Arguments About Life On Other Planets And Abiogenesis Claims Are Parroted And Fallacious

 Naturalists all parrot the same arguments. They're all pretty popular.

One of them goes like this; "given there are millions of habitable planets it's certain there is life".

This is called a reverse conditional implication. What that means is you take a true conditional implication and think the reverse of it is correct.

Here is a correct conditional implication;

"if there is life then it follows there is a habitable place for it." (always true, because if there wasn't a habitable place then life would not be there)

But atheists/naturalists instead argue the reverse which is a logical error;

"If there is a habitable place then there is life."

This is wrong because the consequent does not follow the antecedent, and also, they PRESUME that "habitable places" are the cause of life. 

There isn't any science to show that just having a habitable planet will make life then exist on it. This argument SKIPS the fact you have to prove abiogenesis first.

Here is another example of the error, but first we start with the correct conditional;

"If you have sand castles, then there must be sand."

But if we were to argue that all you need to get sand castles is the winds and waves, and there are millions of planets and you just need the ones with wind and waves, then I would incorrectly have argued the reverse of the implication;

"If you have sand then you will find sand castles".

This argument is wrong for the same reason as the one about abiogenesis is wrong, it SKIPS over what the true cause of sand-castles actually is by pretending you just need the right materials and circumstances to get them when in fact what you really need is design. 

Another popular argument about life elsewhere in the universe is circular reasoning that goes like this;

"Well life must have came from non-life because after all we are here aren't we, which proves it happened."

But the correct conclusion is that if life is not eternal then it must have a cause, but it doesn't follow that our being here tells us which specific cause that is.

Such circular reasoning could "work" if you replaced abiogenesis with potatoes.

"Well life must have came from potatoes because after all we are here aren't we, which proves it happened by potatoes somehow or we wouldn't be here!"

Another argument is the presumption that abiogenesis is something that is scientific, as though asking science people their opinions about alien life has some sort of special veracity that makes their beliefs more accurate because they are scientists.

This doesn't work because basically it is ad-verecundiam (an appeal to authority). In fact nobody on earth is an expert in how life came to be since technically it is a total mystery, so if a scientist has an unhealthy snack like you do, the snack does not become healthy just because he is a scientist and has an opinion that it is healthy. 

Sophistry is a clever use of rhetorical persuasion to make certain arguments look like they must be true and valid because they make tremendous sense but their fault is that they are not sound arguments as they don't obey logical rules. That is what a lot of naturalism is argued as, sophistry that is predicated on nothing more than a belief not in scientific things, but in naturalism. (The ideology which believes everything is caused naturally without proof of the concept).

 The truth is that the scientific community simply believe by faith that everything came to be by natural magic. Truly looking into these things and picking them apart reveals there really isn't anything in them. If anything the only way they have proven you get complex molecules is by having chemists deliberately string polymers together such as with synthetics like nylon. (polymerisation). If you compare that to attempts to create life naturally, there is NOTHING for abiogenesis.

If it is a matter of abiogenesis-experiments versus trying to get complex molecules from design, then design has won hand over fist, because drugs, synthetics, polymers, compounds. All these things came from designers, not from abiogenesis, which is strong evidence designers cause such things.

But experiments for abiogenesis don't get you these things. In fact all experiments have fallen flat.

CONCLUSION; Aliens, and their natural invention is simply a belief modern people have by their own choice to deny the obvious design all around us. Aliens are just science-fiction that are accepted by many as a replacement for faith in God.

Cornering Evolutionists Using Undeniable Disjunctions

 You can corner evolutionists using a disjunction. (binary = two options only) Disclaimer; I am not saying that in all circumstances evidence can be forced into two categories, what I specifically am saying is that when it can be, then it creates an inescapable situation for evolutionists that proves they commit intellectual suicide on behalf of their BELIEFS. (unscientific)

Some questions we ask in life lead inexorably to a disjunction where there are only two options, two types of evidence, and that is all we can find. It doesn't always happen because sometimes there are more options, but for many questions there are two outcomes we reasonably can only expect;

Like if I argue you are not wearing socks, and we know we will be able to get you to remove your shoes.

Outcome 1. Wearing socks.

Outcome 2. Not wearing socks.

If in this scenario we are ABLE to reveal your feet, then those are the only two outcomes in regards to the situation/question. The only two pieces of evidence you might say, or proofs.

So if you say, "the absence of socks on your feet is actually NOT evidence you are not wearing socks", then IPSO FACTO you are then saying that wearing socks would be the evidence you are NOT wearing them. (Because there are only two possibilities in this situation and one of those options has to favour the negative because of the law of the excluded middle. Either the statement someone is wearing socks is true, or false, it can't be a matter of, "it could be true or true")

There is then potentially a third option you may call "denial" where you say, "neither wearing socks nor not wearing them count as evidence socks are absent". 

We can now apply this situation to examples that lead to two options only. (true disjunctions)

If we want to know the cause of polymerisation, whether polymers were created/designed or whether they somehow came about naturally, then if they were designed we would expect that if any polymerisation occurred outside of life the process would come from;

Outcome 1. Intelligent designers.

Outcome 2. Natural causes.

If outcome one is NOT evidence they are caused by designers (a contradiction), then the only remaining option would be to say that the evidence of design would be a natural cause that did not require a designer (a contradiction again)

The only known cause of polymerisation outside of life, is when intelligent designers create them such as with nylon and other polymers, meaning this MUST be evidence life's polymers were designed/created when it comes to this situation, because otherwise you are left with being a person in denial.

Not only is the only known cause of polymerisation outside of life, designers, but if you remove the design then that is the very thing that destroys polymers because they depend on being correctly built. The monomers have to be the correct ones, of the correct chirality, and so forth.

Another example is looking for animal kinds in the fossil record.

If God created bats, pterosaurs and Ichthyosaurs from the start, to always be bats, pterosaurs, Ichthyosaurs, always the same pinnipeds such as dugongs, seals, etc.......then if we look in the fossils as creationists the only thing we can expect to find is;

Option 1. Bats, pterosaurs, etc...for however long they persisted in the rocks should be found to be those same kinds of creatures without any record of evolution.

Option 2. Or we find the evolution of those things, such as how a bat developed wings or an Ichthyosaur developed fins, etc.....

We find option 1. If that is not evidence of God creating them then what is since the only other thing we can find is their evolution?

CONCLUSION; It's easy to show evidence for creation and design, all you have to do is corner evolutionists. These are only two examples, but there are MANY, and they all favour design. It's interesting that for these types of scenarios, evolution tends to lose the evidence battle.

Did you know that? Or did you not know because you presumed creationists were just some religious nuts like atheists told you?