| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2008 10:24:19 PM |
| Object: |
Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
On Jan 11, 8:00=A0pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
\ references.
Creationism is the silly habit of invoking the whim of unknowable
supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena; it has been around
for thousands of years.
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent. It can be interpreted to explain the knowable creator.
There are two types of creationism. Horizontal creationism seeks to
explain known complex objects in terms of an INTELLIGENT creator, and
that would be mankind. And the second kind of creationism explains
complex objects (the world and universe) in terms of an INTELLIGENT
creator that created the world.
There are two types of evolutionism. The first type is not practiced
as it reveals the hypocrisy in the evolutionary establishment, and
that is horizontal evolutionism (abiogenesis or gradual evolutionism
via natural phenomena) . This type tries to explain all complex
things in terms of some form of evolution and chance happening. For
instance, this type of evolutionist disregards all content and proof
for intelligent design and the history of mankind, and instead posits
a theory, for instance, that a known manmade object such as Mt
Rushmore, came into being through chance processes. This sort may
look at a computer and spend endless hours coming up a hypothesis as
to how the computer came into existence without man's help.
The second form of evolutionism is vertical evolution and says that
the earth and the universe (not including manmade objects) were
created through spotaneous chance and naturalistic processes.
There are evolutionistic apologists who claim that abiogenesis (change
in chemicals in the forming of life) is a topic in of it's own,
divorced from the general theory of evolution, even though Darwin and
followers even to our present day never separated abiogenesis from
evolution and never thought to do so.
This divorce of abiogenesis and evolution was devised to help
evolutionists (who find it difficult if not impossible to prove that
life started from a mud puddle or at the bottom of the sea though
chance happenings).
Gish is a known buffoon
Stating "buffoon" already discredits you. I was at the debate at
Chico State when even Michael Erpino, the evolutioinists) admitted to
an atheist man that I know, that he hung on barely with his teeth.
Next time don't downgrade Gish or I will have to relate all the times
he won over evolutionists.
- he even has an evasion tactic named after
him : the Gish Gallop.
Sure he does. This is called the evolutionist lost and started name-
calling. There are better ways to whine without having to name-call.
JM
.
|
|
| User: "Wexford" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
12 Jan 2008 11:43:08 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 11:24=A0pm, wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:00=A0pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
\ references.
Creationism is the silly habit of invoking the whim of unknowable
supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena; it has been around
for thousands of years.
False claim. =A0Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent. =A0
"Creationism" is the justification of fantasy. The rest of this is
crapola. Give it, partner. Get a trade.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "urillan" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
17 Jan 2008 02:52:22 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 11:24=A0pm, wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:00=A0pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
\ references.
False claim. =A0Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent. =A0It can be interpreted to explain =A0the knowable creator.
There are two types of creationism. =A0Horizontal creationism seeks to
explain =A0known complex objects in terms of an INTELLIGENT creator, and
that would be mankind. And the second kind of creationism explains
complex objects (the world and universe) in terms of an INTELLIGENT
creator that created the world.
Actually, that's wholly incorrect on several didactic aspects.
Creationism provides no methods by which the creator would become
knowable. In fact, creationism is almost wholly designed to prevent
the detection of existence, the identity of, the motives of,
capabilities of, and the methods employed by any causative creative
entities.\
=46rom an intellectual viewpoint, the conceptual framework of
creationism or ID demonstrates it innate tendancy toward the required
levels of ignorance. The framework forces the believer to accept that
the creator (and his reasons, and how he did it, etc...) cannot be
known.
Fundamentally, it provides no benefits over evolution. Pedantically,
it grants only several levels of intellectual detriment to the whole
equation.
The appeal to emotion regarding the "intellectual ascent" was
poignant, but misleading.
There are two types of evolutionism. The first type is not practiced
as it reveals the hypocrisy in the evolutionary establishment, and
that is horizontal evolutionism (abiogenesis or gradual evolutionism
via natural phenomena) . =A0This type tries to explain all complex
things in terms of some form ofevolutionand chance happening. =A0For
instance, this type of evolutionist disregards all content and proof
for intelligent design and the history of mankind, and instead posits
a theory, for instance, that a known manmade object such as Mt
Rushmore, came into being through chance processes. =A0This sort may
look at a computer and spend endless hours coming up a hypothesis as
to how the computer came into existence without man's help.
Evolution doesn't explain that all complex things came from chance.
That's either a misrepresentation from ignorance or a lie -- readers
decide.
Structures like Mt Rushmore could come from chance (erosion,
tectonics, etc...), however because evolutionists (is that a word) are
skeptical by nature, it would be determined that the surfaces seemed
to have been eroded in fast order, and not consistent with most known
erosive (is that a word) processes. Since the age of the presented
face of the rocks would be within 100-200 years, then it would present
researchers with the probability that another agent was the cause.
That's how your example is utterly unlike evolution. The science and
observations and predicted experimental outcomes all support the
theory of evolution.
The second form of evolutionism is verticalevolutionand says that
the earth and the universe (not including manmade objects) were
created through spotaneous chance and naturalistic processes.
Evolution says no such thing. The origin and / or formation of the
universe, and of the planets and other cosmological bodies are not
part of the theory of evolution. Please stop spreading that canard.
There are evolutionistic apologists who claim that abiogenesis (change
in chemicals in the forming of life) is a topic in of it's own,
divorced from the general theory ofevolution, even though Darwin and
followers even to our present day never separated abiogenesis fromevolutio=
nand never thought to do so.
Where did Darwin present that abiogenetic position as a part of
evolution? That "warm little pond" was proposed as an answer to a
different question, in a letter to Joseph Hooker in 1871 on the topic
of biochemistry where he said that it might be possible to replicate
the spark of life -- he didn't say how it begain though.
This divorce of abiogenesis andevolutionwas devised to help
evolutionists (who find it difficult if not impossible to prove that
life started from a mud puddle or at the bottom of the sea though
chance happenings).
Can you prove that was the reason it was divorced? That is too easy
to debunk.
Gish is a known buffoon
Stating "buffoon" already discredits you. =A0I was at the debate at
Chico State when even Michael Erpino, the evolutioinists) admitted to
an atheist man that I know, =A0that he hung on barely with his teeth.
Next time don't downgrade Gish or I will have to relate all the times
he won over evolutionists.
He didn't win. His opponents simply stuck to the issues which were
relevant and were stuck with a certain time-limit.
- he even has an evasion tactic named after
him : the Gish Gallop.
Sure he does. This is called the evolutionist lost and started name-
calling. There are better ways to whine without having to name-call.
Eugenie Scott coined the term, and she hadn't lost to him, so we can
dismiss yet another argument of yours on what we call a factual point.
The Gish Gallop is a common amateur debating technique where the
person spews (debating term) forth misleading point after misleading
point, mentions fallacies, changes topics and provides no actual
actionable rebuttals because they know that their opponent has only a
limited time in which to respond. Since the opponent cannot respond
to all the logical flaws, topic changes and misleading points in the
time allotted, then amateurs consider the opponent to have lost.
Such is not the case, however, with experienced debating judges, and
such tactics are not even permitted with experienced debating judges
and other officiating crew.
It's the polite way of saying that Gish cheated.
Anyone can complain that a given point caused their ear-lobes to grow
green hair, and that water will freeze if the planets align during
certain circumstances and so on, but they are unrelated, and only a
buffoon would consider the points worth response. Gish pulls that all
the time, he thinks it is hard to counter, and amateurs think that he
must have won because the opponent doesn't respond to so many points.
What is ironic is that the scientist/evolutionist side uses truth and
evidence and analyses and is considered evil whereas the religious /
creationists try to mislead, lie and avoid objective analytics but
consider themselves to hold the moral high-ground.
if Gish were a legitimate debater, he'd stick to some unbeatable
points. But since he has none, he figures that nobody can counter his
spewage unless the debate can go on for hours, and he knows that won't
happen.
Go ahead, give us a Gish argument that hasn't been thoroughly
debunked. Just one.. any one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 05:49:53 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:19 -0800 (PST), enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:00 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
\ references.
Creationism is the silly habit of invoking the whim of unknowable
supernatural beings to explain natural phenomena; it has been around
for thousands of years.
False claim.
Liar!
Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
Nothing whatsoever intellectual about creationism.
It can be interpreted to explain the knowable creator.
There is no evidence of or for a creator.
There are two types of creationism.
Two types of daftness.
Horizontal creationism seeks to
explain known complex objects in terms of an INTELLIGENT creator, and
that would be mankind.
Now what are you talking about moron?
And the second kind of creationism explains
complex objects (the world and universe) in terms of an INTELLIGENT
creator that created the world.
No evidence for such.
There are two types of evolutionism. The first type is not practiced
as it reveals the hypocrisy in the evolutionary establishment, and
that is horizontal evolutionism (abiogenesis or gradual evolutionism
via natural phenomena) . This type tries to explain all complex
things in terms of some form of evolution and chance happening. For
instance, this type of evolutionist disregards all content and proof
for intelligent design and the history of mankind, and instead posits
a theory, for instance, that a known manmade object such as Mt
Rushmore, came into being through chance processes.
Mt Rushmore is not a man made object you moron. It may have been
"sculpted" by man but it was made by millions of years of nature.
This sort may
look at a computer and spend endless hours coming up a hypothesis as
to how the computer came into existence without man's help.
You have a few screws completely missing McClueless.
The second form of evolutionism is vertical evolution and says that
the earth and the universe (not including manmade objects) were
created through spotaneous chance and naturalistic processes.
There are evolutionistic apologists who claim that abiogenesis (change
in chemicals in the forming of life) is a topic in of it's own,
divorced from the general theory of evolution, even though Darwin and
followers even to our present day never separated abiogenesis from
evolution and never thought to do so.
This divorce of abiogenesis and evolution was devised to help
evolutionists (who find it difficult if not impossible to prove that
life started from a mud puddle or at the bottom of the sea though
chance happenings).
Wrong again moron.
Gish is a known buffoon
Stating "buffoon" already discredits you. I was at the debate at
Chico State when even Michael Erpino, the evolutioinists) admitted to
an atheist man that I know, that he hung on barely with his teeth.
Liar!
Next time don't downgrade Gish
You cannot degrade him any further - he is already at rock bottom. A
lair, a fraud, a failed scientist and - worst of all - he has your
support. Bugger he is in a bad way when he gets your support
McClueless.
or I will have to relate all the times
he won over evolutionists.
Hohohohohohohoho!!!!
- he even has an evasion tactic named after
him : the Gish Gallop.
Sure he does. This is called the evolutionist lost and started name-
calling. There are better ways to whine without having to name-call.
JM
Now, McClueless, while you are here showing your profound ignorance
(again). It is now day 2 of the McClueless Video Challenge and I was
just wondering when we can expect some comments from you on the
subject?
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 04:18:49 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:
<idiocy snipped>
What about that video challenge, McPeabrain?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 06:21:22 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
I'm afraid that not quite the real McCoy:
Creationism is an intellectual decent. Back into the dark ages.
There isn't that much difference between a christian and a mohammedan
fundy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 08:55:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:19 -0800, mccoy wrote:
False claim.
You'd know.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
12 Jan 2008 11:51:59 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, bloodied us up with this:
Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
No. Creationism is the acceptance of what you've been told in trade for an
empty promise of getting to see your beloved dead again, even living
forever with them. Believing that sans evidence is intellectual suicide.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
15 Jan 2008 01:49:03 PM |
|
|
[snips]
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:19 -0800, mccoy wrote:
There are two types of evolutionism.
"Evolutionism"? Funny thing; the only ones I know who use such a term are
the creationists. Which suggests one of two things: either they're
discussing something completely irrelevant to anything worth discussing
here, or they simply haven't got a clue even what the *subject* they're
discussing is.
The first type is not practiced
as it reveals the hypocrisy in the evolutionary establishment,
There's an evolutionary establishment? News to me.
and that
is horizontal evolutionism (abiogenesis or gradual evolutionism via
natural phenomena)
Err.. excuse? Abiogenesis has nothing at all to do with evolution. It
might have something to do with "gradual evolutionism", but since the term
"evolutionism" is not defined, who can tell?
. This type tries to explain all complex things in
terms of some form of evolution and chance happening.
Ah, yes, of course. Digital circuit design is always explained in terms
of evolution and chance. So is software engineering, bridge building and
the development of new adhesives. Funny that none of the people working
in such fields are aware of this, though.
For instance,
this type of evolutionist disregards all content and proof for
intelligent design and the history of mankind, and instead posits a
theory, for instance, that a known manmade object such as Mt Rushmore,
came into being through chance processes.
Odd, I'm unaware of anyone - other than creationists - who make such
claims. Could you kindly post a reference to either a well-known
"evolutionist" - by which I can only assume you mean "evolutionary
biologist" - who has actually said Mt. Rushmore was made by chance
processes? Dawkins would do. Gould, perhaps. Someone with a
well-established track record in the actual sciences involved.
The second form of evolutionism is vertical evolution and says that the
earth and the universe (not including manmade objects) were created
through spotaneous chance and naturalistic processes.
Well, at least we know one thing for certain: whatever this "evolutionism"
you're discussing may be, it has absolutely nothing to do with biological
evolution, as that by definition _cannot_ apply to the formation of the
earth and the universe.
In fact, it is starting to sound as if "evolutionism" means "cosmology",
in which case why don't you simply use the proper term? On the other
hand, you link "evolutionism" with abiogenesis above, and cosmology has
nothing to do with abiogenesis, so it can't be that field, either.
Thus we're left with "evolutionism" being some bizarre field, one which
only you, apparently, have ever heard about, which studies the origins of
life _and_ the origins of the universe.
One might note that despite both involving the concept of origins,
*nobody* in science that I've ever encountered has ever hinted that the
processes in both cases were the same, or even similar enough to fall into
the same branch of study... meaning that whatever this "evolutionism" may
be, it has absolutely nothing to do with science as we know it; it isn't
comsology, it isn't physics, it isn't abiogenesis, it isn't evolution.
There are evolutionistic apologists who claim that abiogenesis (change
in chemicals in the forming of life) is a topic in of it's own, divorced
from the general theory of evolution, even though Darwin and followers
even to our present day never separated abiogenesis from evolution and
never thought to do so.
Of course, one might point out that they wouldn't see it necessary to do
so, when dealing with remotely educated people, as the means by which life
_originated_ and the means by which it _adapted_ are so obviously
different subjects that it requires a creationist to confuse them.
Obviously, life could not adapt if it didn't exist, which is almost
certainly why you'll often see the two subjects discussed side by side,
but only the most terminally idiotic would be unable to tell that this
does not make them the same thing.
This divorce of abiogenesis and evolution was devised to help
evolutionists (who find it difficult if not impossible to prove that
life started from a mud puddle or at the bottom of the sea though chance
happenings).
You really are thick, aren't you? Here, let's see if this clears it up
for you: try to explain the workings of an automobile engine... without
discussing fuel.
How does the engine work? It consumes... er... can't use that word. Yet
without fuel, the engine doesn't work. That means you more or less have
to discuss fuel when discussing engines.
So, is fuel part of the engine? No. It's a prerequisite to having a
working engine, of course, but it's not part of the engine. In exactly
the same way, the origin of life is not a part of the adaptation of life,
but it is a prerequisite: without life, life cannot adapt.
You would have an engine designer worry about where to drill for gas, how
to refine it, store it, transport it, build gas stations and the like, all
to figure out how to build an engine. It's absurd; he needs none of that
to build an engine; all he needs to know about fuels are their
properties and their availability. All the evolution scientist needs to
know about the origins of life is that life _did_ have an origin - that
life exists. How that came about is completely irrelevant.
Gish is a known buffoon
Stating "buffoon" already discredits you.
No, it doesn't, as Gish *is* a buffoon.
I was at the debate at Chico
State when even Michael Erpino, the evolutioinists) admitted to an
atheist man that I know, that he hung on barely with his teeth.
He probably *did* hang on by the skin of his teeth. The one thing folks
such as Gish are really good at is debates. Not because they have any
actual content, but simply because it's easier to say something which fits
with commonly held beliefs than it is to educate people away from
incorrect information.
You, yourself, provide a perfect example. I'm quite certain you've had it
explained to you that abiogensis and evolution are not the same thing.
I'm quite certain you've had it pointed out that "evolutionism" is a
meaningless term. I'm quite certain you've had it pointed out that
biological evolution has nothing at all to say about the origins of
planets, stars or universes. Despite this, here you are, saying just
those things.
Gish, in a forum with people such as you making up much of the audience,
would find it trivially easy to "make his case" - simply by saying things
you already think you know. Anyone challenging that faces *exactly* what
you demonstrate here, repeatedly: a steadfast refusal to learn anything
which challenges your existing views.
Of *course* the other guy is going to have an uphill battle; he's got a
roomful of people like *you* to convince, and look how hard it is to get
just *one* person - you - to stop and actually think.
- he even has an evasion tactic named after
him : the Gish Gallop.
Sure he does.
"Gish uses a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and
changing topics very quickly. The approach has been dubbed the "Gish
Gallop" by Eugenie Scott and criticized for failing to answer objections
raised by his opponents."
"Massimo Pigliucci, who has debated Gish five times, noted that Gish
ignores evidence contrary to his religious beliefs."
Gish's arguments against evolution have been criticized by various members
of the scientific community as being incorrect. Examples include:
* Claiming there are no fossil precursors to the dinosaur,Triceratops, a
claim Gish has made since 1987.[11] Examples of Triceratops precursors
include Monoclonius and Protoceratops with changes in bony frill, size and
number of horns predicted by the theory of evolution.[11] Gish has made
other, similar errors about the fossil record, including claims about
transitional forms, the fossil record for birds and the status of the
Archaeopteryx as a reptile or bird.[11] Gish has rebutted this
criticism,[12] which were rebutted in turn.[13]
* Claiming that Solly Zuckerman had access to modern knowledge of
Australopithecus yet still stated they were not ancestors of Homo sapiens;
Zuckerman's original conclusions were based on evidence available before
Lucy was discovered, a fossil which revolutionized the field of physical
anthropology.[11]
* Claiming that Neanderthals were modern humans of 'fully human Homo
sapiens just like you and me', which Richard Trott pointed out was false
given the morphological difference between modern humans
and Neanderthals.[11]
* Claiming that evolution by natural selection is rendered impossible by
the second law of thermodynamics.[14] The overwhelming scientific consensus
is that Gish's claim is false.
That's just from Wiki; there are literally thousands of pages on the net
doing exhaustive analyses of Gishe's claims and debates, all of which fall
into two camps: the Gish supporters, who, for some reason persist in
thinking Gish is right, yet invariably failing to deal with the science
involved, and those who examine the science involved and conclude,
universally, that Gish is, if we're being *generous*, simply a liar.
One of the best, of course, was Gish's bullfrog story. The URL is
http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm.
The summation is simple enough: Gish lied. No big surprise. He said:
"If we look at certain proteins, yes, man then -- it can be assumed that
man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But on the
other hand, if you look at certain other proteins, you'll find that man is
more closely related to a bullforg than he is to a chimapanzee. If you
focus your attention on other proteins, you'll find that man is more
closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee."
Since nobody else was aware of such proteins, he was challenged.
Repeatedly. Even publicly. For years. Despite this, not once did he
ever produce the evidence of such proteins, nor did he, at least up to the
point of the writeup, retract the statement.
Gish has been caught flat-out lying so often that only a creationist could
take him seriously... so of course, when someone refers to him as a
buffoon - that is, when someone is being *generous* - you feel compelled
to defend the fraud.
Pretty much sums up your position, though, doesn't it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 12:52:50 AM |
|
|
mccock:
Next time don't downgrade Gish or I will have to relate all the times
he won over evolutionists.
0 events are easy to relate to.
- he even has an evasion tactic named after
him : the Gish Gallop.
Sure he does. This is called the evolutionist lost and started name-
calling.
Mccock again describes its own modus operandi.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Anacker" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 02:51:00 AM |
|
|
mccoy@sunset.net:
Horizontal creationism seeks to
explain known complex objects in terms of an INTELLIGENT creator, and
that would be mankind. And the second kind of creationism explains
complex objects (the world and universe) in terms of an INTELLIGENT
creator that created the world.
And both *giggle* forms of "intellectual *snigger* ascent" *ROTFL*
prove the absence of an intellectual capability to immagine that the
natural world is wider and more complex than the abilities of an
neocortexed animal with thumbs.
greets
richie
--
http://www.tourenschwuchtel.net
gods are for pussys
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
