Matching Logic Is Always True

Matching logic, is a term I have made up for the very simplest logic that anyone can understand. It is a bit like a tautology or the law of identity, in that when you state it, it almost sounds childish because it is so obvious that what is being said, is true. For example:

In order to ride a bicycle as it is intended, you would need a bicycle rider, to "match" up.

Or in order to eat food, you would need an organism capable of eating it.

I want to show the following in this blog entry;

1. Matching logic is always true.
2. Backwards logic, or mis-matching logic, is always false.

The syllogism would look like this;

1. Matching logic is always true.
2. To design cars, you need a designer, which is matching logic, 
3.THEREFORE it is true. (sound logic)

A LINE OF PROGRESSION

A line of progression, is when you start out with a simple match, and then it steadily builds, as the requirement increases. For example;

1. In order to play basic football, you need a basic, untrained footballer, such as a child playing.
2. In order to get an amateur footballer, you now need an amateur footballer, and a child playing no longer matches up.
3. In order to play professional football you need a professional footballer, and an amateur footballer no longer matches up.

This is a line of progression. At each stage, you have an example of a match, that is true as it matches correctly, but as you progress, a previous match is no longer sufficient. The more you progress, the sillier it becomes to go back to the start. 

CONCLUSIONS:

Just as matching logic is always true, we can now see that mis-matching logic is always false, as it goes in a backwards direction.

Here is a chart showing a line of progression, which I hope you now understand from the football example:

In the above graph we see what I explained. In each instance you will see that as the object in question becomes more sophisticated, LOGICALLY, the more is required, in order to MATCH.

So for example, you only need a child on our line of progression, in order to make simple animal-like play-doh shapes, but in order to get an artistic picture of a bird, you need a person with the matching artistic skill. In order to get a mechanical bird, you need a more intelligent designer, with knowledge to match. To get a real life bird?

The match is easy, if you have exponentially greater design, to match you need an exponentially greater designer.

A real bird is exponentially more sophisticated than anything mankind has or will, ever create, as a design, so then whatever MATCHES must be at least as brilliant in ability, which is a rational inference. But note that on the graph, "natural processes" don't match. On the graph they are lower than a child because a child has a mind, and can at least design some basic things, yet as you see on the graph, it is proposed that something less sophisticated than a child can create real life birds, even though the most intelligent people on earth, CAN'T. (A backwards progression).

When it comes to a real-life bird, you need an unlimited intelligence to MATCH the logic, it has hollow bones, air sacs, circulatory or mass-exchange, two-stroke contraflow breathing system, which is perfect for flying, as it requires less mass.

The reason evolution doesn't match is because it has no intelligence. The reason matching logic is always true is because it is a tautology, and a tautology is defined as the opposite of a contradiction. A contradiction is defined as something that is always false, and a tautology is defined as something that is always true.

Discerning between FACT and FICTION

Yes, the evidence and scientific study pertaining to things such as the age of the universe, are sophisticated studies, but unless people have a BASIC grasp of logic they are not going to see the difference between such matters as FACTS, INFERENCES, CONCLUSIONS and even FICTION.

Lot's of people conflate things such as inference and fact. An inference is something that can be deduced FROM the facts, or there is a PROPOSITIONAL inference, which is PROPOSED to follow from the facts, but is unknown as it can't be tested with absolute certainty, as a fact can be. Macro-evolution is a proposed inference, they propose it can be inferred based on factual studies. There is no mechanism or experiment that can actually tell us whether it really does, "follow", as logically you would need to PROVE it by showing it. A bacteria with a novel design, that never before existed, would prove it. There are no such examples, even though millions of bacteria years pass in only perhaps a couple of centuries of our own time.

Because we're so very PRONE to make mistakes in our own minds, and conflate things this way, we ourselves can, disturbingly, quite easily even conflate a fact with a fict. (I will use the term, "fict" for, "fiction", as opposed to a fact.)

How do we know if we are conflating a fact with a fict?

I am going to define the term, "Fict", as " something mistaken to be a fact when logical rules dictate that it should be tentatively regarded as closer to a fiction because it is a grand claim. "

You might think, "how can anyone make such a mistake?"

It's easier than you think.

My first example of a FICT, is a primordial lifeform.
It is proposed by science that a primordial lifeform or forms, existed, the evidence for such forms will be inductive, which means that you can only find weak evidence that might confirm it but certainly not prove it. To prove it logically you need an example of such a form.

You might say, "that's unfair, why should it need proof". It needs proof because every lifeform, one hundred percent of the data we have, shows that there are only complete lifeforms. The living forms today are all complete and viable design-forms, which is a 100% fact. There is no such thing as a "primordial form" any more than there is such thing as Santa Claus.

It's VERY important, that in our own minds we don't just GRANT truth-value to something because of consistent evidence for it. There is consistent evidence for many things that are not true. Gifts under the Christmas tree would be consistent with Santa. Also, the greater a claim is, the more it needs direct proof. You might say, "why?" Well, think about it - would you believe someone could fly like superman because of evidence? Would you believe aliens visited because of evidence? A rational person WOULD NOT! The only thing anyone in their right mind would accept would be direct 100% proof.

You need proof of a primordial lifeform logically because all of the data shows there is no such thing. You can protest and say, "there might have been such a thing" but you could state that about anything. For example, "there might have been a UFO that visited Mary and an alien that abducted her." Just objecting won't change the fact there is no proof, therefore the burden of proof is upon those making the claim that goes contrary to reality.

FICT 1. A primordial lifeform/s. 
FICT 2. A primordial world.

The second fict is believed to be a fact by many people yet they don't seem to be aware that 100% of the data shows that the earth exists, and has been that way for as long as recorded time. Why should we "grant" that the earth used to be another planet entirely just for the sake of a theory? A primordial world only exists on paper. To assume it exists is to assume it to exist in order so that you can have a primordial lifeform come about from the primordial world. Seeing a pattern yet?

They BELIEVE a primordial world existed, in order to BELIEVE a primordial lifeform came to exist, in order to BELIEVE that this form gave rise to all modern lifeforms trough biological evolution.

The only "fact" in the above statement is, "modern lifeforms". If you think there are more "facts" in the above statement then you are a person that incorrectly CONFLATES terms such as "fact, evidence, inference, proposal, fiction, etc..."

There is no primordial world, nor lifeforms and there is no proof there ever was, only scanty clues that might be consistent with the proposal. The only genuine facts show that to get a lifeform you need biological programming, DNA information, and a whole host of contingency plans for the engineering problems you get from designing them to be viable.

It's of VITAL importance to remember that I am only stating known-facts.

FICT 3. Fict 3 is the belief that a lifeform can come to exist in the right conditions as opposed to reality, which shows that in the right conditions, only existing lifeforms exist, that are already in existence, as proved by the earth, right now, as a real-life proof. Usually they SWITCH the conditions, they SAY that to get life, you need the life to be different from the lifeforms we now have, and that the conditions of the world also have to be different.

1. That is a cunning way of removing the fact that REAL lifeforms don't come to exist in the right conditions.
2. It replaces reality with fictional versions of reality.

People FORGET, we have an earth right now that is perfect for life, and we have real lifeforms that live on that earth, and do we see lifeforms arising in those perfect conditions? No, only already-existing forms!

So right now, we have an earth with the right conditions, and there are ZERO, that is 0% examples of REAL life springing up. 100% of the data shows that all lifeforms in the right conditions, are ALREADY-EXISTING lifeforms, that have not arisen by chance but by reproduction of DNA information through replication.

ALL 3 fallacious FICTS are abysmally refuted, by notation of logic, and a simple ability of SEPARATING genuine reality and facts from fictional stories that ALLEGEDLY happened.

Design Critics

The problem with design critics, is they usually don't have any qualifications in design, or have never designed something themselves. I myself have some experience of rudimentary design, I have designed toy parts, such as simple wheel axles and various wooden toys.

There are THREE MAIN ISSUES with evolutionists that play down design that need addressing.

1. Induction. (Non Sequiturs) Evolutionists jump to conclusions based on a lack of information. This is easy to do, anyone can do it, whether you are evolutionist or creationist or neither inclined.

2. The double standard. (Ignoring the science of Biomimetics for example.)

3. Inability to understand design, (pretending they are wiser, by playing the hypothetical designer)


I will now fully explain issues 1, 2 and 3.

With induction, the mistake is to jump to conclusions about designs because they SEEM to us to be either inefficient, or of a poor standard, but usually because of the inherent IDEAS within designs, that are only known to the designer then it can be easy to miss things. I saw an old fashioned pickle fork shaped seemingly incorrectly, one of the blades of the fork was fatter than the others, it looked clumsy and it looked like a designer-error so I myself jumped to that conclusion because the reason for the thicker blade was obscure. Obscure or hidden data can influence our conclusions. In fact the fork was meant to be that way, I later found out.

2, the double standard. Evolutionists accept biomimetics as a field of science and would likely say that the designs in nature are marvelously brilliant and genius - after all, this field involves taking supreme designs from nature and using them to use in our own technology, because they are better than the solutions that human designers can come up with. So evolutionists will praise the design-standard in nature ONLY IF they can give that praise to evolution, BUT - if it is supposed that a Master Designer is responsible for the designs, then the evolutionist will quickly go back to trying to say that the standard of design in nature is poor. But Biomimicry PROVES deductively, that the design standard in nature is incredibly high through the process of Reductio ad Absurdum in obedience to the modus tollens rule, as shown in the following syllogism;

SOUND SYLLOGISM:
- IF design was of a poor standard in nature, it could not be used in our technology.
- It is used in our technology, 
- ERGO design in nature is not of a poor standard. 

3. The final problem with the way the evolutionist thinks is the most remarkable one. They actually tell you what the designer should have done pertaining to a particular design they deem to be a poor design. This particular tactic is known logically as a vacuous truth, or a vacuous statement.

A vacuous truth is an argument that has very little value because it depends on something which is either false, or can never be true. So for example here is a vacuous argument;

"If I were superman, I would fly to the moon."

Now this statement is certainly true - I would in fact fly to the moon if I was superman, but it is of very little meaning because I will never be superman.

In the same way, no matter how clever evolutionist scientists may seem, they are not capable of designing a human being in the first place, so they can't tell us what would be a better design of human because they haven't managed to make a better design that is not plagiarized from the original one. (i.e. Nobody has designed a human being, no person can or would, because it would be a miracle because a human being is so far beyond our design-ability that it is impossible, so an evolutionist is not qualified to even comment on what makes a human work.)

If evolutionists COULD design a human which they can't, then unlike God they would design the body differently, for their own reasons based on ignorance, a lack of data and the assumptions that their own biases have some kind of truth in reality. In reality, the designs in place are there because they are the best design-solutions in a viable context pertaining to all of the complex problems of anatomy and biology. So the most important thing I can tell you, as a rudimentary and basic designer of some experience, is that you should remember that all the organisms on this planet have been and are, as designs, viable, regardless of what the evolutionists say. That there are obscure reasons for particular designs being morphologically and apparently inefficient does not mean they are designed poorly in the least, it just means evolutionists are arrogant to presume they know better when they cannot as of yet even create one simple lifeform.