Page 7 of 13

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:07 pm
by person123
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.

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:36 pm
by LanDroid
"...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:

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:37 pm
by person123
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."

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 10:52 pm
by person123
Any mathematicians here?

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:01 pm
by LanDroid
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...

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:37 pm
by person123
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.

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:50 am
by DWill
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.

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 9:52 am
by person123
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.

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2019 5:48 pm
by Interbane
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?
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.

Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:42 am
by person123
I guess now it's all about who is having the last word...