The Fossil Order

Over-emphasis on the Fossil order of organisms, can sometimes be conflated with the evolution theory.

Evolutionists will commonly ask, "Why isn't there a human in the Cambrian rocks?"

It can be hard to spot the fallacy, but it's a conflation of a theory with actual evidence. It can SEEM to favour evolutionists, but then that is the real trick isn't it.

Logically I can prove it doesn't favour evolution. on the below diagram I show a table with some balls I have scattered on to the table randomly. I have then split the table-top into three sections, and now, at a later stage somebody has come along and theorized that there is an order to the balls. That they tend to go, left to right, from red colour to blue, and then to green. If the person that believed that theory then said, "now you must show a green ball to be  found in the Pre-Cambrian section of the table!", would they be right to make that demand?

They would be wrong because I actually wouldn't find a green ball in the Pre-Cambrian section of the table, because none were scattered there, and where they were scattered has nothing to do with their theory, which came after the scattering, and is a separate matter, logically.

As you can see, the order of the balls has nothing to do with the theory of an order of balls. And in the very same way, evolution has nothing to do with what types of organism you will find in Cambrian rock. You can CLAIM there is an evolutionary reason for it, but as you see with my example, even if you can't find things you want to find, "out of place" this in itself proves precisely nothing.

You will never find a human in the Cambrian era because they did not happen to be preserved there. Largely marine life is preserved in that era. ( just like you wouldn't expect me to prove to you that you would find meat in a vegetarian restaurant but if you didn't know it was vegeterian when we entered the restaurant, that would be far more impressive. (predictive as opposed to none-predictive.)

Like with the restaurant, we already know the order of fossils. 

The Fossil Order and the Ideal Archetypes both preceded Darwin's theory, and are both posteriori (after the knowledge) facts. These two posteriori set of facts are now conflated, and the fossil order is synonymous with an evolutionary order, and ideal archetypes are now referred to as homologies. But as you can see, both set of facts were known before evolution and shouldn't be regarded as examples of evolution.

The Three Evolutionary Falsehoods Evolution Hides Behind

There are three major lines of evidence that don't fit with the claims of the evolution theory. (Please note we are speaking under logical notation, and what it demands, via objective scrutiny).

1. FIXITY. The lack of general change marked in the fossils. (Example; Trees, plants, animals, we can find a large degree of living organisms preserved in the record, that have basically remained the same kind of life-form over vast supposed eons of time, with only superficial changes).

2. LACK of supposed transitional lineages, in some cases, there isn't even a proposed ancestor, an example could be a monophyletic organism, with no relatives there, to claim ancestry. Darwin cited the missing forms that should have been there.

3. HOMOPLASY. When common ancestors can't be invoked because of homologous structures such as echolocation in bats, oil birds and dolphins, this evidence proving that it is a non sequitur to assume similar morphology = evolution.

Now here is the NAMES evolutionists give the three contradicting lines of evidence;

1. "Evolutionary" stasis. (Yet "stasis" = no evolution present!)
2. "Transitional" species. (Naming a species to be in transition, rather than proving it is one)
3. "Evolutionary" convergence. (Homoplasy, and of course, divergence would be through homology). (Yet examples such as this shows that similarities in creatures can be irrelevant, i.e. Not evolutionarily linked.)

Logically the problem is that you are taking evidence that goes against the evolution theory, and putting name-tags on the evidence. Superimposing an evolutionary meaning when objectively speaking, such evidence is counter to evolution.

Think of it like this; Imagine a woman gave birth to a son but she wanted a daughter very badly, so she called him by a girls name. Imagine she then penned onto his penis the word, "vagina", and she let his hair grow long. Logically, would this make the boy a girl? The answer is no.

Whether you call it homologous structures or you call them similar via convergence, the point is, the designs in animals don't show any evolutionary trends, any animal, at any time, can "break" the evolution story by being where it shouldn't really be. Mammals for example, such as Whales and Dugongs, should not be there but they are, or the Platypus, or our examples of echolocation.

The diversity of the organisms of creation, show no evolutionary history, just a sporadic display of unlimited imagination. Just when you think there is an evolutionary rule, it is broken, and they will find something silly, that is just way out of place.

If creation is true, the diversity should be expected and the rules should be broken, and we find both! Putting an evolution-tag on such evidence, won't fool wise people.

Isn't the rejection of evolution the rejection of science and evidence?

It's understandable that many people believe that to not accept biological evolution happened is to reject science/evidence. But if you reject apples, does that mean you reject all fruit?

If you reject the one part of an apple that is bruised, does that mean you reject the whole apple, and therefore reject all fruit?

People that accept creation, and reject evolution, what they really reject is the final conclusions of the theory of evolution. All of the investigative science and evidence that has went in to the evolution-theory, is largely accepted as true. For example, we accept that adaptation happens to species, that they can become specialized, that there can be beneficial mutations.

If evolution-theory is an apple, then we reject a bite of that apple, the bruised part of the apple. This does not mean that you have to reject the whole apple, and therefore all fruit.

WHAT IS EVIDENCE? (Do we reject it?)

The parts we reject are the final conclusions, that must be treated as very great claims. This in itself means that logically and even scientifically, the evidence-demand GROWS. Evidence DIFFERS greatly, even the very same evidence can differ in value, depending on what your theory claims. You may think, "that's wrong", so I will give an easy example. Imagine we had the same evidence, a photograph of you flying like superman. We have one theory that you faked it, and one theory that you were a real-life superman. The evidence could be tenuous for one theory but strong for the other. Why is that? It's because the greater a claim is, the greater the evidence must be to support it. To claim that ultimately, trees, somewhere down the line, are related to fleas, is an astronomical claim by Darwin. So the evidence also must be astronomical. In reality, the evidence is not astronomical. Even Darwin admitted as to the poor areas of evidence for his theory. The burden of proof is still upon his theory, in these areas, and the default conclusion should be the null.

If  evolution (X) is true Then (Y) evidence should follow, (Y) evidence follows, therefore evolution is true.(X) --(Affirmation of the Consequent).

The above form of argument isn't an attempt to say that evolutionists are arguing the fallacy, but I am showing the fallacy only to point out how evidence does not prove a theory is true. An inductive tally of confirmation evidence would allow a theory to be viable, given scientific rules, rather than true. A simple example is if you have a theory that only red balls are in a bag, and each time you pick out a red ball, this evidences your claim. If you pick out 50 red balls, this confirms your theory but doesn't prove it, because the 51st ball could be blue.

Part of the problem with evidence is that there is a spectrum of evidence. Not all evidence has the same value. An example is easy, just imagine the missing link came wandering out of the forest, extant, and could even speak a few words, an upright ape. This, as evidence would be so powerful as to be incontrovertible, but merely finding a somewhat interesting skull, from an extinct-osaur, would be tenuous inductive evidence, circumstantial. It would "fit" your theory, but it might fit any number of theories. What's even worse is that transitionals change like fashion so all the original transitions would now not even be regarded as transitions by evolutionists themselves. A prime example of weak evidence!

DIRECT EVIDENCE (FACTS, in the colloquial sense of the word.)

The immense design-complexity of living organisms is staggering to the point that it is almost incomprehensible. Think for a moment, every single design in every organism has a whole host of engineering problems that arise from that organism existing, and every single problem is solved (millions), and every single organism successfully replicates.

. The complexity of life does not fit evidentially, with the theory of evolution, and it's simple mechanisms are incomparably inferior to an omniscient mind, in direct comparison. To accept simple mechanisms over such a mind, is to betray the direct evidence that SHOWS that to get these organisms you would need, creativity, extreme intelligence, foresight to solve problems that arise, unlimited imagination.

Does evolution have these attributes? To say such design-problems would NOT be solved if you have extreme intelligence, is foolish. To say contingency plans could not be put in place if you had foresight, is again pointless. Let's face it, we all know that such attributes match the evidence and would explain all of it.

 When we hear scientists say things such as, "the genius of evolution" you have to remember that they are indulging in anthropomorphism, which happens when you give inanimate or none-human things, human characteristics. This anthropomorphic tendency on their part, does not prove that evolution has ANY matching abilities, what they have actually done is merely super-impose God's glory onto their theory. (i.e, they admit, by accident, that such design requires genius, which would actually come from God, and they instead offer praise to their theory, for accomplishing the feat they are observing.) But evolution has no genius or foresight, because it has no mind. People will also say, "the body is so clever". But the body, apart from your brain, has no consciousness. Any cleverness came from an outside source.