K-bogosity

On Jan 11, 8:00 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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/

It wasn't long into this when I started seeing lies. Take this goody
for example:

----------

Hovind: "Is the earth four and one half billion years old? No, it is
not"

Lie #3, as evidenced by the best measures we have for dating the Earth
and its subsequent development. These measures consist of, among other
things, the geological record, deposition and erosion rates, plate
tectonics, cosmology, and radiometric dating. They show consistently
that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

______

This supposed lie answers by stating that the eaerth is about 4.5
billion years old because of "geological record, deposition and
erosion rates, plate techtonics, cosmology and radiometric dating."


All of these answers are frauds and lies. For one, the geological
record is merely the record of stratified fossils. It says nothing.
The deposition rate records instant burial, otherwise you wouldn't
find fossils like these:

http://www.creationresearch.net/research/research%20new%20tree.htm


And in regard to erosion rates, evolutionists have been saying for a
long time that the reason the sediments for a long earth age don't
exist is because they have been swept down under the continental
plates. I find that laughable because that would mean there would be
a huge mound located where the contact plates are located at the
subduction zone.

Plate techtonics is speculative and give no rates except for the
present. The speed of which, in the past, has long since vanished.
Cosmology is built on unproven assumption. Radiometric dating only
tells you how much radioactive material is found with lead. That
proves nothing because dating modern volcanic spew gives off false
dates. There is no way to prove that radiometric dating works.




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.

That's not what creationism is about. Creationism is about how things
come to be. We know that it takes a complicated mind to create complex
things. Even Dawkins admits that Mt Rushmore is a product of a
rational being, no doubt about it. And even if all record in regard to
Mt Rushmore had been destroyed we know for a fact from just looking at
Mt Rushmore that intelligence did it. Indisputable evidence.

You can prove everyday that intelligence can create complex things,
scientifically.

You cannot prove that non-intelligence can create complex things even
though it is much more probable that erosion created Mt Rushmore than
it is to say that the "aminosdunnit."



Gish is a known buffoon - he even has an evasion tactic named after
him : the Gish Gallop.

I've checked out many of the claims in regard to Gish and it turns out
that evolutionists have gotten angry at having been defeated by him.
So they came up with a strategy of name-calling. And I find it
unscientific of you to engage in this process.




It's where you just regurgitate lie after lie after lie after lie
after lie, until opponent gets tired of chasing you.

No it's not. You regurgitate lie after lie.





He once claimed that bullfrogs have proteins more similar to humans
than anything else - he has NEVER BACKED UP THIS CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE.

There are a number of similarities found in different animals of
different sorts. I find it disingenious for evolutionists to ignore
differences.




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 ?

You mean in a minute spiel that's how you K-em?


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
nd 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.

So Hellloooo you've missed the point.


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 !

But it has everything to do with it. In fact there's a review to a
link. You're wrong as usual.




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...

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.

You're wrong. The fact that abiogenesis is evolution is an idea so
common place that you could probably found a good hundred or so books
that say so, and all those books are written by evolutionists. This
special notion that abiogenesis is not evolution is a slick attempt to
get evolutionists off the hook. And good thing I'm documenting this at
this time. Give another 10 or so years you may have convinced most of
the public, but you did so while lying to the public. I proved with
the three links that talk.origins has no authority whatsoever, is run
by an amateur and this amateur and his pals are making it up on the
spot.




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.

It's run by an amateur who just sits back and makes up arguments to
combat creationists. He thinks his word is correct even though it goes
against the grain of more reputable sources. And when other sources,
dictionaries, encyclopedias, even journals and statements by other
evolutionists go against his word he tries to undermine these sources.
The guy who put talk.origins is self-annointed and doesn't even know
the history of evolutionary thought.



 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.

It makes no difference. It's the beginning of something and most every
book on evolution starts on the subject of organic evolution or
abiogenesis.

And also you're skirting the issue. The real truth is that
evolutionists find themselves in a quandry because they know that they
can't prove abiogenesis. It's too difficult so trying to artificially
separate it is a slick but dishonest trick.




 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.

"Accepted definitions" or because one amateur sitting behind his
computer decided that his definitions were better than everyone
elses.





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 ?

Creationists do allow for this and much more so than evolutionists.



If in an oral debate - NO.  They use the Gish Gallop [name calling- JM] 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.

Sorry, but the term evolution is broad enough to cover abiogenesis.



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)

Not so, in Africa they found a bunch of monkeys that look like
chimpanzees. One guy named Johanson goes in there and declares that
his specimen is a hominid and of the period of time he wants. But
later in the book while waiting for his book to be dated he expresses
doubt. So the lies and hopes are strong. And delusion certainly is a
factor. And if johanson did not find what he wanted, and he admitted
this, he couldn't get continued funding.






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.

Mutations are a fact. They have produced many fruitflies that were
sterile.



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 ?

Funny thing. The Cambrian period is said to be full of bottom
dwelling sea creatures. I haven't found any writings to the
contrary.

http://www.prehistory.com/timeline/cambria.htm

The cambrian "period" is merely the portion of the deep ocean areas
that got buried first, before the waters even started to rise
landward. According to Genesis the fountains of the deep burst open
and this would have stirred up the sediments and sent turbulence
throughout the oceans. This area would be first to settle and there
would be found there scarcely any land animals there.



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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achondroplasia

Achondroplasia is a disorder. It's devolution. It's one amongst many
defects that have plagued mankind since the beginning. Note also that
most all animals that lived in the past were bigger? Doesn't prove
evolution, doesn't it?




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.

No one has proved any such thing. There is no proof that bacteria has
evolved. In fact there is proof that there are hormones injected into
cows. There are chemicals being added and affecting people and
animals. And maybe this is causing some other sorts of entities to get
stronger as well. And we can't allow Satan and his angels into the
factor because that would be Satandunnit. But since the Bible has been
proven correct, that Noah's Ark (the vertical intersecting the
horizontal) has been shown to be a fact, then we have full confidence
in the fact that there are intelligent entities at work behind the
scenes. You should know because they interject thoughts into your mind
all the time and you obey them.




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.

All he did was to explain why the facts he wanted couldn't be found.
The admission is there. The fossils cannot be found.



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.

Do you mean bones that look like giant gibbon bones found in an area
where gibbons live to this day?

Sure I believe. I believe like I believe the moon is made of cheese.

JM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Aforementioned paper: Evolution and Creationism.
    ... The conflict between science and creationism in this country is not ... adults were open to the idea of creationism and evolution being taught ... of science, and so thoroughly supported by the evidence, attacks on it ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: K-bogosity
    ... bogosity of creationism. ... Lie #3, as evidenced by the best measures we have for dating the Earth ... Polystrate trees haven't been a problem to evolution since the 1900s, ... The fact that abiogenesis is evolution is an idea so ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career
    ... about evolution *& atheism in the first part of the post. ... of creationism which include some of the points the OP brought ... that diseases are a judgment sent by God on those who have displeased ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: K-bogosity
    ... bogosity of creationism. ... Lie #3, as evidenced by the best measures we have for dating the Earth ... that many evolutionists included chemical evolution because it was the ... by an amateur and this amateur and his pals are making it up on the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Have you gotten Shaned Ked?
    ... ShaneK elaborates on what he thinks are bogosities. ... bogosity of creationism. ... It's where you just regurgitate lie after lie after lie after lie ... Hovind wins debates against professors of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading