Debunking Darwinist myths...The Arguments From Incredulity (or Ignorance) and the Laws of Probability show Darwinism is anti-science and illogical!!!
Because Darwinists have created a number of fake fallacies and used a plethora of bad and illogical arguments, this seemed like a good time to remind folks that Darwinism is statistically impossible. It isn't just the odds against an organism just happening by chance (statistically and chemically impossible) but also the odds of a Universe popping into existence. It is a ridiculous and totally impossible event!!!
The only logical and scientific explanation for existence and life is a Supernatural Creator capable of creating a temporal world. The Darwinist and his fake fallacy of the "Argument from Incredulity" will not fly in the real world. Can you imagine a murder suspect's lawyer trying to use such an argument in court? Let's think on that:
A wealthy single man in his thirties was found strangled to death in his home. Now here is the evidence:
The murder victim lived in a home that had security cameras that viewed all sides of the house and had a entrance keypad that would require a code to be entered to allow entry. The victim was killed on a Thursday. His uncle was the ONLY person caught on video entering and leaving on Thursday, his prints were found on the keypad. The victim was strangled by a length of rope and the exact same kind of rope was found in the uncle's shed. The rope used to strangle the victim is not found, but the uncle could have disposed of it in many ways. The uncle had no alibi for Thursday, as he had called off of work and no one could remember seeing him for a space of about eight hours that day. The uncle would be one of the family members who would inherit the wealth of the victim as he was listed in the victim's will. His alibi was that he was sick and went to bed and, if he was seen on video it must have been someone else in disguise.
The prosecuting attorney lays out the scenario - the uncle had motive, he had opportunity and he had the means to murder his nephew. He was the only person detected at the scene on the day of the murder, he had no alibi and his fingerprints were on the entrance keypad.
The defending attorney's defense? "Your honor, the prosecuting attorney is using a logical fallacy we call the argument from incredulity. Even though he cannot imagine a way someone else could have murdered the victim, my client was sick in bed as he testified. Surely no one could use the argument from incredulity to send a man to jail for the rest of his natural life?"
Would you care to guess what the jury and judge would think of such a defense? That defense would be so pathetic that the uncle, who would be convicted, might apply for a retrial because of his incompetent defense attorney!!! YET in science this kind of argument is what Darwinists use when Creationists point out that so many aspects of their mythology is logically and statistically impossible! Just think about that?
"If you properly shuffle a deck of cards, in all likelihood, the resulting deck has never been seen before in the history of the world."
Number of permutations possible = 52! = 8.0658175e+67 (i.e. 8 followed by 67 zeroes)
Playing cards were invented in China in the 9th Century.
So, humans have been playing cards for 1200 years i.e 1200*365*24*60*60 = 37843200000 seconds.
Even with the blown-out-of-proportion assumption that there are 1 billion shuffles per second in the world, the total number of shuffles is 3.78432e+19 which is about 2*10^48 times lesser than the total permutations.
Hence, the probability of at least 2 decks being the same is infinitesimally small. - Deepak Mehta
Intelligent Design Proponents such as William Dembski have debunked this fake fallacy nicely by investigating the fallacy in comparison to actual scientific investigation:
Probability is one of the most misunderstood of all sciences and is used by Darwinists to promote their mythology. Now that the argument has been made in terms of a court case and the specific example of the e.coli motility motor, shall we now look as why this also applies to Darwinism versus Creation by God?
Intelligent Design scientists such as Michael Behe, Stephen C. Meyer and William Dembski have thoroughly debunked the idea that organisms could possibly have evolved by chance occurences and in fact that they could have evolved at all. We have also shown in previous posts that the idea of life forming in nature is chemically impossible.
Darwinism is impossible from a statistical standpoint. For a Darwinist to bring along the fallacy we have sliced and diced, it is actually the equivalent of waving a white flag. Darwinists cannot defend their failed hypothesis, so they use false fallacies, censorship, propaganda and bullying tactics to threaten the career of any scientist or educator or media outlet that dares defy their lockstep fallacious fairy tale!
No upward evolution of one kind of organism turning into another has been observed, but rather speciation and extinction, which is what the Creation model predicts. Mutations are not creative, they are destructive and threaten to eventually kill off all higher organisms as they accumulate in our gene pools. We have found that, in the case of reproduction, the mother lays the framework for the child so that the child will be the same kind of organism as the mother. Furthermore, only the same kind of organism can reproduce. In cases of sexual reproduction, a male and female of the same kind can mate and no others. For instance, a dog and a dog can mate and, since a dog and a wolf can mate we know that wolves and dogs are species of the same kind. A lion and a lion can mate. But a lion and a tiger can also mate, so we know that lions and tigers are members of the same cat kind. Creationism has been supported by experiment and observation and Darwinism has been an epic fail. It just doesn't happen and observation of the way organisms reproduce has taught us that it could not happen and therefore never has happened.
The only logical and scientific explanation for existence and life is a Supernatural Creator capable of creating a temporal world. The Darwinist and his fake fallacy of the "Argument from Incredulity" will not fly in the real world. Can you imagine a murder suspect's lawyer trying to use such an argument in court? Let's think on that:
A wealthy single man in his thirties was found strangled to death in his home. Now here is the evidence:
The murder victim lived in a home that had security cameras that viewed all sides of the house and had a entrance keypad that would require a code to be entered to allow entry. The victim was killed on a Thursday. His uncle was the ONLY person caught on video entering and leaving on Thursday, his prints were found on the keypad. The victim was strangled by a length of rope and the exact same kind of rope was found in the uncle's shed. The rope used to strangle the victim is not found, but the uncle could have disposed of it in many ways. The uncle had no alibi for Thursday, as he had called off of work and no one could remember seeing him for a space of about eight hours that day. The uncle would be one of the family members who would inherit the wealth of the victim as he was listed in the victim's will. His alibi was that he was sick and went to bed and, if he was seen on video it must have been someone else in disguise.
The prosecuting attorney lays out the scenario - the uncle had motive, he had opportunity and he had the means to murder his nephew. He was the only person detected at the scene on the day of the murder, he had no alibi and his fingerprints were on the entrance keypad.
The defending attorney's defense? "Your honor, the prosecuting attorney is using a logical fallacy we call the argument from incredulity. Even though he cannot imagine a way someone else could have murdered the victim, my client was sick in bed as he testified. Surely no one could use the argument from incredulity to send a man to jail for the rest of his natural life?"
Would you care to guess what the jury and judge would think of such a defense? That defense would be so pathetic that the uncle, who would be convicted, might apply for a retrial because of his incompetent defense attorney!!! YET in science this kind of argument is what Darwinists use when Creationists point out that so many aspects of their mythology is logically and statistically impossible! Just think about that?
"If you properly shuffle a deck of cards, in all likelihood, the resulting deck has never been seen before in the history of the world."
Number of permutations possible = 52! = 8.0658175e+67 (i.e. 8 followed by 67 zeroes)
Playing cards were invented in China in the 9th Century.
So, humans have been playing cards for 1200 years i.e 1200*365*24*60*60 = 37843200000 seconds.
Even with the blown-out-of-proportion assumption that there are 1 billion shuffles per second in the world, the total number of shuffles is 3.78432e+19 which is about 2*10^48 times lesser than the total permutations.
Hence, the probability of at least 2 decks being the same is infinitesimally small. - Deepak Mehta
Intelligent Design Proponents such as William Dembski have debunked this fake fallacy nicely by investigating the fallacy in comparison to actual scientific investigation:
Response to Claim That ID Theory Is An Argument from Incredulity
The Contention That Intelligent Design Theory Succumbs To A Logic Fallacy:
It is argued by those who object to the validity of ID Theory that the proposition of design in nature is an argument from ignorance. There is no validity to this unfounded claim because design in nature is well-established by the work of William Dembski. For example, here is a database of writings of Dembski: http://designinference.com/dembski-on-intelligent-design/dembski-writings/. Not only are the writings of Dembski peer-reviewed and published, but so are rebuttals that were written in response of his work. Dembski is the person who coined the phrase Complex Specified Information, and how it is convincing evidence for design in nature.
To read the entire article, click here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Evolution, chance and creation
Many ordinary people believe that an uncontrolled process called evolution has produced the intricate designs which we see around us. It only takes a few moments of easy mathematics to check out the truth of such a belief.
50:50
When we toss a coin, we expect it to land showing either a head or tail. We say from experience that the probability of the coin landing ‘heads’ is one half, or we can say ‘tails’ has a 50% chance of showing up. We also know from experience that this does not mean when we throw a head first, the next throw will be a tail. It simply means that if we keep tossing coins long enough, then half the time the coin lands, it will show heads, and half the time tails.
However, even in the idea of ‘1/2 heads’ are some assumptions or beliefs which few of us bother to check when throwing coins. We take it for granted that the coin weighs the same on both head and tail sides, so it gives an unbiased result. We rarely check to see if the coin has both a head and a tail, even though rare double headed coins do exist.
You can read the rest here.
The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is sometimes acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1057800. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 1080 (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ‘only’ amount to 10160electrons.
These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik’s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time—and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ‘simple’ bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). [Note added 2013: see update to How simple can life be?] As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life could not form by natural (random) processes.
To read the rest, click here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Darwinism is impossible from a statistical standpoint. For a Darwinist to bring along the fallacy we have sliced and diced, it is actually the equivalent of waving a white flag. Darwinists cannot defend their failed hypothesis, so they use false fallacies, censorship, propaganda and bullying tactics to threaten the career of any scientist or educator or media outlet that dares defy their lockstep fallacious fairy tale!
No upward evolution of one kind of organism turning into another has been observed, but rather speciation and extinction, which is what the Creation model predicts. Mutations are not creative, they are destructive and threaten to eventually kill off all higher organisms as they accumulate in our gene pools. We have found that, in the case of reproduction, the mother lays the framework for the child so that the child will be the same kind of organism as the mother. Furthermore, only the same kind of organism can reproduce. In cases of sexual reproduction, a male and female of the same kind can mate and no others. For instance, a dog and a dog can mate and, since a dog and a wolf can mate we know that wolves and dogs are species of the same kind. A lion and a lion can mate. But a lion and a tiger can also mate, so we know that lions and tigers are members of the same cat kind. Creationism has been supported by experiment and observation and Darwinism has been an epic fail. It just doesn't happen and observation of the way organisms reproduce has taught us that it could not happen and therefore never has happened.