Exposing the trick in evolution theory
Nov 9, 2016 9:01:35 GMT
Post by Colossians on Nov 9, 2016 9:01:35 GMT
The author reserves copyright over this work.
_________________________________________
EXPOSING THE TRICK IN EVOLUTION THEORY
Enquirer:
“How did creature with functionality f come into existence?”
Evolutionist:
“Creature with functionality f came into existence by adding functionality x* to creature with functionality (f – x).
And so we can trace the evolutionary process back as follows:
(f)
= ((f – x) + x)
= (((f – x) + x) – x + x)
= ((((f – x) + x) – x + x) – x + x)
ad infinitum.”
* x is a variable which may (therefore) take either the same or a different value upon each iteration.
Amplification
Evolution theory is a mere tautology mischievously presented as a self-substantiating process: in answer to how a given functionality f came into existence, the reasoning presented is:
“f > (f – x) therefore ((f – x) + x)”
: that which might conceptually sum to f, is declared to have produced f.
But putting aside the fact that a sum can never produce the summing which produces the sum, the evolutionist is in fact not justified in declaring f > (f – x) in the first place, for he has no theoretical basis upon which he might declare x > 0 without begging the question, and when x = 0 then f = (f – x).
That is, evolution theory is irresistibly reducible to:
“f therefore f ”.
And so and commensurately, when the evolutionist speaks of a particular functionality as constituting “an advantage”, all he is in fact saying is that existing is itself an advantage, for he does not appropriate such notion until after such supposed advantage has come into existence.
But for a functionality which does not exist, existing is not an advantage, but a disadvantage. That is, in order for the evolutionist to appropriate his notion of an advantage without begging the question, he would have to show that existing is inherently superior to not existing, which of course he cannot do.
Summarily ...
Existing has an advantage over not existing at existing, but it doesn’t have an advantage over not existing at not existing: not existing beats existing hands down at not existing.
The point is that the evolutionist has taken the half of corporeality which consists of existing, and built a progression out of it, and so has avoided the symmetry of corporeality which negates such half (and therefore such progression) with the ‘other side of things’ which consists of not existing.
In essence the evolutionist has created an (invalid) dynamic out of the (statal) Law of Non-contradiction: although it is true that anything that is, is not what it is not, it is not true that anything that is has come into being because it is not what it is not.
_________________________________________
EXPOSING THE TRICK IN EVOLUTION THEORY
Enquirer:
“How did creature with functionality f come into existence?”
Evolutionist:
“Creature with functionality f came into existence by adding functionality x* to creature with functionality (f – x).
And so we can trace the evolutionary process back as follows:
(f)
= ((f – x) + x)
= (((f – x) + x) – x + x)
= ((((f – x) + x) – x + x) – x + x)
ad infinitum.”
* x is a variable which may (therefore) take either the same or a different value upon each iteration.
Amplification
Evolution theory is a mere tautology mischievously presented as a self-substantiating process: in answer to how a given functionality f came into existence, the reasoning presented is:
“f > (f – x) therefore ((f – x) + x)”
: that which might conceptually sum to f, is declared to have produced f.
But putting aside the fact that a sum can never produce the summing which produces the sum, the evolutionist is in fact not justified in declaring f > (f – x) in the first place, for he has no theoretical basis upon which he might declare x > 0 without begging the question, and when x = 0 then f = (f – x).
That is, evolution theory is irresistibly reducible to:
“f therefore f ”.
And so and commensurately, when the evolutionist speaks of a particular functionality as constituting “an advantage”, all he is in fact saying is that existing is itself an advantage, for he does not appropriate such notion until after such supposed advantage has come into existence.
But for a functionality which does not exist, existing is not an advantage, but a disadvantage. That is, in order for the evolutionist to appropriate his notion of an advantage without begging the question, he would have to show that existing is inherently superior to not existing, which of course he cannot do.
Summarily ...
Existing has an advantage over not existing at existing, but it doesn’t have an advantage over not existing at not existing: not existing beats existing hands down at not existing.
The point is that the evolutionist has taken the half of corporeality which consists of existing, and built a progression out of it, and so has avoided the symmetry of corporeality which negates such half (and therefore such progression) with the ‘other side of things’ which consists of not existing.
In essence the evolutionist has created an (invalid) dynamic out of the (statal) Law of Non-contradiction: although it is true that anything that is, is not what it is not, it is not true that anything that is has come into being because it is not what it is not.