Friday, 20 December 2013

God's Omnipotence

 I believe the original biblical meaning of what is meant by an all-powerful God, is perhaps not a logical definition but a descriptive one. It describes that one aspect of God, one attribute He has, is that He is not limited in any meaningful way.

What do we mean when we say that God can do anything, or that anything is possible with God? What is meant by a thing? Firstly, a "thing" has to be something that means something. When God can't do something, it isn't in the same way that we can't do something. When we can't do something, it might hinder us, but when God can't do something, it does not hinder Him.

So when atheists say that God can't exist, as omnipotence is not possible, this becomes a nonsense, in that anything that God can't do is only a meaningless thing, or a hypothetical thing that has no sense to it, such as a rock too heavy for God to lift.


We can safely conclude that even if God can't do everything, technically, the things He can't do don't make Him any less God. In a sense it's just that even His limits don't truly limit Him. So in any meaningful sense, they aren't limits. For example, if I were to say to you, "I am limited in my breathing, as I can't breathe in solids", has this ever really limited my freedom to breathe? Only in a vacuous sense. OR, "I can't make a trip to Saturn today." Would we pretend that it is a limitation in any meaningful way? THIS IS THE SENSE in which God is "limited", for want of a better word. These limits, aren't limits in that He would never need or want to do anything He can't do, nor would it therefore affect His autonomy. So if He can't lie, this will never hinder His plans, as they would never involve lies or sin. It's a limit, that isn't really a limit.

Moreover, if then, logically, a potato is limited to being a solid, then your drinking abilities aren't truly hindered if you can't drink a potato, ERGO the potato is limited to being a solid. In the same way, if God can't do something, it means the thing itself is limited, or imperfect in some way, rather than God.

The things that supposedly limit God, really are limited things themselves.

Imagine if we had a game, you have ten seconds, to make three-letter words out of three letters. 3 points for each success, you versus God.


Imagine, you scored 9 points, and God scored 9 points. Would this mean that God is limited, or that the game was limited? You could argue that God can't outscore you but this is because the game is too simple, so it says nothing about what God can or can't do. It would be like saying that a professional footballer was limited because you could also score an open goal, like he can.

Here is my challenge, can you think of anything that would hinder God, in any meaningful way, without it first being something that is imperfect or limited, of itself? A corruption?

Example; If God can't lie, then lying itself is something that is a perversion, something LESS than that which is fully attainable, (the truth). Therefore it is something limited and broken, and it says nothing about God, that He can't do it.

So my conditional implication reads thus;

If something is perfect in all it's ways, then it follows that to conclude it is imperfect means that either your argument is unsound, or the thing by which it is predicated that He is imperfect, is actually imperfect.

Thursday, 28 November 2013

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, 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. 


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.

Wednesday, 30 October 2013

The separation of Biological evolution and Abiogenesis

Evolutionists will commonly argue that creationists indulge in a mistake in thinking when they conflate biological evolution with abiogenesis.

However, this whole issue is actually an example of passing-the-book, through a subtle fallacy called Begging-The-Question.

It is actually an implication of biological evolution, that if biological evolution happened, you would need to start out with some form of simple organism, for the alleged evolution to act upon.

Therefore, to ask evolutionists for their theory to explain how this is possible, is actually a sound request.

To solve this evolutionary stumbling block, scientists have separated the two topics, in a subtle way, so that people are tricked into believing that abiogenesis is a separate matter, rather than being the love-child of evolution. The fact is, biological evolution gave birth to abiogenesis and then gave up abiogenesis, for adoption.

Imagine a government were in office, and to avoid taking the blame they said, "we are in this mess now because of the previous government, as we inherited this mess, therefore we had to take these drastic measures we are now taking".

As you can see, it can be hard to spot the mistake in their argument. The mistake is that they have secretly assumed that their policy was correct, by blaming the previous governmental body. It is a sleight of hand, as in reality, another policy might have prevented the present mess.

CONCLUSION: Since biological evolution directly implies the problem of an abiogenesis, it is answerable for it, as without biological evolution, nobody would have to deal with an abiogenesis, therefore an abiogenesis is only a result of an assumption that biological evolution happened. It's circular, to prove bio you assume abio, to prove abio you assume bio. And round and round it goes, therefore nobody has to keep the ball, they just throw it to eachother. What is the ball, Watson? The ball is immense design-complexity. It can't be answered for, abiogenesis woefully fails, and biological evolution passes the problem back to abiogenesis.


In order to biologically evolve, you need an abiogenesis of a first form, an ultimate ancestor.
In order to have an abiogenesis, you need a biological evolution.(because it is only invoked because of evolution, obviously a creation-model doesn't require it)
ERGO you need abiogenesis in order for biological evolution to be true, and you need biological evolution in order for abiogenesis to be true.

The only point of abiogenesis is to have a first lump of clay for evolution to work on. Without evolution, there isn't a need for abiogenesis because then organisms would be explained as coming into being fully formed and complex. So the circularity of the syllogism is unavoidable.

One thing is clear, abiogenesis is a monstrously absurd belief that is only granted on evolution's behalf, and everyone knows it, evos and creos alike. Think about it, even if you have compelling evidence of evolution, it couldn't have happened because abiogenesis clearly didn't. So you can see WHY evolutionists want to disassociate themselves from the abiogenesis-belief system, otherwise they have to admit that evolution is at least partially, a belief-system.

Clever evolutionists will protest against the premise that you need evolution to be true in order to have an abiogenesis, but if they are intellectually honest, they will concede that abiogenesis is only an implication of evolution. Darwin's warm pond that created a protein, is an excuse for his theory, because there is no reality to an ultimate ancestor, don't tell me that trees, fleas, peas and hairy knees are ultimately descended from an ancestor, without proving it!

Sunday, 20 October 2013

An Appearance of Design

Evolutionists, as far as I know, don't have a defense of the assertion, that there is an appearance of design in organisms, other than to say, as far as I know, "because we see that we evolved". Now if I am wrong and there is an argument from appearance, that makes sense, please forgive me because I have never heard it. As far as I know it is simply an empty-headed assertion that has no meat on it's bones.

Let's think of it for a moment. When we have a design, then the parts in the system lead to an overall function. If we had parts that didn't lead to a function, or a function that didn't really need parts, then logically you would have an appearance of design.

For example, if I had a watch, that looked like any other watch, but it had no functioning parts, it would APPEAR to be a watch but would not be one.

Now obviously a watch, or any design, is easy to show as a design by it's parts and it's ultimate purpose or function. Here are some examples;

- a car has parts arranged in order for it to ultimately drive. That is why it's designed.
- a helicopter has parts and very specific, balanced, calculated structures, to make it fly.
- an eye has specific parts arranged very precisely to make it see.

The "design" of these FACTUAL examples, is logically BEYOND dispute, as we have all of the elements that make them designed.

So it's not enough to simply assert that an eye appears to be designed, because an eye shares the aforementioned elements, with artificial designs.

If you were to say an eye appears to be designed, you would also have to treat the artificial design in the same way otherwise it is a double standard, therefore you would have to say, "a helicopter only appears to be designed".

Because the argument of the appearance of design is so poor that it's really not even an argument, it is easy to refute it in a second way, logically, you simply transpose what the argument is predicated on, onto the element in question.

Therefore, evolutionists are saying that an eye only appears to see. Birds only appear to fly, ears only appear to hear..

Friday, 18 October 2013

The Burden Of Proof

I think I have the correct understanding of the burden of proof, whereas I have heard foggy misunderstandings of it. It isn't a matter of the positive or negative, but it is upon the claim that goes contrary to ESTABLISHED reality unless each claim is equal. (Like two witnesses, one person's word against the others'.)

For example, if I were to claim, "I am NOT human", would the burden of proof be upon you, to prove the positive, to the contrary? No it would not. It would be upon me to prove the negative because all of the established facts show that I am human. Therefore, you have to follow the burden, NOT the positive. It can, in some cases, be difficult to prove a negative but that is only part of the problem, not the whole of it.

We must now combine two accurate axioms.

1. The greater a claim, the greater the burden of proof. 
2. The burden of proof is upon the claim that goes against established reality.

Let's say I made a claim that I could fly exactly in the same manner as superman. Firstly, it is a great claim, because the laws of physics have not been shown to be broken, inductively. Secondly, the burden of proof is upon me. The requirement would also NOT be evidence, the requirement would be PROOF. If I was not able to prove it, then logically the onus would ONLY ALWAYS be upon me to continually evidence it. For example, many photographs of me flying like superman, and many eyewitnesses, would NOT be enough.

What can we conclude?

1. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have for a great claim, it doesn't prove it.
2. You NEVER release yourself from the burden of proof because of the size of the claim.
3. You need to prove it for it to become true knowledge.

With these things in mind, it is inescapable that the theory of evolution is a grand claim. To say that ultimately, somewhere down the line, trees are related to fleas and hairy knees, is no small claim. To say a land mammal slowly can change into a whale, is no small claim. ERGO, the burden of proof, though placed on the Creationists shoulders through assertion, is actually, logically, not upon the person that believes that whales have always begotten whales, and humans, humans. These things require no empirical evidence, in order to believe them. But to believe a quadruped mammal evolved eventually into a whale, is not only a monumentally great claim, but it requires exponentially MORE evidential and logical steps, than the mere reproduction of a whale.

To claim humans have begotten humans is 100% observed induction, to claim molecules-to-man is 0%. To say the burden of proof is upon me for saying humans have always been human, is silly, because I am merely describing a fact of reality, whereas to say molecules-to-man evolution should be accepted as proven fact, is fallacious. The burden of proof is upon the great claim, that goes against reality, reality shows 100% of humans begetting humans.

Wednesday, 21 August 2013

Slavery in the bible is not evil

'Unfortunately the term "slavery" is generally used by secularists, atheists, et al, as an all-inclusive epithet. The term itself carries loaded, emotive power, simply the heading of this blog will seem outrageous because of the power of the word in peoples minds and their associating it with great evil. Another famous and common epithet used is, "homophobia". When someone hears the term, "homophobic", the Christian is AUTOMATICALLY guilty BY ASSOCIATION with the term. All thought and wisdom is then ignored point blank. This is the unfortunate mis-use of words in place of arguments, called question-begging-epithets.'

There is actually a deductive proof (beyond dispute), that slavery does not make God morally evil, for those that are still willing to employ their brains before judging a matter.

An atheist asked me, "is slavery evil?" Of course, his definition of slavery will depend on what he was trying to achieve by arguing with me.

So if "all slavery is moral evil", then the keeper of gimps should go to jail.

The flaw in the atheist argument against the bible, is that it ignores the fact that the type of slavery was largely a voluntary system of employment for poor people and debtors, at a particular time of history that lacked any sophisticated social welfare and civilisation.

But whatever your position is, logically, if it can be shown that slavery is not always evil, then this proves that it does not necessarily follow that slavery = evil.

-If slavery is dependent upon type, then it follows that there is not necessarily a moral evil involved if slavery is present.                    
-The slave-trade was a brutal, racist event, of clear moral evil.
-The bible is an example of a rudimentary system of servitude for the benefit of both parties, ERGO there is no moral evil presented.

Logically, it is an indisputable argument, because it can be shown through deductive reasoning, that there is an equivocation of the term, "slavery".

Saturday, 27 July 2013

Evolution is not a Fact

There are two types of facts;
  1. Common Facts. (Obvious, established, none-falsifiable realities)
 2. Scientific Facts. (Temporary, changeable, falsifiable observations).

The public are tricked when people say to them, "Evolution is a fact." The problem is that such a statement is filled with loaded terminology designed to make you believe that you are being told in no uncertain terms that macro-evolution is 100% true. Common facts are established truths. I myself have never rejected a common fact. An example is a mountain. A mountain is a common fact as it is an established reality that can no longer be falsified as the truth-value of it's existence is beyond dispute, only an insane person would argue that a mountain is not true. Other common facts are obvious, there are trees, people, the moon, the sun, and so forth.  But a scientific fact is something that can be dropped if a new scientific theory comes along or a new piece of data disproves it. So already you can see how that statement that evolution is a fact is pretty deceptive, and we can see an ulterior motive.

 1. What do they mean by "evolution"?
 2. What do they mean by, "fact"?

 You see, they know that you know that facts have to be accepted as true, otherwise you are deemed to be a lunatic. It is not possible to rationally argue against common facts, so the statement is there to SCARE you into accepting macro-evolution. Also there are two types of evolution. 1. Adaptation,of animals, a common fact and;  2. Macro evolution, Molecules-to-man change, a proposal/claim. when you dig up a supposedly 300 million year old pine tree and it is pretty much the same as a modern, living Pine tree, you have logically, 100% deductively proven that between now and 300 million years ago, micro-evolution has NOT led to macro-evolution. So the illogic that says that lots of micro proves macro is a fact, is DISPROVEN. Because if I said that lots of cheese eating would lead to certain death and an example is given that it did not lead to death, then you have proven that it was a non-sequitur that does not necessarily follow. ERGO, logically it does not follow that macro evolution CERTAINLY comes through micro-evolution. (to disagree you might as well disagree that if you jump from a cliff, you would fall to the ground, it's an implication of gravity, like my finding is an implication of deductive reasoning). 

So we can conclude that not only is macro-evolution not a common fact but that even if it is a scientific fact, this does not mean it is true, it just means it is portrayed that way.

 Disclaimer: Of course this blog does not technically prove that macro evolution is false as that is another topic but the law of the excluded middle shows that if two opposites are proposed and one of them is true, then the other is false. Since design in Creation is true, then evolution is false, I will give an example now of the excluded middle;

Either Jack killed Jill or Paul killed Jill, as only one person killed her, and only two possible people did it.
Jack did kill Jill THEREFORE Paul did NOT.

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

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.

Thursday, 21 March 2013

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;

-> 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.

Thursday, 7 February 2013

Can science dictate truth?

What sorts out what is true, or a fact? Does science sort it out? So, for example, if you believe the science of evolution is factual, is it then true?

Science only deals with uncovering facts through a method, or evidence for a hypothesis, but to figure out what qualifies as true or a fact, we use our thinking to deduce and discern.

LOGIC tells us if something is a fact or if something is true, or more precisely, it tells us what would qualify as a fact or as true. NOT science.

People MISS this, because they think that what the scientists are telling them is truth(TM), there is a tremendously general, sloppy thought process amongst the public, because they accept the following axiom;

"What the scientist tells me must be true, as it is science".

Logic tells us that this is an appeal to authority.

The public's ignorance is incredible. Science is the history of false things, if anything. Look back 70 years ago, and everything "science" told you back then has likely been thrown out of "science" by the scientists of today.

Monday, 21 January 2013

Qualifying Design and therefore a Designer

"How do we qualify, or find out, whether something is designed, if we do not have a designer present, or we don't know if we can infer a designer for sure?"

I believe the only sound logical way to answer that question with 100% certainty, not 99%, is to look at GENUINE designs, that we KNOW to have designers, and see what qualifies them as being designed by designers in the first place.  If we know that then we will know whether something is designed if it has the same qualities.

There are 3 fundamental qualifiers that we observe from human designs or technology;

1. Construction from materials of which such natural properties never contain.
2. Contingency-plans.
3. Function leading to specific or even obscure purpose.

So now let's look at KNOWN designs. (Remember, there is no argument as to whether there are designers.)

A car. It is constructed from metals and plastics and various materials. Such natural properties do not naturally lead to such specific constructions. Metal of itself, will never arrange itself into complex and specific shapes such as a chassis or a carburetor.

A car has windscreen wipers. This is a contingency plan. It took a designer to THINK with foresight, in order to FORESEE that when it rains, the driver of the car will not be able to continue to drive. Of course, a car, or any known designed-thing is full of such contingencies.

And finally, a car is constructed to drive, and have a driver, to get a person from one place to another. This is it's function leading to it's ultimate and specific purpose. That is WHY it has an engine and wheels, etc, in order to roll on roads. That ultimate purpose is obscure, because if a person from the 15th century saw a car they would perhaps not be able to establish the purpose of the thing or how it functioned.

CONCLUSION: This is how we know something is designed by designers, from looking at things we know to be CERTAINLY designed.

My next question is; "How do we determine between something that is designed by a designer, and something that only APPEARS to be designed? An appearance of design."

I believe the reasonable answer is that something that only appears to be something, will, at some level, FAIL to qualify as the thing it claims to be, such as the example of the robots that are claimed to be sentient or human. After half an hour people were asked if they were communicating with a real person. The vote was unanimous - nobody believed they were communicating with a real person.

My final question is this; "Are organisms designed, or do they have an appearance of design only given by evolution?"

Organisms are constructed from material that doesn't ordinarily consruct itself.(1) Certain elements have not been known to ever arrange themselves into complex structures such as those found in a living cell such as amino acids.  Stick a dead frog in a blender and wait forever, the natural properties in that mixture is everything that makes a frog, but a frog will never be made because those natural properties simply don't create living cells, like metal does not naturally construct itself into a car chassis.

Secondly, organisms have contingencies.(2) When we cut ourselves, our blood clots, and our wounds heal; the cascade. We have eye lids to blink, and stop foreign objects getting in etc.. Every organism has  a whole host of contingency plans just like with known designs otherwise there would not be complete and viable systems in place. All organisms ever known to exist were viable, so they had a whole host of contingency plans, otherwise they simply wouldn't work. Let's not be vague, the facts show organisms have PLANS. What plans, specifically? Only intelligence!

Lastly, all organisms have functions that lead to ultimate or even obscure purpose. We have legs in order to walk, fish have fins and gills in order to swim, birds have wings in order to fly. Function = purpose. Wheels to a car are as legs to a person. Windscreen wipers to a car are as eye lids to a person. etc...


Organisms qualify as being designed on all three fundamental levels by looking at what makes something we know to be designed, designed. Logically, the requirements for a designer have been demonstrated.

1. Foresight for contingency plans
2. Ability to construct that which does not construct itself.
3. Ideas and plans for specific design goals such as flight, aerodynamics as an example.

Final conclusion: Evolution does not have the ability to design life. Evolution is an inadequate solution. If you believe organisms designed themselves by evolution, logically you MUST also reason that human technology did not have a designer. If you argue one, you must argue the other, as they both qualify as the same, in that they are both designed.