hell’s handmaiden

There are currently 19 responses to “Intelligent Design the Misdirection”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On April 20th, 2007, John said:

   The way to go

2. 2 On December 29th, 2007, Aaron said:

   Evolution is nothing more than a secular religion. Although it sounds good at first, digging deeper, seeking the truth, it becomes a shaky theory indeed.

3. 3 On December 30th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Aaron,

   Sounds a lot like the way you started your comments in that other thread. Remember that one? The one in which you offered your insights from ‘digging deeper’? The one in which I carefully responded to your objections, including pointing out that one of your assertions was patently and blatantly false? Remember how you completely ignored my responses? Ringing a bell yet? Perhaps you recall my prediction that “that you’ll continue to use these talking points in some other forum even though you know that they are flawed“?

4. 4 On December 30th, 2007, Aaron said:

   Ok, you said that 40% of Lucy was found, I said a femur. How do you know your information is correct? Anyways, I find it strange that athiests say the more they look into science, the less believable God is. I Find the more I study, especially chemistry, the less likely evolution seems. As far as chemical evolution not being related to evolution, It is what is in my current textbook, and it is what my professors are teaching as the basis of evolution. Things like the Miller spark discharge experiment, and saying that the first life was probably RNA. Unless they are teaching us a different biology manual. According to your other posts, you teach in college, which one are they using? What about the row of Egyptian chariot wheels that was found in a straight line across the bottom of the Red Sea. As far as my talking points being “flawed” you only really pointed out the one about Lucy. I have read many of your blogs, and you seem far from stupid. I am not understanding how you cannot look at the evidence and come to the conclusion that God is out there?

5. 5 On December 30th, 2007, themaiden said:

   Aaron,

   How do you know your information is correct?

   Come on, now! This is not a game of “he said, she said”. you are a smart boy, how do you think I know? Brace yourself, scary words for a creationist– I looked it up.

   Please, you cheapen yourself and your position with nonsense ploys like that one. Is it really so hard just to admit that you were wrong?

   As far as chemical evolution not being related to evolution, It is what is in my current textbook, and it is what my professors are teaching as the basis of evolution.

   I didn’t say they are not related… well, hopefully related. I said that “the latter does not logically require the former. You can have evolution without abiogenesis.” In other words, you can knock down abiogenesis and not evolution. At least some ID theorists seems to like some version of this approach– God made stuff, then things evolved. Cosmological ‘just right for life’ arguments imply it as well. The distinction is important to highlight the fact that an inability to prove abiogenesis does not automatically invalidate the theory of evolution, just like an inability to prove the origin of some infectious bacterial agent does not invalidate the things we do know about how the agent grows, feeds, etc. ‘How’ the bacteria came to be is a different question than ‘what’ it does now and what it has been doing since it first appeared.

   As an aside, I’ll let you in on a secret about textbooks– “introductory textbooks are frequently simplified and may be somewhat out-of-date“. Follow the link. It redirects to an article on Jonathan Wells’ Icons of Evolution (2000). it will be good for you– probably clear up some misunderstandings you’ve yet to voice.

   What about the “Egyptian chariot wheels that was found in a straight line across the bottom of the Red Sea”? I should probably ask, has any such thing actually been found? You continue with your bad habit of not citing your sources so it is hard to tell exactly what you are talking about. Could these wheels be at all related to the wheels that Wyatt Archaeological Research is warning against– “All kinds of people are finding coral and calling it chariot parts… It’s most likely coral covered with coral. … Opportunists are combining false things with the true things that are found. These people are making it up as they go to be TV stars.” Any good creationist ought to be familiar with Wyatt Archeology but in case you aren’t, that organization is about as biblically based as it gets. If they aren’t biting, the claim is very dubious. Now, Ron Wyatt himself claimed to have found a chariot wheel– no one knows where it is– but not a string of them in a straight line.

   Now put on your thinking cap for a minute.

   1) Is it surprising that Egyptian chariot wheels would be in the Red Sea? Not really. Egypt controlled the area for a long long time. Finding a wheel or two is plausible with or without the biblical myth being true.

   2) Is it likely that we’d find those wheels today after several thousand years of sediment buildup? Well, perhaps not likely but certainly not impossible.

   3) Now think carefully, if the Bible story is true and the Egyptian army was covered by a wall of water that rushed in upon them before the could escape what would be the likely configuration of those wheels? A straight line? Not likely. Instead, what you’d have would be a bloody mess, not a line. You’d have chaos in the ranks before the water hit as every tried to escape, then you’d have a lot more chaos as the waters crashed together– lots of eddies and riptides and such. Use your imagination.

   Actually, the statement about Lucy, which at the beginning of this post you seemed to be trying to hang onto, is the one that was most blatantly just pure fiction. The others are still flawed. They are flawed because your sources aren’t cited. They are flawed because they are too vague to have a lot of meaning. I had to guess at what you meant on most of them, but even so your points are pretty clearly misconceived. Have a reread, cite your sources, and try actually responding.

6. 6 On January 5th, 2008, Aaron said:

   Sorry its taken me so long to respond, i got this new tactical FPS on new year’s and haven’t had a chance to respond. First of all, I dislike citing sources, as humans are wrong about things. It seems you were right about 40% of Lucy’s skeleton being found. I don’t mind admitting it if I am wrong about something. My points do not seem vague, however. I fail to see how you see that. I will cite my sources from now on, though. As for the egyptians trying to escape, I doubt they would have had time to try if the walls of water suddenly collapsed on both sides. It probably wouldn’t be in a straight line, though. Then again, you never know. As far as Lucy being a missing link, take a look at this. http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html

7. 7 On January 5th, 2008, themaiden said:

   Aaron,

   No problem Aaron. I’ve been playing Ratchet and Clank on the PS3.

   You dislike citing sources because people can be wrong? That is more than a little weird, Aaron. Every fact you incorporate into your arguments has a source– usually a terribly complicated conglomerate of sources. You are the source for some of those facts, like “the sun is shining outside my window”. You are not the source for most of them, like “the Earth orbits the Sun”. Facts like the Earth’s orbit are generally speaking common knowledge so people tend not to cite sources though you’d still be obliged to cite a source if asked– say if you were talking to someone not educated in the Western tradition who questioned the Earth’s orbit you’d likely point to people like Kepler, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein; or to any astronomy department in any of hundreds of universities. Citing sources credits the people who deserve credit and– I can’t stress this enough– it facilitates communication. You made me guess at most of the details of most of what you’ve argued. That, more than anything, is why your points are vague. Just think about what I just went through to respond to your claim about Egyptian chariots in a straight line, and I still don’t know if that is the case that you talking about. Simply citing your source would have solved that problem.

   As for the article on Forerunner, there are so many things wrong with that article from the classic well-poisoning– ie, very bad behavior– of the first few paragraphs to this nonsense:

   This is still an exaggeration since it concedes that various specimens are part of human evolution. Australopithecines, for example, are not considered transitional forms anymore, but a branch of the primate evolutionary tree. True transitional forms are still missing. (”Transitional forms” refer to those creatures which represent intermediate states of development for a supposed ape-like ancestor down to man.)

   First, the passage suggests that australopithecines are not relevant to human evolution. Wrong. You can certainly find some debate about particular genus/species classifications but the australopithecines are a significant part of our tree.

   Second, he appeals to the very weird idea of ‘true’ transitional species. If a creationist uses the term ‘transitional fossil’ or some synonym you should immediately conclude that you are being led astray. I’ve written on the subject before. I’m sure I can find more but these will get you started.

   
   Evolution News & Some Fine Comedy

   Uncommon Fondness for Spurious Authority

8. 8 On January 8th, 2008, Aaron said:

   Some interesting stuff, but I just can’t believe in evolution. And there are plenty of “christians” I don’t trust, so I’m not going to automatically believe everything they say.

9. 9 On January 9th, 2008, themaiden said:

   Aaron,

   When you start making statements like that it is time to start changing your mind. The evidence does not support your convictions and your brain knows it.

10. 10 On January 9th, 2008, Aaron said:

    Not really, I know what the truth is, and I have looked into evolution, it doesn’t follow the Bible, and there is a real problem there. So, either the Bible is wrong, or evolution is. Doing my research, I have already come to the conclusion which is correct long ago. Unfortunately, I have to study it as a part of getting my degree, doesn’t mean I have to believe in it.

11. 11 On January 10th, 2008, themaiden said:

    Aaron,

    You’ve looked into it? Hasn’t that been the topic of the debate? You’ve looked into the science and came up with some real junk. It is hardly rational to say you’ve ‘looked into it’. That is like ‘looking into’ the moon landings, finding quacks like this, concluding we never went to the moon and pretending to have evidence. That is a weird position to take.

    It does all come down to the Bible though, doesn’t it? It always amazes me that, for some minds, a book of mythology for which there isn’t a shred of evidence ( beyond what you find in any other set of myths– names of real cities and such ) trumps buildings full of evidence. I can’t quite get over it.

    I’m not going to be able to convince you to abandon the Bible no matter how much nonsense I point out. The faithful are devoted, hence the term. But you came in here guns blazing about the science. I do hope to convince you to drop the claim that the science of evolution is flawed. It isn’t, not in the ways that you’ve claimed. I do hope you’ll leave here having stopped pretending that your disbelief in evolution is based in science. Your disbelief is based in just the opposite.

12. 12 On January 10th, 2008, Aaron said:

    Evolution just seems preposterous to me, but I guess we each have our own beliefs. Science makes me believe more in God, not less. The intricacies of the universe, the things I am learning in chemistry, how complicated atomic relationships are. How even molecules of the same atomic composition can vary widely simply based on the position of atoms or atomic bonds. Things like this confirm my belief in God, not random chance.

13. 13 On January 12th, 2008, Aaron said:

    Actually, my disbelief in evolution is based in science. Research the Hovind Theory, and a few others. It irritates me that all I have been taught in public schools about science for years has been lies, and I have to pay for college to hear this brainwashing garbage? Unfortunately, it’s like my electives, gotta put up with the crap to get the degree.

14. 14 On January 12th, 2008, themaiden said:

    Aaron,

    Hovind? Kent Hovind? You have got to be joking? Hovind is one of the worst charlatans out there. Don’t believe me? Would you believe “Answers in Genesis“? Take a look at that article, then take a look at this one, which lists AiG’s ‘don’t use because they are seriously flawed’ list with the arguments that Hovind still uses. And while you are at it, how many on that list do you use?

    Again, we are back to what has become the theme of this discussion: you really aren’t looking into thing very carefully.

15. 15 On January 12th, 2008, Aaron said:

    Yeah, some of Hovind’s stuff is dead wrong, but much of it is correct. And I have looked into things very carefully, it probably started when I was 10 or so, listening to the teacher talk about evolution. I couldn’t place my finger on it, but it just rang false at the time. If evolution was true, we are just bags of chemicals, with no reason for morality whatsoever. Life becomes an empty joke, and there is no reason why I shouldn’t walk into a crowded theater with an assault rifle and a sack of grenades. There are just too many holes in evolution for me to accept it. You say transitional fossils aren’t true? Why not? If species are slowly adapting, changing into something else, we should see evidence for this. I admit, there is much of evolution that seems attractive, and I can see why many people fall into it without the discerning word of God.

16. 16 On January 12th, 2008, themaiden said:

    Aaron,

    You won’t cite sources because people might be wrong but you will cite Kent Hovind whom you know to be wrong? Something is wrong there.

    But which of Hovind’s ideas are correct? Maybe this one? I can pick out a string of blatantly obvious problems with that ‘Hovind Theory’ but I don’t know if that is the one you mean because you didn’t cite a source.

    I say that you haven’t thought about this stuff carefully because you are throwing out some very old, unsupported junk. Sorry. No offense, sincerely. I’m not even sure that you can provide sources– thus far you have implicitly refused to do so, for the most part.

    Here is a test for you: Go to that ‘Hovind Theory’ page I cited and spot the problems in the section labeled “Summary in Hovind’s own words”. If you are thinking carefully about it you ought to be able to spot several blatantly absurd claims.

    The consequence of evolution have nothing to do with the truth of the theory. Basic logic. And you know that. e=mc^2? Consequence: nuclear bomb. The theory is still true. Al-Qaeda bombed the Trade Towers with air planes? Consequence: big, expensive war and lots of death. It is still true that Al-Qaeda bombed the towers.

    You missed the point about transitional fossils. It isn’t that they don’t exist in some sense– really, they exist in pretty much the sense that you suggest– it is that they don’t exist in the sense that creationists need them to exist for their arguments about transitional fossils to work. Think about this. You are transitional between your father and your son, right (ignoring, for simplicity, the contributions from your mother)? But you could look at the bones of the three of you and they’d look pretty much the same. The same is true backward and forward many generations. But, if evolution is occurring, there are small changes all along the way. If you go back far enough and compare your starting point– now– with some point 2 million years back, you could see the difference. Now this is the critical part– every single animal in between those points is transitional, therefore, every single fossil that you find is transitional. Consequently it doesn’t make a lot of sense to get too worried about transitional fossils. They are a dime a dozen. Scientists will sometimes get excited about finding something ‘transitional’ between two branches of the bush of life, meaning that they found something between the two endpoints that they were considering. That isn’t what creationists mean. Creationists want some kind of perfect half-and-half creature or they declare it ‘not transitional’. One, there is no reason to think that such a thing as a perfect half-and-half creature ever occurs. Creatures don’t change linearly like that. Two, even if such a creature did occur the chances of our finding that one creature out of millions or billions of individuals is next to zero. It is like going to a diamond mine not finding a ‘perfect’ diamond and then declaring that the mine is not a diamond mine and that there are no diamonds at all.

17. 17 On January 13th, 2008, Aaron said:

    Some good points. I will look into this stuff this semester. I know that as a future scientist, I should be objective, and if Christianity is the Truth, it will stand the test of scrutiny, and my faith will remain strong. If not, then either way, it will come to light. As far as the comet theory goes, yeah, the impact would be thousands of degrees celcius, not to mention the high specific heat of water and that sudden of a phase change would result in something dramatic, to say the least.

18. 18 On January 14th, 2008, Huey55 said:

    Aaron,

    You have mentioned a few times that we would have no morality if God is not real.

    Quote “If evolution was true, we are just bags of chemicals, with no reason for morality whatsoever. Life becomes an empty joke, and there is no reason why I shouldn’t walk into a crowded theater with an assault rifle and a sack of grenades.”

    What is the basis for this belief? There are plenty of reasons to lead a moral life that have nothing to do with religion. Philosophers have been arguing about what they are for thousands of years. You should take a history of philosophy course. Just don’t write a paper in favor of relative ethics if you do. I hear that annoys the instructors.

    The way I see it the morality instilled by Christianity and most other religions is external to the individual. If you do what you are told you are rewarded and if not you are punished. If you abide by these rules are you actually acting morally, or are you just trained well? If this is being moral then a well trained dog is moral because it acts in accordance with its master’s will and a wild or feral dog is immoral. I think being a moral person has more to do with reasoning out what a moral life is and living your life accordingly. It is not just trying to get the carrot and avoid the stick.

    With an external morality you don’t have to reason out what the ethical thing to do is, you just find out what god’s will is. This has historically allowed people to do despicable acts with a clean conscience. Burn some witches at the stake? No problem it is God’s will. Install an oppressive regime and persecute and kill anybody that may not believe exactly as you do? If god says it is OK it must be OK. Fly a couple plains into buildings full of innocent people? Well, you get the idea. The guy in the movie theater with the assault riffle and grenades is much more likely to be filled with religious conviction than with a belief that nothing matters, so why not take out everybody.

    Maiden,

    I was posting under the name Aaron, but decided to adopt my normal online alias to avoid confusion.

    Will you finish your reply on the Gold thread? I am looking forward to resuming that discussion.

19. 19 On January 15th, 2008, themaiden said:

    Huey55,

    I did notice that you’d changed your name. I can tell by the email address.

    I apologize sincerely for not finishing that reply yet. I have been extremely busy with another project. I haven’t had time for much of anything. I haven’t forgotten it though.

Leave a Reply