|
|
|
Still Spouting
By Bill Scott
Posted on: 8/20/2003
All correspondence received by Skeptic Friends Network or its staff becomes the property of Skeptic Friends Network, and may be printed without the consent of the author.
|
Tommy,
I see your still spouting off your false religion as if it were fact. (sigh)
Let us revisit what you have spouted off so far:
1. You tell me that our DNA cells "program themselves" to die off and replace themselves with inferior cells ultimately leading to death. The "reason" (as if blind random mutation has a reason for anything) for this is to limit the life span of the individual as not to overpopulate the planet earth. The amazing thing about this feat is that every living creature''s DNA on this earth was able take into account and than calculate the creatures life span in relation to the earths size, the resources available to the individual, the cohabitation of the individual with all other speices in their enviornment. The fact that all individaul speices independently, through blind random mutations, were able to zero in on their allowable life span stretches the imagination to the breaking point. (In other words, "what a load of crap.") Anyway my question to you would go as follows:
If the earth were two times as big or two times as small as it really is would all individual speice''s DNA be able to recognize this and recalculate their lifespans in relationship to their new enviornment?
How does the DNA know the size of the world?
How does the DNA know the resources available?
How does the DNA know with whom and with how many it will be sharring it''s enviornment with?
2. You have told me many times that "due to the overwhelming evidence for the big bang you find it highly likly that a god or deity is the first cause of our universe."
Now this one should be easy Tommy: Would you than agree that it would be just as likly for miracles and/or the supernatural to accur in a world that was created supernaturaly?
Answer: Of course you would!
3. You have spouted off about evolution being seen in the fossil record through transitionial fossils.
I say their are no transtionial speices found in the fossil record and I point to the FAKE dinasour bird that was attempted to be passed off as one as proof that they are still looking for their transtionial fossil.
Invertebrate fossils constitue 95% of the entire fossile record. From these we find a wide range of fully-formed, remarkably complex species such as the trilobite, jellyfish, clams, etc. Here''s the problem: These complex life forms appear in the fossil record, WITHOUT A SINGLE TRACE OF ANCESTORS! Since we have unearthed literally trillions of these fossils, we should have trillions upon trillions of ancestor examples in pre-Cambrian strata, BUT WE FIND NONE! This alone should in the evolution debate! No just-so story can justify this huge evolutionary calamity. Why do we find trillions of inverebrates, but no ancestors? There is no evidence whatsoever in the fossil record where it should be most abundant. The fossils often used as transtional examples are mammalian, which make up less than 0.1% of the record! The reason is that these fossils more easily allow wild speculation and fantasy to rule the day, as shown by the many failed examples put forth from this group, such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapethicus, the horse series, Dino Bird, etc. I would like to save you some time Tommy by suggesting you shouldn''t bother citing Kathleen Hunt''s Talk.Origins FAQ (its a virtual certainty this would have been your responce), since she provides no examples in this category, as her fantasy list is mostly mammalian, from that 0.1% group. Also, please do not show pictures of clams turning into clams.
Or you can just admit what we already know, that there is NO evidence whatsoever for evolution, that you accept your false religion on faith.
We are waiting.
Bill Scott
Tommy Responds
Bill,
>I see your still spouting off your false
>religion as if it were fact. (sigh)
Where did you "see" this?
>...your false religion...
You''ve pummeled this dead horse for so long, it''s since disintegrated.
>You tell me that our DNA cells "program themselves"
>to die off and replace themselves with inferior cells
>ultimately leading to death. The "reason" (as if blind
>random mutation has a reason for anything) for this is
>to limit the life span of the individual as not to over-
>populate the planet earth.
I don''t recall saying that. I even went back and reread our previous correspondence, but couldn''t find it there, either. Please retrieve the original email where you found that statement and send it to me to refresh my memory.
>If the earth were two times as big or two
>times as small as it really is would all
>individual speice''s DNA be able to recognize
>this and recalculate their lifespans in
>relationship to their new enviornment?
DNA isn''t required to perform linear equations of population growth statistics because a local environment''s carrying capacity takes care of itself. The Department of Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina has a web page that calculates the limitations of exponential growth rates at
http://marine.geol.sc.edu/BIOL/Courses/
BIOL301/Wethey/Outline09.html.
>How does the DNA know the size of the world?
>How does the DNA know the resources available?
>How does the DNA know with whom and with
>how many it will be sharring it''s enviornment with?
DNA isn''t "self-aware" of anything. But again, the carrying capacities of local environments limit the growth rates of their indigenous populations. (See the above URL.)
>You have told me many times that "due to the
>overwhelming evidence for the big bang you
>find it highly likly that a god or deity is the first
>cause of our universe."
I never said that. I did say that cosmology has a limited naturalistic explanation of what preceded the Big Bang because the universe is already here, so it''s impossible to observe what existed before it.
I also told you that the origin of the universe is a separate issue from the origin of life because the universe already existed for 12.5 billion years before the first single-celled life form appeared on Earth.
And the origin of life is separate from the evolution of life because evolution is a biological process that describes the adaptations of organisms to their environment through cell division and reproduction, whereas the origin of life describes the derivation of prokaryotic cells through inorganic chemistry.
I also said that if you could "prove" that the first DNA molecule originated through an ad hoc miracle, that wouldn''t change the fossil record one iota.
And even if you could "prove" that the universe originated though an impromptu, spontaneous miracle by a Super Being, that wouldn''t change the evidence for its subsequent cosmological, galactic, stellar, and planetary evolution.
Furthermore, scientific evidence for "miracles" STILL wouldn''t erase all the discrepancies, contradictions, and logical inconsistencies in the Bible, either.
>I say their are no transtionial speices found in the
>fossil record and I point to the FAKE dinasour bird
>that was attempted to be passed off as one as proof
>that they are still looking for their transtionial fossil.
Sigh. As I explained in a previous email, no "evolutionist" was fooled by it. If you remember, I sent you a copy of the National Geographic article that described the entire history of the Archaeoraptor debacle in detail.
A Chinese farmer uncovered several fossil fragments in his garden and, using a homemade paste, glued the slab of the tail to the lower portion of the specimen''s body, and then glued in broken pieces of its missing legs and feet.
An amateur fossil collector named Stephen Czerkas bought the fossil from a dealer on the Chinese black market for $80,000. Czerkas then took the specimen to the University of Texas'' High-Resolution X-ray CT Facility where Professor Timothy Rowe scanned the fossil and found 88 suspicious "breaks" with unmatched pieces crudely pasted together. Rowe declared the fossil to be a fake.
Next, Kevin Aulenback, a fossil technician at the Tyrrell Museum in Alberta, Canada, prepped the specimen by microscopically cleaning the bones and removing the surrounding dirt. Aulenback said that the fossil was a composite of more than five animals and sent a warning to Phillip Currie, his colleague who was then on an expedition in the Gobi desert.
Undeterred, Stephen Czerkas, the AMATEUR collector, wrote his own paper about the fossil specimen and attached Christopher Sloan''s name to it (an art editor for National Geographic), Phillip Currie''s name (who only glanced at the specimen) and the Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing, who never even SAW the Archaeoraptor skeleton.
Czerkas sent his paper to two prestigious peer-reviewed journals, "Science" and "Nature."
But guess what? Both journals rejected his manuscript outright.
Finally, he sent his article to Bill Allen, the editor at National Geographic. National Geographic published the second-rate article written by an AMATEUR fossil collector with NO formal scientific training.
And Bill Allen got burned. Evolution escaped unscathed.
>Invertebrate fossils constitue 95%
>Of the entire fossile record.
That depends on the stratigraphy. Vertebrate fossils predominate during the age of mammals (Cenozoic), but marine invertebrates (particularly mollusks) prevail throughout the Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata.
>From these we find a wide range of fully-formed,
>remarkably complex species such as the trilobite,
>jellyfish, clams, etc. Here''s the problem: These
>complex life forms appear in the fossil record,
>WITHOUT A SINGLE TRACE OF ANCESTORS!
>Since we have unearthed literally trillions of these
>fossils, we should have trillions upon trillions of
>ancestor examples in pre-Cambrian strata, BUT
>WE FIND NONE!
That''s not true. The first multicellular animals fossilized almost 700 million years ago were found in the Ediacaran Hills of Australia in 1946. Since then, Precambrian fossils have been found at more than 30 places worldwide on every continent except Antarctica.
And the so-called Cambrian "explosion" was an extremely SLOW explosion that happened over tens of millions of years. Some explosion.
>This alone should in the evolution debate!
>No just-so story can justify this huge
>evolutionary calamity.
Ooh. A calamity. I''m shaking.
>Why do we find trillions of inverebrates, but
>no ancestors? There is no evidence whatsoever
>in the fossil record where it should be most abundant.
Read the brand new book, published this year, titled "Trilobite! Eyewitness to Evolution" by Richard Fortey.
>As shown by the many failed examples put forth
>from this group, such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska
>Man, Ramapethicus,
Which happened between 72 and 112 years ago.
And don''t forget that creationists are guilty of perpetuating their own Piltdown hoaxes as well. Like the Olmo, Calveras, Castenadolo, and Onyate "pre-flood" men.
Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind (also known as Dr. Dino) got fooled by "Onyate Man" only two years ago!
>the horse series
What''s wrong with the horse series?
>Dino Bird
If you look at the following cladogram, dinosaurs, birds, and crocodiles all belong to the reptilian group archosauria, and birds are more closely related to theropod dinosaurs than any other animal in this group. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/
Hall/1636/sauropsida/archosauriformes.html
The following article claims that birds are technically reptiles, and among reptiles, birds are specifically living coelurosaurs. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
As for eggs, the following article claims that one group of fossilized dinosaur eggs examined under a microscope most closely resembles the structures of eggs laid by ostriches, moas, and emus. http://researchmag.asu.edu/textonly/83tofssl.html
Other good dino/bird websites:
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/
dinosaurs/Dinobirds.html
>I would like to save you some time Tommy by suggesting
>you shouldn''t bother citing Kathleen Hunt''s Talk.Origins
>FAQ (its a virtual certainty this would have been your
>responce), since she provides no examples in this category,
>as her fantasy list is mostly mammalian, from that 0.1% group.
Part 1 of Kathleen Hunt''s FAQ describes more than mammals. She lists the transitional fossils found between fish, sharks, skates, rays, amphibians, reptiles, and birds.
Part 2 narrows her focus to the transitional fossils among mammals since the dinosaurs'' demise 65 million years ago.
>Also, please do not show pictures of
>clams turning into clams.
Okay. I won''t.
>Or you can just admit what we already know, that
>there is NO evidence whatsoever for evolution,
>that you accept your false religion on faith.
Ouch. You got me there.
I guess I''ll have to believe that Noah carried seven pairs of every clean animal on his ark for a whole year.
And when he finally disembarked, "Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of EVERY clean beast, and of EVERY clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour." (Genesis 8:20-21)
Funny. Yahweh flooded the whole world to rid it of evil, yet evil remained just as prevalent in the world after the deluge as it was before it.
And poor Noah had to sacrifice EVERY clean beast and EVERY clean fowl after he went through the trouble of preserving them for a whole year, just so Yahweh could sniff the pleasing odor of their burning flesh.
Nice try, Bill.
Tommy,
>>I see your still spouting off your false
>>religion as if it were fact. (sigh)
>
>Where did you "see" this?
Your "website!"
>>...your false religion...
Hey Tommy click on the website for the Nationial Center for Science Education. What is the first thing you see?
Answer: A TAX EXCEPT org. for defending the teaching of evolution.
See the government funds and excempts your false religion!
>You''ve pummeled this dead horse for so long,
>it''s since disintegrated.
See above
>I don''t recall saying that. I even went back and reread
>our previous correspondence, but couldn''t find it there,
>either. Please retrieve the original email where you
>found that statement and send it to me to refresh my memory.
I wish I could but those were all in the TD Zone files. Tommy this is the first question I ever asked you. I asked you why we die and you sent me some long artical on how the DNA is programmed to kill us off and the "reason" for this is not to overpopulate the planet. I than asked you who programmed the DNA and you went off on some tangent on how the DNA programs itself. With such fantasy as this I can see why you would have wanted to forget your siily little claims.
>DNA isn''t required to perform linear equations of population
>growth statistics because a local environment''s carrying
>capacity takes care of itself. The Department of Biological
>Sciences at the University of South Carolina has a web
>page that calculates the limitations of exponential growth
rates at
http://marine.geol.sc.edu/BIOL/Courses/
BIOL301/Wethey/Outline09.html.
Please send URLs that work!
I would have loved to read this one.
>>How does the DNA know the size of the world?
>>How does the DNA know the resources available?
>>How does the DNA know with whom and with
>>how many it will be sharring it''s enviornment with?
>
>DNA isn''t "self-aware" of anything. But again, the
>carrying capacities of local environments limit the
>growth rates of their indigenous populations.
>(See the above URL.)
I wish I could.
>>You have told me many times that "due to the
>>overwhelming evidence for the big bang you
>>find it highly likly that a god or deity is the first
>>cause of our universe."
>I never said that.
Boy, you are forgetful Tommy. Maybe you should go back and re-reread your emails. This one IS on Bill Scotts files. You said that word for word. Remember you kept getting mad and would refuse to answer the question about the supernatural present in a world that was created by a god or deity.
(Come on Tommy think hard, I know you can remember.)
>I also told you that the origin of the universe is a
>separate issue from the origin of life because the
>universe already existed for 12.5 billion years
>before the first single-celled life form appeared on Earth.
Yes Tommy and please explain to me how this first life form appeared on Earth! (It was after the big bang.) Please explain how non-living matter (which you have no explanation as to where it all came from) created life. And don''t bother seending anymore of your little just-so stories that actually show that it takes a thinking designer to even show a most crude attempt at reproducing life.
>And the origin of life is separate from the evolution of
>life because evolution is a biological process that
>describes the adaptations of organisms to their
>environment through cell division and reproduction,
And as I have told you over and over this is simply the evolutionists trump card that he pulls out of his hat when he is pressed against the wall: "We will not talk about anything before the "warm little pond" and you can not make us."
>whereas the origin of life describes the
>derivation of prokaryotic cells through inorganic chemistry.
Uh huh... and so where did the prokaryotic cells come from? What is the origin of their life?
>I also said that if you could "prove" that the first DNA
>molecule originated through an ad hoc miracle, that
>wouldn''t change the fossil record one iota.
Yes we will get to your fossil record in a second.
>And even if you could "prove" that the universe originated
>though an impromptu, spontaneous miracle by a Super
>Being, that wouldn''t change the evidence for its
>subsequent cosmological, galactic, stellar, and planetary
>evolution.
What evidence?
(And please no more just-so stories.)
>Furthermore, scientific evidence for "miracles" STILL
>wouldn''t erase all the discrepancies, contradictions,
>and logical inconsistencies in the Bible, either.
All these "contradictions" have been refuted all over the web they are easy to find. (Stop beating a dead horse.)
>
>>I say their are no transtionial speices found in the
>>fossil record and I point to the FAKE dinasour bird
>>that was attempted to be passed off as one as proof
>>that they are still looking for their transtionial fossil.
>
>Sigh. As I explained in a previous email, no "evolutionist"
>was fooled by it. If you remember, I sent you a copy of
>the National Geographic article that described the entire
>history of the Archaeoraptor debacle in detail.
(sigh) And as I repeatedly explained to you that my point is NOT that Archaeoraptor is fake so evolution is fake. If transitional fossils have really been found by the 1000''s and can be found at any local museum than why did this magazine pay $80,000 for a transtional fossil and plaster it all over their mag. as a "true missing link."
Yes the "evolutionis"t knew it was fake. Everybody knows it was fake. It just shows that their is still a great race going on to uncover the FIRST missing link.
>Evolution escaped unscathed.
Thats why they are still looking for their missing link.
>>As shown by the many failed examples put forth
>>from this group, such as Piltdown Man, Nebraska
>>Man, Ramapethicus,
>
>Which happened between 72 and 112 years ago.
And the Dino-bird shows us they are still looking for their transitional fossil to this very day.
>If you look at the following cladogram, dinosaurs, birds,
>and crocodiles all belong to the reptilian group
>archosauria, and birds are more closely related to
>theropod dinosaurs than any other animal in this group.
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hall/
>1636/sauropsida/archosaurif
Please sent url that work.
>As for eggs, the following article claims that one
>group of fossilized dinosaur eggs examined under
>a microscope most closely resembles the
>structures of eggs laid by ostriches, moas, and emus.
>http://researchmag.asu.edu/textonly/83tofssl.html
Oh no not puncuated equiliberam again.
>Nice try, Bill.
Yes is was a nice try, thankyou.
Now please send me a nice responce.
Best
Bill
O.K. Since you were so concerened that I was misrepersenting your boy Tommy. I searched my archives and found Tommy''s ramblings about why we die. Now YOU can see why he was in no hurry to remember them.
Best
Bill
>-----Original Message----- >From: Tommy Huxley [mailto:tommy_huxley@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 09 To:
>Subject:
>
>
>Dear ,
>
>Thank you for writing to the Skeptic Friends Network.
>
>After reading your letter twice, I''m not sure if you''re asking genuine
>existential questions, or proselytizing in the guise of questions. But
>I''ll
>try to answer them anyway.
>
> >What would be your position on why every
> >living creature is destined to death?
>
>Our body is programmed by cells that tell the body what to do, like a vast,
>interconnected computer network.
>
>From the time you first develop from a fertilized egg until you die, your
>cells tell your body what functions to carry out from inherited
>instructions
>carried in your genes.
>
>As you get older, your original cells die off and get substituted with
>inferior replacement cells. These cells continuously repair your tissue,
>but their repairs never measure up to their original work. For example,
>you
>retain scar tissue where your cells tried to rebuild damage that happened
>during injuries.
>
>Each generation of body cells can''t do its job as well as its predecessors.
>The tissue underneath your skin gets thinner, the connections get looser
>and
>floppier, and when these connections get torn or cut, they heal more
>slowly.
>
>Eventually, your hair starts to die and fall out while your other body
>parts
>get stiffer because they require so many extra connections to compensate
>for
>their cumulative damage.
>
>Finally, we just wear out. Some people''s bodies wear out more quickly than
>others because of sun damage, disease, emotional or hormonal environments,
>or because of copying mistakes in their original genetic blueprints. Many
>organs stop working because the mitochondria in their cells can''t provide
>as
>much energy as before.
>
>Yet there''s a reason for this. If we didn''t die, we''d eventually run out
>of
>food, water, and living space. That, in turn, would halt procreation and
>stop a newer generation from replacing us. So death is just as necessary
>as
>birth.
>
>Thanks again for writing.
>
>Best,
>Tommy
Tommy Responds
Bill,
I got your email that listed the "reasons" why I said we die, but you want to know what''s funny?
I never wrote that letter to you at all! I wrote this email to somebody named Matthew Fehman last June. I noticed that you even "whited-out" his name, which wouldn''t make sense if this was indeed your letter.
I wrote my first letter to you on November 10, 2000 in response to your attack on our "Bible Bad Fruits" page. And if you remember, that particular discussion rambled on and on incessantly until you finally decided to drop the subject in mid-stride and instead "ridicule" me for accepting the scientific evidence for biological evolution.
As for the letter I wrote to Matthew Fehman, let me try to clear up yours and his misunderstandings.
>Our body is programmed by cells that tell the body
>what to do, like a vast, interconnected computer network.
>
>From the time you first develop from a fertilized egg
>until you die, your cells tell your body what functions
>to carry out from inherited instructions carried in your
>genes.
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) contains the architectural genetic blueprint
present in every single cell of your body. DNA carries enough chemically
encoded information to equal to 75,000 pages of single-spaced written text,
to carry out specific instructions. So essentially, it does act like a
vast, interconnected computer network.
>Finally, [our bodies] just wear out. Some people''s
>bodies wear out more quickly than others because of
>sun damage, disease, emotional or hormonal environments,
>or because of copying mistakes in their original genetic
>blueprints. Many organs stop working because the
>mitochondria in their cells can''t provide as much energy
>as before.
>
>Yet there''s a reason for this. If we didn''t die, we''d
>eventually run out of food, water, and living space.
>That, in turn, would halt procreation and stop a newer
>generation from replacing us. So death is just as
>necessary as birth.
When I said that there was a "reason" for death, I didn''t mean to leave the impression that DNA carried encoded instructions to "kill" us at pre-appointed schedules.
Matthew Fehman''s original email asked this question: "What would be your position on why every living creature is destined to death?"
Then, I wrote back: "After reading your letter twice, I''m not sure if you''re asking genuine existential questions, or proselytizing in the guise of questions."
In other words, I knew Matt was a young-earth creationist preparing to tell me that physical death was the result of Original Sin, which is both scientifically and scripturally false.
In retrospect, I should''ve told Matt that like most heat engines, our bodies exhaust fuel faster than we can harness the available energy to sustain our longevity, and THAT''S the "reason" why we die.
Mortality is one of nature''s drawbacks -- NO heat engine works at 100 percent efficiency. We waste more heat energy than we put to work and, as a result, our bodies, organs, and cells eventually wear themselves out.
But when Matthew asked me "why" people and animals were "destined" to die, I meant to reassure him that mortality wasn''t such a bad thing, because without it, sexual reproduction and population growth would come to a dead halt.
When I reread my correspondence with Matt, my meaning appeared obvious, but apparently I gravely confused the two of you, so I''ll apologize for that and try to set the record straight.
>Hey Tommy click on the website for the Nationial
>Center for Science Education. What is the first
>thing you see?
>
>Answer: A TAX EXCEPT org. for defending the
>teaching of evolution.
>
>See the government funds and excempts your
>false religion!
According to the IRS Code Book, Exemptions from the Tax Benefit Act 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) include non-profit institutions dedicated to the promotion and advancement of education. So it doesn''t only apply to churches.
>>DNA isn''t required to perform linear equations
>>of population growth statistics because a local
>>environment''s carrying capacity takes care of itself.
>>The Department of Biological Sciences at the
>>University of South Carolina has a web page that
>>calculates the limitations of exponential growth
>>rates at http://marine.geol.sc.edu/BIOL/Courses/
>>BIOL301/Wethey/Outline09.html.
>
>Please send URLs that work! I would have loved
>to read this one.
Here it is again:
http://marine.geol.sc.edu/BIOL/Courses/
BIOL301/Wethey/Outline09.html
Let me warn you that Hotmail has a tendency to "wrap" long URLs, so if that happens, you''ll have to reconnect the broken links.
>>I also told you that the origin of the universe is a
>>separate issue from the origin of life because the
>>universe already existed for 12.5 billion years before
>>the first single-celled life form appeared on Earth.
>
>Yes Tommy and please explain to me how this
>first life form appeared on Earth! (It was after the
>big bang.) Please explain how non-living matter
>(which you have no explanation as to where it all
>came from) created life. And don''t bother seending
>anymore of your little just-so stories that actually
>show that it takes a thinking designer to even show
>a most crude attempt at reproducing life.
Bill, the origin of life occurred through an entirely separate process than its subsequent evolution.
I also told you in a prior email that the first prokaryotic cells appear in geologic strata that are 3.5 billion years old! And since the Earth is NOTHING like it was three and a half billion years ago, it would be impossible to artificially recreate the entire biosphere to resemble its former condition.
Still, biochemists have long "theorized" about what "could" have happened during our planet''s early history, and have experimentally verified many of their inferences. If you want to read a HISTORY of their ideas, you can go here:
http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/biology.html
If you''re interested in specific published papers that discuss the origin of life, you can go here:
http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/~deamer/home.html
If you want to follow a roadmap of published books and articles that directly address this topic, go here:
http://scienceweek.com/bklist4.htm
>Please sent url that work.
The URL link you sent back to me on dinosaurs and birds was broken due to your email application''s word wrap. Go back to the original URL and reconstruct it.
>>And even if you could "prove" that the universe originated
>>though an impromptu, spontaneous miracle by a Super Being,
>>that wouldn''t change the evidence for its subsequent
>>cosmological, galactic, stellar, and planetary evolution.
>
>What evidence? (And please no more just-so stories.)
Why don''t you read a beginner''s guide to astrophysics?
For some basic info, click below:
http://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/
essays/stellar-evolution.html
>>Furthermore, scientific evidence for "miracles" STILL
>>wouldn''t erase all the discrepancies, contradictions, and
>>logical inconsistencies in the Bible, either.
>
>All these "contradictions" have been refuted all over the
>web they are easy to find.
These blatant "contradictions" have been confirmed "all over the web" as well:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
farrell_till/prophecy.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/
theism/christianity/errancy.html
>Yes is was a nice try, thankyou. Now please
>send me a nice responce.
Bill, I frankly don''t understand why you''re harassing me again. Are you attempting, in your own misguided way, to witness to me?
Since every email you''ve ever sent does nothing but taunt, ridicule, and insult me, you''re not making Christianity look attractive. Besides, I was already saved and baptized when I was 9 years old, so I don''t think it''s necessary to repeat the whole rigmarole again.
Are you trying to convince me to reject all the evidence for evolution and substitute it with a misplaced belief in young-earth flood geology instead?
That will never happen. You can''t force someone to intellectually squeeze toothpaste back into the tube.
If you want to spend your time constructively, witness to somebody else who doesn''t already know you as well as I do.
In other words, please don''t write back!
Thanks,
Tommy,
>I wrote my first letter to you on November 10, 2000 in response
>to your attack on our "Bible Bad Fruits" page. And if you
>remember, that particular discussion rambled on and on
>incessantly until you finally decided to drop the subject
>in mid-stride and instead "ridicule" me for accepting
>the scientific evidence for biological evolution.
Oh please, you Tommy are the one who lashes out against Christianity whenever your sacred cow has received a mortol blow. I attack your false religion with questions and facts concerning the emails you send me and your responce is, "I don''t remember saying that" or you just plain refuse to answer the question when it cuts your sacred cow to the bone.
>>Answer: A TAX EXCEPT org. for defending the
>>teaching of evolution.
>>
>>See the government funds and excempts your
>>false religion!
>
>According to the IRS Code Book, Exemptions from the Tax Benefit Act 26
>U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) include non-profit institutions dedicated to the
>promotion and advancement of education. So it doesn''t only apply to
>churches.
Yes, your right, It applys to all religions, even the advancement of education on false religions. (evolution)
>Bill, I frankly don''t understand why you''re harassing me again.
After our exchange of emails last June the debating ended, which was fine. You stoped emailing me so I quit emailing you. End of story. Not with Tommy, he has to put one of my questions up on his website and than answer it without my responce repersented as well. What happened to both sides Tommy? Well once I understood how the rules work in Tommy''s little game I decided to start the TD Zone mailbox.
>Are you attempting, in your own misguided way, to witness to me?
Yes.
>Since every email you''ve ever sent does nothing but taunt,
>ridicule, and insult me,
Oh please. All I have done was attack your beliefs just as you have attacked mine.
>you''re not making Christianity look attractive.
I thought about this for awhile and you are right. When I saw my email on your website I made the mistake of taking this personaly. I will email you nomore after this.
I want to thankyou Tommy for your time.
Best to you always,
Goodbye
Bill
|
|
|
Back to Fan Mail
|
