Personal Attacks Instead Of Evolution Facts?

 Recently there was a quick video I watched that basically dismantled evolution in a sort of bite size three minute clip. 

The response was of course, no surprise. Every evolutionist responded with an assertion that evolution is true combined with some sort of personal insult revolving around the creationist not understanding evolution.

If we were to see this from a psychological perspective, what do the usual arrogant vituperative vitriols of the atheists really represent?

Because if you ask for facts for evolution but their response is personal attacks then what message does that ultimately send?

The first response is ASSERTION. To barely assert evolution is factual (without any backing) Psychologically they then REINFORCE this with a personal attack. 

In an amusing sort of way, you could see it as them saying something like this if their psychology was to be displayed by what they say; "Hey, how dare you, you have shown evolution false therefore I blame you as creationists for this! So I will therefore say that you are the problem by asserting you just don't understand the theory! As a solution, rather than showing evolution is impressive in some way I will just attack you personally as my revenge!"

Kind of a SWITCHAROO. Because evolution can't be supported, they instead say that the people that don't accept it are what is at fault instead of evolution. Sort of a tu-quoque type fallacy;

Thin boy says to a fat boy, "you are fat", so the fat boy being annoyed then attacks the thin boy personally, because he knows he is fat and can't do anything about it. so he blames being fat on the thin boy like evolutionists blame creationists for showing them evolution is false. (tu-quoque fallacy)

But how does responding to evolution being unsupported by blaming creationists, actually support evolution? Does it help the fat boy to get any thinner if he responds this way to the thin boy?

Conclusion; So the point here is; it would have been far, far more convincing if evolutionists could just provide something convincing for macro-evolution but they know there isn't anything so this is all they can really do; spread propaganda and a stereotype that evolution is true and anyone that doesn't believe it just doesn't understand it. But that doesn't provide any argument for evolution.

The majority of atheists I come across seem to think that personal attacks replace evolution-facts. If they really were scientific and understood their own theory, they would know that it is ironic how utterly biased, prejudiced and UNSCIENTIFIC they come across as when they make the whole thing personal. 

They may as well just shake their fist at God; "Damn you for existing and being the answer!" Because let's face it, there is pretty much no group on earth that is as transparent as the atheists that dress up as "scientific and rational" without ever looking in the mirror and growing a modicum of self-awareness about how they come across with their lame propaganda that "they are scientific and rational and those that argue for God are religious and wishful thinkers".

My advice to honest people just looking for the truth? Don't be stupid enough to believe people that behave like this, and see there has to be a reason why they behave like schoolyard bullies.

Why Intelligent Design Is Scientific

 Polymerisation is the process of taking the correct molecular monomers and stringing them together to get polymers such as nylon.

You find polymers of amino acids only in life. (proteins) There is also the DNA polymer of nucleic acids. 

Scientifically, and logically, the only known cause in the universe to have provably created polymers is intelligent agents. (Such as when chemists make nylon)

There is no known natural process that can create polymers through polymerisation from scratch, such as the science fictional abiogenesis process (Ironic)

What is it that creates a polymer? Well it is basically the correct selection of monomers. So if you want to create a protein you need specified complexity, the correct arrangement! That is to say, for aminos to be created as a string you need them to be homochiral (left handed) so that the carboxy can kick out a water molecule and create a peptide bond. If water is reintroduced to the chain it is destroyed. (hydrolysis). 

So, you need to govern all those things, you have to manipulate the right molecules, etc.

In other words, scientifically speaking, not only is the only known cause of polymerisation our own intelligent chemists, but also it is scientifically provable that if you remove specified complexity from the living cell, you also have polymers fall apart.

CONCLUSIONS;

1. The only way to get polymers that is scientifically proven, is intelligent design.

2. The thing that destroys polymers in cells, is removing the intelligent design. 

those two conclusions are not up for debate, unless for one million pounds you can show a polymer still exist if it's features of design are removed or show a polymer be created from scratch outside of life. In other words it is impossible for this argument to be wrong, because this is proven scientific fact.

On the other hand, macro-evolution is not proven at all. Indeed, if scientists were TRULY honest and objective then they would appreciate that it is a fantastical claim to say such things could be created without design since life is riddled with such a high standard of design in every respect. Whether it's the best energy efficiency, energy storage, the best ideas, be them biochemical or anatomical. In terms of raw science-proof, it's all design. (If it was a football match it would be 15 goals to design, 0 to evolution).

Logically Impossible To Argue No Evidence Of Creation/Intelligent Design

 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. 

What Is Islam Famous For?

 If I were to ask a Muslim or a Hindui or a Buddhist, "what is the chief message, what is the FAMOUS thing your religion offers or is famous for? Something we all know means something of immense significance."

I propose that nobody of those religions would know what to say. If you ask them what their religion means they usually start mentioning some very small things we all already get along with and know about such as, "it gives respect" or, "it follows these rules, and make you happy"....etc.

BUT BE HONEST, not only do the followers not know what that famous and significant thing is, but NOBODY KNOWS what Islam really means, or Hinduism.

The truth is, ultimately they don't mean anything because they're just invented by men of certain countries long ago.

But if you ask what Christianity means, it has an immensely significant meaning; that God became flesh to die for humanity's sins so as to bring us back to God and set us on a course for an eternal paradise. Jesus dying on the cross, God in human form is FAMOUS. Everyone knows the immensity of this.

Can you say that of any other religion? Not really....ask yourself now.....what do they mean? Think about it! They don't really mean anything because they aren't the true religion.

Think about it, if you were Muslim, converting to Christianity wouldn't be a problem because you would be taking on something with great meaning. But I have never heard of one genuine person that converted to Islam from Christianity because that would be to go from something of immense meaning to something with no meaning.

what do you lose if you leave Islam or Hinduism behind? Just admit it, YOU LOSE NOTHING. But to leave Christianity behind is to lose a true fellowship with God. It is to lose actually knowing God and God knowing you personally. 

God died for all people on the cross in human form. Is that meaningful? Show me something more meaningful in Islam or Hinduism or any of the false religions you deliberately conflate and lump the true religion in with.

Two Steps To Turn You Off Evolution Theory

If you agree with each step you can't avoid ditching evolution theory. Which technically doesn't make you creationist of course but let's forget that for now. But this requires you be true with yourself.

STEP 1. (let's see if you agree)

Sometimes if not most of the time the only way to show something doesn't exist is to show it's absence where it is not expected to be absent. 

Let's say I claim I have six fingers. If we look in the place where you can't avoid the sixth finger showing itself, then if it is in none of those places there is no avoiding that it does not exist.

So if we search my hands for a six fingered hand but don't find one then it doesn't exist. So like I said, if it's absent then that is the proof it was never there as long as it must be there if it exists.

(step 1 shouldn't be conflated with an argument-from-ignorance where the evidence isn't necessarily expected. We're talking about sure fire stuff.)

STEP 2. If evolution never existed then the only way we can show that is by finding it's absence like with step 1 by looking at an area where it unavoidably must show itself.

So you are now thinking, "how can you provide an example where evolution had to be there but isn't?"

I will now explain how. 

An Icthyosaur was a sea-dwelling reptile. Would you agree that it can't have evolved BEFORE reptiles had evolved from amphibians since it was a reptile and none would have existed at that stage? Would you agree it can't have evolved during or after the time we find fossils of Icthyosaurs? If so then you agree with me that there has to be a WINDOW OF TIME where it MUST have evolved. That is to say, it is the only possible window of time where it could have evolved if it did. Agree? 

So we have established it MUST have evolved in a certain window of time. There can be no escape from this because evolutionists cannot say that this would be wrong. So we know WHEN it had to evolve.

If we now look at that window of time (as I have already done). Like with the sixth finger, I couldn't find any evolution of an Icthyosaur. 

So let's look for the WINDOW of time for when pinnipeds had to have evolved. (seals, walruses, dugongs, manatees, etc).

When I looked at this window of time in the fossil record, I found many animals fossilised but I found no evolution of pinnipeds. Indeed, the first sign of them is the already, "fully evolved" stage, like with the Icthyosaurs.

Let's look at more windows;

Between the Permian and Triassic we should see the transitionals for lizards?. We don't! Pre-bat transitionals had to have evolved after mammals had evolved from reptiles, so between the Triassic and the Tertiary we expect to see how bats became bats, through transitionals leading to bats, we don't BUT we do see many fossils preserved in the Triassic and Tertiary including bats, full designed for flight. 

Now here is the thing, there are many windows that overlap, so it makes the fossil problem even worse because it's not as though you could expect a complete absence of evolution of many forms in one era. They should be there like the sixth finger.

Evolution is reasonably absent. You won't find one difficult anatomy that became something VERY different, represented in the fossil record in terms of proving there was a viable route to that new phenotype.

Evolution's Plasticity Should Be An Embarrassment To Science

 Realistically evolution cannot be defined as science because it's plasticity will not allow falsification.

I will list all of the things that they say fit with evolution.

Firstly evolution was supposed to be diversity, so homologies fit with evolution. So can we falsify it if there is are two homoplastic organisms? No, because it's simply called, "evolutionary convergence". So both homology and non-homology are considered evolution. 

Conclusion; cannot falsify

Then there is the issue of timing. If evolution happens slowly it's evolution(Darwinism), if it happens quickly it's evolution (hopeful monsters).....so then if evolution doesn't happen at all can I falsify it? No, because it's called, "evolutionary stasis". (which in fact is an oxymoron)

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about the designer standard for evolution, what do we expect it's design to be like, brilliant, average or poor? ALL of them. Whatever you find becomes the prediction for evolution. They argue bad design in order to say God can't have designed life but if you show them a good design then it is expected from millions of years of perfecting by evolution. Whether the design standard is brilliant, average or poor it's evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about transitionals? Intermediates? If I find some is it evolution? Yes. If I change my mind like with whales and they become artiodactyl ungulates rather than mesonychids, is it still evolution? Yes. Is it evolution if we find no transitionals at all which is pretty much the case once we rule out the few fashionable candidates? Yes, it's still evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about studies on micro-scale evolution such as chichlid fish? If micro changes don't seemingly have any direction towards macro scale anatomical overhauls of phenotype is it evolution? "Yes, because evolution doesn't have to take any direction". So if we find direction it's evolution, we find no direction it's evolution? yes.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about things out of place? What if we find something existing earlier than it's alleged ancestors? Do we push back evolution or falsify it? It's pushed back. So if the story fits it's evolution, if it doesn't fit it's pushed back so it's still evolution. 

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

what about if we find soft tissues that are much likelier to be thousands of years old? In that case it's some sort of preservation. So if it's soft young tissue it's still an evolutionary timescale just like if there is the expected decay to the point none is left. Yes, meaning yet again ANY outcome is automatically somehow evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about vestigial features or junk DNA? If we find purposes for those features, implying they are not leftovers of evolution, is it still evolution? Yes, and you can just argue that the portion we don't know the function of yet are leftover (argumentum ad silentia), So if we find function it's evolution and we don't find function it's evolution and if it's a mixture of both it's evolution.

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

What about devolution? What if we only find evidence of major characters being lost rather than gained such as the loss of horse's toes, the loss of eyes in fish or the loss of beetle's wings? Then devolution becomes your evidence of evolution!

Conclusion; cannot falsify.

FINAL CONCLUSION; So how do scientists CLAIM they are able to falsify evolution? By abusing hindsight! They choose the kinds of falsification where they say that uncovering a certain fact would certainly falsify evolution-theory, however the hindsight they have from their knowledge of the facts means that they simply know they will never uncover such a fact. (selecting falsification that isn't proper falsification)

In simple terms, to summarise; Evolution can be fast slow, absent, divergent or non-divergent, it's history present or not present, it's remains fitting as evidence of youth or great age, it's transitionals one group or another group later on or non existent, it's design can be brilliant, average or rubbish and it can be found in the right place, wrong place or nowhere at all and devolution can be your evolution. It's leftovers can be genuine leftovers or functional characters or a mixture of both and there isn't any scenario which cannot be argued to not be evolution. 

That is not a science-theory, it is an all-encompassing naturalist ideology designed to replace an omniscient God by having all of the answers in His place.

Why Anything Exists

 There are always reasons why things happen. You will not be able to think of one thing that ever happened without a reason. Think about it. Try and think of something that happened for no reason. Even if someone is killed on the road accidentally, there will be a reason why. The reason might be that they didn't look and stepped into the road. The reason may be they miscalculated while J-walking. The reason may be it was dark and they were drunk.

But if there was no reason, then it wouldn't have happened because nothing can happen without a reason. Therefore there always must be valid reasons for something to happen. (important to remember)

WHY DOES ANYTHING EXIST?

There are three possibilities we can round it down to.

1. There was nothing at all. Then something popped out of nothingness. (magic)

2. Nature is eternal, it was forever cause and effect, turtles all the way down.

3. There is something inherently eternal that exists, that created nature. (technically you cannot prove this is God, but there has to be something that has a reason to be eternal that is beyond nature and our understanding)

Those are basically the three logical possibilities. I am arguing that because number 3 makes the most sense that God is there and always existed. I am arguing that God (or something like God technically) makes the most sense, I am not arguing that I can prove it is the Lord like I believe it is, I am just saying that of those three possibilities it seems 1 and 2 can be ruled out.

So the explanation which is true has to be predicated on a good reason because everything has a reason to happen. Because we do exist, and life and the universe does exist then there MUST be a reason why. (Like with the car accident example, as if there is no reason then it wouldn't have happened, but it did happen therefore there is a reason. --modus tollens rule--)

Number 1 (a universe from nothingness) doesn't provide a real reason; no matter what they tell you about a big bang or whatever gibberish they believe, the fact is if nothing at all exists there would be no reason for something to pop up out of it. Saying, "it just did" counts as, "no reason". This means number 1 MUST be false. Something would not come from nothing for no reason and this explanation can be regarded as belief in magic. Magic is reasonably false. There must be a reason and this offers no reason. There can also be no reason offered that would make sense because if nothing exists at all why would anything then come from it? It only makes sense that nothing would breed nothing. There is nothing for something to come from with number 1. It is the dumbest belief of the three and you can't put scientific varnish over it because there must be genuine reasons for something to happen and in this instance there can't be a reason for a false thing called magic, to occur.

Number 2 (eternal nature) is a bit of a better explanation than number one because the nothing-problem is dispatched, however is the problem really gone pertaining to there being a reason for an eternal universe? Why would it be there anyway? Why would it exist? There seems to be a play on magic again because if there is no reason for it to exist in the first place then it can't be true. "It was just always there" is a non-answer and provides no real reason. Why would matter, or anything else, be there to begin with? There really isn't a good answer that is possible, therefore it cannot be true because things only happen for a reason. In fact there would just be nothing, just like if there was no reason for a car accident then it wouldn't have happened. 

This is why materialism, naturalism, atheism, is a generally poor answer,(not that the pride-filled liars of new atheism would ever be honest enough to admit to it) because it cannot give us proper reasons why things happen. It is the same with life's design and the intelligibility of the universe, you have to believe it is incidental but there is just no valid reason why designed parts of a cell would collect together over time and lead to a living, functional cell. What is the reason that would happen with natural chance? There really isn't a good reason, and a lifeform wouldn't "desire" to exist until it existed. Even if you propose something like a meteor delivering the correct concentration of left handed aminos to create a homochiral protein why would nature stop the protein from breaking down long before there was a functional cell? It's pretty much a totally FOOLISH belief to just go with credulity in this science-fiction offering because there are always reasons for why things happen and this provides none. You may counter, "an extraordinary series of events were the reason", but rationally there is no reason to believe in the invokation of super-improbable scenarios that only depict a fantasy world where the improbable events are so fantastical that they are no different from a miracle in their scope. And if they are equal to a miracle then why object to an actual miracle?

Number 3 seems to make the most sense. (Admittedly we can never fully make sense of these things because of the limits of our intellect). But it makes for the most consistent answer that God is the answer, because God is eternal. Even in Genesis God says of Himself, "I am that I am", which implies that God is saying, "I exist" or, "I am existence itself". This is consistent if there is a perfection to God where an eternal nature is unavoidable. Why does anything exist? Because I AM (existence itself) creates other things that exist. It also solves the nothing problem. There could never have been nothing because of the aforementioned reasonings. Therefore the reason why God is always there is because of His character/nature. God is inherently eternal being existences it's very self. God always was existing, and other things that exist only exist because God does.

This seems more satisfying than the other two answers. And the mark of a good answer is that it also gives answers to other problems that tie up the loose ends.....it answers for why the universe has intelligibility and life has design. The first two answers cannot give good reasons.