I found this on the Internet.
Let's keep
organized religion separate from government as our Founding Fathers intended
it.
---------------
"The divinity of Jesus is made a
convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept
for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths,
Doctrines, and whole carloads of other
foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John
Adams
"Lighthouses are more helpful than
churches."--Benjamin Franklin
"I almost shudder at the
thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which
the history of mankind has preserved--the
Cross. Consider what calamities
that engine of grief has produced!"--John Adams in a letter to Thomas
Jefferson
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming
feature."--Thomas Jefferson
"I contemplate with sovereign
reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', thus building a wall of separation
between church and
State."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury
Baptist Association, CT. "The Complete Jefferson" by Saul K.
Padover, pp 518-519
"History I believe furnishes no example of a
priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the
lowest grade of ignorance,
of which their political as well as religious
leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas
Jefferson to Baron von
Humboldt in 1813
"All persons shall
have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled
to frequent or maintain any religious
institution."--Thomas
Jefferson, 1776
"And I have no doubt that every new example will
succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government
will both
exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed
together."--James Madison in a letter to Edward Livingston in
1822
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts
only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to
say there
are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor
breaks my leg."--Thomas Jefferson
"It may not be easy, in
every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of
religion and the Civil authority with such
distinctness as to avoid
collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on
one side or the other, or to a corrupting
coalition or alliance between
them, will best be guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government
from interference in any way
whatsoever, beyond the necessity of
preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespasses on its
legal rights by others."--James
Madison, "James Madison on
Religious Liberty", edited by Robert S. Alley, ISBN pp
237-238
"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like
an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its
functions with
complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the
morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been
manifestly
increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE
STATE."--James Madison
"Of all the tyrannies that affect
mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."--Thomas Paine
"I
do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman
Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the
Protestant
Church, not by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own
Church."--Thomas Paine
"All national institutions of
churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than
human inventions, set up to terrify and
enslave mankind, and monopolize
power and profit."--Thomas Paine
"The adulterous connection
between church and state."--Thomas Paine, from
_The_Age_of_Reason_
"Persecution is not an original feature in
any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions
established by law."--Thomas
Paine
"The government of the
United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian
Religion"--George Washington and John Adams, Treaty of
Tripoli,
1797
-------------
The
Liber8r
The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site
respectively:
liber8r@mcs.net
http://www.mcs.net/~liber8r/
>From the list of unanswered questions, BillyJack has a lot of explaining to do.< Well, Liber8r, here's Bill's "explanation": ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Thanks for Offer Date: 98-06-26 23:47:15 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 12.6 % no way! I answered 100% you just did not lke my answers! ### END ### If he's able to show such disregard for the facts when they're right before him in print, just think of the liberties he would feel free to take in the spoken medium, which allows him to play even faster and looser with the truth. The written word makes it a lot harder to confuse everyone or to hide rhetorical trickery and just plain false claims, like his "100%" claim above. No wonder he tries to avoid the written word whenever possible. He's a fine witness for Christianity. Makes a fellow really glad not to be a Christian. I, for one, have to shave in the morning.########################################### Subj: "From Jesus to Christ" Date: 98-07-09 02:02:14 EDT From: DWise1 To: liber8r@mcs.com CC: BillyJack6, DWise1
>>A few weeks ago, a teacher friend of mine let me borrow her tape
of a Frontline (PBS) program: From Jesus to Christ.<<
We had taped it too, but have not had time to watch it yet. Thanks for
reminding me; we'll try to schedule some time in the next week or two.
The producer has been a life-long Unitarian. We heard about the program
through the UU-List, where the producer's parents were exercising their
bragging rights.
>>History even suggests that Christianity has changed from being a
multi-facetted undertaking to the mainly monolithic creature it is today.<<
Christianity definitely was multi-facetted undertaking, a confusion of cults
As you get into the latter books of the New Testament, mainly letters to
different Christian communities, you will find a lot of references to and
criticism of other Christian cults (le plus ça change, le plus la même chose
-- the more things change, the more they remain the same, eh?).
Not having seen the tape yet, my understanding of the history is that a
number of different Christian churches, sects, and cults grew and developed
in the first few centuries, each pretty much with their own sacred writing.
Then when Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion, he
had the Nicean Council meet to decide exactly what that official religion
would be. Representatives from the different sects came with their own
sacred writings. They hammered away at it and when they came to points that
they just could not agree on (eg, "same substance" vs "similar substance"),
then (according to the account that I had heard) Emperor Constantine would
intervene personally and "help" the decision-making process along by himself
deciding what that point of theology should be and having any dissenting
voices calmed by having the dissenters executed. Therefore, according to the
account that I had heard, Christianity was largely invented by Constantine.
Thus, the Universal (AKA "Catholic") Faith was established. Any beliefs that
ran counter to this Universal True Faith were declared heretical and holding
such beliefs became a capital crime. Constantinian law remained in effect in
parts of Europe until the mid-19th century. Among other things, these laws
made it a capital crime to convert from the One True Faith to any other
religion. In the late Middle Ages, one famous Italian rabbi had been born a
Christian and converted to Judaism in secret in order to escape execution for
violating this law; he finally emigrated to Palestine, where he was killed by
an Arab.
BTW, I once read a short account about the last remaining community of Jewish
Christians, which was situated on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee. That
is, until Emperor Constantine declared them all to be heretics and had them
annihilated. It might have been interesting to discover what their heresy
was, especially since they should have represented the more original Jewish
church that had not experienced as strong pagan influences as the Gentile
churches had. Considering the Jewish tradition for accurate transmission of
their traditions, comparing that church with what Christianity had become
under Constantine should have been very interesting.
>>Why was I never informed of these hidden gospels?<<
OK, back to Nicea. After having established what the One True Universal
Faith was, they then needed to decide what was Scripture and what was not.
Each sacred text was examined and only those that agreed with against the One
True Universal Faith were considered for inclusion in Canon. Those that
disagreed with it were declared heretical and ordered to be destroyed. Some
non-heretical works were decided to be of dubious origin and not be worthy of
inclusion as Canon, but were included as the Apocrypha. Well, in some
bibles, that is. You will find some Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible, but not
in the Protestant or Jewish bibles.
But most of those other gospels were declared heretical and hence ordered
destroyed. It's amazing that any have survived at all.
So, we have that the One True Universal Christian Faith, Catholicism (which
soon afterwards split into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), was
basically invented by one man, Constantine, three centuries after the fact,
so to speak. The Protestant Reformation was an attempt to get back to the
original religion from which, they believed, the Catholic Church had strayed,
but they only had Constantinian Christianity to work with. A common
Protestant practice was for each member to study the Bible himself (Sunday
School started out as an effort to teach congregation members how to read so
that they could then start studying the Bible). The irony is that even the
Bible had been compiled under Constantine's influence and direction, so
instead of getting back to the original religion, Protestants are still
basing their religion on what Constantine had wrought.
Another question that arises is how Protestants are supposed to handle the
problems of translation and of the existence of different versions of New
Testament manuscripts.
For example, in your copy of the New Testament, what does Mark 16:9-20 say?
In my King James Version, NIV, Gideons, and Keppler Bibel, those verses go
into a fair amount of detail telling of the resurrected Jesus appearing to
various people. But in some bibles, those verses either do not exist or only
exist in a footnote along with other endings which only tell of his followers
going forth to spread the news of eternal salvation. It turns out that Mark
has four different endings, depending on which manuscripts you use, which are
presented as a long ending and a short ending. So how is the biblical
literalist to decide which "literally true" version of Mark to use? FWIW,
the older, more reliable (read "more authentic") manuscripts use the short
ending, while only the later, more apocryphal manuscripts use the long ending
prefered by literalists.
What does your copy of Luke 2:14 say? Here are a few different translations:
KJV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
NIV: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his
favor rests.
Keppler: Ehre sei Gott in der Höhe und Friede den Menschen auf Erden, die
eines guten Willens sind! Honor be to God on high and peace among humans on
earth, who are of good well.
Greek: Doxa en uyistois Qew kai epi ghs eirhnh en
anqrwpois eudokia[s]. Doxa en hypsistois Theo kai epi ges eirene en
anthropois eudokia[s]. Glory in highest to God and upon the earth peace
among humans [with sigma: of good will/of favor; without sigma: good
will/favor].
It turns out that the various manuscripts cannot agree on what case[*see
footnote] "eudoxia" (good will/favor) is in. Some end it with a sigma,
saying it is in the genitive case, which accounts for the NIV and the Keppler
translations. Others leave the sigma out, placing it in the nominative case,
which accounts for the KJV translation. I believe that the manuscripts that
include the sigma are older and considered more authentic by scholars.
[*FOOTNOTE: in Indo-European grammar, case is the property of a noun which
indicates its usage in a sentence; ie, whether as subject, possessor, direct
or indirect object, addressee, agent, or object of a preposition. In an
inflected[**see footnote] language, a noun's form is changed according to its
case, usually by changing its ending, though sometimes through a stem change
as well. Although Proto-Indo-European had 8 cases, some of those have
combined such that most descendent languages have fewer than 8 cases; eg,
English 3, German 4, Greek 5, Latin 6, Russian 6, Old English 4. The cases
are:
1. Nominative -- subject or predicate noun
2. Genitive -- possession, "of"
3. Dative -- indirect object
4. Accusative -- direct object
5. Instrumental -- agent of an action; eg, in "He cut it with a knive",
"knive" would be in the instrumental.
6. Ablative -- indicates motion away
7. Locative -- indicates location
8. Vocative -- used to address someone/something; eg, Nom. "Brutus", yet "Et
tu, Brute?"
]
[**FOOTNOTE: an inflected language is one in which words are modified to
change their meaning. This is accomplished by modifying the word's ending or
the word itself. The most common usages of inflection are to indicate a
noun's number and case and a verb's conjugations. Some languages remain
highly inflected (eg, Russian, Greek, Latin), whereas others have lost most
of their inflection (eg, English, French, Spanish) and some are in an
intermediate state (eg, German). During loss of inflection, cases start to
combine into others, such as the absorption of the instrumental case into the
dative in Old English. Normally, as a language's nouns lose their
inflection, other factors come into use to distinguish their case; eg, word
order and prepositions. Some creationists try to claim that languages are
degenerating and as evidence point to loss of inflection, while ignoring the
corresponding increase of complexity in word order and periphrastic
constructions.]
There are a lot of fundamentalist Christians who believe that the Bible is
literally true, but which Bible? Most people, fundamentalist and
non-fundamentalist alike, naively assume that there is only one Bible, but
that isn't true. Then on top of that, since they usually only work from a
translation of one particular version of the Bible, there are a lot of
different translations out there, each of them a fallible human's
interpretation of what that version had said in the original language
(assuming that he was even working with the original language and not an
intermediate translation). I had asked Bill about this, but that is one of
the "100% answered" questions that he has never answered.
Ten years ago, I wrote to the local paper, The Orange County Register, in
response to somebody who had written in support of posting the Ten
Commandments in public school classrooms, saying that since they were the
same for both Christians and Jews, doing so would not promote one religion
over another. His naive assumption that the Ten Commandments were the same
for all was dead wrong. I found that Jews, Catholics, and Protestants all
have three different forms of the Ten Commandments, so that if the government
were to post the Ten Commandments, they would still have to decide whose set
of Ten Commandments to favor over the other two. I've appended that letter
at the end of this email; I forget whether the paper had ever printed it.
I had also written a killer letter on school prayer ten years ago. At the
time, it was a very hot topic in the paper, with at least three letters
appearing every week. My letter pointed out the problems of school prayer.
After my letter was printed, a full two years went by before anyone dared to
bring up the subject again. I don't have a electronic copy of it anymore,
but this weekend I'll try to scan it. One of the first things that attracted
me to Orson Scott Card's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" was his section
on school prayer; he raised a lot of the same points as I had, only he worded
them so much better.
OBTW, do you know what the name of Barabbas was? Jewish male names follow
the formula of "so-and-so son of another-so-and-so"; in Hebrew, "son" is
"ben" and in Aramaic, I believe, it is "bar", which is still used in Judaism,
as in "Bar Mitzvah", "Son of the Covenent." So, eg, Jesus would have been
called "Yeshua bar Yosef." "bar Abbas" would mean "son of the father" or
"son of the master", so his actual name isn't being mentioned. According to
several Greek manuscripts of Matthew 27:16, his name was Jesus bar Abbas.
Which some authors have tried to read even more into (remember, they used to
marry at about 14 years of age).
>>On another note, history tells us how Paganism joined up with
Christianity.<<
I've always felt that would be an interesting subject to research. As
Christianity spread into pagan areas, there were many cases of local pagan
sites, customs, and deities/spirits/whatever being absorbed into the new
religion. When Christianity was established in an area through a government
(including an invading force, such as the Spaniards in Mexico), a common
practice was to destroy the old pagan site and then build the church in its
place; eg, the Basilica in Mexico City is supposed to have been built on top
of an Aztec temple which had been dedicated to a virgin goddess. Similarly,
many Mediterranean statues and temples to Isis and Aphrodite were converted
over to Mary and certain aspects of those goddesses were incorporated into
Marianism [sp?]. Ireland was Christianized in two separate waves; remnents
of the first wave still involve some pagan rites at sacred wells.
But the greatest pagan influence must have occurred even earlier, as the new
faith was spreading from the Jews to the Gentiles. You will recall the
mystery religions, which were widespread in the Mediterranean at the time.
Their basic structure consisted of an "outer temple," in which the story of
the central mystery would be told and enacted, and an "inner temple," in
which the true meaning behind the story and its symbols would be taught.
Anyone could attend the outer temple; indeed, some mystery religions would
have very public processions displaying the mystery's symbols and enacting
its story. But attendence in the inner temple was restricted to those who
had been initiated into the mystery. Once initiated into the inner temple,
the initiate could attend the outer-temple celebration of the mystery and
have the eyes and ears to see and hear the true story being told.
The mystery commonly involved a divine or semi-divine being who died or was
killed and then came back to life. Commonly, the celebrants would
symbolically eat the flesh and/or drink the blood of the risen god in order
to themselves partake in his/her immortality.
Elements from various mystery religions can be found in Christianity. The
Gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus parallel that of Mithras. By
Constantine's time, many Sun God symbols and appelations became part of
Christianity, even to the point of forsaking the Sabbath in favor of the
Sun's Day. References are made in some of the epistles to other errant
Christian congregations who are not following the True Path, such as
Gnostics, and the Christ is refered to as the True Vine and the True Cross,
which seem to be references to the Bacchian and Hercules mysteries,
respectively.
And this nearly bowled me over the first time I read it after having learned
about the mystery religions. From Mark:
MARK 4:2 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in
his doctrine,
MARK 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
MARK 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve
asked of him the parable.
MARK 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of
the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done
in parables:
MARK 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may
hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and
their sins should be forgiven them.
MARK 4:23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
MARK 4:33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they
were able to hear it.
MARK 4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were
alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
Christianity still has its Outer Temple, though I have often wondered if
anything remains of its Inner Temple.
>>Why is Christmas celebrated on December 25th?
"It turns out that the 25th of December was an already established day of
celebration closely tied to nature from Egyptian mythology--the solar
festival of the equinox--which Paganism accepted along with all other
religious ceremonies. One scholar argued that as Christianity became part of
the Paganistic Roman Empire, Paganism found its way into Christianity. Was it
a matter of survival on behalf of Christian loyalists or was it simply the
unavoidable melding of religious faiths? Geopolitical religion might be a
term worthy of using here."<<
Yes, the Winter Solstice was a very important event for worshippers of the
Sun gods, because it marked the rebirth of the Sun. After months of watching
the life-giving Sun lose to the encroaching Darkness and the earth die, the
Winter Solstice marked the beginning the turning point in that cosmic battle
between Light and Darkness, between Life and Death, after which the Sun will
push back the Darkness, culminating in the Rebirth of Life at the Vernal
Equinox, as celebrated in the pagan progenitors of Easter (itself named for a
pagan goddess and celebrated with pagan symbolism, including sun-rise church
services). Liber8r has seen the Winter Solstice in Chicago, as have I even
more so in North Dakota, but, Bill, you cannot imagine the drastic change
that Winter brings up North -- people on the day shift would literally go for
days without seeing the Sun (our shop had no windows).
For the plethora of Sun gods, Rome established a single celebration at the
Winter Solstice, called Sol Invictus, "The Unconquered Sun," to commemorate
all Sun Gods' victory against Death and Darkness. For whatever reason, early
Christians chose this season of universal worship and celebration for the
birth of the Sun god(s) to hold their own celebration of the birth of their
"god" (after all, this was pre-Nicea and not all Christian communities
believed Jesus to have been divine). Then in the fourth century CE, the Pope
froze that practice and its date by decree.
But the Winter Solstice is supposed to be on the 21st, not the 25th. Why the
25th? Well, it was Julius Caesar's fault. For centuries, Rome used a lunar
calendar, much as the Jews use, which requires a lot of book-keeping to
maintain (the Jewish calendar even includes a leap MONTH, Second Nisan, to
keep it half-way synced to the solar calendar) and is not very much help to
agriculture. One of the better ideas Julius Caesar brought back with him
was a solar calendar, which he implemented around 48 BCE, complete with every
fourth year being a leap year. It seemed to work out just fine, until a few
centuries had passed by. Because a year is a little shorter than 365.25
days, the simple leap-year formula ends up adding three days too many every
400 years, causing the Winter Solstice to slip back to later and later dates.
By the fourth century, when the Pope froze the practice and date of
Christmas, the Winter Solstice fell on the 24th and 25th of December. The
calendar continued to slip until the implementation of the Gregorian Calendar
several centuries later and until Protestant England and its colonies finally
accepted it as well in the 18th century.
And now you know the rest of the story.
>>I also want to know if I spelled "Magdelin" right.<<
Magdalene, in English.
Here is that letter-to-the-editor about the Ten Commandments:
Clearinghouse
The Orange County Register
Post Office Box 11626
Santa Ana, California 92711
If John L. McCreary wants to know how the Ten Commandments differ in
different religions ("The same commandments," 21 October 1988), he needs only
to look it up.
The text of the commandments are found in Exodus 20:3-17 and Deuteronomy
5:7-21. According to the World Book Encyclopedia, the Roman Catholic version
of the Bible combines the first two commandments of the Protestant version,
considering them to be the first commandment, and splits the last one into
two. The Jewish version begins with the words, "I am the Lord thy God"
(Exodus 20:2 and Deuteronomy 5:6) and then combines the first two
commandments of the Protestant version, considering them to be the second
commandment.
So if we were presented with printed copies of the Jewish, Catholic, and
Protestant versions of the Ten Commandments, they would indeed be different
even though they were each derived from similar sources. This is not a new
revelation, but has been known for centuries and would have been known to
McCreary and his friends if they had only looked. The differences may seem
minor, but there is no such thing as a minor difference in religion; during
the Russian Reformation of 1668, over 20,000 Old Believers were martyred
basically over the "minor" question of whether a priest should perform a
blessing using two fingers or three.
So the question remains: which version of the Ten Commandments should be
chosen as the official government version for posting in the public schools
and why choose that one to the exclusion of the others? The answer is still
the same: none of them. The government has neither the authority nor the
competence to establish religious practices and doctrines and is forbidden to
do so by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Religious instruction is the
duty of the family and of the churches, not of a government agency, such as
the public school system.
###########################################
Subj: Posting an Article
Date: 98-07-09 02:02:22 EDT
From: DWise1
To: liber8r@mcs.com
CC: BillyJack6, DWise1
>>I was viewing your website and I noticed that you have a lot of stuff related to evolution. Also from our discussions I have noticed how well you can articulate your points--an ability that far exceeds my own. Do you have an article on evolution that I can post on my site? If not, when you develop one, could you send it to me? I would like to post an article from you so that I can also provide a link to your site; it hits two birds with one "stone."<< I would be happy to oblige, though we would need to consider my busy work schedule. You could consider using one I already have up, or I could write a new one. In the latter case, what subject would you like it to cover? I've known for a long time that I need to do a write-up on the "Two-Model Approach." Now from this past year's "discussion" with Bill, there are other angles to consider and write about, including the effects of creation science's contrary-to-fact claims upon its followers. What do you think? Either way, it will probably take a month or three to get something to you.########################################### Subj: Non Sequitur Date: 98-07-09 02:02:32 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
Non sequitur [*FOOTNOTE], Bill. [*FOOTNOTE: Non sequitur (L. "it does not follow"); id est, what you said does not follow logically from the premises, or what you said has nothing to do the discussion.] Whatever does this have to do with creation/evolution or with your repeated avoidance of answering simple and direct questions on the subject of creation/evolution? What's your point? BTW, granted that I do not know how the problem was worded (ie, whether it was only wanting the real roots), but I do not believe that you had completed your work. A third-order polynomial should have three roots, not just two. After rederiving the Quadratic Formula (I never could memorize it with any degree of confidence), I found that the expression (x^2 + 3) has two imaginary roots: +3i and -3i. True, I could have just solved for x^2+3=0, but it's good practice to rederive the formula, especially since I need it so infrequently. I also took a simpler approach to the entire problem. My usual approach to a higher-order polynomial is to whittle it down to a more manageable size by dividing it by possible factors, eventually whittling it down to a quadratic. Eg, dividing by (x+2) yielded the quadratic (x^2+3), to which we could apply more commonly known methods. What I don't know is whether they still teach long division of polynomials in algebra (my math reference book has it, but then that's a German translation of a Russian book). I'm fairly sure that they no longer teach interpolation nor calculating a square root (via a procedure reminiscent of long division). Maybe the next time I'm bored and cannot fall asleep (engineer talk, Liber8r), I'll reconstruct my slide-rule method for solving quadratics. ### BEGIN ### Subj: see what a giver I am? Date: 98-06-26 21:39:21 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Never mind..I think I know it..I think the question is to factor x3+2x2 + 3x + 6 first start with this" ( ) ( ) your two brackets then look at the ends for clues the x3 is the first clue there is no number in frnot so that makes it easy thus we know it will look like this (x2 ) (x ) that gives us our x3 now look at the far right for a clue we have a plus six.....the fact it is a positive number is a big clue thus it will be either (x2 + ) (x + ) or it will be (x2- ) (x - ) since a positive times a positive makes apositive..and a negative times a negative makes a positiove it is one of the two...lets solve this mystery! how do we solve it....look at the middle numbers...what are they, positive or negative? they are positive...the middle numbers come from addition...so the ends must be positive thus we have this (x2 + ) (x + ) now lets find the end number...again clue #1 is the far right number it is a 6 the end numbers must result in six when multiplied by each other what numbers when multiplied by each other are 6? 1 x 6 2 x 3 3 x 2 6 x 1 I highly recommend writing these "tables" out when you reach this point! notice how i wrote every possibility (I mean I wrote out 1 x 6 and 6 x 1) one of those four possibilities will fill out our answer...our job is to find which one! so we have (x2 + ) (x + ) its crucial you understand how to multiply these factors.......if you do....you will know that the number we are look for that goes next to (x + ) will be multiplied by the x2......thus that number must be the 2 (since our anser is x3 + 2x2 +3x +6 ) again the x2 prefix is 2...thus that puts the 2 next to the ( x + ) so now we have (x2 + ) (x + 2 ) look at our table of numbers of what numbers produce 6.....since 2 is on the right...3 must be on the left....so we have (x2 + 3 ) (x + 2 ) Hope that helps! ### END ############################################## Subj: Junk Mail Date: 98-07-09 02:03:27 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1 File: JUNKMAIL.TXT (76415 bytes) DL Time (14400 bps): < 1 minute
Non sequitur, Bill. And why are you sending me junk mail now? ### BEGIN MESSAGE HEADERS ### Subj: Fwd: Words of Comfort - Words of Praise - Volume 1 - Issue 1 - June 2, 1998 Date: 98-06-26 23:21:59 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Subj: Fwd: Words of Comfort - Words of Praise - Volume 1 - Issue 2 Date: 98-06-26 23:03:20 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: OzJim, DWise1 Subj: Please read this Date: 98-06-26 23:33:51 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 ### END MESSAGE HEADERS ### I've attached those three messages in a file so that Liber8r can see them and recognize that they have nothing whatsoever to do with any discussion of creation/evolution. He can also see that they amount to about 76,000 bytes of fundamentalist junk mail. Like the tracts that "true Christians" leave in public restrooms; worthless little things that could never serve as useful a purpose as a Sears & Roebuck catalog would. [Warning: Do not attempt to use pages from a Sears & Roebuck catalog with indoor plumbing. TP is specially made to fall apart in water, whereas a catalog page would tend to clog the pipes.] Yes, despite my very busy schedule, I did read them. They are totally out of place here. Why did you send them to me, Bill? I could gather together junk mail to dump on you too (I've got a couple Unitarian beauties standing by), but I won't, because it would have nothing to do with the issue. The issue, in case you have forgotten, is creation/evolution. If you believe the issue to be something else, then please say so in such a manner as we can understand what you are saying (ie, provide a little context -- at the very least some indication of what the question was -- , instead of your usual grunting "yes" or "no" or a non sequitur one-liner -- one of the benefits of writing over talking is that you have time to string words together, a boon to the inarticulate, such as myself). Have I ever told you about Paul Ekdahl on CompuServe? He would post these huge anti-evolution messages and then ignore any questions or challenges that we had. Instead, his "response" would be to post yet another huge message that had something to do with our responses, but not directly. It turned out that he was copying his messages verbatim from creationist books (so slavishly verbatim that he would also include footnote numbers), but without any understanding of the claims being made nor the science being attacked, hence he could not author his own responses and he could not deal with our responses. He apparently thought he could just come on-line and give us what-for, but he had no understanding of the subject matter nor or what was going on. The few times that I was finally able to get him to respond in his own words, he invariably did nothing be try to convert me (he was a Seventh-Day Adventist, which we abbreviated to SDAist). After this had been going on for months, he made one last massive attempt to convert me, in which he described some of the "supernatural" feats that his sect's founder, Ellen G. White, would perform while in a trance. When I described having been able to perform the exact same feats and more in Aikido without having to go into a trance, he announced that he had to go off-line for the Christmas season (he ran a mail-order business) and never returned. Bill, you are beginning to remind me of Paul. That is not a good thing.########################################### Subj: Tell My Why Not Date: 98-07-09 02:03:34 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: "Desperate" Scientists Invent "Missing E Date: 98-06-26 23:09:49 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 lets meet! or phone chat ### END ### Bill, you already know why my situation precludes meeting or chatting on the phone, since I have explained it to you several times already. Since your actions strongly suggest that you never read what others say, I must ask you YET AGAIN to tell me the reasons I gave you. "100%", huh? YET AGAIN, I must ask you to come up with a workable plan for how I am supposed to meet with or "chat" with you.########################################### Subj: Re: Serious Humor Date: 98-07-09 02:03:41 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ### Subj: Fwd: Serious humor Date: 98-06-26 23:13:01 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 ----------------- Forwarded Message: Subj: Serious humor Date: 98-06-13 12:29:24 EDT From: GOT2PRAY I was riding the bus downtown the other day and reading my bible when this man sat down next to me and said " You don't really believa all that stuff do you?" I turned to look at him and said "Of course I do it is the word of God." He kind of laughed at me and said " Well how about the Old Testament do you believe all that stuff too?" And I nodded my head and answered "Why yes I believe that also. Why do you ask?" He kind of laughed again and said " How about the story of Jonah? You surely don't believe that do you?" I was getting annoyed but I replied " Sure I believe everything that is written the Bible." He snorted and said " Well tell me this then: What did he eat when he was in the belly of the whale all that time?" I paused and then said " I don't know but when I get to heaven I will ask him." He said " What if he is not there?" And I replied " Then you can ask him." ### END ### Every day the minister took a walk and every day he walked past a house with a large beautiful garden. And every day he saw the owner of the house hard at work in the garden. The minister always admired the beauty of that garden. Finally, one day, when the owner was working next to the fence, the minister stopped to compliment him on his garden, "It's a wonderful job you and God have done with this garden." "Yeah," came the response. "You should have seen the mess it was when only God was taking care of it." From a Unitarian call to prayer: "Knowing that prayer does not change things, but prayer changes us and we are the agents of change." Amen. Shalom. Blessed Be.########################################### Subj: Re: "Me no scared"? Date: 98-07-09 02:04:12 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ### Subj: "Me no scared"? Date: 98-06-25 01:21:35 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1 [clipped] Again, if you do not know what the Clipboard is or how to use it, then ASK. Since your computer is a PC running Windows, I know that the Clipboard is available for your use; it has been available since Windows v1.0. The only question remaining is whether you know that. I am not being facetious here. I am sincerely offering technical advice, if it is needed. I get the impression that your computer skills and knowledge are still fairly rudimentary, so I have to guess at what you know and do not know how to do. I only ask here that you let me know whether that advice, or other computer advice, is needed. If it is needed, then I will give it gladly. ### END ### ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: "Me no scared"? Date: 98-06-26 23:42:34 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 In a message dated 98-06-25 01:21:35 EDT, you write: << facetious >> How facetious. Me want public debate with you. Me can keep you off rabbit trail in public debate. Me want public debate! ### END ### >>How facetious. << I said that I was sincerely offering technical advice, if it was needed, and I meant precisely that. There is no disgrace in being a newbie and it is sheer stupidity to cling to one's ignorance, especially when offered the chance to learn something useful. Even though I have worked with computers since 1977, I still learn at least one new thing every month. That was a sincere offer to help. I offered you my hand in friendship and aid, asking for nothing in return. You slapped my hand away, scornfully. You are witnessing to us loud and clear what kind of people Christians are. Since my question is yet another one of the questions "100% answered" which you never answered, I ask again: DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE CLIPBOARD IS AND HOW TO USE IT? Your actions say that you do not know and your mouth refuses to say anything. >>Me want public debate with you. Me can keep you off rabbit trail in public debate. Me want public debate!<< Can't get much more public than being on-line. My offer is still open. An on-line debate would keep you more honest, something that a verbal debate could not do. Please explain what you mean by "rabbit trail"; I do not have any cultural context for that term. Why must you mock other people and other cultures? I saw the first two movies (but not the third one, the trial); Billy Jack spoke plain English, not broken. Or are you just continuing to witness? PS Thank you for finally starting to include some context. It does make your replies much more intelligible.########################################### Subj: Re: Thanks for Offer Date: 98-07-09 02:04:20 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ###
Subj: Re: Thanks for Offer
Date: 98-06-26 23:45:43 EDT
From: BillyJack6
To: DWise1
you can choose the format and the moderator and teh place...quit galloping!
### END ###
Finally! I knew that you would eventually see reason, though you did have me
worried about you there.
I can provide the page; I could even create and use a different screen name
reserved only for the debate. We should be able to moderate ourselves,
unless you prefer somebody else to handle that, like Liber8r (whom I name
here only because he's our only mutual acquaintance, unless you know Frank
Steiger).
As for format, we could keep that loose, but to the point. We could both
post an introductory entry (ie, one by you and a second one by me) which
states our positions and our basic claims and arguments. Then we can start
posting responses to each other.
That part could be kept loose, but the next part needs to be adhered to
fairly strictly. Somewhere in each entry, there will need to be a clearly
identified section to contain questions. If I ask you a question, then it
will be placed in this section and be clearly identified by a number (or
whatever other means) that will uniquely identify that question. Within the
entire debate, each question will therefore be identified by the entry ID (be
that serial number or date or whatever) and the question number within that
entry. A question could be asked within the text of the entry, but in order
to be answered it must also be placed within the questions section. When a
question is being answered, then its ID must be referenced, so that answers
can be matched with questions.
>...quit galloping!<
Bill, do you even know what is meant by the "Gish Gallop" and how and why it
is used?
I do not gallop. I phrase my questions thoughtfully and with care. I try to
ensure that they are reasonable and that you should be able to respond to
them. I do not try to use my questions as a mere rhetorical device meant to
inundate the other person with massive amounts of misinformation that he
would have no hope of countering.
I seek to reveal the truth, not to bury it in taurine excrement.
###########################################
Subj: Re: inspired!
Date: 98-07-09 02:04:27 EDT
From: DWise1
To: BillyJack6
CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ### Subj: inspired! Date: 98-06-26 23:53:51 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 I attended one of your seminars a couple weeks ago at the Calvary Chapel of Anaheim. I just wanted to tell you that I was very inspired by the message. You told me that you would send me a book on evolution vs. creation if I e-mailed you. It would be greatly appreciated if I may receive that book for I am very interested in the particular topic. Any further news on upcoming seminars or events would also be great. Thank you. ps - If possible, I would like to receive further information on the topic of evolution vs. creation. It would be greatly appreciated. ### END ### Uh, Bill. I don't know how to break this to you, but I have never given any seminar at Calvary Chapel. You must be mistaking me for somebody else. However, if you were forwarding to me a message that had been sent to you, then you need to say so. Context, context, context. Or, as I keep trying to explain to my wife, in vain, I never took Mind Reading 101, so you need to tell me what you think I need to know.########################################### Subj: Re: Look at the happiness you could spread! Date: 98-07-09 02:04:36 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ###
Subj: Look at the happiness you could spread!
Date: 98-06-27 00:02:22 EDT
From: BillyJack6
To: DWise1
Bill;
On behalf of Boeing, I want to thank you for an excellent presentation
yesterday at our facility in Long Beach. It was one of the best I've heard
and clearly should cause people to think. But more than the material, I
would like to thank you for showing me how such a sensitive subject can be
presented in a loving and caring manner. That indeed was the highlight of
the lecture.
I've been discussing this issue with my family and many of my friends
recently. Being a new Christian, I find that the way a message is put
forward is as critical (most of the time) as the message itself. You
certainly have developed, with the Lords help, a manner that is pleasing yet
it still shows the firmness of your conviction.
Since my salvation a year and a half ago, I've also been collecting
Creation/evolution information to study and to use as I witness. I've
attached my Word file (Word 6.0) on this subject for your information. If
you can use it, God bless. I'm sure, you have seen most of it before.
If you have a similar file that you wouldn't mind releasing, I would
certainly like to have it and try to incorporate it in my witnessing. I have
seven people that I am talking and emailing with and certainly would put your
information to good use.
God bless you in your witness. I look forward to getting both the video and
audio tapes. If you need financial assistance in your effort, please let me
know. God has blessed me and my wife with good jobs and an overabundant
life.
All God's love.
### END ###
Boy, if he only knew what you had just done to him.
"As the shades of night are falling,
Comes the fellow everyone knows.
It's the old dope peddler,
spreading joy wherever he goes."
("The Old Dope Peddler", Tom Lehrer)
Like that of the Old Dope Peddler in the song, the "joy" you spread is
short-lived, is illusionary, and will lead to even greater suffering when it
wears off and reality sets in. They receive your message joyfully because it
appears to confirm and reinforce their theology, even though at the same time
you are sowing the seeds of their faith's destruction by making their
theology dependant on contrary-to-fact claims.
Glenn Morton and the geologists from Christian Heritage College had also
received your message joyfully. They believed firmly and fervently in your
creation science and in its claims. They approached their practice of
geology firmly and devoutly from the creationist perspective. And still they
could not deny the hard geological facts and evidence that they had been
taught BY CREATION SCIENCE did not exist and could not exist if their
religion and faith were to have any meaning. They suffered severe crises of
faith precisely because creation science's claims are contrary-to-fact. IF
creation science's claims were true, then they would have found exactly what
they had been taught to expect to find. Instead, they found what creation
science had taught them that they would not find. Creation science's claims
are demonstrably false and have been demonstrated to be false.
Bill, even if you were to post a million letters of appreciation, that would
not change the facts. All your letters and notes of appreciation say
anything about is the immediate effects, not the long-term effects. Let's
shift the analogy from drugs to wireheads. You wire up a lab rat's brain so
that when he presses the bar in his cage, it delivers a jolt of pleasure to
his brain. In very short time, being the little hedonist that he is, that
rat is pressing that bar as fast as he can. To the exclusion of everything
else, including eating and drinking. So the rat dies of starvation and
dehydration right next to more food and water that any rat could possibly
need. If that rat could write, he would send you letters of appreciation
that would make the others seem lukewarm at best -- that is, if you could pry
him away from that bar long enough to write to you. Even though in reality
you had sentenced him to a long and lingering death.
In every letter of appreciation that you post, that person had not yet gone
out to test your claims, to discover what the truth really is, to undergo a
crisis of faith solely because of your claims. You are just avoiding the
issue. You are just avoiding the fact of what happened to Glenn Morton and
the CHC-trained geologists and why.
Their story clearly shows that the claims of creation science are
contrary-to-fact, that they are lies. Why must your religion be supported by
lies? Why can you not understand the effects of supporting your religion
with lies?
Instead of only claiming to be "100%", why not try to BE "100%"? Then you
can work on being 110%. (in case you have not had the privilege of having
served, there is indeed such a thing as being 110%)
###########################################
Subj: Show Me Your 100%
Date: 98-07-09 02:04:48 EDT
From: DWise1
To: BillyJack6
CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ###
Subj: Re: Thanks for Offer
Date: 98-06-26 23:47:15 EDT
From: BillyJack6
To: DWise1
12.6 % no way! I answered 100% you just did not lke my answers!
### END ###
"100%"??? Well, since you claim to have answered 100% of my questions (ie,
every single one of them), let's look at a few of the questions from the list
in QUESTI~1.TXT (it was QUESTIONS.TXT, but 16-bit AOL 3.0 cannot handle long
names) and you can tell me when and how you had answered them.
Oh, and please keep in mind that I have asked several of these questions
repeatedly and have never received an answer.
1. Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?
When and how did you answer this one?
2. Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 years
old then Scripture has no meaning?
When and how did you answer this one?
3. 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?
When and how did you answer this one?
4. One thing I did ask for was some of the raw data from Entrez that you had
used in your newsletter. What is the word on that request?
When and how did you answer this one?
5. Do you have a lesson to present? Then please, go right ahead and present
it. Nothing is stopping you, nor has anything ever been stopping you.
When and how did you answer this one?
6. 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.
When and how did you answer this one?
7. How, then, can you honestly ever expect to use creation science to convert
me or anybody else possessing knowledge of creation science? The only way
would be for us to abandon our higher moral and ethical standards of truth
and honesty. Why would I ever want to lower my standards so drastically?
When and how did you answer this one?
8. What is your definition here of "uniformitarian"?
When and how did you answer this one?
9. 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)
When and how did you answer this one?
10. Who would use uniformitarian arguments? (obviously, from this example, we
know that creationists do)
When and how did you answer this one?
11. What are the alternatives to uniformitarian arguments?
When and how did you answer this one?
15. Since you know that your claim to have been an atheist is false, why do
you continue to make that claim?
When and how did you answer this one?
16. Bill, since when did the Truth need to be upheld by lies?
When and how did you answer this one?
17. 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.
When and how did you answer this one?
1. "As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own." Did you
really believe that? Seriously?
When and how did you answer this one?
19. Consider the statement: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then
Scripture has no meaning." Does that statement accurately reflect your own
beliefs?
When and how did you answer this one?
26. Given the virtual impossibility for me to call you, just exactly how am I
supposed to call you? What workable plan can you present?
When and how did you answer this one?
28. Were you working at Ford Aerospace, DIVAD Division, circa 1983-1985?
When and how did you answer this one?
31. Tell me, Bill. Who among us here, entre nous trois, comes the closest to
believing in the abrupt appearance of fully formed, complex living organisms
who lack any progenitors (ie, parents)? In all honesty, who among us three
comes the closest to believing in spontaneous generation?
When and how did you answer this one?
36. [CFCs and Bill's newsletter article]
OK, Bill, now that you know the rest of the story, what will you do about it?
Will your readers ever hear about this from you? Will you continue to tell
your story of how nobody could answer your questions?
When and how did you answer this one?
39. 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.
When and how did you answer this one?
42. 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?
When and how did you answer this one?
46. 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?
When and how did you answer this one?
48. >Several years ago a co-worker was excited to inform me his son was
accepted to Wheaton College. ... All I have to say is I knew this young man
before he went to Wheaton and after he graduated from Wheaton and his faith
may not be ruined, but it sure is not where it used to be. Maybe it was a
result of some of his instructors, maybe not, but there was a big change
never the less. He now strongly argues that it is ridiculous to believe
Genesis is literal. No longer do I hear any exciting spiritual news
originating from his life.<
Have you discussed this with him? What reasons does he give for arguing that
"it is ridiculous to believe Genesis is literal"? Have you listened to those
reasons and checked them out? Have you asked him what experience(s) had led
him to his current position AND LISTENED to him? What "exciting spiritual
news originating from his life" did you hear before college and what
"spiritual news originating from his life" have you heard after college? Is
your current low opinion of his current spiritual life colored solely by it
not being based on young-earth creationism? What was his major and what (is
he doing)/(has he done) with it?
When and how did you answer this one?
49. Doesn't your theology give lip service to the inherent depravity of man
and of his efforts? How then can you worship as infallible a human's
interpretation?
When and how did you answer this one?
52. 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.
When and how did you answer this one?
53. 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?
When and how did you answer this one?
55. So, even though you know that there is a serious problem with creation
science claims being contrary to fact and that this problem is so great that
it has actually caused DEVOUT creationists, even ones far more devout than
you are, to have severe crises of faith, you have gone to NINE HIGH SCHOOLS
and presented these claims that you know to be false and that you know can
cause those kids to LOSE THEIR FAITH!?
When and how did you answer this one?
When you answer in monosyllables, could you please repeat part of my question
so that we can tell what you are grunting "yes" or "no" to? If you need to
be told what the Clipboard is and how to use it, PLEASE ASK!
When and how did you answer this one?
57. Are you using straight HTML or a developer's kit?
When and how did you answer this one?
58. Are there parts of the process or about HTML that I might be able to help
you with?
When and how did you answer this one?
59. When do you plan to upload your pages?
When and how did you answer this one?
60. Do you know what a URL is? (sorry, but I cannot tell what I can assume
with you and what I cannot)
When and how did you answer this one?
61. What are you going to offer on your creationism page?
When and how did you answer this one?
62. >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?
When and how did you answer this one?
63. >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.
When and how did you answer this one?
64. Where did you see anything getting "push[ed]" in that article [about the
conference]?
For that matter, that article seemed to be rather critical of the conference,
so how could the article have been "pushing" the hypotheses coming out of the
conference?
When and how did you answer this one?
65. You grunted "Yes" to which question?
When and how did you answer this one?
Too? Who else that we know of believes in Lamarckian evolution's "Ladder of
Life"?
When and how did you answer this one?
Bill, what does your high school presentation consist of? Tell us PRECISELY
what you tell those kids. Then tell us PRECISELY why you refuse to review
the facts. Or don't you think that you have any responsibility to those
kids?
When and how did you answer this one?
I did not have to retype your message. I used the Clipboard. If you do not
know what the Clipboard is and/or how to use it, then just ask. It will
truly make life easier.
Again, if you do not know what the Clipboard is or how to use it, then ASK.
Since your computer is a PC running Windows, I know that the Clipboard is
available for your use; it has been available since Windows v1.0. The only
question remaining is whether you know that.
When and how did you answer this one?
What "evidence" do you intend to show the audience?
When and how did you answer this one?
Who, then, is avoiding whose questions, Bill? I think that the evidence
speaks rather eloquently.
###########################################
Subj: C-14 "Crash" Point
Date: 98-07-09 02:04:57 EDT
From: DWise1
To: BillyJack6
CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ###
Subj: Re: "Fwd: Carbon Dating "Crash""
Date: 98-06-05 22:40:19 EDT
From: DWise1
To: BillyJack6
CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
In a message dated 98-06-05 02:03:30 EDT, you write:
<< Subj: Re: "Fwd: Carbon Dating "Crash""
Date: 98-06-05 02:03:30 EDT
From: BillyJack6
To: DWise1
Carbon dating only produces recent dates due to its short half life. >>
True.
So what was your point?
### END ###
### BEGIN ###
Subj: Re: "Fwd: Carbon Dating "Crash""
Date: 98-06-26 23:05:23 EDT
From: BillyJack6
To: DWise1
that was my point!
### END ###
Huh? That does not make any sense. Why would you go to such lengths to make
a "point" that is a commonly known fact to everybody familiar with the
subject? I could try to make a similar "point" that the earth orbits the
Sun, but what would I accomplish?
For that matter, what were you trying to accomplish? Nobody would go to such
lengths to make a simple obvious point that everybody should know unless they
were trying to attach some kind of greater significance to it. Bill, just
what were you trying to say with your simple and obvious point?
Were you trying to insinuate that the scientists using radio-carbon dating
are ignorant of C14's short half-life? Even you should know how big a lie
that would be. Certainly Hollywood and most of the general public are
ignorant about it; we keep getting those classic movie and TV lines where a
"scientist" in the story states that something was radio-carbon dated to be
millions of years old (I just saw that one again about a month ago on "Outer
Limits" -- I made sure to point out to my teen-ager the error of that line).
Oh. Another possibility just occurred to me. Could it be that you yourself
were ignorant of that simple and commonly-known fact about radio-carbon
dating? That you would have taken seriously that Hollywood howler of a
scientist accepting a radio-carbon date in the order of millions of years?
That you had just discovered that you had had the wrong ideas about
radio-carbon dating all along? That you wanted to spread the word that C14
methods do not yield any dates older than 50,000 years? That you thought
that there was some kind of secret conspiracy, à la the X-Files, to keep this
information away from the public? Well, Bill, that information is freely
available; all you have to do is look. Just because you had not known any
better doesn't mean that nobody else did either.
I think that we could both agree that the general public is very ignorant
about science. Where we disagree is over what needs to be done about it.
Your prefered approach seems to be to attack science and to have less and
lower quality science taught, whereas my prefered approach would be to
improve science education, both for students and for adults, and to have more
and higher quality science taught. Unlike you, I believe that we need more
science, not less.
I loved what the Governor of Mississippi said about half a decade ago in
defense of his education reforms: "We already tried ignorance, so we know
that it doesn't work!"
###########################################
Subj: TMA/ Again with the Mitosis/Meiosis
Date: 98-07-09 02:05:13 EDT
From: DWise1
To: BillyJack6
CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ### Subj: Two Model Approach Date: 98-06-05 22:33:57 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1 Bill: On the subject of the "Two Model Approach" (TMA), I just came across a little something I wrote some years ago (1991). As part of my approach of taking creation science claims at face value, I decided to use the TMA to generate expectations from both evolution and the creation model that then could be tested against the real world. When I did so, I found the "creation model" to be in much sorrier shape than current evolutionary theory and modern science. BTW, note that I used current evolutionary theory and the applicable scientific field instead of the TMA's "evolution model", since the latter bears little more than a superficial resemblance to evolution. [clipped] Now you see why the ICR avoids discussing or even defending the "creation model" in debate; it's very vulnerable! Bill, by an interesting coincidence, you also avoid discussing or defending the "creation model", or even creation science itself. Did I say "coincidence"? I don't think it is. ### END ### ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Two Model Approach Date: 98-06-26 23:04:42 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 So mitosis animals gave rise to meiosis animals how? ### END ### There will be two separate responses, the second one of which will answer your question, yet again. But first there are a few issues that need to be addressed. That means that I DEMAND THAT YOU ADDRESS THESE ISSUES! INTELLIGIBLY! (ie, meaningfully worded and with sufficient context for us to understand what you are trying to say; single-word responses or single-line non sequiturs will not be acceptable) Your failure to do so will be duly noted and interpreted as your concession that your question is meaningless and posed for devious purposes. I apologize for using such harsh conditions, but considering your past elusiveness and unintelligible utterings, I sincerely believe that they are absolutely necessary. 1. Your response has nothing to do with the message you are responding to. This is a very common thing that you do, sending replies that have nothing to do with the original message. The original message was about an intellectual exercise in which I took creation science's "Two Model Approach" (TMA) at face value and applied it to a few specific claims. Instead of raising objections to what I had written, or asking for clarification on certain points, or offering a counter-example, you did not address the subject matter at all. Rather, you tried a diversionary tactic to draw our attention away from some of creation science's serious deficiencies by posing one of your "impossible" questions again. Is that what you mean by "rabbit trail"? If so, then please get back on track. 2. Despite your ludicrous claim that you have answered "100%" of my questions, the fact still remains that your usual response to a question of mine is to completely ignore it. Then, when my answer to YOUR question does not meet with your approval, you put on a big show of complaining that I had not answered your question and either demanding that I answer your question or denouncing me for never answering your questions. CHECK THE FACTS, MISTER! If you cannot conduct a reality check on your own, then I will gladly provide you with a copy of nearly ALL our email traffic. Then you can conduct your own count and you can report back to us showing us EXACTLY where you got your counts from. Until you drastically improve your own record for answering my questions, INTELLIGIBLY, you have no right to expect me to answer any of yours. For being a member of a group that claims (falsely, of course) exclusive rights to the Golden Rule, you have demonstrated a singularly dismal comprehension of what that rule entails. IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM TO ANSWER "100%" OF MY QUESTIONS, THEN YOU NEED TO START DOING SO -- RIGHT NOW! 3. In your self-deluded self-proclaimed perfect record of answering my questions "100%", you have failed completely to answer my questions to you concerning your first posting of your mitosis/meiosis question. Please answer them this time, INTELLIGIBLY: ### BEGIN REPEAT TRANSMISSION ### >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. And what is this business of "explain how they 'evolved into meisosis animals." What, so now I have to be a god myself, required to possess omniscience that I can peer into the past and gather all the little details? All while you repeatedly weasel out of even the simplest of questions, like "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" (a perfectly reasonable question, since you had asked me whether and why I thought the earth was billions of years old and I answered your question) and "What was meant by your outburst, "Its not!" (Subj: Re: Where'd ya go?; Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT)?"? If you expect me to answer that kind of a question, then you need to be ready and able to answer that question yourself, plus other questions of that level of complexity. You cannot expect to get away with a say-nothing "explanation" like "God did it." That won't wash. If you expect me to describe the details of how some trait evolved, then we must expect YOU to described in the SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL how God had created that same trait! Unless you are able and willing to produce that kind of an answer, you cannot demand the same of anyone else. Of course, we see that very same thing coming from the professional creationists, only they are nowhere near as blatant as you are in dodging direct questions. I recall Henry Morris claiming that creation science offers better answers than evolution because he says that evolution claims to be able to answer EVERYTHING, which it cannot, whereas creation science does not claim to be able to answer anything, which it succeeds at. Like you, the professional creationists dodge direct questions. Unlike you, they are usually able to make it appear as if they they had answered the question, provided you do not listen closely enough. The professional creationists also do as do you (I'm sure that you had learned from them) in asking one "impossible" question after another, never actually expecting an answer. The only reason for asking those questions is to put their opponent on the defensive and to make their opponent's position appear weak and tenuous. Remember, questions like "why is the sky blue" are NOT simple (again, a famous astronomy PhD candidate, Cliff Stoll, was hit with that question in his final oral exam and it took him hours to answer it). Such questions as you keep asking are nothing more than rhetorical tricks. If all you are going to do is play rhetorical games and rely in tricks, how could you ever expect me to consider a face-to-face debate? Please excuse me if I am less than impressed by your attitude and your rhetorical games here. ### END REPEAT TRANSMISSION ### 4. I object to the question itself for the following reasons (several of which I have raised before): a. It is not a reasonable question. Your question demands a detailed account of events which happened in the far-distant past and which, by their very nature, would leave little or no fossil evidence behind. This would be analogous to my demanding that you provide us with a detailed itinerary for Moses and the Israelites showing in detail how far they travelled and precisely where they made camp every single day of their 40-year journey from Egypt to Canaan. Could you do that? Would it be a reasonable question for me to ask you? ANSWER THIS QUESTION INTELLIGIBLY! Answering your question requires advanced expertise in certain fields of biology and paleontology. I am a software engineer with foreign-language training (BS Computer Science, BA German, BA Applied Math, AS Computer Technology [different from Computer Science]). It would not be reasonable to expect me to be able to provide an expert answer. You should be able to expect me to answer questions concerning number-base conversions, combinatorial logic, C syntax, CPU operations, extended adjectives, etc. You should not be able to expect me to provide detailed answers in paleo-microbiology. ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS INTELLIGIBLY: Why would you expect me to be able to answer your question? If I, a non-expert, am unable to answer your question, then what possible bearing could that have on the issue? If you, an obvious computer newbie, are unable to answer a question concerning the Clipboard, does that magically cause Windows to cease to exist? b. Such questions are mere rhetorical tricks, designed to be unanswerable. I've already described creationist strategy and tactics in a "debate". You're just carrying those tactics into this "discussion." ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS INTELLIGIBLY: Do you honestly expect anyone to be able to answer your question? [if you have trouble understanding honesty, just try to fake it] If your question is intended to be unanswerable, then why ask it? What are you trying to accomplish by your question? c. It is worded very poorly. For one thing, one does not normally talk in terms of "mitosis-reproducing" and "meiosis-reproducing" organisms. Using those terms in this manner causes confusion. Those terms apply specifically to single cells, not to an entire multi-cellular organism consisting of differentiated cells. Using those terms would also leave out other forms of reproduction, such as spores, budding, cloning (ie, naturally occuring cloning), regeneration after dismemberment (eg, flatworms and starfish), and runners. Rather, the terms "asexual reproduction" and "sexual reproduction" are used. Rather than deploying a rhetorical trick of demanding a detailed description of the actual process by which a trait had actually evolved, a serious questioner would ask how a trait could have evolved, ie, to ask what kind of an explanation the theory could produce. In the first case, the answer could require information which is simply not available, whereas in the second case, the answer would be an exercise in applying the theory under question in order to see whether the theory COULD provide an answer. Do you see the difference? There could be several plausible explanations that could explain how something could have happened, but there can only be one account of how it actually did happen. Remember also that the question of how something happened is separate from the question of whether it happened. This means that the inability to answer the question of how something works (ie, describing the mechanism of a phenomenon) does not disprove the existence of that something (ie, whether the phenomenon actually exists). Refer in my critique of your "Weird Science" to my discussion of Duane Gish's quoting of philosopher of science Larry Laudan. Therefore, the question should be something like: "How could mitosis-reproducing animals have evolved into meiosis animals?" Thereupon, the questionee could apply evolutionary theory to generate one or more scenarios. Then, we could examine those scenarios and determine what evidence we might expect to find if a given scenario were true. Then we could devise a number of tests for that evidence and, depending on what we do or do not find, support or eliminate various of the scenarios. Through that process, we could eventually find some of that missing information of your original question. Even more appropriate for our discussion would be an alternative question of: "Why would you think that meiosis-reproducing animals evolved from mitosis-reproducing animals?" This question directly addresses the issue of our holding two different and apparently opposing positions on the question of the origin and inter-relatedness of species. ANSWER THIS QUESTION INTELLIGIBLY: Would you agree that the alternative questions should be asked instead of your own question? Why not? Finally, you must have a reason for asking this question. Whether or not my understanding is correct that your sole intent in asking it was to stump me and put me on the defensive, there is still the question of why you had asked this particular question. Therefore, I will ask the following counter-question, one which you should be completely capable of answering, which assumes that you believe this question to be a great problem for evolution. ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS INTELLIGIBLY: Do you consider your question to present a major problem for evolution? If so, then why would your question present a major problem for evolution? Why don't you ask more pertinent questions, like whether Archaeopteryx is "100% bird", or how the three bones in the reptilian jaw could have ever migrated to the middle ear without leaving generations of nascent mammals with unhinged jaws (or, as Gish would put it, how could they chew and hear at the same time?), or how a three-chambered heart (amphibian & reptilian) could have ever turned into a four-chambered heart (mammals) and kept beating for all the generations when that was happening?########################################### Subj: TMA/ Again with the Mitosis/Meiosis Date: 98-07-09 02:05:26 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1
### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Two Model Approach Date: 98-06-26 23:04:42 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 So mitosis animals gave rise to meiosis animals how? ### END ### Well, at least you learned that the word is "meiosis." As I said in the other message, one does not normally talk in terms of "mitosis-reproducing" and "meiosis-reproducing" organisms. Using those terms in this manner causes confusion. Those terms apply specifically to single cells, not to an entire multi-cellular organism consisting of differentiated cells. Using those terms would also leave out other forms of reproduction, such as spores, budding, cloning (ie, naturally occuring cloning), regeneration after dismemberment (eg, flatworms and starfish), and runners. Rather, the terms "asexual reproduction" and "sexual reproduction" are used. Hence, your question should read: "So asexually reproducing animals gave rise to sexual reproducing animals how?" Therefore, I will proceed on the assumption that this interpretation of your question is correct and acceptable. If my assumption is incorrect, then please inform me INTELLIGIBLY of that fact and explain INTELLIGIBLY what the proper interpretation should be. If you do not response INTELLIGIBLY, then I can only assume that my assumption was both correct and acceptable. Please note that if your response is unintelligibly -- ie, if we cannot determine what you are saying or what you are refering to; an intelligible response must contain sufficient context to indicate what is being responded to -- then we will have no option but to proceed under the stated assumption. Obviously, from an evolutionary perspective, the answer would be that they had both evolved from a common ancestor. The fine details of exactly how they evolved and exactly what their common ancestor was are lost in the mists of time. Soft tissue and cellular structures do not fossilize readily and the events in question would have occurred in pre-Cambrian times, over 600 million years ago. Furthermore, since I am not an expert in the field and do not have complete knowledge of the current body of knowledge (although pre-cambrian fossils are relatively rare, they do nonetheless exist), I cannot state authoritatively what theories or hypotheses have been advanced to answer your question, nor what state of testing they would be in. Instead, given my time restrictions, I will examine what changes would have been needed and how drastic a change that would have been. I believe that this approach would best answer your question, since I understand the purpose of your question to be to claim that the transition from asexual to sexual reproduction would have been to drastic a change to have been able to happen, plus, you would want to claim that the intermediate stages of the change would not work and would wipe out the species before the changes could have been completed. Did I miss anything? Oh, yes, you would also want to claim that every single part of the change would have had to have been in place before any of it could be of any use. I think that should do it for now. If you disagree with my approach or with my answer, you MUST state PRECISELY WHY, INTELLIGIBLY. Failure to do so will be duly noted and interpreted as your concession that I had answered your question to your satisfaction. OK, a couple basic principles to start off with when working with evolution. Evolution rarely creates anything entirely new; it usually takes something preexisting and modifies it. Part of that modification can be, and often does involve, duplication, so that the modification of a feature does not necessitate the loss of that original feature. And, the "final" function of a feature is not necessarily the same as the original function, so there is no need to try to incorporate foresight (ie, there is not need for a future eye to "know" that it is going to become an eye). So, what would it take for asexual organisms to become sexual organisms? Here is what it looks like to me: 1. Meiosis. 2. Getting the gametes together. 3. Development. That looks about like it to me. Can you think of anything else? OK, first some basics. Asexual reproduction can involve a lot more than simple cell division, mitosis. When we deal with multi-cellular organisms, we also deal with development through cell growth (ie, mitosis) and cell differentiation. It also turns out that a log of multi-cellular organisms use asexual reproduction. Some, like hydrae, use budding, in which some of its cells start growing and differentiating into "baby"hydrae. Some plants, like strawberries, send out runners which put down roots and become more strawberry plants. Other plants use cloning, in which twigs (Greek "klon") from the plant will grow new copies of that plant. Mushrooms and ferns reproduce asexually with spores. Interestingly, in the case of ferns, the spores asexually produce the SEXUAL version of the fern, which then produce seeds for the next fern sexually. In addition, most of the examples given above also use sexual reproduction. Therefore, we have a number of organisms which are not entirely sexual or asexual. Maybe we could call them "bisexual". No, I think that term is already taken########################################### Subj: Re: Memorial and Remonstrance Date: 98-07-12 17:05:57 EDT From: liber8r@mcs.net (-- The Liber8r --) To: DWise1@aol.com You wrote: "rush@eibnet.com (Rush Limbaugh). Is that the Rush Limbaugh I think it is? Ever get a response?" Yes and, most definitely, no. The chunky radio personality has never acknowledged me mailings. I have only sent a few letters to him. I can only imagine all the e-mails that he received. The Liber8r The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site respectively: liber8r@mcs.net http://www.mcs.net/~liber8r/ --------------------. At any rate, we find through living examples that many organisms can use both sexual and asexual reproduction. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assume that as a species is developing sexual reproduction, it can continue to reproduce asexually. The transition can work without killing off the species. Next, thanks to your question, development is already taken care of. It is pre-existing in the asexual organisms and would only need minor modification normally needed in the evolution of a new species. There is nothing new that would need to be developed here. Next comes the question of meiosis. We already covered this one, so I'll just repeat it here. Mitosis is the process by which a single cell grows, duplicates its genetic material, then pulls the two sets of chromosomes to either side and finally splits in two, yielding two cells where there had been one. Mitosis consists of seven or nine (the actual number escapes me at present) distinct phases. Mitosis is used by single-celled animals for reproduction. To my knowledge, single-celled organisms and colonies of undifferentiated cells only use mitosis to reproduce and some multi-celled organisms (ie, with bodies consisting of tissues of differentiated cells) effectively use mitosis to reproduce the entire animal through asexual means, though most use sexual reproduction either in addition or in place of asexual reproduction, as covered above. However, the individual cells of multi-celled animals continue to use mitosis to reproduce themselves. Also, some multi-celled animals capable of regeneration can effective create duplicates of themselves if they are cut in pieces; eg, flatworms and starfish. Therefore, we find mitosis still present and working in animals that reproduce via meiosis. Meiosis is the process of producing gametes, AKA "germ cells", each of which contain half of the chromosomes of the original cells. Then two gametes from two different individuals combine to form a cell with a complete set of genetic material, which then uses mitosis to produce more cells, which develop into the embryo, then into the fetus. That process is known as development. Well, it turns out that meiosis is a variation of mitosis, in effect a crippled form, since some steps appear to be missing. First a definition: a "polar body" is a packet of genetic material without the normally-associated cytoplasm. Remembering back to biology class over 20 years ago, the gametes-to-be use mitosis to produce some copies, but then they undergo division before they duplicate any genetic material or cytoplasm. What results in the male are four polar bodies which become sperm and in the female three polar bodies which are discarded and one cell with half its chromosomes, an ovum. So going from mitosis to meiosis does not appear to be that great of a step. No insurmountable problems here. Again, I offer the URL of a page which compares mitosis and meiosis: [http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/Biology/mod2/mitosis/meiosis.htm]. A graphical comparison linked to this page (and displayed on the page in smaller format) is at [http://www.biology.demon.co.uk/Biology/mod2/mitosis/mandm.htm]. It is pretty much as I had remembered it, even though I had forgotten some of the details over the past two decades. Getting the gametes together is the last part. Since our hypothetical ancestral form would inhabit the sea, we have plenty of examples of how this could be accomplished. Many, if not most, aquatic organisms release either their sperm or their eggs or even both into the water. Simple as that. That would establish a method for gamete delivery that would work until more efficient methods could evolve. So, Bill. I don't see any show-stoppers here. Do you?
You wrote:
"rush@eibnet.com (Rush Limbaugh).
Is that the Rush Limbaugh I think it is?
Ever get a
response?"
Yes and, most definitely, no.
The chunky radio
personality has never acknowledged me mailings.
I have only sent a few
letters to him.
I can only imagine all the e-mails that he
received.
The
Liber8r
The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site
respectively:
liber8r@mcs.net
http://www.mcs.net/~liber8r/
If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?########################################### Subj: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-22 00:07:16 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com
Sorry about the delay. I've been extremely busy. ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Memorial and Remonstrance Date: 98-07-12 17:20:10 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him? ### END ### Before I answer, I wish to ask that you state your point. From your question, you seem to be implying that kids are not being so taught, when the opposite is the case. You also seem to be implying that somebody is somehow preventing the religious instruction of children, which is, again, contrary to fact. If you have something to say, then please say it. If you have a claim to make, then please make it (and be willing to support it). If you have a proposal to make, then make it (and be ready to discuss the goals and consequences of that proposal). If you have a case to make, then please make it. If you have no case, then please say so and put an end to your charade. Over the years, I have seen and heard many creationists bewail that nobody will let them present their case. Well, for over a year, we have been asking you to please present your case, but you have steadfastly refused to do so. Please stop being so evasive and start being more forthright. Now as to your question: >If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?< But why place the condition of God's existence on your question? Are you saying that if God does not exist, then kids should NOT be taught about Her? I think that is too restrictive. Besides, wouldn't that also require you to have PROVEN God's existence before you could satisfy that condition to whether you would teach the kids about Her? There is also the question of what is to be meant by "be taught about Him." This can mean any of a number of things; eg: 1. To be taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god. 2. To be indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion. 3. To proselytize. Which meaning of "be taught about Him" do you intend? Or do you intend another meaning? We do know from experience that one of the principal purposes of creation science is to proselytize, so in the absence of any explanation from you (the usual state of affairs), we will have to assume that you are talking about proselytizing. The shifting of gender -- excuse me, Gender -- that I performed above points to another question, the little matter of which god. Whose god? Whose version of "God"? The Fundamentalist version? The Catholic version? The Mormon version? The Unitarian versions (ironically plural)? The Buddhist version? The Mandan version? Whose version? I know that you assume that it will be YOUR version of "God", but what if your child is going to be taught the Mormon, or the CATHOLIC! version of "God", then you may very well change your tune. Remember the bitter experience of the Catholics with the Protestant-run public school system in the 19th century. Or as Brother Orson expressed it (albeit in reference to prayer in the public schools) [quoted from memory]: "Of course, the Fundamentalists believe that it will be their religion that will be the one to be established. If they thought for one moment that the Catholic religion, or the MORMON religion was the one to be established, why, they'd be shoutin' FOR the First Amendment just as loud as they're shoutin' to have it torn apart." Elsewhere on the same subject of school prayer, Brother Orson said: "In the South, they'd all be saying Baptist prayers. And in Utah, they'd all be saying Mormon prayers. And in New York City, they'd spend all day praying to every god you'd ever heard of. AND EVERY PRAYER THEY SAY WOULD BE A BLASPHEMY! If you don't believe me, just read what happened to Aaron's two oldest sons." Even if you were to pick the Protestant version of "God", you would still have to decide among the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist, Seventh Day Adventist, and several other versions of "God." Although some are very similar, they are still different versions. Most certainly, their versions' views concerning creation science are usually very different from your version's. I have often seen you condemn those other versions for not sharing your version's views on creationism and biblical literalism, so I can only assume that you would not want your children taught those versions either. At the same time, I would expect you to be able to see that most of the other parents do not want their children to be taught your version, either. So whose version of "God" are you talking about? There is also the question of "competent authority." This question goes beyond and ignores the question of an individual teacher's personal competence to teach a given subject; in considering this question, personal knowledge of subject matter and competence in teaching is assumed. Rather it addresses the question of who, as a group, would be authorized to perform the teaching. It also considers the allowable setting for the teaching; eg, public school classroom, church, the home. Hence, the question of "competent authority" considers where and by whom instruction should be conducted. Please note that the question of competent authority was central to James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance," to which you are responding (assuming that you are not just tossing out yet another non sequitur -- if I am mistaken in that assumption, then please let me know). Part of his conclusions is that the civil government is NOT a competent authority in matters of religion and faith and that the church is not a competent authority in matters of government. Another part of his conclusions is that history has shown us that the mixing of government and religion can only have evil and deliterious results, hence his advancement of a "Great Barrier" between government and religion, the original wall of separation between church and state, a few years before he drafted the Bill of Rights. Ever hear the term, "original intent"? Those questions must be considered in answering your question. Again, if you disagree in any way, then please explain how and why you disagree. Monosyllabic grunts and non sequiturs cannot be accepted because they cannot be understood. My answers to both of your questions, with amplifying explanations following, are: 1. "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others. 2. "If God does not exist, should the kids still be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others. Now, what do I mean by "yes in most cases and no in a few others"? First of all, I am saying that the question of the existence of "God" has no bearing on the matter. There was an older participant on CompuServe's religion forum who had some really bizaare ideas, mainly focused around his belief in a form of word-magick (ie, that there is no such thing as objective reality, but rather that we create reality with our words). He had been a mathematician until he suffered a stroke. He claimed to have invented Gray code (which they may or may not still teach MEs and/or EEs -- at least they taught it to us technicians; Don Knuth's long-awaited fourth volume to The Art of Computer Programming is supposed to cover Gray code). To the question of obvious borrowings between the Code of Hammurabi and Mosaic Law, he claimed that Hammurabi's preceeding Moses by several centuries is proof that Hammurabi had copied it from Moses (seriously, he did make that claim). But he did make a couple interesting points. One was that it really does not matter whether the claims of Christianity are true, only that people believed them to be true and acted accordingly. European history and culture developed the way it did, NOT because Christianity was true (indeed, Bill "knows" that Catholicism is false), but because the people BELIEVED Christianity to be true. Even if Christianity were completely false, that would have made absolutely no difference to the effect it had on European history and culture. BTW, he was a Christian. He also pointed out what Genesis does say about the Creation, which most of us had not realized. Therefore, I ask you again: do you believe that the Bible tells you that God directly created all life on earth? You should not have any problem answering this simple question, since it should be an article of faith for you. Regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god, then of course the kids should learn about the gods. Whether they actually existed or not, the gods have still been an important part of our culture and our history. Much of our literature and art cannot be understood without a grounding in mythology and in religious symbolism. Much of our history cannot be understood without an understanding of the cultures involved and religion is a major part of most of those cultures. And much of modern-day politics, especially Republican, cannot be understood without an understanding of the religious ideologies involved. Also, a number of those religious traditions are still practiced and taken seriously by their adherents, so knowledge and understanding of what others believe is important if we are to interact with others effectively. Remember, we have already tried ignorance, so we know that it does not work. The question of which version of "God" would be taught is largely moot here, since the approachs taken would usually perform a survey of a number of different versions. As to the matter of competent authority, this manner of being "taught about Him" should enjoy the broadest range. Comparative religions and the history of religions is an acceptable part of college and public school curricula, although some religious groups may object to the objective study of their own religion, especially if their teachings about their history or their delusions of uniqueness disagree with reality. Comparative religion can also be an acceptable part of a church's religious education program; the UUA's youth RE programs explicitly include a curriculum for learning about other religions and visiting other churches. Competent authority for teaching by this approach includes public school teachers, RE teachers, parents, and just about anybody who is personally competent to teach the subject matter. Instruction could be conducted almost anywhere. The only problems that could arise would be due to not teaching objectively or without respect for the beliefs of others. So to the question of: "Regardless of whether any of the gods exist, should the kids be taught by competent authority about them and about the religions associated with them?" I would answer "Yes." You already know my opinion regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion. I am appalled at people who have grown up in a church and yet are ignorant about that religion. Kids should be taught this, but they should only be taught THEIR OWN VERSION of "God" and the competent authority to teach them this are their religious leaders and family, or those appointed to the task by their religious leaders and family. Competent authority does NOT include agents of the civil government -- eg, public school officials and teachers -- except as appointed individually by the appropriate religious authorities and only while acting outside their government capacity. I.e., a government official may conduct sectarian religious instruction as a private individual, but not as a government official. The appropriate place for this form of teaching is the home, the church, and other approved sites. The public schools are not an appropriate site during school and under the supervision of school officials or other government agents. Please note the approach officially taken by Boy Scouts of America, Inc. BSA is the competent authority for requiring "duty to God", but they are NOT competent authority for defining precisely what that duty is or entails for each and every individual member. Officially, they delegate full responsibility and authority for religious definitions and interpretation to the family and religious leaders of each individual member and they officially require that each individual member be judged by the standards of that member's own religious tradition. BSA officially recognizes that it is NOT the competent authority in religious matters. All the legal problems involving religion that BSA has been having this decade are directly caused by BSA trying to assume for itself the role of competent authority in religious matters, in direct violation of its own officially published rules and policies. Also please note that applying this meaning of "taught about Him" does not exclude those kids from the previous meaning. They are not mutually exclusive. Kids can learn both their own religion AND about the religions and beliefs of others. I personally believe that they SHOULD learn both. So to the question of: "Should kids be taught and indoctrinated by competent authority into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion, regardless of whether the god(s) of that religion exists?" I would answer "Yes." Finally, there's the matter of kids being "taught about Him" as part of a proselytizing effort to convert them to a different religion. That kind of teaching of children should ONLY be permissible if it is done with the explicit and expressed permission of the parents, which I do not believe would be a common occurance. The only competent authority for this kind of teaching of children are the parents and those appointed by the parents. Strangers off the streets, such as yourself, Bill, are NOT competent authorities. Public school activities run by school officials are NOT IN THE LEAST BIT the appropriate place for this kind of instruction. There is also the matter of peer proselytizing, which may seem innocent but which can turn out to be insidious. The government is not involved, you say, but rather it is a fellow student sharing his faith with his friends. Well, one of my previous bosses was born a fundamentalist, as was his son, Todd. When Todd would return from college on break, he would work with us. One day, he shared with me that he was lonely at school, so I mentioned to him that there are normally a lot of Christian student clubs and that he might find fellowship there. He said that he had already tried, but all that those clubs would do was to plot how to convert the rest of the student body, something that he found very distasteful. Checking around after that, I found that the practice was indeed widespread. Recruit fundamentalist students, train them in proselytizing techniques, and unleash them on an unsuspecting student body under the quest of self-initiated witnessing. Yeah, real innocent, that. Bill, we know that your primary interest in creation science is as a tool for proselytizing. We also know that your efforts include creation science presentations in high schools. Therefore, from the context of your efforts, I would read that the meaning of your question is that kids in the public schools should be taught creation science as a means of converting them to your religion. To that I cannot agree and must answer with an emphatic "no," especially since creation science consists almost entirely of false and misleading claims. So to the question of: "Should kids be proselytized to as part of a concerted effort to convert them to another religion?" I would answer "ONLY if it is done by their OWN parents or by those expressly appointed BY their OWN parents. NEVER without their parents' consent and NEVER under to auspices of the government (eg, through a public school)." As always, if you disagree with my answer or wish to criticize it, then please explain your disagreement and/or criticism intelligibly. As I have learned to expect, you will not do so. Though I hope to be surprised. A pessimist must be the happiest person alive. Most of the time he has the satisfaction of being right, and occasionally he is pleasantly surprised.########################################### Subj: How's It Coming? Date: 98-07-22 00:07:26 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com
Bill, how are you coming with your evidence that you answered "100%" of my questions to you? I am looking forward to reading it. Also, how are you coming with your opening statement for our on-line debate? My wife might want to start using email, so there would go another screen name, but I should still be able to keep one free for our use. Do you have any suggestions for what we should use as a screen name? Also, do you have any ideas or qualms about what format we should use?########################################### Subj: Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: 98-07-22 10:05:38 EDT From: liber8r@mcs.net (-- The Liber8r --) To: DWise1@aol.com, BillyJack6@aol.com CC: liber8r@mcs.com File: ShouldKi.txt (24565 bytes) DL Time (14400 bps): < 1 minute Gentlemen: Interesting topic and a very in-depth response by Mr. Wise. Here's something for your entertainment. I hope that you see the connection. Also, note that my site has a new URL. It's at ---> http://www.liberator.net Yep, its own domain name! :) ---------- What Really Controls The Universe? by The Liber8r (Ordained Minister of the ULC) Answer: As written in The Book of Phluk, a chaotic horde of gremlins control The Universe. What is a gremlin? Gremlins are small, mischievous creatures. They control everything from the wind to the flow of water, moving parts, and anything else you can imagine. Why can't we see gremlins? Gremlins are so small and move so fast they cannot be captured by the naked eye or by instrumentation. (The picture above must be a drawing.) If gremlins cannot be detected, how do we know that they exist? The mere contemplation of that question is very, very dangerous. Questioning the existence of the gremlin horde is a quick way to become a victim of some nasty accident. The gremlins behave randomly but almost always choose to pick on those who doubt their existence. It may not happen right away, but it will happen; so be careful! Note: After examining Nightmare at 20,000 feet [the October 11th, 1963 episode of The Twilight Zone], experts have decided that the creature in the story was being portrayed by an actual gremlin, not Nick Cravat who was thought to be the actor in a realistic suit. It is unknown whether or not the gremlin was paid for his appearance. Is this whole gremlin story just someone's wild imagination used to escape reality and responsibility? Ahh... no! Gremlins do everything. Now shut up and stop asking such silly questions otherwise a gremlin will magically turn you into tomato paste and feed you to a fat Italian. Surely, that's no way to die. I would like to learn more about gremlins so where can I find this Book of Phluk? Unfortunately, The Book of Phluk has not survived the passage of time. That is why the dissemination of this material is so important. Who or what is Phluk? Phluk is the "ruler" of the gremlin horde. He controls the horde to the best of his ability, sometimes by force but mostly by using good judgment. Since Phluk is a gremlin, his powers are limited. That is why some gremlins can perform despicable acts and not get caught. What do gremlins do when they are not controlling things? Since controlling things takes up so much time, gremlins have very little time to do anything else. However, they do enjoy a good practical joke. For instance, they love to hide things from us. Were you ever unable to find a sock to make a pair? It was certainly no fault of your own; a gremlin did it! Why do gremlins perform pranks? Gremlin experts theorize that gremlins are jealous of intelligent people. That's why intelligent people are most often the victims of gremlin pranks. Therefore, we should do our best to not think and remain ignorant on all topics and subjects, just to play it safe. Gremlin experts say "A dumb person is a safe person." How can I protect myself from the random acts of gremlins? No one can ever be immune from those pranksters but precautions can be taken. As an example, say that you lose a key. You cannot find it anywhere and suspect that it is due to a harmless gremlin. By repeating the gremlin leaders name, Phluck, over and over again, the harmless gremlin will stop his prank out of fear of punishment by Phluk. A lot of people practice this precaution even though it is thought to be impolite in public. How can a harmful gremlin be stopped? They can't be stopped! We are really at their mercy because they control everything. All that we can do to protect ourselves from gremlins is to NOT question gremlins out loud. It is okay to write about them because they cannot read--they move too fast. What harmful pranks have gremlins done? They crash airplanes, cause heart attacks, make nations go to war, create nuclear waste, ... Humans would never willingly create defective airplane parts, eat fatty foods, fight over ridiculous issues, build nuclear power plants, ... What is the biggest trick gremlins have accomplished? They tricked the majority of humans into not believing in them. They make people believe in mythologies, organized religions, cults, and other fantastical fairytales to cover up their biggest trick. It only makes sense that gremlins really do exist. Unanswered Questions That Continue To Mystify The Experts 1.If gremlins are so small and move so fast, can they see each other? If not, how can they work together? 2.Where do gremlins derive their energy from? Do they eat stray dogs? 3.If a tree fell in a forest and a gremlin left before it hit the ground, would it make a sound? The Liber8r The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site respectively: liber8r@mcs.net http://www.liberator.net/ ---------- From: DWise1@aol.com To: BillyJack6@aol.com Cc: DWise1@aol.com; liber8r@mcs.com Subject: Should Kids be taught about "God" Date: Tuesday, July 21, 1998 11:07 PM Sorry about the delay. I've been extremely busy. ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Memorial and Remonstrance Date: 98-07-12 17:20:10 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him? ### END ### Before I answer, I wish to ask that you state your point. From your question, you seem to be implying that kids are not being so taught, when the opposite is the case. You also seem to be implying that somebody is somehow preventing the religious instruction of children, which is, again, contrary to fact. If you have something to say, then please say it. If you have a claim to make, then please make it (and be willing to support it). If you have a proposal to make, then make it (and be ready to discuss the goals and consequences of that proposal). If you have a case to make, then please make it. If you have no case, then please say so and put an end to your charade. Over the years, I have seen and heard many creationists bewail that nobody will let them present their case. Well, for over a year, we have been asking you to please present your case, but you have steadfastly refused to do so. Please stop being so evasive and start being more forthright. Now as to your question: >If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?< But why place the condition of God's existence on your question? Are you saying that if God does not exist, then kids should NOT be taught about Her? I think that is too restrictive. Besides, wouldn't that also require you to have PROVEN God's existence before you could satisfy that condition to whether you would teach the kids about Her? There is also the question of what is to be meant by "be taught about Him." This can mean any of a number of things; eg: 1. To be taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god. 2. To be indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion. 3. To proselytize. Which meaning of "be taught about Him" do you intend? Or do you intend another meaning? We do know from experience that one of the principal purposes of creation science is to proselytize, so in the absence of any explanation from you (the usual state of affairs), we will have to assume that you are talking about proselytizing. The shifting of gender -- excuse me, Gender -- that I performed above points to another question, the little matter of which god. Whose god? Whose version of "God"? The Fundamentalist version? The Catholic version? The Mormon version? The Unitarian versions (ironically plural)? The Buddhist version? The Mandan version? Whose version? I know that you assume that it will be YOUR version of "God", but what if your child is going to be taught the Mormon, or the CATHOLIC! version of "God", then you may very well change your tune. Remember the bitter experience of the Catholics with the Protestant-run public school system in the 19th century. Or as Brother Orson expressed it (albeit in reference to prayer in the public schools) [quoted from memory]: "Of course, the Fundamentalists believe that it will be their religion that will be the one to be established. If they thought for one moment that the Catholic religion, or the MORMON religion was the one to be established, why, they'd be shoutin' FOR the First Amendment just as loud as they're shoutin' to have it torn apart." Elsewhere on the same subject of school prayer, Brother Orson said: "In the South, they'd all be saying Baptist prayers. And in Utah, they'd all be saying Mormon prayers. And in New York City, they'd spend all day praying to every god you'd ever heard of. AND EVERY PRAYER THEY SAY WOULD BE A BLASPHEMY! If you don't believe me, just read what happened to Aaron's two oldest sons." Even if you were to pick the Protestant version of "God", you would still have to decide among the Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientist, Seventh Day Adventist, and several other versions of "God." Although some are very similar, they are still different versions. Most certainly, their versions' views concerning creation science are usually very different from your version's. I have often seen you condemn those other versions for not sharing your version's views on creationism and biblical literalism, so I can only assume that you would not want your children taught those versions either. At the same time, I would expect you to be able to see that most of the other parents do not want their children to be taught your version, either. So whose version of "God" are you talking about? There is also the question of "competent authority." This question goes beyond and ignores the question of an individual teacher's personal competence to teach a given subject; in considering this question, personal knowledge of subject matter and competence in teaching is assumed. Rather it addresses the question of who, as a group, would be authorized to perform the teaching. It also considers the allowable setting for the teaching; eg, public school classroom, church, the home. Hence, the question of "competent authority" considers where and by whom instruction should be conducted. Please note that the question of competent authority was central to James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance," to which you are responding (assuming that you are not just tossing out yet another non sequitur -- if I am mistaken in that assumption, then please let me know). Part of his conclusions is that the civil government is NOT a competent authority in matters of religion and faith and that the church is not a competent authority in matters of government. Another part of his conclusions is that history has shown us that the mixing of government and religion can only have evil and deliterious results, hence his advancement of a "Great Barrier" between government and religion, the original wall of separation between church and state, a few years before he drafted the Bill of Rights. Ever hear the term, "original intent"? Those questions must be considered in answering your question. Again, if you disagree in any way, then please explain how and why you disagree. Monosyllabic grunts and non sequiturs cannot be accepted because they cannot be understood. My answers to both of your questions, with amplifying explanations following, are: 1. "If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others. 2. "If God does not exist, should the kids still be taught about Him?" Yes in most cases and no in a few others. Now, what do I mean by "yes in most cases and no in a few others"? First of all, I am saying that the question of the existence of "God" has no bearing on the matter. There was an older participant on CompuServe's religion forum who had some really bizaare ideas, mainly focused around his belief in a form of word- magick (ie, that there is no such thing as objective reality, but rather that we create reality with our words). He had been a mathematician until he suffered a stroke. He claimed to have invented Gray code (which they may or may not still teach MEs and/or EEs -- at least they taught it to us technicians; Don Knuth's long-awaited fourth volume to The Art of Computer Programming is supposed to cover Gray code). To the question of obvious borrowings between the Code of Hammurabi and Mosaic Law, he claimed that Hammurabi's preceeding Moses by several centuries is proof that Hammurabi had copied it from Moses (seriously, he did make that claim). But he did make a couple interesting points. One was that it really does not matter whether the claims of Christianity are true, only that people believed them to be true and acted accordingly. European history and culture developed the way it did, NOT because Christianity was true (indeed, Bill "knows" that Catholicism is false), but because the people BELIEVED Christianity to be true. Even if Christianity were completely false, that would have made absolutely no difference to the effect it had on European history and culture. BTW, he was a Christian. He also pointed out what Genesis does say about the Creation, which most of us had not realized. Therefore, I ask you again: do you believe that the Bible tells you that God directly created all life on earth? You should not have any problem answering this simple question, since it should be an article of faith for you. Regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being taught about the mythology surrounding a god and about the traditions, rituals, dogma, organization, and history of the religion or religions associated with that god, then of course the kids should learn about the gods. Whether they actually existed or not, the gods have still been an important part of our culture and our history. Much of our literature and art cannot be understood without a grounding in mythology and in religious symbolism. Much of our history cannot be understood without an understanding of the cultures involved and religion is a major part of most of those cultures. And much of modern- day politics, especially Republican, cannot be understood without an understanding of the religious ideologies involved. Also, a number of those religious traditions are still practiced and taken seriously by their adherents, so knowledge and understanding of what others believe is important if we are to interact with others effectively. Remember, we have already tried ignorance, so we know that it does not work. The question of which version of "God" would be taught is largely moot here, since the approachs taken would usually perform a survey of a number of different versions. As to the matter of competent authority, this manner of being "taught about Him" should enjoy the broadest range. Comparative religions and the history of religions is an acceptable part of college and public school curricula, although some religious groups may object to the objective study of their own religion, especially if their teachings about their history or their delusions of uniqueness disagree with reality. Comparative religion can also be an acceptable part of a church's religious education program; the UUA's youth RE programs explicitly include a curriculum for learning about other religions and visiting other churches. Competent authority for teaching by this approach includes public school teachers, RE teachers, parents, and just about anybody who is personally competent to teach the subject matter. Instruction could be conducted almost anywhere. The only problems that could arise would be due to not teaching objectively or without respect for the beliefs of others. So to the question of: "Regardless of whether any of the gods exist, should the kids be taught by competent authority about them and about the religions associated with them?" I would answer "Yes." You already know my opinion regarding the meaning of "taught about Him" as being indoctrinated into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion. I am appalled at people who have grown up in a church and yet are ignorant about that religion. Kids should be taught this, but they should only be taught THEIR OWN VERSION of "God" and the competent authority to teach them this are their religious leaders and family, or those appointed to the task by their religious leaders and family. Competent authority does NOT include agents of the civil government -- eg, public school officials and teachers -- except as appointed individually by the appropriate religious authorities and only while acting outside their government capacity. I.e., a government official may conduct sectarian religious instruction as a private individual, but not as a government official. The appropriate place for this form of teaching is the home, the church, and other approved sites. The public schools are not an appropriate site during school and under the supervision of school officials or other government agents. Please note the approach officially taken by Boy Scouts of America, Inc. BSA is the competent authority for requiring "duty to God", but they are NOT competent authority for defining precisely what that duty is or entails for each and every individual member. Officially, they delegate full responsibility and authority for religious definitions and interpretation to the family and religious leaders of each individual member and they officially require that each individual member be judged by the standards of that member's own religious tradition. BSA officially recognizes that it is NOT the competent authority in religious matters. All the legal problems involving religion that BSA has been having this decade are directly caused by BSA trying to assume for itself the role of competent authority in religious matters, in direct violation of its own officially published rules and policies. Also please note that applying this meaning of "taught about Him" does not exclude those kids from the previous meaning. They are not mutually exclusive. Kids can learn both their own religion AND about the religions and beliefs of others. I personally believe that they SHOULD learn both. So to the question of: "Should kids be taught and indoctrinated by competent authority into the traditions, rituals, and dogma of a religion as a member or potential member of that religion, regardless of whether the god(s) of that religion exists?" I would answer "Yes." Finally, there's the matter of kids being "taught about Him" as part of a proselytizing effort to convert them to a different religion. That kind of teaching of children should ONLY be permissible if it is done with the explicit and expressed permission of the parents, which I do not believe would be a common occurance. The only competent authority for this kind of teaching of children are the parents and those appointed by the parents. Strangers off the streets, such as yourself, Bill, are NOT competent authorities. Public school activities run by school officials are NOT IN THE LEAST BIT the appropriate place for this kind of instruction. There is also the matter of peer proselytizing, which may seem innocent but which can turn out to be insidious. The government is not involved, you say, but rather it is a fellow student sharing his faith with his friends. Well, one of my previous bosses was born a fundamentalist, as was his son, Todd. When Todd would return from college on break, he would work with us. One day, he shared with me that he was lonely at school, so I mentioned to him that there are normally a lot of Christian student clubs and that he might find fellowship there. He said that he had already tried, but all that those clubs would do was to plot how to convert the rest of the student body, something that he found very distasteful. Checking around after that, I found that the practice was indeed widespread. Recruit fundamentalist students, train them in proselytizing techniques, and unleash them on an unsuspecting student body under the quest of self-initiated witnessing. Yeah, real innocent, that. Bill, we know that your primary interest in creation science is as a tool for proselytizing. We also know that your efforts include creation science presentations in high schools. Therefore, from the context of your efforts, I would read that the meaning of your question is that kids in the public schools should be taught creation science as a means of converting them to your religion. To that I cannot agree and must answer with an emphatic "no," especially since creation science consists almost entirely of false and misleading claims. So to the question of: "Should kids be proselytized to as part of a concerted effort to convert them to another religion?" I would answer "ONLY if it is done by their OWN parents or by those expressly appointed BY their OWN parents. NEVER without their parents' consent and NEVER under to auspices of the government (eg, through a public school)." As always, if you disagree with my answer or wish to criticize it, then please explain your disagreement and/or criticism intelligibly. As I have learned to expect, you will not do so. Though I hope to be surprised. A pessimist must be the happiest person alive. Most of the time he has the satisfaction of being right, and occasionally he is pleasantly surprised. ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path:
yes or no?BillyJack6Re: Should Kids be taught about "God" ########################################### Subj: Re: Bill's "100%" Date: 98-07-23 01:18:37 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1
But what about at Judgment day? What would you say to God then?########################################### Subj: Re: "From Jesus to Christ" Date: 98-07-23 01:20:04 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1
proof?########################################### Subj: Re: Posting an Article Date: 98-07-23 01:20:49 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com
we should sit down and have dinner together########################################### Subj: Re:Non Sequitur Date: 98-07-23 01:22:45 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1
I memorized it, and I am so much older than you...but I was always pretty good at math. I will be tutoring algebra again this fall. Its fun! I am 38 years old.########################################### Subj: Re: How's It Coming? Date: 98-07-23 01:35:43 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1
In the Beginning, God created teh Heavens and teh Earth.......########################################### Subj: Re: TMA/ Again with the Mitosis/Meiosis Date: 98-07-23 23:56:35 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1
In a message dated 98-07-09 02:05:13 EDT, you write: << And what is this business of "explain how they 'evolved into meisosis animals." What, so now I have to be a god myself, required to possess omniscience that I can peer into the past and gather all the little details? All while you repeatedly weasel out of even the simplest of questions, like "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? >> You're weasling. I told you the earth is less than 10 k because the Bible clearly teaches it and science doth not falsify it. This would be analogous to my demanding that you provide us with a detailed itinerary for Moses and the Israelites showing in detail how far they travelled and precisely where they made camp every single day of their 40-year journey from Egypt to Canaan. Could you do that? Would it be a reasonable question for me to ask you? Do you know Brad Sparks?########################################### Subj: Re: TMA/ Again with the Mitosis/Meiosis Date: 98-07-23 23:56:44 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1
In a message dated 98-07-09 02:05:13 EDT, you write: << 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. >> yes########################################### Subj: Re: Show Me Your 100% Date: 98-07-24 10:24:11 EDT From: liber8r@mcs.net (-- The Liber8r --) To: BillyJack6@aol.com, DWise1@aol.com Gentlemen: Why is it that I consistently see long replies from Mr. Wise but rarely see a reply from BillyJack? When I do see a reply, it is of the length and depth of the response below. I now know that BillyJack is certainly not interested in the "truth" of any kind. Any further lengthy replies to BillyJack are a complete waste of time. I wouldn't doubt it if he deletes our messages without even reading them. Is it possible that his glass of knowledge is full and all further nuggets of wisdom are spilling over? Does he know that the Catholic Church has accepted evolution? Hmmm, I wonder... The Liber8r The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site respectively: liber8r@mcs.net http://www.liberator.net/ ---------- From: BillyJack6@aol.com To: liber8r@mcs.net Subject: Re: Show Me Your 100% Date: Thursday, July 23, 1998 11:00 PM where are tehy? --------------------
Gentlemen:
Why is it that I consistently see long
replies from Mr. Wise but rarely see a reply from BillyJack? When I do
see a reply, it is of the length and depth of the response below.
I
now know that BillyJack is certainly not interested in the "truth"
of any kind. Any further lengthy replies to BillyJack are a complete
waste of time. I wouldn't doubt it if he deletes our messages without
even reading them.
Is it possible that his glass of knowledge is full
and all further nuggets of wisdom are spilling over? Does he know that
the Catholic Church has accepted evolution? Hmmm, I wonder...
The
Liber8r
The Liber8r can be reached by e-mail, and web site
respectively:
liber8r@mcs.net
http://www.liberator.net/
----------
From:
BillyJack6@aol.com
To:
liber8r@mcs.net
Subject: Re: Show Me Your 100%
Date: Thursday, July
23, 1998 11:00 PM
where are tehy?