I very much appreciate your comments! I’m grateful for any thoughts on how evolution proponents would counter this argument, so thank you for your very insightful challenges. So here goes.

The first challenge concerning chaos and order is self-contradictory:
Because order is defined by law, ‘chaos’ cannot beget ‘order’ as this would imply that the laws which define order were already set in place during the time of ‘chaos,’ or lawlessness. This could only be described as law existing simultaneously with lawlessness, a self-contradiction entertained only by the ignorant or the deceptive. If order can be achieved, then that which exists in opposition to the law is not ‘chaotic’ but merely disordered. The challenge would then become an issue of whether something that is ‘disordered’ can become ‘ordered.’ This, of course, is an acknowledgement of intelligent design, meaning that a set of laws exist by which something can be ordered or disordered (or true and false), which laws are established by the intelligence of the organism itself or by an intelligence external to the organism, or theories B and C of the post. (This exposes the inherent contradiction in theory A - that “life” cannot generate from a random and lawless state simply because life itself is defined by law.)

The second challenge is similarly self-conflicted, in which ‘random’ and ‘required’ cannot co-exist in the same manner that law and lawlessness cannot co-exist. If something can be random and independent of law, it cannot all of a sudden meet conditions and requirements of ’survival’ because this would imply that there are laws in place governing the conditions and requirements of ’survival,’ and therefore that which is ‘random’ does not exist, but only that which does not adhere to the law. Conditions and requirements for survival, or law, is again an acknowledgement of intelligent design in which laws are established by the intelligence of the organism itself or by an intelligence external to the organism. As far as science is concerned, there are no living organisms that can determine their own intelligent design laws, even amoebas. All life forms must function according to pre-determined laws or they perish.

The bottom line is that both of these challenges are based on fraud, and upon correction are addressed by theories B and C. And of course, theory C is the only theory proven scientifically, that “all living things function according to a design established by intelligence other than its own.” Hopefully this addresses the issue to your satisfaction, and I am more than happy to address any other possible challenges you think evolutionists might come up with. Many thanks!

I like and really appreciate that you have taken this argument to its core assumptions. You are absolutely correct that both sides of the debate stumble forward without having solid a foundation for their base assumptions, which you have very aptly provided for them.

I wish this could be entered and discussed in the mainstream - it would be interesting to see what hypothesis would emerge from the evolution side to counter your conclusion and to continue the existence of their (as you have shown) flawed theory.

I suspect it would be some creative way to allow for both chaos and order to co-exist. The only way for an evolutionist to disprove your theory would be to disrupt your demonstration that chaos either does not have a place in evolution or that chaos begat order once the being was evolved.

This, I think, would only work in one place in evolutionary theory - in the ’spark of life’ part. Chaos created a random set of events that caused or allowed all requirements to be met to allow life to begin to exist. When this occurred it could not have been a singularity of life that resulted - it would have had to result in millions of ‘life forms’ being created. From this chaotic result, order would have been established through natural selection - only the properly ordered resulting organisms would have survived.

As an option to that, perhaps the random occurrence of required conditions/events occurred millions of times with minute differences, thus creating millions of slightly different life forms of which eventually died out until one that was correctly created finally survived.

From either of these amoebic existences, adaptation and evolvement could have occurred with billions upon billions of failed results and the singular proper ones surviving. From this came order - as the properly ordered life forms adapted and survived, a design was then established to which we now adhere - this set of rules that governs what was able to survive and what is required for it to continue to survive.

In this way, the design is established by millions of variables playing out to their end which provides that some variables are still playing out now. Continuous adaptation will potentially later alter the current rules of design and allow for something new or different to exist.

How does this possibility fit into your hypothesis? Or, how does your conclusion on design accurately discount this hypothesis?

Thank you for clearly taking copious amounts of time to fully research, present and defend your hypothesis. It’s nice for a reasonable approach to finally be taken to this issue!

“A creationist might say God inserted …, but that idea is too crazy to consider.

You are making a typical defensive maneuver here. You KNOW that a creationist is going to say that God did it - a creationist believes that God did all of it, so of course they’re going to say that! The ONLY reason you pointed out EXACTLY what you knew a creationist would say is to create an opportunity for you to attempt to discredit, attack and insult the creationist hypothesis of God.

While the author provides logic and analysis based evidence to support their conclusions, you do NOTHING to refute, address or even acknowledge it - you instead create your own opening to attack a hypothesis without addressing it.

Bad form bob. This is a childish way to analyze anything, you’re acting like a bully on a playground trying to intimidate the ‘nerd’ by calling them names. Grow up, get in the game or go away - your inability and/or unwillingness to address the research presented is annoying and unproductive.

“An example of this powerful molecular evidence is Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) found in the exact same location in the genome of two or more species. The only possible explanation for these identical ERVs in identical locations is these ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species. ”

Hey Bob, don’t you mean the “only possible explanation I can come up with” Or “only possible explanation I’ll accept”? Have you allowed for and dis-proven other hypothesis? Have you allowed for anything else at all? Or have you just leapt to and accepted the only possible explanation that supports your preconceptions? Prove or disprove this hypothesis (a hypothesis that does not have a preconception that one or the other theory is true): One explanation for these identical ERVs in identical locations is that the only way for a species with this particular design or function is to have those exact ERVs in their precise location - any other location or ERV would cause the species to fail. Therefore through random selection or design the only way for the two species to succeed would be to have that characteristic.

Until you can prove or disprove that hypothesis, you cannot conclude that a separate hypothesis is correct - as you have done, therefore your conclusion is suspect, false, mis-leading and irresponsible. That, my friend, is how the scientific method and science itself works.

“A creationist might say God inserted identical ERVs into the exact same locations of the DNA of two or more species to deceive scientists, but that idea is too crazy to consider.”

You’re attempting to support the conclusion of your hypothesis by outright rejecting another hypothesis on the basis that it is crazy? You show your preconception that it is crazy to consider a differing hypothesis - in other words, you show that you believe that to consider any possibility other than evolution is crazy. The problem is that this blog post is all about examining possibilities other than evolution and determining at their base level whether they are based on a true or false hypothesis.

You’re saying that you refuse to even consider any option other than evolution. You’ve completely ignored the authors actual research and conclusions and chosen to inject some differing piece of evidence and then draw the only hypothesis allowed, determine it to be accurate and then state that any other consideration is crazy, therefore the base argument of this research must be crazy. You so far have completely failed at even approaching the subject matter. As the author said, did you even read the post?

You thrash about as if you understand and support scientific exploration but you have proven yourself to be quite unscholarly in your approach to the authors hypothesis. The author did an excellent job of describing their issue, hypothesis, research, analysis and subsequent conclusions. You’ve come in here and completely ignored all that. If you’re going to play scientist, learn the rules - you attack the research, analysis and conclusions not inject some random low-level fact and then declare that your hypothesis is that it’s crazy to even have a hypothesis.

In conclusion bobxxx, you seem to need an evolve a bit - beyond the big dumb ape phase.

“Sorry, but these are facts and it’s impossible for an educated person to deny these facts.”

You only presented ONE fact - the point about the ERVs. Everything else you submitted was nowhere near a fact, it wasn’t even an analysis really, you exposed your own preconceptions in your conclusion.

Sorry, but THESE FACTS that I have countered with are impossible for ANY educated (which I suspect YOU are NOT) person to deny.

Your entire comment was useless drivel spewed by an uneducated unthinking assumptionist that contributed nothing to the authors work. Maybe you should go protest something.

Basically, this means that darkness is a negation of light; light is a system that exists according to law, and darkness is the negation of that system, or something that does not obey the laws of the system in question. Which means, in my estimation, that darkness is not a system. Does that address your question or am I reading it incorrectly?

And of course, you can’t teach an evolutionist anything, because they keep throwing the same old arguments at you, thinking that eventually you will understand it.

Einstein called that insanity, but I will refrain from going that far. I’ll simply say it’s not an effective debate strategy.

The fact is, Evolution rests upon a framework of assumptions of design, or ordered laws. And thus even if evolution were demonstrable, which it is not, it would still be part of an intelligent design at some point in the very ancient past.

Another of the key points brought up here, which bobxxxx completely avoids, is the fact that the scientific method was formulated with the presumption of an intelligent designer, i.e. God. It was intended to teach us how God created all things, and how His creations function.

If Evolution is random mutation, then the evolutionists need to find their own way of explaining it, rather than hijacking the method invented by Christian scientists in their effort to understand God’s creation. But, then again, that would assume a level of intelligence beyond what any of us possess.

Reality is what it is; it can be neither altered nor abridged. You evolutionists might as well get used to it.

But anyway, thanks for reading my post, and I appreciate your comments very much. I wasn’t planning on promoting this blog until my third post, which is forthcoming and which will explain why intelligent design is no more “magic” than the law of gravity is to a pre-Newtonian. Hope you have a nice day too!

p.s. - did you even read my blog post? Your entire comment was a regurgitation of the same old evolution argument that I have just thoroughly debunked. You might want to read it again.

New life forms are not pre-determined, so you’re correct about that. It’s very interesting that there was nothing inevitable about the development of the human species. For example, if the huge asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago had missed the earth, it’s not likely our very small mammal ancestors would have ever evolved into primates, including us.

Natural selection selects favorable mutations. The mutations are random, but there’s nothing random about natural selection.

“Macroevolution, though it has never been proven, is the ability of one species to evolve into another species over time.”

Biologists rarely use the words macroevolution and microevolution. They just call it evolution. Creationists like to say microevolution is true but macroevolution is false, as if there is some invisible barrier that makes evolution come to a complete stop before a species starts looking too different from its ancient ancestors. The creationists are wrong. There is no invisible barrier. New species have been developing for almost 4 billion years. No proof? Wrong again. There’s massive evidence for the idea that all species are related. Anyone who has studied the molecular evidence for evolution knows how biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. For example, biologists are certain that the closest living cousins of humans are the chimpanzee apes. We are so closely related to the other ape species that humans are considered to be an ape species. An example of this powerful molecular evidence is Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) found in the exact same location in the genome of two or more species. The only possible explanation for these identical ERVs in identical locations is these ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species. A creationist might say God inserted identical ERVs into the exact same locations of the DNA of two or more species to deceive scientists, but that idea is too crazy to consider. Sorry, but these are facts and it’s impossible for an educated person to deny these facts.

Intelligent design is just another way of saying “It was magic”. Intelligent design magic is not scientific and it’s disgraceful there are still people who believe in magic in the 21st century.

I would like to modify your last paragraph to make it more honest:

“Because science itself is an acknowledgement of MAGIC, and the behavior of all scientists is also an acknowledgement of MAGIC, the entire realm of science must be reestablished upon the basic principle that all things are MAGICALLY CREATED. To not do so would be unscientific.”

Actually science has nothing to do with magic, or what you call intelligent design.

It took me quite a bit of time to write these comments, so I appreciate you letting me put these comments on your blog. Have a nice day.