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. (like finding a GROUP of people claiming to have six fingers, but none of them do)

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. 

It doesn't matter what scientists say or the size of their education, this is exactly what you would expect if macro-evolution never existed. This is deductive-reason, not guesswork. These are the very rules of logic showing us that the claims of Darwin are not matched. Whatever they tell you is the evidence of evolution is NOT the evidence of evolution. Finding the evolution of these animals in the fossil record would be THE evidence for evolution, and it is absent because evolution did not create lifeforms, God did.

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. (of course in reality there is no "bad design", only badly understood anatomy by atheists, as history has now shown of all the popular examples, through new scientific research into them)

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.

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