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.