Saturday, 24 January 2015
Abiogenesis And Evolution Are Circular
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well I think you have to define what a "primordial form" is. Is it the hypothetical RNA based lifeform that uses ribozymes or something? And can it be considered "alive" the same way a bacteria is but a virus isnt?
ReplyDeleteAnd I d like to point out that evolution and abiogenesis are only joined at the hip when one assumes a purely naturalistic viewpoint. Just like atomic theory, which doesnt explain the origin of atoms, but does very well explaining how these atoms behave. Evolutionary theory is something like that.
Just consider something. Let us take two hypotheses:
a) Abiogenesis occurs, and the first lifeforms emerge from primordial soup
b) A god seeds the first bacterium onto planet Earth back in the distant Archaean.
Either way, evolutionary theory can still stand on its own.
But the point is Darren, the only reason to invoke abiogenesis, is a solely evolutionistic reason. The purpose of abiogenesis, is to make evolution viable, for without abiogenesis, there is no reason for evolution to occur.
ReplyDeleteThe reason to invoke abiogenesis is because molecular biology and chemistry point towards it, and abiogenesis is the best hypothesis for the origin of life. The "God did it" hypothesis is unverfiable, unreproducible, untestable, and unfalsifiable. That's why no one takes it seriously. Except creationists, who no one takes seriously.
DeleteThe reason to invoke abiogenesis is because molecular biology and chemistry point towards it, and abiogenesis is the best hypothesis for the origin of life. The "God did it" hypothesis is unverfiable, unreproducible, untestable, and unfalsifiable. That's why no one takes it seriously. Except creationists, who no one takes seriously.
DeleteThink again thinker. The law of biogenesis certainly doesn't point to abiogenesis, that's for sure. Nothing points to it, it is invoked on macro-evolutionist's behalf. It is a ludicrous belief, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteLogically it also is of no consequence your obtuse remark that nobody takes creationists seriously, nobody will take none-racists seriously in a group of racists, so your silly comment is an argumentum-ad-populum fallacy. Truth isn't dependent upon arrogant atheists, it is true no matter what people, "take seriously". Your sophistry has not addressed the deductive logic I have THRASHED evolution with.
Also you seem to not understand the God-of-the-gaps fallacy, and when it is applicable, it only applies where somebody invokes a god in the absence of knowledge, the form is actually this:
If we cannot explain P ergo supernatural entity X is responsible.
Note that this depends on a lack of knowledge, but the intelligent design of life, DNA and the universe leads to an inference-to-the-best-cause, which is an argument that allows us to reasonably infer that God is responsible. So first you need to understand what a fallacy is and how to apply it before speaking CODSWALLOP.
Natural-selection-did-it is also unfalsifiable for how can I show that it is unable to create a de novo lung? I can't, therefore I can't falsify it even if there is no evidence it created the lung. What is repeatable about macro-evolution, are you saying you can reproduce in the lab a bellows lung evolving into a contraflow lung or scales evolving into feathers? Lol!
ReplyDelete