AIG Foot-in-Mouth Statements

[Admiral Lithp]

Alright, I'm getting annoyed with all of the "I can't believe AIG did that campaign [the billboard thing]!" statements in a debate. So, I've decided to go to AIG & see first-hand just how stupid they usually are.

But why should I have all of the fun? Quite simply, this thread is to collect stupid stuff on AIG's web page.

You guys help me find examples, & I have a place to store my own until it's time for me to post. It's a win-win situation. Mostly for me.

1.No one has been able to make life from non-life (matter giving rise to life, which is foundational to molecules-to-man evolution).
2.No one has been able to change a single-celled life-form like an ameba into a cow or goat.
3.No one has been able to repeat the big bang (which is foundational to molecules-to-man evolution).
4.We haven’t observed billions of new information-gaining mutations required to build the DNA strand and give rise to new kinds of life-forms.
5.Matter has never been observed to give rise to new information.
6.No one has observed millions of years of time progressing.
7.No one has found the billions of transitional fossils needed to help show the changes of one kind into another.

Got my first one, though hopefully not my best example. It's a classic "Evolution does not work that way!" with a little bit of "Yes, new information DOES happen" thrown in.

And of course, it’s silly to assume that all science is hinged to evolution.

Ironic statement is ironic.

[In response to, "How, dare I say, in God's name...."]

One part of the Law is that it is sinful to use the Lord’s name in vain. Your hesitation here is a good confirmation that the Bible is true. Why not in the name of Darwin, evolution, or mother nature, etc.?

Why is this important? Because man realizes that deep down, there is a God, and He is the highest authority. In light of this, I want to ask you to reconsider the evolutionary ideas that you may not have realized have been forced on you from a very early age.

You can deduce the entire thought process of this person just because they showed mock hesitation? "Atheists secretly believe in God" fallacy. I see no "science" backing THAT up.

[Sigmaleph]

Textbook example of circular logic I noticed today while reading the AIG webcomic. I'll see if I find more, since I often trawl through websites through content I'm sure to be offended at just because some guy on a forum asked me to.

I know how that sounds, but it's true.

[Admiral Lithp]

CreationWise had a lot of nonsense. Most of it poorly written. I could use a lot of it, yes, but I also want to use some of their "serious arguments" just in case the fact that it's a cartoon & therefore "not meant to be taken seriously" comes up.

TL;DR version: AIG webcomics are fine, too.

[Jedi Knight]

Current, that comic is hilarious. Even the finest POE can't outperform AIG. Do you want an imaginary karma point?

[Admiral Lithp]

Jun 19, 2009 18:53:12 GMT -5 Jedi Knight said:

Current, that comic is hilarious. Even the finest POE can't outperform AIG. Do you want an imaginary karma point?

The whole series is worth a read. It shows them that they don't have a clue how reality works.

One goes like this:

~Monday~
Teacher: Evolution is true, the Bible is a lie.
~Tuesday~
Teacher: Evolution is true, the Bible is a lie.
~Wednesday~
Teacher: Evolution is true, the Bible is a lie.
~Thursday~
Teacher: Evolution is true, the Bible is a lie.
~Friday~
Teacher: Evolution is true, the Bible is a lie.
~Saturday~
TV: Evolution is true, the Bible is a lie.
(Why a 10-year-old kid isn't watching cartoons is beyond me)
~Sunday~
Priest: Let's study the Bible!
Kid: *Yawn.*
Caption: The gradual weakening of Christian kids week-by-week.

And there was another--which ended up being quoted on the main page--trying to equate this imaginary process to the cause of school shootings. Yeah. OKAY.

[Admiral Lithp]

Fifty years ago, the then Director of the Baghdad Museum, Wilhelm Konig, reported the discovery of an electric battery 2,000 years old. You had not heard about this sensational discovery? We can tell you why. It did not fit in with the established viewpoint, and most archaeologists did not want to know about it. They hoped it would go away.

Now, I did do some research, & I found out that the Baghdad battery DOES exist. However, the claims that it "didn't fit archaeologists' views," & they "hoped it would go away" are completely untrue. The simple fact is that the finding of the battery does not indicate some "high-tech-ancient-fantasy-society," like Fundies tend to think it does. It was not discovered with lightbulbs, vehicles, wires, or anything like that. It was just that: A solitary battery. Certainly speaks to the technological proficiency of the ancient world, but there is simply no evidence to indicate that they knew what the Hell it DID.

Archaeologists did not "forget" it, there are, in fact, a few theories about what it was meant for, some of which are on AIG's website. So, I don't know how they got these theories if archeologists tried to pretend it didn't exist, BUT the ideas range from being used in ceremonies, accupuncture-like treatments, & gilding. And, of course, it could have been a completely useless object. Just because they discovered the phenomenon of electricity doesn't mean they had a use for it, or that they used it for high-tech devices.

I mean, take fire for instance: Fire is a naturally occuring phenomenon, but there is a distinct gap between the time it was discovered to the application of the smelting process.

It seems to me that the entire point to AIG's "article" is to slander archaeology--the very field that discovered the object in the first place. It was "lost" because it wasn't publicized. Rather like "transitional fossils" besides Ida, if I do say so myself.

Though this was probably a supernatural event (one that cannot be explained by our understanding of nature), compare it to the impressive migratory behavior we see in some animals today.

Migrations are a pattern. The "coming to the ark" thing would have been totally against that pattern. Besides, migrations are done by Earth's magnetic field.

Which reminds me: That's science. Explaining natural phenomenon. Calling it "a supernatural event" is not.

Widespread legends of encounters with dragons give another indication that at least some dinosaurs survived the Flood.

Legends? Are you kidding?

Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark.

AIG seems to conveniently forget that: A, amphibious animals need land, B, there are salt AND fresh water creatures, & C, other conditions in the water would have messed them up. Temperature, churning seas, the list goes on & on.

[Undecided]

What really annoys me is how they try to use "entropy" and "information" in their arguments (they are related concepts) without having a clue as to how they work in the technical sense.

[Admiral Lithp]

Jun 19, 2009 21:18:18 GMT -5 Undecided said:

What really annoys me is how they try to use "entropy" and "information" in their arguments (they are related concepts) without having a clue as to how they work in the technical sense.

Yeah. Bluefinger refuted the information thing quite beautifully on RR, but everyone just refused to get it. And the way they define entropy would make birth impossible, too.

Oh, anyone mind if I impose a rule on the thread?

No profanity.

I'm thinking off linking this topic to where the debate is taking place, since it's much easier, on my part, & I don't want to get banned for linking to obscene material.

Even artists’ depictions of some dinosaurs (such as velociraptors) began to include feathers.

This has more to do with the discovery of dinosaur fossil imprints of feathers, actually.

[Sigmaleph]

Jun 19, 2009 18:53:12 GMT -5 Jedi Knight said:

Current, that comic is hilarious. Even the finest POE can't outperform AIG. Do you want an imaginary karma point?

Yay, human worth!

On the AiG front I bring you blatant disregard for the words of one Jesus H. Christ (c 4 BCE – c 30 CE), alleged son of God and frequently described as their Lord and Saviour. From this article, they claim that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not believing in Christ:

When one receives Christ, they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. If one doesn’t receive Christ, then they do not receive the Holy Spirit, which is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.

This is supposed to explain why some verses say that all can be forgiven and others that there is one unforgivable sin. They also claim that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not, as one would think, blaspheming the Holy Spirit:

Is this referring to using the Holy Spirit’s name in vain? No, though I wouldn’t recommend that either (Exodus 20:7)! What is “blaspheming against the Holy Spirit” then? Is it something more than words?

Unfortunately, all it takes is the ability to read to verify that their good friend Jesus does indeed describe the unforgivable sin as something that involves the use of words. Against the Holy Spirit. Shocker, ain't it?

Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come

You know, for Biblical literalists, they sure like to twist the word of God a lot.

[Admiral Lithp]

Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits.

I'll also be putting this in the thread about Carico. This is the closest thing to a definition of "kind" they have on their article.

They also try to make it look like "species" is just unclear, but it isn't. If 2 animals can interbreed & create a fertile offspring, they are of the same species. Concise, clear definition. Nothing like the vagueness of "kind."

[wackadoodle]

Now, I did do some research, & I found out that the Baghdad battery DOES exist. However, the claims that it "didn't fit archaeologists' views," & they "hoped it would go away" are completely untrue. The simple fact is that the finding of the battery does not indicate some "high-tech-ancient-fantasy-society," like Fundies tend to think it does. It was not discovered with lightbulbs, vehicles, wires, or anything like that. It was just that: A solitary battery. Certainly speaks to the technological proficiency of the ancient world, but there is simply no evidence to indicate that they knew what the Hell it DID.

I always find the claims of a high-tech ancient society hard to believe, if the romans ever discovered any serious use of electricity. we'd find power lines along their roads and spotlights at their forts. The ones claiming helicopters drawn on egyptian walls are even worse, people wouldn't fight battles with chariots instead of choppers.

[lonelocust]

Jun 19, 2009 20:35:12 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

Fifty years ago, the then Director of the Baghdad Museum, Wilhelm Konig, reported the discovery of an electric battery 2,000 years old. You had not heard about this sensational discovery? We can tell you why. It did not fit in with the established viewpoint, and most archaeologists did not want to know about it. They hoped it would go away.

I think it's more like "You had not heard of this sensational discovery? We can tell you why. You avoid any science-related items like the plague and/or don't like to read in general. There have been like 50 Discovery Channel specials mentioning it, or explicitly about it, and it's a fairly popular subject of pop-science magazines. READ A BOOK!"

I believe the most popular theory at this time - by the archaologists who STUDY IT AND CONSIDER IT AN INTERESTING DISCOVERY - is that it was used for something like electroplating, given the lack of wires, etc.

[stormwarden]

I think on the battery, the Mythbusters did some tests on the battery theory. The gilding and a possible use at the shrine were considered plausible. But I don't remember any other details on that subject.

[DarkfireTaimatsu]

Jun 20, 2009 0:34:21 GMT -5 stormwarden said:

I think on the battery, the Mythbusters did some tests on the battery theory. The gilding and a possible use at the shrine were considered plausible. But I don't remember any other details on that subject.

Electroplating, religious experience, and a therapy tool (like acupuncture) were all given as plausible. I have that episode on DVD somewheres.

[Admiral Lithp]

I do believe the battery hijacked the thread.

I don't remember hearing a lot about the battery, but it's not like science makes up popular culture.

And to be fair, the article didn't really present the case that there were advanced civilizations in ancient history. I just know that certain circles of Fundies, which the AIG group certainly fits under, will go to any length to justify the "pre-deluge" story. Besides, I wanted to point something out: Why were they making the battery out to be some groundbreaking discovery? It's not any different from the other pieces of technology they pointed out, & they don't even know what it was used for.