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 Sat May 30, 2020 10:27 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 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, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution 
Author Message
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Interbane wrote:
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.




"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. "


Really? Isn't Darwin's book called "On the Origin of Species"?
Aren't evolutionists claiming that all species evolved from a single cell organism... so how is it not a proposed explanation of the origin of species??? So please provide me the official definition for "evolution theory"...
This is absolutely ridiculous.

"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. "

First we don't have to use silicon as an example... we can use any other known method of producing and storing new information. Like papers and ink. What the difference? I don't see how by attacking my "silicon" analogy you refute my point.
If you don't like me using "silicon" analogy, than you are more than welcomed to provide an explanation of how could a two chamber heart evolve into three chamber heart.
But you can't, all you can do is provide some links to some incoherent websites with a lot of redundant data.

"Dividing the total genome by a percentage doesn't give you the amount of useful information"

But at least some of it is useful information... I mean that is what separates one species from another and sometimes produce new organs... so some of it must be new useful infrormation.

Hehe this is what you evolutionists do... start playing games with words. This is the only thing that you are good for...

Evolutionist: "Our main book is called "on the Origin of Species"".
Also Evolutionist: "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of species".

Hehe what a joke. "Evolution" is the biggest charade in the history of human kind.



Last edited by person123 on Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.



Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:07 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Buys books before food

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2193
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 90
Thanked: 831 times in 648 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
"...all you can do is provide some links to some incoherent websites with a lot of redundant data."

I mentioned your strong confirmation bias before, which seems to be at the core of your argument (along with incredulity as mentioned by DWill) and that is not good. You are simply admitting that if you personally do not understand something it is false and should be ignored. :lol:



Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:36 pm
Profile
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
LanDroid wrote:
"But you can't, all you can do is provide some links to some incoherent websites with a lot of redundant data."

I mentioned your strong confirmation bias before, which seems to be at the core of your argument (along with incredulity as mentioned by ) and that is not good. You are simply admitting that if you personally do not understand something it is false and should be ignored. :lol:



I can use same argument... "if you don't understand the Bible and that Jesus is our saviour, doesn't mean it's not true... it's your personal incredulity and bias... and that is not good."



Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:37 pm
Profile Email
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Any mathematicians here?



Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:52 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Buys books before food

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2193
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 90
Thanked: 831 times in 648 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Incorrect - I do understand assertions that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and Jesus is our Savior. I used to believe those claims, but now I disagree for many reasons.

In contrast you keep mentioning incomprehensible or incoherent information which therefore must be false and disregarded. It should be embarrassing for one who refuses to read books on the subject or do research beyond youtube to claim all information on evolution that exceeds your level of education or understanding should be disregarded, but evidently that is the way you roll... => Confirmation bias and incredulity. <= Check that out and think about it...


_________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25


Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:01 pm
Profile
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
But I do understand assertions that evolutionists are making... and they do it in a such an incomprehensible way, in order to cover the fact that they don't know anything and trick the public.



Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:37 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears 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
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6532
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1951
Thanked: 2172 times in 1642 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Your position seems to be that you don't need to have read books explaining evolution to assert that it's false, since it's so obvious to you that it has to be false on its face. That position could be compared, I suppose, to mine on astrology or biblical miracles. I don't need to be an expert in the Zodiac or know chapter and verse in order to feel certain that the stars don't influence our behavior or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead to be with his father.

But in my dismissal I have, in fact, considered the evidence--easy to do, since what is offered doesn't meet the rules of evidence. You simply haven't done the same regarding evolution, for which there is so much evidence presented. You haven't looked at the subject comprehensively, but have been stuck on one aspect that you think releases you from having to acknowledge the weight of all the evidence accumulated for the theory.



Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:50 am
Profile
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
DWill wrote:
Your position seems to be that you don't need to have read books explaining evolution to assert that it's false, since it's so obvious to you that it has to be false on its face. That position could be compared, I suppose, to mine on astrology or biblical miracles. I don't need to be an expert in the Zodiac or know chapter and verse in order to feel certain that the stars don't influence our behavior or that Jesus didn't rise from the dead to be with his father.

But in my dismissal I have, in fact, considered the evidence--easy to do, since what is offered doesn't meet the rules of evidence. You simply haven't done the same regarding evolution, for which there is so much evidence presented. You haven't looked at the subject comprehensively, but have been stuck on one aspect that you think releases you from having to acknowledge the weight of all the evidence accumulated for the theory.


Didn't you notice that I am aware for all the "evidence", and I have responded to it here and showed that it is not really an "evidence" for evoultion? thank you.



Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:52 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears 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

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
Person wrote:
Really? Isn't Darwin's book called "On the Origin of Species"?
Aren't evolutionists claiming that all species evolved from a single cell organism... so how is it not a proposed explanation of the origin of species??? So please provide me the official definition for "evolution theory"...
This is absolutely ridiculous.


Don't be mad. Go to college and learn about it.

Person wrote:
you are more than welcomed to provide an explanation of how could a two chamber heart evolve into three chamber heart.


Here's something else that might make you apoplectic. We don't need to explain this to know evolution is true. :P

Unfair, isn't it?

Quote:
Hehe this is what you evolutionists do... start playing games with words. This is the only thing that you are good for...


Well, words and their definitions matter. Like Abiogenesis.


_________________
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


Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:48 pm
Profile
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
I guess now it's all about who is having the last word...



Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:42 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears 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

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
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


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Taylor
Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:01 am
Profile
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
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.



Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:25 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears 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

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7109
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1094
Thanked: 2110 times in 1687 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
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


Wed Nov 27, 2019 2:39 pm
Profile
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
"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.



Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:42 pm
Profile Email
The Great Gabsby


Joined: Nov 2019
Posts: 61
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
if you want to discuss evidence, then do it one by one... don't throw it all in one bunch at me.



Wed Nov 27, 2019 4:17 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 121 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, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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
Book Discussion Leaders

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