This is the rabbi’s account:
I would like to introduce the noble readers of this blog to my new friend named Tuto. Tuto lives in the future and he comes from outer space. He lands on the earth after it has been totally destroyed by a cosmic extinction event. Every living organism has been destroyed. Tuto has a few days to make archaeological digs, gather specimens, and fly back to his home planet.
He discovers that on the earth there are iron ores. Then digging someplace else he uncovers an almost complete Mercedes Benz. Hey, this is amazing, he thinks. So he radios home and asks for an extension for some more time to gather more specimens. After some more digging, he finds some bottles of ink. many different colors. Then in a real strike of luck, he discovers the Mona Lisa.
He gathers all his specimens and returns home. When he is home, a board of scientists makes the following conclusions: We have strong evidence that iron exists on planet Earth. We also have strong evidence that Mercedes cars existed on planet earth. We therefore conclude that the metal morphed into the Mercedes by a natural process. Everyone cheers “Hurray! Amazing”
Furthermore, therefore, we have strong evidence that colored ink existed in the past on planet Earth. And we have strong evidence that there was an amazing work of art called the Mona Lisa. We, therefore, conclude that the ink self-organized to draw the detailed Mona Lisa.
After seeing the latest clip of Prof. Tour talking about the origins of life I see that this is more or less what these “experts” are claiming.
- We have evidence that the “soup” existed (do we really??)
- We see in the fossil record primitive life forms after time from the above.
2a. We have no mechanism for how the soup could produce these life forms nor we cannot replicate it, nor do we have no clue about how it might have happened
- Totally ignore 2a.
- We have strong evidence that life emerged from the soup via totally natural processes.
Dr. Lee Spetner, in his extremely informative book The Evolution Revolution, drives home the point that if you don’t have a mechanism to explain circumstantial evidence, your evidence simply doesn’t count: (bold text mine)
Consider a hypothetical murder mystery where the victim was found dead on the floor of the library of his home with a gunshot wound in the head. A gun was found on the floor in the same room. The case is brought to court and the prosecuting attorney speaks. “This is an open and shut case, your Honor. Exhibit A is the murder weapon as has been proved by ballistic tests comparing the bullet extracted from the victim with similar bullets fired from the same gun. Furthermore, the gun is owned by the accused and has been shown to have his fingerprints on it.
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I recommend the jury find him guilty of murder.” The defense attorney then rises to speak. “The circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to warrant a guilty verdict, your Honor. To make the circumstantial evidence meaningful in this case, the prosecution must show how the accused could have carried out the murder. The accused is confined to a wheelchair and we have had expert testimony that he cannot get out of the chair by himself. May I remind the court that within less than a minute after the shot was heard, family members burst into the room to find the victim dead while the accused was in his wheelchair in his room one floor above. Unless the prosecution can give a plausible account of how the accused could have performed the murder and returned to his room a floor above within less than a minute, the circumstantial evidence cannot be used to convict him. I therefore urge the jury to find him innocent.”
The same situation prevails with the attempt to use fossil evidence to support Common Descent. The fossils are circumstantial evidence requiring a theory that can account for how Common Descent could have occurred. Such a theory must account for how the information in living organisms could have been built up in the process of Common Descent. Neither the neo-Darwinian theory, nor any other theory presently known, is able to do this. One must therefore conclude that fossil evidence does not support Common Descent.Spetner, Lee. The Evolution Revolution: Why Thinking People are Rethinking the Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press, Inc. Kindle Edition.
But evos will go on and on and on wasting oxygen. They have the ultimate proof that we are all accidents: We are here.