########################################## Subj: Creation/Evolution & Bill Morgan Date: 06-Jul-00 18:17:37 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: liber8r@mcs.com CC: DWise1 Guess it's been a couple of years. As you will recall, I was the one who tried in vain for two years to get creationist Bill Morgan to support his claims, or even just to give an intelligible response. A few developments: 1. As you will recall, Bill suddenly closed his BillyJack6@aol.com address around August 1998 and left no forwarding address. Then about a year ago, a Dogpile.Com search turned up his new website at http://www.webmecca.com/creation/ , which posted a few different email addresses for him over time, but has settled down to BillyJack321@hotmail.com (what IS his fixation with that character?). I have also reached him at BillyJack1@hotmail.com , though he didn't recognized me with my new screen name of BillyJack6@aol.com (my DWise1@aol.com is still valid and active). Actually, I had tried email him a few times as DWise1 and even signed his site's guestbook, but he completely ignored me, so I don't feel too bad about hiding my identity for the time being. This requires action on your part. On your posting of his "Creation vs Evolution" essay, with commentary, you give his old email address, which is now mine. You probably should update it. 2. Even though AOL's policy is to recycle old screennames after six months, it took an entire year, plus a few emails from me, before BillyJack6 came up for grabs. Now I have it. 3. Now that I have another screen name, I have space to upload my pages on my correspondence with Bill. Which I have just done. It will need some polishing but most of it is there. The URL is http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html . Tell me what you think of it. ########################################## Subj: Re: Creation/Evolution & Bill Morgan Date: 06-Jul-00 21:30:24 Pacific Daylight Time From: webmaster@liberator.net (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com You wrote: "Guess it's been a couple of years. As you will recall, I was the one who tried in vain for two years to get creationist Bill Morgan to support his claims, or even just to give an intelligible response." How could I forget those battles? I enjoyed them. I don't know if I would have time to take it on full bore again, but it was a great debate. "On your posting of his 'Creation vs Evolution' essay, with commentary, you give his old email address, which is now mine. You probably should update it." It has been done. While I was there, I cleaned up the language. I had to plug my nose to do so, because some of those sentences I wrote really stunk! I can't believe the errors I made. Yikes... I have also honed my site. I'm sure you will enjoy the latest article, which can be found on the frontpage of my site...The Liberator: http://www.liberator.net/ Check it out and tell me what you think of the improvements. "Now that I have another screen name, I have space to upload my pages on my correspondence with Bill. Which I have just done. It will need some polishing but most of it is there. The URL is http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html . Tell me what you think of it." I like the site. It's well organized. There are no bells and whistles but who needs those when Billy acts as if he's a contestant on The Gong Show? = ) Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ########################################## Subj: Brad Sparks Date: 08-Jul-00 09:01:15 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 I just conducted a DogPile.Com search on "Brad Sparks". I'm not sure which of these is the Brad Sparks who has spoken at CSAOC meetings. Most of the hits were on a Brad Sparks who was co-founder of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) and who has been very active in ufology. One other hit [http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/h13.html] names a Brad Sparks as former employee of the CRI and assistent to one Hank Hanegraaff and the subject of wrongful termination and legal harassment by Hanegraaff. Oh, and Lambert Dolphin's site has an article by a Brad Sparks on the location of Mt. Sinai. This one does appear to be the same Brad Sparks as you have mentioned. Are all four of these Brad Sparks' one and the same? ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 09-Jul-00 20:56:16 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com All 4 of those sounds like my buddy Brad. Who is this? Could you contact brad? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Brad Sparks >Date: Sat Jul 08 12:01:15 2000 > >I just conducted a DogPile.Com search on "Brad Sparks". I'm not sure which >of these is the Brad Sparks who has spoken at CSAOC meetings. > >Most of the hits were on a Brad Sparks who was co-founder of Citizens >Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) and who has been very active in ufology. > >One other hit [http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/h13.html] names a >Brad Sparks as former employee of the CRI and assistent to one Hank >Hanegraaff and the subject of wrongful termination and legal harassment by >Hanegraaff. > >Oh, and Lambert Dolphin's site has an article by a Brad Sparks on the >location of Mt. Sinai. This one does appear to be the same Brad Sparks as >you have mentioned. > >Are all four of these Brad Sparks' one and the same? > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 11-Jul-00 12:40:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Could you contact brad?<< No, I could not. You know much more about that than I do. I only found pages and user-group messages ABOUT him, not BY him. Why? Have you lost contact with him? If so, then I might be able to suggest some search strategies. >>Who is this?<< Bill, Bill, Bill. Have you really forgotten already, "Mr. 100%"? I'm still trying to figure out what you had meant by your message "Its not!" (that's the entire message, exactly as you had written it). Please let me know if those clues, plus my email address of DWise1@aol.com, fail to jog your memory. ########################################## Subj: Newsletter via email,please Date: 11-Jul-00 12:42:25 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 I am again taking you up on your offer to have the newsletter for the Creation Science Association of Orange County sent to me via email. Please send it to dwise1@aol.com . ########################################## Subj: "Typos" on your site still need correcting Date: 11-Jul-00 12:45:58 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack321@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 Bill: On 13 Feb 1999 in your guestbook (which now appears to be missing from your site), I informed you that your pages contained several "typographical" errors of the kind that is typically introduced into scanned documents by the OCR software. As marvelous as OCR software is, it still misinterprets some letters and letter combinations, so every scanned document must be checked for these errors. Now, one-and-a-half years later, I see that the errors in the "Footnotes" section of "Weird Tour" are still abundantly present. I used Word to quickly check through your other pages (not including the articles) and found the following errors on your "quotes" page: Pmf. E.J. Comer Cambridge Hniversity: Mark RidIcy, Dr. Heruy Morris: Luther Sunderland: "Well-known evolutionists such as Isaac Asinov There were a few other possibilities, but I wasn't sure since they were personal and place names. Also, it appears to me that the misspelling of Asimov's name is an actual typo not caused by the scanning process. Question: Since you already had your "Creation vs. Evolution: What is the Better Explanation?" in electronic form, why did you need to have it scanned for your site? Had you still not learned about the Clipboard? The scan errors in "Weird Tour"'s FOOTNOTES page should be very obvious. I listed a few of them below (copied via the Clipboard, so they are EXACTLY as they appear on your page); I did not include any of the several punctuation errors. Please note that I did not list all of the errors: long periods oft/me; evolutiomsts natural lax~ of science. Plants and ammals are offspnng from a common ancestor. Creauon Model Evolutmn Model 1st IM W OF THERMODYNAMICS: in a dosed system Evolutiomsts Creatiomsts Creationsts Evohitiomsts nonliving matterr and energy very dif/brent 2rid LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: running out of ttseful (not total) energy. userid energy (gasoline) is convened to Urnverse the 2rid Law). supernatural plan and Imrlx~. can be tra-eed to an event an obsewed event a painling a "First CaR" (God). It is roteresting Note: Evolutiomsts consider their position tO be scientific specific examples ofwby ,I2)o yon realize origins 'violates the I found that God-as-"First CaR" reference humorous, since it reminded me of something in a novel set in the future where Henry Ford had been deified. The liturgy included reference to His "Flying Fliver", refering to the Model T. As you can see, Bill, the end-result of your messed-up page conveys a different message than you had intended. I also noticed a very odd thing on your articles page: in between the links to your articles, where nothing is displayed, the cursor kept picking up an extra link to http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm. There was no visible anchor for that link and it was present between each and every visible article link. Here is the HTML (I do hope that neither AOL nor hotmail tries to interpret the tags; if you do not see a lot of stuff between less-than and greater-than signs, AKA "angle brackets", please let me know): A Human Ancestor Fraud A PhD Looks at the Genesis Days Amazing Quotes by Evolutionists; Why do they believe it? Can God be Scientifically Proven? .. Amazing Quotes By Evolutionists Neanderthal Man! As you can see, an extra anchor was inserted between every visible anchor, but because there was no text placed between the and the tags, nothing ever got displayed. This indicates how we could do a neat trick of creating invisible links on a web page, but I doubt very much that that was your intention here. If Microsoft FrontPage 3.0 allows you to edit the actual HTML, then you really do need to go in there and straighten it out. If it doesn't, then just use an ordinary text editor (eg, Notepad or Wordpad) to open the HTML page, edit the corrections, and upload it. If you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, please tell me so that I can explain it to you. All that most of the world will ever know about you will come from your web page. Their opinion of your expertise, competence, and credibility depends directly on what they see on your web pages. Bad grammar, mispellings, broken links, and screwed-up HTML will all lower their opinion of you and your message. Since I know that your message is very important to you, it is really very important for you to correct all the errors on your site that you can. ########################################## Subj: Re: Creation/Evolution & Bill Morgan Date: 11-Jul-00 17:44:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: webmaster@liberator.net CC: DWise1 Sorry for the delay getting back to you. Drill weekend, new programming class (MFC), 24th anniversary, work, work, work. You know. >>Did anyone mention that Judeo-Chrisitian Mythology allegories were stolen from Greek Mythology and older myths? To me, that shows the 'evolution' of mythology, which brings us to current religions.<< Oh, it has continued almost to the present day (well, maybe I am being too conservative here). Our friend just returned from Peru, where she witnessed an annual Catholic festival commemorating the Summer Solstice (her Spanish is too poor for me to have recognized what its name is). Not only was this Christian festival filled with Incan religious symbols, but she was informed that during the Conquest many of the old Incan gods had been absorbed into local Catholicism as saints. Around that same time in Mexico, an Aztec virgin goddess became the Virgin of Guadalupe and the Basilica was built on the site of her old temple. For that matter, during the spread of Christianity through pagan Europe early in the Dark Ages, it was common practice for the missionaries to destroy the old sacred sites and build their churches there, plus assimilate the old pagan dieties into the Catholic pantheon (does that make them the original Borg?). At first, the converted pagans would come to their former sacred site, pray to their gods-converted-to-Catholic-saints, and feel that they were pulling the wool over the missionaries' eyes. But then each succeeding generation would remember less of the old ways and believe that religion had always been as they then-currently saw it. Another example is in the two forms of Christianity in Ireland. Ireland received Christianity in two waves, the second led by St. Patrick. But back in the Roman days, Christian missionaries had reached Ireland, gained converts, and commandeered a few holy-site springs. Some vestiges of this earlier form can still be found, centered around the holy springs, and retaining more of the pagan traditions. Atheists United in Los Angeles used to have a weekly 15-minute radio show. Every December, they would broadcast their "The True Meaning of Christmas", which examined many of Christianity's pagan origins. Their web site is at http://www.atheistsunited.org/ . I have an electronic copy of that show's transcript somewhere; I can forward it to you when I find it if you would like. >>Who the Hell is Kent Hovind?<< Kent Hovind is the current darling of the young-earth set. He is a young-earth creationist operating out of Florida. He travels all over the country doing lectures, challenging local "evolutionists" to public debates (the old ICR trick), and offering a large reward to anyone able to produce conclusive evidence for evolution (the wording of the offer and how it would be judged make it impossible to ever collect on it). There is also a lot of controversy about his PhD. Basically, he claims scientific expertise based on over a decade of experience in science education, though a lot of his claims are scientifically and logically flawed. At his site, he claims to have research his material thoroughly, but what I have observed is that he will use almost any creationist claim without ever trying to verify it or check its sources (eg, he uses Ackermann as the source for his moon dust argument, whereas if he had checked Ackermann's cited source (as Ackermann also had not done) he would have realized that it was a hoax, albeit an unintentional one (see my Moon Dust page, http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html). He also swallowed the Onate Man hoax hook, line, and sinker. Basically, he doesn't really know what he is talking about, but boy does he sound convincing -- at least to his followers, who are already convinced. Here is a list of links to tell you more about him (not necessarily in order of importance): Hovind's own site, Creation Science Evangelism: http://www.drdino.com/ "How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims" by Dave Matson, April 21, 1994 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html An excellent review of Hovind's claims and critiques thereof. Contains the best and most thorough coverage of Slusher's moon-dust claim that I have seen anywhere. Hovind "critiques" Matson at his site, but if he had actually read it then he would know that his moon-dust claim is based on a hoax. The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind. http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D. http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm No Answers in Genesis! http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/ This is the parent site of the above, containing several links to creationist topics, including others about Hovind. Hovind Refuses to Debate!! http://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM Just like Bill Morgan, the mighty Kent Hovind, whose feet Bill is not worthy to wash, also refuses to engage in an on-line debate. An Open Letter about Kent Hovind’s Seminar http://members.aol.com/ibss3/hovind.html This relates the contents of a Hovind presentation in Sept 1999, where he presented the Onate Man hoax as fact. Should contain links to the Onate Man hoax site, which describes the fictitious suppressed fossil discovery of a human skeleton being eaten by a T Rex. Most creationists who enquired about it were excited by the possibilities, but still skeptical. Not Hovind, who accepted the story at face value as soon as he heard it and immediately started presenting it as fact to the public. CSE: Specific Responses to Claims Made By Kent Hovind and the Creation Science Evangelism Web Pages http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~hjlecken/hovind.html "Dr." Kent Hovind http://www.geocities.com/odonate/hovind.htm "Kent Hovind is a Kwazy Kweationist" http://www.skepticfriends.org/letter31.html On the Till-Hovind Debate by Prof. Karen E. Bartelt, Ph.D. http://www.holysmoke.org/hovind2.htm Tells you something about Hovind's presentation style -- to rapid-fire for anybody to actually think about what he is saying. Includes his claim about the 11-foot human skeleton. "Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3: Men Over Ten Feel Tall" by Ed Babinski http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.html Very good efforts in trying to research Hovind and Baugh's claim of a skeleton found in an Italian mine. What is more disturbing than the absolute lack of any evidence for this claim, is that none of the creationists Babinski was trying to work with had any desire or interest in verifying their claim, even though Babinski was doing all the work for them. Supports my current thesis that creationists only care about how convincing a creationist claim sounds; they really do not care whether it's actually true. "A Frozen Ninety Foot Tall Plum Tree with Ripe Fruit and Green Leaves Found North of the Arctic Circle?" by Ed Babinski http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part3.html Babinski also researched another Hovind claim, that an ancient 90-foot plum tree had been found in Siberia, frozen in place and bearing fruit. From my correspondence with Bill, you will recall that another thesis that I've been working on is that creation science can actually endanger the faith of its followers, especially when they are faced with the facts. I have frequently cited Glenn Morton and his creationist geologists. About a year or year and a half ago, I came across Ed's web page (now at http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ixthus/a7.html). In it, he tells of how he was a fervent creation science junkie; he describes it like a drug addiction. One time, a friend gave him a fix in the form of a video of several debates featuring a well-known young-earth creationist (YECist). Ed was stunned that the YECist's "evolutionist" opponents had an answer for every one of his challenges and that they would repeatedly back the YECist into a corner, which he could only escape from by inventing another miracle. That experience sobered Ed up and started him on his current path of testing, verifying, and seeking the truth. He is still a Christian, but he no longer blindly accepts what he is told. The reason I brought this up is that Ed recently told me that that YECist on the video was Kent Hovind. I do not know if Ed wants to make that publically known, so do please check with us before you publish anything on it. The following is purposefully vague, since I do not yet have permission to release the information. Please do not publish it until I can obtain permission. A well-known young-earth-creationist organization has published an article critical of Carl Baugh's wilder claims and expressing concern of the detrimental effects those claims could have on creationists' faith -- basically the same concerns that I have expressed. My contact has confided that they also view Hovind's actions and claims with similar concern. So, Mark, I guess that now you know a little bit more about who and what Kent Hovind is. ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 11-Jul-00 21:06:56 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com mr 100% Hmmmmmmm I am clueless! Brad is out there, somewhere........we need him to speak on UFOS. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Tue Jul 11 15:40:43 2000 > > >>Could you contact brad?<< > >No, I could not. You know much more about that than I do. I only found >pages and user-group messages ABOUT him, not BY him. Why? Have you lost >contact with him? If so, then I might be able to suggest some search >strategies. > > >>Who is this?<< > >Bill, Bill, Bill. Have you really forgotten already, "Mr. 100%"? I'm >still trying to figure out what you had meant by your message "Its not!" >(that's the entire message, exactly as you had written it). > >Please let me know if those clues, plus my email address of DWise1@aol.com, >fail to jog your memory. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 12-Jul-00 07:37:10 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Brad is out there, somewhere........we need him to speak on UFOS.<< I did a quick search this morning, but couldn't narrow it down. From Yahoo, I got a listing of 44 "Brad Sparks" addresses and phone numbers and a listing of 12 email addresses for "Brad Sparks." Then I tried a Power Search through the newsgroups on Deja.com; all the hits were somebody else's mentioning of his name and none of the email address I tried were found. I will need some more information to be able to help you on this. How did you contact him before? What state does he live in? Did he have an email address before, what was it, and when did it go out of service? What search strategies have you tried so far? Please help me help you. ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 12-Jul-00 07:43:24 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>mr 100% Hmmmmmmm I am clueless!<< "Mr. 100%" was what I started refering to you as when you tried to claim to have answered all of my questions while accusing me of having answered none of yours. In reality, the figures were thus: SUMMARY: Bill's Questions to Me: Answered: 23 Unanswered: 2 Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% My Questions to Bill: Answered: 12 Unanswered: 65 Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% Of course, the figures for your answers to me are inflated in your favor, mainly by my counting repeated questions only once and by my counting several of your unintelligible monosyllabic grunts as "answers." If your memory still needs jogging, you might try going to http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/mr_100percent.html . ########################################## Subj: My CSAOC Page Date: 12-Jul-00 07:48:58 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 While you are visiting my web pages, you might want to take a look at my page on the Creation Science Association of Orange County (CSAOC) at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/CSAOC.html . (remember that the file name is case-sensitive -- copy the URL to the Clipboard and then paste it into your browser's address field and you cannot go wrong) Until you finish getting their site up, you may provide a link to my CSAOC page as a service to your visitors. Frankly, I was amazed that you had never included any information about the CSAOC at your site before. ########################################## Subj: Brad Sparks Date: 08-Jul-00 09:01:15 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 I just conducted a DogPile.Com search on "Brad Sparks". I'm not sure which of these is the Brad Sparks who has spoken at CSAOC meetings. Most of the hits were on a Brad Sparks who was co-founder of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS) and who has been very active in ufology. One other hit [http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/h13.html] names a Brad Sparks as former employee of the CRI and assistent to one Hank Hanegraaff and the subject of wrongful termination and legal harassment by Hanegraaff. Oh, and Lambert Dolphin's site has an article by a Brad Sparks on the location of Mt. Sinai. This one does appear to be the same Brad Sparks as you have mentioned. Are all four of these Brad Sparks' one and the same? ########################################## BillSubj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 13-Jul-00 19:40:45 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I think I know someone who may actually know hoim, let me try that avenue before I have you work so hard. Brad lives in California, most likely Orange County. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:37:09 EDT > > >>Brad is out there, somewhere........we need him to speak on UFOS.<< > >I did a quick search this morning, but couldn't narrow it down. From >Yahoo, I got a listing of 44 "Brad Sparks" addresses and phone numbers and >a listing of 12 email addresses for "Brad Sparks." Then I tried a Power >Search through the newsgroups on Deja.com; all the hits were somebody >else's mentioning of his name and none of the email address I tried were >found. > >I will need some more information to be able to help you on this. How did >you contact him before? What state does he live in? Did he have an email >address before, what was it, and when did it go out of service? What >search strategies have you tried so far? > >Please help me help you. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 13-Jul-00 19:45:25 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Now I remember you! Your statistics prove one thing: you are a much better person than I am! But be patient with me, those of us inferior give up after a while when the snide remarks and emotional attacks spring forth. We inferiors also get tired of typing the same thing over and over. Would you publicly debate me so we can avoid the esoteric chit chat? Your friend, Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:43:24 EDT > > >>mr 100% Hmmmmmmm I am clueless!<< > >"Mr. 100%" was what I started refering to you as when you tried to claim to >have answered all of my questions while accusing me of having answered none >of yours. In reality, the figures were thus: > >SUMMARY: >Bill's Questions to Me: >Answered: 23 >Unanswered: 2 >Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% > >My Questions to Bill: >Answered: 12 >Unanswered: 65 >Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 >Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% > >Of course, the figures for your answers to me are inflated in your favor, >mainly by my counting repeated questions only once and by my counting >several of your unintelligible monosyllabic grunts as "answers." > >If your memory still needs jogging, you might try going to >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/mr_100percent.html . > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 13-Jul-00 19:52:42 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I have added you to our newsletter! I have included my e mail address in several newsletters. Will you retract your claim I am hiding from the public? Please come to one of our meetings! I will let you debate me at one someday! I honestly value polite talks with people who disagree with me. I hate typing long letters though. A hone chat or a dinner at Denny's is much more appealing to me than massive typing. Your friend, Bill P.S. You will love our web site name! It has not been announced yet. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: My CSAOC Page >Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:48:57 EDT > >While you are visiting my web pages, you might want to take a look at my >page on the Creation Science Association of Orange County (CSAOC) at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/CSAOC.html . (remember that the file name >is case-sensitive -- copy the URL to the Clipboard and then paste it into >your browser's address field and you cannot go wrong) > >Until you finish getting their site up, you may provide a link to my CSAOC >page as a service to your visitors. Frankly, I was amazed that you had >never included any information about the CSAOC at your site before. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 14-Jul-00 08:09:08 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com >>Your statistics prove one thing: you are a much better person than I am!<< Sarcasm duly noted. >>But be patient with me, those of us inferior give up after a while when the snide remarks and emotional attacks spring forth.<< "snide remarks"? "emotional attacks"? Do you have any examples? I did conduct an on-going analysis of our exchange which was probably a bit too honest for your liking. And I did lose my temper a couple times when you were trying to play some mind-games. Other than that, I do not know what you are talking about. >>We inferiors also get tired of typing the same thing over and over.<< You still do not know what the Clipboard is and what it can do for you? I kept offering to teach you about it and you kept ignoring my offers. No, I take that back. You did respond once by slapping away my hand, offered in friendship, with an insulting "How facetious." And yet despite that, my offer of technical advice and help still stands open to you. And just what do you mean by "typing the same thing over and over"? Most of your responses were almost monosyllabic. And even more often you wouldn't even respond at all. How much effort could that have taken? I honestly do not understand your complaint here. While I was writing my page, "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER" [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html], I again mulled over your game in that exchange of claiming that your questions had not been answered. I suddenly realized that most of your strategy is to have a set of "unanswerable" questions. Of course, if somebody answers them, then there goes your strategy. Of secondary importance in this case is that the existence of these answers also blew away your "bad science" ploy. >>Would you publicly debate me so we can avoid the esoteric chit chat?<< We already agreed to an on-line debate, Bill. Don't you remember? On 98-06-26 at 23:45:43 EDT you made me the offer: "you can choose the format and the moderator and teh place...quit galloping!" I accepted, chose an on-line format, and started suggesting some of the details for implementing it. You never said another word about it and then disappeared without notice a couple months later. Yes, I do realize that you had maneuvered yourself into that agreement, but I'm holding you to that agreement, since you never even tried to make any clarification about your intentions. So, when do we start our on-line debate? ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 14-Jul-00 15:45:18 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Nothing here I am saying is sarcastic or snide. Please trust me on that. i get 50-75 emails aday. I hate typing. I honestly thought for a while we had an exchange going, but I am so busy with work, school, family, seminars, Bible studies, sports etc my lessons (would you like a free tape of my lesson)creation newsletter, getting creation speakers, I got tired of what seemed to be leading to a dead end. I realize this may have surprised you or you may have seen it as a concession, but I just dont have the time to bang out a ten minute e mail every night. So thats why I requested a phone call instead the typing marathon. Lets be honest...is there any way you would ever become a born again christian. If the proper evidence were brought to your attention would you? I would renounce my world view given the proper evidence. I mean that. i have been talking to many many evolutionists, and my faith is stronger. But I am open to your science evidence, I do not enjoy the insults. Comments? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:09:07 EDT > > >>Your statistics prove one thing: you are a much better person than I >am!<< > >Sarcasm duly noted. > > >>But be patient with me, those of us inferior give up after a while when >the >snide remarks and emotional attacks spring forth.<< > >"snide remarks"? "emotional attacks"? Do you have any examples? I did >conduct an on-going analysis of our exchange which was probably a bit too >honest for your liking. And I did lose my temper a couple times when you >were trying to play some mind-games. Other than that, I do not know what >you are talking about. > > > >>We inferiors also get tired of typing the same thing over and over.<< > >You still do not know what the Clipboard is and what it can do for you? I >kept offering to teach you about it and you kept ignoring my offers. No, I >take that back. You did respond once by slapping away my hand, offered in >friendship, with an insulting "How facetious." And yet despite that, my >offer of technical advice and help still stands open to you. > >And just what do you mean by "typing the same thing over and over"? Most >of your responses were almost monosyllabic. And even more often you >wouldn't even respond at all. How much effort could that have taken? I >honestly do not understand your complaint here. > >While I was writing my page, "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER" >[http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html], I again mulled over your >game in that exchange of claiming that your questions had not been >answered. I suddenly realized that most of your strategy is to have a set >of "unanswerable" questions. Of course, if somebody answers them, then >there goes your strategy. >Of secondary importance in this case is that the existence of these answers >also blew away your "bad science" ploy. > > >>Would you publicly debate me so we can avoid the esoteric chit chat?<< > >We already agreed to an on-line debate, Bill. Don't you remember? On >98-06-26 at 23:45:43 EDT you made me the offer: "you can choose the format >and the moderator and teh place...quit galloping!" I accepted, chose an >on-line format, and started suggesting some of the details for implementing >it. You never said another word about it and then disappeared without >notice a couple months later. > >Yes, I do realize that you had maneuvered yourself into that agreement, but >I'm holding you to that agreement, since you never even tried to make any >clarification about your intentions. > >So, when do we start our on-line debate? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: "Typos" on your site still need correcting Date: 14-Jul-00 16:06:04 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Thank you very very much! I will get them cahnged! I appreciate your help. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: "Typos" on your site still need correcting >Date: Tue Jul 11 15:45:57 2000 > >Bill: > >On 13 Feb 1999 in your guestbook (which now appears to be missing from your >site), I informed you that your pages contained several "typographical" >errors of the kind that is typically introduced into scanned documents by >the OCR software. As marvelous as OCR software is, it still misinterprets >some letters and letter combinations, so every scanned document must be >checked for these errors. Now, one-and-a-half years later, I see that the >errors in the "Footnotes" section of "Weird Tour" are still abundantly >present. I used Word to quickly check through your other pages (not >including the articles) and found the following errors on your "quotes" >page: > >Pmf. E.J. Comer Cambridge Hniversity: >Mark RidIcy, >Dr. Heruy Morris: >Luther Sunderland: "Well-known evolutionists such as Isaac Asinov > >There were a few other possibilities, but I wasn't sure since they were >personal and place names. Also, it appears to me that the misspelling of >Asimov's name is an actual typo not caused by the scanning process. > >Question: Since you already had your "Creation vs. Evolution: What is the >Better Explanation?" in electronic form, why did you need to have it >scanned for your site? Had you still not learned about the Clipboard? > > >The scan errors in "Weird Tour"'s FOOTNOTES page should be very obvious. I >listed a few of them below (copied via the Clipboard, so they are EXACTLY >as they appear on your page); I did not include any of the several >punctuation errors. Please note that I did not list all of the errors: > >long periods oft/me; >evolutiomsts >natural lax~ of science. >Plants and ammals are offspnng from a common ancestor. >Creauon Model >Evolutmn Model >1st IM W OF THERMODYNAMICS: >in a dosed system >Evolutiomsts >Creatiomsts >Creationsts >Evohitiomsts >nonliving matterr and energy >very dif/brent >2rid LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: >running out of ttseful (not total) energy. >userid energy (gasoline) is convened to >Urnverse >the 2rid Law). >supernatural plan and Imrlx~. >can be tra-eed to an event >an obsewed event >a painling >a "First CaR" (God). >It is roteresting >Note: Evolutiomsts consider their position tO be scientific >specific examples ofwby >,I2)o yon realize >origins 'violates the > > >I found that God-as-"First CaR" reference humorous, since it reminded me of >something in a novel set in the future where Henry Ford had been deified. >The liturgy included reference to His "Flying Fliver", refering to the >Model T. As you can see, Bill, the end-result of your messed-up page >conveys a different message than you had intended. > > >I also noticed a very odd thing on your articles page: in between the links >to your articles, where nothing is displayed, the cursor kept picking up an >extra link to http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm. >There was no visible anchor for that link and it was present between each >and every visible article link. Here is the HTML (I do hope that neither >AOL nor hotmail tries to interpret the tags; if you do not see a lot of >stuff between less-than and greater-than signs, AKA "angle brackets", >please let me know): > > selected> face="Arial" color="#0000A0">A Human Ancestor Fraud href="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm"> > > A >PhD Looks at the > Genesis Dayshref="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm"> > > href="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article03.htm">Amazing >Quotes by > Evolutionists; Why do they believe it? href="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm"> > > Can >God be > Scientifically Proven? href="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm"> > >.. > href="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article58.htm">Amazing >Quotes By > Evolutionistshref="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm"> > > href="http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article59.htm">Neanderthal >Man! > > >As you can see, an extra anchor was inserted between every visible anchor, >but because there was no text placed between the and the tags, >nothing ever got displayed. This indicates how we could do a neat trick of >creating invisible links on a web page, but I doubt very much that that was >your intention here. If Microsoft FrontPage 3.0 allows you to edit the >actual HTML, then you really do need to go in there and straighten it out. >If it doesn't, then just use an ordinary text editor (eg, Notepad or >Wordpad) to open the HTML page, edit the corrections, and upload it. If >you have absolutely no idea what I am talking about, please tell me so that >I can explain it to you. > >All that most of the world will ever know about you will come from your web >page. Their opinion of your expertise, competence, and credibility depends >directly on what they see on your web pages. Bad grammar, mispellings, >broken links, and screwed-up HTML will all lower their opinion of you and >your message. Since I know that your message is very important to you, it >is really very important for you to correct all the errors on your site >that you can. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 14-Jul-00 18:54:03 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I have added you to our newsletter!<< Thank you. >>I have included my e mail address in several newsletters. Will you retract your claim I am hiding from the public?<< I had noticed your address in the last few issues. I already have it on my to-do list to update that stale information. Those pages are not exactly new. In 1998 I wrote most of those pages and uploaded them to my FTP space, which promptly overfilled. So I had to take them down and I worked on them now and again until I could get an additional screen-name and its associated additional FTP space. But for the past year, I've been way too busy to organize them and upload them. Then I had some free time around the 4th, so I just buckled down and got the main body of work done over the long weekend. I still have some more pages to write and existing pages to polish up. Updating the stale information about your 1998 disappearance is towards the top of the list, right along with adding the META tags for search engines. >>... your claim I am hiding from the public<< I'm sorry you got that impression. As I recall, I was trying to say that I personally did not know of your new email address being distributed, but apparently that is not how it came out. You could have very well been handing lyour address out at every lecture, CSAOC meeting, and street proselytizing for all I knew. However, there are still a few facts that we must be true to: 1. Before Aug 1998 you posted your AOL email address in the newsletter frequently and had spammed it across several newsgroups. 2. Sometime between 98 Aug 20 and 98 Sep 04 you closed your AOL account, rendering that widely-known address inoperative. You did not notify me nor Liber8r of your planned departure. 3. For well over a year afterwards, you did not publish your new email address in the newsletter. 4. Around 98 Jul 18, your web-site was up. Even though you were still in communication with me at that time, you did not notify me of it; all you did was mention that you were working on one, then ignore my offers to help. 5. Around Nov 1998 I found your web-site. For a while, there was some flux and confusion with the email addresses posted there, as I have already documented on a couple of my web pages. 6. I tried to email you using the addresses provided. Of course, I knew that your old address was defunct; AOL informed me that the screen name no longer existed. One address was a new screen-name on AOL, which AOL confirmed to exist; email sent to that address was never answered. I also sent email to your hotmail address. If I sent it from DWise1, I never received a response, but if I sent it from another address, then I did receive a response. I also posted two messages on your website via the guestbook; again, nada. 7. Sometime within the past year, the email addresses on your site finally got cleaned up. Then, what seems just a few months ago, a single new address was posted, billyjack321@hotmail.com, apparently to separate site-generated email from your billyjack1 traffic. 8. The first publication of your billyjack1 email address in the newsletter occured less than a year ago, around Feb 2000 as I recall. Then the first newsletter publication of your web-site URL was just last month, even though the site had been up for a full two years. OK, Bill. If you feel I do not have my facts straight here, please let me know by giving me the corrections. For example, if the date on the website is wrong (I got it from the guestbook results page), then tell me when it really was. If you have published your site URL in earlier newsletters, then please tell me around which month and year that was. Likewise, if you have been posting your email address in the newsletter since before Feb 2000, then please tell me around which month and year that was. Remember, if you do not provide me with the correct information, then I have to go with the information that I have. We do want the facts to be presented, don't we? >>Please come to one of our meetings! I will let you debate me at one someday!<< But, Bill, we have already agreed to a public debate, on-line. Remember? Just before you disappeared. How is your presentation coming along? Shall we post it on your site, on mine, or open a third? Then, of course, we would both post links to it from our respective sites. I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). >>I honestly value polite talks with people who disagree with me.<< I'm glad to hear that you've developed that in the past two years. Perhaps we can finally get one going. >>I hate typing long letters though.<< Long is not necessary, but intelligible absolutely is. The entire idea behind communication is communicating, the conveyance of information. If one's messages are unintelligible, then communication cannot occur. Plus, if it is a matter of copying part of another message, then typing is not involved, but rather the Clipboard. Yet another benefit is that you can build up material that you can use elsewhere. Saves you typing later on, eh? >>A hone chat or a dinner at Denny's is much more appealing to me than massive typing.<< I'll assume that you meant "phone chat". Sorry, Bill, but both are still impossibilities. I do not have time during the day and I do not have time during the evening. I do not have access to a phone for private personal conversations, especially not for subjects that are not on the Spanish Inquisition's approved list. Besides which I do not like to call somebody on the phone, especially when a close personal or professional relationship has not been established. It's apparently a socialization thing, from my days in the Trenchcoat Mafia (though we didn't call it that then, nor did we organize into cells any larger than one person). Dinner is also out. Besides the Spanish Inquisition, note-taking would be greatly hampered by the cluttered table (not to mention food and drink stains). But an even bigger minus is that I have some loss of hearing, so that it is very difficult for me to hear the person I'm conversing with when there is a lot of background noise, like in a restaurant. No, email is still by far the very best way for us to converse. It's both convenient and accurate. ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 14-Jul-00 23:04:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I think you may be my biggest fan! :) Your documentation is excellent. Lets stay in touch. I guarentee we not be mean to you if you come to our meeting. As the vice president (like Al Gore) I have the authority to ensure your safety at our meetings. Your vice prez, Bill Hey do you know of any good web sources on the peppered moth fraud? Thanks >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: My CSAOC Page >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:54:03 EDT > > >>I have added you to our newsletter!<< > >Thank you. > > >>I have included my e mail address in several newsletters. >Will you retract your claim I am hiding from the public?<< > >I had noticed your address in the last few issues. >I already have it on my to-do list to update that stale information. > >Those pages are not exactly new. In 1998 I wrote most of those pages >and uploaded them to my FTP space, which promptly overfilled. So I had to >take them >down and I worked on them now and again until I could get an additional >screen-name >and its associated additional FTP space. >But for the past year, I've been way too busy to organize them and upload >them. >Then I had some free time around the 4th, so I just buckled down and got >the main >body of work done over the long weekend. > >I still have some more pages to write and existing pages to polish up. >Updating the stale information about your 1998 disappearance is towards the >top of the list, >right along with adding the META tags for search engines. > > >>... your claim I am hiding from the public<< >I'm sorry you got that impression. As I recall, I was trying to say that I >personally >did not know of your new email address being distributed, but apparently >that is not how it came out. >You could have very well >been handing lyour address out at every lecture, CSAOC meeting, and street >proselytizing for all I knew. >However, there are still a few facts that we must be true to: > >1. Before Aug 1998 you posted your AOL email address in the newsletter >frequently and >had spammed it across several newsgroups. >2. Sometime between 98 Aug 20 and 98 Sep 04 you closed your AOL account, >rendering that >widely-known address inoperative. You did not notify me nor Liber8r of >your planned departure. >3. For well over a year afterwards, you did not publish your new email >address in the newsletter. >4. Around 98 Jul 18, your web-site was up. Even though you were still in >communication with me >at that time, you did not notify me of it; all you did was mention that you >were working on one, >then ignore my offers to help. >5. Around Nov 1998 I found your web-site. For a while, there was some flux >and confusion >with the email addresses posted there, as I have already documented on a >couple of my web pages. >6. I tried to email you using the addresses provided. Of course, I knew >that your old address >was defunct; AOL informed me that the screen name no longer existed. >One address was a new screen-name on AOL, which AOL confirmed to exist; >email sent to >that address was never answered. I also sent email to your hotmail >address. If I sent >it from DWise1, I never received a response, but if I sent it from another >address, then >I did receive a response. I also posted two messages on your website via >the guestbook; again, nada. >7. Sometime within the past year, the email addresses on your site finally >got cleaned up. >Then, what seems just a few months ago, a single new address was posted, >billyjack321@hotmail.com, >apparently to separate site-generated email from your billyjack1 traffic. >8. The first publication of your billyjack1 email address in the newsletter >occured less than >a year ago, around Feb 2000 as I recall. Then the first newsletter >publication of your >web-site URL was just last month, even though the site had been up for a >full two years. > >OK, Bill. If you feel I do not have my facts straight here, please let me >know by giving me >the corrections. For example, if the date on the website is wrong (I got >it from the guestbook >results page), then tell me when it really was. If you have published your >site URL in earlier >newsletters, then please tell me around which month and year that was. >Likewise, if you >have been posting your email address in the newsletter since before Feb >2000, then please tell >me around which month and year that was. > >Remember, if you do not provide me with the correct information, then I >have to go with the >information that I have. We do want the facts to be presented, don't we? > > > >>Please come to one of our meetings! I will let you debate me at one >someday!<< >But, Bill, we have already agreed to a public debate, on-line. Remember? >Just before you disappeared. >How is your presentation coming along? Shall we post it on your site, on >mine, or open a third? >Then, of course, we would both post links to it from our respective sites. > >I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill >schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). > > >>I honestly value polite talks with people who disagree with me.<< >I'm glad to hear that you've developed that in the past two years. Perhaps >we can finally get one going. > > >>I hate typing long letters though.<< >Long is not necessary, but intelligible absolutely is. The entire idea >behind communication is communicating, the conveyance of information. If >one's messages are unintelligible, then communication cannot occur. Plus, >if it is a matter of copying part of another message, then typing is not >involved, but rather the Clipboard. > >Yet another benefit is that you can build up material that you can use >elsewhere. Saves you typing later on, eh? > > >>A hone chat or a dinner at Denny's is much more appealing to me than >massive typing.<< >I'll assume that you meant "phone chat". > >Sorry, Bill, but both are still impossibilities. I do not have time during >the day and I do not have time during the evening. I do not have access to >a phone for private personal conversations, especially not for subjects >that are not on the Spanish Inquisition's approved list. Besides which I >do not like to call somebody on the phone, especially when a close personal >or professional relationship has not been established. It's apparently a >socialization thing, from my days in the Trenchcoat Mafia (though we didn't >call it that then, nor did we organize into cells any larger than one >person). > >Dinner is also out. Besides the Spanish Inquisition, note-taking would be >greatly hampered by the cluttered table (not to mention food and drink >stains). But an even bigger minus is that I have some loss of hearing, so >that it is very difficult for me to hear the person I'm conversing with >when there is a lot of background noise, like in a restaurant. > >No, email is still by far the very best way for us to converse. It's both >convenient and accurate. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 17-Jul-00 07:37:58 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 The earliest I show for you to have published your billyjack1@hotmail.com email address in the CSAOC newsletter is the one for the September 1999 meeting (I date the newsletters by the month and year of the meeting that they announce). If you have conflicting information, please let me know so that I can post the correct facts on my pages. ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 17-Jul-00 12:50:11 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 Sorry if this is a repeat. AOL reported having a problem with the page, so I had no way of knowing whether it got sent. >>Nothing here I am saying is sarcastic or snide. Please trust me on that.<< Likewise with mine. >>i get 50-75 emails aday.<< Out of curiosity, what percentage is fan mail and what percentage challenges your claims? Of the challenges, how do they go? Remember that part of the reason for my "Morgan Pages" is to share my experiences with others so that they could share theirs with me. >>Lets be honest...is there any way you would ever become a born again christian. If the proper evidence were brought to your attention would you? I would renounce my world view given the proper evidence. I mean that.<< Then you don't even know what our exchange was about. Sure, I knew full well that you were only intent on converting me, but I wasn't trying to convert you. I was trying to make you aware that there are problems with your chosen tool, creation science, that those problems can have dire consequences for those who believe it, and to convince you that you must be very sure of your material's veracity. From reading your stuff, it is very apparent to me that you have never done so. One of my reasons for creating my "Morgan Pages" is to supply the world with the other side of the story you work so hard to spread. Besides, isn't an exchange supposed to be about exchanging information, perspectives, and ideas? It isn't supposed to be solely about trying to convert the other person. I was trying to exchange while you kept trying to go for the kill. And also, isn't an exchange supposed to be two-way? I would hope that our next exchange will be and not just one-way like before. But why should I become a "born again christian" when I've already been saved? And why are you so obsessed with that? Do you get Brownie points for a high body count? We're not just bodies out here, you know; we're people. I fell into that same trap in genealogy; I soon found that I was just collecting an ancestral body count. It's an ugly, terrible feeling when you suddenly realize what you had been doing. I already know too much for it to be easy to become "born again." The first time was bad enough. Seriously. I was a conscientious objecter. I had dropped down into position right on schedule, but then about a week before I was due, I turned around and wouldn't budge. Two weeks past due, I still wasn't about to move. They finally had to take me out by force. Being born a second time doesn't promise to be any easier. Of course, if presented with incontrovertible evidence that cannot possibly indicate anything else, I would have to accept what that evidence shows. But I don't think you realize what that evidence would have to entail. It couldn't just show that some scientific ideas are wrong, because that wouldn't preclude other scientific ideas from being right (or at least less wrong); besides, I already know that. It couldn't just show that a supernaturalistic explanation is needed, because we still wouldn't know WHAT supernaturalistic explanation it would be. Even if you could prove the existence of JHWH, you would still need to prove that YOUR PARTICULAR explanation of JHWH is the RIGHT ONE and all others are wrong. You would also need to prove human infallibility, something which I have a very hard time believing. Does that give you some idea of the task you are setting for yourself? You would also have to prove to me that creation science is correct, something which I know full well is not the case. Like I said, I know too much; your usual tricks will not work on me. >> i have been talking to many many evolutionists, and my faith is stronger. But I am open to your science evidence, I do not enjoy the insults.<< If you do not enjoy insults, then you should not invite them. What I mean by that is, if you engage in a discussion or exchange, then don't jerk the other guy around and play games, especially if he is trying to make that discussion work. Also, I am not surprised that your faith would be stronger, since those "evolutionists" either did not know enough to challenge your beliefs or they did. In the former case, they only served to reinforce your preconceptions. In the latter case, I'm sure from personal experience that you made sure not to pay any attention to what they told you. I was going to ask that you pass my email address and URL on to those "evolutionists", but then realized that you would never do such a thing. However, I would like to make a suggestion for a presentation: What is the story of your conversion? What was the actual evidence that convinced you that creation science was the real thing? Was it just the "evidences" or were other things happening in your life at the time? I would think that your audience would like to hear it in your public presentations and it should make a good addition to your web site. >>I honestly thought for a while we had an exchange going, << Well, I was trying to get one going, but it does take two. I'm telling you the following in order for us to assess what had happened so that we can try to avoid the same mistakes. A lot of what I've written on the "Morgan Pages" [starting at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html] was my honest assessment of what had happened in our correspondence and the patterns of behavior that I observed. Many of the "responses" that you sent had absolutely nothing to do with the messages that it was "responding" to. Again and again, you would try to change the subject with one of your "unanswerable" questions. My response to those would be to tell you what you were trying to do, to answer your "unanswerable" question, and to try to bring the discussion back on track (ie, to try to keep you from succeeding in changing the subject). I was trying to keep the exchange going, while you were trying to derail it. You can see many examples of this starting from my "BILL MORGAN'S "UNANSWERABLE" QUESTIONS" page [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html]. Another problem I encountered would be where I would answer a question of yours, to which you would claim that I had not answered your question and would ask it again. Since I had answered your question, I could not understand what your problem with it was, I would request clarification on that point, which you consistently ignored. For example, do you remember your question, "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?"? The complete story is at my page, "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?" [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_teach_kids.html]. Basically what happened: 1. You asked your question. 2. I answered it fully. Liber8r even broke out of his listener mode to commend me on my answer. 3. You ignored my answer and simply repeated the question. 4. I reminded you that I had already answered it (I didn't want to waste bandwidth by resending it) and asked why you believed that I had not answered it. 5. You simply repeated the question. No explanation. 6. I reminded you yet again that I had answered your question and asked yet again why you believed that I had not answered it. 7. Yet again you simply repeated the question. Yet again no explanation. 8. My temper flared at your reprehensible behavior and, in stronger language than usual, I reminded you yet again that I had answered your question, asked yet again why you believed that I had not answered it, and described to you why your behavior was reprehensible and what its effects were. 9. You quickly mumbled a weak excuse and then turned tail and ran. OK, Bill, there you have an overview of that exchange. I answered your question fully and, when you repeatedly claimed that I had not done so, I reminded you that I had and specifically requested some kind of explanation of why you thought that I hadn't. I was working to further the exchange, whereas you were working to stall it. To me, it looked exactly like you were playing a childish game with me, which I refuse to tolerate and which is why my temper flared. I most certainly hope that in future exchanges you finally choose to act in good faith. >> ... but I am so busy with work, school, family, seminars, Bible studies, sports etc my lessons (would you like a free tape of my lesson)creation newsletter, getting creation speakers, ...<< Wait a moment while I get out the world's smallest violin ... Bill, I work six days a week (60 hours), and now seven days a week for two weeks a month (68 hours). Out of a 168-hour week, that leaves 100 hours for the rest of my life. I sleep about six hours a night, leaving me 58 hours. I need an hour a day to get ready for work, take about 40 minutes to commute to and from work, and about 30 minutes to secure for bed; that leaves me 43 hours. On drill weekends, the commutes are longer (4 hours to and from San Diego and 90 minutes to and from RESCEN Los Angeles), but we would be needing to do a monthly account in order to factor in that lost time. I'm taking two programming classes now, taking 9 hours a week for class time and needing about the same number of hours per week for reading and homework (by conservative estimate); leaving me 25 hours now. The family has taken over my desk, so the dinner table is the only workspace I have at home; about one to two hours a day are lost there, during which time I check the mail and try to get in some reading. So where are we at? Out of a 168-hour week, I've accounted for about 160 hours. So that leaves me, what?, about 10 hours a week for myself to do my writing and personal studies? Oh yeah, and to try to just relax a bit now and again. If I can still think, reflect, and write with that kind of a schedule, Bill, then why can't you? >> (would you like a free tape of my lesson) << Do you have a transcript or script of it that you can email me? I have no opportunity nor privacy to view/listen to it at home and no facilities elsewhere. I really could not use a taped version. As I recall, you kept offering to present it to me on-line, but never would deliver on that promise. >> I got tired of what seemed to be leading to a dead end. << Bill, you know full well that any dead end was of your own making. If you have a different perspective that agrees with the facts, then please present it. >>I realize this may have surprised you or you may have seen it as a concession, but I just dont have the time to bang out a ten minute e mail every night.<< No, I did not view it as a concession. I viewed it as your having turned tail and run. Not so much a retreat as a full rout. Besides, nobody was asking you to "bang out a ten minute e mail every night." First, there were usually days of delay between messages. Second, some of those questions should have been quick and easy to answer. Third, you don't need to do it all in one sitting. Fourth, if you had already written something that would provide an answer, then just use that. Fifth, if you still don't know what tools are available to you, such as the Clipboard, just ask. Why, there's an example of a really simple question that you absolutely refused to answer and even got nasty about. The simple question of whether you knew what the Clipboard was and how to use it. Your earlier comments had indicated to me that you might not have known about that tool or how to use it (ie, your complaints about having to re-type everything to be able to provide context for your responses and your comment about my having worn out my keyboard when I passed on to you NOAA's answers to every one of your ozone-layer "unanswerable" questions that had stumped the "experts", ie air-conditioning-system salesmen -- see http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html), so that is why I . probably >>So thats why I requested a phone call instead the typing marathon.<< No marathon was ever necessary. Just do bits and pieces in spare moments. That's what I kept trying to tell you. And if you simply deal with the questions, then you should also be able to eliminate a lot of the email from people having to repeat their questions and having to repeatedly tell you that they already answered your questions. ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 17-Jul-00 12:54:24 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Hey do you know of any good web sources on the peppered moth fraud?<< I do not understand your question. I would have to hear what you believe the "peppered moth fraud" to be. Please tell me. ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 14-Jul-00 23:04:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I think you may be my biggest fan! :) Your documentation is excellent. Lets stay in touch. I guarentee we not be mean to you if you come to our meeting. As the vice president (like Al Gore) I have the authority to ensure your safety at our meetings. Your vice prez, Bill Hey do you know of any good web sources on the peppered moth fraud? Thanks >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: My CSAOC Page >Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:54:03 EDT > > >>I have added you to our newsletter!<< > >Thank you. > > >>I have included my e mail address in several newsletters. >Will you retract your claim I am hiding from the public?<< > >I had noticed your address in the last few issues. >I already have it on my to-do list to update that stale information. > >Those pages are not exactly new. In 1998 I wrote most of those pages >and uploaded them to my FTP space, which promptly overfilled. So I had to >take them >down and I worked on them now and again until I could get an additional >screen-name >and its associated additional FTP space. >But for the past year, I've been way too busy to organize them and upload >them. >Then I had some free time around the 4th, so I just buckled down and got >the main >body of work done over the long weekend. > >I still have some more pages to write and existing pages to polish up. >Updating the stale information about your 1998 disappearance is towards the >top of the list, >right along with adding the META tags for search engines. > > >>... your claim I am hiding from the public<< >I'm sorry you got that impression. As I recall, I was trying to say that I >personally >did not know of your new email address being distributed, but apparently >that is not how it came out. >You could have very well >been handing lyour address out at every lecture, CSAOC meeting, and street >proselytizing for all I knew. >However, there are still a few facts that we must be true to: > >1. Before Aug 1998 you posted your AOL email address in the newsletter >frequently and >had spammed it across several newsgroups. >2. Sometime between 98 Aug 20 and 98 Sep 04 you closed your AOL account, >rendering that >widely-known address inoperative. You did not notify me nor Liber8r of >your planned departure. >3. For well over a year afterwards, you did not publish your new email >address in the newsletter. >4. Around 98 Jul 18, your web-site was up. Even though you were still in >communication with me >at that time, you did not notify me of it; all you did was mention that you >were working on one, >then ignore my offers to help. >5. Around Nov 1998 I found your web-site. For a while, there was some flux >and confusion >with the email addresses posted there, as I have already documented on a >couple of my web pages. >6. I tried to email you using the addresses provided. Of course, I knew >that your old address >was defunct; AOL informed me that the screen name no longer existed. >One address was a new screen-name on AOL, which AOL confirmed to exist; >email sent to >that address was never answered. I also sent email to your hotmail >address. If I sent >it from DWise1, I never received a response, but if I sent it from another >address, then >I did receive a response. I also posted two messages on your website via >the guestbook; again, nada. >7. Sometime within the past year, the email addresses on your site finally >got cleaned up. >Then, what seems just a few months ago, a single new address was posted, >billyjack321@hotmail.com, >apparently to separate site-generated email from your billyjack1 traffic. >8. The first publication of your billyjack1 email address in the newsletter >occured less than >a year ago, around Feb 2000 as I recall. Then the first newsletter >publication of your >web-site URL was just last month, even though the site had been up for a >full two years. > >OK, Bill. If you feel I do not have my facts straight here, please let me >know by giving me >the corrections. For example, if the date on the website is wrong (I got >it from the guestbook >results page), then tell me when it really was. If you have published your >site URL in earlier >newsletters, then please tell me around which month and year that was. >Likewise, if you >have been posting your email address in the newsletter since before Feb >2000, then please tell >me around which month and year that was. > >Remember, if you do not provide me with the correct information, then I >have to go with the >information that I have. We do want the facts to be presented, don't we? > > > >>Please come to one of our meetings! I will let you debate me at one >someday!<< >But, Bill, we have already agreed to a public debate, on-line. Remember? >Just before you disappeared. >How is your presentation coming along? Shall we post it on your site, on >mine, or open a third? >Then, of course, we would both post links to it from our respective sites. > >I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill >schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). > > >>I honestly value polite talks with people who disagree with me.<< >I'm glad to hear that you've developed that in the past two years. Perhaps >we can finally get one going. > > >>I hate typing long letters though.<< >Long is not necessary, but intelligible absolutely is. The entire idea >behind communication is communicating, the conveyance of information. If >one's messages are unintelligible, then communication cannot occur. Plus, >if it is a matter of copying part of another message, then typing is not >involved, but rather the Clipboard. > >Yet another benefit is that you can build up material that you can use >elsewhere. Saves you typing later on, eh? > > >>A hone chat or a dinner at Denny's is much more appealing to me than >massive typing.<< >I'll assume that you meant "phone chat". > >Sorry, Bill, but both are still impossibilities. I do not have time during >the day and I do not have time during the evening. I do not have access to >a phone for private personal conversations, especially not for subjects >that are not on the Spanish Inquisition's approved list. Besides which I >do not like to call somebody on the phone, especially when a close personal >or professional relationship has not been established. It's apparently a >socialization thing, from my days in the Trenchcoat Mafia (though we didn't >call it that then, nor did we organize into cells any larger than one >person). > >Dinner is also out. Besides the Spanish Inquisition, note-taking would be >greatly hampered by the cluttered table (not to mention food and drink >stains). But an even bigger minus is that I have some loss of hearing, so >that it is very difficult for me to hear the person I'm conversing with >when there is a lot of background noise, like in a restaurant. > >No, email is still by far the very best way for us to converse. It's both >convenient and accurate. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 17-Jul-00 18:23:02 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 In a message dated 14-Jul-00 23:04:05 Pacific Daylight Time, billyjack1@hotmail.com writes: > I think you may be my biggest fan! :) Your documentation is excellent. > So when can I expect to see my "Morgan Pages" on your site's links page? After all, I have provided links to yours. ########################################## ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 17-Jul-00 22:06:17 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Thanks! >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: My CSAOC Page >Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 10:37:57 EDT > >The earliest I show for you to have published your billyjack1@hotmail.com >email address in the CSAOC newsletter is the one for the September 1999 >meeting (I date the newsletters by the month and year of the meeting that >they announce). > >If you have conflicting information, please let me know so that I can post >the correct facts on my pages. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 17-Jul-00 22:15:37 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com First, I do appreciate your zeal and energy in defending what you believe to be true. I will gladly answer, or try to answer all of your questions, but again lets do it by phone or over dinner. If you don't want to talk about it or meet, I just don't have the drive to type type type. I would benefit from talking to you, and would love to. Call me collect at 714 898-8331 anytime. I would enjoy very much talking to you. But put all the blame on me, call me a defective person, but typing out long answers is like fingernails on a chalkboard......it is a flaw in me I admit, even my fellow beloved Christians get short answers from me, with my phone number asking them to call me. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:50:10 EDT > >Sorry if this is a repeat. AOL reported having a problem with the page, so >I had no way of knowing whether it got sent. > > > >>Nothing here I am saying is sarcastic or snide. Please trust me on >that.<< > >Likewise with mine. > > >>i get 50-75 emails aday.<< > >Out of curiosity, what percentage is fan mail and what percentage >challenges your claims? Of the challenges, how do they go? Remember that >part of the reason for my "Morgan Pages" is to share my experiences with >others so that they could share theirs with me. > > > >>Lets be honest...is there any way you would ever become a born again >christian. If the proper evidence were brought to your attention would >you? > >I would renounce my world view given the proper evidence. I mean that.<< > >Then you don't even know what our exchange was about. Sure, I knew full >well that you were only intent on converting me, but I wasn't trying to >convert you. I was trying to make you aware that there are problems with >your chosen tool, creation science, that those problems can have dire >consequences for those who believe it, and to convince you that you must be >very sure of your material's veracity. From reading your stuff, it is very >apparent to me that you have never done so. One of my reasons for creating >my "Morgan Pages" is to supply the world with the other side of the story >you work so hard to spread. > >Besides, isn't an exchange supposed to be about exchanging information, >perspectives, and ideas? It isn't supposed to be solely about trying to >convert the other person. I was trying to exchange while you kept trying >to go for the kill. And also, isn't an exchange supposed to be two-way? I >would hope that our next exchange will be and not just one-way like before. > >But why should I become a "born again christian" when I've already been >saved? And why are you so obsessed with that? Do you get Brownie points >for a high body count? We're not just bodies out here, you know; we're >people. I fell into that same trap in genealogy; I soon found that I was >just collecting an ancestral body count. It's an ugly, terrible feeling >when you suddenly realize what you had been doing. > >I already know too much for it to be easy to become "born again." The >first time was bad enough. Seriously. I was a conscientious objecter. I >had dropped down into position right on schedule, but then about a week >before I was due, I turned around and wouldn't budge. Two weeks past due, >I still wasn't about to move. They finally had to take me out by force. >Being born a second time doesn't promise to be any easier. > >Of course, if presented with incontrovertible evidence that cannot possibly >indicate anything else, I would have to accept what that evidence shows. >But I don't think you realize what that evidence would have to entail. It >couldn't just show that some scientific ideas are wrong, because that >wouldn't preclude other scientific ideas from being right (or at least less >wrong); besides, I already know that. It couldn't just show that a >supernaturalistic explanation is needed, because we still wouldn't know >WHAT supernaturalistic explanation it would be. Even if you could prove >the existence of JHWH, you would still need to prove that YOUR PARTICULAR >explanation of JHWH is the RIGHT ONE and all others are wrong. You would >also need to prove human infallibility, something which I have a very hard >time believing. > >Does that give you some idea of the task you are setting for yourself? You >would also have to prove to me that creation science is correct, something >which I know full well is not the case. Like I said, I know too much; your >usual tricks will not work on me. > > >> i have been talking to many many evolutionists, and my faith is >stronger. But >I am open to your science evidence, I do not enjoy the insults.<< > >If you do not enjoy insults, then you should not invite them. What I mean >by that is, if you engage in a discussion or exchange, then don't jerk the >other guy around and play games, especially if he is trying to make that >discussion work. > >Also, I am not surprised that your faith would be stronger, since those >"evolutionists" either did not know enough to challenge your beliefs or >they did. In the former case, they only served to reinforce your >preconceptions. In the latter case, I'm sure from personal experience that >you made sure not to pay any attention to what they told you. > >I was going to ask that you pass my email address and URL on to those >"evolutionists", but then realized that you would never do such a thing. >However, I would like to make a suggestion for a presentation: What is the >story of your conversion? What was the actual evidence that convinced you >that creation science was the real thing? Was it just the "evidences" or >were other things happening in your life at the time? I would think that >your audience would like to hear it in your public presentations and it >should make a good addition to your web site. > > >>I honestly thought for a while we had an exchange going, << > >Well, I was trying to get one going, but it does take two. I'm telling you >the following in order for us to assess what had happened so that we can >try to avoid the same mistakes. > >A lot of what I've written on the "Morgan Pages" [starting at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html] was my honest assessment of >what had happened in our correspondence and the patterns of behavior that I >observed. Many of the "responses" that you sent had absolutely nothing to >do with the messages that it was "responding" to. Again and again, you >would try to change the subject with one of your "unanswerable" questions. >My response to those would be to tell you what you were trying to do, to >answer your "unanswerable" question, and to try to bring the discussion >back on track (ie, to try to keep you from succeeding in changing the >subject). I was trying to keep the exchange going, while you were trying >to derail it. You can see many examples of this starting from my "BILL >MORGAN'S "UNANSWERABLE" QUESTIONS" page >[http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html]. > >Another problem I encountered would be where I would answer a question of >yours, to which you would claim that I had not answered your question and >would ask it again. Since I had answered your question, I could not >understand what your problem with it was, I would request clarification on >that point, which you consistently ignored. > > >For example, do you remember your question, "If God exists, should the kids >be taught about Him?"? The complete story is at my page, "BILL MORGAN'S >QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?" >[http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_teach_kids.html]. > >Basically what happened: >1. You asked your question. >2. I answered it fully. Liber8r even broke out of his listener mode to >commend me on my answer. >3. You ignored my answer and simply repeated the question. >4. I reminded you that I had already answered it (I didn't want to waste >bandwidth by resending it) and asked why you believed that I had not >answered it. >5. You simply repeated the question. No explanation. >6. I reminded you yet again that I had answered your question and asked yet >again why you believed that I had not answered it. >7. Yet again you simply repeated the question. Yet again no explanation. >8. My temper flared at your reprehensible behavior and, in stronger >language than usual, I reminded you yet again that I had answered your >question, asked yet again why you believed that I had not answered it, and >described to you why your behavior was reprehensible and what its effects >were. >9. You quickly mumbled a weak excuse and then turned tail and ran. > >OK, Bill, there you have an overview of that exchange. I answered your >question fully and, when you repeatedly claimed that I had not done so, I >reminded you that I had and specifically requested some kind of explanation >of why you thought that I hadn't. I was working to further the exchange, >whereas you were working to stall it. To me, it looked exactly like you >were playing a childish game with me, which I refuse to tolerate and which >is why my temper flared. > >I most certainly hope that in future exchanges you finally choose to act in >good faith. > > >> ... but I am so busy with work, school, family, seminars, Bible >studies, sports etc my lessons (would you like a free tape of my >lesson)creation newsletter, getting creation speakers, ...<< > >Wait a moment while I get out the world's smallest violin ... > >Bill, I work six days a week (60 hours), and now seven days a week for two >weeks a month (68 hours). Out of a 168-hour week, that leaves 100 hours >for the rest of my life. I sleep about six hours a night, leaving me 58 >hours. I need an hour a day to get ready for work, take about 40 minutes >to commute to and from work, and about 30 minutes to secure for bed; that >leaves me 43 hours. On drill weekends, the commutes are longer (4 hours to >and from San Diego and 90 minutes to and from RESCEN Los Angeles), but we >would be needing to do a monthly account in order to factor in that lost >time. I'm taking two programming classes now, taking 9 hours a week for >class time and needing about the same number of hours per week for reading >and homework (by conservative estimate); leaving me 25 hours now. The >family has taken over my desk, so the dinner table is the only workspace I >have at home; about one to two hours a day are lost there, during which >time I check the mail and try to ! >get in some reading. > >So where are we at? Out of a 168-hour week, I've accounted for about 160 >hours. So that leaves me, what?, about 10 hours a week for myself to do my >writing and personal studies? Oh yeah, and to try to just relax a bit now >and again. If I can still think, reflect, and write with that kind of a >schedule, Bill, then why can't you? > > >> (would you like a free tape of my lesson) << >Do you have a transcript or script of it that you can email me? I have no >opportunity nor privacy to view/listen to it at home and no facilities >elsewhere. I really could not use a taped version. > >As I recall, you kept offering to present it to me on-line, but never would >deliver on that promise. > > > >> I got tired of what seemed to be leading to a dead end. << >Bill, you know full well that any dead end was of your own making. If you >have a different perspective that agrees with the facts, then please >present it. > > > >>I realize this may have surprised you or you may have seen it as a >concession, but I just dont have the time to bang out a ten minute e mail >every night.<< > >No, I did not view it as a concession. I viewed it as your having turned >tail and run. Not so much a retreat as a full rout. > >Besides, nobody was asking you to "bang out a ten minute e mail every >night." First, there were usually days of delay between messages. Second, >some of those questions should have been quick and easy to answer. Third, >you don't need to do it all in one sitting. Fourth, if you had already >written something that would provide an answer, then just use that. Fifth, >if you still don't know what tools are available to you, such as the >Clipboard, just ask. > >Why, there's an example of a really simple question that you absolutely >refused to answer and even got nasty about. The simple question of whether >you knew what the Clipboard was and how to use it. Your earlier comments >had indicated to me that you might not have known about that tool or how to >use it (ie, your complaints about having to re-type everything to be able >to provide context for your responses and your comment about my having worn >out my keyboard when I passed on to you NOAA's answers to every one of your >ozone-layer "unanswerable" questions that had stumped the "experts", ie >air-conditioning-system salesmen -- see >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html), so that is why I . >probably > > >>So thats why I requested a phone call instead the typing marathon.<< >No marathon was ever necessary. Just do bits and pieces in spare moments. >That's what I kept trying to tell you. > >And if you simply deal with the questions, then you should also be able to >eliminate a lot of the email from people having to repeat their questions >and having to repeatedly tell you that they already answered your >questions. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 17-Jul-00 22:18:01 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Next Month's Meeting: DINOSAURS! Who: Dr. Mace Baker When: Saturday August 12, 2000@ 7 PM Where: Santa Ana Calvary Church, 1010 N Tustin, Samsvick Chapel (look for the Big White Steeple) Room S7. (Park in the North Parking Lot off of Wellington Street) Dr. Mace Baker is a dinosaur expert. He has written two books, "Dinosaurs," and "The Real History of Dinosaurs." You can find out more information on these books at www.dinobooks.com. He is a former math and science teacher in public schools (20 years). He has been studying and teaching on dinosaurs for over twenty years. Dr. Baker's talk will be entitled "The Dinosaurs of Creation." He will teach the history of dinosaurs from Creation, as referenced in the first chapters of Genesis, to the present. It shows how they fit into earth's history in a way that is compatible with both Scripture and science. I (Bill Morgan) have personally met Christians who were relieved to learn that dinosaurs are compatible with the Bible. This lesson is important for you to encourage others! Don't miss this opportunity! The lesson is free and we encourage you to bring young people and your skeptical friends. I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is that he fears "an Inquisition." I think he is scared of truth, not an Inquisition. September 9th Meeting: Dr. Robert Cole, who possesses a Ph.D. from UCLA in Hebrew, and other ancient languages, will give a lesson on answering the toughest questions in Genesis! Another Evolution Fraud! People are evolutionists for many reasons, here are two reasons (there are many more but space is limited). One reason is, even though they know there is no evidence for bacteria to blue whale evolution, they emotionally want it to be true. Pride, desire to sin without guilt and anti-God bias are some of these motivations. A second reason for people believing in the Theory of Evolution is they do not know any better, and they trust the "experts." When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he deceive me? To this day I remember the two points that converted me to Evolutionism. One was the Curious George to George Washington cartoon chart (the infamous ascent of man chart). I thought he would never show me that unless there was an abundance of evidence (of course I was dead wrong). The second was the Peppered Moth Story – a story taught to millions of students. The story: Peppered moths (Biston betularia) exist in England in light and dark forms. H.B. Kettlewell claimed to have performed studies in England on these moths. When England had low pollution, many trees were light colored. When the Industrial Revolution hit, the trees' light-colored lichen died and became darker. Kettlewell taught that during the low pollution time (light trees) there were more light moths, and during the polluted times there were more dark moths. The reason for this phenomenon, Kettlewell taught, as have thousands of Biology teachers since then, was that the moths frequently landed on the tree trunks, and if they were not the same color as the trunk, they were easily seen and then eaten by birds more often, thus lowering their population. Kettlewell said that if Darwin had seen this: "He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life's work." (Kettlewell (1959) 'Darwin's Missing Evidence' in Evol. and the Fossil Record, readings from Scientific American, 1978, p 23) But it is a fraud! Peppered Moths do not rest on tree trunks during the day! Dead moths were glued to trees and then photographed! (Journal of Animal Ecology, 44:67-83, 1975). Biologist Theodore Sargent from the Univ. of Massachusetts helped glue them on. He said textbooks and films have "a lot of fraudulent photographs." (Washington Times, 17 Jan 1999 p. D8.). British scientist Cyril Clarke studied these moths for 25 years, and has seen only one on a tree trunk during the day! They fly at night, and hide very well, never landing on tree trunks (Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189-199, 1985). Univ. of Chicago Evolutionary Biologist, Jerry Coyne stated the Peppered Moth story, was "the prize horse in our stable," but has to be thrown out. Dr. Coyne said this realization gave him the same feeling he had when he found out that Santa Claus was not real (Nature 396:35-36, 5 Nov 1998). Boo hoo! In addition, Kettlewell's study was flawed. He either tested in a laboratory setting, or he dumped many moths in the woods in the morning then retrieved them at night. He then counted those released versus those caught. Many errors result here. First, the samples were too small. Secondly, these moths only fly during the night; releasing them during daylight, in unfamiliar territory made them all "sitting ducks" to the birds. Many other studies on Peppered Moths in their natural environment did not repeat Kettlewell's results; how many Biology teachers know or teach that? See www.arn.org/wells/jwhome.htm for more info. Guess what happens when a science teacher tells his class that Evolutionists admit the Peppered Moth example was a fraud? Roger DeHart did so in his Biology class in Seattle. The ACLU stepped in and threatened a lawsuit that he was teaching Creation (students testified he did not). The principal responded in classic Government management style (I work for the Govt.). The principal did not do what is right, but what would keep him out of trouble – he ordered Mr. DeHart to stop teaching about the Peppered Moths being fraudulent (World Magazine, p. 23, 24 June 2000). This kind of garbage is why you should consider street witnessing. How else will the youth ever hear a Creation point of view? Or have your church call me 714 898-8331 for a free lesson. Never expect the schools to teach Creation, or even criticize Evolution! Imagine the dilemma for the Evolutionist! Dr. Coyne probably defended the Theory of Evolution for years using the Peppered Moths; many Evolutionists who still do. When Dr. Coyne found out his "prize horse" was a lie, did he objectively test the rest of his "evidence?" Or is his mind already made up, that the Theory of Evolution is true, regardless of the evidence? I am convinced many Evolutionists are convinced their conclusion is right, despite the evidence. Dr. Coyne will just choose something else as his newest "prize horse." However, millions of high school and college students are not close minded to the facts and evidence…lets reach them! Closing point: Natural selection is a fact! Don't be afraid of it. But natural selection only rewards or punishes traits in a population, it does not create a new animal. Even if the moth example was true, it only shows a trait (color) being rewarded, no new animal appeared. You started with moths and you ended up with moths. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: My CSAOC Page >Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:54:23 EDT > > >>Hey do you know of any good web sources on the peppered moth fraud?<< > >I do not understand your question. I would have to hear what you believe >the "peppered moth fraud" to be. Please tell me. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 17-Jul-00 22:18:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Tellme more about the Morgan pages.....do they make me look bad? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1@aol.com >Subject: Re: My CSAOC Page >Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 21:23:02 EDT > >In a message dated 14-Jul-00 23:04:05 Pacific Daylight Time, >billyjack1@hotmail.com writes: > > > I think you may be my biggest fan! :) Your documentation is excellent. > > >So when can I expect to see my "Morgan Pages" on your site's links page? >After all, I have provided links to yours. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ########################################## Subj: Re: My CSAOC Page Date: 18-Jul-00 17:38:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Tellme more about the Morgan pages.....do they make me look bad?<< They just tell the truth. If the truth makes you look bad, ... You can see for yourself. You've been there: http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/index.html . ########################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 18-Jul-00 17:51:48 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won’t come to our meetings is that he fears “an Inquisition.”<< Bill, I said no such thing and you know it. My mention of the "SPANISH Inquisition" refers to my WIFE, who is MEXICAN. As I told you when I made the first such mention. I do not fear my possible treatment at the meetings, but I also need to maintain domestic tranquility. Please get it right. >>I think he is scared of truth, not an Inquisition.<< Then why was it that while I was constantly trying to get us to examine the truth, you were constantly running away from it? Be honest, Bill, which of us has proven himself to be afraid of the truth? << ########################################## Re: Brad Sparks Date: 20-Jul-00 18:15:58 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I will gladly answer, or try to answer all of your questions, but again lets do it by phone or over dinner.<< You already know that by phone or over dinner is impossible for me. I do not have private access to a phone at home, I do not have private access to a phone at home, and I would not be able to hear you clearly in a restaurant. It is simply impossible, as you already know full well. What part of "impossible" don't you understand? The only viable option that is open to us is email. Sorry, but that is just the way it is. >>If you don't want to talk about it or meet, I just don't have the drive to type type type.<< Yes, I do want to talk about it! But you keep dodging and weaseling out of it! Honestly, if you had taken all that energy you've wasted whining about not liking to type and put it to constructive use, you'd have gotten a lot of typing done. The way that you keep carrying on makes it look to me like you still have no idea of the tools at your disposal and what they can do for you. Like the Clipboard. Like working off-line. Like being able to save everything that you type for recycling? Like building up a set of responses to likely questions. Again, Bill, if you do not know about these things, just ask for help [NOTE: despite repeated questions of whether you do know about these things, you have NEVER EVER answered yea or nay]. Besides, you're going to have to type it out anyway for our on-line debate. Right? Well, then, you may as well get started now. Subj: Desperately Seeking Brad Sparks Date: 20-Jul-00 18:17:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 Bill, an idea hit me while getting ready this morning, which might help you find Brad Sparks. Post a "want ad". Or, more specifically, post messages in a few newsgroups saying that you need to contact him and could anybody who knows Brad either tell you where/how to contact him, or [better] to tell him that you are trying to contact him and give him your email address/phone number. Through DejaNews.com Power Search [http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml], I searched for "Brad Sparks" and found several newsgroups with messages containing those words. I concentrated on the most likely ones and found the following: alt.alien.research alt.alien.visitors alt.paranet.ufo alt.ufo.reports alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel That last one contained a possible contact for you to try. Here is the message: >> Forum: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel >> Thread: Hank Hanegraaff - Fraud >> Message 206 of 486 Subject: Re: Hank Hanegraaff - Fraud Date: 08/05/1999 Author: Doug Ranger57 wrote: > You get about as much justice as you can afford. Funny as to how you > are so solicitous of Brad Sparks, and so hostile toward me. Different > weights and measures.... I've heard Brad Sparks speak exactly once at a Newport Mesa Christian Center class when Hanegraaff was absent. (Just as a thought, if Sparks is really the loose cannon that Hanegraaff now claims he always was, why did Hanegraaff unlease Sparks on the class? Was the class of so little consequence that he'd send a person he claims is mental to instruct the class?) Also, I've spoken with Brad once or twice on the telephone. I don't really know him at all, but I do sympathize with his wrongful termination claims. Still, from a Biblical perspective, he could have just walked away from it. He would have been better off personally for doing so. Hanegraaff just used it as a rallying around the flag opportunity to get the troops behind him. Sparks ended up being consumed and ultimately frustrated with it all. I guess I can't see the comparison you are making. Could you explain it better for me and if I need to correct some hypocracy in my life perhaps God will grant me the chance to repent of that. Perhaps the answer lies in this: Brad is a Christian and a brother in Christ. You are neither. --------------- Bill, you might email Doug [jacobarm@pacbell.net] and see if he has Brad's current number. Failing that, you could post the "want ad" in the newsgroups listed above and perhaps in a few that you can think of. In the meantime, go to some search-engine sites and do a search on "Brad Sparks", looking for any pages by him or that might contain a link to his email address. I usually use DogPile.com [http://www.dogpile.com], which translates your search string for about a dozen other search engines. Good luck in your hunt. Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 20-Jul-00 18:18:06 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 First, I do hope that you have corrected your mistake concerning the "Spanish Inquisition". Second, I corrected my "Morgan Pages" in the matter of when you started posting your email address and FTP'd them up yesterday. Please let me know if I missed one. Third, your web site is down. I keep getting a 403 message, "Access Not Authorized". Are you aware of this problem? Could you please let me know when it gets corrected? And if it ends up that you need to change your URL, could you please pass it on to me so that I can update my own pages? Fourth, I would like to comment on this paragraph in the newsletter: "When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he deceive me?" You always seemed to have a problem in identifying experts, though the attitude that you express here is in keeping with a 14-year-old's perspective. I am not criticizing the use of that perspective here, since it is appropriate for what you were trying to communicate. There are definite problems with science education, especially in the secondary schools. I think that this would be a good subject to discuss. Of course, my solution would be to try to improve the quality of science education whereas your "solution" would be to destroy it further. I discussed this issue in my 1998-Sep-04 email to you, which never got delivered because you had disappeared suddenly. At least, I couldn't deliver it until now: [from 1998 Sep 04] Sorry for my absense of late. Besides being away for my two weeks of active duty, I have been very busy with work and with the events unfolding due to the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, having decided to attack our church [visit http://www.uua.org for details]. Bill, in your last newsletter, you wrote: "Some bones, claimed to be from Neandertal Man, were claimed to be non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn't taught, is that the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human range. And if it were Neandertal Man's remains, how was its DNA preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few thousand years!" [Liber8r, there were a lot more statements made, but I didn't feel like typing them all in. Has Bill started emailing you a copy of the newsletter as he had planned? He has not emailed it to me.] Could you please cite your source(s) for this statement? Until I can read what the scientific source(s) say, I cannot make sense of your statement. As for your questions about the survival of the DNA, refer to the subject of Miocene "green fossils" (I'll have to dig the article out on my files), from which proteins were extracted and sequenced and a pattern of biochemical differences was discovered across morphologically identical specimens. Again, the primary source of your statement (ie, the scientific source, not a creationist claim supposedly based on an unnamed scientific source) should describe how the mitochondrial samples were obtained. While there is disagreement among scientists on exactly how Neanderthal Man is related to our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, most scientists do consider him to be very closely related to us, some even placing him as a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, I believe. Precisely how are you using the terms, "human" and "non-human", here? Are you being consistent in your usage of those terms (ie, not engaging in standard creationist semantic shifting)? Are you using it to refer strictly to Homo sapiens sapiens, or a bit more loosely to include all possible sub-species, such as Homo sapiens neanderthalis? So what is your point, Bill? You seem to have proceeded from the premise that all scientists have been involved in some grandiose conspiracy to misrepresent what Neanderthal Man is. However, except for most of the interpretations that you threw in, all that information about Neanderthal has been freely available to anyone who has bothered to look it up. Like NOAA's answers to your questions about ozone-layer depletion. What it looks like is that yet again you had had a totally mistaken idea of what science says and, upon discovering that you were mistaken, you mistakenly interpreted that as debunking science. Just like your "discovery" that C-14 has too short a half-life to be used in dating anything older than about 50,000 years. Having your misunderstanding of science corrected does not disprove science, it only means that you didn't understand the science in the first place! "According to evolutionsts, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time as Homo Sapiens." Yes, that is correct. So, what is your point? Do you have a point, or are you trying to rely on innuendo again? "Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution." What kind of evidence are you saying that it has been taught as? There is lots of different evidence for evolution, each piece of evidence pertaining to a different part of the overall view. What specifically are you saying that Neanderthal was being presented as evidence of? One thought on this. The ICR decries the lack of a "missing link" between man and apes. They proclaim that Neanderthal was "100% human" and that Homo erectus was "100% ape, nothing human about it!". Yet there are several fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those "missing links" to contend with. But back to the question of what school children are being taught. We have touched on the problem of the quality of science education before. IS what is being taught in school as science current scientific thought? Is it accurate? Is it understood by the students? Is it even understood by the teachers? First, the science curriculum is not current. For various reasons, usually several years will pass before a new discovery or theory finds its way into the text books. As Frank Steiger pointed out, trying to keep science text books current would require them to be revised several times a year to include all the latest views and information. Our school district gets new books only about once every seven years. Rather, current scientific thought is to be found in the professional scientific journals. How often are professional scientific journals used in junior high and high school science classes? I cannot say that I've heard of it. Second, there are definite problems in the accuracy of the science curriculum in the elementary and secondary schools, particularly in the textbooks. When California was preparing to buy new science textbooks in the mid-to-late 80's, a group of scientists volunteered to review the textbooks under consideration. They found none of the books to be acceptable; all contained numerous inaccuracies, misconceptions, and just plain wrong information. For one thing, none of the authors were scientists. Also, in order to appease fundamentalist activists and board members, the publishers had their authors equivocate on, and even leave out, certain "controversial" subjects, like evolution. The scientists had to reject most of the books and drew up a long list of corrections that had to be made in the best of the candidates before they could even approach being adequate. As soon as the publisher had implemented a few of the corrections, the State Board met in secret and went behind the scientists' backs to approve the still-very-flawed textbook. Third, besides working from inaccurate material, many teachers are themselves not sufficiently trained in science. In most school districts, they find practically anyone they can to teach a subject, even if that teacher has little training in the subject. Two years ago, my younger son's 6th grade science teacher's experience was in teaching home-ec; our son knew more about the subject matter than she did and the other students kept turning to him for explanations. I don't know what his older brother's 9th grade science teacher's training was, but that guy was horrible; he was apparently a low-profile creationist who left out certain topics and hinted at the existence of "scientific evidence" against other topics, his idea of educational materials included the movies "The Lion King" and "Free Willy", and he also had a local fundamentalist activist speak to the class a number of times. Why, one local high school even had a PE teacher teaching biology, of all things, even though he had the absolute minimum biology training required for his PE degree! You may have heard something about that one. One thing that I have noticed about the misconceptions expressed by creationists about science in general and evolution in particular, is that they are very similar to the misconceptions held by much of the general public about science in general and evolution in particular. That might be a large part of the reason for most people's willingness to accept the claims of creation science. They are confused by what the scientists tell them, but they understand it when the creationists tell them what they already "know." When a teacher teaches science without knowing the subject matter, then he/she must depend on the textbook, which we already know to be woefully inadequate and inaccurate. Beyond that, they will rely on their personal "knowledge", such that they end up propogating their own misconceptions and misunderstandings to the next generation. Which brings us to the question of how much the students understand science. Considering the textbooks and teachers that most of them have to learn from, I wouldn't think that they would have much chance. "I was taught [that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution] in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist!" Uh, Bill, now you're changing your story. In AOLCREAT.DOC, you wrote that you did not really believe it, but rather that you wanted to believe the [mistaken] conclusion that it made you free to indulge in all kinds of debauchery, "to sin without guilt." It was not the ideas of evolution that you had embraced, but rather false Christian conclusions about evolution and science. You claim to have become an atheist, but your own words speak differently: "But I honestly know that you know God exists but choose not to honor acknowldge or give thanks to God. Romans 1 says that and that was my case when I was an atheist, I prayed many times while an atheist." Bill, an atheist is one who does not believe in the gods. From what you describe of yourself, you were never an atheist, but rather had always remained a theist, even when you were trying to pretend to be an atheist. An atheist realizes that he does not need any gods upon whom to base his beliefs and that he must accept responsibility for his own actions. Your entire masquerade as an "atheist" was nothing but a theist's attempt to escape responsibility for his actions. Face it, Bill, except for your earliest infancy, you never were an atheist. "We have a free lesson for your youth so they may defend their faith in junior high, high school and college. Call 714 898-8331 and ask for more information (adults need this lesson too)." Could you please share some of that free lesson with us? You had freely offered to present your lesson to me before, which offer I accepted, but which you never did deliver on. "Mr. 100%". If you protest that none of it is written in electronic form, then it is high time that you do commit it to disk, since I would think that, since you appear to think so highly of your work, you would want to make it widely available on your web page. Also, could you please tell us what measures you have taken to ensure the scientific accuracy of this lesson with which you expect the youth to "defend their faith." Especially considering that you are well aware of how creation science's contrary-to-fact teachings about geology and the age of the earth has destroyed or nearly destroyed the faith of staunch creationists when faced with the truth. What have you done to ensure that your free lesson will indeed perform as advertised? That it will indeed defend their faith and not sow the seeds of its destruction? BTW, how is the work going on your web page? When should we expect to see it put up? And how are you doing on your opening statement for our on-line debate? ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 22-Jul-00 23:11:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I think any objective analysis would render that the whiner is not me. Please reread your latest e mail. I know what clipboard and pasting is...but it is still TYPING....what part of typing don't you understand. If you think I am choosing a restaurant with a heeavy metal band playing while we chat you are mistaken. Every restaurant I have been too since I got old and married has been nice and quiet. It is too bad, for the both of us, but we won't have a mega type me type you debate. I want to meet in person, or over the phone..... I could tell you about others who will debate you on line. Want to meet them? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:15:58 EDT > > >>I will gladly answer, or try to answer all of your questions, but again >lets do it by phone or over dinner.<< > >You already know that by phone or over dinner is impossible for me. I do >not have private access to a phone at home, I do not have private access to >a phone at home, and I would not be able to hear you clearly in a >restaurant. It is simply impossible, as you already know full well. What >part of "impossible" don't you understand? > >The only viable option that is open to us is email. Sorry, but that is >just the way it is. > > >>If you don't want to talk about it or meet, I just don't have the drive >to type type type.<< > >Yes, I do want to talk about it! But you keep dodging and weaseling out of >it! >Honestly, if you had taken all that energy you've wasted whining about not >liking to type and put it to constructive use, you'd have gotten a lot of >typing done. > >The way that you keep carrying on makes it look to me like you still have >no idea of the tools at your disposal and what they can do for you. >Like the Clipboard. Like working off-line. >Like being able to save everything that you type for recycling? >Like building up a set of responses to likely questions. >Again, Bill, if you do not know about these things, just ask for help >[NOTE: despite repeated questions of whether you do know about these >things, you have NEVER EVER answered yea or nay]. > >Besides, you're going to have to type it out anyway for our on-line debate. > Right? >Well, then, you may as well get started now. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.1]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:11:44 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f100.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.100]) by rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:11:24 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:11:24 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Brad Sparks Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:11:24 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F100JfkKheb814MYMTI00001f30@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2000 06:11:24.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4151520:01BFF46C] Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 22-Jul-00 23:29:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Oh, D Wise, you remind me of a commercial I saw when I was about 10 (that would be in 1970). This hapless looking fellow is hitchhiking in the middle of a terrible snow strom, shivering away and holding a sign that says "Miami." Up pulls a Corvette, the door opens and inside is a very pretty girl who says, I am only going as far as Ft Lauderdale.....he shrugs, and says "no thanks." He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud. Also, I have never hid the fact I was eager to sin and happy to stop trusting the Bible. At 14 this happened when Mr. Smeadela taught me I was related to a squid. I will mail you a tape of my lesson; where shall I mail it? Do you belong to a group that wants me to speak to them? I will, as long as you promise it will be respectful....I sure will be. Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you. Dave Phillips is the Neandertal expert, would you like to call him regarding the N mans DNA????? I added liber8r to my newsletter mailing! You said: "Yet there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with." Please tell me specifically which fossils you are talking about. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:18:05 EDT > >First, I do hope that you have corrected your mistake concerning the >"Spanish Inquisition". > >Second, I corrected my "Morgan Pages" in the matter of when you started >posting your email address and FTP'd them up yesterday. Please let me know >if I missed one. > >Third, your web site is down. I keep getting a 403 message, "Access Not >Authorized". Are you aware of this problem? Could you please let me know >when it gets corrected? And if it ends up that you need to change your >URL, could you please pass it on to me so that I can update my own pages? > >Fourth, I would like to comment on this paragraph in the newsletter: >"When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth >thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he >deceive me?" > >You always seemed to have a problem in identifying experts, though the >attitude that you express here is in keeping with a 14-year-old's >perspective. I am not criticizing the use of that perspective here, since >it is appropriate for what you were trying to communicate. > >There are definite problems with science education, especially in the >secondary schools. >I think that this would be a good subject to discuss. >Of course, my solution would be to try to improve the quality of science >education whereas your "solution" would be to destroy it further. > >I discussed this issue in my 1998-Sep-04 email to you, which never got >delivered because you had disappeared suddenly. At least, I couldn't >deliver it until now: > >[from 1998 Sep 04] > >Sorry for my absense of late. Besides being away for my two weeks of >active duty, I have been very busy with work and with the events >unfolding due to the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, having decided to >attack our church [visit http://www.uua.org for details]. > >Bill, in your last newsletter, you wrote: > >"Some bones, claimed to be from Neandertal Man, were claimed to be >non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial >DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn't taught, is that >the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human >range. And if it were Neandertal Man's remains, how was its DNA >preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, >there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few >thousand years!" > >[Liber8r, there were a lot more statements made, but I didn't feel like >typing them all in. Has Bill started emailing you a copy of the >newsletter as he had planned? He has not emailed it to me.] > >Could you please cite your source(s) for this statement? Until I can >read what the scientific source(s) say, I cannot make sense of your >statement. > >As for your questions about the survival of the DNA, refer to the subject >of Miocene "green fossils" (I'll have to dig the article out on my files), >from which proteins were extracted and sequenced and a pattern of >biochemical differences was discovered across morphologically identical >specimens. Again, the primary source of your statement (ie, the scientific >source, not a creationist claim supposedly based on an unnamed scientific >source) should describe how the mitochondrial samples were obtained. > >While there is disagreement among scientists on exactly how Neanderthal >Man is related to our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, most scientists do >consider him to be very closely related to us, some even placing him as >a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, I believe. > >Precisely how are you using the terms, "human" and "non-human", here? >Are you being consistent in your usage of those terms (ie, not engaging >in standard creationist semantic shifting)? Are you using it to refer >strictly to Homo sapiens sapiens, or a bit more loosely to include all >possible sub-species, such as Homo sapiens neanderthalis? > >So what is your point, Bill? You seem to have proceeded from the premise >that all scientists have been involved in some grandiose conspiracy to >misrepresent what Neanderthal Man is. However, except for most of the >interpretations that you threw in, all that information about Neanderthal >has been freely available to anyone who has bothered to look it up. Like >NOAA's answers to your questions about ozone-layer depletion. What it >looks like is that yet again you had had a totally mistaken idea of what >science says and, upon discovering that you were mistaken, you mistakenly >interpreted that as debunking science. Just like your "discovery" that >C-14 has too short a half-life to be used in dating anything older than >about 50,000 years. Having your misunderstanding of science corrected >does not disprove science, it only means that you didn't understand the >science in the first place! > >"According to evolutionsts, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time >as Homo Sapiens." > >Yes, that is correct. So, what is your point? Do you have a point, or >are you trying to rely on innuendo again? > >"Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that >Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution." > >What kind of evidence are you saying that it has been taught as? There >is lots of different evidence for evolution, each piece of evidence >pertaining to a different part of the overall view. What specifically >are you saying that Neanderthal was being presented as evidence of?Yet >there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with. > >One thought on this. The ICR decries the lack of a "missing link" between >man and apes. They proclaim that Neanderthal was "100% human" and that >Homo erectus was "100% ape, nothing human about it!". > >But back to the question of what school children are being taught. We >have touched on the problem of the quality of science education before. >IS what is being taught in school as science current scientific thought? >Is it accurate? Is it understood by the students? Is it even understood >by the teachers? > >First, the science curriculum is not current. For various reasons, >usually several years will pass before a new discovery or theory finds >its way into the text books. As Frank Steiger pointed out, trying to >keep science text books current would require them to be revised several >times a year to include all the latest views and information. Our school >district gets new books only about once every seven years. Rather, >current scientific thought is to be found in the professional scientific >journals. How often are professional scientific journals used in junior >high and high school science classes? I cannot say that I've heard of it. > >Second, there are definite problems in the accuracy of the science >curriculum in the elementary and secondary schools, particularly in the >textbooks. When California was preparing to buy new science textbooks in >the mid-to-late 80's, a group of scientists volunteered to review the >textbooks under consideration. They found none of the books to be >acceptable; >all contained numerous inaccuracies, misconceptions, and just plain wrong >information. For one thing, none of the authors were scientists. Also, >in order to appease fundamentalist activists and board members, the >publishers >had their authors equivocate on, and even leave out, certain >"controversial" >subjects, like evolution. The scientists had to reject most of the books >and >drew up a long list of corrections that had to be made in the best of the >candidates before they could even approach being adequate. As soon as the >publisher had implemented a few of the corrections, the State Board met in >secret and went behind the scientists' backs to approve the >still-very-flawed >textbook. > >Third, besides working from inaccurate material, many teachers are >themselves not sufficiently trained in science. In most school districts, >they find practically anyone they can to teach a subject, even if that >teacher has little training in the subject. Two years ago, my younger >son's 6th grade science teacher's experience was in teaching home-ec; our >son knew more about the subject matter than she did and the other students >kept turning to him for explanations. I don't know what his older >brother's >9th grade science teacher's training was, but that guy was horrible; he was >apparently a low-profile creationist who left out certain topics and hinted >at the existence of "scientific evidence" against other topics, his idea of >educational materials included the movies "The Lion King" and "Free Willy", >and he also had a local fundamentalist activist speak to the class a number >of times. Why, one local high school even had a PE teacher teaching >biology, >of all things, even though he had the absolute minimum biology training >required for his PE degree! You may have heard something about that one. > >One thing that I have noticed about the misconceptions expressed by >creationists >about science in general and evolution in particular, is that they are very >similar to the misconceptions held by much of the general public about >science >in general and evolution in particular. That might be a large part of the >reason for most people's willingness to accept the claims of creation >science. >They are confused by what the scientists tell them, but they understand it >when >the creationists tell them what they already "know." > >When a teacher teaches science without knowing the subject matter, then >he/she >must depend on the textbook, which we already know to be woefully >inadequate >and inaccurate. Beyond that, they will rely on their personal "knowledge", >such that they end up propogating their own misconceptions and >misunderstandings >to the next generation. > >Which brings us to the question of how much the students understand >science. >Considering the textbooks and teachers that most of them have to learn >from, >I wouldn't think that they would have much chance. > >"I was taught [that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of >Evolution] >in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist!" > >Uh, Bill, now you're changing your story. In AOLCREAT.DOC, you wrote that >you did not really believe it, but rather that you wanted to believe the >[mistaken] conclusion that it made you free to indulge in all kinds of >debauchery, "to sin without guilt." It was not the ideas of evolution that >you had embraced, but rather false Christian conclusions about evolution >and >science. > >You claim to have become an atheist, but your own words speak differently: >"But I honestly know that you know God exists but choose not to honor >acknowldge or give thanks to God. Romans 1 says that and that was my case >when I was an atheist, I prayed many times while an atheist." Bill, an >atheist is one who does not believe in the gods. From what you describe >of yourself, you were never an atheist, but rather had always remained a >theist, even when you were trying to pretend to be an atheist. An atheist >realizes that he does not need any gods upon whom to base his beliefs and >that he must accept responsibility for his own actions. Your entire >masquerade as an "atheist" was nothing but a theist's attempt to escape >responsibility for his actions. Face it, Bill, except for your earliest >infancy, you never were an atheist. > > >"We have a free lesson for your youth so they may defend their faith in >junior high, high school and college. Call 714 898-8331 and ask for more >information (adults need this lesson too)." > >Could you please share some of that free lesson with us? You had freely >offered to present your lesson to me before, which offer I accepted, but >which you never did deliver on. "Mr. 100%". If you protest that none of >it is written in electronic form, then it is high time that you do commit >it to disk, since I would think that, since you appear to think so highly >of your work, you would want to make it widely available on your web page. > >Also, could you please tell us what measures you have taken to ensure the >scientific accuracy of this lesson with which you expect the youth to >"defend their faith." Especially considering that you are well aware of >how creation science's contrary-to-fact teachings about geology and the age >of the earth has destroyed or nearly destroyed the faith of staunch >creationists when faced with the truth. What have you done to ensure that >your free lesson will indeed perform as advertised? That it will indeed >defend their faith and not sow the seeds of its destruction? > >BTW, how is the work going on your web page? When should we expect to see >it put up? And how are you doing on your opening statement for our on-line >debate? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:52 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f293.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.87]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:29:26 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! ########################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 24-Jul-00 10:35:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Ok, then you tell me exactly what you said when I invited you to our meetings. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:51:47 EDT > > >>I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings >is that he fears "an Inquisition."<< > >Bill, I said no such thing and you know it. My mention of the "SPANISH >Inquisition" refers to my WIFE, who is MEXICAN. As I told you when I made >the first such mention. I do not fear my possible treatment at the >meetings, but I also need to maintain domestic tranquility. Please get it >right. > > > >>I think he is scared of truth, not an Inquisition.<< > >Then why was it that while I was constantly trying to get us to examine the >truth, you were constantly running away from it? Be honest, Bill, which of >us has proven himself to be afraid of the truth? > ><< ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:35:12 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f35.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.35]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:34:45 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:34:43 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:34:43 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F35cnSgwMr97DKmVYfu00003b60@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2000 17:34:43.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[74381D30:01BFF595] Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 24-Jul-00 18:22:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you.<< Only if it were truthful. You did not quote me at all, but rather paraphrased me VERY INACCURATELY, completely changing the meaning. You misrepresented what I had said. You need to correct the statement before it goes off to be printed so that your reading public is not misinformed. For the newsletter, you wrote: "I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is that he fears 'an Inquisition.'" What that sentence will say to your readers is that I fear that "an Inquisition" awaits me AT THE MEETING to be conducted by THE MEMBERS against me. You know that that is totally false. As I have told you repeatedly, all my references to the [NOT "an"] "Spanish Inquisition" is as a personification of my wife (AKA, "la jefa" [feminine form of "the boss"], AKA, "She who must be obeyed", from Rumpole). First, it is a play on words, since she is Mexican. Because of that, I loved that line from Monte Python, "No one EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition!", though the skit itself quickly falls apart thereafter. Second, it refers to her strong disapproval of some of my leisure interests. I have such little spare time and she has some very definite ideas of how I should be spending it (namely totally committed to the service of her own projects). Needless to say, she does not believe that I should be wasting my time talking to blithering idiots, which is her personal opinion of creationists and fundamentalists alike. Therefore, the only way that I can pursue my interests and keep the peace is by keeping them at a a very low profile, something that a phone conversation with you or going out to a creationist meeting would destroy. Now, have I spelled out clearly enough what I was saying? Do I need to make it any clearer? Now, inform me of your corrective action. PS Anticipating that you will try to claim that what you have written does indeed accurately reflect what I had actually said, I have enlisted Liber8r's help in the matter. You will receive a CC: of that email. The archive extracts below support what I have told you above. ### BEGINING OF MESSAGE ARCHIVE EXTRACTS ### Date: 97-08-17 18:03:31 EDT 5. If I try calling from work, then I would have to answer to my supervisor for making that kind of a personal call. If I try calling from home, then I would have to answer to my boss (la jefa) and the "Spanish Inquisition" (she's Mexican, so I tend to find that line from Monty Python especially funny). It is her firm and oft expressed opinion that all creationists are idiots who would never allow themselves to see reason nor understand the truth, so don't waste your time on them. So I quietly don't follow the issue while she's watching; she said "Don't you ever let me catch you doing that" and she hasn't . ---------------- Date: 98-02-06 00:50:30 EST 7. If I try calling from work, then I would have to answer to my supervisor for making that kind of a personal call. If I try calling from home, then I would have to answer to my boss (la jefa) and the "Spanish Inquisition" (she's Mexican, so I tend to enjoy that line from Monty Python -- in case you suffer from cultural deprivation: (Husband responding to his wife's many questions about where he's been) "Well, I never expected the Spanish Inquisition!" (Monks and a cardinal bursting into the room) "Nobody EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition!" ... well, I guess you had to have been there, right?). It is her firm and oft expressed opinion that all creationists are total idiots who would never allow themselves to see reason nor understand the truth, so don't waste your time on them. Her attitide is that I have too many other things to do so she doesn't want to catch me wasting my time following the issue, so I make sure that she doesn't by quietly following the issue while she's not watching. Calling from home would obviously blow my cover. And I'm not about to run up my cell phone bill in an exercise that will prove to be futile (as you blast me with your "Gish Gallop") and, at the very best, highly inefficient (since email is vastly superior to telephony for transmitting sizable amounts of factual information). ---------------- Date: 98-02-06 00:50:48 EST Dinner? You've got to be kidding! What is your logic here? If we cannot even schedule a telephone conversation, how are we ever supposed to be able to schedule a sit-down dinner? And just how am I supposed to get that one past the Spanish Inquisition? I appreciate the sentiment, although I also strongly suspect your motives, but that has to be the most impractical suggestion you've made yet. ---------------- Date: 98-04-16 22:23:02 EDT Think for a moment. If I cannot sneak in a phone call from home (indeed, while I was on-line posting my last email to you, my kid bumped me off the line -- it's a jungle out there, I tell ya), just how am I supposed to disappear for the entire evening? Especially to LA? Hello? Weren't you paying any attention? I have the "Spanish Inquisition" to watch out for, you know. Email is the only practical medium for yet another good reason: it minimizes my window of vulnerablility at home, since I only need enough time to post the email -- and it's hard enough to get even that little time in. ---------------- Date: 98-04-29 23:35:28 EDT How? You forget the Spanish Inquisition. I wouldn't be able to sneak sneaking out past her. Besides, it looks like my older son's choir has a concert that night, so you can guess what the plan is. ---------------- Date: 98-06-03 23:31:42 EDT So, how did the debate go? I already told you that I would not be able to attend. Besides the usual obstacle (the Spanish Inquisition), my older son's choir had a concert that night. ---------------- Date: 14-Jul-00 18:54:03 Pacific Daylight Time I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). ---------------- Date: 14-Jul-00 18:54:03 Pacific Daylight Time Sorry, Bill, but both are still impossibilities. I do not have time during the day and I do not have time during the evening. I do not have access to a phone for private personal conversations, especially not for subjects that are not on the Spanish Inquisition's approved list. Besides which I do not like to call somebody on the phone, especially when a close personal or professional relationship has not been established. It's apparently a socialization thing, from my days in the Trenchcoat Mafia (though we didn't call it that then, nor did we organize into cells any larger than one person). Dinner is also out. Besides the Spanish Inquisition, note-taking would be greatly hampered by the cluttered table (not to mention food and drink stains). But an even bigger minus is that I have some loss of hearing, so that it is very difficult for me to hear the person I'm conversing with when there is a lot of background noise, like in a restaurant. ---------------- Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 18-Jul-00 17:51:48 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won’t come to our meetings is that he fears “an Inquisition.”<< Bill, I said no such thing and you know it. My mention of the "SPANISH Inquisition" refers to my WIFE, who is MEXICAN. As I told you when I made the first such mention. I do not fear my possible treatment at the meetings, but I also need to maintain domestic tranquility. Please get it right. ### END OF MESSAGE ARCHIVE EXTRACTS ### Subj: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 24-Jul-00 18:24:38 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: webmaster@liberator.net CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, DWise1 Mark (AKA Liber8r), Bill Morgan and I need your help here. We need you to play the part of a casual reader. That is to say that we need to you to read something as the average person would read it, without dwelling on it and analyzing it. For his next newsletter, Bill wrote: >>The lesson is free and we encourage you to bring young people and your skeptical friends. I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is that he fears "an Inquisition." I think he is scared of truth, not an Inquisition.<< Bill and I cannot agree on how his readers would interpret that second sentence: "I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is that he fears "an Inquisition." " Mark, could you please tell us as a casual reader what that sentence tells you about that "one skeptic". In particular, please elaborate on what it tells you about why that "one skeptic" won't come to the meetings. The only context missing here is that it is talking about the meetings of the Creation Science Association of Orange County, of which Bill is vice-president. Thank you. Please reply to both of us. ########################################## Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 22-Jul-00 23:11:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I think any objective analysis would render that the whiner is not me. Please reread your latest e mail. I know what clipboard and pasting is...but it is still TYPING....what part of typing don't you understand. If you think I am choosing a restaurant with a heeavy metal band playing while we chat you are mistaken. Every restaurant I have been too since I got old and married has been nice and quiet. It is too bad, for the both of us, but we won't have a mega type me type you debate. I want to meet in person, or over the phone..... I could tell you about others who will debate you on line. Want to meet them? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:15:58 EDT > > >>I will gladly answer, or try to answer all of your questions, but again >lets do it by phone or over dinner.<< > >You already know that by phone or over dinner is impossible for me. I do >not have private access to a phone at home, I do not have private access to >a phone at home, and I would not be able to hear you clearly in a >restaurant. It is simply impossible, as you already know full well. What >part of "impossible" don't you understand? > >The only viable option that is open to us is email. Sorry, but that is >just the way it is. > > >>If you don't want to talk about it or meet, I just don't have the drive >to type type type.<< > >Yes, I do want to talk about it! But you keep dodging and weaseling out of >it! >Honestly, if you had taken all that energy you've wasted whining about not >liking to type and put it to constructive use, you'd have gotten a lot of >typing done. > >The way that you keep carrying on makes it look to me like you still have >no idea of the tools at your disposal and what they can do for you. >Like the Clipboard. Like working off-line. >Like being able to save everything that you type for recycling? >Like building up a set of responses to likely questions. >Again, Bill, if you do not know about these things, just ask for help >[NOTE: despite repeated questions of whether you do know about these >things, you have NEVER EVER answered yea or nay]. > >Besides, you're going to have to type it out anyway for our on-line debate. > Right? >Well, then, you may as well get started now. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.1]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:11:44 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f100.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.100]) by rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:11:24 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:11:24 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Brad Sparks Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:11:24 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F100JfkKheb814MYMTI00001f30@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2000 06:11:24.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4151520:01BFF46C] Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 22-Jul-00 23:29:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Oh, D Wise, you remind me of a commercial I saw when I was about 10 (that would be in 1970). This hapless looking fellow is hitchhiking in the middle of a terrible snow strom, shivering away and holding a sign that says "Miami." Up pulls a Corvette, the door opens and inside is a very pretty girl who says, I am only going as far as Ft Lauderdale.....he shrugs, and says "no thanks." He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud. Also, I have never hid the fact I was eager to sin and happy to stop trusting the Bible. At 14 this happened when Mr. Smeadela taught me I was related to a squid. I will mail you a tape of my lesson; where shall I mail it? Do you belong to a group that wants me to speak to them? I will, as long as you promise it will be respectful....I sure will be. Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you. Dave Phillips is the Neandertal expert, would you like to call him regarding the N mans DNA????? I added liber8r to my newsletter mailing! You said: "Yet there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with." Please tell me specifically which fossils you are talking about. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:18:05 EDT > >First, I do hope that you have corrected your mistake concerning the >"Spanish Inquisition". > >Second, I corrected my "Morgan Pages" in the matter of when you started >posting your email address and FTP'd them up yesterday. Please let me know >if I missed one. > >Third, your web site is down. I keep getting a 403 message, "Access Not >Authorized". Are you aware of this problem? Could you please let me know >when it gets corrected? And if it ends up that you need to change your >URL, could you please pass it on to me so that I can update my own pages? > >Fourth, I would like to comment on this paragraph in the newsletter: >"When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth >thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he >deceive me?" > >You always seemed to have a problem in identifying experts, though the >attitude that you express here is in keeping with a 14-year-old's >perspective. I am not criticizing the use of that perspective here, since >it is appropriate for what you were trying to communicate. > >There are definite problems with science education, especially in the >secondary schools. >I think that this would be a good subject to discuss. >Of course, my solution would be to try to improve the quality of science >education whereas your "solution" would be to destroy it further. > >I discussed this issue in my 1998-Sep-04 email to you, which never got >delivered because you had disappeared suddenly. At least, I couldn't >deliver it until now: > >[from 1998 Sep 04] > >Sorry for my absense of late. Besides being away for my two weeks of >active duty, I have been very busy with work and with the events >unfolding due to the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, having decided to >attack our church [visit http://www.uua.org for details]. > >Bill, in your last newsletter, you wrote: > >"Some bones, claimed to be from Neandertal Man, were claimed to be >non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial >DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn't taught, is that >the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human >range. And if it were Neandertal Man's remains, how was its DNA >preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, >there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few >thousand years!" > >[Liber8r, there were a lot more statements made, but I didn't feel like >typing them all in. Has Bill started emailing you a copy of the >newsletter as he had planned? He has not emailed it to me.] > >Could you please cite your source(s) for this statement? Until I can >read what the scientific source(s) say, I cannot make sense of your >statement. > >As for your questions about the survival of the DNA, refer to the subject >of Miocene "green fossils" (I'll have to dig the article out on my files), >from which proteins were extracted and sequenced and a pattern of >biochemical differences was discovered across morphologically identical >specimens. Again, the primary source of your statement (ie, the scientific >source, not a creationist claim supposedly based on an unnamed scientific >source) should describe how the mitochondrial samples were obtained. > >While there is disagreement among scientists on exactly how Neanderthal >Man is related to our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, most scientists do >consider him to be very closely related to us, some even placing him as >a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, I believe. > >Precisely how are you using the terms, "human" and "non-human", here? >Are you being consistent in your usage of those terms (ie, not engaging >in standard creationist semantic shifting)? Are you using it to refer >strictly to Homo sapiens sapiens, or a bit more loosely to include all >possible sub-species, such as Homo sapiens neanderthalis? > >So what is your point, Bill? You seem to have proceeded from the premise >that all scientists have been involved in some grandiose conspiracy to >misrepresent what Neanderthal Man is. However, except for most of the >interpretations that you threw in, all that information about Neanderthal >has been freely available to anyone who has bothered to look it up. Like >NOAA's answers to your questions about ozone-layer depletion. What it >looks like is that yet again you had had a totally mistaken idea of what >science says and, upon discovering that you were mistaken, you mistakenly >interpreted that as debunking science. Just like your "discovery" that >C-14 has too short a half-life to be used in dating anything older than >about 50,000 years. Having your misunderstanding of science corrected >does not disprove science, it only means that you didn't understand the >science in the first place! > >"According to evolutionsts, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time >as Homo Sapiens." > >Yes, that is correct. So, what is your point? Do you have a point, or >are you trying to rely on innuendo again? > >"Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that >Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution." > >What kind of evidence are you saying that it has been taught as? There >is lots of different evidence for evolution, each piece of evidence >pertaining to a different part of the overall view. What specifically >are you saying that Neanderthal was being presented as evidence of?Yet >there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with. > >One thought on this. The ICR decries the lack of a "missing link" between >man and apes. They proclaim that Neanderthal was "100% human" and that >Homo erectus was "100% ape, nothing human about it!". > >But back to the question of what school children are being taught. We >have touched on the problem of the quality of science education before. >IS what is being taught in school as science current scientific thought? >Is it accurate? Is it understood by the students? Is it even understood >by the teachers? > >First, the science curriculum is not current. For various reasons, >usually several years will pass before a new discovery or theory finds >its way into the text books. As Frank Steiger pointed out, trying to >keep science text books current would require them to be revised several >times a year to include all the latest views and information. Our school >district gets new books only about once every seven years. Rather, >current scientific thought is to be found in the professional scientific >journals. How often are professional scientific journals used in junior >high and high school science classes? I cannot say that I've heard of it. > >Second, there are definite problems in the accuracy of the science >curriculum in the elementary and secondary schools, particularly in the >textbooks. When California was preparing to buy new science textbooks in >the mid-to-late 80's, a group of scientists volunteered to review the >textbooks under consideration. They found none of the books to be >acceptable; >all contained numerous inaccuracies, misconceptions, and just plain wrong >information. For one thing, none of the authors were scientists. Also, >in order to appease fundamentalist activists and board members, the >publishers >had their authors equivocate on, and even leave out, certain >"controversial" >subjects, like evolution. The scientists had to reject most of the books >and >drew up a long list of corrections that had to be made in the best of the >candidates before they could even approach being adequate. As soon as the >publisher had implemented a few of the corrections, the State Board met in >secret and went behind the scientists' backs to approve the >still-very-flawed >textbook. > >Third, besides working from inaccurate material, many teachers are >themselves not sufficiently trained in science. In most school districts, >they find practically anyone they can to teach a subject, even if that >teacher has little training in the subject. Two years ago, my younger >son's 6th grade science teacher's experience was in teaching home-ec; our >son knew more about the subject matter than she did and the other students >kept turning to him for explanations. I don't know what his older >brother's >9th grade science teacher's training was, but that guy was horrible; he was >apparently a low-profile creationist who left out certain topics and hinted >at the existence of "scientific evidence" against other topics, his idea of >educational materials included the movies "The Lion King" and "Free Willy", >and he also had a local fundamentalist activist speak to the class a number >of times. Why, one local high school even had a PE teacher teaching >biology, >of all things, even though he had the absolute minimum biology training >required for his PE degree! You may have heard something about that one. > >One thing that I have noticed about the misconceptions expressed by >creationists >about science in general and evolution in particular, is that they are very >similar to the misconceptions held by much of the general public about >science >in general and evolution in particular. That might be a large part of the >reason for most people's willingness to accept the claims of creation >science. >They are confused by what the scientists tell them, but they understand it >when >the creationists tell them what they already "know." > >When a teacher teaches science without knowing the subject matter, then >he/she >must depend on the textbook, which we already know to be woefully >inadequate >and inaccurate. Beyond that, they will rely on their personal "knowledge", >such that they end up propogating their own misconceptions and >misunderstandings >to the next generation. > >Which brings us to the question of how much the students understand >science. >Considering the textbooks and teachers that most of them have to learn >from, >I wouldn't think that they would have much chance. > >"I was taught [that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of >Evolution] >in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist!" > >Uh, Bill, now you're changing your story. In AOLCREAT.DOC, you wrote that >you did not really believe it, but rather that you wanted to believe the >[mistaken] conclusion that it made you free to indulge in all kinds of >debauchery, "to sin without guilt." It was not the ideas of evolution that >you had embraced, but rather false Christian conclusions about evolution >and >science. > >You claim to have become an atheist, but your own words speak differently: >"But I honestly know that you know God exists but choose not to honor >acknowldge or give thanks to God. Romans 1 says that and that was my case >when I was an atheist, I prayed many times while an atheist." Bill, an >atheist is one who does not believe in the gods. From what you describe >of yourself, you were never an atheist, but rather had always remained a >theist, even when you were trying to pretend to be an atheist. An atheist >realizes that he does not need any gods upon whom to base his beliefs and >that he must accept responsibility for his own actions. Your entire >masquerade as an "atheist" was nothing but a theist's attempt to escape >responsibility for his actions. Face it, Bill, except for your earliest >infancy, you never were an atheist. > > >"We have a free lesson for your youth so they may defend their faith in >junior high, high school and college. Call 714 898-8331 and ask for more >information (adults need this lesson too)." > >Could you please share some of that free lesson with us? You had freely >offered to present your lesson to me before, which offer I accepted, but >which you never did deliver on. "Mr. 100%". If you protest that none of >it is written in electronic form, then it is high time that you do commit >it to disk, since I would think that, since you appear to think so highly >of your work, you would want to make it widely available on your web page. > >Also, could you please tell us what measures you have taken to ensure the >scientific accuracy of this lesson with which you expect the youth to >"defend their faith." Especially considering that you are well aware of >how creation science's contrary-to-fact teachings about geology and the age >of the earth has destroyed or nearly destroyed the faith of staunch >creationists when faced with the truth. What have you done to ensure that >your free lesson will indeed perform as advertised? That it will indeed >defend their faith and not sow the seeds of its destruction? > >BTW, how is the work going on your web page? When should we expect to see >it put up? And how are you doing on your opening statement for our on-line >debate? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:52 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f293.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.87]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:29:26 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:29:26 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F293TGJ2TUSzbAUfKRf00001116@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2000 06:29:26.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[59824500:01BFF46F] Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 24-Jul-00 10:35:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Ok, then you tell me exactly what you said when I invited you to our meetings. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:51:47 EDT > > >>I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings >is that he fears "an Inquisition."<< > >Bill, I said no such thing and you know it. My mention of the "SPANISH >Inquisition" refers to my WIFE, who is MEXICAN. As I told you when I made >the first such mention. I do not fear my possible treatment at the >meetings, but I also need to maintain domestic tranquility. Please get it >right. > > > >>I think he is scared of truth, not an Inquisition.<< > >Then why was it that while I was constantly trying to get us to examine the >truth, you were constantly running away from it? Be honest, Bill, which of >us has proven himself to be afraid of the truth? > ><< ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:35:12 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f35.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.35]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:34:45 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:34:43 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:34:43 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F35cnSgwMr97DKmVYfu00003b60@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2000 17:34:43.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[74381D30:01BFF595] ########################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 25-Jul-00 08:08:10 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Ok, then you tell me exactly what you said when I invited you to our meetings.<< What? You mean that you do not have a copy of it already? You mean that you rely entirely on your memory? How could you possibly operate in such a haphazard manner? [NOTE: That is not a personal jab at your ability to remember things; EVERYBODY's memory is faulty and subject to constant revision -- that is why keeping a copy of the original is so important] You said: "I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me." However could you "accurately quote [me]" if you don't even have a copy of what you alledgedly are quoting? Here is what I wrote on 14-Jul-00 at 18:54:03 PDT: I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). That is it, word for word, character for character. Please note the word "the" before "Spanish Inquisition." Also note the word "Spanish". Also note the phrase "la jefa." Then refer back to the body of my messages to you, wherein I established repeatedly that "the Spanish Inquisition" and "la jefa" [fem. "the boss"] both refer to my wife [refer to yesterday's reply from me for a summary of that history]. You say that I fear "an Inquisition", whereas I said that I have to concern myself with "the 'Spanish Inquisition'", which is well established as refering to my wife. You have misquoted me and misrepresented what I said. QED. Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 25-Jul-00 10:38:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: webmaster@liberator.net (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com , you wrote: <<>> Gentlemen, The statement is an interesting one. If skeptics already have reservations about attending this meeting, the phrase above will certainly throw skeptics over the edge and not attend the meeting. Skeptics are being portrayed as not just a minority group in this 'lesson,' but that skeptics will account for an isolated number of critical thinking participants in this 'lesson.' Also, the reference to the lesson as 'an Inquisition' is not an ideal way to characterize this 'lesson' if the intent is to invite skeptics. No skeptic wants to join a group and be taught a 'lesson' by an overwhelming number of religious fanatics, as the historical reference implies. I invite you to comment on my thoughts. Am I off-base here? Mark Liberator The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.webmaster@liberator.net> Received: from rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (rly-yg05.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.5]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:38:13 2000 Received: from Kitten.mcs.net (kitten.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:37:52 -0400 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by Kitten.mcs.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA65190; Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:37:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from webmaster@liberator.net) Message-ID: <002201bff65f$2f382d40$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" <.webmaster@liberator.net> To: <.DWise1@aol.com>, <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> References: <200007250125.SAA03905@fire.he.net> Subject: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:38:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ############################################################## Subj: Re: Bill Morgan & I need your help. Date: 27-Jul-00 17:11:36 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: webmaster@liberator.net, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. Thank you for your reply. You have pretty much confirmed what I believe that paragraph to be saying to its audience, though I think that Bill had intended it to allay the fears of skeptics, rather than to intensify their fears. Though now through your eyes I can see that he had not communicated that as well as he would have liked. Now for the rest of the story. Among other things (he is still trying to get me to phone him or meet him for dinner, even though he knows full well that I cannot), Bill invited me to the CSAOC's meetings, which I intend to do at some time, but usually cannot. One of the reasons against is that I would have a hard time explaining where I am going to my wife, AKA "la jefa" [Spanish for a female boss], AKA "the Spanish Inquisition." Throughout our correspondence, I had repeatedly established that nickname with Bill and had done so again in the most recent messages. Here is the latest exchange of messages with Bill on the matter, so that you can understand what had actually happened: ### BEGINNING OF FIRST MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 2:29:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com [clipped] Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you. [clipped] ### END OF FIRST MESSAGE ### ### BEGINNING OF SECOND MESSAGE ### >>Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you.<< Only if it were truthful. You did not quote me at all, but rather paraphrased me VERY INACCURATELY, completely changing the meaning. You misrepresented what I had said. You need to correct the statement before it goes off to be printed so that your reading public is not misinformed. For the newsletter, you wrote: "I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is that he fears 'an Inquisition.'" What that sentence will say to your readers is that I fear that "an Inquisition" awaits me AT THE MEETING to be conducted by THE MEMBERS against me. You know that that is totally false. As I have told you repeatedly, all my references to the [NOT "an"] "Spanish Inquisition" is as a personification of my wife (AKA, "la jefa" [feminine form of "the boss"], AKA, "She who must be obeyed", from Rumpole). First, it is a play on words, since she is Mexican. Because of that, I loved that line from Monte Python, "No one EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition!", though the skit itself quickly falls apart thereafter. Second, it refers to her strong disapproval of some of my leisure interests. I have such little spare time and she has some very definite ideas of how I should be spending it (namely totally committed to the service of her own projects). Needless to say, she does not believe that I should be wasting my time talking to blithering idiots, which is her personal opinion of creationists and fundamentalists alike. Therefore, the only way that I can pursue my interests and keep the peace is by keeping them at a a very low profile, something that a phone conversation with you or going out to a creationist meeting would destroy. Now, have I spelled out clearly enough what I was saying? Do I need to make it any clearer? Now, inform me of your corrective action. PS Anticipating that you will try to claim that what you have written does indeed accurately reflect what I had actually said, I have enlisted Liber8r's help in the matter. You will receive a CC: of that email. The archive extracts below support what I have told you above. [archive extracts clipped] ### END OF SECOND MESSAGE ### ### BEGINNING OF THIRD MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 1:35:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Ok, then you tell me exactly what you said when I invited you to our meetings. ### END OF THIRD MESSAGE ### ### BEGINNING OF FOURTH MESSAGE ### Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:08:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Ok, then you tell me exactly what you said when I invited you to our meetings.<< What? You mean that you do not have a copy of it already? You mean that you rely entirely on your memory? How could you possibly operate in such a haphazard manner? [NOTE: That is not a personal jab at your ability to remember things; EVERYBODY's memory is faulty and subject to constant revision -- that is why keeping a copy of the original is so important] You said: "I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me." However could you "accurately quote [me]" if you don't even have a copy of what you alledgedly are quoting? Here is what I wrote on 14-Jul-00 at 18:54:03 PDT: I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). That is it, word for word, character for character. Please note the word "the" before "Spanish Inquisition." Also note the word "Spanish". Also note the phrase "la jefa." Then refer back to the body of my messages to you, wherein I established repeatedly that "the Spanish Inquisition" and "la jefa" [fem. "the boss"] both refer to my wife [refer to yesterday's reply from me for a summary of that history]. You say that I fear "an Inquisition", whereas I said that I have to concern myself with "the 'Spanish Inquisition'", which is well established as refering to my wife. You have misquoted me and misrepresented what I said. QED. ### END OF FOURTH MESSAGE ### Well, Mark, that misinformation did go out to print and has been distributed. That means that Bill has misinformed his readership on this matter. Now, I will allow that he had probably already had everything printed and was mailing them off by the time he emailed a copy to me, so that no extra damage has been done by his delays, except for the damage to our esteem for him. Furthermore, I will allow that he had honestly either misunderstood or mis-remembered [since he apparently keeps no actual copies of his correspondence, but apparently relies completely on his memory] what I had written, but I would fault his methodology which does not allow for him to verify his stories, which I believe is supposed to be SOP in journalism. Bill made a mistake, but he still needs to correct it. If he does not correct it, knowing that that story is false, then he will be lying knowingly to his readership. I am still waiting for Bill to tell me what his corrective action will be. It has been two days now and I haven't heard a peep out of him. Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 27-Jul-00 17:13:13 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I think any objective analysis would render that the whiner is not me. Please reread your latest e mail.<< What whining? I'm just telling you the truth. I do not have private access to a phone; neither at home nor at work. I cannot just go out for dinner with no explanation. Those are just statements of fact explaining why your suggestions would not work for me. You're the one who keeps whining about typing not being your personal preference, even though you are perfectly capable of conducting an email exchange. I would have to go to some extraordinary lengths and considerable trouble just to satisfy your "personal preferences." The returns for such an effort are dubious at best. I have gotten a taste of how you conduct yourself in a serious discussion. On the phone or in person, you would just have that much more weasel room. You are more than evasive enough in this medium. And if you were refering to my sharing my weekly schedule with you, that was in response to your whining about how busy you are and how little time you have. Well, you are not the only busy one here. Of course, if you would like, we could post our current exchanges for objective analysis. You could invite everybody in the CSAOC to read it. >>I know what clipboard and pasting is...but it is still TYPING....what part of typing don't you understand.<< Oh, I understand typing. You are quite capable of typing. Therefore, typing is not impossible for you. Also, "clipboard and pasting" is MOUSING, NOT "TYPING". It can be a very useful tool, if you learn to use it. Also, please notice that it only took you about FOUR YEARS to answer that extremely simple question of whether you know about the Clipboard. Four years! If I have appeared frustrated at times, this is why. Now, if it takes this much time and effort to get an answer to an EXTREMELY SIMPLE question out of you, just imagine what it is like to get an answer from a meaningful question. Now please tell me, just what was so hard about answering that extremely simple question? (oh shoot! That one will take at least 10 years!) BTW, I was always sincere about offering to help you with the Clipboard, but first I needed to know whether you needed help. Over the years, I have worked with and helped many people just starting out with PCs in the work place or at home. There are a lot of basic operations that are total mysteries to newbies. One boss I had fancied himself a computer expert; every time he wanted to copy a file to a diskette, he had to call me into his office to tell him how to do it. His favorite method of exiting an application program was to reboot the PC. He also could never understand why his latest changes never got saved to disk. And you're never too old or experienced to learn. Even I, with 23 years total computer experience and 13 years of PC/DOS/Windows experience, average at least one new thing learned a month. Honestly, from the kinds of responses you were giving me, it really did look like you didn't know about copying-and-pasting. And just think of how much easier things would have been if you had just told me then and there that you did know about it, rather than dragging it out over four years. >>If you think I am choosing a restaurant with a heeavy metal band playing while we chat you are mistaken. Every restaurant I have been too since I got old and married has been nice and quiet.<< Don't be ridiculous, Bill. You know full well that that is not what I was talking about. Even in quiet restaurants, if multiple conversations or other noise is going on in the background, I have a very hard time hearing everything in the conversation that I am having with the person across the table from me. In our case, I am going have to hear clearly everything that you are going to say, so that makes a restaurant an extremely poor choice to have that conversation. And, no, I refuse to sit with you cheek-to-cheek . And, Bill, please stop already with the "old man" act. I'm nine years your senior. You're still a young punk. You don't even know what getting old is like (and I only know about it a little bit better than you do). The body's warranty expires at age 40, whereupon it starts to become a "shop queen" (curb that homophobia! The term refers to an older automobile which spends most of its time at the mechanic's getting repaired). Do you wear glasses yet? Well, in the mid-40's the eyes' lens stiffen up and you get to start wearing bifocals (you might consider tri-focals, so that you don't have to be taking them off and putting them back on again all the time). Remember laughing at those old guys leaning their heads way back with their mouths hanging open so that they can read a poster? Well, you will get to be one of them soon. It's going to take a lot longer for those minor injuries to heal. You will have to get a weekly pill box that you get to stock with all the new medicine that you will need to take for the rest of your life. Plus you get to have your prostate examined on a regular basis. At least they no longer use the older method to test for prostate cancer. Do us all a favor. Wait until you do get old before you start complaining about it. As for me, I'm not old; my warranty is just expired. Oh, but some serious business on that subject. By your name, I assume you to be of English descent and a long-time resident. I'm of Celtic descent and have lived in Orange County nearly all my life (except for six years on active duty). That means about 43 years of being exposed to the sun here. That sun damage accumulates over the years and results in skin growths starting in your 40's. Most of them are pre-cancerous, but can develop into something far worse if left untreated. Look for rough spots on your exposed skin. Or small persistent scabs. They will usually feel sensitive if you rub them. Because of how we get exposed while driving, they are more likely to occur on the left side of your face, neck, outer ear (that is where my first persistent scab appeared). They can also appear on the backs of your hands. If you notice any, call your doctor or have him recommend a dermatologist. Do not blow this off. This is very serious business that could prove life-threatening. >>It is too bad, for the both of us, but we won't have a mega type me type you debate. I want to meet in person, or over the phone.....<< Already discussed. Virtually impossible to do. Extremely questionable benefits over a written exchange. Why should I go through all that trouble just to get jerked around in person? Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 27-Jul-00 17:13:59 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>I could tell you about others who will debate you on line. Want to meet them?<< Ah yes, the venerable creationist "bait and switch" strategy in setting up patsies for a "debate." Sorry, Bill, but I won't fall for that one. Our on-line debate was agreed to be between the two of us. I was not looking to debate anyone, but you kept insisting on debating me. Emphatically. That is the only reason I agreed to the on-line debate. There is no way that you are then going to switch me to somebody else. This is between you and me, as agreed upon. For discussion of the "bait and switch" and other tactics, you might try the following: In a 1984 speech given to Atheists United in Los Angeles, Fred Edwords announced that he would be on the Ray Briem radio show that night. When he had agreed to be on the show, he was the only guest, but then just a few days before the show they mentioned to him, "Oh, by the way, you'll be debating Duane Gish." "I Was Suckered Into A Debate--And Survived!" by Fred K. Parrish http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/religion/suckered.html First, he was asked to talk informally on the creation-evolution controversy to the Georgia Tech Faculty/Student Christian Forum, which he agreed to do. Then a week later, he was asked by the meeting organizer if he would mind having a local creationist opposite him so that there could be an informal exchange, for the sake of "fairness". Having previously debated several local creationists in the Atlanta area, he had no misgivings and so he agreed. Then yet another week later he was informed by the meeting organizer that an out-of-town creationist would be in town at the time of the talk and it was suggested that Parrish debate him. "By now I was getting concerned--but rather than withdraw and thereby foster propaganda that I was afraid to debate the creationist, I again agreed." Then about another week later, Parrish received a letter informing him that he was to debate Walter Brown and laying down very strict guidelines. Wrote Parrish: "After receiving the above material, I reminded the organizer that I had originally agreed only to a small informal meeting with a Christian organization, that now this had grown to a full fledged formal debate, with religion prohibited, in a large auditorium with the public invited, and that if he wanted me to participate there would be no more preconditions, no questionnaires, and no more trickery. He seemed to back off, but that may have been only because he had already emptied his bag of tricks on me. "Such maneuvers appear to be common. For example, when Duane Gish spoke some time back at Georgia State University, the "debate" was set up by the philosophy club with Gish talking for 45 minutes, three opponents responding for five minutes each, and Gish taking another 45 minutes to answer. Fortunately I was not a participant that time!" Ken Saladin's debate with Gish has been posted on the web. Links to it and other debates can be found at Creationist Debates, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html . In his "Response to Feedback (1996)" from that posting, Ken Saladin wrote [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/feedback.html] in the "DEBATING CREATIONISTS" section about a similar experience describe to him: > Shortly after one column appeared, I received a >telephone call from one of the area's private Christian >schools [...]. The guy on the telephone asked me if I >would come speak to one of their classes about what science >is, how it's done, and in particular, about evolutionary biology. >>Sensing a trap, I told him that I was NOT interested >in debating the merits of creationism vs. evolutionary >theory. He assured me that I had him ALL WRONG, that he >only wanted me to explain how science is done to one of >his classes [...] so I agreed. > > When I arrived at the school, I was ushered into a >large auditorium with what must have been the bulk of >the school's students--and a preacher who was ready >and waiting to debate me about the merits of creationism. >I was furious at having been lied to, and nearly turned >on my heel to leave at that point, but I decided that >that would have HANDED my unforeseen opponent a victory. >If nothing else, I wanted to show those children that >just because I was an "evolutionist," I wasn't >a devil incarnate. So, I was charming, pleasant, polite >and very, very patient--EVEN after being repeatedly >called a liar and EVEN after being asked the VERY SAME >QUESTION for the fifth or sixth time in a row. [...] There is also "An Account of a Debate with a Creationist" by Rob P. J. Day at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html , in which he describes "the underhanded tactics used by the organizers before, during and after the debate in order to discredit me in any way possible" and says in the introduction "In a sense, this article could be subtitled, "I Was Set Up For a Creationism Debate -- and Survived," and what follows is a personal account that I hope will alert others who, like me, are naive enough to expect fair treatment from the creationist lobby and their supporters." In this case, when Day heard that he'd be debating Ian Taylor, he readily accepted. The organizers quickly downplayed the event when they later learned that Day was quite familiar with Ian Taylor's arguments and presentations and that I would undoubtedly do well in the exchange. This was only undoubtedly why Taylor's own presentation was very subdued, resulting in angry reactions from his erstwhile supporters in the audience. As an example, Day mentioned another event: "This is the only possible reason I can think of to explain the concerted effort on the part of CEC to downplay the debate to the extent that they did. It would also explain why Taylor said virtually nothing about creation science, as he must have been aware that I am familiar with most of the arguments he would otherwise have presented. (Regular readers of this newsletter may recognize the same strategy used by creationist Lambert Dolphin at a previous annual meeting of the Science Teacher's Association of Ontario, in which Dolphin stripped all creation science out of his public talk when he found out about the attendance of two members of this organization (OASIS).)" At About.com, there is a "Debating Creationism" page [http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/msub_sci_creat_debating.htm?iam=dpile&terms=debate+creationist]: "Tactics used by creationists in their debates, advice, strategies, and answers to common challenges." Link include: 20 Questions Answers to 20 questions commonly asked by creationists. Account of a Creationist Conference in Oregon Account of the 1993 International Creation Conference held in Beaverton, Oregon. What are some of the arguments creationists are currently using as part of their arsenal? Anti-Creationism FAQ Collection of anti-creationism logic and evidence. Debating Creationists Creationists' strength is in their debating and rhetorical skills. Learn some of their tactics and even pointers if you are preparing to take one on. How Not to Argue With Creationists Certain tactics should be avoided in public debates with creationists, as this exchange between James Lippard and Ian Plimer proves. FABNAQ Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions: A list of questions creationists never seem to want to answer. Frequently Encountered Criticisms Huge resource of rebuttals to common creationist claims and arguments. Guerilla Tactics An unusual look at how to deal with creationists pseudo-science. Public Debate with a Creationist This event was notable not only for what transpired at the debate itself, but for the underhanded tactics used by the organizers before and after the debate. "Sons of Light" An account of the 1995 Sixth European Creationist Congress in the Netherlands. This is an interesting look at creationism in Europe. Stumper Questions for Creationists An enumeration of questions that creationists seem to have no answers for. Most of them deal with the scientific theory and evidence for creation, things which talk.origins readers know are elusive. Things Creationists Hate A description of various topics and ideas which creationists hate to have to address. In "Debates and the Globetrotters" [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html], Dr Eugenie Scott explains what happens at these "debates": "What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That's the first problem. The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every effort to turn out their crowd. Don't be surprised to see church busses from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came? "The second problem is that the evolutionist debater has an upstream battle from the start. Evolution is a complex set of ideas that is not easily explained in the sound-bite razzle-dazzle of the debate format. Evolution applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, biology, geology -- you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, like as not. Most audiences have an abysmal understanding of basic science. How are you going to bring an audience up to par? The goal of a debate (I assume) is to teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of science. This is possible in a debate format, but it is difficult to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly. Consider that your opponent will offer as proof that evolution did not occur that Stephen Jay Gould has said that the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. A good debating strategy: he is citing a famous evolutionist source, which gives him credibility. Plus he is confusing Gould's statement about the rate of evolutionary change with an unmade conclusion about whether evolution occurs. Plus he is operating from the creationist enthusiasm for authority ("if famous scientist X says it, it has to be true.") Gould, like any scientist, can be wrong on any point. We don't accept "famous scientist X's" conclusions just because of the fame of the maker, but because of the quality of the argument. "How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this matter? The creationist has made a simple declarative sentence, and you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far longer to explain. As I was writing this, a community college teacher called to tell me she had trouble convincing her students they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not all audiences are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept cell theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms", "radiometric dating doesn't work," etc.) means you have a bunch more talking to do from the get-go. Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters at presenting these half-truth nonsequitors that the audience misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time. And you never have enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, your audience is left with the , "Yeah, but..." syndrome: well, maybe there are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric dating, YEAH, BUT why didn't that evolutionist answer the question about polonium halos?" (or some other argument.) "The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what." "My recommendation: above all else, do no harm "I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with creationists, and have done so many times. In this format, it is possible to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though it seems odd to say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something similar, and show that their "model" is faulty. But in a debate, the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist gallops along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph. "Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a narrowly-focused exchange in which the debators deal with a limited number of topics. Instead of the "Gish Gallop" format of most debates where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time. For example, the creationist has 10 minutes to discuss a topic on which creationists and evolutionists disagree (intermediate forms, the nature of science [with or without the supernatural], the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, the inadequacy of mutation and selection to produce new "kinds", etc.) The evolutionist then has a 5 minute rebuttal, followed by a 2 minute reprise from the creationnist. Next, the evolutionist takes 10 minutes to discuss an agreed-upon issue, with the creationist taking the next five minutes, and the 2 minute followup. "With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of information and is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to- answer nonsense. The evolutionist at least has a fighting chance to teach something about science and evolution. "Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they have refused to debate. Which in itself suggests the utility of using this approach! I think they recognize that they have a lot to lose in any other than the "Gish Gallop" format. Tough luck. I can't see any reason why evolutionists should make it easier for them to rally their troops." Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 27-Jul-00 17:15:31 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud.<< Covered in another email. >>Also, I have never hid the fact I was eager to sin and happy to stop trusting the Bible. At 14 this happened when Mr. Smeadela taught me I was related to a squid.<< Also covered in that same email. >>I will mail you a tape of my lesson; where shall I mail it?<< Sorry, I do not have the facilities to listen to/view a tape in private. I have already told you that. Do you have a transcript or script of it? >>Do you belong to a group that wants me to speak to them? I will, as long as you promise it will be respectful....I sure will be.<< No, not that I can think of. >>Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you.<< Already answered. You still have not told me what your corrective action will be. >>Dave Phillips is the Neandertal expert, would you like to call him regarding the N mans DNA?????<< Please give me his email address so that I can ask him. >>I added liber8r to my newsletter mailing!<< Finally! >>You said: "Yet there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with." Please tell me specifically which fossils you are talking about.<< I'm preparing another email to answer this question. Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 27-Jul-00 17:16:15 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1 >>Oh, D Wise, you remind me of a commercial I saw when I was about 10 (that would be in 1970). This hapless looking fellow is hitchhiking in the middle of a terrible snow strom, shivering away and holding a sign that says "Miami." Up pulls a Corvette, the door opens and inside is a very pretty girl who says, I am only going as far as Ft Lauderdale.....he shrugs, and says "no thanks."<< In the late 30's, my father was in his early 20's and living in northern Texas or Oklahoma (his family moved around a lot and he had only gotten to age 14 in his autobiography). One night, he and his friend had to hitchhike home from a party or dance several miles from home. A car stopped for them, but the driver could only take them part-way to their destination. The friend said, "No, thanks." My father thought he was crazy and accepted the ride. As it turned out, my father was dropped off near a farm, still several miles short of his destination, and he ended up having to sleep in a haystack. Within a half-hour, his friend had gotten a ride direct to his destination and ended up sleeping in his own bed. I forget exactly what his friend had told him, but the jist of it was that you need to be as sure as you can about the outcome of your choices and that it pays to wait that little bit longer for the right choice rather than to take the first one that comes along and takes you who-knows-where. In your example above, if he is thumbing outside a college town, then he could very well get that ride straight to Miami. >>He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud.<< No, not at all. I have been preparing to address what you had written about the "Peppered Moth fraud". Needless to say, I had some researching to do, which hasn't been helped by my being unable to find a library that carries "World Magazine" and the Washington Times. I haven't even been able to identify the former; I assume that "World Magazine" does not refer to National Geographic's youth magazine, nor to the Unitarian-Universalist Association's magazine. I just have not had time yet to complete it. I will send it to you soon in a separate email, so that you won't complain about this email being too long. Since I knew that I could not address that matter immediately, I instead chose to handle some more urgent and timely matters, namely: 1. To check on whether you had corrected your mistake concerning the "Spanish Inquisition". I see that you have not, but rather your readership has indeed be misinformed in this matter. Please tell me what corrective actions you intend to take. 2. To inform you that I had made corrections to my pages about you. 3. To alert you to the fact that your web site was inaccessible. That problem had started on Tuesday, 18 July, and had persisted for a full week, ending with it being back up on Tuesday, 25 July. 4. To use your statement "When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth >thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he >deceive me?" as a springboard to lead in to the subject of the quality of science education, which would then lead in to a message that I had written for you in August 1998, but could not deliver because of your disappearance from AOL. Rather you are the one who missed the point. Or should I say "points"? Point 1. That your claims about Neanderthal Man were confused and confusing. I could not tell what your point was, but rather it appeared that you were attacking science through innuendo. You were again condemning science for doing science. You seemed to have been proceeding from the premise that all scientists have been involved in some grandiose conspiracy to misrepresent what Neanderthal Man is, whereas in fact all that information about Neanderthal has been freely available to anyone who has bothered to look it up. What was your point? Point 2. You had stated: "Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution." But I asked what kind of evidence you were saying that it has been taught as? What specifically were you saying that Neanderthal was being presented as evidence of? In short, just what is your claim here? Point 3. You cannot judge science by what is taught in the elementary, jr. high, and high schools. Scientists have very little input into that curriculum. Professional writers write the textbooks, not scientists. Many, if not most, of the science teachers are not experts in that field of science (I gave a few more extreme examples), your having a PhD teach high-school biology in "Weird Science" notwithstanding. If a teacher's misconception about science is taught in the classroom, then that constitutes a failure of science education, not of science itself. And if you suddenly discover that something you had been taught by your science teacher is not what science actually says, then do not condemn science for it. Point 4. By your own admission, throughout your "atheist" period you were always a theist, praying many times to the god you were pretending to have rejected just so you could be free to get your jollies (AKA "giving your gonads power-of-attorney"). Sure, you want to believe that you had been an atheist and so have fooled yourself into believing that you were one, but in reality you were just yet another opportunistic theist looking for a way to get away with something. Point 5. It was what you had learned in church and Sunday School (which was not necessarily what your church was actually trying to teach you) that caused you to become an "atheist" (or rather to pretend to be one), NOT what you had learned in science class. Your Christian training had turned you into an "atheist", not evolution. The thought process you probably went through was something like this [For the following, put yourself back in your 9th-grade sneakers]: You believed that you were taught that if you sinned, God would punish you. What was it about sinning that would make God want to punish you? Well, because those are the rules. Whose rules? Well, God's rules. So then without God, there wouldn't be any rules. Yep, that's what I've been taught. Gee, if only there weren't any God to enforce those stupid rules or to even have come up with them in the first place. Hmm ... [image of wheels turning in the head, which drive belts slipping on the sloshing testosterone that's drenching the machinery] Where does evolution come into the picture? It was just a convenient excuse for you to apply your religious training. Now, there may be some teachers out there who have the following misconceptions and would actually teach such things, but they should be rare. Think about it and be honest. Did your science class really teach you that God did not exist? No. Did your science class really tell you that science and religion are mutually exclusive? No. Did your science class really tell you that science required you to reject Christianity? No. Did your science class teach you that morality does not exist without God? No. Did your science class teach you that if you denied the existence of God, then you could do whatever you wanted to? No. What your science class should have taught (and probably did, for the most part) were the findings of science and something about how those findings were reached (though science education is notoriously weak in doing the latter). While it should not have taught that science and religion are at odds with each other, there would nonetheless be those instances where a particular piece of dogma was found to be wrong, or at least at odds with the evidence. That could give a young student the impression that there is a conflict between science and religion, that science disproved religion, even if that particular piece of dogma was not an actual part of their own church's doctrine. However, the fault there lies with the student's understanding, or mis-understanding, of his religion's teachings and of its relationship with science. Of course, if the student's church actively teaches conflict between science and religion, actively teaches that if God didn't exist then morality would be meaningless and you could do whatever you wanted, actively teaches that if you stop believing in God then you would indulge in every excess imaginable (and some people have very lively imaginations, unfortunately), actively teaches that if you teach children that they are descended from animals then they will "act like animals" (ie, wildly, out of control, indulging in unbridled hedonism), and actively teaches that if the earth were older than 10,000 years then Scripture would have no meaning, then that student would primed and ready for your brand of opportunistic theism, which you mislabeled "atheism". These things are actively taught by creation science. Point 6 [from earlier correspondence]. Several creationists have taken the teachings of creation science to heart and as a result suffered severe crises of faith, and even loss of faith, when they learned the truth about the claims of creation science. Again, these crises of faith were not caused by science, but rather by their religious training, particularly what they had been taught by creation science. Point 7 [back to the message in question]. You have repeatedly offered us a "free lesson", but have never delivered on that promise, despite my repeated requests and responses to your offer. Point 8. Have you taken the necessary measures to ensure the scientific accuracy of this "free lesson" with which you expect the youth to "defend their faith"? Especially considering that you are well aware of how creation science's contrary-to-fact teachings about geology and the age of the earth has destroyed or nearly destroyed the faith of staunch creationists when faced with the truth, what have you done to ensure that your free lesson will indeed perform as advertised? That it will indeed defend their faith and not sow the seeds of its destruction? Point 9. Our on-line debate is still pending. Have you started working on it yet? Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 27-Jul-00 17:17:59 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, webmaster@liberator.net >>He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud.<< Ah, you are again insisting on answers. That must mean that you are also ready to provide some answers. Good! Finally! This time, I'll just seek closure on two questions, one of which will raise another serious question. I'm including Liber8r in this, so he can also find closure on these questions. First, there is the matter of your question to me: "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" You will find the entire exchange on my page, "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?", at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_teach_kids.html . As you can plainly see, I answered your question, quite thoroughly and thoughtfully. Your only response was to repeat the question, as if I had not answered it, when in reality I had. I asked you repeatedly to tell me why you believed that I hadn't answered your question, but you refused to answer and simply continued your childish game of mechanically repeating the question, until you performed your disappearing act. So, Bill, now that you are finally ready to answer some questions, answer me these: 1. Do you still believe that I had not answered your question? 2. If the answer to Question #1 is "yes", then why do you believe that I had not answered your question? Second matter: The Ozone Layer. You will find this material on my page, "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER", at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html . This was in response to a newsletter article you wrote, which you have posted on your site as "The Ozone Layer" at http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article24.htm . As you can clearly see on my page, I had found the answers to all the questions you had posted about the depletion of the ozone layer. I had accomplished this by going to the actual experts in the subject, rather than to air-conditioning salesmen. I copy-and-pasted the applicable FAQs to my email and passed the information on to you. You responded by claiming that I had not answered your question. In response I pointed out that I had answered it, I presented the answer once more, and I asked you to explain why you believed that I had not answered it. Your response was to drop the matter completely and to completely ignore the question every time I repeated it. The open questions here are as above: 1. Do you still believe that I had not answered your question? 2. If the answer to Question #1 is "yes", then why do you believe that I had not answered your question? Third Matter: The Ozone Layer. In the meantime, another problem with this has arisen. As I said, you had posted that article on your site as "The Ozone Layer" at http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article24.htm . Except for the lack of proper lead-in to provide context for the first paragraph -- context which I provide on my page at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html -- it is exactly as you had published it in the newsletter. Completely with the claim that the experts could not answer your set of questions. The problem with this is that you know that that claim is false. You know that the experts -- the REAL experts -- do have answers to those questions. I got those answers from those experts at NOAA and I passed them on to you, word-for-word, character-for-character. I even provided the links to those answers. You know that to be true. Therefore, you must also know that your claims in that article are false. Therefore, you are knowingly posting false claims and misrepresenting them as true. Furthermore, you have been doing so for an extended period of time. This raises some very serious ethical and moral questions about your conduct. Please answer me these: 1. How do you justify the posting of claims on your site which you know to be false? 2. If you claim that those claims are not false, then why are they not false? Subj: Re: Brad Sparks Date: 22-Jul-00 23:11:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com I think any objective analysis would render that the whiner is not me. Please reread your latest e mail. I know what clipboard and pasting is...but it is still TYPING....what part of typing don't you understand. If you think I am choosing a restaurant with a heeavy metal band playing while we chat you are mistaken. Every restaurant I have been too since I got old and married has been nice and quiet. It is too bad, for the both of us, but we won't have a mega type me type you debate. I want to meet in person, or over the phone..... I could tell you about others who will debate you on line. Want to meet them? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:15:58 EDT > > >>I will gladly answer, or try to answer all of your questions, but again >lets do it by phone or over dinner.<< > >You already know that by phone or over dinner is impossible for me. I do >not have private access to a phone at home, I do not have private access to >a phone at home, and I would not be able to hear you clearly in a >restaurant. It is simply impossible, as you already know full well. What >part of "impossible" don't you understand? > >The only viable option that is open to us is email. Sorry, but that is >just the way it is. > > >>If you don't want to talk about it or meet, I just don't have the drive >to type type type.<< > >Yes, I do want to talk about it! But you keep dodging and weaseling out of >it! >Honestly, if you had taken all that energy you've wasted whining about not >liking to type and put it to constructive use, you'd have gotten a lot of >typing done. > >The way that you keep carrying on makes it look to me like you still have >no idea of the tools at your disposal and what they can do for you. >Like the Clipboard. Like working off-line. >Like being able to save everything that you type for recycling? >Like building up a set of responses to likely questions. >Again, Bill, if you do not know about these things, just ask for help >[NOTE: despite repeated questions of whether you do know about these >things, you have NEVER EVER answered yea or nay]. > >Besides, you're going to have to type it out anyway for our on-line debate. > Right? >Well, then, you may as well get started now. > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (rly-yg01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.1]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:11:44 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f100.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.100]) by rly-yg01.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:11:24 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:11:24 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: Brad Sparks Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:11:24 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F100JfkKheb814MYMTI00001f30@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2000 06:11:24.0146 (UTC) FILETIME=[D4151520:01BFF46C] Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 22-Jul-00 23:29:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Oh, D Wise, you remind me of a commercial I saw when I was about 10 (that would be in 1970). This hapless looking fellow is hitchhiking in the middle of a terrible snow strom, shivering away and holding a sign that says "Miami." Up pulls a Corvette, the door opens and inside is a very pretty girl who says, I am only going as far as Ft Lauderdale.....he shrugs, and says "no thanks." He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud. Also, I have never hid the fact I was eager to sin and happy to stop trusting the Bible. At 14 this happened when Mr. Smeadela taught me I was related to a squid. I will mail you a tape of my lesson; where shall I mail it? Do you belong to a group that wants me to speak to them? I will, as long as you promise it will be respectful....I sure will be. Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you. Dave Phillips is the Neandertal expert, would you like to call him regarding the N mans DNA????? I added liber8r to my newsletter mailing! You said: "Yet there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with." Please tell me specifically which fossils you are talking about. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:18:05 EDT > >First, I do hope that you have corrected your mistake concerning the >"Spanish Inquisition". > >Second, I corrected my "Morgan Pages" in the matter of when you started >posting your email address and FTP'd them up yesterday. Please let me know >if I missed one. > >Third, your web site is down. I keep getting a 403 message, "Access Not >Authorized". Are you aware of this problem? Could you please let me know >when it gets corrected? And if it ends up that you need to change your >URL, could you please pass it on to me so that I can update my own pages? > >Fourth, I would like to comment on this paragraph in the newsletter: >"When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth >thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he >deceive me?" > >You always seemed to have a problem in identifying experts, though the >attitude that you express here is in keeping with a 14-year-old's >perspective. I am not criticizing the use of that perspective here, since >it is appropriate for what you were trying to communicate. > >There are definite problems with science education, especially in the >secondary schools. >I think that this would be a good subject to discuss. >Of course, my solution would be to try to improve the quality of science >education whereas your "solution" would be to destroy it further. > >I discussed this issue in my 1998-Sep-04 email to you, which never got >delivered because you had disappeared suddenly. At least, I couldn't >deliver it until now: > >[from 1998 Sep 04] > >Sorry for my absense of late. Besides being away for my two weeks of >active duty, I have been very busy with work and with the events >unfolding due to the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, having decided to >attack our church [visit http://www.uua.org for details]. > >Bill, in your last newsletter, you wrote: > >"Some bones, claimed to be from Neandertal Man, were claimed to be >non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial >DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn't taught, is that >the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human >range. And if it were Neandertal Man's remains, how was its DNA >preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, >there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few >thousand years!" > >[Liber8r, there were a lot more statements made, but I didn't feel like >typing them all in. Has Bill started emailing you a copy of the >newsletter as he had planned? He has not emailed it to me.] > >Could you please cite your source(s) for this statement? Until I can >read what the scientific source(s) say, I cannot make sense of your >statement. > >As for your questions about the survival of the DNA, refer to the subject >of Miocene "green fossils" (I'll have to dig the article out on my files), >from which proteins were extracted and sequenced and a pattern of >biochemical differences was discovered across morphologically identical >specimens. Again, the primary source of your statement (ie, the scientific >source, not a creationist claim supposedly based on an unnamed scientific >source) should describe how the mitochondrial samples were obtained. > >While there is disagreement among scientists on exactly how Neanderthal >Man is related to our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, most scientists do >consider him to be very closely related to us, some even placing him as >a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, I believe. > >Precisely how are you using the terms, "human" and "non-human", here? >Are you being consistent in your usage of those terms (ie, not engaging >in standard creationist semantic shifting)? Are you using it to refer >strictly to Homo sapiens sapiens, or a bit more loosely to include all >possible sub-species, such as Homo sapiens neanderthalis? > >So what is your point, Bill? You seem to have proceeded from the premise >that all scientists have been involved in some grandiose conspiracy to >misrepresent what Neanderthal Man is. However, except for most of the >interpretations that you threw in, all that information about Neanderthal >has been freely available to anyone who has bothered to look it up. Like >NOAA's answers to your questions about ozone-layer depletion. What it >looks like is that yet again you had had a totally mistaken idea of what >science says and, upon discovering that you were mistaken, you mistakenly >interpreted that as debunking science. Just like your "discovery" that >C-14 has too short a half-life to be used in dating anything older than >about 50,000 years. Having your misunderstanding of science corrected >does not disprove science, it only means that you didn't understand the >science in the first place! > >"According to evolutionsts, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time >as Homo Sapiens." > >Yes, that is correct. So, what is your point? Do you have a point, or >are you trying to rely on innuendo again? > >"Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that >Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution." > >What kind of evidence are you saying that it has been taught as? There >is lots of different evidence for evolution, each piece of evidence >pertaining to a different part of the overall view. What specifically >are you saying that Neanderthal was being presented as evidence of?Yet >there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with. > >One thought on this. The ICR decries the lack of a "missing link" between >man and apes. They proclaim that Neanderthal was "100% human" and that >Homo erectus was "100% ape, nothing human about it!". > >But back to the question of what school children are being taught. We >have touched on the problem of the quality of science education before. >IS what is being taught in school as science current scientific thought? >Is it accurate? Is it understood by the students? Is it even understood >by the teachers? > >First, the science curriculum is not current. For various reasons, >usually several years will pass before a new discovery or theory finds >its way into the text books. As Frank Steiger pointed out, trying to >keep science text books current would require them to be revised several >times a year to include all the latest views and information. Our school >district gets new books only about once every seven years. Rather, >current scientific thought is to be found in the professional scientific >journals. How often are professional scientific journals used in junior >high and high school science classes? I cannot say that I've heard of it. > >Second, there are definite problems in the accuracy of the science >curriculum in the elementary and secondary schools, particularly in the >textbooks. When California was preparing to buy new science textbooks in >the mid-to-late 80's, a group of scientists volunteered to review the >textbooks under consideration. They found none of the books to be >acceptable; >all contained numerous inaccuracies, misconceptions, and just plain wrong >information. For one thing, none of the authors were scientists. Also, >in order to appease fundamentalist activists and board members, the >publishers >had their authors equivocate on, and even leave out, certain >"controversial" >subjects, like evolution. The scientists had to reject most of the books >and >drew up a long list of corrections that had to be made in the best of the >candidates before they could even approach being adequate. As soon as the >publisher had implemented a few of the corrections, the State Board met in >secret and went behind the scientists' backs to approve the >still-very-flawed >textbook. > >Third, besides working from inaccurate material, many teachers are >themselves not sufficiently trained in science. In most school districts, >they find practically anyone they can to teach a subject, even if that >teacher has little training in the subject. Two years ago, my younger >son's 6th grade science teacher's experience was in teaching home-ec; our >son knew more about the subject matter than she did and the other students >kept turning to him for explanations. I don't know what his older >brother's >9th grade science teacher's training was, but that guy was horrible; he was >apparently a low-profile creationist who left out certain topics and hinted >at the existence of "scientific evidence" against other topics, his idea of >educational materials included the movies "The Lion King" and "Free Willy", >and he also had a local fundamentalist activist speak to the class a number >of times. Why, one local high school even had a PE teacher teaching >biology, >of all things, even though he had the absolute minimum biology training >required for his PE degree! You may have heard something about that one. > >One thing that I have noticed about the misconceptions expressed by >creationists >about science in general and evolution in particular, is that they are very >similar to the misconceptions held by much of the general public about >science >in general and evolution in particular. That might be a large part of the >reason for most people's willingness to accept the claims of creation >science. >They are confused by what the scientists tell them, but they understand it >when >the creationists tell them what they already "know." > >When a teacher teaches science without knowing the subject matter, then >he/she >must depend on the textbook, which we already know to be woefully >inadequate >and inaccurate. Beyond that, they will rely on their personal "knowledge", >such that they end up propogating their own misconceptions and >misunderstandings >to the next generation. > >Which brings us to the question of how much the students understand >science. >Considering the textbooks and teachers that most of them have to learn >from, >I wouldn't think that they would have much chance. > >"I was taught [that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of >Evolution] >in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist!" > >Uh, Bill, now you're changing your story. In AOLCREAT.DOC, you wrote that >you did not really believe it, but rather that you wanted to believe the >[mistaken] conclusion that it made you free to indulge in all kinds of >debauchery, "to sin without guilt." It was not the ideas of evolution that >you had embraced, but rather false Christian conclusions about evolution >and >science. > >You claim to have become an atheist, but your own words speak differently: >"But I honestly know that you know God exists but choose not to honor >acknowldge or give thanks to God. Romans 1 says that and that was my case >when I was an atheist, I prayed many times while an atheist." Bill, an >atheist is one who does not believe in the gods. From what you describe >of yourself, you were never an atheist, but rather had always remained a >theist, even when you were trying to pretend to be an atheist. An atheist >realizes that he does not need any gods upon whom to base his beliefs and >that he must accept responsibility for his own actions. Your entire >masquerade as an "atheist" was nothing but a theist's attempt to escape >responsibility for his actions. Face it, Bill, except for your earliest >infancy, you never were an atheist. > > >"We have a free lesson for your youth so they may defend their faith in >junior high, high school and college. Call 714 898-8331 and ask for more >information (adults need this lesson too)." > >Could you please share some of that free lesson with us? You had freely >offered to present your lesson to me before, which offer I accepted, but >which you never did deliver on. "Mr. 100%". If you protest that none of >it is written in electronic form, then it is high time that you do commit >it to disk, since I would think that, since you appear to think so highly >of your work, you would want to make it widely available on your web page. > >Also, could you please tell us what measures you have taken to ensure the >scientific accuracy of this lesson with which you expect the youth to >"defend their faith." Especially considering that you are well aware of >how creation science's contrary-to-fact teachings about geology and the age >of the earth has destroyed or nearly destroyed the faith of staunch >creationists when faced with the truth. What have you done to ensure that >your free lesson will indeed perform as advertised? That it will indeed >defend their faith and not sow the seeds of its destruction? > >BTW, how is the work going on your web page? When should we expect to see >it put up? And how are you doing on your opening statement for our on-line >debate? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:52 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f293.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.87]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:29:26 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 06:29:26 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F293TGJ2TUSzbAUfKRf00001116@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2000 06:29:26.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[59824500:01BFF46F] Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 24-Jul-00 10:35:12 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Ok, then you tell me exactly what you said when I invited you to our meetings. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:51:47 EDT > > >>I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings >is that he fears "an Inquisition."<< > >Bill, I said no such thing and you know it. My mention of the "SPANISH >Inquisition" refers to my WIFE, who is MEXICAN. As I told you when I made >the first such mention. I do not fear my possible treatment at the >meetings, but I also need to maintain domestic tranquility. Please get it >right. > > > >>I think he is scared of truth, not an Inquisition.<< > >Then why was it that while I was constantly trying to get us to examine the >truth, you were constantly running away from it? Be honest, Bill, which of >us has proven himself to be afraid of the truth? > ><< ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (rly-yg02.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.2]) by air-yg01.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:35:12 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f35.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.35]) by rly-yg02.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:34:45 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:34:43 -0700 Received: from 164.45.101.11 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [164.45.101.11] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! ############################################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 22-Jul-00 23:29:52 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Oh, D Wise, you remind me of a commercial I saw when I was about 10 (that would be in 1970). This hapless looking fellow is hitchhiking in the middle of a terrible snow strom, shivering away and holding a sign that says "Miami." Up pulls a Corvette, the door opens and inside is a very pretty girl who says, I am only going as far as Ft Lauderdale.....he shrugs, and says "no thanks." He missed the point! You did to. You selectively chose to not address the Peppered Moth fraud. Also, I have never hid the fact I was eager to sin and happy to stop trusting the Bible. At 14 this happened when Mr. Smeadela taught me I was related to a squid. I will mail you a tape of my lesson; where shall I mail it? Do you belong to a group that wants me to speak to them? I will, as long as you promise it will be respectful....I sure will be. Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored that I mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please you. Dave Phillips is the Neandertal expert, would you like to call him regarding the N mans DNA????? I added liber8r to my newsletter mailing! You said: "Yet there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with." Please tell me specifically which fossils you are talking about. Bill >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:18:05 EDT > >First, I do hope that you have corrected your mistake concerning the >"Spanish Inquisition". > >Second, I corrected my "Morgan Pages" in the matter of when you started >posting your email address and FTP'd them up yesterday. Please let me know >if I missed one. > >Third, your web site is down. I keep getting a 403 message, "Access Not >Authorized". Are you aware of this problem? Could you please let me know >when it gets corrected? And if it ends up that you need to change your >URL, could you please pass it on to me so that I can update my own pages? > >Fourth, I would like to comment on this paragraph in the newsletter: >"When I was 14, I thought the Theory of Evolution was scientific truth >thanks to my 9th grade Biology teacher. He was the expert! Why would he >deceive me?" > >You always seemed to have a problem in identifying experts, though the >attitude that you express here is in keeping with a 14-year-old's >perspective. I am not criticizing the use of that perspective here, since >it is appropriate for what you were trying to communicate. > >There are definite problems with science education, especially in the >secondary schools. >I think that this would be a good subject to discuss. >Of course, my solution would be to try to improve the quality of science >education whereas your "solution" would be to destroy it further. > >I discussed this issue in my 1998-Sep-04 email to you, which never got >delivered because you had disappeared suddenly. At least, I couldn't >deliver it until now: > >[from 1998 Sep 04] > >Sorry for my absense of late. Besides being away for my two weeks of >active duty, I have been very busy with work and with the events >unfolding due to the Boy Scouts of America, Inc, having decided to >attack our church [visit http://www.uua.org for details]. > >Bill, in your last newsletter, you wrote: > >"Some bones, claimed to be from Neandertal Man, were claimed to be >non-human since the number of substitutions in their mitochondrial >DNA was 24, and the human average is 8. What isn't taught, is that >the human range for this is from 1 to 26! Thus it fell within human >range. And if it were Neandertal Man's remains, how was its DNA >preserved? Neandertal man supposedly disappeared 30,000 years ago, >there is strong evidence that DNA cannot be preserved more than a few >thousand years!" > >[Liber8r, there were a lot more statements made, but I didn't feel like >typing them all in. Has Bill started emailing you a copy of the >newsletter as he had planned? He has not emailed it to me.] > >Could you please cite your source(s) for this statement? Until I can >read what the scientific source(s) say, I cannot make sense of your >statement. > >As for your questions about the survival of the DNA, refer to the subject >of Miocene "green fossils" (I'll have to dig the article out on my files), >from which proteins were extracted and sequenced and a pattern of >biochemical differences was discovered across morphologically identical >specimens. Again, the primary source of your statement (ie, the scientific >source, not a creationist claim supposedly based on an unnamed scientific >source) should describe how the mitochondrial samples were obtained. > >While there is disagreement among scientists on exactly how Neanderthal >Man is related to our species, Homo sapiens sapiens, most scientists do >consider him to be very closely related to us, some even placing him as >a sub-species, Homo sapiens neanderthalis, I believe. > >Precisely how are you using the terms, "human" and "non-human", here? >Are you being consistent in your usage of those terms (ie, not engaging >in standard creationist semantic shifting)? Are you using it to refer >strictly to Homo sapiens sapiens, or a bit more loosely to include all >possible sub-species, such as Homo sapiens neanderthalis? > >So what is your point, Bill? You seem to have proceeded from the premise >that all scientists have been involved in some grandiose conspiracy to >misrepresent what Neanderthal Man is. However, except for most of the >interpretations that you threw in, all that information about Neanderthal >has been freely available to anyone who has bothered to look it up. Like >NOAA's answers to your questions about ozone-layer depletion. What it >looks like is that yet again you had had a totally mistaken idea of what >science says and, upon discovering that you were mistaken, you mistakenly >interpreted that as debunking science. Just like your "discovery" that >C-14 has too short a half-life to be used in dating anything older than >about 50,000 years. Having your misunderstanding of science corrected >does not disprove science, it only means that you didn't understand the >science in the first place! > >"According to evolutionsts, Neanderthal Man lived at the same time >as Homo Sapiens." > >Yes, that is correct. So, what is your point? Do you have a point, or >are you trying to rely on innuendo again? > >"Because for many years, millions of school children were taught that >Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of Evolution." > >What kind of evidence are you saying that it has been taught as? There >is lots of different evidence for evolution, each piece of evidence >pertaining to a different part of the overall view. What specifically >are you saying that Neanderthal was being presented as evidence of?Yet >there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with. > >One thought on this. The ICR decries the lack of a "missing link" between >man and apes. They proclaim that Neanderthal was "100% human" and that >Homo erectus was "100% ape, nothing human about it!". > >But back to the question of what school children are being taught. We >have touched on the problem of the quality of science education before. >IS what is being taught in school as science current scientific thought? >Is it accurate? Is it understood by the students? Is it even understood >by the teachers? > >First, the science curriculum is not current. For various reasons, >usually several years will pass before a new discovery or theory finds >its way into the text books. As Frank Steiger pointed out, trying to >keep science text books current would require them to be revised several >times a year to include all the latest views and information. Our school >district gets new books only about once every seven years. Rather, >current scientific thought is to be found in the professional scientific >journals. How often are professional scientific journals used in junior >high and high school science classes? I cannot say that I've heard of it. > >Second, there are definite problems in the accuracy of the science >curriculum in the elementary and secondary schools, particularly in the >textbooks. When California was preparing to buy new science textbooks in >the mid-to-late 80's, a group of scientists volunteered to review the >textbooks under consideration. They found none of the books to be >acceptable; >all contained numerous inaccuracies, misconceptions, and just plain wrong >information. For one thing, none of the authors were scientists. Also, >in order to appease fundamentalist activists and board members, the >publishers >had their authors equivocate on, and even leave out, certain >"controversial" >subjects, like evolution. The scientists had to reject most of the books >and >drew up a long list of corrections that had to be made in the best of the >candidates before they could even approach being adequate. As soon as the >publisher had implemented a few of the corrections, the State Board met in >secret and went behind the scientists' backs to approve the >still-very-flawed >textbook. > >Third, besides working from inaccurate material, many teachers are >themselves not sufficiently trained in science. In most school districts, >they find practically anyone they can to teach a subject, even if that >teacher has little training in the subject. Two years ago, my younger >son's 6th grade science teacher's experience was in teaching home-ec; our >son knew more about the subject matter than she did and the other students >kept turning to him for explanations. I don't know what his older >brother's >9th grade science teacher's training was, but that guy was horrible; he was >apparently a low-profile creationist who left out certain topics and hinted >at the existence of "scientific evidence" against other topics, his idea of >educational materials included the movies "The Lion King" and "Free Willy", >and he also had a local fundamentalist activist speak to the class a number >of times. Why, one local high school even had a PE teacher teaching >biology, >of all things, even though he had the absolute minimum biology training >required for his PE degree! You may have heard something about that one. > >One thing that I have noticed about the misconceptions expressed by >creationists >about science in general and evolution in particular, is that they are very >similar to the misconceptions held by much of the general public about >science >in general and evolution in particular. That might be a large part of the >reason for most people's willingness to accept the claims of creation >science. >They are confused by what the scientists tell them, but they understand it >when >the creationists tell them what they already "know." > >When a teacher teaches science without knowing the subject matter, then >he/she >must depend on the textbook, which we already know to be woefully >inadequate >and inaccurate. Beyond that, they will rely on their personal "knowledge", >such that they end up propogating their own misconceptions and >misunderstandings >to the next generation. > >Which brings us to the question of how much the students understand >science. >Considering the textbooks and teachers that most of them have to learn >from, >I wouldn't think that they would have much chance. > >"I was taught [that Neandertal Man was evidence for the Theory of >Evolution] >in 9th grade back in 1974, and I believed it and became an evolutionist!" > >Uh, Bill, now you're changing your story. In AOLCREAT.DOC, you wrote that >you did not really believe it, but rather that you wanted to believe the >[mistaken] conclusion that it made you free to indulge in all kinds of >debauchery, "to sin without guilt." It was not the ideas of evolution that >you had embraced, but rather false Christian conclusions about evolution >and >science. > >You claim to have become an atheist, but your own words speak differently: >"But I honestly know that you know God exists but choose not to honor >acknowldge or give thanks to God. Romans 1 says that and that was my case >when I was an atheist, I prayed many times while an atheist." Bill, an >atheist is one who does not believe in the gods. From what you describe >of yourself, you were never an atheist, but rather had always remained a >theist, even when you were trying to pretend to be an atheist. An atheist >realizes that he does not need any gods upon whom to base his beliefs and >that he must accept responsibility for his own actions. Your entire >masquerade as an "atheist" was nothing but a theist's attempt to escape >responsibility for his actions. Face it, Bill, except for your earliest >infancy, you never were an atheist. > > >"We have a free lesson for your youth so they may defend their faith in >junior high, high school and college. Call 714 898-8331 and ask for more >information (adults need this lesson too)." > >Could you please share some of that free lesson with us? You had freely >offered to present your lesson to me before, which offer I accepted, but >which you never did deliver on. "Mr. 100%". If you protest that none of >it is written in electronic form, then it is high time that you do commit >it to disk, since I would think that, since you appear to think so highly >of your work, you would want to make it widely available on your web page. > >Also, could you please tell us what measures you have taken to ensure the >scientific accuracy of this lesson with which you expect the youth to >"defend their faith." Especially considering that you are well aware of >how creation science's contrary-to-fact teachings about geology and the age >of the earth has destroyed or nearly destroyed the faith of staunch >creationists when faced with the truth. What have you done to ensure that >your free lesson will indeed perform as advertised? That it will indeed >defend their faith and not sow the seeds of its destruction? > >BTW, how is the work going on your web page? When should we expect to see >it put up? And how are you doing on your opening statement for our on-line >debate? > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc04.mail.aol.com (v75_b1.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:52 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f293.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.87]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v75.18) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:29:27 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 22 Jul 2000 23:29:26 -0700 Received: from 205.188.197.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.53] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! ############################################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 28-Jul-00 17:52:49 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: webmaster@liberator.net, DWise1 I'm including Liber8r in this discussion and in the "Peppered Moth Fraud" one, since they are more technical in nature and could be of interest. Also, Bill, if you are planning to rely on your memory to store all this, then please copy it off and save it. You will find that keeping a copy makes subsequent research a lot easier and more accurate. [Bill, 23 Jul 2000 2:29:52 EDT] >>You said: "Yet there are several >fossils which show a gradation from Homo erectus to Neanderthal. So if the >ICR still wants to classify Homo erectus as "100% ape", they have those >"missing links" to contend with." Please tell me specifically which fossils you are talking about.<< It will take me a while to track down my source again. That statement was made two years ago and based on an earlier statement at least a few years before that. However, I can tell you that my source said little more than I did on that particular matter. Still, the article's bibliography may lead us to the more specific information that you seek, so I will keep looking for it. Until then, to help you find that information, I did a web search and found Jim Foley's FAQ, "Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution" on Talk.Origins at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html . Besides describing several specific fossils, he also provides a sizable bibliography, which also contains a number of creationist sources, on his "Fossil Hominids: References" page [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/referenc.html]. Specific to our question are two of the specimens on his "Prominent Hominid Fossils" page [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html]: Petralona 1, Homo sapiens (archaic) Discovered by villagers at Petralona in Greece in 1960. Estimated age is 250,000-500,000 years. It could alternatively be considered to be a late Homo erectus, and also has some Neandertal characteristics. The brain size is 1220 cc, high for erectus but low for sapiens, and the face is large with particularly wide jaws. (Day 1986) Arago XXI, "Tautavel Man", Homo sapiens (archaic) (also Homo heidelbergensis) Discovered at Arago in southern France in 1971 by Henry de Lumley. Estimated age is 400,000 years. The fossil consists of a fairly complete face, with 5 molar teeth and part of the braincase. The brain size was about 1150 cc. The skull contains a mixture of features from archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus, to which it is sometimes assigned. A search for these specific fossils confirmed what Foley had written. Interestingly, the search did not yield even a single creationist site, which tells me that the creation science literature must be ignoring these fossils. In the summary on the same page, Foley notes: "There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens." Now, if these are different and distinct species, as the "creation model" says they would be, then there should be clear dividing lines between them. We should have no difficulty assigning a given specimen to one group or the other. However, transitional forms do not fit neatly into one group and not the other and so we do have difficulty figuring out to which group to assign them and they do blur the dividing lines between the groups. When a transitional form is assigned to a group, it must be done arbitrarily by picking one or a few specific distinguishing characteristics, such as the presence of feathers or the placement of the jaw joint, while noting the characteristics that alone would have placed it into another group, or which are transitional between the two groups. The creationist literature makes much of the arbitrary assignment of a transitional form to a group while ignoring those other characteristics; their treatment of Archaeopteryx is classic, as is the creationist's assessment of the hominid pelvis I witnessed on CBN (since stealth-named to "Family Channel" and then sold off years later) and reported on my page, "How I got started and why I oppose 'creation science'" [http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/warum.html]. Foley demonstrates the classification problem by surveying how creationists themselves classify certain fossils (see discussion below on his "Comparison of all skulls" page [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html]). In doing a search on "erectus", I found a number of references to the "Homo Erectus Problem" (no Viagra jokes, please). Following up on the bibliographic reference for Petralona 1, I found in M.H. Day's "Guide to Fossil Man" a section entitled "The Homo Erectus Problem" (pp 409-412). Day states the basis of the Problem as: "No longer is Homo erectus a clearly defined taxon temporally, morphologically or even geographically." The Problem is multifaceted and boils down to 5 questions: 1. Does Homo erectus exist as a true taxon or should it be sunk into Homo sapiens? 2. Is it a palaeospecies that exists, in classical form, as a segment of the line that emerged from Homo habilis and gave rise to Homo sapiens? 3. Is Homo erectus a good example of a 'stasis event' in hominine evolution with little or no evolutionary change in its form during its existence? 4. Is there a clear cut example of Homo erectus in the European fossil record of man? 5. Are the Asian forms so far removed from the evolution of Homo sapiens in Africa to call into question the existence of Homo erectus sensu stricto in Africa at all? Much of the debate stems from the wide dispersion of Homo erectus populations and the wide range of dates for it, which overlap Homo habilis and Homo sapiens. There are distinctive Homo erectus characteristics, but in many fossils they are found to be mixed with or grading into archaic Homo sapiens, so that the debate is mainly whether it can be considered a separate taxon or should be seen as a grade of archaic Homo sapiens. Please add to our list of transitional fossils Omo II, of which Day writes that it can be aligned with Homo erectus or "included in an 'archaic' Homo sapiens group that displays a suite of mosaic or intermediate characters." Now let's go back and take a closer look at Foley's "Comparison of all skulls" page [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html] (which is called "Comparison of creationist opinions" on his home page). At the top of the page, he displays 14 skulls for comparison: 2 ape, 1 human, and 11 hominid. He then displays a table showing six of the hominids (ER 1813, Java Man, Peking Man, ER 1470, ER 3733, WT 15000) and whether 8 creationists (Gish [in two publications], Taylor [in three publications], Mehlert, Bowden, Menton, Baker, Van Bebber, Lubenow) thought that they were ape or human. Please refer to the page itself for the bibliography list and for the actual table itself. Foley points out that creationists disagree on whether Java Man, Peking Man, and ER 1470 were ape or human. In some cases, the creationist changed his mind about a particular fossil: eg, Gish with ER 1470 and Taylor with Java Man and Peking Man. Here's the table data, with a short description added for the fossils in question: KNM-ER 1813, Homo habilis?? Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1973 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1974). This specimen is similar to 1470, but is much smaller, with a brain size of 510 cc. Estimated age is 1.8-1.9 million years. Apart from its extremely small size, ER 1813 is quite similar to a number of Homo erectus and Homo habilis skulls. It is surprisingly modern, with a rounded skull, no sagittal crest, modest eyebrow ridges, and a small amount of nasal prominence. Creationists almost totally ignore the existence of this fossil (Lubenow briefly mentions it without describing it). However it is safe to say that all creationists would classify it as an ape; its brain size of 510 cc is far too small to be considered human. Votes: Ape: Gish (1985), Mehlert (1996), Bowden (1981), Menton (1988), Taylor (1992), Gish (1979), Baker (1976), Taylor and Van Bebber (1995), Taylor (1996), Lubenow (1992) Human: none Trinil 2, "Java Man", "Pithecanthropus I", Homo erectus (was Pithecanthropus erectus) Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain, but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skullcap, a few teeth, and a thigh bone found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The brain size is about 940 cc. Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now believe the femur is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this. Sangiran 2, "Pithecanthropus II", Homo erectus A very similar but more complete braincase was found at Sangiran in Java in 1937 by G.H.R. von Koenigswald. It is even smaller, with a brain size of only 815 cc. Many creationists consider Java Man to be a large ape, but it is far more humanlike and has a far larger brain size than any ape, and the skull is similar to other Homo erectus skulls. Votes: Ape: Gish (1985), Bowden (1981), Menton (1988), Taylor (1992), Gish (1979), Baker (1976), Taylor and Van Bebber (1995) Human: Mehlert (1996), Taylor (1996), Lubenow (1992) "Peking Man", Homo erectus (was Sinanthropus pekinensis) Between 1929 and 1937, 14 partial craniums, 11 lower jaws, many teeth, some skeletal bones and large numbers of stone tools were discovered in the Lower Cave at Locality 1 of the Peking Man site at Zhoukoudian, near Beijing, in China. Their age is estimated to be between 500,000 and 300,000 years old. Most creationists have considered the Peking Man fossils to be those of apes, or, even more improbably, monkeys, but recently the view of Lubenow that they were humans has been gaining ground. Votes: Ape: Gish (1985), Gish (1979), Bowden (1981), Menton (1988), Taylor (1992), Human: Mehlert (1996), Baker (1976), Taylor and Van Bebber (1995), Taylor (1996), Lubenow (1992) KNM-ER 1470, Homo habilis Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1972 at Koobi Fora in Kenya (Leakey, 1973). Estimated age is 1.9 million years. This is the most complete habilis skull known. Its brain size is 750 cc, large for habilis. It was originally dated at nearly 3 million years old, a figure that caused much confusion as at the time it was older than any known australopithecines, from whom habilis had supposedly descended. A lively debate over the dating of 1470 ensued (Lewin, 1987; Johanson and Edey, 1981; Lubenow, 1992). The braincase is surprisingly modern in many respects, much less robust than any australopithecine skull, and also without the robustness and large brow ridges typical of Homo erectus. The face, in contrast, is extremely large and robust. In the last few years, an increasing number of scientists have been classifying this skull as Homo rudolfensis. Creationists seem to be fairly evenly divided on whether 1470 is an ape or a human. Originally, Gish (1979) thought it human, then later (1985) decided it was an ape. Lubenow's (1992) opinion that it was a human seemed to be gaining ground in the early 1990's, but more recently other creationists such as Mehlert (1996) and Hartwig-Scherer have decided that it is just a large-brained ape. Votes: Ape: Gish (1985), Mehlert (1996) Human: Bowden (1981), Menton (1988), Taylor (1992), Gish (1979), Baker (1976), Taylor and Van Bebber (1995), Taylor (1996), Lubenow (1992) KNM-ER 3733, Homo erectus Discovered by Bernard Ngeneo in 1975 at Koobi Fora in Kenya. Estimated age is 1.7 million years. This superb find consisted of an almost complete cranium. The brain size is about 850 cc, and the whole skull is similar to some of the Peking Man fossils. The brain size of 850 cc is extremely small by modern standards. A very similar skull, ER 3883, is even smaller, at 800 cc. Votes: Ape: none Human: Gish (1985), Mehlert (1996), Bowden (1981), Menton (1988), Taylor (1992), Gish (1979), Baker (1976), Taylor and Van Bebber (1995), Taylor (1996), Lubenow (1992) KNM-WT 15000, "Turkana Boy", Homo erectus Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1984 at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya (Brown et al.1985; Leakey and Lewin, 1992; Walker and Leakey, 1993). This is an almost complete skeleton of an 11 or 12 year old boy, the only major omissions being the hands and feet. (Some scientists believe erectus matured faster than modern humans, and that he was really about 9 years old (Leakey and Lewin 1992).) It is the most complete known specimen of H. erectus, and also one of the oldest, at 1.6 million years. The brain size was 880 cc, and it is estimated that it would have been 910 cc at adulthood. The boy was 160 cm (5'3") tall, and would have been about 185 cm (6'1") as an adult. Votes: Ape: none Human: Gish (1985), Mehlert (1996), Bowden (1981), Menton (1988), Taylor (1992), Gish (1979), Baker (1976), Taylor and Van Bebber (1995), Taylor (1996), Lubenow (1992) Foley writes: "As this table shows, although creationists are adamant that none of these are transitional and all are either apes or humans, they are not able to tell which are which. In fact, there are a number of creationists who have changed their opinion on some fossils. They do not even appear to be converging towards a consistent opinion. Gish and Taylor both used to consider Peking Man an ape and 1470 a human, but now Gish says they are both apes, and Taylor says they were both humans. Interestingly, the most widely differing views are held by the two most prominent creationist researchers on human origins, Gish and Lubenow. Bowden, who has also written a book on human evolution, agrees with neither of them, and Mehlert, who has written a number of articles on human evolution in creationist journals, has yet another opinion. "It could be pointed out that evolutionists also disagree on how fossils should be classified, which species they belong to, etc. True enough. But according to evolutionary thinking, these fossils come from a number of closely related species intermediate between apes and humans. If this is so, we would expect to find that some of them are hard to classify, and we do. "Creationists, on the other hand, assert that apes and humans are separated by a wide gap. If this is true, deciding on which side of that gap individual fossils lie should be trivially easy. Clearly, that is not the case. "ER 1813 (H. habilis?, 510 cc) is almost totally ignored by creationists, but it is safe to say that they would all classify it as an ape. Few mention ER 3733 (H. erectus, 850 cc) either, but those who do seem to consider it human (although it's hard to be sure in Bowden's case). The Turkana Boy is not mentioned much either, but it is safe to say, in view of its essentially human skeleton, that no creationist would consider it an ape. It would be fascinating to know what creationists think about fossils such as OH 12 (H. erectus, 750 cc), Sangiran 2 (H. erectus, 815 cc), OH 7 (H. habilis, 680 cc), but unfortunately few creationists even mention these fossils, let alone discuss them in any depth." We may as well end on a merry note. Foley also examines the creationist claims concerning the inner-ear in "Creationist Arguments: Semicircular Canals" [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_canals.html]: "A number of creationists (Gish 1995; Lubenow 1996; Mehlert 1996; Wieland 1994) have cited studies of the semicircular canals as evidence of a lack of transitional forms leading from apes to humans. These claims are based on the work of Fred Spoor and his colleagues (Spoor et al. 1994; Shipman 1994). ... Hoping that their structure might reveal something about hominid evolution, Spoor studied the canals of many living primates, including humans, and compared them with some hominid fossils. Because the canals are so small and buried in a bony part of the skull, it was necessary to use CT (computerized tomography) scanning to examine the canals without destroying the fossils. "Spoor's results were interesting. The canals in Australopithecus africanus and robustus skulls were most similar to the great apes. Spoor et al. found this consistent with the commonly-held view that australopithecines were partly arboreal and partly bipedal. (They did not conclude that australopithecines were quadrupedal, as most creationists imply or claim.)" However, there were some interesting results. Homo erectus, which most creationists consider to be ape, had a humanlike pattern. And the semicircular canals in Neandertals are different from those of modern humans, which would: "... indicate that Neandertals are not particularly closely related to modern humans, and gives some support to those who believe that they should be considered a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, rather than a subspecies of Homo sapiens. It is not a result that can be easily explained by creationists, who have always argued that Neandertals are little more than a racial variant of modern humans." As it turns out: "More recently, in a study which compared the bony labyrinth of humans, apes, and other primates, Spoor and Zonneveld admitted that the issue of inner ear morphology is too complex, both phylogenetically and functionally, to allow simple conclusions to be drawn, or even to easily distinguish between bipedal and quadrupedal behavior ..." "While these early results have not shown any clear evidence of transitional types of semicircular canals, neither are they, with the exception of Stw 53, enough out of line with evolutionary expectations to cause much surprise. Moreover some results of these studies are problematic for creationists. The human-like canals of Sangiran 2 are a serious problem for the many creationists who claim Java Man is an ape, while the distinctive canals of Neandertals suggests a greater difference between them and modern humans than most creationists are likely to be happy with." Foley's site has lots more good factual information than we have been able to touch upon here. It is well worth the visit. ############################################################## Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 30-Jul-00 15:39:16 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Number 1, I did not even know you were married, and actually am surprised to hear you are. Number 2: So if I did not know you were married, how could you I know your wife is Hispanic? Delusional? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:22:51 EDT > > > >>Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored >that I >mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, >accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please >you.<< > >Only if it were truthful. You did not quote me at all, but rather >paraphrased me VERY INACCURATELY, completely changing the meaning. You >misrepresented what I had said. You need to correct the statement before >it goes off to be printed so that your reading public is not misinformed. > >For the newsletter, you wrote: >"I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is >that he fears 'an Inquisition.'" > >What that sentence will say to your readers is that I fear that "an >Inquisition" awaits me AT THE MEETING to be conducted by THE MEMBERS >against me. You know that that is totally false. > >As I have told you repeatedly, all my references to the [NOT "an"] "Spanish >Inquisition" is as a personification of my wife (AKA, "la jefa" [feminine >form of "the boss"], AKA, "She who must be obeyed", from Rumpole). First, >it is a play on words, since she is Mexican. Because of that, I loved that >line from Monte Python, "No one EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition!", >though the skit itself quickly falls apart thereafter. Second, it refers >to her strong disapproval of some of my leisure interests. I have such >little spare time and she has some very definite ideas of how I should be >spending it (namely totally committed to the service of her own projects). >Needless to say, she does not believe that I should be wasting my time >talking to blithering idiots, which is her personal opinion of creationists >and fundamentalists alike. Therefore, the only way that I can pursue my >interests and keep the peace is by keeping them at a a very low profile, >something that a phone conver! >sation with you or going out to a creationist meeting would destroy. > >Now, have I spelled out clearly enough what I was saying? Do I need to >make it any clearer? > >Now, inform me of your corrective action. > >PS >Anticipating that you will try to claim that what you have written does >indeed accurately reflect what I had actually said, I have enlisted >Liber8r's help in the matter. You will receive a CC: of that email. > >The archive extracts below support what I have told you above. > >### BEGINING OF MESSAGE ARCHIVE EXTRACTS ### > >Date: 97-08-17 18:03:31 EDT >5. If I try calling from work, then I would have to answer to my supervisor >for making that kind of a personal call. If I try calling from home, then >I would have to answer to my boss (la jefa) and the "Spanish Inquisition" >(she's Mexican, so I tend to find that line from Monty Python especially >funny). It is her firm and oft expressed opinion that all creationists are >idiots who would never allow themselves to see reason nor understand the >truth, so don't waste your time on them. So I quietly don't follow the >issue while she's watching; she said "Don't you ever let me catch you doing >that" and she hasn't . > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-02-06 00:50:30 EST >7. If I try calling from work, then I would have to answer to my supervisor >for making that kind of a personal call. If I try calling from home, then >I >would have to answer to my boss (la jefa) and the "Spanish Inquisition" >(she's Mexican, so I tend to enjoy that line from Monty Python -- in case >you >suffer from cultural deprivation: (Husband responding to his wife's many >questions about where he's been) "Well, I never expected the Spanish >Inquisition!" (Monks and a cardinal bursting into the room) "Nobody EVER >expects the Spanish Inquisition!" ... well, I guess you had to have been >there, right?). It is her firm and oft expressed opinion that all >creationists are total idiots who would never allow themselves to see >reason >nor understand the truth, so don't waste your time on them. Her attitide >is >that I have too many other things to do so she doesn't want to catch me >wasting my time following the issue, so I make sure that she doesn't by >quietly following the issue while she's not watching. Calling from home >would obviously blow my cover. And I'm not about to run up my cell phone >bill in an exercise that will prove to be futile (as you blast me with your >"Gish Gallop") and, at the very best, highly inefficient (since email is >vastly superior to telephony for transmitting sizable amounts of factual >information). > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-02-06 00:50:48 EST >Dinner? You've got to be kidding! What is your logic here? If we cannot >even schedule a telephone conversation, how are we ever supposed to be able >to schedule a sit-down dinner? And just how am I supposed to get that one >past the Spanish Inquisition? I appreciate the sentiment, although I also >strongly suspect your motives, but that has to be the most impractical >suggestion you've made yet. > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-04-16 22:23:02 EDT >Think for a moment. If I cannot sneak in a phone call from home (indeed, >while I was on-line posting my last email to you, my kid bumped me off the >line -- it's a jungle out there, I tell ya), just how am I supposed to >disappear for the entire evening? Especially to LA? Hello? Weren't you >paying any attention? I have the "Spanish Inquisition" to watch out for, >you >know. Email is the only practical medium for yet another good reason: it >minimizes my window of vulnerablility at home, since I only need enough >time >to post the email -- and it's hard enough to get even that little time in. > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-04-29 23:35:28 EDT >How? You forget the Spanish Inquisition. I wouldn't be able to sneak >sneaking out past her. Besides, it looks like my older son's choir has a >concert that night, so you can guess what the plan is. > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-06-03 23:31:42 EDT >So, how did the debate go? I already told you that I would not be able to >attend. Besides the usual obstacle (the Spanish Inquisition), my older >son's >choir had a concert that night. > > ---------------- > >Date: 14-Jul-00 18:54:03 Pacific Daylight Time >I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill >schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). > > ---------------- > >Date: 14-Jul-00 18:54:03 Pacific Daylight Time >Sorry, Bill, but both are still impossibilities. I do not have time during >the day and I do not have time during the evening. I do not have access to >a >phone for private personal conversations, especially not for subjects that >are not on the Spanish Inquisition's approved list. Besides which I do not >like to call somebody on the phone, especially when a close personal or >professional relationship has not been established. It's apparently a >socialization thing, from my days in the Trenchcoat Mafia (though we didn't >call it that then, nor did we organize into cells any larger than one >person). > >Dinner is also out. Besides the Spanish Inquisition, note-taking would be >greatly hampered by the cluttered table (not to mention food and drink >stains). But an even bigger minus is that I have some loss of hearing, so >that it is very difficult for me to hear the person I'm conversing with >when >there is a lot of background noise, like in a restaurant. > > ---------------- > >Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: 18-Jul-00 17:51:48 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1 > > >>I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our >meetings is that he fears "an Inquisition."<< > >Bill, I said no such thing and you know it. My mention of the "SPANISH >Inquisition" refers to my WIFE, who is MEXICAN. As I told you when I made >the first such mention. I do not fear my possible treatment at the >meetings, >but I also need to maintain domestic tranquility. Please get it right. > >### END OF MESSAGE ARCHIVE EXTRACTS ### > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:39:16 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f207.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.207]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:38:50 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:38:49 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.181] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:38:49 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F207gv3SuY2PVUlT3XI00000576@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2000 22:38:49.0837 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE2859D0:01BFFA76] Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: 30-Jul-00 15:39:22 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Number 1, I did not even know you were married, and actually am surprised to hear you are. Number 2: So if I did not know you were married, how could you I know your wife is Hispanic? Delusional? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 21:22:51 EDT > > > >>Where is my error in the Inquisition? I thought you would be honored >that I >mentioned you. I can't do anything right in your eyes. I make you famous, >accurately quote you, and you correct me. I will keep trying to please >you.<< > >Only if it were truthful. You did not quote me at all, but rather >paraphrased me VERY INACCURATELY, completely changing the meaning. You >misrepresented what I had said. You need to correct the statement before >it goes off to be printed so that your reading public is not misinformed. > >For the newsletter, you wrote: >"I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our meetings is >that he fears 'an Inquisition.'" > >What that sentence will say to your readers is that I fear that "an >Inquisition" awaits me AT THE MEETING to be conducted by THE MEMBERS >against me. You know that that is totally false. > >As I have told you repeatedly, all my references to the [NOT "an"] "Spanish >Inquisition" is as a personification of my wife (AKA, "la jefa" [feminine >form of "the boss"], AKA, "She who must be obeyed", from Rumpole). First, >it is a play on words, since she is Mexican. Because of that, I loved that >line from Monte Python, "No one EVER expects the Spanish Inquisition!", >though the skit itself quickly falls apart thereafter. Second, it refers >to her strong disapproval of some of my leisure interests. I have such >little spare time and she has some very definite ideas of how I should be >spending it (namely totally committed to the service of her own projects). >Needless to say, she does not believe that I should be wasting my time >talking to blithering idiots, which is her personal opinion of creationists >and fundamentalists alike. Therefore, the only way that I can pursue my >interests and keep the peace is by keeping them at a a very low profile, >something that a phone conver! >sation with you or going out to a creationist meeting would destroy. > >Now, have I spelled out clearly enough what I was saying? Do I need to >make it any clearer? > >Now, inform me of your corrective action. > >PS >Anticipating that you will try to claim that what you have written does >indeed accurately reflect what I had actually said, I have enlisted >Liber8r's help in the matter. You will receive a CC: of that email. > >The archive extracts below support what I have told you above. > >### BEGINING OF MESSAGE ARCHIVE EXTRACTS ### > >Date: 97-08-17 18:03:31 EDT >5. If I try calling from work, then I would have to answer to my supervisor >for making that kind of a personal call. If I try calling from home, then >I would have to answer to my boss (la jefa) and the "Spanish Inquisition" >(she's Mexican, so I tend to find that line from Monty Python especially >funny). It is her firm and oft expressed opinion that all creationists are >idiots who would never allow themselves to see reason nor understand the >truth, so don't waste your time on them. So I quietly don't follow the >issue while she's watching; she said "Don't you ever let me catch you doing >that" and she hasn't . > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-02-06 00:50:30 EST >7. If I try calling from work, then I would have to answer to my supervisor >for making that kind of a personal call. If I try calling from home, then >I >would have to answer to my boss (la jefa) and the "Spanish Inquisition" >(she's Mexican, so I tend to enjoy that line from Monty Python -- in case >you >suffer from cultural deprivation: (Husband responding to his wife's many >questions about where he's been) "Well, I never expected the Spanish >Inquisition!" (Monks and a cardinal bursting into the room) "Nobody EVER >expects the Spanish Inquisition!" ... well, I guess you had to have been >there, right?). It is her firm and oft expressed opinion that all >creationists are total idiots who would never allow themselves to see >reason >nor understand the truth, so don't waste your time on them. Her attitide >is >that I have too many other things to do so she doesn't want to catch me >wasting my time following the issue, so I make sure that she doesn't by >quietly following the issue while she's not watching. Calling from home >would obviously blow my cover. And I'm not about to run up my cell phone >bill in an exercise that will prove to be futile (as you blast me with your >"Gish Gallop") and, at the very best, highly inefficient (since email is >vastly superior to telephony for transmitting sizable amounts of factual >information). > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-02-06 00:50:48 EST >Dinner? You've got to be kidding! What is your logic here? If we cannot >even schedule a telephone conversation, how are we ever supposed to be able >to schedule a sit-down dinner? And just how am I supposed to get that one >past the Spanish Inquisition? I appreciate the sentiment, although I also >strongly suspect your motives, but that has to be the most impractical >suggestion you've made yet. > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-04-16 22:23:02 EDT >Think for a moment. If I cannot sneak in a phone call from home (indeed, >while I was on-line posting my last email to you, my kid bumped me off the >line -- it's a jungle out there, I tell ya), just how am I supposed to >disappear for the entire evening? Especially to LA? Hello? Weren't you >paying any attention? I have the "Spanish Inquisition" to watch out for, >you >know. Email is the only practical medium for yet another good reason: it >minimizes my window of vulnerablility at home, since I only need enough >time >to post the email -- and it's hard enough to get even that little time in. > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-04-29 23:35:28 EDT >How? You forget the Spanish Inquisition. I wouldn't be able to sneak >sneaking out past her. Besides, it looks like my older son's choir has a >concert that night, so you can guess what the plan is. > > ---------------- > >Date: 98-06-03 23:31:42 EDT >So, how did the debate go? I already told you that I would not be able to >attend. Besides the usual obstacle (the Spanish Inquisition), my older >son's >choir had a concert that night. > > ---------------- > >Date: 14-Jul-00 18:54:03 Pacific Daylight Time >I've thought of going to a meeting, but they usually conflict with my drill >schedule. Plus, there's still the Spanish Inquisition (AKA "la jefa"). > > ---------------- > >Date: 14-Jul-00 18:54:03 Pacific Daylight Time >Sorry, Bill, but both are still impossibilities. I do not have time during >the day and I do not have time during the evening. I do not have access to >a >phone for private personal conversations, especially not for subjects that >are not on the Spanish Inquisition's approved list. Besides which I do not >like to call somebody on the phone, especially when a close personal or >professional relationship has not been established. It's apparently a >socialization thing, from my days in the Trenchcoat Mafia (though we didn't >call it that then, nor did we organize into cells any larger than one >person). > >Dinner is also out. Besides the Spanish Inquisition, note-taking would be >greatly hampered by the cluttered table (not to mention food and drink >stains). But an even bigger minus is that I have some loss of hearing, so >that it is very difficult for me to hear the person I'm conversing with >when >there is a lot of background noise, like in a restaurant. > > ---------------- > >Subj: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth >Fraud! >Date: 18-Jul-00 17:51:48 Pacific Daylight Time >From: DWise1 >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: DWise1 > > >>I know of one skeptic who says the reason he won't come to our >meetings is that he fears "an Inquisition."<< > >Bill, I said no such thing and you know it. My mention of the "SPANISH >Inquisition" refers to my WIFE, who is MEXICAN. As I told you when I made >the first such mention. I do not fear my possible treatment at the >meetings, >but I also need to maintain domestic tranquility. Please get it right. > >### END OF MESSAGE ARCHIVE EXTRACTS ### > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (rly-yg04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.4]) by air-yg02.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:39:22 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f38.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.38]) by rly-yg04.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:39:09 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:39:08 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.181] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Re: You get the first look at my newsletter! The Peppered Moth Fraud! Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:39:08 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F38OGa174xFlG2U7Odb000048c3@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2000 22:39:08.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[F94FE170:01BFFA76] Subj: Creation/Evolution debate at a University Date: 30-Jul-00 15:46:55 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com Do you know of any PhD's willing to debate a Creationist on a University campus? >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:13:58 EDT > > >>I could tell you about others who will debate you on line. Want to meet >them?<< > >Ah yes, the venerable creationist "bait and switch" strategy in setting up >patsies for a "debate." > >Sorry, Bill, but I won't fall for that one. Our on-line debate was agreed >to be between the two of us. I was not looking to debate anyone, but you >kept insisting on debating me. Emphatically. That is the only reason I >agreed to the on-line debate. There is no way that you are then going to >switch me to somebody else. This is between you and me, as agreed upon. > > >For discussion of the "bait and switch" and other tactics, you might try >the following: > >In a 1984 speech given to Atheists United in Los Angeles, Fred Edwords >announced that he would be on the Ray Briem radio show that night. When he >had agreed to be on the show, he was the only guest, but then just a few >days before the show they mentioned to him, "Oh, by the way, you'll be >debating Duane Gish." > > >"I Was Suckered Into A Debate--And Survived!" by Fred K. Parrish >http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/religion/suckered.html >First, he was asked to talk informally on the creation-evolution >controversy to the Georgia Tech Faculty/Student Christian Forum, which he >agreed to do. Then a week later, he was asked by the meeting organizer if >he would mind having a local creationist opposite him so that there could >be an informal exchange, for the sake of "fairness". Having previously >debated several local creationists in the Atlanta area, he had no >misgivings and so he agreed. >Then yet another week later he was informed by the meeting organizer that >an out-of-town creationist would be in town at the time of the talk and it >was suggested that Parrish debate him. "By now I was getting concerned--but >rather than withdraw and thereby foster propaganda that I was afraid to >debate the creationist, I again agreed." >Then about another week later, Parrish received a letter informing him that >he was to debate Walter Brown and laying down very strict guidelines. >Wrote Parrish: >"After receiving the above material, I reminded the organizer that I had >originally agreed only to a small informal meeting with a Christian >organization, that now this had grown to a full fledged formal debate, with >religion prohibited, in a large auditorium with the public invited, and >that if he wanted me to participate there would be no more preconditions, >no questionnaires, and no more trickery. He seemed to back off, but that >may have been only because he had already emptied his bag of tricks on me. > >"Such maneuvers appear to be common. For example, when Duane Gish spoke >some time back at Georgia State University, the "debate" was set up by the >philosophy club with Gish talking for 45 minutes, three opponents >responding for five minutes each, and Gish taking another 45 minutes to >answer. Fortunately I was not a participant that time!" > > >Ken Saladin's debate with Gish has been posted on the web. Links to it and >other debates can be found at Creationist Debates, >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html . > >In his "Response to Feedback (1996)" from that posting, Ken Saladin wrote >[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/feedback.html] >in the "DEBATING CREATIONISTS" section about a similar experience describe >to him: > > > Shortly after one column appeared, I received a > >telephone call from one of the area's private Christian > >schools [...]. The guy on the telephone asked me if I > >would come speak to one of their classes about what science > >is, how it's done, and in particular, about evolutionary biology. > >>Sensing a trap, I told him that I was NOT interested > >in debating the merits of creationism vs. evolutionary > >theory. He assured me that I had him ALL WRONG, that he > >only wanted me to explain how science is done to one of > >his classes [...] so I agreed. > > > > When I arrived at the school, I was ushered into a > >large auditorium with what must have been the bulk of > >the school's students--and a preacher who was ready > >and waiting to debate me about the merits of creationism. > >I was furious at having been lied to, and nearly turned > >on my heel to leave at that point, but I decided that > >that would have HANDED my unforeseen opponent a victory. > >If nothing else, I wanted to show those children that > >just because I was an "evolutionist," I wasn't > >a devil incarnate. So, I was charming, pleasant, polite > >and very, very patient--EVEN after being repeatedly > >called a liar and EVEN after being asked the VERY SAME > >QUESTION for the fifth or sixth time in a row. [...] > > >There is also "An Account of a Debate with a Creationist" by Rob P. J. Day >at >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html , in which he describes >"the underhanded tactics used by the organizers before, during and after >the debate in order to discredit me in any way possible" and says in the >introduction "In a sense, this article could be subtitled, "I Was Set Up >For a Creationism Debate -- and Survived," and what follows is a personal >account that I hope will alert others who, like me, are naive enough to >expect fair treatment from the creationist lobby and their supporters." > >In this case, when Day heard that he'd be debating Ian Taylor, he readily >accepted. The organizers quickly downplayed the event when they later >learned that Day was quite familiar with Ian Taylor's arguments and >presentations and that I would undoubtedly do well in the exchange. This >was only undoubtedly why Taylor's own presentation was very subdued, >resulting in angry reactions from his erstwhile supporters in the audience. > >As an example, Day mentioned another event: >"This is the only possible reason I can think of to explain the concerted >effort on the part of CEC to downplay the debate to the extent that they >did. It would also explain why Taylor said virtually nothing about creation >science, as he must have been aware that I am familiar with most of the >arguments he would otherwise have presented. (Regular readers of this >newsletter may recognize the same strategy used by creationist Lambert >Dolphin at a previous annual meeting of the Science Teacher's Association >of Ontario, in which Dolphin stripped all creation science out of his >public talk when he found out about the attendance of two members of this >organization (OASIS).)" > > >At About.com, there is a "Debating Creationism" page >[http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/msub_sci_creat_debating.htm?iam=dpile&terms=debate+creationist]: >"Tactics used by creationists in their debates, advice, strategies, and >answers to common challenges." Link include: > >20 Questions >Answers to 20 questions commonly asked by creationists. > >Account of a Creationist Conference in Oregon >Account of the 1993 International Creation Conference held in Beaverton, >Oregon. What are some of the arguments creationists are currently using as >part of their arsenal? > >Anti-Creationism FAQ >Collection of anti-creationism logic and evidence. > >Debating Creationists >Creationists' strength is in their debating and rhetorical skills. Learn >some of their tactics and even pointers if you are preparing to take one >on. > >How Not to Argue With Creationists >Certain tactics should be avoided in public debates with creationists, as >this exchange between James Lippard and Ian Plimer proves. > >FABNAQ >Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions: A list of questions >creationists never seem to want to answer. > >Frequently Encountered Criticisms >Huge resource of rebuttals to common creationist claims and arguments. > >Guerilla Tactics >An unusual look at how to deal with creationists pseudo-science. > >Public Debate with a Creationist >This event was notable not only for what transpired at the debate itself, >but for the underhanded tactics used by the organizers before and after the >debate. > >"Sons of Light" >An account of the 1995 Sixth European Creationist Congress in the >Netherlands. This is an interesting look at creationism in Europe. > >Stumper Questions for Creationists >An enumeration of questions that creationists seem to have no answers for. >Most of them deal with the scientific theory and evidence for creation, >things which talk.origins readers know are elusive. > >Things Creationists Hate >A description of various topics and ideas which creationists hate to have >to address. > > > >In "Debates and the Globetrotters" >[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html], Dr Eugenie >Scott explains what happens at these "debates": > >"What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the >invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious >setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That's the first problem. >The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the >most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the >comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, >the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority >in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every >effort to turn out their crowd. Don't be surprised to see church busses >from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some >cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a >handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came? > >"The second problem is that the evolutionist debater has an upstream battle >from the start. Evolution is a complex set of ideas that is not easily >explained in the sound-bite razzle-dazzle of the debate format. Evolution >applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, >biology, geology -- you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, >like as not. Most audiences have an abysmal understanding of basic science. >How are you going to bring an audience up to par? The goal of a debate (I >assume) is to teach the audience something about evolution and the nature >of science. This is possible in a debate format, but it is difficult to do >well, because it is not easy to do quickly. >Consider that your opponent will offer as proof that evolution did not >occur that Stephen Jay Gould has said that the fossil record does not >support gradual evolution. A good debating strategy: he is citing a famous >evolutionist source, which gives him credibility. Plus he is confusing >Gould's statement about the rate of evolutionary change with an unmade >conclusion about whether evolution occurs. Plus he is operating from the >creationist enthusiasm for authority ("if famous scientist X says it, it >has to be true.") Gould, like any scientist, can be wrong on any point. We >don't accept "famous scientist X's" conclusions just because of the fame of >the maker, but because of the quality of the argument. > >"How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this matter? The >creationist has made a simple declarative sentence, and you have to deal >with not an easily-grasped factual error, but a logical error and a >methodological error, which will take you far longer to explain. As I was >writing this, a community college teacher called to tell me she had trouble >convincing her students they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not >all audiences are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept >cell theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It >didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms", "radiometric >dating doesn't work," etc.) means you have a bunch more talking to do from >the get-go. > >Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters >at presenting these half-truth nonsequitors that the audience >misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter >in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time. And you never have >enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain >erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal >with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, >your audience is left with the , "Yeah, but..." syndrome: well, maybe there >are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric >dating, YEAH, BUT why didn't that evolutionist answer the question about >polonium halos?" (or some other argument.) > >"The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the >misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. >And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of >the audience no matter what." > > >"My recommendation: above all else, do no harm > >"I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with >creationists, and have done so many times. In this format, it is possible >to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though it seems odd to >say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On the radio, I have been >able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a minute, if X is so, then >wouldn't you expect Y?" or something similar, and show that their "model" >is faulty. But in a debate, the evolutionist has to shut up while the >creationist gallops along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph. > >"Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the >audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential >to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a >narrowly-focused exchange in which the debators deal with a limited number >of topics. Instead of the "Gish Gallop" format of most debates where the >creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth >torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the >format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time. For >example, the creationist has 10 minutes to discuss a topic on which >creationists and evolutionists disagree (intermediate forms, the nature of >science [with or without the supernatural], the 2nd law of thermodynamics >disproves evolution, the inadequacy of mutation and selection to produce >new "kinds", etc.) The evolutionist then has a 5 minute rebuttal, followed >by a 2 minute reprise from the creationnist! >. Next, the evolutionist takes 10 minutes to discuss an agreed-upon issue, >with the creationist taking the next five minutes, and the 2 minute >followup. > >"With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of information and >is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to- answer nonsense. The >evolutionist at least has a fighting chance to teach something about >science and evolution. > >"Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they have >refused to debate. Which in itself suggests the utility of using this >approach! I think they recognize that they have a lot to lose in any other >than the "Gish Gallop" format. Tough luck. I can't see any reason why >evolutionists should make it easier for them to rally their troops." > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (rly-ye01.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.198]) by air-ye01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:46:55 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f236.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.236]) by rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:46:20 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:46:19 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.181] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: Creation/Evolution debate at a University Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:46:19 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F236KQpQq5pneeFUtLc00007f66@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2000 22:46:19.0754 (UTC) FILETIME=[FA543CA0:01BFFA77] Subj: I accept your resignation to debate on line Date: 30-Jul-00 15:47:22 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: >Subject: Re: Brad Sparks >Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:13:58 EDT > > >>I could tell you about others who will debate you on line. Want to meet >them?<< > >Ah yes, the venerable creationist "bait and switch" strategy in setting up >patsies for a "debate." > >Sorry, Bill, but I won't fall for that one. Our on-line debate was agreed >to be between the two of us. I was not looking to debate anyone, but you >kept insisting on debating me. Emphatically. That is the only reason I >agreed to the on-line debate. There is no way that you are then going to >switch me to somebody else. This is between you and me, as agreed upon. > > >For discussion of the "bait and switch" and other tactics, you might try >the following: > >In a 1984 speech given to Atheists United in Los Angeles, Fred Edwords >announced that he would be on the Ray Briem radio show that night. When he >had agreed to be on the show, he was the only guest, but then just a few >days before the show they mentioned to him, "Oh, by the way, you'll be >debating Duane Gish." > > >"I Was Suckered Into A Debate--And Survived!" by Fred K. Parrish >http://www.infidels.org/org/aha/religion/suckered.html >First, he was asked to talk informally on the creation-evolution >controversy to the Georgia Tech Faculty/Student Christian Forum, which he >agreed to do. Then a week later, he was asked by the meeting organizer if >he would mind having a local creationist opposite him so that there could >be an informal exchange, for the sake of "fairness". Having previously >debated several local creationists in the Atlanta area, he had no >misgivings and so he agreed. >Then yet another week later he was informed by the meeting organizer that >an out-of-town creationist would be in town at the time of the talk and it >was suggested that Parrish debate him. "By now I was getting concerned--but >rather than withdraw and thereby foster propaganda that I was afraid to >debate the creationist, I again agreed." >Then about another week later, Parrish received a letter informing him that >he was to debate Walter Brown and laying down very strict guidelines. >Wrote Parrish: >"After receiving the above material, I reminded the organizer that I had >originally agreed only to a small informal meeting with a Christian >organization, that now this had grown to a full fledged formal debate, with >religion prohibited, in a large auditorium with the public invited, and >that if he wanted me to participate there would be no more preconditions, >no questionnaires, and no more trickery. He seemed to back off, but that >may have been only because he had already emptied his bag of tricks on me. > >"Such maneuvers appear to be common. For example, when Duane Gish spoke >some time back at Georgia State University, the "debate" was set up by the >philosophy club with Gish talking for 45 minutes, three opponents >responding for five minutes each, and Gish taking another 45 minutes to >answer. Fortunately I was not a participant that time!" > > >Ken Saladin's debate with Gish has been posted on the web. Links to it and >other debates can be found at Creationist Debates, >http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/debates.html . > >In his "Response to Feedback (1996)" from that posting, Ken Saladin wrote >[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/feedback.html] >in the "DEBATING CREATIONISTS" section about a similar experience describe >to him: > > > Shortly after one column appeared, I received a > >telephone call from one of the area's private Christian > >schools [...]. The guy on the telephone asked me if I > >would come speak to one of their classes about what science > >is, how it's done, and in particular, about evolutionary biology. > >>Sensing a trap, I told him that I was NOT interested > >in debating the merits of creationism vs. evolutionary > >theory. He assured me that I had him ALL WRONG, that he > >only wanted me to explain how science is done to one of > >his classes [...] so I agreed. > > > > When I arrived at the school, I was ushered into a > >large auditorium with what must have been the bulk of > >the school's students--and a preacher who was ready > >and waiting to debate me about the merits of creationism. > >I was furious at having been lied to, and nearly turned > >on my heel to leave at that point, but I decided that > >that would have HANDED my unforeseen opponent a victory. > >If nothing else, I wanted to show those children that > >just because I was an "evolutionist," I wasn't > >a devil incarnate. So, I was charming, pleasant, polite > >and very, very patient--EVEN after being repeatedly > >called a liar and EVEN after being asked the VERY SAME > >QUESTION for the fifth or sixth time in a row. [...] > > >There is also "An Account of a Debate with a Creationist" by Rob P. J. Day >at >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html , in which he describes >"the underhanded tactics used by the organizers before, during and after >the debate in order to discredit me in any way possible" and says in the >introduction "In a sense, this article could be subtitled, "I Was Set Up >For a Creationism Debate -- and Survived," and what follows is a personal >account that I hope will alert others who, like me, are naive enough to >expect fair treatment from the creationist lobby and their supporters." > >In this case, when Day heard that he'd be debating Ian Taylor, he readily >accepted. The organizers quickly downplayed the event when they later >learned that Day was quite familiar with Ian Taylor's arguments and >presentations and that I would undoubtedly do well in the exchange. This >was only undoubtedly why Taylor's own presentation was very subdued, >resulting in angry reactions from his erstwhile supporters in the audience. > >As an example, Day mentioned another event: >"This is the only possible reason I can think of to explain the concerted >effort on the part of CEC to downplay the debate to the extent that they >did. It would also explain why Taylor said virtually nothing about creation >science, as he must have been aware that I am familiar with most of the >arguments he would otherwise have presented. (Regular readers of this >newsletter may recognize the same strategy used by creationist Lambert >Dolphin at a previous annual meeting of the Science Teacher's Association >of Ontario, in which Dolphin stripped all creation science out of his >public talk when he found out about the attendance of two members of this >organization (OASIS).)" > > >At About.com, there is a "Debating Creationism" page >[http://atheism.about.com/religion/atheism/msub_sci_creat_debating.htm?iam=dpile&terms=debate+creationist]: >"Tactics used by creationists in their debates, advice, strategies, and >answers to common challenges." Link include: > >20 Questions >Answers to 20 questions commonly asked by creationists. > >Account of a Creationist Conference in Oregon >Account of the 1993 International Creation Conference held in Beaverton, >Oregon. What are some of the arguments creationists are currently using as >part of their arsenal? > >Anti-Creationism FAQ >Collection of anti-creationism logic and evidence. > >Debating Creationists >Creationists' strength is in their debating and rhetorical skills. Learn >some of their tactics and even pointers if you are preparing to take one >on. > >How Not to Argue With Creationists >Certain tactics should be avoided in public debates with creationists, as >this exchange between James Lippard and Ian Plimer proves. > >FABNAQ >Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions: A list of questions >creationists never seem to want to answer. > >Frequently Encountered Criticisms >Huge resource of rebuttals to common creationist claims and arguments. > >Guerilla Tactics >An unusual look at how to deal with creationists pseudo-science. > >Public Debate with a Creationist >This event was notable not only for what transpired at the debate itself, >but for the underhanded tactics used by the organizers before and after the >debate. > >"Sons of Light" >An account of the 1995 Sixth European Creationist Congress in the >Netherlands. This is an interesting look at creationism in Europe. > >Stumper Questions for Creationists >An enumeration of questions that creationists seem to have no answers for. >Most of them deal with the scientific theory and evidence for creation, >things which talk.origins readers know are elusive. > >Things Creationists Hate >A description of various topics and ideas which creationists hate to have >to address. > > > >In "Debates and the Globetrotters" >[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html], Dr Eugenie >Scott explains what happens at these "debates": > >"What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the >invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious >setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That's the first problem. >The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the >most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the >comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, >the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority >in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every >effort to turn out their crowd. Don't be surprised to see church busses >from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some >cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a >handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came? > >"The second problem is that the evolutionist debater has an upstream battle >from the start. Evolution is a complex set of ideas that is not easily >explained in the sound-bite razzle-dazzle of the debate format. Evolution >applies to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, >biology, geology -- you name the field, and evolution will relate to it, >like as not. Most audiences have an abysmal understanding of basic science. >How are you going to bring an audience up to par? The goal of a debate (I >assume) is to teach the audience something about evolution and the nature >of science. This is possible in a debate format, but it is difficult to do >well, because it is not easy to do quickly. >Consider that your opponent will offer as proof that evolution did not >occur that Stephen Jay Gould has said that the fossil record does not >support gradual evolution. A good debating strategy: he is citing a famous >evolutionist source, which gives him credibility. Plus he is confusing >Gould's statement about the rate of evolutionary change with an unmade >conclusion about whether evolution occurs. Plus he is operating from the >creationist enthusiasm for authority ("if famous scientist X says it, it >has to be true.") Gould, like any scientist, can be wrong on any point. We >don't accept "famous scientist X's" conclusions just because of the fame of >the maker, but because of the quality of the argument. > >"How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this matter? The >creationist has made a simple declarative sentence, and you have to deal >with not an easily-grasped factual error, but a logical error and a >methodological error, which will take you far longer to explain. As I was >writing this, a community college teacher called to tell me she had trouble >convincing her students they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not >all audiences are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept >cell theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It >didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms", "radiometric >dating doesn't work," etc.) means you have a bunch more talking to do from >the get-go. > >Creationist debaters (at least the nationally-prominent ones) are masters >at presenting these half-truth nonsequitors that the audience >misunderstands as relevant points. These can be very difficult to counter >in a debate situation, unless you have a lot of time. And you never have >enough time to deal with even a fraction of the half-truths or plain >erroneous statements that creationists can come out with. Even if you deal >with a handful of the unscientific nonsense spewed out by your opponent, >your audience is left with the , "Yeah, but..." syndrome: well, maybe there >are intermediate forms and the creationist was wrong about radiometric >dating, YEAH, BUT why didn't that evolutionist answer the question about >polonium halos?" (or some other argument.) > >"The evolutionist debater is never going to be able to counter all of the >misinformation that a creationist can put out in a lengthy debate format. >And the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of >the audience no matter what." > > >"My recommendation: above all else, do no harm > >"I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with >creationists, and have done so many times. In this format, it is possible >to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though it seems odd to >say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On the radio, I have been >able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a minute, if X is so, then >wouldn't you expect Y?" or something similar, and show that their "model" >is faulty. But in a debate, the evolutionist has to shut up while the >creationist gallops along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph. > >"Now, there are ways to have a formal debate that actually teaches the >audience something about science, or evolution, and that has the potential >to expose creation science for the junk it is. This is to have a >narrowly-focused exchange in which the debators deal with a limited number >of topics. Instead of the "Gish Gallop" format of most debates where the >creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth >torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn't a prayer of refuting in the >format of a debate, the debaters have limited topics and limited time. For >example, the creationist has 10 minutes to discuss a topic on which >creationists and evolutionists disagree (intermediate forms, the nature of >science [with or without the supernatural], the 2nd law of thermodynamics >disproves evolution, the inadequacy of mutation and selection to produce >new "kinds", etc.) The evolutionist then has a 5 minute rebuttal, followed >by a 2 minute reprise from the creationnist! >. Next, the evolutionist takes 10 minutes to discuss an agreed-upon issue, >with the creationist taking the next five minutes, and the 2 minute >followup. > >"With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of information and >is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to- answer nonsense. The >evolutionist at least has a fighting chance to teach something about >science and evolution. > >"Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they have >refused to debate. Which in itself suggests the utility of using this >approach! I think they recognize that they have a lot to lose in any other >than the "Gish Gallop" format. Tough luck. I can't see any reason why >evolutionists should make it easier for them to rally their troops." > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> Received: from rly-za03.mx.aol.com (rly-za03.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.99]) by air-za04.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:47:22 -0400 Received: from hotmail.com (f95.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.95]) by rly-za03.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:46:50 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 15:46:49 -0700 Received: from 152.163.206.181 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jul 2000 GMT X-Originating-IP: [152.163.206.181] From: "Bill Morgan" <.billyjack1@hotmail.com> To: DWise1@aol.com Subject: I accept your resignation to debate on line Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:46:49 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <.F95carcR4ZDgC81Tbdk0000378c@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jul 2000 22:46:49.0607 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C1F7170:01BFFA78] ##########################################################