################################################ Subj: Fwd: Re: The Retraction Date: 02-Nov-00 06:58:14 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1 Bill B, I had messed up and accidentally CC:'d you at your old address. I am forwarding this as part of the common courtesy of keeping you in the loop. Even though I am sure that you will do me the discourtesy of your childish "next" replies. ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Re: The Retraction Date: 31-Oct-00 17:31:18 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, plasma@worldnet.att.net CC: editor@liberator.net I'm trying to catch up on my emails. Sorry I hadn't taken care of this before, but besides work, reserve duty, and five classes, I've been kept quite busy with your slanderous accusations and with helping a fundamentalist who is deeply troubled by creationists' disregard for truth. Your message has rolled off of AOL. It read: >> Subj: Pat Buchannon Date: 29-Sep-00 13:04:44 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com So not even a thank you for the retraction? I try so hard to please you Mr Wise and I think I never will. I took precious space in our excellent newletter to retract and and you slam me. What more can I do? << You are right that I should have thanked you. I apologize for being remiss in the matter. To be honest, because of your history of keeping your promises, I had not expected you to keep this one either. Unfortunately, you spoiled that pleasant surprise with a lie. The reason you gave your readers for the retraction was "We at the Orange County Creation Science Association strive to be accurate and honest in all our reporting to you." But now you tell me that you didn't want to print that retraction and that your reason for doing so was to try to please me. Bill M, either you lied to your readers or you just lied to me. Personally, from having observed your actions, I think that you lied to both. Your other message on this matter read: >> Subj: RE: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 29-Sep-00 13:16:16 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) I think my retracting in my newsletter which goes out to 1500 people aptly demonstrates my fairness. Love me or hate me, you must admit my retraction was a mnaly thing to do. << No, Bill M., what you did was not the manly thing. The manly thing would have been to do the right thing just because it IS the right thing to do. Without prompting. Without expectation of any reward or praise. Look at yourself, Bill M. I had to practically force you to even consider taking corrective action. You begrudged having to do it. You lied to your readers in the process. And now you want a reward for having done it. Hardly the manly thing. I've been taught that character is what you do when nobody is watching. This has been a sad testimony of your character. ################################################ Subj: Re: Re: The Retraction Date: 02-Nov-00 08:11:35 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: dwise1@aol.com next ----- Original Message ----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billbeq@mediaone.net Cc: dwise1@aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 6:58 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: The Retraction Bill B, I had messed up and accidentally CC:'d you at your old address. I am forwarding this as part of the common courtesy of keeping you in the loop. Even though I am sure that you will do me the discourtesy of your childish "next" replies. --------------------

----- Original Message -----

From: DWise1@aol.com

To: billbeq@mediaone.net

Cc: dwise1@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 6:58 AM

Subject: Fwd: Re: The Retraction

Bill B, I had messed up and accidentally CC:'d you at your old address. I am forwarding this as part of the common courtesy of keeping you in the loop. Even though I am sure that you will do me the discourtesy of your childish "next" replies.

----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:11:35 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:11:00 -0500 Received: from gunsgalore (1Cust71.tnt1.huntington-beach2.ca.da.uu.net [63.17.32.71]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA10175; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:10:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001101c044e7$04f3e200$4720113f@com> From: "Bill Bequette" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: Re: The Retraction Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:07:33 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C044A3.F49F1C00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% To describe and annotate further, a primary interrelationship of system and/or subsystem logistics is further compounded when taking into account the overall negative profitability. It would not, however, be safe to assume that my proposed independent structuralistic concept is holistically compounded, in the context of possible bidirectional logical relationship approaches. In particular, this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features seems to me to account satisfactorily for the greater fight- worthiness concept. We can see, in retrospect, an important property of these three types of EC requires considerable performance analysis and computer studies to arrive at the profound meaning of "The Raw and the Cooked". Thus, within given parameters, a large proportion of interface coordination communication is functionally equivalent and parallel to a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc04.mx.aol.com (rly-yc04.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.36]) by air-yc05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:56:04 -0500 Received: from xhosting.com ([151.196.212.20]) by rly-yc04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:55:34 -0400 Received: from mail.dogsfunz.com (snotra.domainnameservers.net [208.165.79.18]) by xhosting.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id CAA04924; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 02:04:27 -0500 (EST) From: raeerg@dogsfunz.com X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service [24.0.1021.37] (Solaris; Sparc10) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:58:54 X-Accept-Language: en To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: re: casino cash is yours X-References: 0B711EA4F, 0AAB35794 X-Other-References: 03B5A0DEE X-In-Response-To: 07F6981AB X-See-Also: 0514C385C Message-ID: Content-Type: text/html ################################################ Subj: Creation Science Meeting Nov 11 2000 Date: 04-Nov-00 15:02:42 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) Next Month's Meeting: Bill Morgan speaks on: “ Tough Questions From Evolutionists” When: Saturday November 11, 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. Joseph Mastropaolo was going to speak, but he had to cancel so I will pinch hit. I will talk about some of the toughest questions Christians face from Evolutionists. Can you answer these?: Who made God? WHy do you beleive in God? Why do you beleive Chrisitanity is the true faith? What happens to a person in the middle of Africa who has never heard of Jesus? Who did Cain marry? And many more. Don't miss it! Call 714 898-8331 if you have any questions. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In August Dr. Mace Baker spoke for our group. The following write up is adapted from what he taught. Get out your Bible everyone. I will wait until you do. Please read Genesis chapter 1 paying particular attention to verses 20 through 24. Notice that broad groups of animals are listed. Verse 20 mentions living things in the water, and birds. Verse 21 mentions “great sea monsters” in the New American Standard (NASB); the King James calls them “great whales.” Verse 24 then mentions cattle (the Hebrew word is for large 4 legged docile animals like horses and sheep), creeping things (reptiles and insects), and beasts of the earth (wild animals). Study those groups of animals for a minute. Which group of animals does not seem to fit? Which group is not obvious what the Bible is talking about being created on day 5 or 6? The “sea monsters.” What is a sea monster? Were they sea monsters? Let’s try to solve this mystery! Clue 1: They were not a group of animals that lived exclusively in water. Why not? Verse 20 has already talked about sea life. Clue 2: Will the New American Standard commentary help? The commentary said the Hebrew word is “a phrase from Canaanite mythology as a dreaded sea monster.” Mythological? Genesis 1:21 says “God created” it. Also, the animal was not dreaded, the Bible called them “good.” Animals did not become dreaded until after the fall (sin). Shame on that commentator. Clue 3: What is the Hebrew word? Tannin. The Hebrew word Tannin appears 25 times in the Bible, lets dig and see if we can solve this mystery: Jeremiah 14:6 states that “Tannin” pants for air where there is no vegetation. Does that sound like a sea animal? The NASB calls them “jackals.” Malachi 1:3 says “Tannin” lived in the wilderness, and again they are called jackals. Psalm 74:13 puts “Tannin” in the water again, and it is used in the context of glorifying God for his control over this strong animal…how could it be mythical? Would anyone glorify God for being more powerful than a fictitious animal? Exodus 7:9-15 says when Aaron threw down his staff, that it became a “serpent.” What is fascinating about this, is that according to the NASB, Moses’ staff also turned into a serpent, but the Hebrew word for Moses’ staff is “Nawkash,” which is a very common Hebrew word for serpent. So if Aaron’s staff turned into a serpent too, why isn’t the same Hebrew word used? It obviously was not a serpent. Is Tannin a whale, jackal, sea monster or serpent? For you statistic buffs, the NASB calls Tannin a jackal 14 times; a sea monster 6 times; a dragon 3 times; and a serpent twice. The King James Version never calls it a jackal; calls it a sea monster once; 21 times calls it a dragon; twice calls it a whale; and once calls it a serpent. So where have these clues taken us? Genesis 1’s context tells us Tannin has to be a group of animals that actually lived on the earth at one time. Some verses say some of Tannin’s group lived in the wilderness while some of them lived in the water. Dr. Baker proposed Tannin were dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were powerful and mighty, some lived in water (Psalm 74:13) and some lived in the wild. They would be frightening to Pharaoh to have Aaron’s staff turn into one. And dinosaurs are a “group” of animals, which fits the context of Genesis 1. Think of the dilemma of a Bible translator. When the King James Bible was translated in the early 1600’s, there were not a lot of dinosaurs running around! So these translators sat there with this Hebrew word in front of them, and they often translated it as “dragon,” of which many legends abounded. (the word “dinosaur” was not coined until the 1800’s). No dinosaur fossils were prevalent in the 1600’s,; hence Tannin was difficult to translate. Lets fast forward to modern times. Dinosaurs obviously existed; the fossil record demonstrates this. However, many people have been brain washed into believing the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years before man appeared. Whether you believe the Bible is true or not, the Bible clearly teaches all animals were created on either the 5th or 6th day of Creation. Let’s assume the Bible is true. If dinosaurs existed, and all animals were created on day 5 or day 6, then dinosaurs were created on day 5 or day 6. If Genesis mentions all the general groups of animals that were created, then dinosaurs have to fall under one of these groups, correct? The best explanation for Tannin is that they were dinosaurs. It satisfies all the clues. Think! Our wonderful Bible describes God creating dinosaurs in the 6 days of Creation! You can be proud of the Holy Word! Dr. Mace Baker has written a book on dinosaurs that covers a lot of ground and is easy to understand. It has fantastic illustrations as well. It also explains Tannin in great depth. Your family really needs this book. Call me (Bill Morgan) at 714 898-8331 for information on buying this book. Dr. Baker has studied dinosaurs for over 20 years and has visited numerous dinosaur fossil sites…he is an expert! Learn from him! _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:02:42 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f126.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.126]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 18:02:19 -0400 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 15:02:17 -0800 Received: from 64.12.104.162 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:02:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [64.12.104.162] From: "Bill Morgan" Subject: Creation Science Meeting Nov 11 2000 Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2000 23:02:16 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2000 23:02:17.0789 (UTC) FILETIME=[476E86D0:01C046B3] ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 16-Nov-00 17:28:56 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net No, seriously, Bill Morgan. What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? These questions are central to the issue. -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net ################################################ Subj: Re: I knew Peter Sellers..You are no Peter Sellers Date: 16-Nov-00 17:31:15 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net The original message has rolled off: ----Original Message---- Subj: I knew Peter Sellers..You are no Peter Sellers Date: 10-Oct-00 15:43:34 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: editor@liberator.net, DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net If you guys had mentioned giving me a Moe Howard hair cut I would have laughed. Is being humorless a prerequisite to being atheist? ------------------------ >>Is being humorless a prerequisite to being atheist?<< Oh, I am not the least bit humorless. I have a very active sense of humor. Even more so since I have four languages to play with -- not to mention cross-lingual humor (ie, ones that depend on crossing from one language to another). However, I learned the hard way very early on that you seem unable to comprehend my humor. Therefore, in order to avoid confusing you even more than you naturally are, I have had to curtail expressing my sense of humor around you. Of course, your resorting to personal attacks and slanderous accusations against me have made the situation even less conducive to expressing humor. ################################################ Subj: Re:Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? Date: 16-Nov-00 17:33:47 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net The original message has rolled off: ----Original Message---- Subj: Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? Date: 05-Oct-00 15:27:32 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net I told you I lost every game I coached with the Junior high basketball team, so I have lost and can deal with it. You never listen to me Dave and that hurts...it really hurts. ------------------------ First Reply: I'm trying to catch up on my emails. I really am extremely busy and my not having responded so far is not for lack of a response. Unlike yourself, Bill M, I do put some thought into my messages. >>I told you I lost every game I coached with the Junior high basketball team, so I have lost and can deal with it.<< First, this has never been about winning. That is just your jock mentality distorting your view of the world. Despite all your attempts to twist it about, it has always been about the truth. Now, more than ever, it is about the truth. Second, since you have deluded yourself into thinking that this was about winning and since you say that you can deal with losing, so deal with it already. Get over it and let us get back to what this is really about, seeking the truth, and let us resolve this mess that you have created with your false and slanderous accusations against me. Bill M, you need to do one of three things for us to be able to resolve this matter: 1. Present us with the messages that you based your accusations on, or 2. Tell us enough about the wording in those messages so that we can find those messages for you (you know full well that simply repeating the accusations provides us with zero information), or 3. Admit, specifically and in writing, that those accusations are false and that you had made them up. Plus, you will need to make a full apology to all parties involved for your behavior and explain why you had fought so hard for so long to prevent the examination of the facts. This is the THIRTY-NINTH TIME that I have had to request this. ################################################ Subj: Oh, I have listened, Bill Date: 16-Nov-00 17:35:49 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net The original message has rolled off: ----Original Message---- Subj: Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? Date: 05-Oct-00 15:27:32 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net I told you I lost every game I coached with the Junior high basketball team, so I have lost and can deal with it. You never listen to me Dave and that hurts...it really hurts. ------------------------ Second Reply >>You never listen to me Dave and that hurts...it really hurts.<< Bill M, if you really believe that I never listen to you, then please give us some examples. Tell us some of the things that you had told me that I had not listened to. I have listened to you, Bill M, and I have taken seriously what I've heard and I have responded to what I've heard. I've listened to your incessant demands that I go out to dinner with you and I noticed a glaring lack of any cogent reason from you for my agreeing to despite my requests for such a reason. I've listened to your questions and answered the vast majority of them and I noticed how you would either immediately drop the subject or pretend that I hadn't given you an answer. I listened for your answers to my questions and noticed that the vast majority of them would go unanswered, sometimes by your employing yet another of your "rabbit trail" tricks in which you would suddenly ask one of your "unanswerable" questions which had nothing whatsoever to do with what we were talking about. I listened to you describe yourself as quixotic and I could not avoid noticing how, like Don Quixote de la Mancha, you would repeatedly lose touch with reality and give battle to imaginary monsters. I listened to you twisting and distorting what I had said. I listened to you make several outrageous and false accusations against me. I definitely noticed how you did everything you could to prevent us from arriving at the truth through examination of the facts of the matter. Oh, I have listened to you, Bill M. Rather, Bill M, it is you who never listens. I don't know why do you keep projecting your own faults on others, but you just never listen. You told me that you just quickly skim over your emails. I would like to believe that that is the reason why you misunderstand almost everything and why you do not know what is going on. Because you do not listen, your responses are idiotic. They usually don't have anything to do with the discussion. They almost always have the facts completely turned around and often are contrary to fact. Then when we try to explain to you what is going on, you don't listen to that either and you come off looking like a totally idiotic jerk. Because you don't listen. Bill M, don't you realize how much pain and acrimony you have caused by not listening? Don't you realize how much damage you personally are doing to the Cause of Christ? You keep boasting of being the great victor over evolutionists, but you are not. Those evolutionists who get angry and walk away from you do not do so because your "logic is that good" or because your claims are so superior to science. While you fail to listen, they are listening to you and they see you act like an idiot. Trying to reason with someone who insists on acting like an idiot is very frustrating. They were not defeated by you, Bill M. They just gave up on trying to reason with yet another fundamentalist idiot. They do not respond in anger because of your beliefs; they respond in anger at your conduct. Remember the "Bob Newhart Show"? A big, pushy black patient is telling Dr. Hartly that every body hates him because he is black, to which Dr. Hartly suggests, "Maybe they hate you because you are not a nice person." Think about that, Bill M. Are they responding to what you represent, or just to you? You told me that you just hope to plant a seed with them (yes, Bill, I do listen to you, I do remember what you have said). You want to believe that that is a seed of doubt in science that will grow to destroy their confidence in science and leave them vulnerable to conversion. But rather the seed that you really plant is the bitter experience that all fundamentalist Christians are idiots and that no sane person could possibly want to convert to a religion that would turn you into an idiot. Thereafter, whenever they encounter a Christian's witness, that poor Christian will first have to get past that seed that you had planted. Congratulations, Bill M, you have hindered the Cause of Christ yet again! Bill M, when are you ever going to learn to listen? Stop tilting at windmills and return to reality! The monsters and giants are not really there! Start seeing people for who and what they really are, not the stereotyped caricatures that you think you must vanquish. ################################################ Subj: Logic Date: 16-Nov-00 17:37:48 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net The original message has rolled off: ----Original Message---- Subj: Re: Zebra Stripes from Mutations? Date: 05-Oct-00 15:29:54 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net the variable is the dude rolling the ball,a nd at what point is the wheel spinning when he releases the ball? I am the voice of reason, and once Liberal and Mr Wise open their closed mind, they will convert. My logic is that good. ------------------------ >>I am the voice of reason, ... << Oh please, Bill M. We're not in the mood for low farce right now. >>My logic is that good.<< Bill M, have you ever taken a class in logic? Do you have any idea what logic is? Or what it is used for? Basically, logic is organized thought. Formal logic is normally built around the syllogism, in which two premises lead to a conclusion: if A and B, therefore C. A syllogism can be determined formally to be valid or invalid, but it cannot be determined formally to be true or false. Remember, a syllogism is just a form, a structure. If you apply true premises to a valid syllogism, then the conclusion is true. If you apply false or doubtful premises to a valid syllogism -- or any premises to an invalid syllogism -- , then you cannot tell anything about the truth of the conclusion. A person seeking the truth would not want to do such a thing. A person seeking the truth would want to verify the conclusions reached through logic by examining the facts. If the conclusions reached are contrary to the facts, then that would indicate that there is something wrong with the premises or with the logic that was followed. You've done it with math problems: set up the problem, do the math, then perform a sanity check to verify the results. It isn't any different in real life. A person with an open mind will be willing -- and should want -- to examine the facts in order to test his ideas. The closed-minded person will refuse to examine the facts. Now, there is a practice called sophistry in which one does purposefully apply false premises to a valid syllogism. The classic example of this is that if a sophist can get you to agree to a given set of premises, then he can logically prove to you that black is white or that it is raining outside when in fact it is not. With impeccible logic. With logic far superior to Bill M's. And totally false. The practical application of sophistry is to deliberately deceive someone. It is practiced by many lawyers, politicians, confidence artists, and proselytizers. So, Bill M, it doesn't matter how good your logic is. If your premises are either false or doubtful, then your conclusions are worthless. >> ... , and once Liberal and Mr Wise open their closed mind, they will convert.<< Uh, excuse me, Bill M, but just who is it who has the closed mind? Who is it who refuses to visit pages that are refered to him? Who is it who runs in fear at the very thought of examining the facts? Who is it who refuses to discuss pertinent issues because they might not agree with his preconceived ideas? Who is it who has stereotyped Mark and me as caricatures without bothering to find out what our beliefs really are, even though we have presented that information to him? Who is it who opposes and has attacked his preconceived caricature of what he assumes our positions to be, without bothering to listen to what our positions really are? Look in the mirror, Bill M. You've been projecting again. Your conclusions are contrary to fact. You need to re-examine and re-evaluate your premises. And thank you for again affirming what your true intentions have been all along: to attack our beliefs, destroy them, and replace them with your own. But perhaps once Bill Morgan has opened his closed mind, he will discover that there is much that we can discuss -- openly, honestly, amiably, and without Bill M feeling a need to attack us. ################################################ Subj: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: 16-Nov-00 17:38:50 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net >>Prove the paganism story is older than the "Old Testament." The burden is on you.<< Bill M, why do you need to twist and distort everything? You're willing to do almost anything to win, aren't you? READ WHAT IS WRITTEN! Look at what Mark had written: "If you read the Bible you'll read about a virgin birth. This story has been copied from older myths, like Paganism. In fact, you'll learn about a lot of stories that were stolen from earlier myths." The Virgin Birth is reported in the NEW Testament, not the Old. The pagan myths of which he speaks are indeed older than the NEW Testament. Your challenge for him to "[p]rove the paganism story is older than the 'Old Testament.'" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION. Personal, I smell another one of your "rabbit trails" starting up. Bill M, you need to learn to listen. You need to learn to READ WHAT IS WRITTEN. You don't just come off looking like an idiot. You come off looking like a dishonest idiot. And since you have been representing Christianity here, by your witness you are making Christians look like dishonest idiots as well. I rather doubt that your fellow Christians would appreciate it. ################################################ Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: 16-Nov-00 17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack321@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net Bill M, sorry I haven't gotten back with you sooner, but I really have been extremely busy. I wouldn't want you go jumping to conclusions again and start accusing me (again falsely) of being afraid of answering your questions. From personal experience you should better than that. Since time is tight, I will address your direct question first and respond to the rest later. But the very first thing we need to do is to bring everybody into the loop: ----Original Message---- Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 5:29:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Excellent E mail! I do like Kent Hovind, but some of his claims make my eye balls roll. But I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Anyone who writes a glot or speaks a lot has made mistakes. They should belly up tot he bar and confess these mistakes. But here is an encouraging letter I got regarding Kent Hovind: "thank you so much for letting us know about Ken Hovind! We bought his tape series. We can't thank you enough. WE appreciate all your emails and newsletter. We live in Corona and find it hard to make the meetings...but will sure try!!Lynn And Rick" Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils? ------------------------ >>Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?<< I'll place my question right up front so that you won't miss it as you don't bother to read my reply. It would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and why what kind of a problem you think that it presents to science. Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that describes that fossil. I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose. Now for my reply: Polystrate fossils had always given me a lot of trouble. Not with explaining them, but just in finding references on them. That is one of the worst documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered. For a long time I could not find a single scientific reference anywhere -- lots of claims of polystrate fossils, but no references. Then finally Paul Ekdahl on CompuServe quoted from a creationist book about fossil trees found fully intact with roots and branches and extending through coal seams. The really great thing about Paul was that he would slavishly copy creationist passages verbatim, including even footnote numbers! This time he had included a reference. I finally had a reference to a scientific journal! When I looked it up, I found that Paul's creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source. The article clearly stated that NONE of the trees extended into the coal seams, not even their roots, and that most of them were missing their branches. Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article even described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If the creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... . I have been trying to find my response to Paul Ekdahl, but with no success. That was back in 1990. I had uploaded it into the forum's library, but those files have been moved around since then and I cannot find out where. I also have been unable to find the file at home. When I do find it, I will share it with you. In the meantime, it would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and what kind of a problem you think that it presents to science. Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that describes that fossil. I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose. Besides which, your response to my having answered your question would undoubtedly be your standard immediate dropping of the subject and ignoring all follow-up questions from me. If I may share a little something from a fundamentalist Christian who has contacted me for help. He is very concerned about the total lack of concern for truth among his fellow Christians when it comes to creation science; he has just informed me that after a serious talk with his pastor about the matter, he has decided to leave his church (his wife is appalled at their now-former pastor having expressed a total lack of concern for scientific or scholarly truth). He counselled me earlier, though I knew it already: "Two lessons came out of this: 1. Creationist citations of mainstream or evolutionist sources are almost always wrong. You _must_ check them out! If you can't find the original source, the citation is worthless. 2. Creationists have a strong tendency to misunderstand what you say. State your case clearly. Always keep copies of your own correspondence and refer to them later." You should take note of both of his lessons, because they apply directly to you. For the first lesson, consider your quotes from "Weird Science" which you have also posted on your web site. You've attached names to them, for the most part, but there is no reference to the original source! Nor is there any date attached to them. The reader cannot tell whether the information is current or grossly out-of-date. You really do need to correct that, Bill M. And the second one is you! Look at all the times that you have misunderstood and twisted around what I have written. And what have I had to do? I have had to show you a copy of what I had actually written so that I could correct your misunderstanding. Only you would not allow that to happen to your false and slanderous accusations against me. Would you, Bill M? Oh, why not? Bill Morgan, for the FORTIETH TIME, provide the information that we need to resolve the matter of your slanderous personal attack against me. Gee, Bill M, wouldn't you think that FORTY TIMES is way too many times for somebody to have to make a simple request of a CHRISTIAN? I mean, if a person were dishonest and a liar, then we could understand that he would want to do everything he possibly could to avoid having to respond to a simple request for information that would expose his lies. We could understand why he would fear and hate the truth. But a CHRISTIAN is supposed to be above that. A CHRISTIAN is supposed to be in the service of truth. A CHRISTIAN is supposed to be honest. It seems to have something to do with some high moral standards that they keep boasting about. And direct responsibility to an Extremely High-Placed Entity that they keep talking about. You might have heard something about that at some time or other, Bill M. So when we observe a CHRISTIAN behaving in a dishonest manner and exhibiting fear and hatred for the truth, then that forms a very powerful witness to us. It witnesses that CHRISTIANS are dishonest and that they do not really serve truth, but rather they hate and fear it. It also witnesses to us that CHRISTIANS' behavior is diametrically opposed to what they claim, which means that they are hypocritical. That is what your witness tells us, Bill M. Are we to assume that that is your intended witness, Bill Morgan? ################################################ Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: 16-Nov-00 17:42:53 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack321@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net >>But here is an encouraging letter I got regarding Kent Hovind: "thank you so much for letting us know about Ken Hovind! We bought his tape series. We can't thank you enough. WE appreciate all your emails and newsletter. We live in Corona and find it hard to make the meetings...but will sure try!!Lynn And Rick" << Uh, Bill M. You know, that letter was not regarding Kent Hovind. They only mention him in passing and don't really say anything about him. Rather, most of the letter was in praise you. I think your ego is showing again. Now, here is an encouraging letter I got regarding my web site: "Thank you for your web site. I am a Christian at a fundamentalist church who has been encouraged to watch the Answers in Genesis series of videotapes featuring Ken Ham and Gary Parker. I want to clear out false teaching in the Christian church, and there is a lot of it regarding evolution and creation science. I make available a sheet of corrections to the last week's class at the beginning of the next class, but nobody seems much interested in what I have found. I would be quite happy for them just to repudiate obviously false statements and misquotations - perhaps we can deal with bad science another day. "I finally got some movement last week when I asked the associate pastor directly, "Are you saying that it is okay to teach falsehoods and distortions in the cause of Jesus Christ?" He was shocked at that notion and said No. It remains to be seen what action will be taken, whether the repentance will be more like Zaccheus or merely a minor recommendation for the rest of the students to check these things out. "I am glad to come across your web site. For a while there I thought it was just me, Hugh Ross, and the Pope against a whole crowd of young-earth creationists, while the atheists stood across the room and laughed at us. It's nice to know that I'm not alone." Well, Bill M, it turns out that his pastor's answer to that question is actually "yes". Last week he wrote me: "I had a talk with the pastor yesterday afternoon about the evolution/creation class and the 3 letters I had written. He and I have a fundamental difference with regard to non-Biblical truth. He thought the errors I had pointed out were subjective, but it still didn't matter much to him. Scientific and scholarly truth are low priorities. So if a guy distorts the truth about some scientific study or discovery, it doesn't matter as long as he is a strong voice preaching against evolution. Truth about the Bible and truth about non-Biblical sources are on two different tiers of acceptability. "He thought it might be nice to review the videotape series thoroughly if the church ever shows them again, but it's definitely a low priority. "Maybe we could tighten it up a bit." He refused to make any post-class announcement that there were some flaws in the teaching. If evolution is being attacked, scholarship and accuracy and non-Biblical truth don't matter a whole lot. I kid you not about this. "It's not quite true that you can lie your ass off about anything that's not in the Bible, but it's close to that. It seems that the main problem with lying about non-Biblical sources is that some knowledgeable person might catch you at it. "I asked about the great lack of people checking up on things, like the Bible commands us to do and (respected guest preacher) Arthur Burt told us to do. He thought that was a pretty minor problem. He said that the prevailing attitude is that nobody else is checking up on things because nobody is interested in disproving creationism. What's the point of checking up on assertions that are in our favor? We only check things that are against us. "Obviously that's not what the Bible and Arthur Burt said. Arthur challenged us to test everything he says. "All this confirms what you said about convincing polemic arguments and the truth. "I don't think the pastor will ever understand the concept of theistic evolution. To him, evolution and atheism are two different spellings for the same concept. "It was a cordial conversation, but strange. I'm glad I heard it from his mouth. The practice of the church matches what he said, too. My wife was appalled. We will be terminating our membership there this week. I have exhausted all the reasonable avenues for affecting change." ################################################ Subj: See what we could'a been doin'? Date: 16-Nov-00 17:46:25 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net The original message has rolled off: ----Original Message---- Subj: In the spirit of the Olympics, Dave's e mail gets a 9.9! Date: 10-Oct-00 13:48:05 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: editor@liberator.net What a great e amil! Dave, you and I would have so much fun as buddies if we fished, hunted and then cooked our kill over an open fire and told great stories like your 3 stooge story and never brought up religion. I forgot Larry was a Fine. My error. I always felt sorry for Larry, and hated Moe, but I watched them a lot as a child. Are they on anymore? ---------------------- >>What a great e amil! Dave, you and I would have so much fun as buddies if we fished, hunted and then cooked our kill over an open fire and told great stories like your 3 stooge story and never brought up religion.<< Then why did you keep bringing it up, Bill M? Why did you insist on trying to convert me? I kept trying to discuss your claims and the problems caused by creation science, but you kept dodging the real issues and kept trying to convert me. Why did you do it? Look at what you screwed up! Now there can never be any amity between us UNTIL THE MATTER OF YOUR SLANDEROUS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME HAS BEEN RESOLVED. Please stop blocking that resolution. Simply tell us what you think I had said so that we can match it up with the messages that show what I had actually written. THEN we can resolve misunderstandings and tender the appropriate apologies. But until we can examine what had happened, we cannot do any of that. YOU are the only thing blocking that resolution. Here is a simple question to get it started. I've asked it before. It just requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You accused me of calling you "very nasty names". Was one of them "asshole"? Yes or no? BTW, this is the FORTY-FIRST TIME I have had to request this information. PS I see you didn't try the trivia question: > >Trivia Question: Why did Larry Fine's parents have him learn the violin? > From the Biography program on the Stooges: As a child while playing in his father's shop (a goldsmith, I seem to recall), Larry received a very bad acid burn on his left hand, crippling it. The doctor recommended violin lessons to strengthen the hand, so they had him take violin lessons. Also on the same program Adam West told of having done a western with the Stooges (I forget the name) in which they were trying to save the buffalo. At the end of shooting, the Stooges had everybody over for a wrap-party BBQ and served up buffalo burgers. And, yes, I'm sure that they are still on somewhere, on some local channel. Semper Stooges! ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: 16-Nov-00 20:48:29 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:29 PM Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net >No, seriously, Bill Morgan. > >What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? > >DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? > >WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its >advancement? > >These questions are central to the issue. > >-----Original Message----- >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: billyjack1@hotmail.com >Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com >; editor@liberator.net >Date: Monday, October 30, 2000 5:20 PM >Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (rly-yd04.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.4]) by air-yd01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:48:29 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:48:21 1900 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19000; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:48:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000601c05051$bcce8cc0$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:15 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: I knew Peter Sellers..You are no Peter Sellers Date: 16-Nov-00 20:48:54 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:32 PM Subject: Re: I knew Peter Sellers..You are no Peter Sellers >The original message has rolled off: >----Original Message---- >Subj: I knew Peter Sellers..You are no Peter Sellers >Date: 10-Oct-00 15:43:34 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: editor@liberator.net, DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net > >If you guys had mentioned giving me a Moe Howard hair cut I would have >laughed. Is being humorless a prerequisite to being atheist? >------------------------ > >>>Is being humorless a prerequisite to being atheist?<< > >Oh, I am not the least bit humorless. I have a very active sense of humor. >Even more so since I have four languages to play with -- not to mention >cross-lingual humor (ie, ones that depend on crossing from one language to >another). > >However, I learned the hard way very early on that you seem unable to >comprehend my humor. Therefore, in order to avoid confusing you even more >than you naturally are, I have had to curtail expressing my sense of humor >around you. > >Of course, your resorting to personal attacks and slanderous accusations >against me have made the situation even less conducive to expressing humor. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226]) by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:48:54 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:48:31 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19103; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:48:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000b01c05051$c2814a40$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: I knew Peter Sellers..You are no Peter Sellers Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:24 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Re:Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? Date: 16-Nov-00 20:48:58 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:34 PM Subject: Re:Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? >The original message has rolled off: >----Original Message---- >Subj: Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? >Date: 05-Oct-00 15:27:32 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com >CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net > >I told you I lost every game I coached with the Junior high basketball team, >so I have lost and can deal with it. > >You never listen to me Dave and that hurts...it really hurts. >------------------------ >First Reply: > >I'm trying to catch up on my emails. I really am extremely busy and my not >having responded so far is not for lack of a response. Unlike yourself, Bill >M, I do put some thought into my messages. > >>>I told you I lost every game I coached with the Junior high basketball >team, so I have lost and can deal with it.<< > >First, this has never been about winning. That is just your jock mentality >distorting your view of the world. Despite all your attempts to twist it >about, it has always been about the truth. Now, more than ever, it is about >the truth. > >Second, since you have deluded yourself into thinking that this was about >winning and since you say that you can deal with losing, so deal with it >already. Get over it and let us get back to what this is really about, >seeking the truth, and let us resolve this mess that you have created with >your false and slanderous accusations against me. > >Bill M, you need to do one of three things for us to be able to resolve this >matter: >1. Present us with the messages that you based your accusations on, or >2. Tell us enough about the wording in those messages so that we can find >those messages for you (you know full well that simply repeating the >accusations provides us with zero information), or >3. Admit, specifically and in writing, that those accusations are false and >that you had made them up. Plus, you will need to make a full apology to all >parties involved for your behavior and explain why you had fought so hard for >so long to prevent the examination of the facts. > >This is the THIRTY-NINTH TIME that I have had to request this. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (rly-zd01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.225]) by air-zd01.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:48:58 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-zd01.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:48:44 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19197; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:48:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001001c05051$ca97e860$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Re:Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Oh, I have listened, Bill Date: 16-Nov-00 20:49:24 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:36 PM Subject: Oh, I have listened, Bill >The original message has rolled off: >----Original Message---- >Subj: Basketball Jones: An OJ conspiracy? >Date: 05-Oct-00 15:27:32 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com >CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net > >I told you I lost every game I coached with the Junior high basketball team, >so I have lost and can deal with it. > >You never listen to me Dave and that hurts...it really hurts. >------------------------ >Second Reply > >>>You never listen to me Dave and that hurts...it really hurts.<< > >Bill M, if you really believe that I never listen to you, then please give us >some examples. Tell us some of the things that you had told me that I had >not listened to. > >I have listened to you, Bill M, and I have taken seriously what I've heard >and I have responded to what I've heard. I've listened to your incessant >demands that I go out to dinner with you and I noticed a glaring lack of any >cogent reason from you for my agreeing to despite my requests for such a >reason. I've listened to your questions and answered the vast majority of >them and I noticed how you would either immediately drop the subject or >pretend that I hadn't given you an answer. I listened for your answers to my >questions and noticed that the vast majority of them would go unanswered, >sometimes by your employing yet another of your "rabbit trail" tricks in >which you would suddenly ask one of your "unanswerable" questions which had >nothing whatsoever to do with what we were talking about. I listened to you >describe yourself as quixotic and I could not avoid noticing how, like Don >Quixote de la Mancha, you would repeatedly lose touch with reality and give >battle to imaginary monsters. I listened to you > twisting and distorting what I had said. I listened to you make several >outrageous and false accusations against me. I definitely noticed how you >did everything you could to prevent us from arriving at the truth through >examination of the facts of the matter. > >Oh, I have listened to you, Bill M. > > >Rather, Bill M, it is you who never listens. I don't know why do you keep >projecting your own faults on others, but you just never listen. You told me >that you just quickly skim over your emails. I would like to believe that >that is the reason why you misunderstand almost everything and why you do not >know what is going on. > >Because you do not listen, your responses are idiotic. They usually don't >have anything to do with the discussion. They almost always have the facts >completely turned around and often are contrary to fact. Then when we try to >explain to you what is going on, you don't listen to that either and you come >off looking like a totally idiotic jerk. Because you don't listen. > >Bill M, don't you realize how much pain and acrimony you have caused by not >listening? Don't you realize how much damage you personally are doing to the >Cause of Christ? You keep boasting of being the great victor over >evolutionists, but you are not. Those evolutionists who get angry and walk >away from you do not do so because your "logic is that good" or because your >claims are so superior to science. While you fail to listen, they are >listening to you and they see you act like an idiot. Trying to reason with >someone who insists on acting like an idiot is very frustrating. They were >not defeated by you, Bill M. They just gave up on trying to reason with yet >another fundamentalist idiot. They do not respond in anger because of your >beliefs; they respond in anger at your conduct. > >Remember the "Bob Newhart Show"? A big, pushy black patient is telling Dr. >Hartly that every body hates him because he is black, to which Dr. Hartly >suggests, "Maybe they hate you because you are not a nice person." Think >about that, Bill M. Are they responding to what you represent, or just to >you? > >You told me that you just hope to plant a seed with them (yes, Bill, I do >listen to you, I do remember what you have said). You want to believe that >that is a seed of doubt in science that will grow to destroy their confidence >in science and leave them vulnerable to conversion. But rather the seed that >you really plant is the bitter experience that all fundamentalist Christians >are idiots and that no sane person could possibly want to convert to a >religion that would turn you into an idiot. Thereafter, whenever they >encounter a Christian's witness, that poor Christian will first have to get >past that seed that you had planted. Congratulations, Bill M, you have >hindered the Cause of Christ yet again! > >Bill M, when are you ever going to learn to listen? Stop tilting at >windmills and return to reality! The monsters and giants are not really >there! Start seeing people for who and what they really are, not the >stereotyped caricatures that you think you must vanquish. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (rly-yd04.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.4]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:24 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:48:55 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19264; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:48:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001501c05051$d12352a0$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Oh, I have listened, Bill Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Logic Date: 16-Nov-00 20:49:24 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:38 PM Subject: Logic >The original message has rolled off: >----Original Message---- >Subj: Re: Zebra Stripes from Mutations? >Date: 05-Oct-00 15:29:54 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com >CC: editor@liberator.net > >the variable is the dude rolling the ball,a nd at what point is the wheel >spinning when he releases the ball? > >I am the voice of reason, and once Liberal and Mr Wise open their closed >mind, they will convert. > >My logic is that good. >------------------------ > >>>I am the voice of reason, ... << > >Oh please, Bill M. We're not in the mood for low farce right now. > >>>My logic is that good.<< > >Bill M, have you ever taken a class in logic? Do you have any idea what >logic is? Or what it is used for? > >Basically, logic is organized thought. Formal logic is normally built around >the syllogism, in which two premises lead to a conclusion: if A and B, >therefore C. > >A syllogism can be determined formally to be valid or invalid, but it cannot >be determined formally to be true or false. Remember, a syllogism is just a >form, a structure. If you apply true premises to a valid syllogism, then the >conclusion is true. If you apply false or doubtful premises to a valid >syllogism -- or any premises to an invalid syllogism -- , then you cannot >tell anything about the truth of the conclusion. > >A person seeking the truth would not want to do such a thing. A person >seeking the truth would want to verify the conclusions reached through logic >by examining the facts. If the conclusions reached are contrary to the >facts, then that would indicate that there is something wrong with the >premises or with the logic that was followed. You've done it with math >problems: set up the problem, do the math, then perform a sanity check to >verify the results. It isn't any different in real life. A person with an >open mind will be willing -- and should want -- to examine the facts in order >to test his ideas. The closed-minded person will refuse to examine the facts. > >Now, there is a practice called sophistry in which one does purposefully >apply false premises to a valid syllogism. The classic example of this is >that if a sophist can get you to agree to a given set of premises, then he >can logically prove to you that black is white or that it is raining outside >when in fact it is not. With impeccible logic. With logic far superior to >Bill M's. And totally false. > >The practical application of sophistry is to deliberately deceive someone. >It is practiced by many lawyers, politicians, confidence artists, and >proselytizers. > >So, Bill M, it doesn't matter how good your logic is. If your premises are >either false or doubtful, then your conclusions are worthless. > > >>> ... , and once Liberal and Mr Wise open their closed mind, they will >convert.<< > >Uh, excuse me, Bill M, but just who is it who has the closed mind? Who is it >who refuses to visit pages that are refered to him? Who is it who runs in >fear at the very thought of examining the facts? Who is it who refuses to >discuss pertinent issues because they might not agree with his preconceived >ideas? Who is it who has stereotyped Mark and me as caricatures without >bothering to find out what our beliefs really are, even though we have >presented that information to him? Who is it who opposes and has attacked >his preconceived caricature of what he assumes our positions to be, without >bothering to listen to what our positions really are? > >Look in the mirror, Bill M. You've been projecting again. Your conclusions >are contrary to fact. You need to re-examine and re-evaluate your premises. > >And thank you for again affirming what your true intentions have been all >along: to attack our beliefs, destroy them, and replace them with your own. > >But perhaps once Bill Morgan has opened his closed mind, he will discover >that there is much that we can discuss -- openly, honestly, amiably, and >without Bill M feeling a need to attack us. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xd03.mx.aol.com (rly-xd03.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.168]) by air-xd05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:24 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-xd03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:01 1900 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19341; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001a01c05051$d4b55300$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Logic Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:55 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: 16-Nov-00 20:49:26 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:39 PM Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? >>>Prove the paganism story is older than the "Old Testament." The burden is >on you.<< > >Bill M, why do you need to twist and distort everything? You're willing to >do almost anything to win, aren't you? > >READ WHAT IS WRITTEN! Look at what Mark had written: >"If you read the Bible you'll read about a virgin birth. This story has been >copied from older myths, like Paganism. In fact, you'll learn about a lot of >stories that were stolen from earlier myths." > >The Virgin Birth is reported in the NEW Testament, not the Old. The pagan >myths of which he speaks are indeed older than the NEW Testament. Your >challenge for him to "[p]rove the paganism story is older than the 'Old >Testament.'" HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DISCUSSION. Personal, I >smell another one of your "rabbit trails" starting up. > >Bill M, you need to learn to listen. You need to learn to READ WHAT IS >WRITTEN. > >You don't just come off looking like an idiot. You come off looking like a >dishonest idiot. And since you have been representing Christianity here, by >your witness you are making Christians look like dishonest idiots as well. I >rather doubt that your fellow Christians would appreciate it. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (rly-ye01.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.198]) by air-ye01.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:25 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-ye01.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:10 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19423; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001f01c05051$da1bc540$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Did God allow incestuous relations to populate the planet? Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:50:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: See what we could'a been doin'? Date: 16-Nov-00 20:49:39 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:46 PM Subject: See what we could'a been doin'? >The original message has rolled off: >----Original Message---- >Subj: In the spirit of the Olympics, Dave's e mail gets a 9.9! >Date: 10-Oct-00 13:48:05 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: DWise1@aol.com, billbeq@mediaone.net >CC: editor@liberator.net > >What a great e amil! Dave, you and I would have so much fun as buddies if >we fished, hunted and then cooked our kill over an open fire and told great >stories like your 3 stooge story and never brought up religion. > >I forgot Larry was a Fine. My error. I always felt sorry for Larry, and >hated Moe, but I watched them a lot as a child. Are they on anymore? >---------------------- > >>>What a great e amil! Dave, you and I would have so much fun as buddies if >we fished, hunted and then cooked our kill over an open fire and told great >stories like your 3 stooge story and never brought up religion.<< > >Then why did you keep bringing it up, Bill M? Why did you insist on trying >to convert me? I kept trying to discuss your claims and the problems caused >by creation science, but you kept dodging the real issues and kept trying to >convert me. Why did you do it? Look at what you screwed up! > >Now there can never be any amity between us UNTIL THE MATTER OF YOUR >SLANDEROUS ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME HAS BEEN RESOLVED. Please stop blocking >that resolution. Simply tell us what you think I had said so that we can >match it up with the messages that show what I had actually written. THEN we >can resolve misunderstandings and tender the appropriate apologies. But >until we can examine what had happened, we cannot do any of that. YOU are >the only thing blocking that resolution. > >Here is a simple question to get it started. I've asked it before. It just >requires a simple "yes" or "no" answer. You accused me of calling you "very >nasty names". Was one of them "asshole"? Yes or no? > >BTW, this is the FORTY-FIRST TIME I have had to request this information. > > >PS >I see you didn't try the trivia question: >> >>Trivia Question: Why did Larry Fine's parents have him learn the violin? >> >From the Biography program on the Stooges: >As a child while playing in his father's shop (a goldsmith, I seem to >recall), Larry received a very bad acid burn on his left hand, crippling it. >The doctor recommended violin lessons to strengthen the hand, so they had him >take violin lessons. > >Also on the same program Adam West told of having done a western with the >Stooges (I forget the name) in which they were trying to save the buffalo. >At the end of shooting, the Stooges had everybody over for a wrap-party BBQ >and served up buffalo burgers. > >And, yes, I'm sure that they are still on somewhere, on some local channel. >Semper Stooges! > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (rly-yd04.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.4]) by air-yd05.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:39 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-yd04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:29 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19612; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002e01c05051$e5908280$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: See what we could'a been doin'? Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:50:23 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: 16-Nov-00 20:49:50 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack321@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack321@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:43 PM Subject: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >>>But here is an encouraging letter I got regarding Kent Hovind: > >"thank you so much for letting us know about Ken Hovind! We bought his tape >series. We can't thank you enough. WE appreciate all your emails and >newsletter. We live in Corona and find it hard to make the meetings...but >will sure try!!Lynn And Rick" ><< > >Uh, Bill M. You know, that letter was not regarding Kent Hovind. They only >mention him in passing and don't really say anything about him. Rather, most >of the letter was in praise you. I think your ego is showing again. > > >Now, here is an encouraging letter I got regarding my web site: > >"Thank you for your web site. I am a Christian at a fundamentalist church >who has been encouraged to watch the Answers in Genesis series of videotapes >featuring Ken Ham and Gary Parker. I want to clear out false teaching in the >Christian church, and there is a lot of it regarding evolution and creation >science. I make available a sheet of corrections to the last week's class at >the beginning of the next class, but nobody seems much interested in what I >have found. I would be quite happy for them just to repudiate obviously >false statements and misquotations - perhaps we can deal with bad science >another day. > >"I finally got some movement last week when I asked the associate pastor >directly, "Are you saying that it is okay to teach falsehoods and distortions >in the cause of Jesus Christ?" He was shocked at that notion and said No. >It remains to be seen what action will be taken, whether the repentance will >be more like Zaccheus or merely a minor recommendation for the rest of the >students to check these things out. > >"I am glad to come across your web site. For a while there I thought it was >just me, Hugh Ross, and the Pope against a whole crowd of young-earth >creationists, while the atheists stood across the room and laughed at us. >It's nice to know that I'm not alone." > >Well, Bill M, it turns out that his pastor's answer to that question is >actually "yes". Last week he wrote me: > >"I had a talk with the pastor yesterday afternoon about the >evolution/creation class and the 3 letters I had written. He and I have a >fundamental difference with regard to non-Biblical truth. He thought the >errors I had pointed out were subjective, but it still didn't matter much to >him. Scientific and scholarly truth are low priorities. So if a guy >distorts the truth about some scientific study or discovery, it doesn't >matter as long as he is a strong voice preaching against evolution. Truth >about the Bible and truth about non-Biblical sources are on two different >tiers of acceptability. > >"He thought it might be nice to review the videotape series thoroughly if the >church ever shows them again, but it's definitely a low priority. "Maybe we >could tighten it up a bit." He refused to make any post-class announcement >that there were some flaws in the teaching. If evolution is being attacked, >scholarship and accuracy and non-Biblical truth don't matter a whole lot. I >kid you not about this. > >"It's not quite true that you can lie your ass off about anything that's not >in the Bible, but it's close to that. It seems that the main problem with >lying about non-Biblical sources is that some knowledgeable person might >catch you at it. > >"I asked about the great lack of people checking up on things, like the Bible >commands us to do and (respected guest preacher) Arthur Burt told us to do. >He thought that was a pretty minor problem. He said that the prevailing >attitude is that nobody else is checking up on things because nobody is >interested in disproving creationism. What's the point of checking up on >assertions that are in our favor? We only check things that are against us. > >"Obviously that's not what the Bible and Arthur Burt said. Arthur challenged >us to test everything he says. > >"All this confirms what you said about convincing polemic arguments and the >truth. > >"I don't think the pastor will ever understand the concept of theistic >evolution. To him, evolution and atheism are two different spellings for the >same concept. > >"It was a cordial conversation, but strange. I'm glad I heard it from his >mouth. The practice of the church matches what he said, too. My wife was >appalled. We will be terminating our membership there this week. I have >exhausted all the reasonable avenues for affecting change." > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (rly-ye02.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.199]) by air-ye04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.20) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:50 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:23 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19543; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002901c05051$e1d54f40$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:50:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: 16-Nov-00 20:49:57 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack321@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next -----Original Message----- From: DWise1@aol.com To: billyjack321@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com ; editor@liberator.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 5:42 PM Subject: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >Bill M, sorry I haven't gotten back with you sooner, but I really have been >extremely busy. I wouldn't want you go jumping to conclusions again and >start accusing me (again falsely) of being afraid of answering your >questions. From personal experience you should better than that. > >Since time is tight, I will address your direct question first and respond to >the rest later. > >But the very first thing we need to do is to bring everybody into the loop: >----Original Message---- >Subj: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal >Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 5:29:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time >From: "Bill Morgan" >To: DWise1@aol.com > >Excellent E mail! I do like Kent Hovind, but some of his claims make my eye >balls roll. But I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Anyone who >writes a glot or speaks a lot has made mistakes. They should belly up tot >he bar and confess these mistakes. > > >But here is an encouraging letter I got regarding Kent Hovind: > > >"thank you so much for letting us know about Ken Hovind! We bought his tape >series. We can't thank you enough. WE appreciate all your emails and >newsletter. We live in Corona and find it hard to make the meetings...but >will sure try!!Lynn And Rick" > >Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils? > >------------------------ > > >>>Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?<< > >I'll place my question right up front so that you won't miss it as you don't >bother to read my reply. > >It would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me >what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and why what kind of a >problem you think that it presents to science. Of course, I will also need a >reference to the science journal that describes that fossil. I simply do not >have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose. > >Now for my reply: > >Polystrate fossils had always given me a lot of trouble. Not with explaining >them, but just in finding references on them. That is one of the worst >documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered. For a long >time I could not find a single scientific reference anywhere -- lots of >claims of polystrate fossils, but no references. > >Then finally Paul Ekdahl on CompuServe quoted from a creationist book about >fossil trees found fully intact with roots and branches and extending through >coal seams. The really great thing about Paul was that he would slavishly >copy creationist passages verbatim, including even footnote numbers! This >time he had included a reference. I finally had a reference to a scientific >journal! When I looked it up, I found that Paul's creationist source had >misrepresented his scientific source. The article clearly stated that NONE >of the trees extended into the coal seams, not even their roots, and that >most of them were missing their branches. > >Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise >that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of >sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid >depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves >uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. > >Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides >occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists >knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a >deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article even >described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If the >creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... . > >I have been trying to find my response to Paul Ekdahl, but with no success. >That was back in 1990. I had uploaded it into the forum's library, but those >files have been moved around since then and I cannot find out where. I also >have been unable to find the file at home. When I do find it, I will share >it with you. > >In the meantime, it would help me greatly in answering your question if you >were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and what >kind of a problem you think that it presents to science. > >Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that describes >that fossil. I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild >goose. Besides which, your response to my having answered your question >would undoubtedly be your standard immediate dropping of the subject and >ignoring all follow-up questions from me. > >If I may share a little something from a fundamentalist Christian who has >contacted me for help. He is very concerned about the total lack of concern >for truth among his fellow Christians when it comes to creation science; he >has just informed me that after a serious talk with his pastor about the >matter, he has decided to leave his church (his wife is appalled at their >now-former pastor having expressed a total lack of concern for scientific or >scholarly truth). He counselled me earlier, though I knew it already: > >"Two lessons came out of this: >1. Creationist citations of mainstream or evolutionist sources are almost >always wrong. You _must_ check them out! If you can't find the original >source, the citation is worthless. >2. Creationists have a strong tendency to misunderstand what you say. State >your case clearly. Always keep copies of your own correspondence and refer >to them later." > >You should take note of both of his lessons, because they apply directly to >you. > >For the first lesson, consider your quotes from "Weird Science" which you >have also posted on your web site. You've attached names to them, for the >most part, but there is no reference to the original source! Nor is there >any date attached to them. The reader cannot tell whether the information is >current or grossly out-of-date. You really do need to correct that, Bill M. > >And the second one is you! Look at all the times that you have misunderstood >and twisted around what I have written. And what have I had to do? I have >had to show you a copy of what I had actually written so that I could correct >your misunderstanding. > >Only you would not allow that to happen to your false and slanderous >accusations against me. Would you, Bill M? Oh, why not? Bill Morgan, for >the FORTIETH TIME, provide the information that we need to resolve the matter >of your slanderous personal attack against me. > > >Gee, Bill M, wouldn't you think that FORTY TIMES is way too many times for >somebody to have to make a simple request of a CHRISTIAN? I mean, if a >person were dishonest and a liar, then we could understand that he would want >to do everything he possibly could to avoid having to respond to a simple >request for information that would expose his lies. We could understand why >he would fear and hate the truth. > >But a CHRISTIAN is supposed to be above that. A CHRISTIAN is supposed to be >in the service of truth. A CHRISTIAN is supposed to be honest. It seems to >have something to do with some high moral standards that they keep boasting >about. And direct responsibility to an Extremely High-Placed Entity that >they keep talking about. You might have heard something about that at some >time or other, Bill M. > >So when we observe a CHRISTIAN behaving in a dishonest manner and exhibiting >fear and hatred for the truth, then that forms a very powerful witness to us. > It witnesses that CHRISTIANS are dishonest and that they do not really serve >truth, but rather they hate and fear it. It also witnesses to us that >CHRISTIANS' behavior is diametrically opposed to what they claim, which means >that they are hypocritical. That is what your witness tells us, Bill M. > >Are we to assume that that is your intended witness, Bill Morgan? > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (rly-ye02.mail.aol.com [172.18.151.199]) by air-ye03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.20) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:57 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-ye02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:49:17 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA19479; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:49:16 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002401c05051$dde02040$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , Subject: Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:50:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 16-Nov-00 21:59:58 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net wrote: "No, seriously, Bill Morgan. What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? These questions are central to the issue." What are you trying to say? = ) Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (rly-zb03.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.3]) by air-zb02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:59:58 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zb03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:59:39 -0500 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eAH5xan11486; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:59:37 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <00e401c0505b$de5da920$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:01:44 -0600 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 16-Nov-00 22:01:54 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark), DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com next -----Original Message----- From: Mark To: DWise1@aol.com ; billyjack1@hotmail.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net Date: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net > wrote: > >"No, seriously, Bill Morgan. What IS the role of truth in your creationist >ministry? DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the >truth? WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for >its >advancement? These questions are central to the issue." > >What are you trying to say? > >= ) > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (rly-xd04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.169]) by air-xd02.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.23) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:01:53 -0500 Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-xd04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:01:47 1900 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA03149; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:01:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <012801c0505b$fd7dcce0$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Mark" , , Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:02:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################ Subj: G W Bush; interesting reading Date: 18-Nov-00 23:00:20 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: Dwise1@aol.com Testimony of George W. Bush - in his own words> >The founder of a national WEB devotional site said he called Gore and >Bush and asked them to send in their testimonies for the web site-since >they BOTH "claim" to be Christians.> >Gore's office said that he didn't have one in typed form-but Bush did. >Here it is . . . please pass this along! >Very Important!!! This could change America. (Whether Democrat or >Republican).> >If any of you are interested in what George Bush says about his faith, >here it is.>> >From George Bush:> >"Actually, the seeds of my decision had been planted the year before, by >the Reverend Billy Graham. He visited my family for a summer weekend in >Maine. I saw him preach at the small summer church, St. Ann's by the >Sea. We all had lunch on the patio overlooking the ocean. One evening my >dad asked Billy to answer questions from a big group of family gathered >for the weekend. He sat by the fire and talked.> >And what he said sparked a change in my heart. I don't remember the >exact words. It was more the power of his example. The Lord was so >clearly reflected in his gentle and loving demeanor.> >The next day we walked and talked at Walker's Point, and I knew I was in >the presence of a great man. He was like a magnet; I felt drawn to seek >something different. He didn't lecture or admonish; he shared warmth and >concern. Billy Graham didn't make you feel guilty; he made you feel> >loved.> >Over the course of that weekend, Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed >in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year. He led me to the path, >and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life. I had >always been a "religious" person, had regularly attended church, even >taught Sunday School and served as an altar boy. But that weekend my >faith took on a new meaning. It was the beginning of a new walk where I >would commit my heart to Jesus Christ.> >I was humbled to learn that God sent His Son to die for a sinner like >me. I was comforted to know that through the Son, I could find God's >amazing grace, a grace that crosses every border, every barrier and is >open to everyone. Through the love of Christ's life, I could understand >the life changing powers of faith.> >When I returned to Midland, I began reading the Bible regularly. Don >Evans talked me into joining him and another friend, Don Jones, at a >men's community Bible study. The group had first assembled the year >before, in Spring of 1984, at the beginning of the downturn in the >energy industry. Midland was hurting. A lot of people were looking for >comfort and strength and direction. A couple of men started the Bible >study as a support group, and it grew. By the time I began attending, in >the fall of 1985, almost 120 men would gather. We met in small >discussion groups of ten or twelve, then joined the larger group for >full meetings.> >Don Jones picked me up every week for the meetings. I remember looking >forward to them. My interest in reading the Bible grew stronger and >stronger, and the words became clearer and more meaningful. We studied >Acts, the story of the Apostles building the Christian Church, and next >year, the Gospel of Luke. The preparation for each meeting took several >hours, reading the Scripture passages and thinking through responses to >discussion questions. I took it seriously, with my usual touch of> >humor....> >Laura and I were active members of the First Methodist Church of >Midland, and we participated in many family programs, including James >Dobson's Focus on the Family series on raising children. As I studied >and learned, Scripture took on greater meaning, and gained confidence >and understanding in my faith. I read the Bible regularly. Don Evans >gave me the "one-year" Bible, a Bible divided into 365 daily readings, >each one including a section from the New Testament, the Old Testament, >Psalms, and Proverbs. I read through that Bible every other year. During >the years in between, I pick different chapters to study at different> >times.> >I have also learned the power of prayer. I pray for guidance. I do not >pray for earthly things, but for heavenly things, for wisdom and >patience and understanding. My faith gives me focus and perspective. It >teaches humility. But I also recognize that faith can be misinterpreted >in the political process. Faith is an important part of my life. I >believe it is important to live my faith, not flaunt it.> >America is a great country because of our religious freedoms. It is >important for any leader to respect the faith of others. That point was >driven home when Laura and I visited Israel in 1998. We had traveled to >Rome to spend Thanksgiving with our daughter, who was attending a school >program there, and spent three days in Israel on the way home.> >It was an incredible experience. I remember waking up at the Jerusalem >Hilton and opening the curtains and seeing the Old City before us, the >Jerusalem stone glowing gold. We visited the Western Wall and the Church >of the Holy Sepulcher. And we went to the Sea of Galilee and stood atop >the hill where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. It was an >overwhelming feeling to stand in the spot where the most famous speech >in the history of the world was delivered, the spot where Jesus outlined >the character and conduct of a believer and gave his disciples and the >world the beatitudes, the golden rule, and the Lord's Prayer.> >Our delegation included four gentile governors-one Methodist, two >Catholics, and a Mormon, and several Jewish-American friends. Someone >suggested we read Scripture. I chose to read "Amazing Grace," my >favorite hymn. Later that night we all gathered at a restaurant in Tel >Aviv for dinner before we boarded our middle-of-night flight back to >America. We talked about the wonderful experiences and thanked the >guides and government officials who had introduced us to their country.> >And toward the end of the meal, one of our friends rose to share a >story, to tell us how he, a gentile, and his friend, a Jew, had >(unbeknownst to the rest of us) walked down to the Sea of Galilee, >joined hands underwater, and prayed together, on bended knee. Then out >of his mouth came a hymn he had known as a child, a hymn he hadn't >thought about in years. He got every word right: Now is the time >approaching, by prophets long foretold, when all shall dwell together, >One Shepherd and one fold. Now Jew and gentile, meeting, from many a >distant shore, around an altar kneeling, one common Lord. Faith changes >lives. I know, because faith has changed mine."> >I could not be governor if I did not believe in a divine plan that >supersedes all human plans. Politics is a fickle business. Polls change.> >Today's friend is tomorrow's adversary. People lavish praise and >attention. Many times it is genuine; sometimes it is not. Yet I build my >life on a foundation that will not shift. My faith frees me. Frees me to >put the problem of the moment in proper perspective. Frees me to make >decisions that others might not like. Frees me to try to do the right >thing, even though it may not poll well... The death penalty is a >difficult issue for supporters as well as its opponents. I have a >reverence for life; my faith teaches that life is a gift from our >Creator. In a perfect world, life is given by God and only taken by God. >I hope someday our society will respect life, the full spectrum of life, >from the unborn to the elderly. I hope someday unborn children will be >protected by law and welcomed in life. I support the death penalty >because I believe, if administered swiftly and justly, capital >punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other >innocent lives. Some advocates of life will challenge why I oppose >abortion yet support the death penalty. To me, it's the difference >between innocence and guilt.> >Today, two weeks after Jeb's inauguration, in my church in downtown >Austin, Pastor Mark Craig, was telling me that my re-election was the >first Governor to win back-to-back, four-year terms in the history of >the State of Texas. It was a beginning, not an end.... People are >starved for faithfulness. He talked of the need for honesty in >government. He warned that leaders who cheat on their wives will cheat >their country, will cheat their colleagues, will cheat themselves.> >Pastor Craig said that America is starved for honest leaders. He told >the story of Moses, asked by God to lead his people to a land of milk >and honey. Moses had a lot of reasons to shirk the task. As the Pastor >told it, Moses' basic reaction was, "Sorry, God, I'm busy. I've got a >family. I've got sheep to tend. I've got a life. "Who am I that I should >go to Pharaoh, and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt? The people >won't believe me, he protested. I'm not a very good speaker. Oh, my >Lord, send, I pray, some other person," Moses pleaded. But God did not, >and Moses ultimately did His bidding, leading his people through forty >years of wilderness and wandering, relying on God for strength and >direction and inspiration.> >"People are starved for leadership, "Pastor Craig said, "starved for >leaders who have ethical and moral courage."> >"It is not enough to have an ethical compass to know right from wrong," >he argued. "America needs leaders who have the moral courage to do what >is right for the right reason. It's not always easy or convenient for >leaders to step forward," he acknowledged. "Remember, even Moses had> >doubts." >>"He was talking to you," my mother later said. The pastor was, of >course, talking to all of us, challenging each one of us to make the >most of our lives, to assume the mantle of leadership and responsibility >wherever we find it. He was calling on us to use whatever power we have, >in business, in politics, in our communities, and in our families, to do >good for the right reason. And his sermon spoke directly to my heart and >my life.... There was no magic moment of decision. After talking with my >family during the Christmas holidays, then hearing this rousing sermon, >to make most of every moment, during my inaugural church service, I >gradually felt more comfortable with the prospect of a presidential> >campaign. >>My family would love me, my faith would sustain me, no matter what. >"During the more than half century of my life, we have seen an >unprecedented decay in our American culture, a decay that has eroded the >foundations of our collective values and moral standards of conduct.> >Our sense of personal responsibility has declined dramatically, just as >the role and responsibility of the federal government have increased. >The changing culture blurred the sharp contrast between right and wrong >and created a new standard of conduct: 'If it feels good, do it.' And >'If you've got a problem, blame somebody else'." "Individuals are not >responsible for their actions," the new culture has said. "We are all >victims of forces beyond our control." We have gone from a culture of >sacrifice and saving to a culture obsessed with grabbing all the gusto.> >We went from accepting responsibility to assigning blame. As government >did more and more, individuals were required to do less and less. The >new culture said: if people were poor, the government should feed them. >If someone had no house, the government should provide one. If criminals >are not responsible for their acts, then the answers are not prisons, >but social programs.... "For our culture to change, it must change one >heart, one soul, and one conscience at a time. Government can spend >money, but it cannot put hope in our hearts or a sense of purpose in our >lives."... "But government should welcome the active involvement of >people who are following a religious imperative to love their neighbors >through after school programs, child care, drug treatment, maternity >group homes, and a range of other services. Supporting these men and >women - the soldiers in the armies of compassion - is the next bold step >of welfare reform, because I know that changing hearts will change our >entire society." \par >"During the opening months of my presidential campaign, I have traveled >our country and my heart has been warmed. My experiences have >reinvigorated my faith in the greatness of Americans. They have reminded >me that societies are renewed from the bottom up, not the top down. >Everywhere I go, I see people of love and faith, taking time to help a >neighbor in need... These people and thousands like them are the heart >and soul and greatness of America. And I want to do my part. I am >running for President because I believe America must seize this moment, >America must lead. We must give our prosperity a greater purpose, a >purpose of peace and freedom and hope.> >We are a great nation of good and loving people. And together, we have a >charge to keep." _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (rly-yc05.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.37]) by air-yc05.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:00:20 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f57.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.57]) by rly-yc05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:00:00 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:59:59 -0800 Received: from 205.188.197.56 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:59:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.56] From: "Bill Morgan" To: Dwise1@aol.com Subject: G W Bush; interesting reading Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:59:59 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Nov 2000 06:59:59.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[55216330:01C051F6] ################################################ Subj: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 22-Nov-00 17:22:06 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net Bill Morgan, you wrote: --- Begin Message --- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me! --- End Message --- Perhaps you will recognize these verses: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7) "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5) Bill M, don't you remember how you have always avoided answering even my simple questions? And how you have stubbornly refused to answer those simple questions that I have had to repeat several times? And how you had asked me several other questions of the same class as your "origin of life" question? And that I had answered every single one of those? And how you would drop the subject completely and refuse to respond to my repeated follow-up questions? Or how you would pretend that I had not answered your question but would refuse to answer my repeated questions of why you had not found my answer acceptable? So, Bill M, considering your record, it is obvious that you neither want nor expect an answer to your questions. So any attempt I would have made to answer your "origin of life" question would have been a total waste of my time. It also appeared very obvious to me that Bill Bequette was just shilling for you when he repeated the question. I will respond to him soon, so he will have a chance to correct me if I am mistaken. However, I will need to discuss with him his reasons for having asked that question and what he was hoping to accomplish by it. There is also the matter of YOUR OWN teaching that we must not allow someone to respond to our questions with "rabbit trail" tricks. YOUR OWN teaching is that we must insist on an answer to our question and refuse to answer the "rabbit trail" question until we have received our answer. Therefore, since you have not answered my questions, I am obligated BY YOUR VERY OWN TEACHING to refuse to answer until I receive answers to my own questions. Especially since you had presented that origin-of-life question to me AS a "rabbit trail" trick. Bill M, I have repeatedly asked you if you had any problem with my application of your anti-"rabbit trail" lesson. EACH AND EVERY TIME, you have refused to answer that question. We have a long history of questions not answered by you, which I will briefly review. Before I do, I would point out the more glaring differences between your questions to me and my questions to you: 1. Most of your questions to me are intended to be unanswerable because they require advanced specialized scientific knowledge, detailed knowledge of current scientific research, and knowledge of things which science does not yet know. In contrast, almost all of my questions to you were meant to be answered and should have been well within the scope of your knowledge and abilities. 2. Most of your questions to me are meant to stump me, for a variety of manipulative purposes which I have discussed elsewhere. Almost all of my questions to you are meant to elicit more information or clarification about your statements, actions, or position. 3. You ask most of your questions to cover your tracks while you try to escape the truth, hence your frequent "rabbit trail" attempts. I ask most of my questions in search of the truth, hence my persistence in seeking an answer. "By their fruits you will know them." A few examples of both of our questions are given below. First, how do the two of us compare regarding answering each other's questions? For a quick review, in response to your blatantly false claim in June 1998 that you had answered every single one of my questions, I produced the following statistics: SUMMARY: Bill's Questions to Me: Answered: 23 Unanswered: 2 Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% My Questions to Bill: Answered: 12 Asked Once and Not Answered: 65 Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% You can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/mr_100percent.html . You should also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at http://membersaol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html to see my responses to Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my responses, and the original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via "rabbit trails" by asking those "unanswerable" questions. Bill M, those questions and your origin-of-life question are stock and standard creationist "impossible questions", i.e., questions which are impossible to answer and which you toss at your opponent to undermine their position Your purpose in asking them has been to stump me, to stop or impede the discussion (eg, "rabbit trailing"), and to prepare me for proselytization. They were never meant to be answered, so when I did answer them you didn't know what to do. Bill M, you seem to hate it when I won't follow your prepared script. First, here are the two of Bill M's questions that I had not answered. You will note that they are NOT of the class of questions discussed above [copied via the Clipboard, so all misspellings are Bill M's]: 1. Would you like a cop of the video and audio tape of the debate for cost? 2. Would you like a shot at eastman? Do you have the desire to debae him? Those "unanswerable questions" used BLATANTLY as "rabbit trails" are AND WHICH I DID ANSWER [see my "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html for my answers and for Bill M's responses thereto]: 1. "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" 2. "Which life appeared first? Please answer that." 3. "Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that the blue whale is related to bacteria." 4. "So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are the ancestors to blue whales." 5. "You consider yourself "wise," yet believe in spontaneous generation. If you do not beleive in spontaneous generation please provide me witht eh best explanation you have for the origin of life. Can you? Will you?" 6. "Do you have a better explanation than the Garden of Eden for the origin of Meisosis reproduction? Do you beleive Mitosis reproducing animals are the ancestors of Meisosis animals?" 7. "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" 8. "But what about at Judgment day? What would you say to God then?" The following questions are from an article that Bill M wrote for his newsletter. He claimed in that article that none of the "experts" he asked could answer them. In reality, he reported having only asked air-conditionining unit salesmen, NOT any atmospheric scientists, the real experts. I presented to him the answers from the real experts in atmospheric dynamics, NOAA, who answer every single one of his questions in their FAQ. Bill M at first tried to claim that I had not answered his question, and when I asked him why he thought that, he refused to respond at all. Please note that he later posted that article, uncorrected, on his website, even though he knew that it is not true. That is called "lying". When I asked him about that, he dismissed my question as a "tirade" and refused to answer. The article is still there; Bill M is still lying to the world about it. Read the entire story on my "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER" page at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html , along wi th the answers to Bill's questions. 9. "How Can Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Get to the Stratosphere If They're Heavier than Air?" 10. "Why is the Ozone Hole Observed over Antarctica When CFCs Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?" 11. "Does Most of the Chlorine in the Stratosphere Come from Human or Natural Sources?" 12. "Can you answer my simple question of how the R 12 gets 5 miles above the surface of the earth. The proponents endlessly teach what R 12 does to ozone, I have read that endlessly, but my qwuestion is how does it get there." Now for the period since July 2000 (I would remind everybody here that Bill M had unilaterally terminated our correspondence within 2 months after I had compiled and presented the preceding information and our correspondence did not resume until July 2000), please add: 13. Hominid fossils. In July 2000, I finally got my 1998 email with Bill M caught up (delayed by Bill M's abrupt and unannounced closing of his AOL account). Bill M asked the follow-up question on 23 July 2000: >>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. << On 28 July 2000, I responded with the information that he requested, named a few of the fossils in question (and noted that they are conspicuous by their absense from creationist sites), and refered Bill M to a very good on-line source of information [Jim Foley's FAQ, "Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html]. I also threw in a little corroborating evidence that there is no distinct separation between Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens in the form of Jim Foley's "Comparison of all skulls" page [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html -- AKA "Comparison of creationist opinions" on his home page). On that page, he displays a series of 14 hominid skulls and lists the opinions of 8 prominent creationists concerning the classification of six of those skulls as either "100% human" or "100% ape". The creationists could not agree with each other and some even changed their minds from one publication to the next. Foley's conclusion points out: "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. ... "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." Bill M did not respond to my response. Yet again he just dropped the subject abruptly, which indicates that he had never had any real interest in learning something in the first place. Obviously, he had asked that question only to "call my bluff" and then folded immediately when he realized that I wasn't bluffing. Here's a hint: I don't bluff. Maybe that's the problem that Bill M has with my questions: my questions about his claims effectively call HIS bluff and he doesn't want to have to admit that he has nothing to back them up. No wonder he loves his "rabbit trails" so much! 14. "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000 17:29:13 EDT) You have all received my response to Bill M. Basically, I told him: a. That I needed more information from him about the specific claim that he had in mind, including scientific references. b. That I have traditionally found the polystrate claims to be one of the worst-documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered. c. What the results were of checking on a specific claim with references (ie, the creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source and made claims directly contradicted by his source). d. That: "Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. "Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article even described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If the creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ." I posted my response on 16 Nov 2000. Bill Morgan has not responded within the six days since then and, quite frankly, given his past conduct, I do not expect him to respond. He doesn't want any real answers. He just wanted to try to stump me again and yet again found that he could not. 15. [05 Oct 2000, 1522] "mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life." This is the question in question. I will discuss it in another email. We have seen the nature of the questions that Bill Morgan has asked me, can clearly see that he did not intend for me to have been able to answer them, and have witnessed his reaction to my answers. In contrast, all of my questions to Bill Morgan were meant to be answerable, to elicit information, and to further the discussion. The unanswered questions number more than 80, not counting the additional unanswered questions since July 2000. Here are some representative questions: First the questions which I had to repeat several times and which Bill M never answered (except for two indicated questions): 1. "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" Bill M did finally answer this one, AFTER TWO YEARS. Furthermore, he tried to make the blatantly false claim that he had answered it the first time. 2. "If you need to be told what the Clipboard is and how to use it, PLEASE ASK! It's so extremely simple that even MacIntosh people can use it." Bill M did finally answer this one, AFTER FOUR YEARS. And he was very nasty about it too, even though I was extending my hand in friendship, offering aid for no other reason except to help. So much for Bill Morgan's claims that HE was acting in friendship. 3. "Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning? What would happen if you found irrefutable proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years? What effect would that have on you? How would it affect your faith? Should it? Why?" 4. "I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant." 5. "What is your definition here of "uniformitarian"? Do you have other definitions of this term that you use? (eg, are there differences in how you used the term here and in how science uses the term) Who would use uniformitarian arguments? (obviously, from this example, we know that creationists do) What are the alternatives to uniformitarian arguments?" 6. "DO you have something to say? Why can you not say it here? " 7. "Please tell me the reasons I gave you why I cannot and prefer not to do an on-stage type of "debate" and why I consider an on-line debate to be very much preferable." [I asked this question because I had explained it to Bill M several times already, but he would never listen.] Asked once and not answered: 1. "As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own." Did you really believe that? Seriously? 2. For that matter, what about yourself? What would happen to you now if you should again become an "atheist"? Wouldn't you again decide that the rules do not apply to you? Wouldn't you again deny responsibility for your actions? Wouldn't you again fall into the trap laid for you in your childhood? 3. What are you having a problem with? That atheists can be moral and virtuous (remember that I am far from being an exception, nor am I an extraordinary individual)? That professional proselytizers have found that creation science is not only not an ineffective tool for proselytizing, but it also has proven to be counter-productive (ie, driving more people away from Christianity than it attracts)? That teaching creation science creates some very real and grave dangers for those who are taught it, especially children? That teaching morality based [solely] on theology can endanger the individuals so taught? 4. I responded to the tone of urgency in your message by saying in effect, "Yes, let's discuss these matters." But then you start arguing over the exact medium for the discussion, equivalent to arguing over the shape of the table we'll use. Do you want to discuss this or not? Do you have questions or don't you? Do you wish to respond or not? Do you have something to say or don't you? What is holding you back? 5. This discussion, if you will ever let it get started, promises to be rich in content. E-mail is an ideal medium for content, albeit poorer for emotionalism and for obfuscation. Telephony is a richer medium for emotionalism and for obfuscation and a poorer medium for content. A "Gish gallop" would work on the telephone far better than it would work in e-mail, since it could well overwhelm the listener on the phone, but could be picked apart, analyzed, and responded to in e-mail. Besides which, e-mail establishes a record of exactly what was stated, whereas the telephone does not. Hence, your repeated insistence that I call you is made all the more suspicious. Have you disappeared because you are unable to hit me with your own "Gish gallop"? 6. If so, then what does that say for your ministry of proselytizing through claims that you know to be false? Especially now that you know that such false claims are a leading cause of atheism. Do you really think that God will reward you for spreading lies? If so, then you will have your reward, but it will not be what you expected. 7. Your probability model only allowed for one very specific amino acid sequence for the protein to be functional; you allow no substitutions whatsoever, representing any substitution as destroying the protein's functionality. I won't revisit that you are really describing the probability of producing a protein via creation ex nihilo, instead of via evolution. Now your more recent statement readily allows for substitutions in the amino acid sequence. Have you learned and corrected your mistake, or are you just contradicting yourself, making any claim that sounds good without regard of consistency? In light of your more recent statement, do you intend to go back and correct your box-car analogy? How does your essay read now? 8. You observe that all the other animals in your sample are about equally different from the lamprey and complain that there is no progression. What do you mean by "progression"? Just exactly what were you expecting to see (this is not a rhetorical question) and on exactly what assumptions were you basing that expectation? Since I do not expect you to respond (given your previous evasiveness and your more recent sudden disappearance), would I be correct in assuming that you expect the modern lamprey's proteins to be exactly identical to those of the ancient lampreys who were ancestral to the other species in the comparison (as given in the evolutionary hypothesis that you were "testing")? If so, then could you please explain upon what you base such an assumption? Why should we expect evolution to suddenly stop for a given species, especially in the accumulation of neutral mutations, which is what most base substitutions (which is what causes amino acid substitutions) are? What possible mechanism could account for such an event? 9. But first, a quick question so that it won't get lost: [at the debate at Cerritos College,] did John Peloza present a young-earth position? I remember that earlier, while his litigation was on-going, he was very careful to steer clear of any age-of-the-earth discussion. I'm just wondering whether he is still sticking with the stealthy "intelligent design / abrupt appearance" buzz-word or whether he has rejoined the young-earth creation science mainstream. 10. For that matter, you have avoided answering every question put to you. Why? If you really believe that the truth, the facts, and the evidence is on your side, then why do you avoid any and all discussion of it? 11. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If your claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no attempt to defend them? 12. Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein comparison claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague compliment, as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue to make them? 13. You blustered really bigtime in your "Weird Science" that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", but when I presented my 80-page critique of it in which I found errors in every single frame of every single page, your only response was "the only critique is the spelling of Lemcont Demoy's name". I wonder, do you still make that claim in your "new and improved" edition? 14. Given the virtual impossibility for me to call you, just exactly how am I supposed to call you? What workable plan can you present? 15. Were you working at Ford Aerospace, DIVAD Division, circa 1983-1985? 16. "What do you want?" (Mr. Morden, with his Rod Serling-like delivery), In other words, why are you involved with creation science? What are your goals? What do you think you'll accomplish? 17. Bill, have you asked any scientists that question? Have you researched any of the literature discussing the effects of R-12 on the atmosphere? Have you read any scientific explanations for the localizing of the ozone "hole" over Antarctica? You blame Antarctic volcanic activity, but why wouldn't that happen over more equitorial regions of volcanic activity? (hint: think about the rotation of the earth and the associated wind and weather patterns) ... Again, what does the literature say? 18. You said, "lets have a PUBLIC debate" (emphasis mine). What could you possibly feel freer to say that you have steadfastly refused to say in our email exchanges? If anything, saying something out in public should make one feel more restricted, rather than freer. 19. Besides, your protein formation argument still uses the wrong probability model. Rather than using an evolutionary model (which is what you were trying to disprove/discredit), you used a creation ex nihilo model. I already told you about that. You know better. Why haven't you corrected it yet? 20. If you believe that you are solely responsible to [your god], what do you think your reward will be for casting your web of lies to snare souls? 21. While you're at it, please explain how you conduct a debate, what you intend to accomplish in a debate (ie, your goals), and how the manner you conduct a debate supports your goals. 22. Bill, as I understand it, your theology calls for you to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Could you please share with us how you are taught to deal with the problems of translation and of different versions of the same verses, etc? What writings, precisely, are you to believe to be literally true? 23. Are you using straight HTML or a developer's kit? 24. Are there parts of the process or about HTML that I might be able to help you with? 25. >I have taught at USC, UCLA, Cal State LA, San Diego State, UC Santa Barbara and many community colleges.< OK. But what courses? In what departments? With what credentials? I know that to teach at junior and community colleges, you need at least a master's degree in the subject that you will be teaching. What are your degrees and what are they in? How is your having taught at these colleges relevant to the creation/evolution issue? 26. >I openly beleive in the Garden of Eden account.< Does that mean that you believe that your god directly created the first of all kinds of life: plant and animal, marine and terrestrial? On what basis do you believe that? The Bible? No, seriously. Do you believe that your god directly created the first of all kinds of life and what do you base that belief on? Yes or no? I really do expect an answer. 56. You grunted "Yes" to which question? So, as you can all see, it was well within Bill Morgan's abilities and knowledge to answer my questions. Yes, some of them are difficult, but only in matters of honesty and integrity, not in factual content. Therefore, Bill Morgan is the last person who would be justified in criticizing my not answering one of his questions. QED PS There is much more to the question in question than my just not having answered it. Read the next email on the subject. ################################################ Subj: "Origin of Life" Question, Part Deux Date: 22-Nov-00 17:26:43 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net Bill Morgan, you wrote: --- Begin Message --- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me! --- End Message --- In the previous email, I compared the record of my responding to Bill M's questions and Bill M's responding to mine: Bill's Questions to Me: Answered: 23 Unanswered: 2 Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% My Questions to Bill: Answered: 12 Asked Once and Not Answered: 65 Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% Again, you can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/mr_100percent.html . You should also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html to see my responses to Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my responses, and the original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via "rabbit trails" by asking those "unanswerable" questions. Now as promised, I will address the question in question: [05 Oct 2000, 1522] "mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life." First, please note that this is yet another one of Bill Morgan's "unanswerable" questions. Every single time that I have answered one of those question, Bill M has either dropped the subject altogether or he has pretended that I had not given him an answer and refuse to answer my repeated questions of what was wrong with my answer. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Therefore, Bill M does not really want an answer to any of his "unanswerable" questions. Indeed, an answer seems to be the last thing he wants! Therefore, giving him an answer to one of those "unanswerable" questions would be a waste of valuable time. Second, Bill M's question is pure "rabbit trails". Officially, Bill M is opposed to "rabbit trail" tricks, but in practice he depends very heavily on them. He condemns their use by his opponents, but he is gluttonous in using them himself. From his article on his web site, "Witnessing Tips #3" at http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article34.htm], the pertinent paragraph reads: "DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours." While he advises his students to not allow an "evolutionist" to pull that trick, he does it all the time. When you read my "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" page [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html], you will see that he had asked most of those questions as a "rabbit trail" trick to avoid the question I had just asked him. This "origin of life" (OOL) question is just another in a long line of abuses. So, as Bill Morgan himself had instructed, I must keep him from creating yet another "rabbit trail." As instructed, I have told him that I would answer his question only after he had answered mine. However, since Bill Morgan has been "rabbit trailing" since 1996, I have to insist on answers to ALL the questions that he had never answered. I mean, anything less just would not be right, now would it? Believe it or not, Bill M's OOL question has a long history, which has some interesting developments. I will present most of the following as exerpts from messages. Hyphens will separate messages. Non-pertinent text will be [clipped]. Added text will be in [brackets]. And if you want to read the parts that were [clipped] out, the entire transcript is still available at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html : ------------------- Subj: Sizzler Date: 26-Aug-00 11:37:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com [clipped] I apologize to the court and will nto repeat for the tenth time to Mr Wise that he willnot answer my origin of matter, origin of energy, origin of life questions. [clipped] [please note that there were no "ten times" that Bill M had asked me that question. This was the first time this year that I had encountered it from him.] ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 02-Sep-00 12:32:41 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: ealpurcell@juno.com [clipped] One of the problems of trying to deal with Bill is that he doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on reality. Did you see one of his latest messages to me? >Subj: Sizzler >Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 2:37:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time >From: "Bill Morgan" >To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com >I place my hand over my keyboard and type little. > > ... >I apologize to the court and will nto repeat for >the tenth time to Mr Wise that he willnot answer my origin of matter, origin >of energy, origin of life questions. "Tenth time"? Bill has never ever asked me that question. Not even once. Oh, he tried some of his other "unanswerable", "rabbit trail" questions on me before, as I have documented in my Morgan Pages [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/questions.html], but never that one. And Bill has most certain never ever said anything to me about not answering that question, which he had never asked me to begin with. Not once and most certainly not ten times. And besides, that isn't even what has been going on for the past few weeks. It looks like Bill has left merely imagining things and has moved on to full-blown hallucinations. He has gone beyond merely not knowing what is going on around him and has started to vacation in his own private little universe. [clipped] ------------------- Subj: Re: Sizzler Date: 02-Sep-00 12:40:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com >>I apologize to the court and will nto repeat for the tenth time to Mr Wise that he willnot answer my origin of matter, origin of energy, origin of life questions.<< WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Bill, YOU ARE HALLUCINATING!! You've totally lost it now! "tenth time"?? There hasn't even been a FIRST time. You had NEVER EVER asked ME that question! EVER! You have asked me a lot of other questions and I answered almost all of them (about 23 out of 25 questions, or 92%). But never that one! [The following bracketed text was presented in brackets in the original message] [NOTE: BTW, the two questions I did not answer were: 1. "Would you like a cop of the video and audio tape of the debate for cost?" 2. "Would you like a shot at eastman? Do you have the desire to debate him?" ] OK, Bill. You tell us EXACTLY when you had asked ME that question and when those TEN TIMES were that you claim to have had to repeatedly ask me for an answer. TELL US! Because that is the most blatant falsehood you have ever tried to foist off on us! That makes it obvious to us all that you either are not dealing with us honestly or you are not playing with a full deck. [The following bracketed text was presented in brackets in the original message] [NOTE: The first time that I have ever seen Bill ask that question in an email addressed to me is in the email that Bill sent 3 minutes, 24 seconds AFTER the one to which I am now replying and in which he accuses me of not answering that question. And in the message where he asks the question, he specifically directs the question to MARK, not to me. Go figure.] [clipped] [At the time, I had absolutely no recollection of Bill Morgan ever having asked me that question. However, in reviewing the list of "unanswerable" questions, I found that that was not entirely correct. In this one question: "You consider yourself "wise," yet believe in spontaneous generation. If you do not beleive in spontaneous generation please provide me witht eh best explanation you have for the origin of life. Can you? Will you?" Bill Morgan had posted that question on 20 April 1998. I answered that question within the week. You can read all about it on my "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: SPONTANEOUS GENERATION" page at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_spontaneous.html , including my answer to Bill M. As it turns out, I already answered his question back in late April 1998! Nor was that the first time! Back around 1990, ¡TEN YEARS AGO!, I answered that question in my critique of Bill M's low-budget version of "Big Daddy?", his "Weird Science" (see http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/weird_sci.html) and repeated the pertinent text in my answer of late April 1998. Of course, I was not able to deliver my critique of "Weird Science" to Bill M until we started our email correspondence in mid-1996. BTW, Bill M's response to my answer (of late April 1998) was to change the subject. "Semper rabbit trails" must be his motto. ] ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 02-Sep-00 12:41:27 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com [clipped] >>Mark: 1) origin of matter and energy 2) Origin of Life Please give me your best scientific explations for the orgins of these things!<< Still up to your old "rabbit trail" tricks, huh, Bill? I'm sure that you will try it on me next, so I'll just apply your lesson: >>"DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours."<< So, you have instructed me to keep you from creating yet another "rabbit trail." As instructed, I would tell you that I would answer your question only after you had answered mine. Now for the kicker. You owe me answers to about 85 questions. You must answer every one of them to my satisfaction (ie, I must recognize it as an honest answer that actually does address the question). Only then can I even consider answering another one of your "rabbit trail" questions. You probably don't remember them all, but don't worry. I will help you to remember them. As they were actually asked, not as you might want to imagine them to be. Of course, one of the first ones would be for you to substantiate your ELEVEN accusations against me by telling us what you think I had said. Remember, there are eleven accusations, so we will need to see support for all eleven. Next would be the question of your extensive use of "rabbit trails", even though you explicitly teach against allowing anyone to use that trick. The question was in three parts: >1) Why do you warning against the "rabbit trails" tactic? >2) Do you think it dishonest? >3) Why do you forbid your followers to allow its use at the same time that >you use it so pervasively as your modus operandi? Next would be the question of what you think my position is, why you "strongly disagree with [it]", why you "feel it is a weak position", and just where and how have you "challenged and attacked [it]"? Next would be why you have posted claims on your web site that you know are false and which you knew were false before you posted them? In particular, I am refering to your "Ozone Layer" article, in which you falsely claim that scientists had taken lab experiments and extrapolated from that that there could be CFCs in the upper atmosphere and that nobody could answer some simple questions about that. I clearly showed you that NOAA (where the real experts are, not at air-conditioning trade shows) has indeed answered those questions and have posted them in a FAQ to which I had pointed you. Also, NOAA has stated that the presence of CFCs high in the atmosphere has been measured with thousands of direct measurements and samples. Then there are more than 80 questions still pending from our previous correspondence, plus any other more recent questions that I might have forgotten. I can list those again for you if you'd like. ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 11-Sep-00 13:45:42 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com [clipped] But anything to avoid the origin of life question huh? Chicken little would be right in saying your credability is falling. [clipped] ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 14-Sep-00 11:45:33 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net [clipped] >>But anything to avoid the origin of life question huh? Chicken little would be right in saying your credability is falling.<< Bill, you destroyed your credibility long ago. That "question" was just yet another of your "rabbit trails" and I am applying the teaching that we must not take "rabbit trails" but rather must insist on an answer to our question first. Now, what is the problem that you have with that? In this case, you owe me answers to about 85 questions that you have dodged. Because of your outrageous behavior, I must hold your feet to the fire and insist on reasonable answers for each and every one of them (to deprive you of your usual weasel room, *I* will decide whether an answer is reasonable). BTW, Mr. Bequette, I have answered every one of that class of question that Bill has put to me in the past. Bill's reaction each time was to either ignore the answer or, most often, just drop the entire thing. He obviously has no interest in receiving an answer to his questions. Which raises questions about what he is trying to do with those questions. His actions here do not seem the least bit honest. [clipped] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 05-Oct-00 15:22:49 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for not going to Denny's. mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life. [the message to which the above responds follows] >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:30:14 EDT > > > >>I love the intellectual thrust and parry with those of different >opinions, I have no problem with that.....it is the greatest catalyst >toward futher research....being challenged....<< > >Since when, Bill M? Both Mark and I have observed you in action since >1996. We have watched you do everything you can to avoid discussion, >including your favorite trick of laying down rabbit trails. > >But then we have not observed you with somebody who doesn't know what is >going on. I guess that would make a difference, because you only want to >be "challenged" when you can tap-dance rings around the other guy. But >bring in somebody who knows something about creation science and you duck >and run. > > >>I just have a hard time with incessant insults and whining from people >who will remain nameless.<< > >Well, Bill M, if you would stop obstructing the search for truth then >things would run a whole lot smoother. If only you weren't so afraid of >the truth. > >For the THIRTIETH TIME, Bill M, substantiate your accusations against me! >Tell us what you think I had said! > [Please note the two-fold trick that Bill M used to my 30th request that he substantiate his accusations against me: 1. Bill M simply repeats the accusation and, ironically, in process creates a new accusation. 2. Bill M tries to create a "rabbit trail" by officially presenting the OOL question. Therefore, Bill M's use of the OOL question is a "rabbit trail" trick. QED ] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 05-Oct-00 15:42:11 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Mr Wise what is your best explanation for the origin of life? ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Morgan To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; editor@liberator.net Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:22 PM Subject: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for not going to Denny's. mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:30:14 EDT > > [clipped -- same as in the previous message] [Bill B, this is where you joined in. Please look at the times that the messages were sent. Bill M sent his message at Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:22 PM (1522 in normal time) Bill B sent his message at Thursday, October 05, 2000 15:42 The two messages were sent just 20 minutes apart. Plus, your message is a "reply" to Bill M's message, but sent instead to me. We'll talk about this soon. ] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 09-Oct-00 17:46:14 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: editor@liberator.net [clipped] >>mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life.<< So you're back to trying to create your damnable "rabbit trails" again! Stop it! The correct response to your request is: I will answer that later, but first I want an answer to my questions which you have never answered. If you have a problem with that response, then please explain what that problem is. In case you do not recognize it, it is from your very own teachings on dealing with somebody trying to use the dishonest "rabbit trails" tactic. The answers that I am waiting for from you include those from over 80 questions that you had not answered in our previous correspondence, as well as a few more: 1. Most pressing is the question of what you are accusing me of having written. I cannot and will not accept the mere repeating of the accusations. We must be able to use your answer to identify the actual messages in question. [clipped -- very explicit list of required answers] I was going to go easy on you and not bump the count, but forget that! You do not deserve any leniency! This is the THIRTY-FOURTH TIME that I am asking you for this information! 2. On 19 Aug 2000, you stated: >I strongly disagree with [DWise1's] position, I have challenged and attacked his position, I feel it is a weak position, but I gladly leave the personal attacks out of it.<< I immediately responded: >Excuse me, Bill, but when have you ever "challenged and attacked [my] position"? I cannot remember you ever doing any such thing in our entire correspondence. Instead, you have a long and consistent history of avoiding discussion by either laying down "rabbit trails" or by running away from the topic. "For that matter, Bill, with all due respect, I do not believe that you even know what my position is, even though I have presented it to you more than once And if you do not know what my position is, then how could you consider it to be weak? And how could you challenge something that you know nothing about? Let alone attack it? Could you please tell us all here what my position is? Then could you please tell us all here, briefly, why you "strongly disagree with [it]"? Then could you please tell us all here, briefly, why you "feel it is a weak position"? Then could you please tell us all here how you "have challenged and attacked [it]"? Curious minds want to know.<< Bill M, you never answered that question. I do believe that it is a very fair and pertinent question and one which you should be quite able to answer. It is pertinent because you have demonstrated an inability to follow what is going on. I personally believe that you have no idea what my position is, even though I have described several times and that you are attributing to me some distorted fantasy of your own making. [clipped] [Bill Morgan never replied to this message. He knows that he cannot object to his own teachings about "rabbit trailing", so instead he completely ignores that issue. He is deathly afraid of us finding the truth, so he completely ignores my justified requests for information regarding his slanderous accusations against me. He knows that he doesn't have the faintest idea what my position actually is, even though I have described it to him several times, so he completely ignores that as well.] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me! [And we finally end up with this ludicrous travesty. I do believe that we can now all appreciate more fully the extend of Bill Morgan's hypocrisy and his "fine Christian witness".] ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 22-Nov-00 22:37:37 Pacific Standard Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net So how did life originate? Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: "Origin of Life" Question >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:22:05 EST > >Bill Morgan, you wrote: > >--- Begin Message --- >Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide >Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) >To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com >CC: editor@liberator.net > >Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me! >--- End Message --- > >Perhaps you will recognize these verses: > >"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto >them, >He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John >8:7) > >"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but >considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? >"Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine >eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? >"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then >shalt >thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew >7:3-5) > > >Bill M, don't you remember how you have always avoided answering even my >simple questions? And how you have stubbornly refused to answer those >simple >questions that I have had to repeat several times? And how you had asked >me >several other questions of the same class as your "origin of life" >question? >And that I had answered every single one of those? And how you would drop >the subject completely and refuse to respond to my repeated follow-up >questions? Or how you would pretend that I had not answered your question >but would refuse to answer my repeated questions of why you had not found >my >answer acceptable? > >So, Bill M, considering your record, it is obvious that you neither want >nor >expect an answer to your questions. So any attempt I would have made to >answer your "origin of life" question would have been a total waste of my >time. > >It also appeared very obvious to me that Bill Bequette was just shilling >for >you when he repeated the question. I will respond to him soon, so he will >have a chance to correct me if I am mistaken. However, I will need to >discuss with him his reasons for having asked that question and what he was >hoping to accomplish by it. > >There is also the matter of YOUR OWN teaching that we must not allow >someone >to respond to our questions with "rabbit trail" tricks. YOUR OWN teaching >is >that we must insist on an answer to our question and refuse to answer the >"rabbit trail" question until we have received our answer. Therefore, >since >you have not answered my questions, I am obligated BY YOUR VERY OWN >TEACHING >to refuse to answer until I receive answers to my own questions. >Especially >since you had presented that origin-of-life question to me AS a "rabbit >trail" trick. > >Bill M, I have repeatedly asked you if you had any problem with my >application of your anti-"rabbit trail" lesson. EACH AND EVERY TIME, you >have refused to answer that question. > >We have a long history of questions not answered by you, which I will >briefly >review. Before I do, I would point out the more glaring differences >between >your questions to me and my questions to you: >1. Most of your questions to me are intended to be unanswerable because >they >require advanced specialized scientific knowledge, detailed knowledge of >current scientific research, and knowledge of things which science does not >yet know. In contrast, almost all of my questions to you were meant to be >answered and should have been well within the scope of your knowledge and >abilities. >2. Most of your questions to me are meant to stump me, for a variety of >manipulative purposes which I have discussed elsewhere. Almost all of my >questions to you are meant to elicit more information or clarification >about >your statements, actions, or position. >3. You ask most of your questions to cover your tracks while you try to >escape the truth, hence your frequent "rabbit trail" attempts. I ask most >of >my questions in search of the truth, hence my persistence in seeking an >answer. "By their fruits you will know them." > >A few examples of both of our questions are given below. > >First, how do the two of us compare regarding answering each other's >questions? For a quick review, in response to your blatantly false claim >in >June 1998 that you had answered every single one of my questions, I >produced >the following statistics: > >SUMMARY: > >Bill's Questions to Me: > Answered: 23 > Unanswered: 2 > Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% > >My Questions to Bill: > Answered: 12 > Asked Once and Not Answered: 65 > Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 > Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% > >You can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. >100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/mr_100percent.html . You >should >also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at >http://membersaol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html to see my responses >to >Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my responses, and >the >original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via "rabbit trails" by >asking those "unanswerable" questions. > >Bill M, those questions and your origin-of-life question are stock and >standard creationist "impossible questions", i.e., questions which are >impossible to answer and which you toss at your opponent to undermine their >position Your purpose in asking them has been to stump me, to stop or >impede >the discussion (eg, "rabbit trailing"), and to prepare me for >proselytization. They were never meant to be answered, so when I did >answer >them you didn't know what to do. Bill M, you seem to hate it when I won't >follow your prepared script. > >First, here are the two of Bill M's questions that I had not answered. You >will note that they are NOT of the class of questions discussed above >[copied >via the Clipboard, so all misspellings are Bill M's]: >1. Would you like a cop of the video and audio tape of the debate for cost? >2. Would you like a shot at eastman? Do you have the desire to debae him? > >Those "unanswerable questions" used BLATANTLY as "rabbit trails" are AND >WHICH I DID ANSWER [see my "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html for my answers and >for >Bill M's responses thereto]: > >1. "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" > >2. "Which life appeared first? Please answer that." > >3. "Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that the blue >whale is related to bacteria." > >4. "So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are the >ancestors >to blue whales." > >5. "You consider yourself "wise," yet believe in spontaneous generation. >If >you do not beleive in spontaneous generation please provide me witht eh >best >explanation you have for the origin of life. Can you? Will you?" > >6. "Do you have a better explanation than the Garden of Eden for the origin >of Meisosis reproduction? Do you beleive Mitosis reproducing animals are >the >ancestors of Meisosis animals?" > >7. "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" > >8. "But what about at Judgment day? What would you say to God then?" > > >The following questions are from an article that Bill M wrote for his >newsletter. He claimed in that article that none of the "experts" he asked >could answer them. In reality, he reported having only asked >air-conditionining unit salesmen, NOT any atmospheric scientists, the real >experts. I presented to him the answers from the real experts in >atmospheric >dynamics, NOAA, who answer every single one of his questions in their FAQ. >Bill M at first tried to claim that I had not answered his question, and >when >I asked him why he thought that, he refused to respond at all. Please note >that he later posted that article, uncorrected, on his website, even though >he knew that it is not true. That is called "lying". When I asked him >about >that, he dismissed my question as a "tirade" and refused to answer. The >article is still there; Bill M is still lying to the world about it. Read >the entire story on my "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER" page at >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html , along wi >th the answers to Bill's questions. > >9. "How Can Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Get to the Stratosphere If They're >Heavier than Air?" > >10. "Why is the Ozone Hole Observed over Antarctica When CFCs Are Released >Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?" > >11. "Does Most of the Chlorine in the Stratosphere Come from Human or >Natural >Sources?" > >12. "Can you answer my simple question of how the R 12 gets 5 miles above >the >surface of the earth. The proponents endlessly teach what R 12 does to >ozone, I have read that endlessly, but my qwuestion is how does it get >there." > > >Now for the period since July 2000 (I would remind everybody here that Bill >M >had unilaterally terminated our correspondence within 2 months after I had >compiled and presented the preceding information and our correspondence did >not resume until July 2000), please add: > >13. Hominid fossils. In July 2000, I finally got my 1998 email with Bill M >caught up (delayed by Bill M's abrupt and unannounced closing of his AOL >account). Bill M asked the follow-up question on 23 July 2000: > >>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. ><< > >On 28 July 2000, I responded with the information that he requested, named >a >few of the fossils in question (and noted that they are conspicuous by >their >absense from creationist sites), and refered Bill M to a very good on-line >source of information [Jim Foley's FAQ, "Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for >Human Evolution" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html]. > >I also threw in a little corroborating evidence that there is no distinct >separation between Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens in the form of Jim >Foley's "Comparison of all skulls" page >[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html -- AKA "Comparison of >creationist opinions" on his home page). On that page, he displays a >series >of 14 hominid skulls and lists the opinions of 8 prominent creationists >concerning the classification of six of those skulls as either "100% human" >or "100% ape". The creationists could not agree with each other and some >even changed their minds from one publication to the next. Foley's >conclusion points out: >"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. ... > >"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." > >Bill M did not respond to my response. Yet again he just dropped the >subject >abruptly, which indicates that he had never had any real interest in >learning >something in the first place. Obviously, he had asked that question only >to >"call my bluff" and then folded immediately when he realized that I wasn't >bluffing. > >Here's a hint: I don't bluff. Maybe that's the problem that Bill M has >with >my questions: my questions about his claims effectively call HIS bluff and >he doesn't want to have to admit that he has nothing to back them up. No >wonder he loves his "rabbit trails" so much! > > >14. "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000 >17:29:13 EDT) >You have all received my response to Bill M. Basically, I told him: >a. That I needed more information from him about the specific claim that he >had in mind, including scientific references. >b. That I have traditionally found the polystrate claims to be one of the >worst-documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered. >c. What the results were of checking on a specific claim with references >(ie, >the creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source and made >claims directly contradicted by his source). >d. That: >"Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise >that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of >sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid >depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial >disproves >uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. > >"Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides >occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists >knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a >deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article >even >described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If the >creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ." > >I posted my response on 16 Nov 2000. Bill Morgan has not responded within >the six days since then and, quite frankly, given his past conduct, I do >not >expect him to respond. He doesn't want any real answers. He just wanted >to >try to stump me again and yet again found that he could not. > > >15. [05 Oct 2000, 1522] "mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the >origin of life." > >This is the question in question. I will discuss it in another email. > > >We have seen the nature of the questions that Bill Morgan has asked me, can >clearly see that he did not intend for me to have been able to answer them, >and have witnessed his reaction to my answers. In contrast, all of my >questions to Bill Morgan were meant to be answerable, to elicit >information, >and to further the discussion. The unanswered questions number more than >80, >not counting the additional unanswered questions since July 2000. Here are >some representative questions: > >First the questions which I had to repeat several times and which Bill M >never answered (except for two indicated questions): > >1. "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" >Bill M did finally answer this one, AFTER TWO YEARS. Furthermore, he tried >to make the blatantly false claim that he had answered it the first time. > >2. "If you need to be told what the Clipboard is and how to use it, PLEASE >ASK! It's so extremely simple that even MacIntosh people can use it." >Bill M did finally answer this one, AFTER FOUR YEARS. And he was very >nasty >about it too, even though I was extending my hand in friendship, offering >aid >for no other reason except to help. So much for Bill Morgan's claims that >HE >was acting in friendship. > >3. "Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 >years >old then Scripture has no meaning? What would happen if you found >irrefutable proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years? What >effect >would that have on you? How would it affect your faith? Should it? Why?" > >4. "I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 >message to me: > > Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? > Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT > From: BillyJack6 > To: DWise1 > > Its not! > > BillyJack6 > Re: Where'd ya go? > >What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant." > >5. "What is your definition here of "uniformitarian"? Do you have other >definitions of this term that you use? (eg, are there differences in how >you >used the term here and in how science uses the term) Who would use >uniformitarian arguments? (obviously, from this example, we know that >creationists do) What are the alternatives to uniformitarian arguments?" > >6. "DO you have something to say? Why can you not say it here? " > >7. "Please tell me the reasons I gave you why I cannot and prefer not to do >an on-stage type of "debate" and why I consider an on-line debate to be >very >much preferable." >[I asked this question because I had explained it to Bill M several times >already, but he would never listen.] > >Asked once and not answered: > >1. "As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own." Did >you >really believe that? Seriously? > >2. For that matter, what about yourself? What would happen to you now if >you >should again become an "atheist"? Wouldn't you again decide that the rules >do not apply to you? Wouldn't you again deny responsibility for your >actions? Wouldn't you again fall into the trap laid for you in your >childhood? > >3. What are you having a problem with? That atheists can be moral and >virtuous (remember that I am far from being an exception, nor am I an >extraordinary individual)? That professional proselytizers have found >that >creation science is not only not an ineffective tool for proselytizing, but >it also has proven to be counter-productive (ie, driving more people away >from Christianity than it attracts)? That teaching creation science >creates >some very real and grave dangers for those who are taught it, especially >children? That teaching morality based [solely] on theology can endanger >the >individuals so taught? > >4. I responded to the tone of urgency in your message by saying in effect, >"Yes, let's discuss these matters." But then you start arguing over the >exact medium for the discussion, equivalent to arguing over the shape of >the >table we'll use. Do you want to discuss this or not? Do you have >questions >or don't you? Do you wish to respond or not? Do you have something to say >or don't you? What is holding you back? > >5. This discussion, if you will ever let it get started, promises to be >rich >in content. E-mail is an ideal medium for content, albeit poorer for >emotionalism and for obfuscation. Telephony is a richer medium for >emotionalism and for obfuscation and a poorer medium for content. A "Gish >gallop" would work on the telephone far better than it would work in >e-mail, >since it could well overwhelm the listener on the phone, but could be >picked >apart, analyzed, and responded to in e-mail. Besides which, e-mail >establishes a record of exactly what was stated, whereas the telephone does >not. Hence, your repeated insistence that I call you is made all the more >suspicious. Have you disappeared because you are unable to hit me with >your >own "Gish gallop"? > >6. If so, then what does that say for your ministry of proselytizing >through >claims that you know to be false? Especially now that you know that such >false claims are a leading cause of atheism. Do you really think that God >will reward you for spreading lies? If so, then you will have your reward, >but it will not be what you expected. > > >7. Your probability model only allowed for one very specific amino acid >sequence for the protein to be functional; you allow no substitutions >whatsoever, representing any substitution as destroying the protein's >functionality. I won't revisit that you are really describing the >probability of producing a protein via creation ex nihilo, instead of via >evolution. > >Now your more recent statement readily allows for substitutions in the >amino >acid sequence. Have you learned and corrected your mistake, or are you >just >contradicting yourself, making any claim that sounds good without regard of >consistency? In light of your more recent statement, do you intend to go >back and correct your box-car analogy? How does your essay read now? > > >8. You observe that all the other animals in your sample are about equally >different from the lamprey and complain that there is no progression. What >do you mean by "progression"? Just exactly what were you expecting to see >(this is not a rhetorical question) and on exactly what assumptions were >you >basing that expectation? > >Since I do not expect you to respond (given your previous evasiveness and >your more recent sudden disappearance), would I be correct in assuming that >you expect the modern lamprey's proteins to be exactly identical to those >of >the ancient lampreys who were ancestral to the other species in the >comparison (as given in the evolutionary hypothesis that you were >"testing")? > If so, then could you please explain upon what you base such an >assumption? >Why should we expect evolution to suddenly stop for a given species, >especially in the accumulation of neutral mutations, which is what most >base >substitutions (which is what causes amino acid substitutions) are? What >possible mechanism could account for such an event? > > >9. But first, a quick question so that it won't get lost: [at the debate >at >Cerritos College,] did John Peloza present a young-earth position? I >remember that earlier, while his litigation was on-going, he was very >careful >to steer clear of any age-of-the-earth discussion. I'm just wondering >whether he is still sticking with the stealthy "intelligent design / abrupt >appearance" buzz-word or whether he has rejoined the young-earth creation >science mainstream. > > >10. For that matter, you have avoided answering every question put to you. >Why? If you really believe that the truth, the facts, and the evidence is >on >your side, then why do you avoid any and all discussion of it? > >11. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single >error >in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically >every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those >errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If >your >claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no >attempt to defend them? > > >12. Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein >comparison >claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and >explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague >compliment, >as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you >yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue >to >make them? > >13. You blustered really bigtime in your "Weird Science" that "not one >evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", but when I >presented my 80-page critique of it in which I found errors in every single >frame of every single page, your only response was "the only critique is >the >spelling of Lemcont Demoy's name". I wonder, do you still make that claim >in >your "new and improved" edition? > >14. Given the virtual impossibility for me to call you, just exactly how am >I >supposed to call you? What workable plan can you present? > >15. Were you working at Ford Aerospace, DIVAD Division, circa 1983-1985? > >16. "What do you want?" (Mr. Morden, with his Rod Serling-like delivery), >In other words, why are you involved with creation science? What are your >goals? What do you think you'll accomplish? > > >17. Bill, have you asked any scientists that question? Have you researched >any of the literature discussing the effects of R-12 on the atmosphere? >Have >you read any scientific explanations for the localizing of the ozone "hole" >over Antarctica? You blame Antarctic volcanic activity, but why wouldn't >that happen over more equitorial regions of volcanic activity? (hint: >think >about the rotation of the earth and the associated wind and weather >patterns) > ... Again, what does the literature say? > > >18. You said, "lets have a PUBLIC debate" (emphasis mine). What could you >possibly feel freer to say that you have steadfastly refused to say in our >email exchanges? If anything, saying something out in public should make >one >feel more restricted, rather than freer. > > >19. Besides, your protein formation argument still uses the wrong >probability >model. Rather than using an evolutionary model (which is what you were >trying to disprove/discredit), you used a creation ex nihilo model. I >already told you about that. You know better. Why haven't you corrected >it >yet? > >20. If you believe that you are solely responsible to [your god], what do >you >think your reward will be for casting your web of lies to snare souls? > > >21. While you're at it, please explain how you conduct a debate, what you >intend to accomplish in a debate (ie, your goals), and how the manner you >conduct a debate supports your goals. > > >22. Bill, as I understand it, your theology calls for you to believe in the >literal truth of the Bible. Could you please share with us how you are >taught to deal with the problems of translation and of different versions >of >the same verses, etc? What writings, precisely, are you to believe to be >literally true? > > >23. Are you using straight HTML or a developer's kit? > >24. Are there parts of the process or about HTML that I might be able to >help >you with? > > >25. >I have taught at USC, UCLA, Cal State LA, San Diego State, UC Santa >Barbara and many community colleges.< > >OK. But what courses? In what departments? With what credentials? I >know >that to teach at junior and community colleges, you need at least a >master's >degree in the subject that you will be teaching. What are your degrees and >what are they in? How is your having taught at these colleges relevant to >the creation/evolution issue? > > >26. >I openly beleive in the Garden of Eden account.< > >Does that mean that you believe that your god directly created the first of >all kinds of life: plant and animal, marine and terrestrial? On what >basis >do you believe that? The Bible? > >No, seriously. Do you believe that your god directly created the first of >all kinds of life and what do you base that belief on? Yes or no? I >really >do expect an answer. > > >56. You grunted "Yes" to which question? > > >So, as you can all see, it was well within Bill Morgan's abilities and >knowledge to answer my questions. Yes, some of them are difficult, but >only >in matters of honesty and integrity, not in factual content. > >Therefore, Bill Morgan is the last person who would be justified in >criticizing my not answering one of his questions. QED > >PS >There is much more to the question in question than my just not having >answered it. Read the next email on the subject. > _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xd05.mx.aol.com (rly-xd05.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.170]) by air-xd01.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:37:37 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f93.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.93]) by rly-xd05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:36:54 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:36:53 -0800 Received: from 205.188.197.39 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:36:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [205.188.197.39] From: "Bill Morgan" To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 06:36:53 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Nov 2000 06:36:53.0754 (UTC) FILETIME=[C49BFDA0:01C05517] ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 22-Nov-00 22:41:29 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net How could he? The only answer is that life was created by God i.e. Creation. All other answers are wrong. Evolution is wrong and does not exist nor is their proof of evolution. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Morgan" To: Cc: ; Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2000 6:36 AM Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question > So how did life originate? > > Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill. > > > >From: DWise1@aol.com > >To: > >CC: , , > >Subject: "Origin of Life" Question > >Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:22:05 EST > > > >Bill Morgan, you wrote: > > > >--- Begin Message --- > >Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide > >Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time > >From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) > >To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com > >CC: editor@liberator.net > > > >Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me! > >--- End Message --- > > > >Perhaps you will recognize these verses: > > > >"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto > >them, > >He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John > >8:7) > > > >"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but > >considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? > >"Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine > >eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? > >"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then > >shalt > >thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew > >7:3-5) > > > > > >Bill M, don't you remember how you have always avoided answering even my > >simple questions? And how you have stubbornly refused to answer those > >simple > >questions that I have had to repeat several times? And how you had asked > >me > >several other questions of the same class as your "origin of life" > >question? > >And that I had answered every single one of those? And how you would drop > >the subject completely and refuse to respond to my repeated follow-up > >questions? Or how you would pretend that I had not answered your question > >but would refuse to answer my repeated questions of why you had not found > >my > >answer acceptable? > > > >So, Bill M, considering your record, it is obvious that you neither want > >nor > >expect an answer to your questions. So any attempt I would have made to > >answer your "origin of life" question would have been a total waste of my > >time. > > > >It also appeared very obvious to me that Bill Bequette was just shilling > >for > >you when he repeated the question. I will respond to him soon, so he will > >have a chance to correct me if I am mistaken. However, I will need to > >discuss with him his reasons for having asked that question and what he was > >hoping to accomplish by it. > > > >There is also the matter of YOUR OWN teaching that we must not allow > >someone > >to respond to our questions with "rabbit trail" tricks. YOUR OWN teaching > >is > >that we must insist on an answer to our question and refuse to answer the > >"rabbit trail" question until we have received our answer. Therefore, > >since > >you have not answered my questions, I am obligated BY YOUR VERY OWN > >TEACHING > >to refuse to answer until I receive answers to my own questions. > >Especially > >since you had presented that origin-of-life question to me AS a "rabbit > >trail" trick. > > > >Bill M, I have repeatedly asked you if you had any problem with my > >application of your anti-"rabbit trail" lesson. EACH AND EVERY TIME, you > >have refused to answer that question. > > > >We have a long history of questions not answered by you, which I will > >briefly > >review. Before I do, I would point out the more glaring differences > >between > >your questions to me and my questions to you: > >1. Most of your questions to me are intended to be unanswerable because > >they > >require advanced specialized scientific knowledge, detailed knowledge of > >current scientific research, and knowledge of things which science does not > >yet know. In contrast, almost all of my questions to you were meant to be > >answered and should have been well within the scope of your knowledge and > >abilities. > >2. Most of your questions to me are meant to stump me, for a variety of > >manipulative purposes which I have discussed elsewhere. Almost all of my > >questions to you are meant to elicit more information or clarification > >about > >your statements, actions, or position. > >3. You ask most of your questions to cover your tracks while you try to > >escape the truth, hence your frequent "rabbit trail" attempts. I ask most > >of > >my questions in search of the truth, hence my persistence in seeking an > >answer. "By their fruits you will know them." > > > >A few examples of both of our questions are given below. > > > >First, how do the two of us compare regarding answering each other's > >questions? For a quick review, in response to your blatantly false claim > >in > >June 1998 that you had answered every single one of my questions, I > >produced > >the following statistics: > > > >SUMMARY: > > > >Bill's Questions to Me: > > Answered: 23 > > Unanswered: 2 > > Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% > > > >My Questions to Bill: > > Answered: 12 > > Asked Once and Not Answered: 65 > > Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 > > Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% > > > >You can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. > >100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/mr_100percent.html . You > >should > >also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at > >http://membersaol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html to see my responses > >to > >Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my responses, and > >the > >original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via "rabbit trails" by > >asking those "unanswerable" questions. > > > >Bill M, those questions and your origin-of-life question are stock and > >standard creationist "impossible questions", i.e., questions which are > >impossible to answer and which you toss at your opponent to undermine their > >position Your purpose in asking them has been to stump me, to stop or > >impede > >the discussion (eg, "rabbit trailing"), and to prepare me for > >proselytization. They were never meant to be answered, so when I did > >answer > >them you didn't know what to do. Bill M, you seem to hate it when I won't > >follow your prepared script. > > > >First, here are the two of Bill M's questions that I had not answered. You > >will note that they are NOT of the class of questions discussed above > >[copied > >via the Clipboard, so all misspellings are Bill M's]: > >1. Would you like a cop of the video and audio tape of the debate for cost? > >2. Would you like a shot at eastman? Do you have the desire to debae him? > > > >Those "unanswerable questions" used BLATANTLY as "rabbit trails" are AND > >WHICH I DID ANSWER [see my "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at > >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html for my answers and > >for > >Bill M's responses thereto]: > > > >1. "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" > > > >2. "Which life appeared first? Please answer that." > > > >3. "Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that the blue > >whale is related to bacteria." > > > >4. "So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are the > >ancestors > >to blue whales." > > > >5. "You consider yourself "wise," yet believe in spontaneous generation. > >If > >you do not beleive in spontaneous generation please provide me witht eh > >best > >explanation you have for the origin of life. Can you? Will you?" > > > >6. "Do you have a better explanation than the Garden of Eden for the origin > >of Meisosis reproduction? Do you beleive Mitosis reproducing animals are > >the > >ancestors of Meisosis animals?" > > > >7. "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" > > > >8. "But what about at Judgment day? What would you say to God then?" > > > > > >The following questions are from an article that Bill M wrote for his > >newsletter. He claimed in that article that none of the "experts" he asked > >could answer them. In reality, he reported having only asked > >air-conditionining unit salesmen, NOT any atmospheric scientists, the real > >experts. I presented to him the answers from the real experts in > >atmospheric > >dynamics, NOAA, who answer every single one of his questions in their FAQ. > >Bill M at first tried to claim that I had not answered his question, and > >when > >I asked him why he thought that, he refused to respond at all. Please note > >that he later posted that article, uncorrected, on his website, even though > >he knew that it is not true. That is called "lying". When I asked him > >about > >that, he dismissed my question as a "tirade" and refused to answer. The > >article is still there; Bill M is still lying to the world about it. Read > >the entire story on my "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: THE OZONE LAYER" page at > >http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_ozone.html , along wi > >th the answers to Bill's questions. > > > >9. "How Can Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Get to the Stratosphere If They're > >Heavier than Air?" > > > >10. "Why is the Ozone Hole Observed over Antarctica When CFCs Are Released > >Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?" > > > >11. "Does Most of the Chlorine in the Stratosphere Come from Human or > >Natural > >Sources?" > > > >12. "Can you answer my simple question of how the R 12 gets 5 miles above > >the > >surface of the earth. The proponents endlessly teach what R 12 does to > >ozone, I have read that endlessly, but my qwuestion is how does it get > >there." > > > > > >Now for the period since July 2000 (I would remind everybody here that Bill > >M > >had unilaterally terminated our correspondence within 2 months after I had > >compiled and presented the preceding information and our correspondence did > >not resume until July 2000), please add: > > > >13. Hominid fossils. In July 2000, I finally got my 1998 email with Bill M > >caught up (delayed by Bill M's abrupt and unannounced closing of his AOL > >account). Bill M asked the follow-up question on 23 July 2000: > > >>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. > ><< > > > >On 28 July 2000, I responded with the information that he requested, named > >a > >few of the fossils in question (and noted that they are conspicuous by > >their > >absense from creationist sites), and refered Bill M to a very good on-line > >source of information [Jim Foley's FAQ, "Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for > >Human Evolution" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/index.html]. > > > >I also threw in a little corroborating evidence that there is no distinct > >separation between Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens in the form of Jim > >Foley's "Comparison of all skulls" page > >[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html -- AKA "Comparison of > >creationist opinions" on his home page). On that page, he displays a > >series > >of 14 hominid skulls and lists the opinions of 8 prominent creationists > >concerning the classification of six of those skulls as either "100% human" > >or "100% ape". The creationists could not agree with each other and some > >even changed their minds from one publication to the next. Foley's > >conclusion points out: > >"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. ... > > > >"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." > > > >Bill M did not respond to my response. Yet again he just dropped the > >subject > >abruptly, which indicates that he had never had any real interest in > >learning > >something in the first place. Obviously, he had asked that question only > >to > >"call my bluff" and then folded immediately when he realized that I wasn't > >bluffing. > > > >Here's a hint: I don't bluff. Maybe that's the problem that Bill M has > >with > >my questions: my questions about his claims effectively call HIS bluff and > >he doesn't want to have to admit that he has nothing to back them up. No > >wonder he loves his "rabbit trails" so much! > > > > > >14. "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000 > >17:29:13 EDT) > >You have all received my response to Bill M. Basically, I told him: > >a. That I needed more information from him about the specific claim that he > >had in mind, including scientific references. > >b. That I have traditionally found the polystrate claims to be one of the > >worst-documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered. > >c. What the results were of checking on a specific claim with references > >(ie, > >the creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source and made > >claims directly contradicted by his source). > >d. That: > >"Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise > >that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of > >sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid > >depositation. Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial > >disproves > >uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. > > > >"Bullfrog! Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides > >occur and that they had occured in the past. Even 19th century geologists > >knew that! Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a > >deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually. The referenced article > >even > >described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial. If the > >creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ." > > > >I posted my response on 16 Nov 2000. Bill Morgan has not responded within > >the six days since then and, quite frankly, given his past conduct, I do > >not > >expect him to respond. He doesn't want any real answers. He just wanted > >to > >try to stump me again and yet again found that he could not. > > > > > >15. [05 Oct 2000, 1522] "mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the > >origin of life." > > > >This is the question in question. I will discuss it in another email. > > > > > >We have seen the nature of the questions that Bill Morgan has asked me, can > >clearly see that he did not intend for me to have been able to answer them, > >and have witnessed his reaction to my answers. In contrast, all of my > >questions to Bill Morgan were meant to be answerable, to elicit > >information, > >and to further the discussion. The unanswered questions number more than > >80, > >not counting the additional unanswered questions since July 2000. Here are > >some representative questions: > > > >First the questions which I had to repeat several times and which Bill M > >never answered (except for two indicated questions): > > > >1. "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" > >Bill M did finally answer this one, AFTER TWO YEARS. Furthermore, he tried > >to make the blatantly false claim that he had answered it the first time. > > > >2. "If you need to be told what the Clipboard is and how to use it, PLEASE > >ASK! It's so extremely simple that even MacIntosh people can use it." > >Bill M did finally answer this one, AFTER FOUR YEARS. And he was very > >nasty > >about it too, even though I was extending my hand in friendship, offering > >aid > >for no other reason except to help. So much for Bill Morgan's claims that > >HE > >was acting in friendship. > > > >3. "Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 > >years > >old then Scripture has no meaning? What would happen if you found > >irrefutable proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years? What > >effect > >would that have on you? How would it affect your faith? Should it? Why?" > > > >4. "I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 > >message to me: > > > > Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? > > Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT > > From: BillyJack6 > > To: DWise1 > > > > Its not! > > > > BillyJack6 > > Re: Where'd ya go? > > > >What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant." > > > >5. "What is your definition here of "uniformitarian"? Do you have other > >definitions of this term that you use? (eg, are there differences in how > >you > >used the term here and in how science uses the term) Who would use > >uniformitarian arguments? (obviously, from this example, we know that > >creationists do) What are the alternatives to uniformitarian arguments?" > > > >6. "DO you have something to say? Why can you not say it here? " > > > >7. "Please tell me the reasons I gave you why I cannot and prefer not to do > >an on-stage type of "debate" and why I consider an on-line debate to be > >very > >much preferable." > >[I asked this question because I had explained it to Bill M several times > >already, but he would never listen.] > > > >Asked once and not answered: > > > >1. "As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own." Did > >you > >really believe that? Seriously? > > > >2. For that matter, what about yourself? What would happen to you now if > >you > >should again become an "atheist"? Wouldn't you again decide that the rules > >do not apply to you? Wouldn't you again deny responsibility for your > >actions? Wouldn't you again fall into the trap laid for you in your > >childhood? > > > >3. What are you having a problem with? That atheists can be moral and > >virtuous (remember that I am far from being an exception, nor am I an > >extraordinary individual)? That professional proselytizers have found > >that > >creation science is not only not an ineffective tool for proselytizing, but > >it also has proven to be counter-productive (ie, driving more people away > >from Christianity than it attracts)? That teaching creation science > >creates > >some very real and grave dangers for those who are taught it, especially > >children? That teaching morality based [solely] on theology can endanger > >the > >individuals so taught? > > > >4. I responded to the tone of urgency in your message by saying in effect, > >"Yes, let's discuss these matters." But then you start arguing over the > >exact medium for the discussion, equivalent to arguing over the shape of > >the > >table we'll use. Do you want to discuss this or not? Do you have > >questions > >or don't you? Do you wish to respond or not? Do you have something to say > >or don't you? What is holding you back? > > > >5. This discussion, if you will ever let it get started, promises to be > >rich > >in content. E-mail is an ideal medium for content, albeit poorer for > >emotionalism and for obfuscation. Telephony is a richer medium for > >emotionalism and for obfuscation and a poorer medium for content. A "Gish > >gallop" would work on the telephone far better than it would work in > >e-mail, > >since it could well overwhelm the listener on the phone, but could be > >picked > >apart, analyzed, and responded to in e-mail. Besides which, e-mail > >establishes a record of exactly what was stated, whereas the telephone does > >not. Hence, your repeated insistence that I call you is made all the more > >suspicious. Have you disappeared because you are unable to hit me with > >your > >own "Gish gallop"? > > > >6. If so, then what does that say for your ministry of proselytizing > >through > >claims that you know to be false? Especially now that you know that such > >false claims are a leading cause of atheism. Do you really think that God > >will reward you for spreading lies? If so, then you will have your reward, > >but it will not be what you expected. > > > > > >7. Your probability model only allowed for one very specific amino acid > >sequence for the protein to be functional; you allow no substitutions > >whatsoever, representing any substitution as destroying the protein's > >functionality. I won't revisit that you are really describing the > >probability of producing a protein via creation ex nihilo, instead of via > >evolution. > > > >Now your more recent statement readily allows for substitutions in the > >amino > >acid sequence. Have you learned and corrected your mistake, or are you > >just > >contradicting yourself, making any claim that sounds good without regard of > >consistency? In light of your more recent statement, do you intend to go > >back and correct your box-car analogy? How does your essay read now? > > > > > >8. You observe that all the other animals in your sample are about equally > >different from the lamprey and complain that there is no progression. What > >do you mean by "progression"? Just exactly what were you expecting to see > >(this is not a rhetorical question) and on exactly what assumptions were > >you > >basing that expectation? > > > >Since I do not expect you to respond (given your previous evasiveness and > >your more recent sudden disappearance), would I be correct in assuming that > >you expect the modern lamprey's proteins to be exactly identical to those > >of > >the ancient lampreys who were ancestral to the other species in the > >comparison (as given in the evolutionary hypothesis that you were > >"testing")? > > If so, then could you please explain upon what you base such an > >assumption? > >Why should we expect evolution to suddenly stop for a given species, > >especially in the accumulation of neutral mutations, which is what most > >base > >substitutions (which is what causes amino acid substitutions) are? What > >possible mechanism could account for such an event? > > > > > >9. But first, a quick question so that it won't get lost: [at the debate > >at > >Cerritos College,] did John Peloza present a young-earth position? I > >remember that earlier, while his litigation was on-going, he was very > >careful > >to steer clear of any age-of-the-earth discussion. I'm just wondering > >whether he is still sticking with the stealthy "intelligent design / abrupt > >appearance" buzz-word or whether he has rejoined the young-earth creation > >science mainstream. > > > > > >10. For that matter, you have avoided answering every question put to you. > >Why? If you really believe that the truth, the facts, and the evidence is > >on > >your side, then why do you avoid any and all discussion of it? > > > >11. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single > >error > >in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically > >every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those > >errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If > >your > >claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no > >attempt to defend them? > > > > > >12. Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein > >comparison > >claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and > >explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague > >compliment, > >as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you > >yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue > >to > >make them? > > > >13. You blustered really bigtime in your "Weird Science" that "not one > >evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", but when I > >presented my 80-page critique of it in which I found errors in every single > >frame of every single page, your only response was "the only critique is > >the > >spelling of Lemcont Demoy's name". I wonder, do you still make that claim > >in > >your "new and improved" edition? > > > >14. Given the virtual impossibility for me to call you, just exactly how am > >I > >supposed to call you? What workable plan can you present? > > > >15. Were you working at Ford Aerospace, DIVAD Division, circa 1983-1985? > > > >16. "What do you want?" (Mr. Morden, with his Rod Serling-like delivery), > >In other words, why are you involved with creation science? What are your > >goals? What do you think you'll accomplish? > > > > > >17. Bill, have you asked any scientists that question? Have you researched > >any of the literature discussing the effects of R-12 on the atmosphere? > >Have > >you read any scientific explanations for the localizing of the ozone "hole" > >over Antarctica? You blame Antarctic volcanic activity, but why wouldn't > >that happen over more equitorial regions of volcanic activity? (hint: > >think > >about the rotation of the earth and the associated wind and weather > >patterns) > > ... Again, what does the literature say? > > > > > >18. You said, "lets have a PUBLIC debate" (emphasis mine). What could you > >possibly feel freer to say that you have steadfastly refused to say in our > >email exchanges? If anything, saying something out in public should make > >one > >feel more restricted, rather than freer. > > > > > >19. Besides, your protein formation argument still uses the wrong > >probability > >model. Rather than using an evolutionary model (which is what you were > >trying to disprove/discredit), you used a creation ex nihilo model. I > >already told you about that. You know better. Why haven't you corrected > >it > >yet? > > > >20. If you believe that you are solely responsible to [your god], what do > >you > >think your reward will be for casting your web of lies to snare souls? > > > > > >21. While you're at it, please explain how you conduct a debate, what you > >intend to accomplish in a debate (ie, your goals), and how the manner you > >conduct a debate supports your goals. > > > > > >22. Bill, as I understand it, your theology calls for you to believe in the > >literal truth of the Bible. Could you please share with us how you are > >taught to deal with the problems of translation and of different versions > >of > >the same verses, etc? What writings, precisely, are you to believe to be > >literally true? > > > > > >23. Are you using straight HTML or a developer's kit? > > > >24. Are there parts of the process or about HTML that I might be able to > >help > >you with? > > > > > >25. >I have taught at USC, UCLA, Cal State LA, San Diego State, UC Santa > >Barbara and many community colleges.< > > > >OK. But what courses? In what departments? With what credentials? I > >know > >that to teach at junior and community colleges, you need at least a > >master's > >degree in the subject that you will be teaching. What are your degrees and > >what are they in? How is your having taught at these colleges relevant to > >the creation/evolution issue? > > > > > >26. >I openly beleive in the Garden of Eden account.< > > > >Does that mean that you believe that your god directly created the first of > >all kinds of life: plant and animal, marine and terrestrial? On what > >basis > >do you believe that? The Bible? > > > >No, seriously. Do you believe that your god directly created the first of > >all kinds of life and what do you base that belief on? Yes or no? I > >really > >do expect an answer. > > > > > >56. You grunted "Yes" to which question? > > > > > >So, as you can all see, it was well within Bill Morgan's abilities and > >knowledge to answer my questions. Yes, some of them are difficult, but > >only > >in matters of honesty and integrity, not in factual content. > > > >Therefore, Bill Morgan is the last person who would be justified in > >criticizing my not answering one of his questions. QED > > > >PS > >There is much more to the question in question than my just not having > >answered it. Read the next email on the subject. > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ _________ > Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-za05.mx.aol.com (rly-za05.mail.aol.com [172.31.36.101]) by air-za05.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:41:29 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-za05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:40:59 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA12915; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:40:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001301c0551a$2ea2b660$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:54:09 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net id WAA12915 ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question, Part Deux Date: 22-Nov-00 22:47:29 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net Next ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 5:26 PM Subject: "Origin of Life" Question, Part Deux Bill Morgan, you wrote: --- Begin Message --- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me! --- End Message --- In the previous email, I compared the record of my responding to Bill M's questions and Bill M's responding to mine: Bill's Questions to Me: Answered: 23 Unanswered: 2 Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% My Questions to Bill: Answered: 12 Asked Once and Not Answered: 65 Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% Again, you can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/mr_100percent.html . You should also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html to see my responses to Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my responses, and the original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via "rabbit trails" by asking those "unanswerable" questions. Now as promised, I will address the question in question: [05 Oct 2000, 1522] "mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life." First, please note that this is yet another one of Bill Morgan's "unanswerable" questions. Every single time that I have answered one of those question, Bill M has either dropped the subject altogether or he has pretended that I had not given him an answer and refuse to answer my repeated questions of what was wrong with my answer. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Therefore, Bill M does not really want an answer to any of his "unanswerable" questions. Indeed, an answer seems to be the last thing he wants! Therefore, giving him an answer to one of those "unanswerable" questions would be a waste of valuable time. Second, Bill M's question is pure "rabbit trails". Officially, Bill M is opposed to "rabbit trail" tricks, but in practice he depends very heavily on them. He condemns their use by his opponents, but he is gluttonous in using them himself. From his article on his web site, "Witnessing Tips #3" at http://www.webmecca.com/creation/articles/article34.htm], the pertinent paragraph reads: "DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours." While he advises his students to not allow an "evolutionist" to pull that trick, he does it all the time. When you read my "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" page [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/bills_questions.html], you will see that he had asked most of those questions as a "rabbit trail" trick to avoid the question I had just asked him. This "origin of life" (OOL) question is just another in a long line of abuses. So, as Bill Morgan himself had instructed, I must keep him from creating yet another "rabbit trail." As instructed, I have told him that I would answer his question only after he had answered mine. However, since Bill Morgan has been "rabbit trailing" since 1996, I have to insist on answers to ALL the questions that he had never answered. I mean, anything less just would not be right, now would it? Believe it or not, Bill M's OOL question has a long history, which has some interesting developments. I will present most of the following as exerpts from messages. Hyphens will separate messages. Non-pertinent text will be [clipped]. Added text will be in [brackets]. And if you want to read the parts that were [clipped] out, the entire transcript is still available at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html : ------------------- Subj: Sizzler Date: 26-Aug-00 11:37:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com [clipped] I apologize to the court and will nto repeat for the tenth time to Mr Wise that he willnot answer my origin of matter, origin of energy, origin of life questions. [clipped] [please note that there were no "ten times" that Bill M had asked me that question. This was the first time this year that I had encountered it from him.] ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 02-Sep-00 12:32:41 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: editor@liberator.net CC: DWise1, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: ealpurcell@juno.com [clipped] One of the problems of trying to deal with Bill is that he doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on reality. Did you see one of his latest messages to me? >Subj: Sizzler >Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 2:37:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time >From: "Bill Morgan" >To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com >CC: editor@liberator.net, EALPURCELL@juno.com >I place my hand over my keyboard and type little. > > ... >I apologize to the court and will nto repeat for >the tenth time to Mr Wise that he willnot answer my origin of matter, origin >of energy, origin of life questions. "Tenth time"? Bill has never ever asked me that question. Not even once. Oh, he tried some of his other "unanswerable", "rabbit trail" questions on me before, as I have documented in my Morgan Pages [http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/questions.html], but never that one. And Bill has most certain never ever said anything to me about not answering that question, which he had never asked me to begin with. Not once and most certainly not ten times. And besides, that isn't even what has been going on for the past few weeks. It looks like Bill has left merely imagining things and has moved on to full-blown hallucinations. He has gone beyond merely not knowing what is going on around him and has started to vacation in his own private little universe. [clipped] ------------------- Subj: Re: Sizzler Date: 02-Sep-00 12:40:46 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com >>I apologize to the court and will nto repeat for the tenth time to Mr Wise that he willnot answer my origin of matter, origin of energy, origin of life questions.<< WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? Bill, YOU ARE HALLUCINATING!! You've totally lost it now! "tenth time"?? There hasn't even been a FIRST time. You had NEVER EVER asked ME that question! EVER! You have asked me a lot of other questions and I answered almost all of them (about 23 out of 25 questions, or 92%). But never that one! [The following bracketed text was presented in brackets in the original message] [NOTE: BTW, the two questions I did not answer were: 1. "Would you like a cop of the video and audio tape of the debate for cost?" 2. "Would you like a shot at eastman? Do you have the desire to debate him?" ] OK, Bill. You tell us EXACTLY when you had asked ME that question and when those TEN TIMES were that you claim to have had to repeatedly ask me for an answer. TELL US! Because that is the most blatant falsehood you have ever tried to foist off on us! That makes it obvious to us all that you either are not dealing with us honestly or you are not playing with a full deck. [The following bracketed text was presented in brackets in the original message] [NOTE: The first time that I have ever seen Bill ask that question in an email addressed to me is in the email that Bill sent 3 minutes, 24 seconds AFTER the one to which I am now replying and in which he accuses me of not answering that question. And in the message where he asks the question, he specifically directs the question to MARK, not to me. Go figure.] [clipped] [At the time, I had absolutely no recollection of Bill Morgan ever having asked me that question. However, in reviewing the list of "unanswerable" questions, I found that that was not entirely correct. In this one question: "You consider yourself "wise," yet believe in spontaneous generation. If you do not beleive in spontaneous generation please provide me witht eh best explanation you have for the origin of life. Can you? Will you?" Bill Morgan had posted that question on 20 April 1998. I answered that question within the week. You can read all about it on my "BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: SPONTANEOUS GENERATION" page at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/q_spontaneous.html , including my answer to Bill M. As it turns out, I already answered his question back in late April 1998! Nor was that the first time! Back around 1990, ¡TEN YEARS AGO!, I answered that question in my critique of Bill M's low-budget version of "Big Daddy?", his "Weird Science" (see http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/weird_sci.html) and repeated the pertinent text in my answer of late April 1998. Of course, I was not able to deliver my critique of "Weird Science" to Bill M until we started our email correspondence in mid-1996. BTW, Bill M's response to my answer (of late April 1998) was to change the subject. "Semper rabbit trails" must be his motto. ] ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 02-Sep-00 12:41:27 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net, ealpurcell@juno.com [clipped] >>Mark: 1) origin of matter and energy 2) Origin of Life Please give me your best scientific explations for the orgins of these things!<< Still up to your old "rabbit trail" tricks, huh, Bill? I'm sure that you will try it on me next, so I'll just apply your lesson: >>"DON'T; Go down rabbit trails. If you raise the question "How did life originate?" and they quickly say "well who made God?" keep the discussion on your question, tell them you will answer that later, but first you want an answer to yours."<< So, you have instructed me to keep you from creating yet another "rabbit trail." As instructed, I would tell you that I would answer your question only after you had answered mine. Now for the kicker. You owe me answers to about 85 questions. You must answer every one of them to my satisfaction (ie, I must recognize it as an honest answer that actually does address the question). Only then can I even consider answering another one of your "rabbit trail" questions. You probably don't remember them all, but don't worry. I will help you to remember them. As they were actually asked, not as you might want to imagine them to be. Of course, one of the first ones would be for you to substantiate your ELEVEN accusations against me by telling us what you think I had said. Remember, there are eleven accusations, so we will need to see support for all eleven. Next would be the question of your extensive use of "rabbit trails", even though you explicitly teach against allowing anyone to use that trick. The question was in three parts: >1) Why do you warning against the "rabbit trails" tactic? >2) Do you think it dishonest? >3) Why do you forbid your followers to allow its use at the same time that >you use it so pervasively as your modus operandi? Next would be the question of what you think my position is, why you "strongly disagree with [it]", why you "feel it is a weak position", and just where and how have you "challenged and attacked [it]"? Next would be why you have posted claims on your web site that you know are false and which you knew were false before you posted them? In particular, I am refering to your "Ozone Layer" article, in which you falsely claim that scientists had taken lab experiments and extrapolated from that that there could be CFCs in the upper atmosphere and that nobody could answer some simple questions about that. I clearly showed you that NOAA (where the real experts are, not at air-conditioning trade shows) has indeed answered those questions and have posted them in a FAQ to which I had pointed you. Also, NOAA has stated that the presence of CFCs high in the atmosphere has been measured with thousands of direct measurements and samples. Then there are more than 80 questions still pending from our previous correspondence, plus any other more recent questions that I might have forgotten. I can list those again for you if you'd like. ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 11-Sep-00 13:45:42 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com [clipped] But anything to avoid the origin of life question huh? Chicken little would be right in saying your credability is falling. [clipped] ------------------- Subj: Re: Bretheren and Fathers, hear my defense which I now offer to you Date: 14-Sep-00 11:45:33 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, editor@liberator.net CC: plasma@worldnet.att.net [clipped] >>But anything to avoid the origin of life question huh? Chicken little would be right in saying your credability is falling.<< Bill, you destroyed your credibility long ago. That "question" was just yet another of your "rabbit trails" and I am applying the teaching that we must not take "rabbit trails" but rather must insist on an answer to our question first. Now, what is the problem that you have with that? In this case, you owe me answers to about 85 questions that you have dodged. Because of your outrageous behavior, I must hold your feet to the fire and insist on reasonable answers for each and every one of them (to deprive you of your usual weasel room, *I* will decide whether an answer is reasonable). BTW, Mr. Bequette, I have answered every one of that class of question that Bill has put to me in the past. Bill's reaction each time was to either ignore the answer or, most often, just drop the entire thing. He obviously has no interest in receiving an answer to his questions. Which raises questions about what he is trying to do with those questions. His actions here do not seem the least bit honest. [clipped] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 05-Oct-00 15:22:49 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for not going to Denny's. mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life. [the message to which the above responds follows] >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:30:14 EDT > > > >>I love the intellectual thrust and parry with those of different >opinions, I have no problem with that.....it is the greatest catalyst >toward futher research....being challenged....<< > >Since when, Bill M? Both Mark and I have observed you in action since >1996. We have watched you do everything you can to avoid discussion, >including your favorite trick of laying down rabbit trails. > >But then we have not observed you with somebody who doesn't know what is >going on. I guess that would make a difference, because you only want to >be "challenged" when you can tap-dance rings around the other guy. But >bring in somebody who knows something about creation science and you duck >and run. > > >>I just have a hard time with incessant insults and whining from people >who will remain nameless.<< > >Well, Bill M, if you would stop obstructing the search for truth then >things would run a whole lot smoother. If only you weren't so afraid of >the truth. > >For the THIRTIETH TIME, Bill M, substantiate your accusations against me! >Tell us what you think I had said! > [Please note the two-fold trick that Bill M used to my 30th request that he substantiate his accusations against me: 1. Bill M simply repeats the accusation and, ironically, in process creates a new accusation. 2. Bill M tries to create a "rabbit trail" by officially presenting the OOL question. Therefore, Bill M's use of the OOL question is a "rabbit trail" trick. QED ] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 05-Oct-00 15:42:11 Pacific Daylight Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Mr Wise what is your best explanation for the origin of life? ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Morgan To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: billbeq@mediaone.net ; editor@liberator.net Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:22 PM Subject: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide You insulted my wife's faith in Christ and gave that as your reaosn for not going to Denny's. mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life. >From: DWise1@aol.com >To: >CC: , , >Subject: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide >Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:30:14 EDT > > [clipped -- same as in the previous message] [Bill B, this is where you joined in. Please look at the times that the messages were sent. Bill M sent his message at Thursday, October 05, 2000 3:22 PM (1522 in normal time) Bill B sent his message at Thursday, October 05, 2000 15:42 The two messages were sent just 20 minutes apart. Plus, your message is a "reply" to Bill M's message, but sent instead to me. We'll talk about this soon. ] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 09-Oct-00 17:46:14 Pacific Daylight Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: editor@liberator.net [clipped] >>mr Wise.....give me your best explanation for the origin of life.<< So you're back to trying to create your damnable "rabbit trails" again! Stop it! The correct response to your request is: I will answer that later, but first I want an answer to my questions which you have never answered. If you have a problem with that response, then please explain what that problem is. In case you do not recognize it, it is from your very own teachings on dealing with somebody trying to use the dishonest "rabbit trails" tactic. The answers that I am waiting for from you include those from over 80 questions that you had not answered in our previous correspondence, as well as a few more: 1. Most pressing is the question of what you are accusing me of having written. I cannot and will not accept the mere repeating of the accusations. We must be able to use your answer to identify the actual messages in question. [clipped -- very explicit list of required answers] I was going to go easy on you and not bump the count, but forget that! You do not deserve any leniency! This is the THIRTY-FOURTH TIME that I am asking you for this information! 2. On 19 Aug 2000, you stated: >I strongly disagree with [DWise1's] position, I have challenged and attacked his position, I feel it is a weak position, but I gladly leave the personal attacks out of it.<< I immediately responded: >Excuse me, Bill, but when have you ever "challenged and attacked [my] position"? I cannot remember you ever doing any such thing in our entire correspondence. Instead, you have a long and consistent history of avoiding discussion by either laying down "rabbit trails" or by running away from the topic. "For that matter, Bill, with all due respect, I do not believe that you even know what my position is, even though I have presented it to you more than once And if you do not know what my position is, then how could you consider it to be weak? And how could you challenge something that you know nothing about? Let alone attack it? Could you please tell us all here what my position is? Then could you please tell us all here, briefly, why you "strongly disagree with [it]"? Then could you please tell us all here, briefly, why you "feel it is a weak position"? Then could you please tell us all here how you "have challenged and attacked [it]"? Curious minds want to know.<< Bill M, you never answered that question. I do believe that it is a very fair and pertinent question and one which you should be quite able to answer. It is pertinent because you have demonstrated an inability to follow what is going on. I personally believe that you have no idea what my position is, even though I have described several times and that you are attributing to me some distorted fantasy of your own making. [clipped] [Bill Morgan never replied to this message. He knows that he cannot object to his own teachings about "rabbit trailing", so instead he completely ignores that issue. He is deathly afraid of us finding the truth, so he completely ignores my justified requests for information regarding his slanderous accusations against me. He knows that he doesn't have the faintest idea what my position actually is, even though I have described it to him several times, so he completely ignores that as well.] ------------------- Subj: Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide Date: 10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time From: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan) To: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com CC: editor@liberator.net Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me! [And we finally end up with this ludicrous travesty. I do believe that we can now all appreciate more fully the extend of Bill Morgan's hypocrisy and his "fine Christian witness".] ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227]) by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:47:29 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:46:38 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id WAA14874; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:46:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003c01c0551a$f8fcc680$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , References: Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question, Part Deux Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:59:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net id WAA14874 ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 23-Nov-00 07:29:05 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette), billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com Bill Bequette , you wrote: "How could he? The only answer is that life was created by God i.e. Creation. All other answers are wrong. Evolution is wrong and does not exist nor is their proof of evolution." If you claim that life was created by God, I hope you have evidence to support your theory. Most creationists don't support their theory and merely exercise the theory as if it was an axiom. That doesn't fly. At least the Pope feels that evolution has merit and he's still stuck in the 19th century. You guys need to evolve into the 21st century. Sheeesh. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (rly-yd02.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.2]) by air-yd05.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:29:05 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yd02.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:28:56 -0500 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eANFSk947262; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:28:46 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <038c01c05562$60ffb2a0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Bequette" , "Bill Morgan" , References: <001301c0551a$2ea2b660$31708218@we.mediaone.net> Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:30:57 -0600 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 23-Nov-00 07:31:06 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan), DWise1@aol.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net Bill Morgan , you wrote: "So how did life originate? Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill." Which mythical response do you want? Choose a mythology. Then I'll give you a response that can be best supported by the facts. Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (rly-zd03.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.227]) by air-zd03.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:31:06 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zd03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:30:47 -0500 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eANFUj947454; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:30:45 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <039101c05562$a78d86c0$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: "Bill Morgan" , Cc: References: Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:32:56 -0600 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question, Part Deux Date: 23-Nov-00 07:39:41 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net , you wrote: "In the previous email, I compared the record of my responding to Bill M's questions and Bill M's responding to mine: Bill's Questions to Me: Answered: 23 Unanswered: 2 Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% My Questions to Bill: Answered: 12 Asked Once and Not Answered: 65 Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6%" Why doesn't this suprise me? Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc03.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:39:41 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:39:29 -0500 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eANFdR948159; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:39:28 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <039f01c05563$df276c80$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question, Part Deux Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:41:38 -0600 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: G W Bush; interesting reading Date: 30-Nov-00 07:30:28 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net > Testimony of George W. Bush - in his own words> >The founder of a national WEB devotional site said he called Gore and >Bush and asked them to send in their testimonies for the web site-since >they BOTH "claim" to be Christians.> >Gore's office said that he didn't have one in typed form-but Bush did. >Here it is . . . please pass this along! >Very Important!!! This could change America. (Whether Democrat or >Republican).> >If any of you are interested in what George Bush says about his faith, >here it is.>> >From George Bush:> [clipped -- if you guys want to read the original in its entirety, then just ask me and I will forward it to you] << Bill M, whatever relevance is THAT supposed to have? Instead of sending junk email, you need to attend to the serious business at hand, like helping us resolve the acrimonious mess that YOU have created by slandering me and that you are perpetuating by obstinantly blocking our . Log this as the FORTY-SECOND time that I have had to remind you that you need to tell us what you imagine that I had written that motivated you to make your false accusations against me. We need enough details to be able to identify the messages in question; simply repeating the accusations yet again will not suffice. Besides, Bill M, if you are going to forward something, you should at least read it first. Bush decries the decline of personal responsibility. A large part of the conflict between us is that you act as if you think that you can do whatever you want and not have to accept personal responsibility for your actions. It is sad to see that your fundamentalist Christian situational ethics has sunk so low. Bill Morgan, you have definitely done wrong. You need to take responsibility for your actions and help us resolve this matter. PS Of course Bush had a prepared statement of faith in typed form ready for his Religious Right constituency. He's the highest-ranking stealth candidate that they've had so far. ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 30-Nov-00 07:31:50 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: spambuster@gigagod.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, billbeq@mediaone.net CC: DWise1 >>What are you trying to say?<< Basically, what is the role of truth and truthfulness in Bill Morgan's theology? Would his theology legitimize the use of lying and deceipt in proselytizing? The question of "lying for the Lord" is a perennial one throughout the creation/evolution issue, not just in dealing with Bill Morgan. Yes, we have both watched Bill M repeatedly dodge simple direct questions and distort what others have said, but I have also observed that that is common behavior among most creationists. Though I have occasionally encountered an honest creationist, but unfortunately they are rare. Non-creationists repeatedly ask themselves about creationist claims, "Do they really believe that?" I have taken the approach of taking a creationist's claims at face value and talking with them as if they really believed their own claims. In the process, I have found that almost none of creationists I have talked with were at all interested in discussing their claims nor in supporting or defending them, Bill M being a prime example. In a number of cases, the creationist would readily drop the claim in question and shift to a different claim, maintaining that the claims' real importance was that they raised doubts about science. While truth may be unimportant to the two Bills and to most creationists, it is very important to me and to a number of my Christian friends. One whom I have been mentioning anonymously of late, Carl Drews, has just posted his web site at http://www.dimensional.com/~jambo/evolution/ . Carl is a fundamentalist Christian to whom the truth is very important. As you can read in his personal story [http://www.dimensional.com/~jambo/evolution/mystory.html], he learned very early on how much deception there is in creation science -- that lesson was courtesy of Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?", which had inspired Bill's own "Weird Science" and "Weird Tour". He very recently had to leave his church, because his pastor had expressed and demonstrated a willingness to subvert and suppress the truth for the sake of his religion. After that, Carl could no longer trust his pastor's teaching about anything. Mark, you might want to also check out Carl's references page at http://www.dimensional.com/~jambo/evolution/references.html . He has links to resources on a wide variety of topics relating to different creationist claims. It is a very long page. He also has links to Bill's recent peppered moth claim and polystrate fossils claim. Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my request for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about my not having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have already answered -- twice). Carl has compiled those links as part of his modus operandi: verify every claim, even if it appears to support your own position. Reminds us of what Bill Morgan had written, that he wants us to question and test everything that he tells us. Yet when we do, he immediately starts laying down the "rabbit trails". If only Bill M would practice what he preaches. Here is what Carl said about his talk with his pastor: "I had a talk with the pastor yesterday afternoon about the evolution/creation class and the 3 letters I had written. He and I have a fundamental difference with regard to non-Biblical truth. He thought the errors I had pointed out were subjective, but it still didn't matter much to him. Scientific and scholarly truth are low priorities. So if a guy distorts the truth about some scientific study or discovery, it doesn't matter as long as he is a strong voice preaching against evolution. Truth about the Bible and truth about non-Biblical sources are on two different tiers of acceptability. " ... If evolution is being attacked, scholarship and accuracy and non-Biblical truth don't matter a whole lot. I kid you not about this. "It's not quite true that you can lie your ass off about anything that's not in the Bible, but it's close to that. It seems that the main problem with lying about non-Biblical sources is that some knowledgeable person might catch you at it. "I asked about the great lack of people checking up on things, like the Bible commands us to do and (respected guest preacher) Arthur Burt told us to do. He thought that was a pretty minor problem. He said that the prevailing attitude is that nobody else is checking up on things because nobody is interested in disproving creationism. What's the point of checking up on assertions that are in our favor? We only check things that are against us." What effect did that have on Carl? This: "Regarding truth and trust in the pastors and the church, I did lose trust in the pastors. That loss of trust had far-reaching effects: How can I believe anything else they say? A person's integrity encompasses all areas of their life, not just what they say about the Bible. Telling the truth about science matters, too. "A Christian friend brought up a related issue that's not so charged. In my (former) congregation there is a lot of passing around of e-mail hoaxes. I got messages about Proctor & Gamble and the Sally Jesse Raphael show, Mel Gibson's facial surgery, and Harry Potter and satanism. People pass around these hoaxes without even checking them, because they are good Christian stories. My friend is angry about this because it damages our credibility as witnesses." And regarding my question of the acceptability of tricking people into converting: "As far as tricking people, I suppose I could tell someone that I have the True Cross in my basement and so they should believe in Jesus Christ. If they accepted that, they would become Christian, live out their lives learning more and more about true faith from the Bible, and go to heaven. It's a mighty risky strategy, because for the rest of their lives I will live in fear that they'll ask to see the True Cross in my basement. Even if they never found out that I lied and they went to heaven safely, I'm sure that MY punishment would be VERY severe. The same goes for a less contrived example. "God definitely does NOT need or want us to lie to advance His cause. This is what you have been saying. Here are some blunt words from Job to back that up: "7 Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? 8 You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God's case for him? 9 Be careful that he doesn't find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? 10 No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. 11 Doesn't his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? 12 Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot." (Job 13:7-12, New Living Translation)" So, by his word and his example, that is one Christian's answer to the question of the role of truth in Christianity: it is supposed to be very important. By his own example, Bill Morgan tells us that the truth is not important, even though he has uttered words to the contrary. So, my question to Bill M still stands: "No, seriously, Bill Morgan. What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? These questions are central to the issue." Mark, you will notice how Bill avoids answering that question. Like he has avoided answering so many other pertinent questions. ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 30-Nov-00 07:33:05 Pacific Standard Time From: DWise1 To: billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1 CC: editor@liberator.net >>Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill.<< I did answer, Bill M. Why don't you ever listen? I just told you that I have already answered that question twice and that I have even had it posted on the Web AND I just told you where it is posted. Why do you insist on acting like an idiot? Bill M, you won't even listen to your own Jesus. He says that you are a hypocrite (Matthew 7:5). Certainly in your preaching against "rabbit trails" while at the same time making flagrant use of that practice, you are being a hypocrite. And in claiming to be serving truth while at the same time fighting against our search for the truth, you are being a hypocrite. And in claiming that you are not prejudiced and would never "develop preconcieved notions about people before meeting them" whereas all your dealings with me have been based on your preconceived notions of what you think my position is rather than on what it really is (which is why I have repeatedly asked you to describe my position, which you have never done), you are being a hypocrite. As for the matter in question, I have presented you with the facts, yet you continue to refuse to listen: 1. I had answered 92% of your questions to me whereas you had only answered 12.6% of my questions to you. Letter-grade-wise, that means that I am pulling a good A whereas you are getting an extremely solid F which is approaching total failure. You have achieved your abysmal grade even though you have been given multiple opportunities to answer the questions (ie, I have had to repeat those questions so many times). 2. Most of your questions to me are intended to be impossible for me to answer, yet I have answered every single one of those questions. Almost all of my questions to you are intended to be answerable and should be well within your capabilities, yet you have done everything you can to avoid answering them. 3. I haven't gathered the statistics yet, but since we recommenced in July 2000, I have most certainly kept up my A grade, whereas your F grade has sunk even lower than before towards total failure. Therefore, considering our perspective records (ie, our grades) and in accordance with Matthew 7:5, by making such a big fuss as with "Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill", you are again being a hypocrite. Of course, it also doesn't help that your statement is not true: I had already answered your question, but you didn't listen to me tell you that, as I am sure that you didn't listen when I gave you the answer twice before. Having read the New Testament (twice in its entirety, some portions several more times since then), I get the distinct impression that Jesus especially did not like hypocrites. If your theology is correct about being judged, you're going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do. As I recall a fundamentalist friend having put it, even though he knows that he is saved, he also knows that he will still have to answer for everything he's done wrong. He wants to keep that session as short as possible. Bill M, looks like you're going to be there for a very long time. ################################################ Subj: Re: G W Bush; interesting reading Date: 30-Nov-00 08:58:56 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:30 AM Subject: Re: G W Bush; interesting reading > > > Testimony of George W. Bush - in his own words> > >The founder of a national WEB devotional site said he called Gore and > >Bush and asked them to send in their testimonies for the web site-since > >they BOTH "claim" to be Christians.> > >Gore's office said that he didn't have one in typed form-but Bush did. > >Here it is . . . please pass this along! > >Very Important!!! This could change America. (Whether Democrat or > >Republican).> > >If any of you are interested in what George Bush says about his faith, > >here it is.>> > >From George Bush:> > [clipped -- if you guys want to read the original in its entirety, then just ask me and I will forward it to you] > << > > Bill M, whatever relevance is THAT supposed to have? Instead of sending junk email, you need to attend to the serious business at hand, like helping us resolve the acrimonious mess that YOU have created by slandering me and that you are perpetuating by obstinantly blocking our . > > Log this as the FORTY-SECOND time that I have had to remind you that you need to tell us what you imagine that I had written that motivated you to make your false accusations against me. We need enough details to be able to identify the messages in question; simply repeating the accusations yet again will not suffice. > > > Besides, Bill M, if you are going to forward something, you should at least read it first. Bush decries the decline of personal responsibility. A large part of the conflict between us is that you act as if you think that you can do whatever you want and not have to accept personal responsibility for your actions. It is sad to see that your fundamentalist Christian situational ethics has sunk so low. > > Bill Morgan, you have definitely done wrong. You need to take responsibility for your actions and help us resolve this matter. > > PS > Of course Bush had a prepared statement of faith in typed form ready for his Religious Right constituency. He's the highest-ranking stealth candidate that they've had so far. > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (rly-zd04.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.228]) by air-zd05.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:56 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-zd04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:24 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA25605; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:58:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01c05af0$b323e9a0$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , References: Subject: Re: G W Bush; interesting reading Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:12:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 30-Nov-00 08:59:12 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, spambuster@gigagod.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, DWise1@aol.com next ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:31 AM Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net > >>What are you trying to say?<< > > Basically, what is the role of truth and truthfulness in Bill Morgan's theology? Would his theology legitimize the use of lying and deceipt in proselytizing? > > The question of "lying for the Lord" is a perennial one throughout the creation/evolution issue, not just in dealing with Bill Morgan. Yes, we have both watched Bill M repeatedly dodge simple direct questions and distort what others have said, but I have also observed that that is common behavior among most creationists. Though I have occasionally encountered an honest creationist, but unfortunately they are rare. > > Non-creationists repeatedly ask themselves about creationist claims, "Do they really believe that?" I have taken the approach of taking a creationist's claims at face value and talking with them as if they really believed their own claims. In the process, I have found that almost none of creationists I have talked with were at all interested in discussing their claims nor in supporting or defending them, Bill M being a prime example. In a number of cases, the creationist would readily drop the claim in question and shift to a different claim, maintaining that the claims' real importance was that they raised doubts about science. > > While truth may be unimportant to the two Bills and to most creationists, it is very important to me and to a number of my Christian friends. One whom I have been mentioning anonymously of late, Carl Drews, has just posted his web site at http://www.dimensional.com/~jambo/evolution/ . Carl is a fundamentalist Christian to whom the truth is very important. As you can read in his personal story [http://www.dimensional.com/~jambo/evolution/mystory.html], he learned very early on how much deception there is in creation science -- that lesson was courtesy of Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?", which had inspired Bill's own "Weird Science" and "Weird Tour". He very recently had to leave his church, because his pastor had expressed and demonstrated a willingness to subvert and suppress the truth for the sake of his religion. After that, Carl could no longer trust his pastor's teaching about anything. > > Mark, you might want to also check out Carl's references page at http://www.dimensional.com/~jambo/evolution/references.html . He has links to resources on a wide variety of topics relating to different creationist claims. It is a very long page. He also has links to Bill's recent peppered moth claim and polystrate fossils claim. > > Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my request for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about my not having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have already answered -- twice). > > Carl has compiled those links as part of his modus operandi: verify every claim, even if it appears to support your own position. Reminds us of what Bill Morgan had written, that he wants us to question and test everything that he tells us. Yet when we do, he immediately starts laying down the "rabbit trails". If only Bill M would practice what he preaches. > > Here is what Carl said about his talk with his pastor: > > "I had a talk with the pastor yesterday afternoon about the evolution/creation class and the 3 letters I had written. He and I have a fundamental difference with regard to non-Biblical truth. He thought the errors I had pointed out were subjective, but it still didn't matter much to him. Scientific and scholarly truth are low priorities. So if a guy distorts the truth about some scientific study or discovery, it doesn't matter as long as he is a strong voice preaching against evolution. Truth about the Bible and truth about non-Biblical sources are on two different tiers of acceptability. > > " ... If evolution is being attacked, scholarship and accuracy and non-Biblical truth don't matter a whole lot. I kid you not about this. > > "It's not quite true that you can lie your ass off about anything that's not in the Bible, but it's close to that. It seems that the main problem with lying about non-Biblical sources is that some knowledgeable person might catch you at it. > > "I asked about the great lack of people checking up on things, like the Bible commands us to do and (respected guest preacher) Arthur Burt told us to do. He thought that was a pretty minor problem. He said that the prevailing attitude is that nobody else is checking up on things because nobody is interested in disproving creationism. What's the point of checking up on > assertions that are in our favor? We only check things that are against us." > > What effect did that have on Carl? This: > > "Regarding truth and trust in the pastors and the church, I did lose trust in the pastors. That loss of trust had far-reaching effects: How can I believe anything else they say? A person's integrity encompasses all areas of their life, not just what they say about the Bible. Telling the truth about science matters, too. > > "A Christian friend brought up a related issue that's not so charged. In my (former) congregation there is a lot of passing around of e-mail hoaxes. I got messages about Proctor & Gamble and the Sally Jesse Raphael show, Mel Gibson's facial surgery, and Harry Potter and satanism. People pass around these hoaxes without even checking them, because they are good Christian stories. My friend is angry about this because it damages our credibility as witnesses." > > And regarding my question of the acceptability of tricking people into converting: > > "As far as tricking people, I suppose I could tell someone that I have the True Cross in my basement and so they should believe in Jesus Christ. If they accepted that, they would become Christian, live out their lives learning more and more about true faith from the Bible, and go to heaven. It's a mighty risky strategy, because for the rest of their lives I will live in fear that they'll ask to see the True Cross in my basement. Even if they never found out that I lied and they went to heaven safely, I'm sure that MY punishment would be VERY severe. The same goes for a less contrived example. > > "God definitely does NOT need or want us to lie to advance His cause. This is what you have been saying. Here are some blunt words from Job to back that up: > "7 Are you defending God by means of lies and dishonest arguments? > 8 You should be impartial witnesses, but will you slant your testimony in his favor? Will you argue God's case for him? > 9 Be careful that he doesn't find out what you are doing! Or do you think you can fool him as easily as you fool people? > 10 No, you will be in serious trouble with him if even in your hearts you slant your testimony in his favor. > 11 Doesn't his majesty strike terror into your heart? Does not your fear of him seize you? > 12 Your statements have about as much value as ashes. Your defense is as fragile as a clay pot." > (Job 13:7-12, New Living Translation)" > > > So, by his word and his example, that is one Christian's answer to the question of the role of truth in Christianity: it is supposed to be very important. By his own example, Bill Morgan tells us that the truth is not important, even though he has uttered words to the contrary. > > So, my question to Bill M still stands: > > "No, seriously, Bill Morgan. What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry? DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth? WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement? These questions are central to the issue." > > Mark, you will notice how Bill avoids answering that question. Like he has avoided answering so many other pertinent questions. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (rly-zb05.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.5]) by air-zb05.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:59:12 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-zb05.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:37 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA25768; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:58:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001201c05af0$b9c94480$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , References: <28.dc3b3be.2757cce6@aol.com> Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:12:31 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 30-Nov-00 08:59:16 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:33 AM Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question > >>Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill.<< > > I did answer, Bill M. Why don't you ever listen? I just told you that I > have already answered that question twice and that I have even had it posted > on the Web AND I just told you where it is posted. Why do you insist on > acting like an idiot? > > Bill M, you won't even listen to your own Jesus. He says that you are a > hypocrite (Matthew 7:5). Certainly in your preaching against "rabbit trails" > while at the same time making flagrant use of that practice, you are being a > hypocrite. And in claiming to be serving truth while at the same time > fighting against our search for the truth, you are being a hypocrite. And in > claiming that you are not prejudiced and would never "develop preconcieved > notions about people before meeting them" whereas all your dealings with me > have been based on your preconceived notions of what you think my position is > rather than on what it really is (which is why I have repeatedly asked you to > describe my position, which you have never done), you are being a hypocrite. > > As for the matter in question, I have presented you with the facts, yet you > continue to refuse to listen: > 1. I had answered 92% of your questions to me whereas you had only answered > 12.6% of my questions to you. Letter-grade-wise, that means that I am > pulling a good A whereas you are getting an extremely solid F which is > approaching total failure. You have achieved your abysmal grade even though > you have been given multiple opportunities to answer the questions (ie, I > have had to repeat those questions so many times). > 2. Most of your questions to me are intended to be impossible for me to > answer, yet I have answered every single one of those questions. Almost all > of my questions to you are intended to be answerable and should be well > within your capabilities, yet you have done everything you can to avoid > answering them. > 3. I haven't gathered the statistics yet, but since we recommenced in July > 2000, I have most certainly kept up my A grade, whereas your F grade has sunk > even lower than before towards total failure. > > Therefore, considering our perspective records (ie, our grades) and in > accordance with Matthew 7:5, by making such a big fuss as with "Told ya he > wouldn't answer Bill", you are again being a hypocrite. Of course, it also > doesn't help that your statement is not true: I had already answered your > question, but you didn't listen to me tell you that, as I am sure that you > didn't listen when I gave you the answer twice before. > > Having read the New Testament (twice in its entirety, some portions several > more times since then), I get the distinct impression that Jesus especially > did not like hypocrites. If your theology is correct about being judged, > you're going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do. As I recall a fundamentalist > friend having put it, even though he knows that he is saved, he also knows > that he will still have to answer for everything he's done wrong. He wants > to keep that session as short as possible. Bill M, looks like you're going > to be there for a very long time. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (rly-xa04.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.73]) by air-xa05.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:59:16 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-xa04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:44 -0500 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA25923; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:58:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001801c05af0$bf1eede0$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , References: <44.9454a44.2757cd31@aol.com> Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:12:40 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: 30-Nov-00 08:59:41 Pacific Standard Time From: BillBeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: DWise1@aol.com, billyjack1@hotmail.com CC: DWise1@aol.com, editor@liberator.net next ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; ; Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 7:32 AM Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question > >>Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill.<< > > I did answer, Bill M. Why don't you ever listen? I just told you that I have already answered that question twice and that I have even had it posted on the Web AND I just told you where it is posted. Why do you insist on acting like an idiot? > > Bill M, you won't even listen to your own Jesus. He says that you are a hypocrite (Matthew 7:5). Certainly in your preaching against "rabbit trails" while at the same time making flagrant use of that practice, you are being a hypocrite. And in claiming to be serving truth while at the same time fighting against our search for the truth, you are being a hypocrite. And in claiming that you are not prejudiced and would never "develop preconcieved notions about people before meeting them" whereas all your dealings with me have been based on your preconceived notions of what you think my position is rather than on what it really is (which is why I have repeatedly asked you to describe my position, which you have never done), you are being a hypocrite. > > As for the matter in question, I have presented you with the facts, yet you continue to refuse to listen: > 1. I had answered 92% of your questions to me whereas you had only answered 12.6% of my questions to you. Letter-grade-wise, that means that I am pulling a good A whereas you are getting an extremely solid F which is approaching total failure. You have achieved your abysmal grade even though you have been given multiple opportunities to answer the questions (ie, I have had to repeat those questions so many times). > 2. Most of your questions to me are intended to be impossible for me to answer, yet I have answered every single one of those questions. Almost all of my questions to you are intended to be answerable and should be well within your capabilities, yet you have done everything you can to avoid answering them. > 3. I haven't gathered the statistics yet, but since we recommenced in July 2000, I have most certainly kept up my A grade, whereas your F grade has sunk even lower than before towards total failure. > > Therefore, considering our perspective records (ie, our grades) and in accordance with Matthew 7:5, by making such a big fuss as with "Told ya he wouldn't answer Bill", you are again being a hypocrite. Of course, it also doesn't help that your statement is not true: I had already answered your question, but you didn't listen to me tell you that, as I am sure that you didn't listen when I gave you the answer twice before. > > Having read the New Testament (twice in its entirety, some portions several more times since then), I get the distinct impression that Jesus especially did not like hypocrites. If your theology is correct about being judged, you're going to have a lot of 'splainin' to do. As I recall a fundamentalist friend having put it, even though he knows that he is saved, he also knows that he will still have to answer for everything he's done wrong. He wants to keep that session as short as possible. Bill M, looks like you're going to be there for a very long time. > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (rly-yb04.mail.aol.com [172.18.146.4]) by air-yb04.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:59:41 -0500 Received: from lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (lsmls02.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.15]) by rly-yb04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:55 1900 Received: from bb (we-24-130-112-49.we.mediaone.net [24.130.112.49]) by lsmls02.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA26067; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:58:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001e01c05af0$c49f50c0$31708218@we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: , Cc: , References: <76.56130ed.2757cd34@aol.com> Subject: Re: "Origin of Life" Question Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:12:49 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 30-Nov-00 16:24:50 Pacific Standard Time From: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark) To: DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com , you wrote: "Basically, what is the role of truth and truthfulness in Bill Morgan's theology? Would his theology legitimize the use of lying and deceipt in proselytizing? The question of 'lying for the Lord' is a perennial one throughout the creation/evolution issue, not just in dealing with Bill Morgan. Yes, we have both watched Bill M repeatedly dodge simple direct questions and distort what others have said, but I have also observed that that is common behavior among most creationists. Though I have occasionally encountered an honest creationist, but unfortunately they are rare." Bill Morgan should be a disappointment to those who respect religion. "Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my request for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about my not having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have already answered -- twice)." Bill sees this debate as strategy, instead as the pursuit of truth. If I believed in the theories that Bill presents, I would be very disappointed with his less than ethical tactics. "So, by his word and his example, that is one Christian's answer to the question of the role of truth in Christianity: it is supposed to be very important. By his own example, Bill Morgan tells us that the truth is not important, even though he has uttered words to the contrary." Why am I not surprised? Mark The Liberator E-Mail: editor@liberator.net Web Site: http://liberator.net/ ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (rly-yh04.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.36]) by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:24:50 -0500 Received: from uucphost.mcs.net (kitten2.mcs.com [192.160.127.90]) by rly-yh04.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:24:32 -0500 Received: from liber8r (liber8r.pr.mcs.net [199.3.42.5]) by uucphost.mcs.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eB10OUr24655; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:24:31 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from spambuster@gigagod.com) Message-ID: <00fa01c05b2d$64161a80$052a03c7@liber8r> From: "Mark" To: Cc: , , References: <28.dc3b3be.2757cce6@aol.com> Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:26:45 -0600 Organization: n/a MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ################################################ Subj: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: 30-Nov-00 20:34:50 Pacific Standard Time From: billbeq@mediaone.net (Bill Bequette) To: spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark), DWise1@aol.com CC: billyjack1@hotmail.com, DWise1@aol.com next -----Original Message----- From: Mark To: DWise1@aol.com Cc: billyjack1@hotmail.com ; billbeq@mediaone.net ; DWise1@aol.com Date: Thursday, November 30, 2000 4:24 PM Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net >, you wrote: > >"Basically, what is the role of truth and truthfulness in Bill Morgan's >theology? Would his theology legitimize the use of lying and deceipt in >proselytizing? > >The question of 'lying for the Lord' is a perennial one throughout the >creation/evolution issue, not just in dealing with Bill Morgan. Yes, we >have both watched Bill M repeatedly dodge simple direct questions and >distort what others have said, but I have also observed that that is common >behavior among most creationists. Though I have occasionally encountered an >honest creationist, but unfortunately they are rare." > >Bill Morgan should be a disappointment to those who respect religion. > >"Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having >answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my request >for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about my not >having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have >already answered -- twice)." > >Bill sees this debate as strategy, instead as the pursuit of truth. If I >believed in the theories that Bill presents, I would be very disappointed >with his less than ethical tactics. > >"So, by his word and his example, that is one Christian's answer to the >question of the role of truth in Christianity: it is supposed to be very >important. By his own example, Bill Morgan tells us that the truth is not >important, even though he has uttered words to the contrary." > >Why am I not surprised? > >Mark >The Liberator >E-Mail: editor@liberator.net >Web Site: http://liberator.net/ > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: Received: from rly-st06.mail.aol.com (rly-st06.mail.aol.com [172.31.34.5]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v77.14) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:48 -0500 Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by rly-st06.mail.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/AOL-5.0.0) with ESMTP id XAA09771 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:21:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (lsmls01.we.mediaone.net [24.130.1.20]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:20:34 -0500 Received: from wb (we-24-130-113-13.we.mediaone.net [24.130.113.13]) by lsmls01.we.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id UAA27416; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:20:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005101c05b4e$4c05d040$0d718218@wb.we.mediaone.net> From: "Bill Bequette" To: "Mark" , Cc: , Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:22:20 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 ################################################