Logical rules mean that there MUST be evidence in favour of God's existence, or at the very least a designer because you can show the deductive rules prove it. You cannot pretend that nothing would ever qualify as evidence of a designer because a law of logic renders such a notion impossible. Things simply do follow as evidence if they are designed because of the manipulations intelligence can create as a signature.
Imagine if I claimed to NOT be wearing socks. If I take my shoes off and have bare feet, imagine if you then responded, "that is not evidence you are not wearing socks".....(like when atheists say that evidence of design is not evidence of design)....
But let's think about this, if bare feet is not evidence of the absence of socks then what is? The only remaining option is to find that I WAS wearing socks.
We can either find I am wearing socks or not wearing socks. Those are the only two things we can find, so if bare feet is not evidence I am NOT wearing socks then IPSO FACTO the evidence I am not wearing socks you would then class as, "wearing socks" which is a contradiction.
So if wearing socks is not evidence of not wearing socks and not wearing socks is also not evidence of not wearing socks then logically you are declaring that no matter what the evidence we find it can not be classed as the evidence of an absence of socks. (INANE)
This same reasoning can be used with design in life.
I started to read an article about efficiency in protein-motors. I read that the combustion engine in cars delivers about 35% efficiency as energy is lost to heat, and that the human's best efficiency was the electric motor with something like 65% in a brushless motor.
I stopped reading the article because I surmised that the article would go on to tell us what the efficiency percentage was for protein-motors in the cell. I predicted that, "If it was intelligent design the percentage should be higher as evidence for a more intelligent designer, God, correspondingly as a match."
Like with the socks, there are only really two things we can find;
1. Either the efficiency was higher (evidence of intelligent design from a cleverer mind)
2. The efficiency was the same or lower, as we would expect if God was not the designer and it was perhaps evolution only giving the appearance of design.
The efficiency of the flagellum is nearly 100%.
But according to evolutionists, they would likely respond emotionally despite their proclamations of being scientific and rational, by declaring, "that is not evidence of design!"
Then what is? The only remaining possible option is to find POORER efficiency in protein motors. Is that the evidence of design since that is the only alternative evidence?
Are you saying THAT would be the evidence of a designer, a less clever design with less efficiency? Because you only have those two options and if NEITHER qualify as evidence we would expect from a designer then you are rigging the evidence so as to deceptively pretend that all evidence we find is automatically evidence of evolution and not design.
So you would be saying that less efficiency is NOT evidence of a designer and more efficiency is NOT evidence of a designer. Gee, how rational you are.
Then in regards to efficiency, what would I expect if God designed the protein motors?
(A smart-ass might say, "100%" but again that is a rigged dice, there is nothing within the plan of biochemistry that would suggest that should be God's goal. That would be like saying the human eye should see the farthest point clearly. What for? If that isn't the point of our eyes then no it shouldn't. But it is reasonable to expect that God should be able to come up with more efficient energy in lifeforms generally if we look at all of them then look at all of ours.)
Another example of this is absentia ad expectata testimonio. (Absence of expected evidence of evolution)
If I have the position that God specially created various animals, then what would I expect to find in the fossils if I look at bat-history?
There is only one thing I can expect to find as evidence the bible is true;
1. That bats basically look the same no matter how far back we go, and there is no evidence they evolved their flight from quadrupeds.
The only other option is to find;
2. The changes in bats, and evidence they evolved from quadrupeds.
So to say that if we only find bats but no evidence of evolution is NOT evidence of creation is to LIE, because what else could we expect to find in this scenario? Are evolutionists saying we should find a placard in the fossils saying, "no evolution here".
And if that is not the evidence we expect to find as creationists then since the only other thing we could find is the evolution of a bat then is that the evidence of special creation instead?
No? Then what is? If neither scenario is evidence of creation rather than evolution then it is a RIGGED DICE by deceptive, evolutionists.
No comments:
Post a Comment