools because it is religion, but that evolution can be taught because it is science.
The theory of evolution is not scientific. It is important that we know what science is and are able to distinguish between “science” and what is “falsely called science.” A typical definition of science is that it is a branch of study concerned with observation and classification of facts, especially with the establishment of verifiable general laws, chiefly by induction and hypothesis. Webster defines science as “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation…”. You can look at various dictionaries and get slightly different definitions but the key words will be “observation,” “experimentation,” “verifiable,” “testable,” and “repeatable.” In other words, if it cannot be observed, repeated, verified or subject to experimentation, then it is not scientific. Evolution has never been observed, repeated, verified nor has an experiment ever been performed regarding it. Thus evolution is not scientific.
The theory of evolution contradicts known scientific laws such as the law of biogenesis, the law of kinds and the second law of thermodynamics. The law of biogenesis is that life can only come from other life. Life does not spring from non-living things. This is what we observe and what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1, where various forms of life were created to reproduce. Perhaps the most difficult problem that evolutionists face is the question of how self-replicating life systems could form from non-living, non-replicating systems. Some evolutionists propose that in the beginning small inorganic molecules such as water, methane and ammonia, somehow by chance chemical reactions, formed amino acids. These amino acids supposedly combined to form proteins and eventually living cells. The idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances is called spontaneous generation. Never has this been observed, repeated or verified, and thus this idea is not scientific. The law of kinds is that life reproduces after its own kind. The phrase after his kind is used at least ten times in the creation account (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This applies to both the plant and the animal kingdoms. Specifically mentioned Specifically mentioned are grasses, herbs, trees, fishes, birds, beasts and creeping things. What this means is that pear trees produce pears and not bananas or monkeys. Cows have calves and horses beget colts. In other words, “like produces like.” The theory of evolution contradicts the “law of kinds ” by saying that one kind of creature evolved into another kind. The second law of thermodynamics shows that systems left to themselves go to a condition of greater disorder, probability and randomness. Hurricanes do not build buildings. Explosions in junkyards do not build airplanes. Earthquakes do not create living systems. Systems go from order to disorder. This contradicts evolutionary theory, which assumes that disordered particles eventually evolved to form ordered life. The second law of thermodynamics also contradicts the idea that a Big Bang Explosion could have produced an ordered universe. For an ordered pattern to occur, there must be a designer and energy. The orderliness of the universe and the complexity of living organisms confirm the work of a divine Creator. Our ordered universe could not have developed from chaos. There are no exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists try to point out that snowflakes forming, trees growing and embryos developing are exceptions to the second law. Snowflakes and other crystals form because of the sizes and shapes of atoms, ions and molecules that predetermine the shapes of the crystals. For example, if you dropped some marbles on a Chinese checkerboard, the marbles would take the pattern of the indentations on the board. This “disorder to order” is really not that at all, but is rather that the marbles are falling into a pre-designed order. Likewise, the order of a growing tree or a developing embryo has been pre-encoded into the cells of these systems.
Both Creation and evolution are religious views. The issue is not religion vs. science, but religion vs. religion. Any concept regarding origins is not scientific, in that origins were not and cannot be observed, repeated or verified. Scientists can only deal with present evidence. The choice of which theory to accept becomes a matter of faith. To accept something without evidence requires faith. Hebrews 11:1-3 states, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” The Christian believes that God created the universe, life and man, while the evolutionist believes that the universe, life and man somehow evolved without any supernatural direction. “Evolution cannot be proved or tested, it can only be believed.” Considering the majesty, beauty and complexity of the earth and universe, it is relatively easy to believe in Creation. But to believe that dead matter could create life, and have absolutely no evidence, requires faith of another order. Some believe that a cosmic egg of energy exploded to form chemical elements, stars , galaxies and finally people. Some even have the faith to believe that life was planted on earth by an unknown civilization from outer space. Since evolution cannot be observed, repeated or verified, it is no more “scientific” and no less “religious” than Creation. One person was asked, “Why aren’t you an evolutionist?” His reply was, “I don’t have enough faith to believe that random particles arranged themselves into ordered life.”
The zeal of Darwinists to evangelize the world with their theory makes it also seem like a religion. They see evolution as a light which illuminates all facts. To them evolution is the god they worship. Christians however recognize that the great Creator became our Savior and all of God’s fullness dwells in Him. Jesus Christ is the Light of the world and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom."
http://www.endtimes-ministry.com /tracts/evolution.html
> Sorry, I'm thick, what is the second law of thermo-who-ju-fuzz?
"Evolution - Science or Religion?
by
Arlo Moehlenpah, D. Sc.
[email protected]
When I wrote my book Creation Versus Evolution: Scientific and Religious Considerations, I pondered over several other possible titles. Among these were “Evolution – Hoax of the Centuries” and “Have You Been Brainwashed By Evolution?” I do not know how marketable the book would have been with one of these titles, but still feel these phrases have some merit. The reason I believe that the theory of evolution is a hoax is that the public has been brainwashed into believing that the theory of evolution is supported by scientific evidence. In most of the school boards and courts considering Creation versus evolution, the issue has been presented as religion versus science. They argue that Creation should not be taught in public schools because it is religion, but that evolution can be taught because it is science.
The theory of evolution is not scientific. It is important that we know what science is and are able to distinguish between “science” and what is “falsely called science.” A typical definition of science is that it is a branch of study concerned with observation and classification of facts, especially with the establishment of verifiable general laws, chiefly by induction and hypothesis. Webster defines science as “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation…”. You can look at various dictionaries and get slightly different definitions but the key words will be “observation,” “experimentation,” “verifiable,” “testable,” and “repeatable.” In other words, if it cannot be observed, repeated, verified or subject to experimentation, then it is not scientific. Evolution has never been observed, repeated, verified nor has an experiment ever been performed regarding it. Thus evolution is not scientific.
The theory of evolution contradicts known scientific laws such as the law of biogenesis, the law of kinds and the second law of thermodynamics. The law of biogenesis is that life can only come from other life. Life does not spring from non-living things. This is what we observe and what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1, where various forms of life were created to reproduce. Perhaps the most difficult problem that evolutionists face is the question of how self-replicating life systems could form from non-living, non-replicating systems. Some evolutionists propose that in the beginning small inorganic molecules such as water, methane and ammonia, somehow by chance chemical reactions, formed amino acids. These amino acids supposedly combined to form proteins and eventually living cells. The idea that living creatures can be produced naturally from non-living substances is called spontaneous generation. Never has this been observed, repeated or verified, and thus this idea is not scientific. The law of kinds is that life reproduces after its own kind. The phrase after his kind is used at least ten times in the creation account (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). This applies to both the plant and the animal kingdoms. Specifically mentioned Specifically mentioned are grasses, herbs, trees, fishes, birds, beasts and creeping things. What this means is that pear trees produce pears and not bananas or monkeys. Cows have calves and horses beget colts. In other words, “like produces like.” The theory of evolution contradicts the “law of kinds ” by saying that one kind of creature evolved into another kind. The second law of thermodynamics shows that systems left to themselves go to a condition of greater disorder, probability and randomness. Hurricanes do not build buildings. Explosions in junkyards do not build airplanes. Earthquakes do not create living systems. Systems go from order to disorder. This contradicts evolutionary theory, which assumes that disordered particles eventually evolved to form ordered life. The second law of thermodynamics also contradicts the idea that a Big Bang Explosion could have produced an ordered universe. For an ordered pattern to occur, there must be a designer and energy. The orderliness of the universe and the complexity of living organisms confirm the work of a divine Creator. Our ordered universe could not have developed from chaos. There are no exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists try to point out that snowflakes forming, trees growing and embryos developing are exceptions to the second law. Snowflakes and other crystals form because of the sizes and shapes of atoms, ions and molecules that predetermine the shapes of the crystals. For example, if you dropped some marbles on a Chinese checkerboard, the marbles would take the pattern of the indentations on the board. This “disorder to order” is really not that at all, but is rather that the marbles are falling into a pre-designed order. Likewise, the order of a growing tree or a developing embryo has been pre-encoded into the cells of these systems.
Both Creation and evolution are religious views. The issue is not religion vs. science, but religion vs. religion. Any concept regarding origins is not scientific, in that origins were not and cannot be observed, repeated or verified. Scientists can only deal with present evidence. The choice of which theory to accept becomes a matter of faith. To accept something without evidence requires faith. Hebrews 11:1-3 states, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” The Christian believes that God created the universe, life and man, while the evolutionist believes that the universe, life and man somehow evolved without any supernatural direction. “Evolution cannot be proved or tested, it can only be believed.” Considering the majesty, beauty and complexity of the earth and universe, it is relatively easy to believe in Creation. But to believe that dead matter could create life, and have absolutely no evidence, requires faith of another order. Some believe that a cosmic egg of energy exploded to form chemical elements, stars , galaxies and finally people. Some even have the faith to believe that life was planted on earth by an unknown civilization from outer space. Since evolution cannot be observed, repeated or verified, it is no more “scientific” and no less “religious” than Creation. One person was asked, “Why aren’t you an evolutionist?” His reply was, “I don’t have enough faith to believe that random particles arranged themselves into ordered life.”
The zeal of Darwinists to evangelize the world with their theory makes it also seem like a religion. They see evolution as a light which illuminates all facts. To them evolution is the god they worship. Christians however recognize that the great Creator became our Savior and all of God’s fullness dwells in Him. Jesus Christ is the Light of the world and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom."
http://www.endtimes-ministry.com /tracts/evolution.html
Umm i think A) this topic is being side tracked into yet another discussion whether Forest fan can think he can prove everything using a fallible source called the bible, and B) you all seem to be doing opposite what the topic suggested we try not to do which is not to quote entire posts, which forest fan still seems to be doing.
Sorry, I'm thick, what is the second law of thermo-who-ju-fuzz?
English_Bloke wrote:
> You can say that he is, but you can't prove that he is. Tis not a
> fact, kiddo.
Then there is the universe, mate. Which a famous scientist once said evolved from a single cell! Of course these lies were quickly disproved, as the second law of thermodynamics was quickly shown to have contradicted it. Funny how quiet the evolutionists keep that bit, eh?
> You can say that he is, but you can't prove that he is. Tis not a
> fact, kiddo.
Then there is the universe, mate. Which a famous scientist once said evolved from a single cell! Of course these lies were quickly disproved, as the second law of thermodynamics was quickly shown to have contradicted it. Funny how quiet the evolutionists keep that bit, eh?
Forest Fan wrote:
> English_Bloke wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But would this situation happen?
>
> No it would not. Why? Because God aint real.
>
> God is real. I can vouch for that FACT.
Oh yea we forgot you're like drinking pals you and god aren't you. (Dammit SR give me a rolleyes emoticon)
> English_Bloke wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> But would this situation happen?
>
> No it would not. Why? Because God aint real.
>
> God is real. I can vouch for that FACT.
Oh yea we forgot you're like drinking pals you and god aren't you. (Dammit SR give me a rolleyes emoticon)
Forest Fan wrote:
> Why would GOD tell me to follow a religion that attempts to replace
> GOD by man? The logic is ironic to say the least...
Because it makes a lot more sense, is far less corrupt, and has a hell of a lot less blood on it's hands then Christianity??
> Why would GOD tell me to follow a religion that attempts to replace
> GOD by man? The logic is ironic to say the least...
Because it makes a lot more sense, is far less corrupt, and has a hell of a lot less blood on it's hands then Christianity??
You can say that he is, but you can't prove that he is. Tis not a fact, kiddo.
Page: