Re: Have you gotten Shaned K'ed?
- From: Prof Weird <poland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:00:13 -0800 (PST)
mc...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
If you haven't shane on you.
ShaneK elaborates on what he thinks are bogosities. He calls it the
bogosity of creationism. Let's see how he actually talks about and
deals with "creationism." This is his video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a2plZwyyj4&feature=related
If you look at the bar line, if you've gotten 2/3's into that bar,
that bar that indicates how much into the video that you have watched,
you would notice that in that 2/3 he his predominant talk was about an
ad hominem against Dr Hovind.
Calling a liar a liar is NOT an ad hominem.
300 Creationist Lies - ALL from Hovind's videos :
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/
Creationism was started by many creationists who are well qualified
scientists, such as Duane T. Gish, BIOCHEMISTRY, BERKELEY, Thomas
Barnes, DSc. Professor of physics, University of Texas, and many
others. It's bogus for ShameK to do not mention Barnes and Gish's
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.
Gish is a known buffoon - he even has an evasion tactic named after
him : the Gish Gallop.
It's where you just regurgitate lie after lie after lie after lie
after lie, until opponent gets tired of chasing you.
He once claimed that bullfrogs have proteins more similar to humans
than anything else - he has NEVER BACKED UP THIS CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE.
Now what if some creationist came up with an eposide on evolutionism
and 2'3s was about Darwin and how he didn't have a degree in
paleontology?
You mean they haven't already ?
As evolutionism is a word used by creationuts to convert valid
scientific theories into just another religion'worldview' JUST LIKE
CREATIONISM, that would be standard operation procedure.
Within that 2/3 precious space, ShaneK talks about Hovind's copyright
issue. This has nothing to do with the topic of creationism, nor how
Hovind wins debates against professors of evolution. In fact, anyone
can win.
By lying through their teeth to credulous audiences bussed in just for
the event.
If anyone can win - how many debates have YOU won ? Note - running
away, screaming insults and posturing do NOT mean you won the debate
(merely the booby prize for being a prize booby)
But his topic, at anyrate is not about creationism.
ShaneK says, "Hello! That's what theory is. It's a model." But it
goofed on this one because the stress on model it to point out that
much of evolution is merely a model, and not a theory.
Models explain data. Evolution does this quite well. Get over it.
A theory is
testable and and may be a model, but a model may not necessarily be
tested. So the venn diagram shows a theory in the circle of model,
but the venn diagram also shows that model is not entirely in a
theory. So HELLLLOOOO ShanK needs to get his facts straight.
His facts ARE straight - its your perceptions and interpretations that
are skewed.
As the ToE is testable, you be wrong once again.
Then Shane K tries to distance abiogenesis from evolution. He forgot
that there is a book entitled "Chemical evolution."
EGADS ! Even you can't be THAT dense !!
I have a book entitled : "Stars : Their Structure and Evolution", but
has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BIOLOGICAL ToE !
Abiogenesis is mostly organic and geochemistry.
He also forgot
that many evolutionists included chemical evolution because it was the
start of the evolution process. In fact, read some definitions, and
they will tell you it started from the "simple" to the "complex."
See also:
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_chem.html
http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Chemical_Evolution
http://dannyreviews.com/h/Chemical_Evolution.html
So - you ARE slack-witted enough to believe that ANY field that uses
the word 'evolution' is part of the ToE.
Evidence suggests that Shane K gets his information from the bogus
Talk.origins site,
You 'determined' that talk.origins is bogus HOW ?
Oh yes - it repeatedly provides evidence that shows you are wrong.
a site that should be called talkabiogenesis/
evolution.
RiiIIiiIIiiight !
The site makes up it's own definitions and arguments in
favor of evolution, and purposefully tries to artificially separate
evolution from abiogenesis, telling the less knowlegable that
abiogenesis isn't evolution.
Mainly because it isn't - abiogenesis is mostly organic and
geochemistry, and deals with how things like proteins, lipids and
nucleotides came about, the ToE explains the relationships between
living organisms.
But the 3 links utterly prove that
talk.origins is out on a limb making up it's own definitions.
Or - they use standard accepted definitions that do not bend to your
will, no matter how hard you stomp your foot and bellow otherwise.
ShaneK wastes time saying "bogosity level" "bogosity meter" and other
timewasters that contain no factual data except opinion. He allows no
extensive allowance for creationists to explain their views.
And do creationuts allow extensive allowance for realityists to
explain their views ?
If in an oral debate - NO. They use the Gish Gallop to pile lie upon
lie upon lie, never giving his reality-based opponent a chance to
properly show why the creationut lies are lies.
He says that evolution doesn't "at all" explain how life appeared.
That's bogosity has been refuted by the 3 links above.
The ToE explains how life is related; abiogenesis is how life started.
The ToE deals with living organisms; abiogenesis deals mainly with
organic and geochemistry.
The ToE starts where abiogenesis leaves off.
He says, these people "doesn't even know what the theory of evolution
is."
In other words, "I'm so lazy that I don't want to try to prove that
chemical evolution started life on earth. I'm not smart enough to do
it."
And you aren't smart enough to know that he doesn't have to.
It wouldn't matter HOW life on Earth arose - if there is imperfect
replication and heritable variation, there will be evolution.
Then ShaneK tells us that "evolution has been observed and continues
to be observed." That's right we observe white women and black men
producing light brown children. Not hard to explain. The combination
of two already existing genotypes. Nothing new had originated. But
where are the monkeys producing humans.
In Africa about 12 million or so years ago, as far as anyone can tell
from the available evidence.
(Humans are apes, which diverged from monkeys a bit farther back in
time)
ShaneK says that evolution's predictions have been shown useful?
What's that again? The creationist argument that genes are stable and
continuous only allows us to predict the genotype of future children.
No mutations observed here.
Too bad that, IN REALITY, mutations have been observed in the real
world.
There were no rabbits in the Cambrian; does the existence of rabbits
now not qualify as something new in your rancid little mind ? Where
did rabbits come from ? Did some Magical Sky Pixie 'poof !!' them
into existence ? Or some other silly idea ?
Ever hear of achondroplasia ? A spontaneous dominant mutation that
affects (IIRC) about 1 in 5000 or so births. As it is a mutation,
knowing the genotypes of the parents will NOT allow you to predict
whether or not the kid will have achondroplasia.
ShameK says that evolution has been used to produce medicines and to
treat aids. Let's look at this. Penicillin was discovered when it
was seen that the mode killed off pathogens. How does this relate to
evolution? It doesn't. And that's how laboratories contruct their
offense against pathogens. Nowadays they look at pathogens chemically
and try to find ways to prevent the pathogens from reproducing by
blockers. What's this have to do with evolution. It doesn't. His
talk of cholera is just the same fraudulent argument.
Then WHY do people have to get new flu shots every year ?
Simple - the virus EVOLVED to evade the host's defenses.
And we have enough knowledge to PREDICT what epitopes should be most
common, and develop a vaccine beforehand.
Why do we have to keep coming up with new drugs to defeat infections ?
Simple - the bacteria EVOLVED to become resistant to our treatments.
Were your blitherings valid, penicillin should still work on just
about everything; there should be no such thing as penicillin-
resistant strep.
As pen-resistant strep exists, it would seem that your blitherings be
incorrect.
ShaneK also talks about "quote-mining." He states that the
creationist source didn't explain Darwin's doubts about the geologic
column not producing the fossil record. To prove his point he says
that the creationists forgot to quote what was next, in that Darwin
stated that there is an "imperfection in the fossil record." Man, and
that's the whopper that proves the creationists wrong. In fact that
quote only reinforces the fact that evolutionists are making stories
up. Otherwise evolution would be a proven fact if the fossil record
perfectly preserved the fact of evolution.
And only a complete twit would EXPECT a perfectly preserved fossil
record, given how rarely organisms are fossilized. And how rarely
fossils are found before geologic processes destroy them. Darwin
EXPLAINED that in his book.
In stating that Darwin
admits the geologic record is imperfect, that proves he has doubts.
Not about the validity of the ToE, given that we have other lines of
EVIDENCE supporting it.
.
- References:
- Have you gotten Shaned K'ed?
- From: mccoy
- Have you gotten Shaned K'ed?
- Prev by Date: Re: The eye again
- Next by Date: Re: Invulnerable logic [Was:Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant
- Previous by thread: Re: Re: Have you gotten Shaned K'ed?
- Next by thread: Re: Have you gotten Shaned K'ed?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
