• In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

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

You're too dismissive of what many of us here know to be solid and well supported knowledge. I don't think a substantive conversation can be built on that. If you take some time to read through these forums, you'll see many of the same people in this thread replying to very similar arguments over the last 15 years, with a depth and breadth of understanding that would humble you.

It typically boils down to... how do we know evolution is true in spite of our individual inability to know all the processes. Or in spite of our collective gaps in knowledge regarding certain parts. In spite of those issues that appear unsolvable on the surface. Yet despite all this, the theory of evolution is the most thoroughly studied and supported theory known to mankind. If there is any knowledge we have that's near certain, it's evolution. Rather than being dismissive, ask how I support these statements.

I always find that the main area of misunderstanding isn't on the content, but rather on it's philosophical support structure. Of the billions or trillions of systems and structures across all life on the planet, how can we claim to know the process that developed them(eyeballs, cells, other "irreducibly complex systems", etc.), without knowing how the precise process that developed each individually? It simply isn't necessary. Again, sorry if that seems unfair.

We don't need to trace the pathway of every grain of sand and mineral from Arizona to the ocean to know that erosion is the process that caused the Grand Canyon. Processes like this, like evolution, explain swaths of information even into those areas where we're ignorant. And to point to those areas where we're ignorant, and claim they're contrary evidence, is the textbook definition of an argument from ignorance, one of the most common logical fallacies.

You have no ground to stand on with your dismissals, there's nothing new here.
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
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

1. it's funny how you claim that evolution is "the most thoroughly studied and supported theory known to mankind", while you can't even define what it is.

2. "We don't need to trace the pathway of every grain of sand and mineral from Arizona to the ocean to know that erosion is the process that caused the Grand Canyon"- but we know that flowing water can cut through soil and create a certain pattern or shape... like a river, or grand canyon... you can conduct an experiment and see it.
On the other hand we have never observed random proccesses creating complex structures or new information... so there is a difference.
Last edited by person123 on Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

Person wrote:while you can't even define what it is.
Is that a troll response, or do you truly think we haven't defined the theory and its component concepts?
Person wrote:but we know that flowing water can cut through soil and create a certain pattern or shape... like a river, or grand canyon... you can conduct an experiment and see it.
What experiment have you seen that shows mere water forming an entire canyon? Sure, water can move particles of sand. But you're saying that simple flowing water can cut through rock, take it's parts, and move it thousands of miles. Show me this happening.

Evolution is the same, only orders of magnitude more complex. We have direct observation that microevolution occurs, just as we have direct observation that water erodes. What we do not have is the millions of years to watch each of these granular phenomenon play out to the macro result.

But we don't need to, because we have converging lines of evidence from a vast number of different scientific fields, all pointing to the same conclusion. Speaking only of evolution now. From homologous structures, atavisms, synapomorphies, shared amino coding tables, vestigial traits, biogeography, pseudogenes, to the hierarchical fossil record tree. If you truly understand these things, and don't see the inevitable conclusion, then you're either biased beyond education or lack the capacity to understand them.

We can't see the Earth going around the sun, we can't see atoms, we can't see a river form a canyon, and we can't see macroevolution. But in each case, we don't need to. We gain knowledge of these things by their effects, by convergence of evidence accumulated over decades thousands of people showing how these effects are the inevitable result of the underlying explanations.

Your book has countless flawed arguments by the way. Picking one at random, if a set of fact fits two explanations in a court of law, George must be acquitted. That's not how it works in science. If you study the philosophy of science, you'll see that there are tools used to select between competing hypotheses or theories. One theory isn't "acquitted", whatever that might mean regarding a theory. Instead, one theory is selected, based on strength of predictive analysis, parsimony, testability, etc.
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
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 that a troll response, or do you truly think we haven't defined the theory and its component concepts?"
Darwin book is named "on the Origin of Species", but you say that evolution has nothing to do with origin of species... so which is it?

As for the great canyon... I'm not exactly familiar with the theory of how the great canyon was formed. If you say it happened due to erosion, and if we observe water capable to cause erosion... so what is the problem?

The analogy between canyon and evolution is incorrect. Canyon is produced by water eroding the soil for million of years, it's a simple proccess. Evolution is different, it has to produce new information and new complex organs, it's not the same. It's a false analogy.

As for evidence for evolution... all this evidence may be interperted in different ways. We have homologous structures in human designs, we have a hierarchical tree in human designs.... and also the rest of the stuff can be explained from an intelligent design perspective.
Atavism- the designer may make organism being flexible and adaptable to enviroment, so they may lose and later regain specific traits.
vestigial traits- those traits are usually small trivial things that evolutionists tend to make bigger than they really are.
synapomorphies-... i don't know what it is.
shared amino coding tables- so what? we have different devices that share identical internal components also... or different programs that share identical parts of code.
biogeography- so what? you have more chinese cars in china, and more koreans cars in korea...
pseudogenes- what about them?

buttom line that all this evidence can fit perfectly into intelligent design theory also... the problem here is with complex structures and dna. evolution can't explain those.


"Your book has countless flawed arguments by the way. Picking one at random, if a set of fact fits two explanations in a court of law, George must be acquitted. "
Did I say George must be acquitted? I said that after finding Ross, the evidence is no longer good enough to get a conviction to any of those two...
Last edited by person123 on Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:50 pm, edited 2 times 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

if you want to discuss evidence, then do it one by one... don't throw it all in one bunch at me.
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

Person wrote:As for the great canyon... I'm not exactly familiar with the theory of how the great canyon was formed. If you say it happened due to erosion, and if we observe water capable to cause erosion... so what is the problem?
Nothing. Just like there's no problem when we see microevolution and information increase between parent and offspring. Are you agreeing with me?

FYI, it's the Grand Canyon.
buttom line that all this evidence can fit perfectly into intelligent design theory also... the problem here is with complex structures and dna. evolution can't explain those.
Evolution can't explain those? Where'd you get that from, youtube? :bananadance:

Evolution is the only thing that explains those. There's nothing else that offers an explanation worth looking at.
Did I say George must be acquitted? I said that after finding Ross, the evidence is no longer good enough to get a conviction to any of those two...
That's a distinction without a difference. Hypothesis and theory selection follows a different set of rules from the court of law. I mentioned a couple of the criterion.

You say there's an alternative set of explanations, such as ID? Or that we're all inside an alien dream? Or we're all part of a video game from humanity's far future, inside space station Eros? Or Satan tinkered with evolution as it happened alongside God to make it "seem" as if we evolved. Or there is a genetic code from the Star Wars galaxy made of dark matter that we can't see that had already encoded every lifeform on earth, planted here millions of years ago? Perhaps there are infinite alternative sets of explanations.
if you want to discuss evidence, then do it one by one... don't throw it all in one bunch at me.
You want me to pay for your college education? I don't take you serious enough. I've travelled this path of argument dozens of times, and you're stuck right in the same ruts as everyone who has come before you. Go educate yourself for real rather than watching youtube.

We have a rift in society because half the human race gets sucked in by alternative worldviews that are trash. Flat Earthism is on the rise, half of humanity denies Climate Change, or believes we were magically created 6,000 years ago, thinking science is a myth, etc.

Your position is immoral. Misinformation and wrongly held beliefs are damaging to the human race, due to variables never before seen... instant information transfer, endless information at our fingertips, the confirmation bias cesspool of internet search engines. Yet there isn't a moral response to this problem, it's all a slippery slope. You must be allowed freedom of speech, in spite of the damage you do. I'm at a loss, and really wish people like you would stop writing books based on a youtube education, for any malleable mind to stumble across.
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
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

"Nothing. Just like there's no problem when we see microevolution and information increase between parent and offspring. Are you agreeing with me?"

No... water slowly eroding rock is not like creating new information or a new complex structure.

"Evolution can't explain those? Where'd you get that from, youtube?
Evolution is the only thing that explains those. There's nothing else that offers an explanation worth looking at."

In previous posts you admitted that we don't know how complex structures evolved... like 2 chamber heart becoming 3 camber heart.
But now you say that evolution does explain it... how?
Do you even understand what you are saying?

"That's a distinction without a difference."

No it's not. There is a difference. "Acquitting" means that we should assume George didn't do it... I didn't say that. I said that the evidence is not enough to get a conviction, and additional evidence needed.
As for alternative explanations, they have to be reasonable. If organisms have traits of design then it's reasonable to assume they were designed. If organisms have irreducibly complex biological systems that can't be explain by darwinian mechanisms, then it is unreasonable to assume that those organisms could have evolved by random mutations and natural selection.

"You want me to pay for your college education? "

How is discussing evidence one by one pays my college education?

What you said in the end is nonsense, I don't want even to respond to that.
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

No... water slowly eroding rock is not like creating new information or a new complex structure.
The way an analogy works is that you take something complex, and explain it by way of appealing to something easier to understand. Like explaining the way gravity manipulates Earth's rotation around the Sun by using the analogy of a marble in a funnel.

Of course a funnel is nothing like the fabric of spacetime, and erosion is nothing like evolution. And still the analogies stand. What's interesting is I explained the workings of an analogy to my daughter last month using similar examples. The reason she was obtuse was something to do with feeding the dog though. She refuses to admit she's wrong, so we go down these same rabbit holes.
In previous posts you admitted that we don't know how complex structures evolved... like 2 chamber heart becoming 3 camber heart.
But now you say that evolution does explain it... how?
Do you even understand what you are saying?
Evolution explains complex structures, and doesn't need to explain the granular evolutionary path of individual organs to do so. How many quadrillions of phenotypic items exist that haven't yet been thoroughly examined or explained by evolution? The vast majority for sure.

I don't think you're missing the point, I just think you're being obtuse. The veracity of evolution isn't judged by it's ability to explain gaps in knowledge, because the complexity of life on Earth is so vast that gaps will exist forever. Instead, the veracity of evolution is judged by the convergence of data from many fields of science.

Here's another analogy. All the items I mentioned before are categories of puzzle pieces. For this analogy, there are millions. We've put together vast swaths of the puzzle and the image is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt. All you're doing is pointing to areas where there's a missing puzzle piece.
Jigsaw Evolution.png
Jigsaw Evolution.png (3.18 MiB) Viewed 3863 times
Look, you don't have that piece! It must be an elephant! :slap:



Regarding paying for an education, having an institutional login is the best way to get access to all the evidence. In other words, go to college. I'm not a fan of the paywall, for the record.

Go through the links here to get started. The abstracts are available in all cases, but for full content you usually need to have the login or pay. After exhausting the links on the first few pages, you'll understand enough to search for yourself using different keywords. Make sure you're using Google Scholar, and avoid Youtube like the plague. If you do this for a few months on your own, it might be the same as taking a single college class. Then come back here with what you've found, and show us how evolution doesn't explain the evolution of a 3 chambered heart.

I don't know how a 3 chambered heart evolved, and I'm not going to pay to find the answer for you. I've been on enough wild goose chases for missing puzzle pieces over the years. I'm still missing a piece of the Darth Vader puzzle I put together. It annoys me, but no one else notices.
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
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

Why is it so important for you to prove the whole evolution thing? I don't want to torture you no more. You invest so much time and emotion in your posts...
But try to look at yourself from a side, you behave exactly like a religious person... you feel threatened and attacked once your religion is questioned. You can't even allow yourself to question it.

But I feel like I have no energy to play this cat and mouse game, this can go on forever.

Nice puzzle by the way... you solved it?
Last edited by person123 on Thu Nov 28, 2019 9:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
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

Why is it so important for you to prove the whole evolution thing? I don't want to torture you no more. You invest so much time and emotion in your posts...
I truly believe that there's a lot at stake. This is like a single duel in a larger war, where truth is battling misinformation. If you go around spreading information that we know to be false, you expand the false worldview that millions can live within. When i mentioned flat earthism and climate change denialism, I wasn't being snarky. There's a rot at the core of civilization and it's growing. What does our future look like with half the population denying reality?
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!”