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.

SYLLOGISM:

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.