Saturday, 24 January 2015
To understand this blog-entry you will need to follow the reasoning very closely. It should be noted all of the conclusions drawn are deductively provable, so to disagree with the findings is inappropriate. (A misunderstanding on the part of the reader, not the writer)
First of all, macro-evolution theory says that in the past, organisms existed, that were primordial.
(It should be noted, no such organisms have ever been found to exist)
So then, BETWEEN Abiogenesis and lifeforms, you have a gap with primordial forms in the middle:
Example: (Proven facts are highlighted in blue, speculation in red)
Abiogenesis --> then primordial forms, then --> lifeforms.
Obviously nobody has witnessed an abiogenesis or a primordial form.
So my point is, it is not abiogenesis as a theory that claims primordial forms exist, but evolution would say that in the past all forms converge upon an original primordial ancestor.
So then if lifeforms were never primordial, then abiogenesis could not happen/would not be relevant, because what would abiogenesis bring you? It can't bring a modern type of lifeform, it would need a primordial form to be possible, which is only relevant to macro-evolution. Only evolution 'reduces' life to an original primordial form.
So this shows without a doubt that evolution is inextricably joined-at-the-hip, with abiogenesis. Think about it, if life has always been as it is now, complex or, 'modern', then abiogenesis could not occur. It could only occur if macro-evolution was true, because then a primordial lifeform could be a notion that is entertained. It is proposed that abiogenesis creates a primordial form, but a primordial form, is an evolutionary-notion.
Ergo, abiogenesis is a kind of corollary of evolution theory, if evolution were true.
Ergo, without abiogenesis, there is no evolution, and without evolution there is no abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is a belief, ergo, evolution is also a belief. For neither can exist without the other.
Evolutionists think they've proven evolution, but abiogenesis is a blatantly absurd belief that doesn't work, and without it evolution cannot occur. Darwin's warm little pond is only invoked on behalf of his theory, for why else would anyone contemplate an abiogenesis, unless they believe a macro evolution? There is no other reason, for a primordial-form is only relevant to evolution. Both evolution and abiogenesis, ASSUME the other is true FIRSTLY. Begging-the-question, fallacy.
The rhetoric that abiogenesis is a different thing from macro-evolution, is BUSTED. They are hypotheses only relevant to each other. Evolutionists are in bed with abiogenesis, it only exists on behalf of evolution.
Sunday, 11 January 2015
Perhaps the most common argument amongst evolutionists is that creationists don't understand it, hence the complaint when those who don't say, "why are monkeys still around then?"
I have drawn a simplified picture to show a false-evolution, this is only an analogous picture, it doesn't represent what evolution claims except for in some simplified expression. Basically it's to show that evolution can be understood in it's claims, even though it isn't accepted. (Proof you can understand it but not accept it.)
This is of course a watered-down version, there would be many more species and lineages in a full diagram. Accuracy of species isn't the point, the point is that it isn't hard to understand the logic of descent.