False Premises and False Conclusions from Darwin to Denominations

Logic is greatly misunderstood. We often think logic is based on what we think is obvious. However, that is not how logic works. At the the very base of logic is the idea of drawing a logical conclusion from established premises. The key being both the veracity of the premises and the undeniable (no alternative) to the conclusion drawn.

• Premise: Tom is a cat
• Premise: All cats are felines
• Conclusion: Tom is a feline

This may seem obvious, and to some degree it is. But even with this simple example we are asked to accept that (a) Tom is, in fact, a cat and that (b) all cats are felines. Again, we can show this, but that's the point. We cannot always simply assume a premise is true or that a conclusion is reliable.

• Premise: Tom is a cat
• Premise: All cats are gray
• Conclusion: Tom is gray

Here we see the logical conclusion that Tom is gray. However, the second premise (that all cats are gray) has never been established. If the second premise were true, then, yes, the conclusion would be both logical and sound. So, something can be a logical conclusion based on believed or even generally accepted premises, but that does not make that conclusion necessarily sound.

There are also two assumptions in the first argument. We assume Tom is indeed a cat and we also assume that all cats are felines. Now, that second point may seem crazy, but we have not examined and tested  every single cat who has ever lived to determine they are all felines. That might seem like we're stretching things a bit, but there are times when we assume truths which might not be true due to our limited scope. If someone grows up in a secluded area where all the cats are gray, she may be inclined to believe our second premise is true. 

When it comes to science, many things which are technically theories (that is, they've never been proven to be true or they have never been observed) which we treat as truths. Further, there are things assumed true (no longer considered theories) which either are impossible to test or do not hold up against all the evidence available. Finally, we assume some things are true based solely on our limited capacity to test the veracity of the belief.   

This is not a post on the subject of logic, so we'll have to leave that discussion where it is. We will now turn to Carl Sagan's argument for an enormous and wildly old universe.

The first problem is that the calculations for both age and distance are assumed to be consistent over millions and billions of years (necessarily trillions and quadrillions, etc. of years as no single point of origin can be pinpointed or even assumed). But, again, we will have to leave that where it is. 

Sagan himself, in his Cosmos PBS series, conveniently states that it is not necessary to go back beyond the supposed Big Bang (the dating of which has varied over the years, which in itself should make us question dating conclusions). But if matter is all there is, and matter cannot be created or destroyed (a law of science, not a theory, Law of Conservation of Mass in a closed system), it must then be eternal (having no origin). We must go back infinitely in time. The Big Bang theory itself is an argument against itself. We mention this only to show how the anti-biblical movement expects its adherents to have faith without using the word "faith." They ask that illogical premises be accepted despite our very real logical conclusion that inorganic matter cannot create itself.  

The numbers are incomprehensible. According to current scientific beliefs (Scientism), the nearest star in our own galaxy (Proxima Centauri, the nearest, mind you) is over 4 light years away. One light year equals 9,460,730,472,580 kilometers. Four light years is equal to 2.3514501 x 10 ¹³   Miles. Try to comprehend that number. Now recall that this is the closest star, in our own galaxy. Such impossibly huge numbers are used, in my opinion, so the mind will just accept them. Contemplating such numbers ends in futility and it is easier just to affirm what should result in natural skepticism.

So when the naturalists show us a pretty picture of supposed planets which may be like earth and which may have life (the mathematical numbers are incomprehensible here as well, along with the idea of an infinite past in which life and intelligence and complex biological an chemical information just happen to accidentally develop, for no reason, like that of earth), ask yourself how they could possibly know or test such a conclusion? They can't. We shouldn't even have to get to that point because, as noted, the laws of science not only state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but inorganic matter cannot create or become organic material (life).

This is what they show us ("relatively close, 40 light years away" -Fox4 News)

235,145,010,000,000 miles away. No, we cannot comprehend this distance. "Relatively close" is a ridiculous statement meant to cause uncritical acceptance.

Btw, all of the following are artists' renderings (Earth and Kepler-186F) which most people assume are photographs:

NASA essentially gives us "artist's concept" for everything

This is what they are using (color enhanced by NASA):

Darwin described what he called the "simple cell." But a single cell is "irreducibly complex." That is, any reduction in the complex structure of a single cell would render it useless and dead. This begs the question, where did this complex design and the organic information needed for it to exist come from? Further, why and how did a supposed cell create itself out of inorganic material (which we've established is an impossibility)?

And we haven't even touched the hem of the garment on not only complexity of proteins and their accidental creation, but the necessity of only certain proteins, arranged irreducibly in a specific order in order for life to even be possible (and only possible as the protein arrangements alone do not equal life).

 

Darwin and his contemporaries considered cells to be simple, jelly-like structures, but modern science reveals them as highly complex, irreducibly intricate systems... The discovery of such complexity challenges the notion that cells could evolve gradually through small, random changes. Studies suggest that evolving even a single protein from another could take far longer than the age of the universe under natural mutation rates.

The problem in evolution only gets worse from there. Let's just take the human nervous and cardiac systems. These are impossibly complex systems that no computer could even attempt to create with all the data provided, let alone it creating either by accident for no reason. And these extremely complex systems also work in tandem with each other (along with all the other complex systems in the human body). And there are similar, yet uniquely complex and widely varied systems in nearly 7000 mammal species. 

Evolution is sold to us as a force that cares about things like "survival" and "healing" and "procreation" and "advancement." It somehow created complex information from nowhere to insure survival. But the idea of survival in meaningless. What is its point? Everything dies. Nothing matters. 

Death is necessary in the evolutionary system for advancement and survival. If this accepted, we would be saying that evolution makes more complex life, just so it can die and give way to even more complex life. Somehow evolution has a plan! It thinks ahead!  And it kills its creation in order for the next advancement to arrive only so it can kill that off in a never-ending, goalless system of death leading to nothing. 

"Life" (including all life forms) is an accident with no purpose. We have given it value. We have declared it "important." Yet even these thoughts must be explained by random chemical responses to stimuli. This is thinking logically. It is drawing conclusions from even the unproven premises they have foist upon us. In the aforementioned Cosmos series, Sagan demands that his listeners think no farther back than the imagined Big Bang for this very reason. he is training people not to think beyond the premises they are told are proven. But thought itself, like everything else in that system., must also be accidental and explained in purely physical terms.

Every thought of every creature in a system that must be explained solely by the laws of science as men have declared them in terms of those laws. That is, things like feelings or opinions or values are all just chemical responses to stimuli. Uncontrollable. Random and meaningless and none greater than another. 

A murder is no greater than an act of selflessness. Love no greater than lust. Charity no greater than greed. These are all just accidental chemical reactions foreordained by DNA and random stimuli. And even if we don't want to accept such an idea, there remains nothing to distinguish concepts like right and wrong or moral and immoral (no matter how the godless philosopher wants to cloud the clear issue).

A blind, inorganic, non-living, thoughtless force is given the attributes of a caring god, and the irony is lost on the God-rejector. The atheist declares himself smarter than the God of scripture yet far less intelligent than a blind, meaningless, insentient force. He cannot create the simplest thing with all his intelligence that a blind force created by accident for no reason (defying the laws of science to do so). 

They have a god. It is all-powerful, it is all-knowing, it is smarter than the atheist can even comprehend. But it asks nothing of him and he is free to create his own system of morality. This is the god they choose, the god they worship, the god they believe has their best interests at heart. It is also a god they can ignore when their flesh desires whatever it will. In fact, some of the worst acts of the flesh can be excused or even championed as they serve their master's goal of "survival" and evolution.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, many professed Christians and many denominations (including the enormous Roman Catholic Church) have compromised with evolution. In an evolutionary system, death is good and necessary (contradicting its supposed goal of survival) and God is its author. Death is the enemy. It is not the mechanism of advancement, but a power that had to be defeated. 

The acceptance of evolution and an eternal, mindless universe has sewn the seeds of destruction of not only the western world, but of the truths of scripture, the only place men can find the remedy and rescue from the power of death. 

The forces that have poisoned sound doctrine have done so, no gently, but with force. A corrupt laity has imposed its errors on the willfully blind sheep and they accept no compromise. They have joined the God-deniers in there dismissal and mockery of God, the scriptures, and faithful believers. Bible teacher, J. Vernon McGee explained, and rightly warned, his decision to leave the Presbyterian Church because of its compromises with the world:

"[the] liberal leadership [had] taken over the machinery of the presbytery with a boldness and ruthlessness that is appalling." 

Ruthlessness indeed. And the clergy class in the Presbyterian Church as other clergy in other systems claiming the name of Christ has taken along with it countless millions and has led them into darkness and doubt and destruction. 

[McGee] often spoke of the days of societal apostasy in Christianity and secularism that he believed he was witnessing during his lifetime, warning that spiritual apostasy was always the first of the three stages leading to the fall of nations, commonly observed throughout the Bible, the second and third being, respectively, immorality and political anarchy.

-Compare: The Amazing, Alarming, and Awful Apostasy

 

We are in the last stage. The outward church is in apostacy. Immorality is the norm and widely accepted and approved as not only normal, but even as good. Western political parties are embracing the chaos of communism and atheism. The true God is shunned and any politician openly quoting scripture is demonized as the sellers of Sharia Law and ritual-based Christendom are championed. A very dark age is ahead. An age so dark, it cannot be imagined. 

And its cause is greatly because of the surrender of the individual believer to a wicked and corrupt clergy class. This has always been a curse on Christendom. But the curse is now ubiquitous and the clergy class horrifyingly compromised and corrupt. Men love to surrender their duty too a clergy class. A class that has rejected Paul and his revelation for the current age. They'd rather follow their pastor or their denomination. So it was, so it ever shall be.

Study to show yourself approved by God, a workman who need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

-2 Timothy 2:15 

Follow me [Paul] as I follow Christ.

-1 Corinthians 11:1 

 

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, exhort you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you were called.

-Ephesians 4:1

The Curse of the Clergy/Laity System

 

Atheists, Libertarians, Evolution, Resurrection, Life, Fake Christians, and More!