The Yominator Strikes Back!

Our good friend and gold mine, The Yominator, is at it again! He was so much fun last time that I just can't help myself. Lets see which set of 100 year old, time obliterated, pre-debunked, completely discredited arguments he wants to come forward with this time!


Logical and philosophical case for the Divine: Follow Up to Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

*pulls up a chair*

Oh boy! It's like finding the last Wii in town! Sweet!

As many readers know, I recently wrote a column titled “Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound,”

We've been briefed.

which explored the logical and philosophical case for the Divine.

"explored" meaning that you looked for some good arguments and, finding none, wrote a piece of worthy of Tweety's cage.

As I painstakingly pointed out in the column, all of the arguments hold true whether one believes in evolution or not.

Oddly, the spirit of this statement is true. His previous argument's truth value does not depend on evolution. They are worth less than a Louisiana Governor's scholastic opinion regardless of if you believe that evolution is true or not.

In fact, for that very reason I chose not to get involved in the debate on evolution,

That and you'd have to do actual research to talk on that subject. Best to stick to something else that you don't know!

as I felt it to be a distraction from the main point,

There's a point to this?!? Woot!

that a universe so complex in design, and a world that would not sustain life if any one of a trillion necessary ingredients for life were missing, does not come into being in and of itself.

Zzzzz....Sorry, man, but you're repeating yourself here. Let me dig out the archives...

Okay! Here it is!

"1 - I don’t understand the universe, therefore God exists"

Whew! I was worried that I'd have to write new material in response to your recycled stuff. Lucky call there!

Although I had recently concluded a debate with atheists on evolution,

Was that the one where you threatened to tell the world how evil they all were? I get so confused trying to keep up with all your wanderings across the net.

a roughly written

No way! I'd have never guessed that with you, my good and dear friend!

but highly detailed transcript of which can be found at creationistsearcher.wordpress.com,

Would that be "On the Lies and Harassment Tactics of Martin Wagner and Russell Glasser", the former of which so traumatized you that you were forced - forced I say! - to vandalize his Wikipedia page with accusations of pedophilia?

That Martin! Stalking you night and day by - *shudder* - looking up your name on Google!

I felt that delving into the scientific reasons against evolution would detract from the main theme of the column,

And require all that irritating time, effort, and thought. Who needs that?!? You've got several new blogs to write!

that no matter how you believe the universe was designed, it had to have been done so intelligently. (As a side note, the above referenced debate touches on a number of pertinent issues and should be of value to the reader).

Once you buy that the universe was designed, it makes perfect sense that it had to be designed intelligently. Now just provide the proof that the universe was designed and we're good to go!

Nonetheless, many chose to attack the column from a scientific standpoint, not by bringing specific examples, but because of the lack thereof. While they entirely missed the meaning of the column, I would still like to address their issues.

Please do! That sounds like fun!

To begin with,

Dude, we're a long way into this article for the phrase "To begin with". I'm just saying.

not only is evolution far from proven science, in fact there are gaping holes in its theory.

Do tell! There is an entire world full of scientists who would be happy to hear about any actual, real, sound problems with the theory.

One central problem with the theory of evolution is that it dictates that life formed from non-life. This is not plausible.

Okay! There's a good thesis statement: It's not plausible that life formed from non-life. I presume that you're about to talk about those experiments with the creation of ammino acids and abiogenesis, right? Blast holes in those experiments! Batten down those hatches, mateys! Yomin's coming through with a full head of steam!

Furthermore, for there to be a rich enough variance in DNA/RNA this would have had to happen millions of times, separately. DNA and RNA are also both needed to reproduce a single cell.

Um...dude? You were talking about abiogenesis...you had a full head of steam...our ship was blasting through their defenses like the walls of Jericho!

What happened?

A much larger problem with evolution is the lack of transitional fossils, fossils that show a gradual change from one form of species to the next. This isn’t an arbitrary problem. It is inconceivable that if man transitioned from ape, over time, that on the one hand we’d find a plethora of human fossils as well as a plethora of ape ones, but none in between that document such a slow and gradual change.

No one believes that such a transformation could have been sudden. If it had happened we’d have as many transitional fossils as there are human and as there are ape fossils. It also isn’t logical to suppose that reptiles formed into mammals when we have a plethora of both reptilian and mammalian fossils, but none that show a clear transition between one form and the next.

Oh, no...you didn't go there? *sigh*

Okay, so much for the momentum. Okay, hold up a minute and check this one out. Then come on back.

No rush, man.

We'll wait.

No really, take your time. Your readers will thank you for it.

Darwin was aware of this and thought that future fossils would be discovered.

Another win for Chucky!

But in the past 150 years, thousands of fossils were excavated and no conclusively transitional ones were found.

You understand that a transitional form, to the animal in question, would simply be a form, right? That we're all actually transitional and if we die and actually become fossils - something of a rarity really - that we're all transitional fossils. And so every fossil we've ever found is a transitional fossil. Is this getting past Yomin's Demon?

I didn't think so.

He recognized that it isn’t logical that we’d have a plethora of human and of ape fossils but no transitional ones. The late Harvard Professor Steven J. Gould also had to admit that, quote, “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”

Ouch! Wrong choice of guy to quote. Here's another from Professor Gould: "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but are abundant between larger groups. The evolution from reptiles to mammals...is well documented."

Given the amount of fossils excavated and the utter lack conclusively transitional ones (and the scarceness of any that scientists can even claim to be possibly transition), it’s entirely possible that Darwin himself would reject the theory of evolution today.

"Yomin! This is your demon talking...you just keep on writing! What you're saying fits with all of the facts that you've ever seen come through that gate that I've been helping you by guarding for your entire life! Aren't I a good demon? Helping you filter out all the useless, pedantic, time wasting information such as what evolution actually means, what the scientific process is and can do, what transitional fossils are, and countless other pieces of garbage that would just distract you from the meaning of your message. Keep it up!"

Proponents of evolution incorrectly cite the Archaeopteryx, a fossil that had feathers and scales, as a transitional form. In fact, it has fully developed feathers and fully developed scales. This doesn’t prove transition at all as nothing points to any transformation from scale to feather, like a half-scale for example.

The same is true of the oft-miscited duck-billed platypus. It has features that are reptilian and some mammalian, but none that show a transition from one to the other. Its reptilian, mammalian and other characteristics are each fully formed and do not show any transition of one to the other. In fact, all of its characteristics are perfectly suited to its unique climate. Furthermore, there’s no difference between modern day platypuses and those found in fossils.

The same is true of the hominids, the supposed ape to human transitional forms. Of the 12 hominids cited by evolutionists, 9 have been documented to be extinct species of ape/monkey with no human characteristics at all. The other 3 are modern day humans with no animal characteristics. A true half human half ape fossil has never been found.

Those wacky evolutionists! Pointing to different species that have "traits" "in common" and trying to deceive us into thinking that this might show that these "traits" can be "passed down" to "other generations". What kind of rubbish is that?!?

But none of this was the point of the original column. Its central point was that no matter how the universe was formed, no one can plausibly argue that it happened by itself.

No one! No one at all! Well, except for maybe one or two guys who have actually studied it.

How one can argue that both RNA and DNA came into existence, by chance, at the exact same time (because if not, no cell would reproduce, and it’s unfeasible that they developed separately and then joined together, as they are not found outside of the cellular form) is also unattainable. And we can go on and on about the trillions of coincidences needed for the evolutionist to deny a conscious Creator.

We covered this twice already. Something about the universe being to complex, therefore God exists or something like that. I'm sure I've got it around here somewhere...

I would encourage those who disagree to give these columns fair consideration.

Oh, they have. Much more than fair given the content, really.

The fact that some chose to misread the last column to the extent that they did seems ingenuous,

Or "informed". Either one.

just as those who chose to mistake the meaning of “spontaneous” as it was featured (the point there being that even the theory of evolution necessitates far too many and too complex random coincidences, trillions of them, for it to plausibly have occurred without a conscious designer) did so by reading the column in a way that differed from its obvious and intended meaning. Some even mistook “elements of life” to refer to the Periodic Table of Elements, which was an absurd interpretation and showed a lack of ability to openly think over the points of the column. Please treat the matter with fair consideration. I believe that you will gain from the experience.

I definitely have! It's been a blast...again!