The lies behind the Miller experiment

I have been reading this topic with great interest hoping someone would bring Hovind into this. I couldn't find any direct quotes, etc. I could trace directly to Hovind in JF's statements but am suspicious of the constant references to 'textbooks and lies'. Anyway, a search of Hovind's site found the following statement: -http://www.drdino.com/QandA/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}This brings up my point. So the creationist camp makes the claim that the Miller experiment is twisted and lied about to make the evolutionist claim seem valid. Well, reading the above makes me wonder who is twisting the facts and lying. The amino acids were dead? Are they alive in the first place? Who ever claimed this experiment created life? How does this experiment disprove evolution could occur? How did evolutionists hide the truth?The fact is that a thorough reading of this shows only two things that ARE true (loosely defined). Miller had a sparking device and proteins are composed of left-handed aa's.The take home message to would-be evangelicals is that the people who supply your informations are not honest, often lie, and are using you for fodder for their own personal gain and political aspirations. Believe or not (best to learn it here where you can get the views of a diverse knowledge base) LIFE IS NOT A CHICK TRACT where evolutionist are deluded megalo-maniacs whose belief system is going to crumble the first time someone says dinosaur tracks were found with human or other such nonesense.This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-16-2004 05:54 PM

Your point is well-taken Jazzns. One of the sources of conflict I see regularly on this forum is the distinction being being misinformed vs a liar. I see many shades of grey along the path of intellectual dishonesty. The beginning argument (the point being made) is based on trusting an unreliable source. Then to defend that argument comes the fabrication of first hand knowledge ("I read it..." "I saw that..." etc). This, while academically very dishonest, is based upon strong faith in the credibility of their sources.I might say, "George W Bush is the president of the United States" and I know this because "I went to the White House and saw him". I never went to the White House, but I am pretty sure that any independant verification of my first claim would be prove true. If, however, I listen to some off-the-wall talk radio show I might say "Kofi A. Annan is the president of the US and George Bush was replaced by an imposter" and I know this "Because I went to the White House and saw it" then I could be shown to be wrong. I might believe the first statement with all of my heart, but the fact is I am inadvertantly repeating a lie, then contributing to that lie by linking it to my own credibility.I believe that people like Morris, Gish, and Hamm inspire a great deal of confidence in their followers. So when the statement is made that the Miller experiment was proven false, fraudulent, etc. yet is still being used to prove evolution some people have no reason to doubt these claims. Rather than saying, "I saw a Ken Hamm video and he said..." the temptation is to say "I looked at my kid's textbook and saw...". The first claim invites the counter argument that the person has been misinformed while the second forces the counter-argument that the person is dishonest (which few of us want to accuse anyone of being).

I think everyone has done this to some extent. Where it becomes embarrassingly apparent is when you make the assumption that the person you are speaking to is as confused as you are. I had a relative approach me one with something like (heavily paraphrased but basically accurate), "I started reading Darwin's Origin so that I could learn about evolution. I saw on the first page he said that the human eye proves evolution wrong and the only way anyone would believe evolution is through blind faith". For whatever reason they seemed to believe that Origin is such an obscure work that I probably never read it. Or they believed that their pastor was such an honest man that his claim to have read it must be true. Either way, wrong story to convince the wrong guy.I admit that my knee-jerk reaction to the above is to yell "liar!!!". I mean, the person would seem to saying "I think you are so stupid that you will believe this ridiculous untrue statement I am about to make." But, I recognize the wisdom in Jazzns' and Yaro's suggested approach. Maybe we should start by gently pointing out that this or that misconception is widely held but has been answered here and here. Let them know delicately that they have been deceived and that we will be happy to discuss it if they are interested in learning more. If they persist, and don't offer evidence (when possible), after a certain amount of time then gloves off?As I mentioned earlier in my "life is not a Chick tract" rant, I think that the creationist leadership are convincing their followers that not only is evolution incorrect but that with only a few assertions you can destroy even the staunchest evolutionist argument. All it takes is watching a Hovind video or 'debate'. He repeatedly claims that this or that scientist debated him, admitted that evolution was without evidence, then claimed that they have to believe in evolution or admit they are sinners. I know that these events didn't occur, but the message to his flock is the entire evolutionary argument is based on a handful of disproven evidences and that any one of the audience members can point these out and convert an evolutionist. So maybe if they first are gently informed that this is not the case they will research enough to present legitimate arguments for their case.

---

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein

I was researching a proposed topic and ran acroos this, totally on topic and worthy of discussion.
Chick.com: Big Daddy?
Oops, I forgot about naked links. This is a discussion of abiogenesis that while incorrect is at least well written and somewhat well-reasoned. JF- may spawn some good arguments for you? Some points to discuss that may get you (and this topic) out of boot camp? I totally disagree with you but also want you to participate in this forum.This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 11-19-2004 06:30 AM