Superman And Evolution

 Superman and evolution are linked. But how?

In the fantastical nature of their claims. 

First you have to believe there is a natural inventor of biochemistry. (abiogenesis). Obviously you only find biomolecules in life, such as DNA and proteins and enzymes. Then you have to believe thousands of viable anatomies created themselves. (evolution)

That is part of the same story, because logically if there was no evolution, then there could be no abiogenesis because without evolution reducing animals to cells as we go back in time, then abiogenesis would otherwise have to produce giraffes and bats and insects and plantlife. And without abiogenesis there is no ancestor of all life for evolution to act upon.

So scientists say they're different theories but this is an example of vanus veritas. (a meaningless truth)

EXAMPLE of meaningless truth;

"I went to a vegetarian restaurant and I couldn't have any meat."

True, but meaningless.

In the same way, since abiogenesis and evolution each can't exist unless the other survives then you're left with a fantastic scenario, that two natural designers came together on planet earth, one of them to produce biochemistry for no reason whatsoever since this would not be done on purpose, and then evolution turned those cells into bees, peas, cheese, fleas, captain Kirk and the chinese. 

CONCLUSION; I actually think if you look at this scenario of UNREALITY for what it really is, then believing in superman is actually MORE reasonable. 

Especially when you consider the fact that all of the design in nature has been plagiarised by us. (engineers have stolen the ideas in nature from all areas of design; clothing, optics, aerodynamics, etc...)

Also it should be noted, probability must be multiplied when consecutive improbable things occur. So if you flip a coin twice the chances of getting two heads in a row is 1 in 2 X 2. (1 in 4). It's the same if two natural designers of life come along at the same time. Even the chance of getting a protein is an astronomical improbability-figure so what are the chances of getting everything else you need? The minimum cell is called a "minimum Koonin cell". It is comprised of many needed parts in the cell. So whatever the chances of that are you have to multiply it by the chance of evolution then creating thousands of viable designs once the cell was created.

In other words; NO CHANCE.

It's quite simple, it didn't happen in the same way we can be confident superman doesn't exist. 

Scientists Are Human Too

 Scientists are also human, and have human motives. A lot of laymen seem to think they are perfect robots. I recently watched Neil Degrasse Tyson, on a utube video, but he seemed more like Mike Tyson. Ranting away in a very angry way about trans-rights.

It's important to remember what lies behind theories like evolution and why there is such a push-back if anyone DARES to argue that it might be wrong. Or heck, even partially wrong.

There are so many good sources now that exist, that are simply looking into the facts of evolution and trying to determine if it holds up.

This site for example is an excellent read about homology, one of the strong areas for evolution (you would think). It clearly shows that mainstream science does not regard any facts against evolution and it's textbooks hide any that show it is weak;

https://evolutionunderthemicroscope.com/homology00.html#:~:text=Homology%20is%20illustrated%20by%20the%20vertebrate%20skeleton:,a%20spine%20with%20ribs%2C%20and%20a%20skull.&text=In%20the%20same%20sort%20of%20way%2C%20the,arising%20by%20evolution%20from%20common%20fish%20ancestors.

WHY aren't we allowed to look at evolution under the microscope? Are they SCARED of, "religion".

After all when you think about it, concluding evolution is false is just the null hypothesis.

Usually where there is a fantastic claim, the null hypothesis should be the default position anyway. For example if someone says, "I am superman", the null hypothesis that, he is "NOT superman", is NOT a fantastic claim. 

Think about that. Why is it a fantastic claim to say evolution did not happen? That's just to take the reasonable default position of skepticism. After all evolution is a fantastic claim as a story, if you put it together with the cause of it's universal ancestor, which is a cause that has never been found scientifically to even exist. (abiogenesis) Can you recall one scientific abiogenesis experiment that so much as created a protein? Most proteins are a string of at least 100 aminos if I recall correctly. The last I heard they got a polymer of monomers that was about a string of 5 amino acids. And then what about the protein motors with real cogs and stators? What about the kinesin motor in the cell that walks along tubules in the cell? 

These are fantastic claims. To believe everything on earth, thousands of anatomies, all designed themselves.

So why is it not deemed scientific to simply take the null hypothesis position which is the far more probable position of saying, evolution is "not true" until proven?

Think about it. 

Atheists Repeat That There Is No Evidence For God

 When a lot of atheists online say, "there is no scientific evidence for God", they don't have a correct understanding of science.

They seem to think that because science does not investigate God that therefore it is significant if it finds no evidence of God. But in fact it follows that there is no evidence for God scientifically BECAUSE science does not investigate the supernatural.

In other words, a theist can just as easily make a similar assertion; "there is no scientific evidence God doesn't exist."

Both statements mean nothing. 

And since science does not investigate supernatural claims, you can't say the absence of evidence is meaningful without making an ipso facto, tacit declaration that science HAS investigated God. Or, that you the atheist, have investigated God on science's behalf.

LOL.

Anti-theists really can be rather dense. 

In case you still don't get it, science is not "atheism", therefore when you say there is no science to God you are appealing to yourselves as an authority on science. (argumentum ad verecundiam, because atheists are not an authority on science, as their declaration is proof enough that they don't understand science very well.)

If Darwin Came Back From The Grave

If Darwin came back imagine the scenario. He would say; "Oh my goodness, the year is 2025? I will look for the answers to the questions I had in the Victorian age. My first question; I always wondered how a bat traversed a radically different phenotype and had useful stages between being a quadruped and a bat. I also also wondered about the insect wing, and other odd anatomies such as how a turtle evolved it's interior scapular girdle or how the bombarier beatle evolved it's explosive matrix. How did the electric eel have inbetween stages or the anemone sting-eating slug? Can you show me how evolution actually traversed what would seemingly be useless inbetween stages and show the use of those stages by showing me the evidence you have uncovered that evolution achieved these things?"

Scientific community in the large arena where Darwin asked this question to the audience;

CRICKETS. 

.....Then......after a few minutes silence;

"you stupid creationist, you don't understand science!"

And another;

"you science-denying idiot, speciation is a fact!"

And another;

"Don't you know all about adapting bacteria yet, you science-denying creatard!"

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 the correct one;

"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, then I would reverse it thus;

"If you have sand, wind and waves, 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. (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", or "sausages" or, "phlogiston", or ANYTHING.

"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 to us in how persuasive they are. They give us a feeling they must surely have validity. But they don't because they aren't really sound reasoning which is why sophistry is so clever and cunning in many instances, in it's ability to dupe people.

 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 versus 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, and is compounded by the fact that abiogenesis experiments yield JACK SQUAT.

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? 

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 if the energy is high enough to override the kinetic energy issue. (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.