BookTalk.org
https://www.booktalk.org/

promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution
https://www.booktalk.org/promoting-my-ebook-logic-against-evolution-t30512-90.html
Page 7 of 9

Author:  person123 [ Sat Nov 30, 2019 12:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

I suggest you to do the same... google the opposing argument... google "Logic against Evolution"...

Author:  Robert Tulip [ Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

The best argument against evolution was made by Saint Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus Christ is the Second Adam, and therefore, if there was no Adam there could have been no Jesus Christ. We all know (or at least everyone who is saved knows) that Jesus Christ is our Personal Lord and Saviour whose atoning death on the cross saves us from sin. As Saint Paul taught, the divine action of Christ on the cross restored the union with God that was destroyed by the Fall from Grace that occurred when Eve tempted Adam.

So this 'evolution' idea that perhaps Adam was a myth undermines the core story of salvation in Western Civilization, the atoning work of Christ. No Adam, no Christ. Natural selection is incompatible with the main dogmatic teaching that believing Christians are washed in the blood of the lamb. Darwinian logic means there is no actual heaven or hell, contrary to fundamental longstanding teachings of the Christian religion.

It is obvious to any believer that the saving power of Christ crucified is the citadel of faith, which must be protected from all Satanic onslaughts, such as scientists sowing doubt about the actual historical existence of Adam and Eve. QED

Author:  LanDroid [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 12:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

^ There you go, Person123, have fun with that one.^ :P
Quote:
When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
1 Corinthians 15: 37-39

That was a reasonable observation at the time it was written. However Darwin showed all flesh is related. Subsequent discoveries including genetics and DNA support Darwin, not Saint Paul. If 1 Corinthians 15 was accurate, one would expect the evidence to show human DNA has zero in common with apes, and birds have zero DNA in common with fish, etc. But in contrast we find vast commonalities in deep time such as humans share gene regulation mechanisms with ancient sea sponges. So let's just say there's a bit of a disconnect between assertions made nearly 2000 years ago and modern scientific evidence. :?
Mr. Tulip wrote:
Darwinian logic means there is no actual heaven or hell, contrary to fundamental longstanding teachings of the Christian religion.

I don't think that's True. Darwin spoke to how life evolves, not to the supernatural. Yes the theory of evolution renders heaven, hell, and the supernatural unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. However it does not address abiogenesis, life after death, or the magic that's involved with Jesus' crucifixion and the forgiveness of current sins.

Author:  person123 [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

I'm not a religious person, and I don't believe in the bible... what do you mean by "render"? "Refute"? "make obsolete"? How exactly evolution refutes heaven, hell, jesus or whatever.
Also there is no evolution... if scientists can't explain a very simple thing like the origin of first cell, you have to be very naive to think that they can explain anything else... it's like to expect from a person who doesn't know how much is 5+5, to be good at calculus at the same time. There is no point to make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, it's same biology and chemistry.

Author:  LanDroid [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

I know you don't believe in the Bible, but thought you would enjoy that support anyway...

OK replace the word "renders" with "makes," is that more understandable?
Quote:
There is no point to make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, it's same biology and chemistry.

Wrong! Since you don't understand the word "renders," I don't expect you to get that distinction either...

Author:  person123 [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

why would you make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis? So who is supposed to deal with it? I mean I understand it's not the same thing, but I won't trust scientists that can't explain abiogenesis but claim to be able to explain evolution.
I never saw mathematicans that only can add or retract, but can't multiply or divide.


As for "Yes the theory of evolution renders heaven, hell, and the supernatural unnecessary to explain the diversity of life."
You mean no need for religion to explain deiversity of life? Ok... but what about the life itself, and the creation of the universe? Or this is small things that don't bother you?

Author:  geo [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

person123 wrote:
Also there is no evolution... if scientists can't explain a very simple thing like the origin of first cell, you have to be very naive to think that they can explain anything else... it's like to expect from a person who doesn't know how much is 5+5, to be good at calculus at the same time. There is no point to make a distinction between evolution and abiogenesis, it's same biology and chemistry.

We don't need to know how the first cell appeared to know that it did, and that life evolved and diversified over the next 3.7 billion years or so.

Interbane provided a beautiful illustration of Intelligent Design's central idea of irreducible complexity. The naysayers keep looking at those missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, while the those of us who choose not to be blinkered see the very obvious big picture.

Indeed, as scientists continue to amass evidence supporting evolution, the IDers and YECers have to keep moving the goalposts. They don't want to accept evolution and use belligerence and motivated ignorance to maintain their positions. But they espouse no alternate theory. Intelligent Design is not a theory but pseudoscience.

Meanwhile, we have a very good idea how life arose from inorganic or inanimate substances, but of course it's 'just a theory.' If that's where you want to stake your claim, you'll likely be safe for a long, long time.

Author:  person123 [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

So asking basic questions like where did we get unique DNA, how 3 chamber heart evolved from 2 chamber heart, how bacterium evolved a flaggelum is "moving goalposts, use belligerence, being ignorant and being a naysayer..."? Ok... I thought asking questions is what science all about, and not simply "believing" in something... like... the religious people that you claim that you are nothing alike.

"Meanwhile, we have a very good idea how life arose from inorganic or inanimate substances"
No, you don't have a very good idea, or any idea.... some evolutionists even say that first cells came from space, this is how desperate they are...

BTW I still don't understand why you chose to separate evolution and abiogenesis... I mean it's a fact that some proccesses led to creation (or production) of biological complex structures (first cells)... so why do you assume that those proccesses that made the first cell are no longer active and are not relevant anymore? How do you decide that whatever had make the first cell, is not what keeps producing new biological complexity and making all the biological diversity (new species)?
on what authority you decide that?

Author:  Taylor [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/b01mk8vh

person123 wrote:
How do you decide that whatever had make the first cell, is not what keeps producing new biological complexity and making all the biological diversity (new species)?on what authority you decide that?


Evolution is the authority.

The beauty of evolution via natural selection is that it may well have been that a secondary form of biologically complex cell did emerge but subsequently died off from a failure to compete.

The link I've provided is an excellent discussion of abiogenesis, It is presented by people who are at the very top of this particular field of research and covers much of current understanding.

Those missing puzzle pieces become less relevant as modern scientific understanding of how cell development is supposed to happen improves. Those missing pieces do not falsify Neo-Darwinian understanding, only intelligent design attempts to accomplish that through pseudoscientific means.

Author:  person123 [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

"The link I've provided is an excellent discussion of abiogenesis"

At what minute? I listened for 5 minutes, it was pointless babbling.

"Those missing puzzle pieces become less relevant as modern scientific understanding of how cell development is supposed to happen improves."

No... it doesn't become less relevant. The more they know about the cell, the more complex it appears, the harder it becomes to explain its origin.

You all living in some kind of fantasy world...

"The beauty of evolution..."

The real beauty of evolution is that it doesn't really exist and nobody understands what it really is, but everyone pretends as if he knows what he talks about...

Author:  Robert Tulip [ Sun Dec 01, 2019 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

LanDroid wrote:
Mr. Tulip wrote:
Darwinian logic means there is no actual heaven or hell, contrary to fundamental longstanding teachings of the Christian religion.
I don't think that's True. Darwin spoke to how life evolves, not to the supernatural.
The philosophical and scientific beauty and elegance of Darwinian logic is its simple ability to place the whole of life within a framework of cause and effect. The Darwinian attitude to causality effectively excludes any literal supernatural belief, while recognising that symbolic use of supernatural language can have strong selective benefit, even more so when the symbolic language pretends to be literal.

Evolutionary principles such as cumulative adaptation have a universal application, seen in the constant slow ratcheting up of ecological systems from simple to complex as organisms gradually filter through to fill available niches more effectively. Adaptation is a universal process that is punctuated by catastrophic collapses which make the whole complex system start again from a new simple base.

Darwinian logic as applied to heaven and hell looks to how the cultural ideas have been adaptive. The only evidence we have for heaven and hell is social belief, which has strong evolutionary relevance as a mechanism of social control and direction, but no apparent evolutionary meaning against the supernatural premise that the mythology has any literal truth.

Ockham’s Razor excludes the supernatural: humans have evolved to use fantastic stories as seen in the Bible as an essential component of social evolution, indoctrinating myths to weld society into a cohesive and stable whole. The purpose of stories about heaven and hell is to provide symbolic explanation of how society will evolve under selective pressure that is good or evil. Good selective pressures make earth more like heaven, while evil selective pressures make earth more like hell. Rather than depictions of an afterlife, heaven and hell depict what our world could become. That is a more simple and parsimonious explanation of how supernatural ideology evolved than any literal theory of divine revelation.

It is pretty sad that the author of this thread has such a weak grasp of causality, which should be recognised as a central moral and epistemic principle of human existence. The logic of causality underpins the elegant simplicity of the theory of evolution.

My effort in my previous post was aimed at imagining what it is like to exist inside a creationist bubble in satirical terms. I am not going to even try to understand what person123 is on about, since personal religious commitment to the political ideology of creationism is the only seemingly coherent reason to question evolution, and s/he rejects that as well.
LanDroid wrote:
Yes the theory of evolution renders heaven, hell, and the supernatural unnecessary to explain the diversity of life. However it does not address abiogenesis, life after death, or the magic that's involved with Jesus' crucifixion and the forgiveness of current sins.

I disagree. Memetics applies the principles seen in genetic evolution to the evolution of culture, in order to study how myths such as the crucifixion came to have such stable and durable and fecund cultural sway. Only an evolutionary model of human existence can have any coherent plausible hypothesis about why people believe such weird magic.

For example, Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism provided an evolutionary argument for belief in life after death, that the belief enabled people to be more productive, improving reproductive success. It may be a challenge to show that belief in forgiveness improves fecundity, but the principle of evolution suggests it must, including at the level of unconscious collective psychology, for example with economic factors such as the shift from tribal to urban life enhanced by the social cohesion that Christianity delivers.

Author:  person123 [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

-"The philosophical and scientific beauty and elegance of Darwinian logic...."
Logic is not supposed to be beautiful or elegant, logic supposed to be correct or incorrect. And Darwinian logic is incorrect, so what do I care if it's beautiful or elegant?
And how does it excludes supernatural if it fails to adress subjects like the emergence of first cell, creation of the universe or the phenomena of conciousness?


-"...provided an evolutionary argument for belief in life after death, that the belief enabled people to be more productive, improving reproductive success."
Well now people don't believe in life after death no more, but for some reason the productiveness didn't drop... we produce more than ever now. So I guess the "evolutionary argument" wasn't correct after all.

Author:  geo [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

person123 wrote:
So asking basic questions like where did we get unique DNA, how 3 chamber heart evolved from 2 chamber heart, how bacterium evolved a flaggelum is "moving goalposts, use belligerence, being ignorant and being a naysayer..."?


These are Intelligent Design talking points. And you ask such questions, not to come to a better understanding of evolution, but to focus attention on the missing pieces. As such, your enquiries are disingenuous. If you were truly interested in learning more about evolution, you would pick up a book and read about it.

IDers keep moving the goalposts because scientists have already addressed many of the previous cases of alleged "irreducible complexity." It used to be the eye. For example: What good is half an eye? Well, the evolution of the eye is now much better understood, and so IDers have moved on to other things.

But anyway here's how mammals evolved 4-chambered hearts, from 3-chamber hearts. I await your dismissal of this article as "nonsense" or "too difficult". :clap2:

https://www.livescience.com/7877-unders ... ution.html

Author:  person123 [ Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

geo wrote:
person123 wrote:
So asking basic questions like where did we get unique DNA, how 3 chamber heart evolved from 2 chamber heart, how bacterium evolved a flaggelum is "moving goalposts, use belligerence, being ignorant and being a naysayer..."?


These are Intelligent Design talking points. And you ask such questions, not to come to a better understanding of evolution, but to focus attention on the missing pieces. As such, your enquiries are disingenuous. If you were truly interested in learning more about evolution, you would pick up a book and read about it.

IDers keep moving the goalposts because scientists have already addressed many of the previous cases of alleged "irreducible complexity." It used to be the eye. For example: What good is half an eye? Well, the evolution of the eye is now much better understood, and so IDers have moved on to other things.

But anyway here's how mammals evolved 4-chambered hearts, from 3-chamber hearts. I await your dismissal of this article as "nonsense" or "too difficult". LOL.

https://www.livescience.com/7877-unders ... ution.html



ok... by the way I don't know if you noticed, but I asked about 2 to 3 chambers evolution, not 3 to 4... but it's ok. Thank you. (I don't want to be accused for moving goalposts)

Author:  Robert Tulip [ Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

person123 wrote:
Logic is not supposed to be beautiful or elegant
In science, a clear and simple argument with strong predictive power is seen as beautiful and elegant. For example Newton's laws of motion, with their ability to predict planetary positions to a high level of accuracy, display a beautiful logic, only surpassed by the refinement of Einstein's theory of relativity, whose formulation of the equation of matter and energy is supremely elegant. Darwin's hypothesis of descent with modification places all changes in life into a parsimonious framework. The beauty of the causal logic of evolution is its direct application to experience in the world.
person123 wrote:
what do I care if it's beautiful or elegant?
If you had any interest in the relationship between theory and reality you would care about the beauty of scientific theory.
person123 wrote:
And how does it excludes supernatural if it fails to adress subjects like the emergence of first cell, creation of the universe or the phenomena of conciousness?
We lack data to answer those questions. On all relevant problems where data is available, the theory of evolution fully excludes supernatural mythology.

Page 7 of 9 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/