Two Steps To Turn You Off Evolution Theory

.....But only if you're HONEST. A lot of people I encounter are not intellectually honest because they don't really believe in evolution for scientific reasons. 

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.

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.

Imagine in a cluster of trees someone said they saw a ten foot tall yeti five minutes ago. Imagine the ground is wet. We go to investigate. We see our own footprints very clearly yet we weight much less than the yeti. If we find no prints yet we ourselves all create prints and the mud was just as wet when they said they saw the yeti then that absence means there was no real yeti.

Agree with the first step highlighted in blue, yet?

No quite yet?

Someone gives you a paper bag and says they have just poohed in it. You look inside and nothing is there and is smells nice, like donuts. 

Are we in agreement yet?

(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.

(If you don't agree, then you're saying that the logic you agreed to in step one is wrong in which case you have to provide an example where there was a thing that was claimed to exist that could still exist even if you found a place it had to be but it was not there. The chances are if you have thought of something like that then you are thinking of an argument from ignorance, which is not an example of step 1). 

Let me make it really easy, if evolution happened, then if we find proof it didn't happen, how could it still have happened? That would be like saying that even though you find the absence of the sixth finger, that the sixth finger still exists. (a contradiction).

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? 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? (see how much you agree with a creationist when you are forced to take each step of reason with him?)

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. But here is the compounding factor; I did find many fossils of animals, but just not the evolution of that particular organism. So it's not as though you can object by saying, "it just wasn't fossilised" because many were. But if your objection did have some validity and so I was to say back to you, "well, fair enough, perhaps that one time the evolution just didn't show for whatever reason.......BUT, if we find the same results in other windows for the evolution of other forms, will that excuse still hold?" The only reasonable answer is that the excuse would not hold, because then you would be arguing that evolution was a sort of magic act like with the yeti and the poop in the bag. 

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, BUT, we do see other fossils preserved in rocks of that age. 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 in terms of arguing a double standard because look how silly the reasoning looks if you carry on believing evolution; "We believe even though X evolved in this period between the triassic and tertiary, and P also evolved at that same time as well as T and Y, that even though we find no evolution for these things but we do find many animal fossils we will continue to argue they still somehow evolved."

Why?

The only answer you can answer with is this; go and look in a mirror and say; "because I am a liar and DESIRE evolution to be true."

Think about what this represents as logic. Imagine I said that in one room superman was there for real, as well as the real spiderman as well as the real Hulk, all in the same room because it was a room made for superheroes. It's bad enough to not find any of them, it's worse if you only find normal human beings without super powers and the room was clearly not made for superheroes but just normal people. 

It's the same with the fossils, how can there be many fossils preserved in one window of time and they all are missing their evolution? There can only be one reasonable deduction; that like with the sixth finger, the yeti and the poop, evolution was never there because it doesn't exist.

Historical Science Is Not True Science

 Because the facts contradict a big-bang they are now considering arguing there isn't any dark matter and that the universe is twice as old.

But had you argued against those things before they found the contradicting evidence, you would have been deemed to be a science-denying crackpot. But if they now are not facts, then how can there have been science to things they now argue are false?

I also hear other things such as human speech is now being argued to be much older, such as a million years or whatever.

It used to be that whale ancestors were mesonychid ungulates, but now they argue it to be artiodactyls. They used to argue a reducing atmosphere for earth but now they find oxygen too early for that.

The standard response by naturalists, when we point out these weaknesses in historical, "science" is to say, "well that's how science works, we adapt when we are wrong."

BUT IS IT?

Is it really how science works, or is it how faith and belief works? Because if you are going to believe a natural story no matter how many times you have to bend your theory, and no matter how plastic that theory is, then isn't that just to TOY with facts to fit your beliefs?

What about REAL scientific strength? For example can you remember any examples of a viable plane wing not producing lift? Can you remember downforce only existing for SOME formula one racing cars? Can you find any examples of rats that don't lose consciousness under a sealed dome? Can you find any fire that wasn't caused by energy and a spark/oxygen but instead was caused by something totally foreign?

In other words, can you remember anything from operational science (true science that can experiment in the here and now)that was considered to be wrong and needed a rethink? For example have they changed their minds about how a motor spins using magnetic force and electricity? What about phones, do they now believe phones or modems might not work? Were they wrong about the diode because now only 4% of them work?

CONCLUSION; Isn't it just plain obvious that when it comes to ORIGINS (big bang, evolution of cosmos, abiogenesis and evolution) that all they really have is a philosophy they tweak every few years because there is no real science to any of it? I think the obvious answer is "yes".

Why is it not really science, and therefore is not giving strong answers that fit and never change like with operational science? Because you can't test the past. You can't test if you really can get a bat from slowly evolving a quadruped that doesn't have any wings. Not only have they never found such inbetweens they don't even know of a viable middle stage for such things. There is simply no way to scientifically test IDEAS people believe by faith. (believing a bat evolved)

Evolution Doesn't Only Depend On Evolution

 In my last blog I shown that in every area of investigation there is an finite amount of possible answers, of which none were counted as falsification for evolution. So in an area of investigation with four possibilities, all four would be argued to be evolution.

But it's worse than that for evolution-theory. If that makes it weak in that it can't be falsified, then the things you have to believe enabled macro-evolution make it even weaker.

In every sense of the word abiogenesis is science-fiction. The only science we see here is the law of biogenesis, (life comes from life). 

But it's worse than that for evolution because you also have to believe in a non-existent molten-blob of an earth in the past when all of the fine-tuned parameters of the earth are clearly designed to be how they are. So you must believe in a fictional primordial earth which is in no way science, then a fictional primordial swamp then a fiction abiogenesis then a fictional abiogenesised universal ancestor. 

There is absolutely NO WAY WHATSOEVER that any of these things come close to being factual, and the onus of proof implies science-fiction therefore evolution must also be science fiction since it depends on these fictional elements. 

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. (no use being clever here, by saying nothing is found before it's clade such as a human being found before primates existed. That also isn't very likely to find if you are are actually informed about the creationist history of the world, which you of course aren't. But there are even a few examples like this and they call it contamination, so again evolution can't be falsified because if it can't be pushed back then it's argued to be contamination)

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.

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), and that the ones found are still vestigial but not in the context previously argued. OR, you can just ignore the ones we find to have function. so even if we find a lot of function implying we just didn't know the designer's reason to put those things there and even though if things do turn out to function you would expect this from design and therefore there would be an absence of evidence for evolution it's still evolution? yes. 

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. Such as saying, "if we find a human in the Cambrian". But the facts show humans just aren't found in that type of marine-laid down rock, and even creationists don't argue that humans dwell at the bottom of the seas. The truth is that evolution is plastic enough to basically adapt to any fact making it an inherently logically weak theory. It's ironic that the only thing that actual evolves is evolution-theory.

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.

Inventing god In Your Image

 It's funny a scientist wrote that some scientists have opinions about meaning in the universe, but he attacked Christianity. The points he made in his article seemed to only mention the Christian God, as he insisted, "it's definitely not the Christian God". (paraphrase)...it's the same with a lot of people on utube and other places, they insist they do not know what humans and the world means yet they insist they know it is not the Lord God of the bible. They also do not mention Islam or Buddhism or anything like that, no, it is just straight away zeroing in on Christianity. That is the one they single out. 

The problem with all other "gods" in modern life is that they are only an expression of personality. The person will say for example, as most liberals will; "I just believe in a God of love and there is no sin". In other words, because they want their liberal values to be valid, they just mould God in their own image.

It was no different in the past, when men of war were rough and archaic, and in a battle both sides would have banners saying, "God is with us". Men of conquest, and examples such as the crusades. Those men of aggression in the past were doing those crusades for their own motives because the commission was to spread the gospel not spread war by conquest.

So what is the problem with moulding God in a way we personally see as acceptable to us? The problem is we are subjective, fallible beings. 

When we judge God in the bible we do so from the mistake of anthropomorphism. We think God is on equal terms so that we can infer when God does something morally wrong. This is truly absurd for God is the omniscient one. (all-knowing). Like it says in Numbers 23; "God is not a man". It also says in Isaiah, "so are my thoughts higher than your thoughts" and also, "God's understanding is unsearchable".

If we base God on our own morality then why is it taken for granted that our particular morality is the correct one? That would depend on a human being morally perfect.

CONCLUSION; Modern versions of what people believe about God are absurd. If someone is a plastic superficial bubblehead then their version of God will reflect just that, and they will just respond with a cheesy plastic "it's all just love". Was it, "love" when people were starving to death in the death camps. I don't think so somehow.

The world only makes sense if we actually let God tell us what He is about, when He tells us in the bible, and we let the bible tell us WHY the world is the way it is. If it is all "just love" then that means God is loving us with cancer and all kinds of disease and terrible deaths and wars and misery. That is not, "love" and if God was a candy floss liberal God then that means God doesn't have control over those things. But Jesus says that in this world "you will have trouble" but He said not to fear because "I have overcome the world". Why does Jesus have to overcome the world? Because disease and death an misery are enemies brought in against God's will. For if it was God's will that these things should exist then Jesus wouldn't have been able to heal disease, proving God is against disease and suffering, but rather evil and suffering are part of a fallen world. This then makes sense of the world because in Genesis it says God made all things good and there was no disease or death or suffering. It also says in revelation that in future when all things are corrected there will be no pain any more. 

That makes sense but with a plastic God that has no power, evil and suffering are just something out of God's control and his plastic woke-love cannot stop it. 

The, "God of the Old Testament" is an atheist strawman fallacy

 Many atheists like to PLUCK God out of the old-testament. It's basically a large-scale quote-mine in a sense because we don't believe God is just the God of the old-testament.

If we were Jewish we would see God as solely the God of the old testament in which case if you isolate the old testament, then yes God would just be another god that seemingly fought Israel's wars then disappeared implying invention.

To atheists that aren't thoughtful they are just basically coming up with as many "bible nasties" as they can then arguing God can't exist because of them. 

It doesn't really work for reasons that don't occur to them. Those reasons are;

- Anthropomorphism/anthropopathism

- Strawman fallacy/cherry picking.

- Application/not contextual

- Motives are ignored, but C.S.Lewis deductively proved that motive is a key factor to morality.

- Scale.

I shall start with scale. The New Testament give reasons why the law was there. In terms of the scale of it and it's application, it was intended for probably less than 0.1% of humanity if we look at the total population over time whereas God's intention in the gospel was to bless billions of people. In summary if you want to look at it truncated, then it's as though God was saying, "Here is proof you can't live by my standards, so now let me myself satisfy my standard on your behalf by showing you for a short while just how ugly it has to be when trying to please a totally holy God without His righteousness being imparted to you, to prove humanity cannot be moral without God.".

When it comes to motives being ignored, God's motives in the old testament aren't always clear, yet it does state in the bible that God's nature is good. 1 John 1 says, "God is light, and in Him is no darkness whatsoever". In other places it implies or outright states that God cannot sin such as in Numbers 23 where it says, "God is not a man that He should lie". It also makes a distinction between human thinking and God's thinking in Isaiah by saying that as the stars are so much higher in the sky than the earth, so is the distance between our level of thinking and God's. In other words, because God is omniscient then God is saying there literally is no comparison, any moral motive we think is immoral according to huma reason, simply cannot be correct, but would only say something about the limits of human reason. We also cannot be trusted unless the person complaining about what God done in the O.T, is a morally perfect person that has no ill will towards God. This rules out any atheist commentary because they would have an anti-God motive even if the motive was hidden. Motives ARE hidden a lot of the time. Just going from outcome alone but not knowing why something was done, is by analogy like being shown someone being executed. If you only saw the execution and how terrible it was, you could easily infer the non-sequitur that the executioner was doing it for immoral or evil reasons. 

Mostly when atheists reason out the cherry-picked canard, "the God of the Old Testament is evil/sadistic", their motives are atheist-flavoured. They don't show any real desire or attempt to understand anything about what the bible says and have a very clear and obvious desire to just take the O.T on face value and ignore anything else the bible says. 

Bible scholars would tell you that the WORST way to understand the bible is by ignoring all of the other things the bible says pertaining to matters such as morality. 

When atheist argue-from-outrage (AFO- informal fallacy)they do so towards God in the O.T by committing anthropopathism where they believe God should be endowed with their relative atheist feelings about morality. It's the mistake of humanising God, as though God should only see things from a human perspective. Logically speaking, this is quite absurd if you stop and think about it for a moment. A human being is a persona with a mind riddled full of error and fallibility. We reason incorrectly, we discount counter-intuitive concepts by confusing them with contradictions, we are riddled with all sorts of biases and our personal moral values differ wildly being mixed up with all sorts of devious motivations therefore not necessarily even being, "moral". To suppose a human being could judge an all-knowing God's actions morally is perhaps one of the dumbest things I have ever witnessed in life. 

Nobody Calls Me A murdererphobic

 Nobody calls me a murdererphobic for not wanting to see formed or semi-formed embryos killed in the womb. You see as an epithet, such a label would not demonise me and would in fact work in my favour because the liberal would have to tactitly admit that it was murder. 

That is why such terms don't exist. 

You see far left nutjobs basically see things very self-righteously, to their mind it is; "you either agree with us or you are immoral and we will demonise you".

To do this they use all sorts of question-begged-epithets mostly of the form where they prefix, "phobic" with something or other such as, "trans" or, "homo". 

The reason they are successful at sidelining people by demonising is that most people aren't smart enough to see through it unfortunately.