Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:56 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
So the fact that we share 98-99 percent of identical DNA with apes doesn't necessarily prove that we evolved, but maybe we were designed by same designer just like COD 1, 2 and 3.


Is your position that an intelligent designer made it look like there is evolution (why, just for fun?), or you deny that it even appears that species evolved?

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... 0/lines_01



Sat Nov 16, 2019 6:15 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
you are missing my point... you can arrange all the human made products also in a similar tree, it doesn't mean that they have evolved by random processes. You have a bicycle, then a motorbike, a car, a truck, an airplane. You have iphone 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. The fact that you can arrange it in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.
You have to prove that the actual evolution mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can really be the creative force behind it. Simply putting organisms in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved, just like putting a bycicle, a motorbike and a car in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.

As for "why an intelligent designer made it look like there is evolution"... did he? Why apple made Iphone 1,2,3,4,etc? With each iphone looks like a slightly improved version of the previous one? Just for fun?
We don't know why the theoretical intelligent designer made the living organisms the way he did, but the way we make our products is not much different.



Last edited by person123 on Sat Nov 16, 2019 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:01 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
As for "why an intelligent designer made it look like there is evolution"... did he? Why apple made Iphone 1,2,3,4,etc? With each iphone looks like a slightly improved version of the previous one? Just for fun?
We don't know why the theoretical intelligent designer made the living organisms the way he did, but the way we make our products is not much different.


Exactly, the iPhone didn't start from scratch, and if it did it would be easily understandable. We can observe new products being created using components that we can explain. Did your intelligent designer just decide to use vestigial structures, and make it so that biogeography is consistent with evolution, to take just a few examples?

You think these "joker" scientists just created an arbitrary family tree and called it a day? Species are related for a reason. Your answer is that "you don't know why a designer would do it that way"?

Nothing wrong with being skeptical and not having all the answers, but did you literally just watch a few videos or have you a read a book on the subject?



Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:30 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6363
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
Ok... I explain it in my book. You provided right now a specific data, an evidence. The fact that humans and apes share similar DNA. doesn't mean that the unique DNA that each species has could have evolved by random mutations and natural selection.
If you take Windows xp, Windows Vista and Windows 10, or Call of Duty 1,2,3, I'm pretty sure they share some amount of identical code. But except the identical code, there is some unique code that each program has that sets it apart from the rest.
So the fact that we share 98-99 percent of identical DNA with apes doesn't necessarily prove that we evolved, but maybe we were designed by same designer just like COD 1, 2 and 3.
The key is inside that 1-2% unique DNA that each species has, and for some reason the evolutionists are quiet about it. They don't talk about the unique DNA and could it have evolved by random mutations, they prefer to talk about the other 98-99%.

So you do accept that the DNA matches prove relatedness. It seems you're 99% of the way toward accepting what biologists have been proving now for a century and a half. Why do you then hold back just because highly related organisms are also unique organisms? What sense does it make to suppose that there is common ancestry, shown by DNA analysis, yet then imply that myriad separate acts of creation had to account for the uniqueness of all the creatures to which we're related? I don't understand--a creator went so far with humans along a bonobo design, but then decided to throw in a crucial 2% difference to spin off a new animal?

It must be randomness that is the hangup. I think someone has already said that though mutations and variations apparently arise arising randomly due to imperfect copying of DNA, the testing of these variations within ecosystems is rigorous and severe; variations don't become incorporated into genotypes unless they confer survival value on the organism.



Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:38 pm
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
What are you doing right now is trying to use... i don't know how to call it... let's name it "indirect evidence" to support your evolution theory.
That means that you have a very simple job to do, and that job is providing a simulation or a model that will establish that those 1-2% of uniqe DNA could have been produced by random mutations. But you don't do that. Instead you are focusing on everything else, "Why this and why that".
For my understanding human DNA has 700 megabytes worth of data, that means 1-2% is equal to 7-14 megabytes. So if it is so easy and insignificant, please provide an explanation how this 7-14 megabytes could be produced by random mutations.
Imagine you are ordering two copies of Harry Potter book, that have 500 pages each. Now when it arrives, you discover that one of the copies has 5 pages of instructions for an alien spacecraft.
Now your both copies are 99% identical, they have identical 495 pages. Now instead of focusing on the 1% unique pages, how in the world did a blueprint for an advanced spacecraft get there, you start to focus on everything else:
-why those books 99% identical?
-why there are many Harry Potter books in the world?
-why there are different Harry Potter books?
-could the spacecraft blueprint therefore be a result of an accident during a copying process?
-in which countries do they sell more Harry Poter books? Europe or America? what is the average readers age? etc.

Now this is not the right way of thinking. If you claim that 1-2% of unique DNA is insignificant, so it is supposed to be very easy to scientists to provide evidence that it could be produced by random mutations. But they don't provide such thing (software simulation, mathematical models, lab experiments).


And as for "vestigiality", I think it's being exeggerated and misrepresented to be more dramatic than it really is. Just because our organism has minor features that no longer work, doesn't prove much. The theoretical intelligent designer doesn't want to be bothered by every little thing, he doesn't like to micromanage insignificant details. Just like you have on your computer some programs that you never use or that no longer run properly, you might not care enough in order to start looking for it and delete it. Same for "biogeogpaphy", it's just animals that are spreading over a territory.

"but did you literally just watch a few videos or have you a read a book on the subject"
i had never read a book on evolution... because there are no books on evolution. there are books that present data and then repeat the word evolution 10 times each page, "this is evolution", "this is evolution", "this is evolution", "this is evolution", like a hypnosis.

"It must be randomness that is the hangup. I think someone has already said that though mutations and variations apparently arise arising randomly due to imperfect copying of DNA, the testing of these variations within ecosystems is rigorous and severe; variations don't become incorporated into genotypes unless they confer survival value on the organism."
Well it's not "somebody said", it's what they all are saying, this is the main principle of evolution. But the thing is that it's a fantasy, just as a spaghetti monster or a unicorn. No lab experiment or computer software have never produced an evidence that random mutations can create an increase in complexity. So to say "random mutations and natural selection did it" is the same as believing in magic, it's the same as saying "god did it".



Last edited by person123 on Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:25 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
this discussion is going off the rails. This always happens because people start to introduce more and more insignificant details instead of admitting that evolution has nothing.

-your first claim was that all organisms are related and can be arranged in a tree diagram. i told you that human products exhibit same charasteristics of having similaraties and having many models with incremental changes and improvements... but then you say "iphone didn't come from nowhere"... what that means? iphone is just an example of a concept, that tree diagram and incremental changes can be a result of intelligent creation, and not necessarily a darwinian evolution.

-you have to prove that darwinian mechanisms can be the creational force that is behind all the living organisms that we see. but you can't do it, instead you start playing "why this and why that" games. How is this going to help you?
In human case it's only 14 megabyte of new data, you should be able to prove that it can be produced by random mutations.



Last edited by person123 on Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Nov 17, 2019 4:55 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6363
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
In human case it's only 14 megabyte of new data, you should be able to prove that it can be produced by random mutations.

The other 98% is also what makes us human; all of it constitutes our evolution. What accounts for our genome as well as that of a goldfish? Time and natural selection. About the origin of life, evolution claims no authority.

I don't want to offend you, but I don't plan to buy your book. Would you be able to tell us how you account for the diversity of life and the story told by the fossil record? Evolution is such a foundational principle of biology, so well researched and supported, that anyone denying it needs to have an alternative theory.



Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4396
Location: NC
Thanks: 1866
Thanked: 1937 times in 1450 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
Ok... I explain it in my book. You provided right now a specific data, an evidence. The fact that humans and apes share similar DNA. doesn't mean that the unique DNA that each species has could have evolved by random mutations and natural selection.
If you take Windows xp, Windows Vista and Windows 10, or Call of Duty 1,2,3, I'm pretty sure they share some amount of identical code. But except the identical code, there is some unique code that each program has that sets it apart from the rest.
So the fact that we share 98-99 percent of identical DNA with apes doesn't necessarily prove that we evolved, but maybe we were designed by same designer just like COD 1, 2 and 3.
The key is inside that 1-2% unique DNA that each species has, and for some reason the evolutionists are quiet about it.

A couple of thoughts. You don't actually explain anything here. Your "argument" actually looks like something out of the Holocaust deniers handbook. As Michael Shermer has written, history relies on the same kinds of scientific methods as paleontology and archaeology. Some people deny that the Holocaust really happened, but there’s far too much converging and corroborating evidence that it did. Deniers will focus on trivial inconsistencies, and use those to deny the Holocaust, but they are missing the big picture on purpose, denying the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that does support the Holocaust.

Bottom line: the fact that evolution doesn't make sense to you is because you are motivated to not believe it. And so you focus on a few trivial details—your personal bugaboos—which are based on misconceptions and sheer obstinateness. It's true that we don’t fully understand what makes humans so different from bonobos, based on this tiny difference in our DNA, but this doesn’t work against evolutionary theory at all. Neither are gaps in our knowledge evidence for God or your pseudo-Creator (or the alternate theory you have not formulated).

It's interesting, this is the second time I have seen the software metaphor as an argument against evolution. But Dawkins and Dennett and others have explained in great detail how natural selection, as a mindless, mechanical and algorithmic process, is restricted to the resources available to it. There’s no going back to the drawing board, so to speak, to improve upon the design. Look at the blind cave fish as an example. As underground caves are often poor in food and oxygen, natural selection would favor individuals with reduced visual capacity. There’s a very obvious cost-benefit tradeoff.

Likewise, the flounder spent so much time on its side that it evolved to have asymmetrical skulls, with both eyes located on one side of the head. Flatfish fossils show us the transition. The flounder’s basic body structure reveals its evolutionary heritage as prominently as a peacock's tail. The designer, so to speak, had to modify the existing architecture. This is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory.

The idea that Call of Duty games rely on the same Unreal engine is not a very apt point. You would know this if you explored the subject of evolution with an open mind and with some semblance of intellectual humility.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
DWill, LevV
Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:44 am
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
1. "The other 98% is also what makes us human; all of it constitutes our evolution. What accounts for our genome as well as that of a goldfish? Time and natural selection. "
Look at my Harry Potter books example. Just because two Harry Potter books are 99% identical, doesn't explain how a spaceship blueprint got there. So the fact that humans and apes share 98-99% of identical DNA, doesn't explain how we got that 1-2% unique DNA. You claim that time and natural selection did it, then you have to prove it. If you can't prove it, then it's the same as saying "god did it". You have to present that 1-2% unique DNA, and show that it is mathematically possible to produce it by random mutations and natural selection.
2. "I don't want to offend you, but I don't plan to buy your book"
it's ok, you don't have to. it's a free country.
3."that anyone denying it needs to have an alternative theory"
No I don't. This is not how it works. Read in my first post about George and Ross trial example.



Last edited by person123 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:00 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
1. "A couple of thoughts. You don't actually explain anything here. Your "argument" actually looks like something out of the Holocaust deniers handbook. As Michael Shermer has written, history relies on the same kinds of scientific methods as paleontology and archaeology. Some people deny that the Holocaust really happened, but there’s far too much converging and corroborating evidence that it did. Deniers will focus on trivial inconsistencies, and use those to deny the Holocaust, but they are missing the big picture on purpose, denying the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that does support the Holocaust."

During WW2 Germans demonstrated a motive and capability to kill jews. In Kiev for example they took the whole Jewish community to the forest, and killed all the people. Thousands of people excecuted in mass shooting in few days, only for being jews. Also we know that all over occupied europe, germans were seperating jews from the rest of population, and moving them into camps. So after the war they counted how many jews left, and discovered that 6 million people were missing. So it is reasonable to assume that they were murdered by germans in those camps.

On the other hand we have never witnessed random mutation and natural selection producing new complexity or new information... so why would we expect that it is the creative force behind all the living organisms?

2. "Bottom line: the fact that evolution doesn't make sense to you is because you are motivated to not believe it. And so you focus on a few trivial details—your personal bugaboos—which are based on misconceptions and sheer obstinateness."

This is not trivial details. You have to have 14 megabytes of unique DNA in order to go from ape to human. If you can't explaine how these 14 megabytes came to be, and you just say "evolution did it", how is it different from saying "god did it?". 14 megabytes is not much data, why the evolutionists can't show how this data can be produced by natural processes?

3. "Look at the blind cave fish as an example. As underground caves are often poor in food and oxygen, natural selection would favor individuals with reduced visual capacity. There’s a very obvious cost-benefit tradeoff."

This is an example of an organism losing information due to random mutations and natural selection, instead of producing new information. This is the opposite from what you claim your evolution can do. This is devolving instead of evolving.

4. "Likewise, the flounder spent so much time on its side that it evolved to have asymmetrical skulls, with both eyes located on one side of the head. Flatfish fossils show us the transition. The flounder’s basic body structure reveals its evolutionary heritage as prominently as a peacock's tail. The designer, so to speak, had to modify the existing architecture. This is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory."

Why is it perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory? Why can't the designer modify the existing architecture? Don't we humans modify our existing products all the time?



Last edited by person123 on Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:25 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6363
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Are you someone, then, who believes in microevolution but not macroevolution: that organisms do change through variation over time (and can be bred to guide this variation, e.g., dogs), but never have departed from their type to form new types (separate breeding populations)?

There are thousands and thousands of organisms in the fossil record that no longer exist in the forms that are fossilized. How do you account for the fact that extinction attrition hasn't led to a great poverty of species? Hasn't there instead been a burgeoning of diversity of organisms (though we humans are doing our best to reduce them!)? How did that progression of diversity happen?

You say your approach uses logic to disprove evolution. Reasoned, logical objections have been raised to your claims but not answered. You also say that a conspiracy of scientists over a century and a half has produced evolution theory. That is a position that itself is lacking in logic. Also, the analogy between priests enforcing supernatural beliefs and scientists enforcing evolution orthodoxy is flawed. Priests were never working with evidence.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
Robert Tulip
Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:54 am
Profile
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
I don't like the term "microevolution" because it leaves the door open for "macroevolution".
It's a fact that we can breed different types of dogs, so it will be very stupid on my part not to believe in that.

My point is that there is no reason to think that the evolution mechanisms were behind the emergence of new speacies. Every year humans develope new products, new electronics, news machines etc. But that doesn't mean that darwinian evolution was behind it.
Same with living organisms. The emergence of new speacies and increase in diversity may be the result of intelligent creation. Meaning that the intelligent designer occasionally modified existing organisms, and introduced new genetic code.

"Reasoned, logical objections have been raised to your claims but not answered"

What exactly I haven't answer?

"You also say that a conspiracy of scientists over a century and a half has produced evolution theory."

Not a conspiracy, but a human stupidity and the will to believe in myths. The scientific establishment is no different than the church establishment. The scientists are the same priests, only in new dressing.

"Also, the analogy between priests enforcing supernatural beliefs and scientists enforcing evolution orthodoxy is flawed. Priests were never working with evidence."

Yes they did. The priests would always use real life events to reaffirm the bible. "This happened because god was angry, and that happened because god was happy."



Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:10 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
Not a conspiracy, but a human stupidity and the will to believe in myths. The scientific establishment is no different than the church establishment. The scientists are the same priests, only in new dressing.


Honest question, what books, if any, have you read on the subject? Since you bothered to write something about it, presumably you have done some research?



Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:47 pm
Profile Email
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 58
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Dexter wrote:
person123 wrote:
Not a conspiracy, but a human stupidity and the will to believe in myths. The scientific establishment is no different than the church establishment. The scientists are the same priests, only in new dressing.


Honest question, what books, if any, have you read on the subject? Since you bothered to write something about it, presumably you have done some research?


Why do I need to read any book? What book am I expected to read? All the evolution information is a common knowledge and is presented to the public by mass media.



Last edited by person123 on Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:43 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
person123 wrote:
Why do I need to read any book? What book am I expected to read? All the evolution information is a common knowledge and is presented to the public by mass media.


Well, that's embarrassing. Good luck with your book.



Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:16 am
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 115 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank