New argument against Evolution: design preceeds conceptualization of Evolution

[Gottservant]

Hi there!

EDIT: I thought of another way of putting the argument when I first wrote this, but it turned out a little different than I was expecting. This argument is fairly simple, it goes like this:

1. Is there any case where Evolution has appeared since being discovered outside of what was already there when it was discovered?
2. No? So in every case where Evolution is espoused it hasn't actually changed anything to the point that it now manifests spontaneously elsewhere?
3. No? So even though it is a theory of spontaneous creation, it doesn't actually spontaneously recreate itself?

Conclusion. It doesn't recreate itself? No? Then its dead, because anything that is alive has to be able to spontaneously reproduce itself.

In short: Believing in Evolution doesn't make things evolve.

Jesus Christ died and was resurrected completely new, now new things are created by faith in Him all the time. This makes Jesus Christ a living faith, not a dead one.

EDIT: The actual argument I thought up is actually here.

I was actually thinking of doing an introverted version of this (the above argument) too, which goes like this:

1. Did Darwin have a working mind before he came up with the idea of Evolution?
2. Yes? Has anyone that has ever conceived of Evolution not had a working mind and still conceived of Evolution successfully?
3. No? So whenever Evolution is present, a working mind is also always already present?

Conclusion. Yes? There is always a working mind present? Then whatever was created it must have been created with a working mind: God's.

In short: You have to have Design before you can have Evolution.

I'm not so sure either one is particularly convincing, but at least it keeps the argument going! What do you think? Ok! They are convincing, but I doubt that they'll be persuasive, that's what I mean. For example, arguing that the preeminence of the mind preceeds the concept of Evolution does not mean minds had to come first, just that in order to be understood a mind had to be there when it was conceived, at least once.

I'm not sure if I've communicated it properly, so I need feedback.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there!

EDIT: I thought of another way of putting the argument when I first wrote this, but it turned out a little different than I was expecting. This argument is fairly simple, it goes like this:

1. Is there any case where Evolution has appeared since being discovered outside of what was already there when it was discovered?
2. No? So in every case where Evolution is espoused it hasn't actually changed anything to the point that it now manifests spontaneously elsewhere?
3. No? So even though it is a theory of spontaneous creation, it doesn't actually spontaneously recreate itself?

Conclusion. It doesn't recreate itself? No? Then its dead, because anything that is alive has to be able to spontaneously reproduce itself.

In short: Believing in Evolution doesn't make things evolve.

Jesus Christ died and was resurrected completely new, now new things are created by faith in Him all the time. This makes Jesus Christ a living faith, not a dead one.

EDIT: The actual argument I thought up is actually here.

I was actually thinking of doing an introverted version of this (the above argument) too, which goes like this:

1. Did Darwin have a working mind before he came up with the idea of Evolution?
2. Yes? Has anyone that has ever conceived of Evolution not had a working mind and still conceived of Evolution successfully?
3. No? So whenever Evolution is present, a working mind is also always already present?

Conclusion. Yes? There is always a working mind present? Then whatever was created it must have been created with a working mind: God's.

In short: You have to have Design before you can have Evolution.

I'm not so sure either one is particularly convincing, but at least it keeps the argument going! What do you think? Ok! They are convincing, but I doubt that they'll be persuasive, that's what I mean. For example, arguing that the preeminence of the mind preceeds the concept of Evolution does not mean minds had to come first, just that in order to be understood a mind had to be there when it was conceived, at least once.

I'm not sure if I've communicated it properly, so I need feedback.

Not real clear. But you're knocking up against "Information Theory".
One stand being that information degrades over time.
So intelligence and or information is not just going to
"pop up" under natural conditions.

 

[Gottservant]

Thanks for the input.

Did you focus on the "in short" statements? I will put them in bold. You will need to think about them.

 

[Smidlee]

First evolution is mindless process, second the mind is something with no mass, non-materialist. Computers has a lot of information yet no mind of it's own.
Evolutionist for the most part believes life is a mindless process (like a "trial and error" computer program) while creationists believes life often requires a mind (Creator) to be involved. There is a grey area of just how much life is a mindless process and how much requires a programer (Creator). (p.s there is a grey area also between the brain and the mind. The brain effects the mind and the mind effects the brain... as one) It's hard to create any descent amount of information without a mind involvement.
How can a single cell continue to split that eventually builds a complex brain which contains a human mind which can turn around and study it's own brain is beyond our understanding.

 

[mindlight]

1. Is there any case where Evolution has appeared since being discovered outside of what was already there when it was discovered?
2. No? So in every case where Evolution is espoused it hasn't actually changed anything to the point that it now manifests spontaneously elsewhere?
3. No? So even though it is a theory of spontaneous creation, it doesn't actually spontaneously recreate itself?

Conclusion. It doesn't recreate itself? No? Then its dead, because anything that is alive has to be able to spontaneously reproduce itself.

In short: Believing in Evolution doesn't make things evolve.

Jesus Christ died and was resurrected completely new, now new things are created by faith in Him all the time. This makes Jesus Christ a living faith, not a dead one.

Cool

I suppose evolutionists will counter with reference to the kinds of timespans they envisage for the theory to work. But given the idea that jumps occur quite rapidly why are we are not observing these jumps from start to finish today anywhere at all.

The concept of evolution was conceived by an intelligent mind. It is a way of shaping the evidence rather than a workable model that has produced any element of prediction and the actual evolution of life in controlled circumstances. This must cast doubt on the theory. Only deceived minds can grasp what true science can never prove.

EDIT: The actual argument I thought up is actually here.

I was actually thinking of doing an introverted version of this (the above argument) too, which goes like this:

1. Did Darwin have a working mind before he came up with the idea of Evolution?
2. Yes? Has anyone that has ever conceived of Evolution not had a working mind and still conceived of Evolution successfully?
3. No? So whenever Evolution is present, a working mind is also always already present?

Conclusion. Yes? There is always a working mind present? Then whatever was created it must have been created with a working mind: God's.

In short: You have to have Design before you can have Evolution.

I'm not so sure either one is particularly convincing, but at least it keeps the argument going! What do you think? Ok! They are convincing, but I doubt that they'll be persuasive, that's what I mean. For example, arguing that the preeminence of the mind preceeds the concept of Evolution does not mean minds had to come first, just that in order to be understood a mind had to be there when it was conceived, at least once.

I'm not sure if I've communicated it properly, so I need feedback.

Darwin clearly believed he was responding to 20 years of evidence. But really his mind shaped his response to that evidence and was actually informed by trends in European thought and philosophy that had been leading in this direction for centuries. The problem with mind is that many of its ideas and concepts are merely taken on board subconsciously and without examination. The structure of our language has itself shaped the architecture of our thoughts and as Europeans have shifted away from a Christian base it has lost touch with the Christian realities that previously informed and empowered it. When one has never tested ones thoughts against the Designers blue prints is it any wonder when they lead us in misleading directions.

 

[SkyWriting]

1. Is there any case where Evolution has appeared since being discovered outside of what was already there when it was discovered?

Yes. Evolution theory has many forms, some of which are still being discovered.
For example, Darwin thought that giraffes who stretched their necks would produce offspring with longer necks.
He was wrong, is was discovered.
So it was thought that environment did not change an organisms offspring.
Then, that was found wrong. Environment can affect offspring.
Then there was a wolf study. It turned out that unnatural-selection based on an animals temperament had a huge
effect on the physical form of the offspring. Basically, selecting tame offspring "evolved" the species in just a few
generations. Very unexpected.

So yes, Evolution theory has evolved and creates predictions that can be tested and found correct or not.

 

[Gottservant]

So frustrating that you can know something about life and not be able to communicate it, because someone else has a block in their head that something not explained as a process is not valid, when if they heard it as a process, they wouldn't be able to understand it anyway

I mean if I say to you Evolution is wrong because A always leads to B always leads to C always leads to D, by the time I get to D are you really even thinking about it?