Given Enough Time 'The Improbable Becomes Probable' Addressed

 Not only do some things not become probable, they're reasonably always going to remain unreal even if not technically impossible. 

The atheist evolutionist uses this reasoning, with an implicit argument so that people are forced to think the following; "if it's not impossible then it's only a matter of probability, and therefore no matter how improbable given enough time or numbers it becomes probable."

However, I question the premise that, "if it's not impossible it's therefore a matter of probability."

That reasoning is wrong if we can show there is an example of something that is not impossible, but that is still not a matter of probability. Something that can physically happen but WON'T ever happeb.

I have an example. 

You will never get the most famous woman on earth to knock on your door and ask to marry you. It is not physically impossible but that doesn't mean it's a matter of probability because given enough time and numbers it will not change the fact that it won't happen.

Some things can be shown to be physically possible and can happen but they just won't because they simply go against the nature of reality. It's also not a probability-issue therefore this classic atheist argument is a limited choice fallacy because of the third option.

There just needs to be a reason for some things to occur and with some things they can only occur with teleology as the cause. (done on purpose). 

This is why abiogenesis would not happen. Yes it's also improbable but that is not that relevant, because more importantly it just wouldn't happen. You would need ordinary chemistry to create code and polymers with specified complexity. That no more would happen than wind and wave would create a sand castle.

Finding A Mammal In The Cambrian

 Evolutionists usually argue the famous bunny-in-the-Cambrian. They say finding something like this would falsify evolution, and they usually demand that as creationists we should provide examples like this or similar.

In fact if the fossil order was not created by evolution, then you can't break the order even if evolution is false, so it isn't a genuine falsification. 

But also when the evolutionist requests we find a mammal or a dino in say the Cambrian in order to prove they both existed at the same time, we as creationists can only answer that red-herring if we are arguing that both the Cambrian and say Cretaceous, are different eras.

If we DON'T argue they are different eras, and we argue that both are flood layers laid down in the same year and therefore contemporaneous, then we only have to show that you can find a mammal or dino in any flood layer, no matter what the layer is.

So if we find a dino in the Cretaceous and a trilobite in the Cambrian, it follows that because we argue both layers are caused by the flood, that both have been found contemporaneously. 

Conclusion; it is a red-herring to say we must show the dino and trilobite in the same Cambrian layer, to prove they lived contemporaneously, because we see most layers as being contemporaneous. so the request begs the question, because it asks us to take on an assumpton of evolution, that the layers are eons.

So basically in my experience a lot of evolutionists just aren't smart enough to see that different theories have different starting assumptions and you can't conflate them. For example if one person argues for Jane the Ripper and another for Jack the Ripper, the Jack-theorist cannot request that we prove Jane had a penis, because under the Jane-theory the Ripper would not be a male. 

(I must have had to say this to one or two evolutionists I know, for about ten years and they still don't get it.)

Comparing God With Santa Or a Pink Unicorn

On the surface the atheist argument that God is no different than Santa, as how can you determine a difference, seems to make sense. I concede that it seems to make some sense but the fault in the argument ironically, is that the reason why the argument is unsound is the very same reason - because we can't determine the difference.

So the comparison of God to Santa or an invisible pink unicorn (IPU), is the Fallacy Of False Equivalence.

I shall now explain why and what that fallacy is.

Such a fallacy is committed when a comparison is made but potential differences are either omitted or fudged over in some way so that there isn't a truly logical equivalence.

With God and the IPU, there are several errors atheists gloss over. They say God is identical in that God is invisible, and so is Santa, and God is believe to do miracles, like Santa can do magic, and they say that anyone can invent a similar entity. So let's look into those things;

1. Invisibility. The first error hidden in this argument is a fallacy , which goes like this;

"Santa is invisible and he is false.
God is also invisible, therefore God must be false."

Here is why this argument is logically unsound;

"David is intelligent and he's an atheist.
Michael is also intelligent, therefore he must be an atheist."

Conclusion: In fact we KNOW that invisible things can also be true and real, so the atheist is jumping to the conclusion that God's invisibility is the same as Santa's and is based on imagination, rather than proving their claim because for all they know God's invisibility may be for a similar reason as the Higgs Boson, only God is not "within" the universe so He can't be detected. The point is, the atheist is asking us to overlook his assumption that invisibility is for the same reason when in fact they just don't know.

2. Magic/Miracles. The error is the same here;

"A magician does magic tricks and those are false, so is Santa's magic.
God does miracles we argue are equivalent to magic,
therefore God's miracles are also false."

The error is the same. But again, arguably miracles are real rather than false. For example the miracle of life. But of course, that is a matter of debate among theists/atheist but even so, if life really does only exist because God created it, then an eyeball is a miracle which is real and true. So again there is an assumption with the atheist that magic is the same as the miraculous, but if a lifeform exists as the result of a miracle but magic is false and cannot produce anything, then logically miracles and magic cannot be equivalent. Now even if the atheist protests and says, "but miracles are magic", he is playing a WEAK HAND, because even if the atheist merely does not know whether miracles are true or false, that is sufficient logically to conclude that you cannot say magic is equivalent, based only on ignorance.

3. You can invent magic entities and say they have the same characteristics as God.

The reason why at this moment I could invent a false entity which had all the characteristics God has is the same reason I could invent a particle identical to a Higgs Boson and simply say this particle exists only in other universes, but this says nothing of God's existence. In other words, the reason we can invent false things that seem identical to things which may very well not be false, is because if a real thing is hidden, invisible, or not real in a very clear way by which there are only few methods to identify it, then we are blind to the difference between that real thing and a false thing because we cannot examine it, we cannot see it, and we cannot track it. So because all false imaginings are hidden, and invisible because they don't exist, that is why it is easy to invent false things as long as they can't be seen, but this doesn't mean the thing you copy is false.

For example I could at this moment say that something like a  human being exists on the far side of the galaxy, or they exist in other universes. I could invent a false thing identical to a real thing but logically would that make the real thing false?

No it wouldn't. So yet again we can ask the question over and over; "How do you know God is the same as Santa". As you can see from this evaluation, an atheist can't possibly know they are the same based on the reasons s/he gives.

Final Conclusion: My statement to atheists who argue this and enjoy the mockery and feigned superiority? I can only quote Captain Kirk......."I'm LAUGHING at the superior intellect".

Evolutionists Argue Bad Design In Life Because They Commit Slothful Induction Fallacy

Slothful induction occurs when someone doesn't focus on where the majority of the evidence is pointing, and instead they will find a reason to go with the opposite conclusion. "Lazy induction", basically means, they focus on one or two pieces of evidence but will ignore the overwhelming majority percentage of evidence and where it points to.

This fallacy is what all arguments pertaining to "bad design" in life, are. They are all based on taking one area of a particular designed system of anatomy, and basically selectively choosing the area they think is badly designed such as the blind spot, then IGNORING the 99.99% of things the eye is designed very well to do.

So the tactic is basically the same for any system in the body, they find something they believe it badly designed (but usually they just don't understand the anatomy very well) then they ignore the HUGE LIST of things that system does marvellously well and is designed brilliantly to do, and just focus on one or two complaints that they have, then infer the astronomical non-sequitur that "therefore this organism is badly designed."

In fact logical rules would only allow you to infer that that one particular thing is badly designed, NOT the whole of the organism's anatomy. And you could only conclude that if you proved it was badly designed, but it turns out that all of the popular arguments atheists argue for bad design, is their own ignorance of anatomy.

 Example 1, the pharynx/larynx. With the design of your throat you can do many successful things it is well designed to do such as chew, swallow, speak, whistle, shout, whisper, smile, frown, breathe, eat and drink from one entry-point, and forget that we can viably drink upside down, eat upside down, forget that we can spit, laugh, lick, taste, sing, sneeze, cough, regurgitate, belch, Bork, and forget the perfect structure of the voice-box, where we can successfully change the tone of our voice and how audible it is. If you were to ignore all of the evidence highlighted in blue and ignore the whole structure is all a neat package including aesthetics, and if you were to just focus on the fact that we can potentially choke. (the evolutionist's/atheists complaint) then you have just committed slothful induction fallacy by ignoring the majority of the evidence pointing to incredible design.

Example 2 is the eye. The incorrect complaints are usually two, atheists complain about the wiring of the retina and the blind spot. In reality those are not badly designed if you look into it properly, but look at just some of the things the eye is very well designed to do;

- succesful light-penetration of nerve net through clever Muller cells that collect light from largest possible surface area of the retina.
- Successful refreshment of the photo receptors through the choroid.
- we can see in colour 
- we have the software to take the elemental colours and interpret all of the subtleties thereof when merged.
- The lens and eyeball is self-washing, unlike when you have spectacles.
- We can change the focus of our eye, and see in immense detail and clarity.
- We can adjust to the dark by the pupil opening. (humans are diurnal not nocturnal so this would be more advantageous for nocturnal animals so the design seems to be limited but a cat's pupil opens fully which is why you see their eyes glowing, which is the layer behind the retina.)
- The eye lid can stop dust from entering our eye and it doesn't get heavy because it is the correct weight for the muscles.
- We have the exactly correct types of fluid in the eye such as the rhodopsin. It is very sensitive to light and perfect for low light conditions. (correct materials)
- correction of aberration.
- Neat, and beautiful structure.
- The software in the brain to create vision,

This is of course only what the camera eye in humans does successfully as a design and there are dozens and dozens more viable designs of eye which enable sight, of which I am not qualified to give you the list of the likely 200 more well designed things our eyes do.

If you were to indulge atheist reasoning you are to forget all that evidence of design and just focus on an irrelevant blind spot or the direction of the photo receptors, atheists would argue.

CONCLUSION: Isn't it obvious that any system the atheists points to, s/he is deliberately selecting the one thing they believe that system is not designed well to do, but ignoring the 99.99% of things it does do well? And to compound that logical error the complaints they argue usually turn out to not be valid.

Isn't it much more likely that given 99.9% of our bodies are designed well, that it's more probable atheists are taking a small percentage of things they BELIEVE are poorly designed, and jumping to the conclusion they are poorly designed? Isn't it more likely that the small percentage they argue is their own error and the figure of 99.99% is then explainable to us if we infer that the figure is actually 100% because the atheist complaints are negligible?

Because when you think about it if a chess master has a game of chess and wins and you think he made two errors, if it is he who is the chess master, isn't it more likely that you as a fan made an error and the small percentage of errors you thought were errors, were actually not?

If we look at the design in life, the designer is atheists would have to admit, coming up with 99.999% fantastic design, so then isn't it more likely it is 100% if the designer can invent those designs?

The blind spot, if it were truly a bad design, would mean most people would be aware of it hindering them in some way. The fact an atheist has to get a piece of paper and a pen and show you how the blind spot exists, is the very evidence that their complaint is negligible, for nobody would need to be shown why the blind spot on a car's side mirror is a problem because they would already know why it was a problem, proving logically by deductive reasoning that the blind spot in the human eye is negligible. So then that is one error the atheist makes, to use the rhetorical device called, "playing it up", to INFLATE the significance of the blind spot when in actual fact it has no significance at all because it does not impede our sight. Nor does the wiring of the retina, it actually helps to refresh the photo receptors from the choroid by placing them close to the blood supply. The Mueller cells then help to take all light from the retina's surface by capitilising on the total surface area which is actually an INCREDIBLE bit of genius by the inventor of your eyes because the light is collected and the nerve net that would impede it is then negated.

Lifeforms Can't Only Appear To Be Designed If They Are

A football can't only appear to be a football, if in every defining way, it is one. So for something to, "only appear to be X but not actually be X" it must in some superficial way of appearance look like X but when we dig into the issue, investigate what it truly is, it can't remain "only an appearance of X" if it is X.

This is called The Law Of The Excluded Middle. Something is either P or the negation of P.

A lifeform can't be both designed and not designed. (Law of non-contradiction) You can't say that something that is defined as designed, "only appears to be".

So for example if you thought you saw a football, it would appear to be one in the sense that it might be the same shape and have the same type of paint on the outside, a similar design. But imagine if you kicked it and broke your foot because it was made out of lead. That would be an "appearance only", because it would appear to be a football but not be one.

In the same way all of the features of intelligent design have to be truly present for something to be more than an appearance of design. When we look at a ferrari car, we check all the parts, we find contingency planning, specified complexity, clear teleology, so it both appears to be designed, and is designed.

So logically we know something can appear to be designed and actually be designed, but once we find out it is designed we can no longer say, "it only appears to be" because this is a contradiction.

Imagine you see in the distance a bridge that APPEARS to be designed. How can we know whether it appears to be designed and is or only appears to be designed but isn't? Well, imagine if we examined the bridge and there were no side-rails so that people couldn't fall over the side. One element of intelligent design is contingency-planning. We know that if it was really designed, the designer would have put rails there. Secondly, the surface is rough, it is not constructed for walking on. Again, this shows there is no real specified complexity. There is no design to the arch either, showing detailed patterns that can't come about by chance. Can you see what is happening yet? We are seeing that our bridge is revealed as something that only appears to be designed but actually isn't because the true elements of intelligent design are missing. Imagine now we see the material the bridge is made from is crumbling away, and the top part is wonky. A designer would use materials built to last, not crumbly, loose material. One element of design is use of the correct materials.

In the same way when we investigate lifeforms, they over-qualify as designed. They're riddled with the defining features of design;

Specified Complexity
Viability
Contingency Planning
Correct Materials
Irreducibly Complexity (to an extent)
Aesthetics And Symmetry
Teleology And Goals
Information
Function
Directed Energy
Energy Efficiency

Stasis Not A Problem For Evolution?

Evolutionists seem to think that we are UNAWARE of the CONJECTURE of the theory of evolution, that would state that stasis or fixity or normalized selection, was acceptable/expected in some cases.

 Yes of course we know that technically speaking, an organism remaining stable in it's niche is not necessarily a problem as such for evolution theory on a technicality, but that is only the beginning of the issue.

Technically if a claim is made that superman exists, yes - technically I agree that if you only ever see the superman-claimant walking like a normal man and not performing like superman should, it is true that this does not technically disprove he is superman. I, "get" this. But it is a MOOT point, because if you only ever see him act like a normal man then what has that got to do with superman? Nothing!

 For if we only ever saw the superman-claimant walking and acting within a range of the abilities of a normal man - sure, you could still argue this doesn't BREAK the superman-theory, but let's face it, you would be using desperately WEAK CONJECTURE as an excuse for not seeing the correct inference as to where the evidence is actually pointing, and it would be pointing away from this guy being superman.

Like superman-claims, molecules-to-man evolution is a FANTASTIC claim, it claims that molecules can lead to grass, trees, fleas, peas and hairy-knees,the evidence EQUIVALENT to that claim, would be to show all of the transitionals we would expect to see, just for STARTERS, just as we would expect a superman-claim to show us abilities superman has, we would expect evolution to show us it's abilities, by showing us how it created a bat, by showing us PRE-bat intermediates, or showing us how a starfish or seahorse came to exist, by showing us PRE-seahorses/starfish, or how a spider evolved it's legs or how flying insects evolved wings. What we actually see is complete bats, complete winged insects, and never any direct evidence of intermediates.

So it is to miss the point entirely to only comment that stasis, "is not a problem for evolution", because that is only the BEGINNING of the matter. Such a tenuous comment could be claimed for any theory that could accommodate any and all of the evidence.

Furthermore, what would we expect to see if evolution had not happened? If we were digging up jellyfish today, how could we find out if evolution had not happened? Well "Not evolution" would be, "not change", because evolution means "change". We could obviously only expect the jellyfish to be identical apart from superficial changes, being unevolved because it was created from the start to be a jellyfish. So if it was not evolution we would expect there to not be any change in the fossils. And this is what we see across the board, in a whole range of organisms.

Like with the superman example, a whole lot of, "not superman" would be, "not superman abilities", so then is it logical to say that a whole lot of "not evolution" favours evolution? How then can we evidence an absence of evolution? The only way to evidence the absence of evolution is to show it's absence.

The list of organisms that appear and then remain unchanged or, "un-evolved" is extensive, here is only a few of them; as you can see, they are of all diverse types;

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)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
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)http://creation.com/fast-octopus-fossils
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)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Herring fish (35-55 million years)
Garfish ( 30-55 million years)
Earliest spider (300 million years)
Grasshopper (100 million years)
Frog (280 million years)
Bees (100 million years - amber)

There is no evolution in any of these. Take one of them, a bee. It appears, a bee, as a fossil, appears as a bee today, and before the earliest bee, has no ancestors, meaning you are seeing 0% macro-evolution for a bee. Now before you object, "but bees would have had ancestors that had wings", okay, I'm fair, I am aware that evolution might say the evolution of particular large-scale changes might be at the base of the clade, so then, show me the ancestors of bees and other flying insects in that clade, that did have to evolve insect wings. Show me the evolution of insect wings! There is none, all we find is the same type of unchanged organisms according to their kind. A dragon fly for example, found in the Carboniferous IIRC, identical to todays only larger in scale. 

DISCLAIMER: If we find a human footprint at 3 million years old, and modern humans according to evolution, evolved later, obviously the clade for primates was still in existence according to evolution, and hominids would still be alive, to technically I would not say that a 3 million year old human was out-of-place enough to completely rule out evolution in that regard, that is not my claim, however it would be significant if we found a member of a species that existed before that family existed, before their clades. So this list of organisms isn't an attempt as such, to disprove evolution, but rather this compiled list represents a picture of evidence which clearly isn't supportive of evolution, unless by mental gymnastics, we basically create endless excuses for evolution's absence, which I am afraid is only conjecture, and facts and evidence should be more consequential than excuses.

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.

How can macro-evolution truly be defined as science if it depends on faith and belief in the cause of the ancestor of all life? That cause doesn't exist, meaning evolution has no backing for one of it's largest claims; that you can reduce bees, fleas, cheese and hairy knees to a primitive cell.

F I C T I O N. 

Evolution only exists, to "enable intellectually satisfied atheists", the rest that accept it are agnostics that are not smart enough to see through the circumstantial nature of evolution's so called "evidence".