Saturday, 4 November 2017

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

Sunday, 8 November 2015

Stasis Not A Problem For Evolution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Nightcap Oak (20 million years, based on fossilized nut)
Maple Tree (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Proxylastodoris kuscheli Beetle. (40-50 million) --was believed extinct until recently--
non-marine ostracod. Eocene --was believed extinct until recently--
Sabalites Palm tree - Eocene (30-50 million years)
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)
Sycamore. "The leaf is not too different from those on the living tree" (30-50 million years/ Eocene)
Crinoid Anthedon (150 million years)
Tardigrada (micro-bears) - 520 million years. (they have many things that large animals have including a gut, eyes, osphagus, brain and mouth)
Herring fish (35-55 million years)
Garfish ( 30-55 million years)
Earliest spider (300 million years)
Grasshopper (100 million years)
Frog (280 million years)
Bees (100 million years - amber)

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

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

Saturday, 24 January 2015

Abiogenesis And Evolution Are Circular

To understand this blog-entry you will need to follow the reasoning very closely. It should be noted all of the conclusions drawn are deductively provable, so to disagree with the findings is inappropriate. (A misunderstanding on the part of the reader, not the writer)

First of all, macro-evolution theory says that in the past, organisms existed, that were primordial.
(It should be noted, no such organisms have ever been found to exist)

So then, BETWEEN Abiogenesis and lifeforms, you have a gap with primordial forms in the middle:

Example: (Proven facts are highlighted in blue, speculation in red)

Abiogenesis --> then primordial forms, then --> lifeforms.

Obviously nobody has witnessed an abiogenesis or a primordial form.

So my point is, it is not abiogenesis as a theory that claims primordial forms exist, but evolution would say that in the past all forms converge upon an original primordial ancestor.

So then if lifeforms were never primordial, then abiogenesis could not happen/would not be relevant, because what would abiogenesis bring you? It can't bring a modern type of lifeform, it would need a primordial form to be possible, which is only relevant to macro-evolution. Only evolution 'reduces' life to an original primordial form.

So this shows without a doubt that evolution is inextricably joined-at-the-hip, with abiogenesis. Think about it, if life has always been as it is now, complex or, 'modern', then abiogenesis could not occur. It could only occur if macro-evolution was true, because then a primordial lifeform could be a notion that is entertained. It is proposed that abiogenesis creates a primordial form, but a primordial form, is an evolutionary-notion.

Ergo, abiogenesis is a kind of corollary of evolution theory, if evolution were true.

Ergo, without abiogenesis, there is no evolution, and without evolution there is no abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a belief, ergo, evolution is also a belief. For neither can exist without the other.

Evolutionists think they've proven evolution, but abiogenesis is a blatantly absurd belief that doesn't work, and without it evolution cannot occur. Darwin's warm little pond is only invoked on behalf of his theory, for why else would anyone contemplate an abiogenesis, unless they believe a macro evolution? There is no other reason, for a primordial-form is only relevant to evolution. Both evolution and abiogenesis, ASSUME the other is true FIRSTLY. Begging-the-question, fallacy.

The rhetoric that abiogenesis is a different thing from macro-evolution, is BUSTED. They are hypotheses only relevant to each other. Evolutionists are in bed with abiogenesis, it only exists on behalf of evolution.

Saturday, 27 December 2014

What I Mean By UNCHANGED Animals (For Will)

Will, I have drawn a picture for you. Like most evolutionists you think I don't understand evolution, but in the picture I have represented the correct claims of evolution, in the green-zone. Notice the actual facts are drawn in the pink-zone.

Yes, we know evolution can incorporate the pink-zone into it's theoretics and rather amusingly, call it 'evolutionary -stasis', but the point is, the actual facts we find are shown in the pink zone. The green zone can represent conjecture, speculation, fantasy, or fiction.

My point is that on a LOGICAL level, yes, evolution can cope with stasis, but notice the facts only show it. So THIS is why the unchanged organisms are so important. Here I have drawn a Coelecanth as our representative, but you could use any organism on the list of basically unchanged organisms. Here is the picture:

So as you can see, I don't misunderstand evolution, I just give it it's logical value, compared with deductive, proven facts. (Little value) Here is the list of unchanged lineages. (notice on the picture there are several lineages, but the one that matters logically as deductive proof, is in the pink zone)Those other evolutionary lineages are propositional, but the lineage of Colecanth-Coelecanth, is INDISPUTABLY PROVEN.

LIST of unchanged lineages:

The Coelacanth Fish (340 million years old) 
Gingko Trees (125 million years), 
Crocodiles (140 million years), 
Horseshoe Crabs (200 million years), 
The Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), 
Neopilina Molluscs (500 million years), 
The Tuatara Lizard (200 million years).
Avocets (65 million years)
Wollemi Pine (150 million years)
Ferns (180 million years)
Jellyfish (500 million years)
Alligators (75 million years)
Gracilidris Ant (15-20 million years preserved in amber)
Turtles (110 million years)
Gladiator Insect (45 million years)
Lace Bugs (15 -200 million years, amber)
Starfish (500 million years)
Bats (48-54 million years)
Golden Orb-Weaver Spider (165 million years)
Pelican Spider (44 million years)
Shrimp - (100-300 million years)
Rabbitfish - (150 million years)
Gall Mites - (amber - 230 million years)
Sponge, Nucha naucum - (220 million years)
Octopus - (90 million years)
Dragonflies. (can't find a date, but they were a lot bigger but that's all, I guess the Carboniferous)
Laonastes Rodent (10 million years up, can't find exact date)
Millipedes. (3-400 million years, aprox)
Sharks: (450 million years)
Vascular plants, land plants. (400 million)
Eukaryote cells (2.7 billion years)

(There would be green-zones for all of these, TOO, so I don't misrepresent evolution, as it is represented in the picture.) as I explained at the EFF forum message #67 of The unchanged list of organisms, thread, when we find an Ambulocetus, and the other representatives of whale-evolution, these would be in the green-area, LOGICALLY, because they don't prove it happened that way, it is only a proposition, and these lineages sometimes change, as evolutionists change their minds about lineages, PROVING they only have propositional, speculative value. but when you find a fossil of a Coelecanth unchanged, and they still live today, you would have a lineage that is 100% proven, because at least one lineage MUST have led to the modern Coleecanth.

M U S T have. There is NO OTHER possibility. This is of overwhelming logical importance. Because you could fiddle all day long with the green-zone, and evolutionists do, changing it, changing their minds, etc..but you can't change the pink zone, as it is a PROVEN lineage.

So the actual facts, support Created Kinds. (Baramins)

Sunday, 3 August 2014

More About The Fossil Order

Daren Hew (an objective agnost) said: "There are many other phyla that you wont find in the Cambrian. You wont find any bony fish or shark teeth in Cambrian strata for example, despite the existence of said fossils in upper strata. (There are plenty of bottom-dwelling bony fish, like flatfish that didn't get preserved in Cambrian fossil beds)"

I would say though, that since there are thousands of marine forms, should we expect a few not being there to be all that relevant? There would have been perhaps more that were obliterated. I mean, eventually, chance alone is going to create the possibility of certain burials based on whatever creatures were in that place of the particular deposition. If we DON'T assume long-ages, then the sharks in the upper-layers would also have been alive along with the organisms in the Cambrian, if most or all of the layers were part of the same flood. So logically, really all we need is sharks to be present, in any layer, if all of the layers were laid down at the same time, over weeks and months, by inundation. 

It depends on how we interpret the record. Most creation-scientists argue that fish can escape, and indeed fish are fast, but slow-movers don't. Nevertheless there is evidence of vertebrates in the Cambrian. Here are the links to the scientific articles:


"However, just last year a team of nine scientists reported well-preserved fossils of two different kinds of agnathan fish from China found in Lower Cambrian strata.10,11 The fossils are described as ‘the most convincing Early Cambrian vertebrates ever found’,11 and extend the fossil range of fish by at least 20 and possibly 50 million years in evolutionary thinking. Vertebrates had now been found at the base of the Cambrian along with all the other multi-celled animals."

Quote From:

If the Cambrian, upper or lower, does not express a significant passage of time, then to find a vertebrate in the Cambrian would be enough to prove they existed at the same time of the other marine organisms, if the Cambrian is not an "era". So I can't just ASSUME the truth of the Cambrian being an evolution "era" as that would be to assume what evolutionists have to prove, on their behalf.

No but rather, it is usually requested we provide an, "out of place" fossil. This is impossible if none can be found, but even when on occasions they can be found, the scientists will then conclude the following type of reasoning:

For example they might say: "So now we have to understand how vertebrates evolved earlier".

So those who say, "show me X and this will falsify evolution", well, that's been done before and when we find X they change the goal posts.

What tends to happen, is they then request you score through another goal they create. If there is a request to find something in the Cambrian, and if it is at the top, the request will then change to, "now show me something at the bottom of the Cambrian". Pollen is found Pre-Cambrian because it is small. Surely that is enough? But the evidence is ignored, probably regarded as inexplicable, because it's only one example. (Yet Nye and the likes tell us we only need one example? Can you see the problem yet?)

All of this is assuming that the fossil record is an evolution record. Please note, we are just seeing fully formed known-forms, not an evolution in rocks. After all what are we discussing? We are discussing things that have always existed. Fish, sharks, pollen, etc....what has this got to do with evolution? Nothing.

So the "pushing back evolution" when it is "out of place" is common. It was thought mammals rose after the dinosaurs but now they are found in their bellies, you will get statements such as, "surprisingly mammals were already well developed at this stage" (example of reasoning). There is some evidence of birds in bellies of dinos too, and apparently some pre-dated dinos. (Or so I heard, IIRC)

One has to ask, logically - how many push-backs do we allow? At what stage can evolution be falsified if it is so plastic that it can be pushed back infinitely? Because we keep finding fully-formed, unchanged, sophisticated and therefore, "modern" forms. Eyes, like sophisticated Trilobite-eyes. Pollen, mammal-hair, unchanged organisms such as Jellyfish or snails, and all types of every order.

The additional problem is the apriori and posteriori claims, which highlights the difference between predictive evidence and post-knowledge evidence.

The fossil order was generally known when Darwin formed his theory, so he didn't predict the evolutionary order, he actually based it on the already-known fossil order. This is posteriori-evidence.(None-predictive)

But if he were to make a prediction that for example, "we will find intermediatesof bats", this would be apriori-evidence if it was found. (Predictive).

Predictive = Strong scientific evidence.
None-predictive = Weak scientific evidence.

To be fair to Darwin-ites, in whatever we say about the flood, if we say it because of our post-knowledge of the fossil record, then we say it in a none-predictive, weak and conjectural fashion, also.

The only difference is the bible itself, which said there was a worldwide catastrophe, BEFORE there was a discovered fossil record. This would imply a worldwide graveyard, whether it was preserved in rocks or not, left as remnants. It is reasonable to expect circumstantial remnants, given it has been shown that sediment has been found in fossilized throats. Given we know water can do this, certainly, and is the best explanation by far for all of the odd evidence around the world.

Monday, 30 June 2014

Friendly response to D.Hew's reasonings about science

Daren Hew said:

" Part of the philosophy of science is that science cannot prove anything. Scientific theories (like evolution) are not provable by their very nature but they can be disproven if their explanations contradict new evidence presented. The scientific community simply accepts them as the best explanation for observed phenomena. You are right, it is based on inductive reasoning and cannot be proven beyond a doubt. But are there better alternative explanations? "

The highlighted part of your quote is certainly correct. That's because an induction is always incomplete. The modus-tollens is applicable via falsification evidence. I agree.

You have cleverly noticed the problem of affirming the consequent. But you need to APPLY the tollens objectively. So then if evidence does not "fit" with divergence, or there is what is called in logical terms, a conspicuous absence of evidence for transitionals, then logically this counts as falsification evidence. Effectively you are not considering the falsification evidence, instead you are focusing on the posteriori explanations of why the evidence does not fit. (extra-hypotheses, such as the, "hard-type" hypothesis). If you are to be STRICTLY scientific, these explanations of why evolution is not there when it should be, should be regarded as EXTRA WEAK arguments, given they depend upon contradictory evidence.

I think it's important not to use the word, "rhetoric", towards me. Everything you learn from me can be googled and you will find it is true.

As for the, "this is the best explanation of data", the problem for that type of reasoning is that it contains premises that are omitted. Whether this be innocently, by scientists, or deliberate, they either know, or don't know that this entire position of methodological naturalism, relies on unproven assumptions.

Darwin said, in response to homology being potentially explainable by a common-designer, that it pleased the designer, Darwin said "but that's not scientific" (paraphrase), but the point is, LOGICALLY, MUST something be a matter of scientific explanation, in terms of methodological naturalism, only? Instead of dealing with that question, instead the scientists simply DECIDED to rule out a potential truth. To use semantics to define ANY talk of design, as, "none-scientific", is an issue of semantics, because if design holds "truth" then you have ostracized truth. 

The problem with such an unproven assumption can be shown with the following example:

Let's say a murder took place. Either Jane or Bob is guilty, it can only be one of those two. But now let's say we RULE OUT a potential truth that Bob done it. We can't say for sure he didn't but effectively we just don't want Bob to have done it, because if He did, that just doesn't fit with our beliefs.

Now we find finger-prints for Bob, but now we have to say that those finger-prints only APPEAR to incriminate Bob. Notice that logically, we can NEVER INFER "Bob", as we have guaranteed "not Bob", tautologically, by definition. Since Bob is out of the question, the only option left is to conclude that the evidence incriminates Jane, instead, because there was a murder. (Google: The Law Of The Excluded Middle).


You see Daren, scientists are arguing in circles, tautologically, if they say, "evolution is the only explanation". This exclusive-argument is not logical, because as you say, either new evidence or unknown evidence might exist, that could explain the evidence. This is why evolutionists interpret the evidence as "evolutionary", because that's the only thing "science" allows them to do. So if they find a human foot-print that is not in line with evolution, they have to say the human foot-print is not human. Incredible, but true.

If top-scientists don't even know why an "appearance of design" is a poor argument, and they commit slothful induction by focusing on exceptions such as the laryngeal nerve, rather than the mountain of evidence for obvious construction of anatomy, and the thousands of contingency-plans in each organism, then this PROVES that it was NOT part of their education to learn critical-thinking, they were simply taught evolution. The, "only explanation is evolution" argument is essentially and indirect way of affirming the consequent.

If evolution then X, X therefore, "can only possibly be evolution".

Your whale-example was only a correlation or coincidence. (circumstantial) I would venture to say. No disrespect meant, I admit the evidence does "fit" of course.

(check out, "slothful induction" when it comes to design, heck read any article on CMI that discusses the 500 incredible anatomically designed contingencies in any animal, for every one thousand brilliant design-facts, an evolutionist has ONE complaint. Example, the pharynx/larynx. Forget the fact we can chew, swallow, speak, whistle, shout, whisper, smile, frown, breathe, eat and drink from one entry-point, and forget that we can drink upside down, eat upside down, forget that we can spit, laugh, lick, taste, singsneeze, cough, regurgitate, belch, Bork, and forget the perfect structure of the voice-box, forget this is all a neat package including aesthetics, and just focus on the fact that we can potentially choke. SLOTHFUL INDUCTION fallacy!)

They don't even know their own behaviour Daren, because these "experts" have no wisdom. You don't get to learn it at school. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

Monday, 16 June 2014

God Is Omni-Universe

There is a lot of common confusion pertaining to God's nature.

Usually there are some terms that can be inferred from the bible, that have credence when we attempt to define God in our limited capacity. But, there are a lot of modern definitions that are either misnomers, or strawman terminology. I refer to the "omni"-terms. such as, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, et al. Some of them are valid descriptions, some of them are NOT.

For example, the bible does not EVER state that God is, all-loving or all-benevolent. Usually non-believers will attempt to collect these terms in order to infer a logical paradox.

It should be noted that Christians have not attempted to collect such terminology themselves, but largely they are imposed upon us. They are modern definitions that largely can be termed as semantic-sophistry.

As believers, we infer things about God only from scripture and His creation.

If there is a particular omni-term that is going to be the most relevant and takes precedent above all the others, it is going to be the term, Omni-Universe. God is omni-universe. (All-united in purpose, nature, attributes, with diversity.)

This means, that God is, as best as I can describe it, according to His Word, is; All-united, being diverse.

This means that, the "Lord is one" (unity), yet, "I and my Father are one"(diverse). The Father, Son and Holy Spirit (diversity), yet they are all one. (Unity) = Uni-verse.

So this means that God's attributes are harmonious, complimentary, symbiotic or united.

So then to take certain modern-definitions of God that don't really match tends to not have much value, largely this type of argument can be regarded as vacuous sophistry.

To give an analogy. Imagine we only understand certain things about colour, limited data, which is analogous to our limited capacity to understand God. Would we not logically state, that if the spectrum-of-light incorporates red and blue, when they come together, this will rule out one or the other.

--> Blue or not blue. Red or not red.

You can surely then only have one or the other, if you assume there can be no unity, you would likely dismiss that both elements could be united, and make a third colour, purple. We see that in God's creation, many colours come together, even though they are different colours, they can merge.
 "For God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." (paraphrasing 1 John 1, IIRC)

The Word directly states God is light, so the nature of light in our universe is an important example, it shows how God is united yet diverse.

The problem with taking some omni-terms and pitting them against each other, is that you tend to judge the WHOLE from SOME. "Some ERGO all." (Fallacious)

Think about it in terms of this analogy, if we took two elements that make up a motor vehicle, and pit them against each other, then we do so fallaciously because we have to remove all of the unity. So for example, if we say that water is part of a car's system, and so is electric, we could then fallaciously state:

"Car's can't exist because water and electric do not mix."

This only works if you remove the unity of the whole.

Other examples of uni-verse things in the creation, is of course the universe itself, but within it, we find God's nature is displayed all around us. One example is the universe, one example is light, another is all of the animals and plants. When we look at all of the homologous structures of bones in vertebrates, they show the same basic design-plan but the shape and diversity is massive.(Universe). Another example is analogous features, such as wings. Evolutionists would call them homo-plastic, but we can see that we can have different wings, diverse in anatomy this time, but unified in function.

An example in the Word, is the fruit of the spirit, that all compliment each other despite being diverse;

Galatians 5:22;But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control.

You might then say, "how can God kill, and be "good"- But justice doesn't rule out goodness. An executioner of justice doesn't have an evil motive, therefore there is no genuine contradiction.


I think all of this shows that the omni-terms are a source of confusion for people. The term, "ALL" misleads people, If you instead say, "God is loving, good, powerful," you likely wouldn't mislead yourself, but when people use the term, "all" or "omni", they commit the fallacy of composition, by saying that the units indicate something about the whole.


A plane has rubber wheels, wheels are none-flying. Wheels are "all-round".
A plane has windows, windows are none-flying, Windows are "all-transparent"

ERGO, a plane can't be both all transparent and all rubber and all-round and it can't fly. (non sequitur) A plane actually consists of all the elements, just as part of a whole unit.(universe)

The omni-terms should raise danger-signs with any thinker, they seem to have taken on an agenda of their own!