On his good days, a good ol’ Florida boy named “Ikester,” who maintains what looks for all the world like a parody of a Young-Earth Creationist site, is merely pitiable. On his not-so-good days he makes the rest of the kooks and outliars I’ve ridiculed here look like Nobel laureates.
Earlier this month, I posted about how Ike, who obviously rejects evolution, had constructed a straw man (the claim that evolutionists as a group view the spleen as purposeless) and attempted to knock it down by linking to a site that explains what the rest of the enlightened world–physicians, biologists, chiropractors, Victoria’s Secret models–already knows: the spleen does indeed have a clearly defines set of physiological functions. My point in hectoring Ikester was noting that the site he linked to outlining these functions was in fact operated by evolutionists–you know, those people who think the spleen has no function.
But Ikester failed to understand this, and updated his site three days ago to include a “side note”:
There’s a evolutionist blog [KB: that’s us!] that seems to think the idea about the spleen being redundant was thought up by me. It’s funny to reveal that it was a evolutionist that sent me an e-mail claiming these things that made me decide to put this up. Which means the joke is not on the me or any creationist. It’s on you guys. So when I sent him (the guy who e-mailed me) an e-mail back correcting him on this issue that the spleen does have a function, he never e-mailed me back. I guess being corrected by a creationists most have been embarassing. :) Now watch, the blog page in the link will either change, or disappear. Because these guys cannot stand being corrected either.
First of all, I never implied that Ike claimed that the spleen is functionless. What I wrote clearly conveys what I just reiterated: that Ikester was gloating over what he obviously deemed a novel discovery that had long eluded evolutionists, i.e., that the spleen is no inert chunk of tissue.
Second, I don’t care if someone claiming to believe in evolution but not in the spleen as a functional organ e-mailed Ikester with such details. Assuming Ikester isn’t simply lying (he didn’t post the contents of this alleged e-mail), he was corresponding with someone short on facts and in no way representative of others who understand both evolution and human physiology. Ikester is sufficiently parochial-minded to believe that everyone who accepts evolution operates under a rigid set of guidelines and believes exactly the same thing about everything. Now what in his own background could have given him that idea?
Third, not only has Ikester not “corrected” anything I wrote previously, but had he done so I would cheerfully amend the post with a note about the correction, not delete it wholesale. Ikester fails to grasp that scientists and science-oriented people do not play the way creationists do; we do not delete evidence of our mistakes, we do not ban, bar, or block opposing views, and we do not spitefully edit the comments from dissenters. Ikester is projecting, and not for the first time.
Finally, and hilariously, Ikester in his jovial cluelessness continues to link to a site run by those who embrace evolution, a concept he absolutely fears and despises. You would think he would at least hunt down a site that explains what the spleen does but contains no references to evolution; I could find such a site for him in two minutes of Googling. Keeping evolution safely out of view wouldn’t make it go away, of course, but this would at least dissolve what has to be, at some dim and murky level of Ikester’s thinkingmeat, a significant burden of cognitive dissonance.
But before I can end this, I have to address a few things that either were not on Ikester’s home page a few weeks ago or I failed to spot.
3) Who created God? The question is self cancelling, and here’s why. Once you figure out who created God, then you would have to figure out where that came from. And this can go on for infinity. Just like asking the question: Where did the first matter come from for the big bang. If you could answer that, and apply the same logic, you would also have to answer where the source for that matter came from, and that would go on for infinity. So the question is in no way scientific. It is a lame attempt to disprove God. And shows to what lengths evolutionists will go to, when their theory is weak.
Ikester is correct–positing an intelligent god is senseless because such an entity itself would have required an even more intelligent creator, and so on up the chain of intelligence ad infinitum. However, this is not analogous to material origins of the universe, and the reason is intelligence. No one is positing that the almost infinitely small, unfathomably compact “point” of matter theorized to exist at the moment of the Big Bang was sentient. Yes, at some point, something had to simply be, and although this is certainly boggling enough in any event, introducing a conscious being into the mix makes the entire scheme logically untenable. Ikester, I know you will not grasp the essentials of what I have just written, but trust me, I didn’t make it up. And by the way, evolutionists aren’t the scientists concerned with the Big Bang, physicists are. If you don’t even know this much, any posting you do on the subject will continue to be a colossal joke.
4) Why is their so much violence in the old testament? In the old testament, when people dies, they do not go to heaven or hell. They did what the Bible terms as: slept with his fathers. Which basically means that your soul stayed with your body. Being that there was no punishment for sin after a person died in the OT, that punishment was carried out on earth instead. Christ making a new covenant where everyone went to where they are supposed to changed all that. The punishment for sin is now after death. Just do a bible search in the OT on the words: “Slept father”. And you will see several verses on this.
I don’t have a lot to say about this besides the fact that my eyes were irritated after the first sentence, watering after the second, burning after the third, and practically on fire after the next batch. But I believe Ikester is telling us that, because it was impossible before Jesus to pursue and torture people beyond the grave, it was therefore necessary in pre-Jesus times for the innumerable barbaric sorts running amok in the Pentateuch to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible upon the living in order to compensate. What a charming, lovely way to see things.