Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)

 

Creation Forum

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Christopher (N/A)" <chrusher@scsinter.net>

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2001 1:14 AM

Subject: [bobenyartlive] DIE-HARD Atheist-Evolutionist debates Creationism!!!!


>
> Hi there! It's Chris again!
>
> I posted a week or so ago asking for some help debating Atheists on a
> secular Message Board?
>
> Well, Kirk sent me a GREAT article, so I posted it and asked a few
> people to read it!
>
> Believe it or not, a self-proclaimed "Die-Hard" Atheist took up a few
> of the points! He "Quoted" from the article and answered parts. I
> will re-print what he posted here in it's entirety...
> =====================================================================
>
>
> Subject:     Re: Evolution, Thermodynamics, and Entropy.....
> Posted By: EvanED (Registered User) posts: 124
> Posted At: 3/23/01 9:12:02 pm
>
> OK, perhaps I should start by mentioning how I do debates on internet
> forums, since I don't know if I have done any major ones here or not.
> What I do is go down the source message(s) grabbing things that I
> want to quote on, and quoting on them all in turn. I don't read the
> whole thing then go back, as that takes too much time.
>
>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  The Second Law proves, as certainly as science can prove anything
> whatever, that the universe had a beginning. Similarly, the First Law
> shows that the universe could not have begun itself. The total
> quantity of energy in the universe is a constant, but the quantity of
> available energy is decreasing. Therefore, as we go backward in time,
> the available energy would have been progressively greater until,
> finally, we would reach the beginning point, where available energy
> equaled total energy. Time could go back no further than this.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> Hmmm... perhaps this guy could be interested to know about one of
> several types of functions that approach values but never reach them
> (asymptotes) as you get really big and/or really small. Perhaps the
> best type here would be the logistic function, that starts
> growing/shrinking slowly, then speeds up, then slows back down. This
> type of function models things like population growth, and spread of
> disease. Anyway, imagin that as you go back in time, entropy
> increases slower and slower. So you never reach that maximum ammout.
>

 

But you have ZERO evidence that entropy is an asymptotic curve.  That is sheer speculation.  Obviously if you traced the progress of an explosion backwards in time, you would discover ground zero, not an asymptotic curve.  This speculation only obfuscates the point, it doesn't clarify it nor discredit it.

 


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  How does a real biological process, which goes from order to
> disorder, result in evolution. which goes from disorder to order?"
> Perhaps the evolutionist can ultimately find an answer to this
> question, but he at least should not ignore it, as most evolutionists
> do.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> This is akin to saying that: the first law of thermodynamics means
> that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Then how come the Earth
> is heating up? (while the total enery use increases as there are more
> people)
>

 

The nuts who claim that "the Earth is heating up" are basing their claims on 100 years of observation of a system which they claim to be 5 billion years old.  iow, they claim to know the whole process of something which they are observing only the last 0.000002% of.

 

This would be like walking into the last nanosecond of "Gone With The Wind" and claiming that you knew what Clark Gable had for breakfast at 7am on March 3, 1936.  Basing any claims on such scant observations discredits what otherwise *might* be a valid argument.


> It is because it is not a closed system. The sun is constantly
> heating the earth. Part of a system (the universe), such as life, can
> decrease in entropy while other parts of the system increase in
> entropy.
>
>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  If Evolution is true, there must be an extremely powerful force or
> mechanism at work in the cosmos that can steadily defeat the
> powerful, ultimate tendency toward "disarrangedness" brought by the
> 2nd Law
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
> OK. How life was first created: by accident. There happened to be a
> lightning strike in the right place to cause the right chemicals to
> come together in the right way (though this does not seem to be
> particularly hard to do). After that, random mutations of the genes
> gave certain things advantages, which then survived. This IS
> evolution. The "natural law" that leads to organisms WAS evolution.
> Survival.
>

 

If American 8th graders were taught the WHOLE truth about Charles Darwin, including his lack of education, his non-scientific approach to the "theory of evolution", his remarkable leap from a bird in the Galapagos Islands being "evolved" from a similar looking bird in South America, and his completely discredited "scientific" observations, they too would view Darwin as a child in a man's body.  Most children, when given all the facts, which ours are not given in public "schools", can see right through his nonsense.

 

But besides that, to suggest that a random lightning strike on the "right chemicals" could produce life, in view of the fact that you know of absolutely nobody who has ever witnessed anything close to this (other than in Frankenstein movies), makes this sheer speculation.  You have not a single fact to support that conclusion.


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter)
> has never been observed. All observations have shown that life only
> comes from life. The theory of evolution conflicts with this law by
> claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural
> processes
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> OK. I have not seen anyone shoot someone else. This means it does not
> happen. This statement is obviously false, yet it is essentially what
> this is arguing.

 

But you aren't the center of the universe.  You have not seen a lot of things which mankind has witnessed which you *know* to be facts, solely because you accept the written word of those who have witnessed things like murder.  You wouldn't dispute that something in the range 24,000 Americans were murdered in 1993, because too many people have witnessed all of these murders and the dead bodies which piled up.

 

Conversely, nobody on the entire planet, in the entire course of human history, has witnessed nor reported spontaneous generation, so the statement is obviously not "obviously false".

 

> Agreed, the abiogenesis is not completely true. It's
> intended purpose (that, say, a rock that turns into a dog cannot
> happen) is. In actuality, I think that biogenesis is going on fairly
> frequently (don't know how frequently), and that we just don't see it
> because:
> a) we're never looking when it happens (when was the last time YOU
> were out looking for the formation of life during a massive
> thunderstorm)
> b) there is already so much life that a few more cells would be
> nearly impossible to detect.
>
> However, in the few hundred years that we've had the microscope, and
> the 125 years (about that, I think...) since Darwin, and the 50 years
> since we have understood the four main biochemicals (protein, lipids,
> nucleaic acids, and something else), we have managed to create not
> life, but organic molecules (those four things) from non-organic
> moleules. I think were are perhaps less then a century away from
> creating life in a lab.
>

 

And in a century, we'll be another century away from doing this, except that at the rate our "education system" is going, in one century, this country will be a millennium away.  This is sheer speculation based on not a single fact, and contrary to common sense.

 


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  A logical observable consequence of Mendel's laws is that there are
> limits to such variations
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> OK. First, are the breeding experiments that "confirm" this carried
> out on the order of several million years? Since humand have been
> around for no more then 3.5 million, I really kind of doubt it.
> Second, to they take into account just the different combination of
> genes, or to they also take into account mutation, crossovers, etc.?
>

 

Human beings have utterly no way to measure 10,000 years accurately, much less a million years, or 3.5 million years.  We're lucky to be able to count generations and measure 4,000 years, or maybe even 6,000 years, but beyond that, any measurement of time is based on original assumptions which could be erroneous enough to throw off the results by multiple orders of magnitude in either direction.  When a "scientist" says that carbon dating estimates the age of a femur from a dynasaur to be 150 million years old, he has utterly no way to know if that femur is actually 1,500 years old, or 1.5 quadrillion years old.  This again is like speculating about what Clark Gable had for breakfast (except that your probability of guessing Clark Gable's breakfast correctly is much higher than the probability of guessing the age of a dynasaur bone).

 

iow, you have no evidence to dispute the Holy Bible's observation that God created man 6,500 years ago.  All you have are highly speculative "scientific" observations which are getting less credible every day, particularly now that DNA rules out the Neanderthal man as an ancestor to homo sapiens http://fathersmanifesto.net/evolution.htm (the last gulp of air for "evolutionists").

 

 


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  In spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection
> over whole millennia, no new species are born
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> Huh? There are no new species? Perhaps this person would care to
> explain why there are several thousand (I think...) species of
> insects...
>

 

The original point is that all of the species, including insects, were created at one time, and no new species has been created since then.  Of the 33 species of sharks, "scientists" speculate that 8 of them have become extinct, but not even a "scientist" would speculate that new species of sharks have been created since then, or that they mutated from one species to another.


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  In other words, the reason dogs don't become as big as elephants,
> much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven't been
> breeding them long enough. Dogs do not have the genetic capacity for
> that degree of change, and they stop getting bigger when the genetic
> limit is reached
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> Yes, sort of. The reason that dogs don't turn into elephants is
> because they are on a completely different arm of the evolutionary
> scale, and have lost this ability that they had where the branches
> with elephants and dogs diverged. This is akin to stating this:
>
> The theory of how the heavier elements came to be is:
> At first, there was mostly hydrogen and helium. As they collected,
> and formed stars and planets, the gravity and reactions combined
> them. As the stars exploded in supernovas, they spewed these heavier
> elements out into space. Now, let's take iron and neon. Both came
> from the same sources. Yet, no matter now hard you try, you cannot
> get iron to turn into neon. Yet, had you gone back to when those were
> first formed into iron and neon, if you moved them around to a
> different environment, the iron could have formed iron, neon, or,
> eventually, even uranium.
>

 

You just argued in favor of the original point that "the genetic capacity for that degree of change", except that even that point has never been demonstrated.  There are NO MISSING LINKS.  We don't have ANY fossils of ANYTHING that represented the mutation of one species into another.  We have IDIOTS who profess to be "scientists" who find a bone from a Neanderthal which they speculate could be the link between Neanderthal and Cro Magnon, which they STUPIDLY speculate became homo sapiens.

 

The problem is that the DNA evidence shows that Neanderthal, Cro Magnon, and homo sapiens are three distinct and separate species, so any such cross breed, if it even ever occurred, met the same fate as the mule.

 


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  Natural selection would then select the most favorable changes,
> allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their benificial
> genes. their offsprings should tend to inherit short reproduction
> cycles and produce many "children." we see the opposite. In general,
> more complex organisms such as humans, have fewer offsprings and
> longer reproduction cycles. Again, observable evidence show that
> variations within existing kinds of organisms are bounded
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> There is a simple explaination for this as well. A short reporductive
> time is beneficial only if the organism is not hampered during this
> time. For a single celled creature, this is very little, and it is
> not hampered much. However, imagine the draw backs if a creature was
> pregnant every few months with the drawbacks that human pregancy
> carries; imagine trying to hunt while pregnant. Obviously, being
> pregnant a lot is a hinderance, not a help. Also, bigger organisms
> need longer life spans, because they need to grow to be that size.
>

 

Which of course assumes that "natural selection" is possible in the first place.  If it were at all possible, it would take millions or billions of years, and you just do not have a single shred of evidence that even one species naturally selected into another species, nor that they've been around for more than about 6,000 years.

 

Bones from one species which "look like" they are some kind of a "missing link" to another species don't constitute scientific evidence.  They give mindless "scientists" the chance to babble on about how smart they are, but they constitute zero evidence of anything, much less of "evolution" or "natural selection".


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among
> preexising characteristics
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> If you ignore the random mutations, crossovers, etc., yes, it only
> selects among preexisting characteristics.
>

 

When something doesn't exist, why shouldn't it be ignored?

 

Obviouisly you never witnessed such "crossovers".  Obviously nobody you know ever witnessed them.  Obviously no human on the planet today ever witnessed them.  Obviously not even fossils of such "crossovers" exist.  This entire argument is based on genetic leaps across the boundaries between species which, if the planet or universe were as old as the "scientists" "think" they are, would have resulted in one single species which was an amalgamation of every species on Earth.

 

The mule is proof that "nature" prevents "crossovers" between species.

 


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  But the observational evidence will not support this argument
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> Oh, I see. So you carried out a million year long experiment.
>

 

Nor did you.

 


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
> adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
> amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
> aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
> freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> A good eye is extremely beneficial to the organism that has one. It
> gives them the ability to hunt in worse conditions, see better in
> good conditions, and therefore get more food. Also, some of the
> points that he mentions are carried out not by genetic mutation, but
> by the brain actually adjusting to the condition of the eye it has to
> work with.
>

 

On that basis, a "good computer" could mutate into a great leader and rule the world.  If  any inanimate object should "evolve" into life, it should be the computer.  Do you think that will happen any time soon?  Our brains are no better at adjusting such things than Socrates' brain was 2,500 years ago.  If anything, this argument proves that brains today are actually inferior to Socrates' brain.


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad
> candidates for survival
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> Against the other birds with good wings, but a bad wing is better
> then no wing at all.
>
>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half
> wing, would fare poorly
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> "Half-wing half-leg"? So their feet turned into wings? So that's why
> birds don't have legs...
>

 

So if birds did have "legs" as you define them, at some point in prehistory, then where are all those fossils of the intermediate, "evolving" species?  You know, the ones with dynasaur legs and bat wings, or the ones with human faces and ape bodies, or horse heads and chicken feet?

 

This evolution soup you take for granted would have made this a strange world.


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles
> today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs,
> trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> How long have you been observing?
>
> Why are fish not growing feet? I fear I may be wrong in this, but
> this is a similar argument to the 'you con't turn a dog into an
> elephant' thing above. Fish are now well enough suited to their
> environment that growing legs would not provide an advantage. Why did
> it? The animals that evolved legs gould not survive as easily as fish
> do today. Why are the reptiles not growing feathers? Partly the same
> argument, partly (though related) because they have a different diet
> due to being in a different environment.
>

 

Not even partly because these different species were *designed* that way?  This is like claiming that the only reason a truck is larger than a Ferrari is because it grew so big through "natural selection".


>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  function of a cilium (cilia are microscopic, hair-like projections
> from the inner wall of our airways), for example, is explored in
> detail
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
>
>
> And this needs what other system to funtion?
>
>
> Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>  The biosynthesis of AMP
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
>
> I believe you mean ATP...
>
>
> Anyway, please correct my mistakes. I cannot claim to have a high
> school diploma, let alone a Ph.D., so I'm sure I made some mistakes.
> As the same time, anyone familliar with evolution could come up with
> just as long a post explaining why evolution is right, and disproving
> creationism. Also, I fear that my Bio 1 class didn't really cover
> that evolution actually is, because they always just said that
> evolution basically is natural selection: things mutate, form new
> combinations of genes, and the best survive.
>
> -EvanED
>

 

While all the time ignoring the only remaining possibility, which is that God created life.

 

======================================================================
>
> Well...there it was! I invited him to debate Bob on KGOV (when Bob
> returns from the trip, of course) and maybe he'll get back to me
> about it, maybe not. BUT... in the meantime... would anybody here
> like to pick this up where it was left off?
>
> It was posted here:
> http://pub19.ezboard.com/fjohnwilliams79197frm5.showMessage?
> topicID=11.topic&index=2
>
> Well, thanks a bunch! Please feel free to enter the debate! If we can
> save some atheists from the well-propagated lie of evolution, we may
> be able to save them from the not-so-so-well-propagated truth of hell.
>
> Bye guys! Keep up the great news reports!!!
>
> -Chris Stevens
> Oswego, NY
>

 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party