• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 709 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 1:09 am

promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Authors are invited and encouraged to showcase their NON-FICTION books exclusively within this forum.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

person123 wrote:I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there". This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.
This is a very strange response for several reasons.
  1. That web site, The National Center for Biotechnical Information, is primarily a repository for scientific studies. It is a collection of studies, not a textbook or "bible." You don't seem to understand what the web site intends or provides.
  2. You claim no one understands anything on that web site. That is not true. Most scientific studies require advanced degrees to write and comprehend. That is partly because the standards for precision and accuracy are so high in these fields. Biological scientists do understand these studies, so you are wrong on this count.
  3. Other scientists will review and critique or accept these studies. So you are wrong that using that site is a trick.
  4. You mention proof several times. You don't seem to understand the scientific process. A study is not intended as proof of the subject. It provides evidence to be evaluated by scientific peers. The study I linked may have flaws or it may be providing significant new information, time will tell.
  5. You stated several times that no studies have been done to address your concerns about the 1 - 2% DNA variance. I presented one and although you immediately rejected it as incomprehensible, it proves your assertion is wrong. I'm sure there are many other studies that address your statements.
  6. No, I do not understand the entirety of the study, but I apprehend the gist of it and see the deep experience of those who conducted it. I expect it provides interesting information for other experts in the field to evaluate, we shall see. You do not need to understand all of the study to realize it disproves your assertion about a lack of such studies. I also do not need to understand the mathematics of nuclear fusion to know the sun generates that type of energy as stated by generations of physicists.
  7. It is important for you to reject conflicting information as quickly as possible and you appear to be good at that. You have a very strong confirmation bias, where one sees only information that confirms your assumptions while literally being blind to anything that conflicts with your beliefs. You make incorrect claims about a lack of scientific data because you don't seek it out and dismiss it as soon as you trip across it. You admit to not being interested in reading books on the subject even if they include information directly addressing your confusion. It makes me a little sad to consider you will probably spend the rest of your life railing about the 1 - 2% DNA, ignoring all explanatory or conflicting information, learning nothing, complaining about not understanding advanced information, and remaining over-confident in your knowledge.
person123
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:54 pm
4
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

Scientists may claim whatever they want, it's a fact that nobody here on this forum can read that research and understand how it explains the creation of new information by natural proccesses... I'm not talking about trivial information like losing eyes or getting blue eyes and blond hair, but complex information that worth at least 7-14 megabytes.
Also the problem is not only that 1-2% of DNA. The problem is that evolutionists don't really know how any of our internal organs evolved. For example how a 2 chamber heart became a 3 chamber heart. How we got lungs from gills. How bacteria evolved a flagellum. You will find research papers about all of these issues, including on that specific website. But none of that research will be able to explain coherently how all the above mentioned structures had evolved.
All those research does is to find one animal with 2 chambers heart, and another animal with 3 chambers heart, and then assume that it somehow evolved... so it's like I take a car with 1 cylinder engine and a car with 2 cylinder engine, and simply assume that it is a darwinian evolution... which of course is not true, because we had to use intelligence in order to create that.
If I want to know how the engine is built, i will find great 3d graphic simulation videos that will explain every little detail... but if i want to know how heart, or lungs or any organ evolved, all I will find is some drawings and hand made sketches and many trivial data. The author simply wants me to imagine that it had evolved, without being able to explain how.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

LanDroid wrote:
person123 wrote:I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there". This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.
This is a very strange response for several reasons.
  1. That web site, The National Center for Biotechnical Information, is primarily a repository for scientific studies. It is a collection of studies, not a textbook or "bible." You don't seem to understand what the web site intends or provides.
  2. You claim no one understands anything on that web site. That is not true. Most scientific studies require advanced degrees to write and comprehend. That is partly because the standards for precision and accuracy are so high in these fields. Biological scientists do understand these studies, so you are wrong on this count.
  3. Other scientists will review and critique or accept these studies. So you are wrong that using that site is a trick.
  4. You mention proof several times. You don't seem to understand the scientific process. A study is not intended as proof of the subject. It provides evidence to be evaluated by scientific peers. The study I linked may have flaws or it may be providing significant new information, time will tell.
  5. You stated several times that no studies have been done to address your concerns about the 1 - 2% DNA variance. I presented one and although you immediately rejected it as incomprehensible, it proves your assertion is wrong. I'm sure there are many other studies that address your statements.
  6. No, I do not understand the entirety of the study, but I apprehend the gist of it and see the deep experience of those who conducted it. I expect it provides interesting information for other experts in the field to evaluate, we shall see. You do not need to understand all of the study to realize it disproves your assertion about a lack of such studies. I also do not need to understand the mathematics of nuclear fusion to know the sun generates that type of energy as stated by generations of physicists.
  7. It is important for you to reject conflicting information as quickly as possible and you appear to be good at that. You have a very strong confirmation bias, where one sees only information that confirms your assumptions while literally being blind to anything that conflicts with your beliefs. You make incorrect claims about a lack of scientific data because you don't seek it out and dismiss it as soon as you trip across it. You admit to not being interested in reading books on the subject even if they include information directly addressing your confusion. It makes me a little sad to consider you will probably spend the rest of your life railing about the 1 - 2% DNA, ignoring all explanatory or conflicting information, learning nothing, complaining about not understanding advanced information, and remaining over-confident in your knowledge.
:goodpost:

I know we should let this thread die, but I wanted to make sure LanDroid's great post was not overlooked.

At some point I wanted to comment on the role of deductive reasoning in science, but I think the moment has passed. Fortunately, on another thread from long ago, Dexter quoted this from Stephen Jay Gould, which I think is perfectly apt here.
Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
https://www.booktalk.org/why-do-so-many ... =deductive
-Geo
Question everything
person123
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:54 pm
4
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

Ah??
1. That website doesn't provide an explanation for anything. No one here can read that website and understand how anything could have evolved.
2. There are many scientific creationist websites that do same thing but the opposite, they analyze data and conduct research only to conclude that evolution is not possible and that organisms are products of creation. I can do the same as you, post links here for creationist scientific websites that claim to refute evolution.
Michael Behe is a scientist, Stephen Meyer is a scientist, David Berlinski is a scientist, James Tour is a scientist, the Discovery institute is a scientific organization.
I could have quote them and provide links to their research and use it as a "proof". But unlike you, I chose not to do it, because it's called "argument from authority". This is what you do, you use materials that nobody understands and hide behind it.
3. You tend to clinge to words. This is semantics. No need to explain to me that there is no such thing as "proof" or whatever... when I say "prove" you know what I mean by that, to provide enough evidence in order to consider a certain claim to be probable enough in order to be taken seriously.
So no need to lecture me that there is no such thing as "proof" or "fact" or whatever. Don't hide behind words games. Don't play with words.
Last edited by person123 on Sun Nov 24, 2019 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
person123
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:54 pm
4
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

I mean you don't even know what evolution is... you think that fish losing its eyes or onion having more DNA than humans is evidence for evolution? I mean comon...
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

person123 wrote:I mean you don't even know what evolution is... you think that fish losing its eyes or onion having more DNA than humans is evidence for evolution? I mean comon...
I'm curious, how old are you?

If you read LanDroid's link about common misconceptions, you would know that evolution isn't always progressive. Natural selection favors improved abilities to survive and reproduce. Since vision is a costly adaptation and unnecessary for survival in a dark environment, the Mexican tetra, in finding a new ecological niche (in caves), gradually lost its vision and, thus, had more resources available to other adaptations that enabled it to survive. As I previously mentioned, there's a cost-benefit analysis at work with evolutionary processes.

By the way, here's an article from National Geographic, titled: "How This Cave-Dwelling Fish Lost Its Eyes to Evolution"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... evolution/

and from the Royal Society Journal: "Towards an integrated approach to understand Mexican cavefish evolution"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2018.0101

and from the Company of Biologists web site: "Sensory evolution in blind cavefish is driven by early embryonic events during gastrulation and neurulation"

https://dev.biologists.org/content/143/23/4521
-Geo
Question everything
person123
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:54 pm
4
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

geo wrote:
person123 wrote:I mean you don't even know what evolution is... you think that fish losing its eyes or onion having more DNA than humans is evidence for evolution? I mean comon...
I'm curious, how old are you?

If you read LanDroid's link about common misconceptions, you would know that evolution isn't always progressive. Natural selection favors improved abilities to survive and reproduce. Vision is a costly adaptation and unnecessary for survival in a dark environment. So the ancestor of the Mexican cavefish in finding a new ecological niche (in caves) gradually lost its vision and, thus, had more resources available to other adaptations that enabled it to survive. As I previously mentioned, there's a cost-benefit analysis at work with evolutionary processes.

By the way, here's an article from National Geographic, titled: "How This Cave-Dwelling Fish Lost Its Eyes to Evolution"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news ... evolution/

and from the Royal Society Journal: "Towards an integrated approach to understand Mexican cavefish evolution"

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2018.0101

and from the Company of Biologists web site: "Sensory evolution in blind cavefish is driven by early embryonic events during gastrulation and neurulation"

https://dev.biologists.org/content/143/23/4521
If you make a very broad and vague definition for the meaning of "evolution", then it will be useless.
Evolution didn't come to be in order to explain how fish loses eyes. Evolution is presented to the public as a theory that can explain the origin of all species, especially the human species.
It is very obvious that the process of fish losing its eyes, has nothing to do with a process that would allow emergence of new organisms. Humans didn't come to be because of the ancestor losing information and body organs. Species didn't come to be because of first replicating cell losing information and body parts.
So if you aren't cabaple to make that distinction, that there is a HUUUGE difference between losing existing information and gaining new information, and that you can't use one to prove the other... it's like using the fact that apples fall from trees due to gravity to claim that apples can also fly up due to gravity... now if you don't see the difference between the two and you mixed it up together, and your holy scientists with their "books" and "research" weren't able to explain that difference, or they themselves don't understand the difference... then you all have a very big problem.
person123
The Great Gabsby
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:54 pm
4
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

is there an economist here? some people with knowledge in economics?
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

Harry Marks is an economist, but he seems to be busy, hasn't posted lately.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Unread post

Person123 wrote:Evolution is presented to the public as a theory that can explain the origin of all species
Not true. The arrogance of such a wholesome explanation is a red herring. It simply isn't true. The breadth of explanation proposed is how species have evolved over time. That doesn't include how they originally came to be.

The difference between a 2 chamber heart and a 3 chamber heart might very well be 3,000 megabytes of information in the way the we currently process information on silicon. But it is a single mutation(quaternary rather than binary deviation) in how genetic information is encoded. But again, this is a red herring. This isn't how it works. Dividing the total genome by a percentage doesn't give you the amount of useful information. Simple math. Google research. Armchair logic.

It's our downfall. Real education is behind a paywall, and all that's left are self-educated googlites that don't recognize the inherent confirmation bias. Whatever you wish to be true, google it and go down the rabbit hole.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!”