Saturday, 27 December 2014

What I Mean By UNCHANGED Animals (For Will)

Will, I have drawn a picture for you. Like most evolutionists you think I don't understand evolution, but in the picture I have represented the correct claims of evolution, in the green-zone. Notice the actual facts are drawn in the pink-zone.

Yes, we know evolution can incorporate the pink-zone into it's theoretics and rather amusingly, call it 'evolutionary -stasis', but the point is, the actual facts we find are shown in the pink zone. The green zone can represent conjecture, speculation, fantasy, or fiction.

My point is that on a LOGICAL level, yes, evolution can cope with stasis, but notice the facts only show it. So THIS is why the unchanged organisms are so important. Here I have drawn a Coelecanth as our representative, but you could use any organism on the list of basically unchanged organisms. Here is the picture:

So as you can see, I don't misunderstand evolution, I just give it it's logical value, compared with deductive, proven facts. (Little value) Here is the list of unchanged lineages. (notice on the picture there are several lineages, but the one that matters logically as deductive proof, is in the pink zone)Those other evolutionary lineages are propositional, but the lineage of Colecanth-Coelecanth, is INDISPUTABLY PROVEN.

LIST of unchanged lineages:

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)

(There would be green-zones for all of these, TOO, so I don't misrepresent evolution, as it is represented in the picture.) as I explained at the EFF forum message #67 of The unchanged list of organisms, thread, when we find an Ambulocetus, and the other representatives of whale-evolution, these would be in the green-area, LOGICALLY, because they don't prove it happened that way, it is only a proposition, and these lineages sometimes change, as evolutionists change their minds about lineages, PROVING they only have propositional, speculative value. but when you find a fossil of a Coelecanth unchanged, and they still live today, you would have a lineage that is 100% proven, because at least one lineage MUST have led to the modern Coleecanth.

M U S T have. There is NO OTHER possibility. This is of overwhelming logical importance. Because you could fiddle all day long with the green-zone, and evolutionists do, changing it, changing their minds, etc..but you can't change the pink zone, as it is a PROVEN lineage.

So the actual facts, support Created Kinds. (Baramins)

Sunday, 3 August 2014

More About The Fossil Order

Daren Hew (an objective agnost) said: "There are many other phyla that you wont find in the Cambrian. You wont find any bony fish or shark teeth in Cambrian strata for example, despite the existence of said fossils in upper strata. (There are plenty of bottom-dwelling bony fish, like flatfish that didn't get preserved in Cambrian fossil beds)"

I would say though, that since there are thousands of marine forms, should we expect a few not being there to be all that relevant? There would have been perhaps more that were obliterated. I mean, eventually, chance alone is going to create the possibility of certain burials based on whatever creatures were in that place of the particular deposition. If we DON'T assume long-ages, then the sharks in the upper-layers would also have been alive along with the organisms in the Cambrian, if most or all of the layers were part of the same flood. So logically, really all we need is sharks to be present, in any layer, if all of the layers were laid down at the same time, over weeks and months, by inundation. 

It depends on how we interpret the record. Most creation-scientists argue that fish can escape, and indeed fish are fast, but slow-movers don't. Nevertheless there is evidence of vertebrates in the Cambrian. Here are the links to the scientific articles:


"However, just last year a team of nine scientists reported well-preserved fossils of two different kinds of agnathan fish from China found in Lower Cambrian strata.10,11 The fossils are described as ‘the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found’,11 and extend the fossil range of fish by at least 20 and possibly 50 million years in evolutionary thinking. Vertebrates had now been found at the base of the Cambrian along with all the other multi-celled animals."

Quote From:

If the Cambrian, upper or lower, does not express a significant passage of time, then to find a vertebrate in the Cambrian would be enough to prove they existed at the same time of the other marine organisms, if the Cambrian is not an "era". So I can't just ASSUME the truth of the Cambrian being an evolution "era" as that would be to assume what evolutionists have to prove, on their behalf.

No but rather, it is usually requested we provide an, "out of place" fossil. This is impossible if none can be found, but even when on occasions they can be found, the scientists will then conclude the following type of reasoning:

For example they might say: "So now we have to understand how vertebrates evolved earlier".

So those who say, "show me X and this will falsify evolution", well, that's been done before and when we find X they change the goal posts.

What tends to happen, is they then request you score through another goal they create. If there is a request to find something in the Cambrian, and if it is at the top, the request will then change to, "now show me something at the bottom of the Cambrian". Pollen is found Pre-Cambrian because it is small. Surely that is enough? But the evidence is ignored, probably regarded as inexplicable, because it's only one example. (Yet Nye and the likes tell us we only need one example? Can you see the problem yet?)

All of this is assuming that the fossil record is an evolution record. Please note, we are just seeing fully formed known-forms, not an evolution in rocks. After all what are we discussing? We are discussing things that have always existed. Fish, sharks, pollen, etc....what has this got to do with evolution? Nothing.

So the "pushing back evolution" when it is "out of place" is common. It was thought mammals rose after the dinosaurs but now they are found in their bellies, you will get statements such as, "surprisingly mammals were already well developed at this stage" (example of reasoning). There is some evidence of birds in bellies of dinos too, and apparently some pre-dated dinos. (Or so I heard, IIRC)

One has to ask, logically - how many push-backs do we allow? At what stage can evolution be falsified if it is so plastic that it can be pushed back infinitely? Because we keep finding fully-formed, unchanged, sophisticated and therefore, "modern" forms. Eyes, like sophisticated Trilobite-eyes. Pollen, mammal-hair, unchanged organisms such as Jellyfish or snails, and all types of every order.

The additional problem is the apriori and posteriori claims, which highlights the difference between predictive evidence and post-knowledge evidence.

The fossil order was generally known when Darwin formed his theory, so he didn't predict the evolutionary order, he actually based it on the already-known fossil order. This is posteriori-evidence.(None-predictive)

But if he were to make a prediction that for example, "we will find intermediatesof bats", this would be apriori-evidence if it was found. (Predictive).

Predictive = Strong scientific evidence.
None-predictive = Weak scientific evidence.

To be fair to Darwin-ites, in whatever we say about the flood, if we say it because of our post-knowledge of the fossil record, then we say it in a none-predictive, weak and conjectural fashion, also.

The only difference is the bible itself, which said there was a worldwide catastrophe, BEFORE there was a discovered fossil record. This would imply a worldwide graveyard, whether it was preserved in rocks or not, left as remnants. It is reasonable to expect circumstantial remnants, given it has been shown that sediment has been found in fossilized throats. Given we know water can do this, certainly, and is the best explanation by far for all of the odd evidence around the world.

Monday, 30 June 2014

Friendly response to D.Hew's reasonings about science

Daren Hew said:

" Part of the philosophy of science is that science cannot prove anything. Scientific theories (like evolution) are not provable by their very nature but they can be disproven if their explanations contradict new evidence presented. The scientific community simply accepts them as the best explanation for observed phenomena. You are right, it is based on inductive reasoning and cannot be proven beyond a doubt. But are there better alternative explanations? "

The highlighted part of your quote is certainly correct. That's because an induction is always incomplete. The modus-tollens is applicable via falsification evidence. I agree.

You have cleverly noticed the problem of affirming the consequent. But you need to APPLY the tollens objectively. So then if evidence does not "fit" with divergence, or there is what is called in logical terms, a conspicuous absence of evidence for transitionals, then logically this counts as falsification evidence. Effectively you are not considering the falsification evidence, instead you are focusing on the posteriori explanations of why the evidence does not fit. (extra-hypotheses, such as the, "hard-type" hypothesis). If you are to be STRICTLY scientific, these explanations of why evolution is not there when it should be, should be regarded as EXTRA WEAK arguments, given they depend upon contradictory evidence.

I think it's important not to use the word, "rhetoric", towards me. Everything you learn from me can be googled and you will find it is true.

As for the, "this is the best explanation of data", the problem for that type of reasoning is that it contains premises that are omitted. Whether this be innocently, by scientists, or deliberate, they either know, or don't know that this entire position of methodological naturalism, relies on unproven assumptions.

Darwin said, in response to homology being potentially explainable by a common-designer, that it pleased the designer, Darwin said "but that's not scientific" (paraphrase), but the point is, LOGICALLY, MUST something be a matter of scientific explanation, in terms of methodological naturalism, only? Instead of dealing with that question, instead the scientists simply DECIDED to rule out a potential truth. To use semantics to define ANY talk of design, as, "none-scientific", is an issue of semantics, because if design holds "truth" then you have ostracized truth. 

The problem with such an unproven assumption can be shown with the following example:

Let's say a murder took place. Either Jane or Bob is guilty, it can only be one of those two. But now let's say we RULE OUT a potential truth that Bob done it. We can't say for sure he didn't but effectively we just don't want Bob to have done it, because if He did, that just doesn't fit with our beliefs.

Now we find finger-prints for Bob, but now we have to say that those finger-prints only APPEAR to incriminate Bob. Notice that logically, we can NEVER INFER "Bob", as we have guaranteed "not Bob", tautologically, by definition. Since Bob is out of the question, the only option left is to conclude that the evidence incriminates Jane, instead, because there was a murder. (Google: The Law Of The Excluded Middle).


You see Daren, scientists are arguing in circles, tautologically, if they say, "evolution is the only explanation". This exclusive-argument is not logical, because as you say, either new evidence or unknown evidence might exist, that could explain the evidence. This is why evolutionists interpret the evidence as "evolutionary", because that's the only thing "science" allows them to do. So if they find a human foot-print that is not in line with evolution, they have to say the human foot-print is not human. Incredible, but true.

If top-scientists don't even know why an "appearance of design" is a poor argument, and they commit slothful induction by focusing on exceptions such as the laryngeal nerve, rather than the mountain of evidence for obvious construction of anatomy, and the thousands of contingency-plans in each organism, then this PROVES that it was NOT part of their education to learn critical-thinking, they were simply taught evolution. The, "only explanation is evolution" argument is essentially and indirect way of affirming the consequent.

If evolution then X, X therefore, "can only possibly be evolution".

Your whale-example was only a correlation or coincidence. (circumstantial) I would venture to say. No disrespect meant, I admit the evidence does "fit" of course.

(check out, "slothful induction" when it comes to design, heck read any article on CMI that discusses the 500 incredible anatomically designed contingencies in any animal, for every one thousand brilliant design-facts, an evolutionist has ONE complaint. Example, the pharynx/larynx. Forget the fact we can chew, swallow, speak, whistle, shout, whisper, smile, frown, breathe, eat and drink from one entry-point, and forget that we can drink upside down, eat upside down, forget that we can spit, laugh, lick, taste, singsneeze, cough, regurgitate, belch, Bork, and forget the perfect structure of the voice-box, forget this is all a neat package including aesthetics, and just focus on the fact that we can potentially choke. SLOTHFUL INDUCTION fallacy!)

They don't even know their own behaviour Daren, because these "experts" have no wisdom. You don't get to learn it at school. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

Monday, 16 June 2014

God Is Omni-Universe

There is a lot of common confusion pertaining to God's nature.

Usually there are some terms that can be inferred from the bible, that have credence when we attempt to define God in our limited capacity. But, there are a lot of modern definitions that are either misnomers, or strawman terminology. I refer to the "omni"-terms. such as, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, et al. Some of them are valid descriptions, some of them are NOT.

For example, the bible does not EVER state that God is, all-loving or all-benevolent. Usually non-believers will attempt to collect these terms in order to infer a logical paradox.

It should be noted that Christians have not attempted to collect such terminology themselves, but largely they are imposed upon us. They are modern definitions that largely can be termed as semantic-sophistry.

As believers, we infer things about God only from scripture and His creation.

If there is a particular omni-term that is going to be the most relevant and takes precedent above all the others, it is going to be the term, Omni-Universe. God is omni-universe. (All-united in purpose, nature, attributes, with diversity.)

This means, that God is, as best as I can describe it, according to His Word, is; All-united, being diverse.

This means that, the "Lord is one" (unity), yet, "I and my Father are one"(diverse). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (diversity), yet they are all one. (Unity) = Uni-verse.

So this means that God's attributes are harmonious, complimentary, symbiotic or united.

So then to take certain modern-definitions of God that don't really match tends to not have much value, largely this type of argument can be regarded as vacuous sophistry.

To give an analogy. Imagine we only understand certain things about colour, limited data, which is analogous to our limited capacity to understand God. Would we not logically state, that if the spectrum-of-light incorporates red and blue, when they come together, this will rule out one or the other.

--> Blue or not blue. Red or not red.

You can surely then only have one or the other, if you assume there can be no unity, you would likely dismiss that both elements could be united, and make a third colour, purple. We see that in God's creation, many colours come together, even though they are different colours, they can merge.
 "For God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." (paraphrasing 1 John 1, IIRC)

The Word directly states God is light, so the nature of light in our universe is an important example, it shows how God is united yet diverse.

The problem with taking some omni-terms and pitting them against each other, is that you tend to judge the WHOLE from SOME. "Some ERGO all." (Fallacious)

Think about it in terms of this analogy, if we took two elements that make up a motor vehicle, and pit them against each other, then we do so fallaciously because we have to remove all of the unity. So for example, if we say that water is part of a car's system, and so is electric, we could then fallaciously state:

"Car's can't exist because water and electric do not mix."

This only works if you remove the unity of the whole.

Other examples of uni-verse things in the creation, is of course the universe itself, but within it, we find God's nature is displayed all around us. One example is the universe, one example is light, another is all of the animals and plants. When we look at all of the homologous structures of bones in vertebrates, they show the same basic design-plan but the shape and diversity is massive.(Universe). Another example is analogous features, such as wings. Evolutionists would call them homo-plastic, but we can see that we can have different wings, diverse in anatomy this time, but unified in function.

An example in the Word, is the fruit of the spirit, that all compliment each other despite being diverse;

Galatians 5:22;But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.

You might then say, "how can God kill, and be "good"- But justice doesn't rule out goodness. An executioner of justice doesn't have an evil motive, therefore there is no genuine contradiction.


I think all of this shows that the omni-terms are a source of confusion for people. The term, "ALL" misleads people, If you instead say, "God is loving, good, powerful," you likely wouldn't mislead yourself, but when people use the term, "all" or "omni", they commit the fallacy of composition, by saying that the units indicate something about the whole.


A plane has rubber wheels, wheels are none-flying. Wheels are "all-round".
A plane has windows, windows are none-flying, Windows are "all-transparent"

ERGO, a plane can't be both all transparent and all rubber and all-round and it can't fly. (non sequitur) A plane actually consists of all the elements, just as part of a whole unit.(universe)

The omni-terms should raise danger-signs with any thinker, they seem to have taken on an agenda of their own!

Friday, 30 May 2014

What Is A TRUE Transitional Species?

I think logically, evolutionists must qualify a true-transitional. The claim everything alive is a transitional. This is a claim. We can't 'grant' their claim, without posing some very honest and objective questions. To merely assume we are transitional because that's, "what the science shows", for example, would be vague. If we truly see transitionals, then logically they have nothing to be afraid of if we define them, and evaluate the evidence.

I would post that is is possible to give examples of true transitionals, because they would be strikingly different to the animals we see in existence.

To give such an example, imagine an ape-like organism was trying to exist, more and more, in the open plains. Not only would such an animal observably be out-of-place, but the transition to biped would be marked by these species, because they would have an ungainly, crude and unbalanced gait. They would rock and roll their hips and shoulders. You could qualify them as true-transitionals, by showing that a real-life animal such as a horse or human, walks with complete grace, they are designed to walk. But this ape-man would not be designed to walk, his feet-hands, that are made for the trees, would be in 'transition'.

Other true transitionals can be IMAGINED. Think of something on it's way to becoming a bird or bat. Now we only pretty much see, full birds or bats, whether extinct or extant. But imagine how crude their transition might appear, while their limbs become wings. They would stick out like a sore thumb. The same could be said of a creature such as Ambulocetus, the drawings of him are so striking, he looks basically like some kind of monster or freak, if anyone came upon such a creature, they would be amazed by how crude and half-designed it appeared. (It should be noted, that the actual skeletal remains were few, and so the drawings are of course, artwork)

Logically I have established that a true-transitional, between environments, is pretty obvious, because we see from every creature alive, that they are designed to do what they do. Every single species just happens to be perfect, in the present. so the next question is, logically;

Why should we regard every extant animal as being a transitional, when logically it can be shown that they are designed for the environment they are in?

The reason we knew the ape-man was "crude" on land was because we compare him with true species that exist. So then logically, true species can't be transitional, if they highlight one by comparison!

Evolutionists say that we don't have to evolve. But they also say that lots of micro = macro, which is a contradiction, because obviously lots of micro can = nothing of interest, if things don't have to evolve. So naturally they will say that we shouldn't necessarily "see" the route of evolution extant species are walking the path of.

1. Extant species don't show what they are transitioning into.
2. Every extant and extinct species, are "complete" designs for their environment.
3. All forms to have ever actually proven to exist, make true-transitionals, "strikingly" obvious.


It is perfectly rational to conclude that evolutionary philosophy is at play. There are no facts that have ever shown the existence of actual transitional creatures, only a handful of negligible candidates. Every organism on the planet is a marvel of engineering excellence to an off-the-scale degree.

Friday, 23 May 2014

The Evidence Contradicts Darwin's Tree

I have drawn a diagram showing the beginning of Darwin's Tree, the first common ancestor in the past, then mathematically, that would lead to an increase in numbers, as gene pool/s diversify, populations split, and so forth. At the top we see 9 lifeforms.

According to evolution, as we go further back in time, there comes a time when the numbers MUST decrease until you get one ancestor. If I continued to draw the phylogenetic tree, 9 forms would lead to more branching, and more, until we end up with billions of species in the present day.

Mathematically and logically, this PROVES that Darwin's tree should show less and less diversity, as we go back in time, less and less branches, until there is a trunk. There is no escaping that there is a finite scale. If evolution is true, then this is what we would expect to see;

The blue branches show an increase in information that would allegedly be because of mutations adding information, so we would expect as we go further back in time, less and less information. Again, mathematically, this is inescapable, and evolutionists cannot argue that limitlessly diverse forms could exist, as we go further back in time. It's like adding, you start with 1, and go to a 100, you cannot, mathematically state that as we reverse the count, we would not expect numbers to be smaller. (Reductio ad absurdum)

The Cambrian explosion, the actual evidence, shows the opposite to the phylogenetic tree, Darwin's tree MUST decrease in branches, but the Cambrian shows a VAST scope of diversity. The Cambrian would represent a very bushy, diverse, information-rich, branching. We also see that gene pools, when they branch, become more homozygous. That is to say, they sacrifice information for the sake of survival;

-->(Group A) Species with eyes --> leads to two separate species, one with eyes(Group B), one without(Group C).
-To increase information in group C, you have to go back in time or reintroduce the genes from another population, (gene flow).


We should see less and less forms in the past, as we go back further in time, with less information, as the numbers dwindle, as we count down to 1. Mathematically it is an inescapable inference. But the Cambrian, as old as it allegedly is, represents an exceedingly diverse, bushy branching. But Darwin's tree MUST show less branching as we go back in time, mathematically. It's not something that is down to opinion, because otherwise you have to argue that lifeforms have always existed. (Reductio ad absurdum) Eventually, numbers have to diminish.

We see the opposite to what evolution must state.

Post-hoc excuses can in no way represent a rebuttal of falsification evidence. If you are scientific, this evidence will mean more to you than making excuses for the evolution theory.

The below diagram shows what the actual evidence indicates. (although I have GRANTED common ancestry for the sake of argument.)

Monday, 28 April 2014

Design Unpacked (RAZD)

RAZD, in response to your post, I will put out this additional reading material, which obviously you have the freewill to undervalue for your own reasons.

 "what makes something designed, anyway? Can we determine if lifeforms are?" So to look at what a scientific theory theorizes, to the contrary of "design", is another undertaking. You might then think, "you dismiss the whole of what science says about it?" But that's not my argument either, I have said some things about science in this following blog entry;

No, what I mean to say, is not that your points aren't merited, but rather to say that if we asked as to what makes a well cooked cake, then to then discuss a very famous chef, or the history of cooking, would be extraneous to the logic of the evaluation.

'What makes something designed?' Is the question. We are evaluating that specifically, without mentioning evolution.


All of the elements of a design make something a design. (Z)
X has all of the elements of a design,
Ergo X is designed. (Z)

(Disclaimer: you are right to then ask questions, such as, "what about none of the elements or a few?" but that opens a very great can of worms, I am only addressing the fullness of design, so to speak.)

Firstly, my first premise, "all of the elements make something a design", is a truism. It is sound because we have studied something that is actually designed, and those elements make something "designed", so if something has all of those elements, we can conclude it is designed, because those elements are that which makes something designed. Here is an equal analogy; If I am every element that makes a human, then I am reasonably a human. (Truism) (Law of Identity, X is X)

"X" Has all the elements of design, this premise is formally correct, as it qualifies itself, but the premise is false or true depending upon whether X truly does have all of the elements of sophisticated designs.

So the syllogism is sound, as long as the evaluation is sound. I will go through the elements of that which make something designed. (notice that it is pointless to question the elements, because they are only inferred from looking at ACTUAL, agreed upon "designs" anyway, such as cars or watches. (all people agree these things are designed.)

So let's come across that watch in a field again. WHY is it a design? What are those elements that make it so? Some investigation gives us the answers.

Precise Construction. Construction, where materials are manipulated into strange, specific, orderly relationships.

Artificiality, (so to speak). What I mean by this, is that materials that don't ordinarily have any natural use, have been taken and used. Manipulated into having a purpose that is intended for something.

Contingency Plans. When something exists that has complexity, problems, or potential problems arise, from that things very existing, so then if a problem arises, we see contingency plans put in place to deal with the problem.

Viability. This element includes contingency plans but also the solving of engineering problems. The two aren't quite the same, an engineering problem is a complex problem that arises, that could thwart the design itself. A design has viability, it works if all problems have been solved, and plans are in place.

Aesthetics. Usually sophisticated designs have an element of aesthetics. We see a Ferrari car is very attractive to the eye, or a butterfly or ladybird or flower or Peacock's tail. Usually there will be symmetry and colour. Aesthetics is an element of design because it's like the final touch, there is an Artistic element to design.

Wisdom/Intelligence. Whether it is a sophisticated code, such as binary code in computers, or whether it is an ingenius idea, to solve a very difficult problem. This much is obvious, when we look at a design. When we look at a differential, look how cleverly the simplicity of the meshing gears are, ultimately a simple arrangement, yet it took a very clever idea to come up with.

Conceptual/ Imagination. When we look at designs, we know that someone had to firstly have an idea, or imagine something that they wanted to achieve. When we OBSERVE a designed thing, the ultimate goal of the thing, SHOWS the idea behind the thing. To look upon a helicopter, we know just by looking at it that someone had to have an original idea, they imagined achieving a machine that could fly. We don't need to anything other than to see the concept in action, because with designed things, that is what we're seeing, someone's imagination, displayed.

Design itself, seems quite simple. This is misleading in that complicated science might seem to "trump" something simple-science, but really there is no argument that says that the answer must be a complicated, natural and scientific answer. Notice science is used here, operationally, just not in the same manner as tenuous, historical, inductive science. Darwin pitted a historical theory against the fact of design. But circumstancial evidence doesn't trump deductive, incontrovertible fact. 

To say, "an eye is designed to see" is not a claim, it is a description of a fact. That's all.

Thursday, 17 April 2014

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.

Friday, 7 March 2014

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.

Sunday, 12 January 2014

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 Creation-accepters, 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, logically.

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.

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.