| 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: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 08:32:57 PM |
|
|
<mccoy@sunset.net> wrote in message
news:3ab8b8b1-2874-450e-8a3b-e7729a91925b@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
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. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
LOL.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 05:15:21 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:3ab8b8b1-2874-450e-8a3b-
e7729a91925b@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com to alt.atheism on 13 Jan 2008:
Subject: Horizontal and Vertical evolution
From:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
On Jan 11, 8:00ÿpm, 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.
I knew you were an intellectual midget, McF, but I didn't realise you
were knee-high to the creature previously thought to be the smallest with
knees.
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
The monkeys are loose in the library again. They're gibbbering something
about "Answers In Genesis".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 11:05:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<Nothing of value>
Changing threads will not change your title, liar.
So where is your video of you going to Turkey to play in a pile of rocks
McDingbat.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kingdoodlesquat" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
12 Jan 2008 10:55:33 PM |
|
|
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
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 <***** snipped>
Horizontal creationism? Is that like having a flatline on brain function?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
12 Jan 2008 11:13:20 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 8:55=A0pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. =A0Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the sam=
e
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative. Which, i suspect is why that if you did a survey on
talk.origins and alt.atheism and determine who has used name-calling
you would find that those who do so are predominantly evolutionists.
And you would fid that they do so when they are in a pickle.
It 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 <***** snipped>
Horizontal creationism? Is that like having a flatline on brain function?
No. It is the observation that intelligence (mankind) creates complex
things all the time. This idea is merely a common repeatable
observation that has been proven. And of course this is why
creationists reject chance evolutionism and abiogenesis. They do so
because observation itself (the observation that intelligence produces
complex things).
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 11:08:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
<Noise and more noise>
Since you are a known liar, McLiar, you have no credibility to answer
any posts.
Hey, McDingBat, wheres that video where you play with a pile of rocks in
Turkey?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
14 Jan 2008 07:29:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in
the same sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative.
Once someone says that something is so obvious that they don't need to
explain it, you know they can't and their argument can be discarded.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
12 Jan 2008 11:47:36 PM |
|
|
In article
<d34524c3-49e5-45ef-abcf-d5a849124774@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative.
The creationist idea that an intelligence would have deliberately
created this world in such a way as to leave evidence that it was
created in a different way boggles all sane minds and is acceptable only
to those totally absent any intellect at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 04:57:07 PM |
|
|
On Jan 12, 9:47=A0pm, Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
In article
<d34524c3-49e5-45ef-abcf-d5a849124...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
=A0mc...@sunset.net wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55=A0pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. =A0Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectu=
al
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the=
same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative.
The creationist idea that an intelligence would have deliberately
created this world in such a way as to leave evidence that it was
created in a different way boggles all sane minds and is acceptable only =
=A0
to those totally absent any intellect at all.
The truth be told God left no evidence that points in the way of
chance evolution. Let's take the geologic record for example.
In the Precambrian and cambrian stratas there are to find none other
than complex creatures, with the majority of those, not just some, are
actually creatures that live to this day. This notion that you're
supposed to find rabbits in cambrian is ludicrous. A world wide
flood, as defined by Genesis, predicts that the sediments would first
cover the bottom. We read in Genesis that the "fountains of the deep
burst open." This would send rocks bursting out of the earth and
these rocks would have shattered and fragmented upon release,
sediments would shoot up and cycle in the water, some covering the
botton instantly and some gaining bouyancy immediately out and the
water would remain colloidal for a time. This sorting would alone
distort any conjured time stage insomuch that a modern day scientist
could not decipher or make any sense out of through dating techniques.
Which is why layering is often the sought for clues.
But let me get back to your question. Your claim that God left
evidence that suggests an alternative view. In geology this isn't
possible because there is nothing there to suggest that evolution is a
true theory. All animals found in cambrian are complex, and most of
which are living today. And all of these creatures are deep sea
creatures. Under the water, which is what we would expect. If heavy
flooding occurred today, and uplift occurred several years from now
these former seas, now uplifted mountains, could be looked upon as
evidence of evolution, superficially, that is if one deliberately
suppresses two facts. That they are bottom sea creatures where rabbits
don't live, and secondly they mostly living fossils that exist today.
This notion that rabbits should be found in cambrian is ludicrous on
another front. It is well known that dead bodies float. Which is why
murderers attach weights to the victim in order to get the body to
sink to the bottom. In recent California history one individual tried
to do so, but to his chagrin the body came back up.
But let's get back to your claim. You claim that there is an
alternative view that God left behind. If this were truly so I would
put forward the following hypothesis:
All creatures in the very first stage would be primitive, meaning they
were simple and do not have complex eyes, metabolic systems and the
like. Secondly, if modern complex forms cannot be found in the layer,
but rather, their predecessor. This second part only allows us to
have more faith in the evolution theory.
It is rather ironic that in all fossilized ocean systems we even find
in geology the fact that ocean sorting even follows modern day living
environs of today. For instance, coral grows only to certain depth
levels! I could get more elaborate but that's for another thread.
Now to form another answer to your statement that God left supposed
evidence that lends one to believe in evolution.
Modern evolutionists point to common homologous structures as proof of
evolution. On the surface it would seem that all creatures are
related. For instance, why do all mammals have backbones? Doesn't
that prove relationship? Why didn't God create some creatures with
two backbones, or make some creatures with sterling steel backbones,
or with electronics? Why didn't God create a real solid state
metallic eyeballs with glass lenses instead of fleshy eyeballs? How
come God created the ulna and radia bones in arms and legs of
creatures? He could have made arms turn on a central shaft instead.
You may think that I'm setting up some sort of strawmen in terms of
alternatives that God could have created for animals that skeptics
could have come up with , but to be honest I couldn't think of any
other alternatives that would strikingly prove that the evolutionary
theory was wrong.
This notion of homologous structures is vacuous and proves nothing.
What would indeed prove something is if evolutionists could get away
from giant gibbon bones of Java, and truly prove a continuous link
between monkeys and men.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
14 Jan 2008 05:26:30 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:47 pm, Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
In article
<d34524c3-49e5-45ef-abcf-d5a849124...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative.
The creationist idea that an intelligence would have deliberately
created this world in such a way as to leave evidence that it was
created in a different way boggles all sane minds and is acceptable only
to those totally absent any intellect at all.
The truth be told God left no evidence that points in the way of
chance evolution. Let's take the geologic record for example.
You have no credibility here so your postings are worthless.
Lets take the example of your claim to have been to Turkey to play in a
big pile of rocks.
Where's the video numb nuts?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 05:12:22 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:57:07 -0800 (PST), enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:47 pm, Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
In article
<d34524c3-49e5-45ef-abcf-d5a849124...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative.
The creationist idea that an intelligence would have deliberately
created this world in such a way as to leave evidence that it was
created in a different way boggles all sane minds and is acceptable only
to those totally absent any intellect at all.
The truth be told
But never, ever, by you McClueless.
God left no evidence
Well that part is right.
But then you go and spoil it.
that points in the way of
chance evolution. Let's take the geologic record for example.
In the Precambrian and cambrian stratas there are to find none other
than complex creatures,
Wrong.
with the majority of those, not just some, are
actually creatures that live to this day.
Wrong.
This notion that you're
supposed to find rabbits in cambrian is ludicrous. A world wide
flood, as defined by Genesis, predicts that the sediments would first
cover the bottom. We read in Genesis that the "fountains of the deep
burst open."
Fairy tales again McClueless.
[snip more rubbish from the rubbish master himself.]
JM
Any comments on the McClueless Video Challenge yet?
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 08:03:05 PM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 3:12=A0pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
burst open."
Fairy tales again McClueless.
I guess this is your form of escapism. How you escape answering the
fact that there is nothing that proves evolutionary transition from
single cell to monkey to man.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
14 Jan 2008 05:28:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:12 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
burst open."
Fairy tales again McClueless.
I guess this is your form of escapism. How you escape answering the
fact that there is nothing that proves evolutionary transition from
single cell to monkey to man.
JM
Is that the same excuse you use to console yourself from the fact that
you are a liar?
Where's the video McMoron?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 08:21:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:12 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
burst open."
Fairy tales again McClueless.
I guess this is your form of escapism. How you escape answering the
fact that there is nothing that proves evolutionary transition from
single cell to monkey to man.
Well, considering that you have an incorrect view of what evolution is,
namely, that those that accept evolution as the theory for what we see
have NEVER said that we come from monkeys, I'm not surprised that you
cannot see the transition.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
14 Jan 2008 03:43:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:03:05 -0800 (PST), enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:12 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
burst open."
Fairy tales again McClueless.
I guess this is your form of escapism.
No McClueless, it is YOUR form of escapism.
How you escape answering the
fact that there is nothing that proves evolutionary transition from
single cell to monkey to man.
There is more than enough to prove evolution McClueless, so much
evidence that is you started today it would take you several lifetimes
to read it all.
Compare that to the ZERO evidence for your religious beliefs.
JM
Now, how about the McClueless Video Challenge? Have yo started looking
for a conversion service? Please feel free to respond to the thread in
either group - but do hurry McClueless or you risk looking even more
dishonest than usual.
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
14 Jan 2008 07:45:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:03:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
I guess this is your form of escapism. How you escape answering the
fact that there is nothing that proves evolutionary transition from
single cell to monkey to man.
There was nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
In that nothing a god floated around.
For ever and ever (time didn't exist either).
Then the god got bored (or ran out of pizza).
<POOF!!>
Thus, god magicked the universe into being.
Makes so much more sense, what?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 09:23:13 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:03:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:12 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
burst open."
Fairy tales again McClueless.
I guess this is your form of escapism. How you escape answering the
fact that there is nothing that proves evolutionary transition from
single cell to monkey to man.
You're a lying sack of *****, McDumbass.
How about that video?
JM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
15 Jan 2008 02:40:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:03:05 -0800, mccoy wrote:
On Jan 13, 3:12Â pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
burst open."
Fairy tales again McClueless.
I guess this is your form of escapism. How you escape answering the
fact that there is nothing that proves evolutionary transition from
single cell to monkey to man.
Actually, you're right, there isn't - because science doesn't do proof.
As a result, we know evolution occurs, due to simple observation, and we
know how and why it occurs, but as to single cell to man, all we can do is
point out that the mechanism *can* explain the progression, and in fact is
the *only* mechanism we have which can explain it... but we can't prove,
absolutely, that it did, in fact, happen.
Then again, we can't actually prove, absolutely, that the sun rose on an
overcast day - someone *might* be supplying artificial lighting. Smart
money would bet on the sun, though.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 05:16:32 PM |
|
|
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in
news:rg6lo3d6ic98j1qfmsut1i8fa28bf2qsa7@4ax.com:
The truth be told
But never, ever, by you McClueless.
Does he lie, or is he so mind-numbingly stupid that he can't tell truth
from fiction, yesterday from today, or ***** from shinola? I'd give him the
benefit of the doubt and assume him to be utterly stupid.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 06:15:14 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jan 2008 23:16:32 GMT, Enkidu <fox_rgfszx@trashmail.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in
news:rg6lo3d6ic98j1qfmsut1i8fa28bf2qsa7@4ax.com:
The truth be told
But never, ever, by you McClueless.
Does he lie, or is he so mind-numbingly stupid that he can't tell truth
from fiction, yesterday from today, or ***** from shinola? I'd give him the
benefit of the doubt and assume him to be utterly stupid.
He lies.
He, like anyone else, can make a mistake, could be taken in by
someone, and when something like that comes up he is corrected. I will
even allow him to need two or three attempts to get a fact straight,
he is after all a little on the mentally challenged side. However,
when he repeats a falsehood for the umpteenth time, well, it is
nothing other than a lie.
HTH :)
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 06:55:17 PM |
|
|
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in
news:i6alo35prfs0to82c04mpdt04p6utkh0ia@4ax.com:
On 13 Jan 2008 23:16:32 GMT, Enkidu <fox_rgfszx@trashmail.net>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in
news:rg6lo3d6ic98j1qfmsut1i8fa28bf2qsa7@4ax.com:
The truth be told
But never, ever, by you McClueless.
Does he lie, or is he so mind-numbingly stupid that he can't tell
truth from fiction, yesterday from today, or ***** from shinola? I'd
give him the benefit of the doubt and assume him to be utterly stupid.
He lies.
He, like anyone else, can make a mistake, could be taken in by
someone, and when something like that comes up he is corrected. I will
even allow him to need two or three attempts to get a fact straight,
he is after all a little on the mentally challenged side. However,
when he repeats a falsehood for the umpteenth time, well, it is
nothing other than a lie.
But his "lies" are the same ones Christians *all* believe. They all
*know* God exists, Jesus loves them, and atheists will burn in hell
because their pastor told them it's in the Bible. Without some life-
changing event, they simply can't see the world except through Christian
glasses.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"As to the evil which results from censorship, it is impossible to
measure it, because it is impossible to tell where it ends."
-Jeremy Bentham
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 05:26:04 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:57:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 12, 9:47 pm, Virgil <Vir...@com.com> wrote:
In article
<d34524c3-49e5-45ef-abcf-d5a849124...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
mc...@sunset.net wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative.
The creationist idea that an intelligence would have deliberately
created this world in such a way as to leave evidence that it was
created in a different way boggles all sane minds and is acceptable only
to those totally absent any intellect at all.
The truth be told God left no evidence that points in the way of
chance evolution.
God, but you're a moron. The origin of the world has absolutely
nothing to do with evolution; they are two entirely different
subjects. And while mutations are "chance", natural selection is not.
Let's take the geologic record for example.
In the Precambrian and cambrian stratas there are to find none other
than complex creatures,
Are you drunk again, John? Or are you just unable to write a simple
sentence in English without multiple grammatical errors?
with the majority of those, not just some, are
actually creatures that live to this day.
Such as...? And what has this to do with the origin of the world?
This notion that you're
supposed to find rabbits in cambrian is ludicrous. A world wide
flood, as defined by Genesis, predicts that the sediments would first
cover the bottom.
Chapter and verse for that prediction, please.
We read in Genesis that the "fountains of the deep
burst open." This would send rocks bursting out of the earth and
these rocks would have shattered and fragmented upon release,
sediments would shoot up and cycle in the water, some covering the
botton instantly and some gaining bouyancy immediately out and the
water would remain colloidal for a time.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, nor, I suspect, do you.
This sorting would alone
distort any conjured time stage insomuch that a modern day scientist
could not decipher or make any sense out of through dating techniques.
Which is why layering is often the sought for clues.
In what way would it distort things? Be specific.
But let me get back to your question. Your claim that God left
evidence that suggests an alternative view. In geology this isn't
possible because there is nothing there to suggest that evolution is a
true theory.
WTF does geology have to do with evolution?
All animals found in cambrian are complex,
Your definition of "complex" being?
and most of
which are living today.
Pathetically, laughably wrong.
And all of these creatures are deep sea
creatures.
No, they aren't. Most fossils from that era are shallow-water
dwellers.
Under the water, which is what we would expect.
Nice observation, Captain Obvious.
<snip remaining idiocy>
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 06:24:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:57:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The truth be told God left no evidence that points in the way of
chance evolution. Let's take the geologic record for example.
No, we do not. You wouldn't know geology even if it raped you.
Highly convenient, that your [presumed] god destroyed all evidence.
All evidence that a fundy can think off, that is. Fortunately, that
isn't much.
The remainder proofs your silly religion wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 05:06:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:57:07 -0800 (PST), wrote:
What about that video, McRetard?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Olrik" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 12:58:35 AM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 12:13 am, wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative. Which, i suspect is why that if you did a survey on
talk.origins and alt.atheism and determine who has used name-calling
you would find that those who do so are predominantly evolutionists.
And you would fid that they do so when they are in a pickle.
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 <***** snipped>
Horizontal creationism? Is that like having a flatline on brain function?
No. It is the observation that intelligence (mankind) creates complex
things all the time.
"Complex" according to us.
Some animals create rather complex things too. Yet, we don't define
them "intelligent".
This idea is merely a common repeatable
observation that has been proven. And of course this is why
creationists reject chance evolutionism and abiogenesis. They do so
because observation itself (the observation that intelligence produces
complex things).
There's nothing "intelligent" in life. We humans don't even come close
to the life expectancy of some turtles, parrots or trees. That should
tell you something...
Olrik
JM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 02:16:40 PM |
|
|
On Jan 13, 12:13=A0am, wrote:
snip
Where's the video, you lying sack of *****?
-PF
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ye Old One" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 03:06:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:13:20 -0800 (PST), enriched
this group when s/he wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative. Which, i suspect is why that if you did a survey on
talk.origins and alt.atheism and determine who has used name-calling
you would find that those who do so are predominantly evolutionists.
And you would fid that they do so when they are in a pickle.
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 <***** snipped>
Horizontal creationism? Is that like having a flatline on brain function?
No. It is the observation that intelligence (mankind) creates complex
things all the time. This idea is merely a common repeatable
observation that has been proven. And of course this is why
creationists reject chance evolutionism and abiogenesis. They do so
because observation itself (the observation that intelligence produces
complex things).
JM
It is now day two of the McClueless Video Challenge. Do you have
anything to say on the subject?
--
Bob.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 04:19:39 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:13:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:
<***** flushed>
What about that video challenge, McShithead?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 11:46:29 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:13:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55 pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the same
sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other
alternative.
So hurricanes are created, then? The fact that your level of stupidity
isn't painful is almost proof in itself that there's no God.
---
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Horizontal and Vertical evolution |
13 Jan 2008 08:56:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 21:13:20 -0800, mccoy wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:55Â pm, "kingdoodlesquat"
<neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote:
False claim. Â Creationism is not a habit, but rather an intellectual
ascent.
How could you possibly use the words creationism & intellectual in the
same sentence without them being a contradiction?
That's easy to explain. Creationism or the idea that intelligence
created complex things is such a basic observation that only a
suspension of logic and the intellect could posit any other alternative.
Which, i suspect is why that if you did a survey on talk.origins and
alt.atheism and determine who has used name-calling you would find that
those who do so are predominantly evolutionists. And you would fid that
they do so when they are in a pickle.
Never mind that you being an ***** is provoking such responses...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you.
I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate
is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a
Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country.
We do not want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
- Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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.
| |
