Saturday, 23 April 2016

There is no such thing as an appearance of design


In a way, there is no such thing as an, "appearance" of design in the way evolutionists use it. Really it is just their way of saying that design is not design, by merely putting the name-tag, "appearance", on design. The true nature, the true FORM of their argument which they hide with the term, "appearance" is of the following form;

"intelligent design is not intelligent design if it is found in life" (special pleading fallacy, for they would consider the same elements of intelligent design in a car, direct evidence of intelligent design and they would not call it appearance. So it is simply discrimination, they have one standard for life because of their erroneous and beloved theory, and another standard for technology.

Am I saying that nothing can ever appear to be designed but actually isn't? No! But the true elements of intelligent design, reveal those things that only appear to be designed.

Think about that sentence again. the true elements of intelligent designreveal those things that only appear to be designed.

Ok, so now you are thinking, "HOW?"

Here is how; 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 skew-if slightly. A designer would use materials built to last, not crumbly, loose material. One element of design is use of the correct materials.

So if lifeforms only appear to be designed, then the true elements of design will not be there. But as everyone knows, they are there. Not only are they there, they are more superior as proven by biomimetics. (plagiarizing the designs in nature).

So then evolutionists only have one card left to play. They can only muddy-the-water by saying; "but evolution happened so it can only be appearance!" - this of course, is just a statement of faith which is EXTRANEOUS to our evaluation. To find out if a cake is baked you don't need to know someone's theory about the veracity of a particular cake being baked, all you need to do is examine the cake to see if it is baked the same as other cakes. It is the same with intelligent design, we don't need to study evolution to know if lifeforms are designed, all we need to do is examine them and see if they have all of the elements of intelligent design, and if they do, which they do, then like the cake, they qualify as designed.

Sunday, 8 November 2015

Stasis Not A Problem For Evolution?

The most popular ad-nauseam fallacy for evolution is the excuse that a general stasis in the fossil record is, "not a problem for evolution theory".

An ad-nauseam fallacy is an argument that is repeated time and time and time again because the person arguing it thinks that if it is just repeated, then this lends weight to the argument. IT DOESN'T.

The 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 one MASSIVE and impressive claim, it claims that molecules can lead to grass, trees, fleas, peas and hairy-knees, 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 is PRE-bat intermediates, or showing us how a starfish or seahorse came to exist, by showing us PRE-seahorses/starfish. We would logically expect to see this for most animals, (generally), and we would NEED to see this, to satisfy the size of the claim, which is a ludicrous claim, just as a superman-claim is ludicrous.

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.

Futhermore, what would we expect to see if evolution had not happened? If we were digging up jellyfish today, how could we find out if it 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. 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? That is pretty unfalsifiable.

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)http://creation.com/fast-octopus-fossils
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)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Hydrangea? (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Alnus flower (23-33 million years/Oligocene) http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
Swartzia is a tropical tree with some 200 species today (30-50 million years/ Eocene))
Alder tree (23-33 million years/Oligocene)http://www.fallsoftheohio.org/Angiosperms_Gymnosperms.html
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 on 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. The same can be said of any of these kinds of creatures. (disclaimer: of course there are TYPES of bees, but that is EQUIVOCATION. Evolutionists know that showing a variety of bees or frogs, does not count as transitionals, transitionals are supposed to be the species that evolved into frogs and bees, not the things that already are frogs and bees. )


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.

Sunday, 11 January 2015

Ignorance Of Evolution?


Perhaps the most common argument amongst evolutionists is that creationists don't understand it, hence the complaint when those who don't say, "why are monkeys still around then?"

I have drawn a simplified picture to show a false-evolution, this is only an analogous picture, it doesn't represent what evolution claims except for in some simplified expression. Basically it's to show that evolution can be understood in it's claims, even though it isn't accepted. (Proof you can understand it but not accept it.)



This is of course a watered-down version, there would be many more species and lineages in a full diagram. Accuracy of species isn't the point, the point is that it isn't hard to understand the logic of descent.

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)http://creation.com/fast-octopus-fossils
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)

Wednesday, 3 December 2014

Transitionals Don't Exist And Never Did

Previously I wrote this blog entry: What is a true transitional?

Logically we have to qualify what a transitional is. I defined it as a species between designs. For example an ape, whether extinct or extant is designed to be arboreal, and thereby dwell in trees, but a human is a bipedal designed to walk uprightly on two legs. So to transition you need to go through many imperfect stages in between the two states of being.

Logically, just now think, given there are millions of species on earth, how many organisms should look anatomically CLUMSY, because they are transitioning, in an 'imperfect stage' between what they were and what they're becoming? We should expect to see hundreds and hundreds of imperfect animals, like the ones they claimed to exist in the past like some sort of archaic-raptor, pre-avian.

Yet we see ZERO living transitionals. every organism, even Chimeras designed to live in two environments, are complete and whole designs.

--.Also, generations differ between seed plants and humans/apes, seed-plants have much quicker generations. Bacteria-years aren't the same as human years, 200 years for us might well be a million years for bacteria - so we should see plenty of evolution on earth, but we don't see any.

But the main point of argument is that because every organism has a different rate of generation, evolution should be shown to be at very different stages, for different creatures. A bacteria-year is not a human year, and a seed-plant year is not a human year. It differs greatly across the spectrum of life, which means logically we should expect to see hundreds of imperfect, transitioning creatures.

To argue, "But we all evolved from the same ultimate ancestor, so we are all equally evolving," - that is not a line of reasoning that holds water, because evolution is supposed to be always able to happen and is supposed to have created everything. For it to hide all of it's transitional species from us, would be quite ridiculous to expect.

Before you dismiss what I say, just think about it for a moment - how many imperfect species would have to exist before a Crocodilomorph, (an arboreal, imaginery lizard-type thing), glided with 'flaps' an eventually became a bird? How many 'transitions' of imperfect, crude, blatantly evolutionary, 'stages' would have to exist? The same question can be asked for whales - a quadruped land-mammal is designed to walk on all fours, and a whale is designed to be a mammal of the sea, so then how many imperfect transitions would we expect to see? Between any such niches, we expect crude transitionals to exist. Think of an ape now, trying to evolve into a Biped - would it not look crude to see the ape-man living on the plains, away from trees, his ungainly walk, - yet when we see a human or a horse walk, they walk with complete grace.

That is because humans and horses were designed for land, and apes were designed for trees.

CONCLUSION: I expect to see 'transitionals' everywhere, if evolution is so prevailent in nature. I see none. Furthermore I see that every species is a whole design, viable, with all of the tools needed to do it's job, perfect for it's specific job. This consolidates the fact of design in nature, and the absence of any true evolution. It is inescapable, even all of the nature programs by the likes of Attenborough, can only showus already-perfect designs, that astonish us all. But where are all the crude designs we would expect to see, if evolution is responsible for amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc - we are told evolution created everything, yet we see it creating nothing, because there is no such thing as any genuine transitional creature. It's the same in the fossils, you don't find, 'imperfect' morphs - even think now of Archaeoptic-tricks, their fave dino-bird, yet even that was a perfect flyer, a Chimera with no imperfections. Indeed, every fossil they ever found of extinct organisms, also just happened to be whole and perfect designs. We don't see transitions in fossils, nor do we see them in the living. Think of how many millions of forms of life there are, and every form is perfect, not in 'transition', NOT imperfect, but actually perfect.

Just take any one species, and ask yourself, 'is this an imperfect transition between states'.

I'll pick one for you, a spider. It is, whole as a design, in every sense of the word. Not only can it produce glue with the correct viscosity to catch prey in it's web without them bouncing off, but it can also create the different types of silk needed, both for web and for sheet-webbing. It also has the correct oil so it doesn't stick to it's own web. It also has the correct vibrating muscular apparatus to detect vibrations through it's leg tips, from the web it has created, with the correct spokes on the web, and the correct software to enable it to build the web.

Now - what was it before and what is it transitionning into? NOTHING. There are no transitionals for it, nor is it one, nor will it ever be. The same can be said of every organism, a whole list of, 'correct' anatomy is in every design of creature, and none of them appear to be in 'imperfect transitions', and clearly none ever have been, whether fossilized or alive.

Don't believe me? Then think of a fossil - a complete fossil, was it a complete creature, could it do it's job? I shall pick one for you - a Pterosaur. It had everything it needed, even a pteroid bone. No transition, it was whole. Same can be said of all of the dinosaurs, and everything ever fossilized - whole and complete, not, 'imperfectly transitioning'. Even all of the Cambrian creatures, the earliest living things, were complete, the trilobites compound eye being perhaps the most sophisticated eye in creation.

Monday, 6 October 2014

Does God Lack Imagination?


The common evolutionary claim in regards to Ideal Archetypes or Homologies, is that God might lack imagination, for why does each vertebrate have a backbone? Why do they all share the same bone-plan, the Ulna and Radius, and so forth. Which is like asking: "Why do all cars share steering wheels?"

This is a simplistic argument because obviously nobody on earth would guess that a horse shared a bone-plan with a bat, if they had not already seen the bones of both horses and bats. Which shows that actually, pertaining to imagination, bones aren't all that important, if they are shared because the various function for the same skeleton, is, well - highly varied. Let's face it, nobody is going to say that there is "too striking a similarity" between humans and birds, unless they concentrate solely on diagrams of the skeletons, and remove all of the astonishing differences between birds and humans.

So I think this deductively shows that taking parts of a composition that match, can mislead our imaginations. For example, if we only shown the parts a plane and car shared, we might come to the incorrect conclusion that planes and cars must have had a shared ancestor, because of the shared elements of design.

Logically, the fact that the same vertebrate-plan can be stretched across the most immense spectrum and there can be so many dynamic functions from the same plan, actually shows that God must be able to take one idea, and use it in a million different ways. Logically this can be seen in the differences that exist, that you can have the same skeletal-plan for a horse as you can a bird, the same for a bird as you can a tortoise.

Conclusion: The, "God is limited in imagination" argument in regards to vertebrates, is a very weak argument.

Moreover, we can see that necessity has a part to play, which again is logically provable, quite easily. For nobody would ask to see a Butterfly's bones, nor would they ask to see a Snake's ulna. So clearly some types of animals don't need to share the vertebrate plan, depending upon their weight, and design. Yet evolutionists complain that vertebrates share a plan, yet they share a plan because they are made to, like we would equally state: "footballers share football skills." Well, of course - that's the whole point. God designed the vertebrate plan, and within that plan there is a myriad of different functions. There are major morphological differences too, anatomical differences. Reptiles are cold-blooded and mammals are warm-blooded.

There are two ways to see this issue in regards to why God did it this way. The most likely explanation is that He knew that bones would be good girders for land-animals of a certain weight. This doesn't mean that there are no such things as land invertebrates with exoskeletons, but in regards to light-weight, strength, practicality, God designed one common skeletal plan, and modified it pertaining to each organism, which actually shows tremendous intelligence, because it's akin not to killing two birds with one stone, but rather killing hundreds of birds with one stone. God had an idea that a skeleton would work, but He chose to create the one correct skeletal structure that would work for a huge variety of creatures. This is exceptional. As for His imagination, that is represented by the unique differences even within vertebrates. From horses to bats, birds to people, rats to toroises, the spectrum is immensely imaginative, each kind having it's own special, recognizable characteristics.