Re: SFN Articles “Preaching that Anti-Evolution Propaganda” and “Tommy Debates the Bible Answer man”
To: Tommy Huxley
From: Karen Bartelt
Date: March 31, 1999
I also have a commute, and sometimes listen to "BAM" in the morning.
Perhaps it is masochism on my part; I have wanted to call in and/or
write a rebuttal as well. Now I don't have to (or even spend good
money on the book) because you have covered it. Thanks for summarizing
the "dreck" so well!
As far as the phone call... hey, you tried. On the other hand, one
could envision getting a large group of people together, and each
person calling in with a specific comment/dig/rebuttal about FACE. All
of Hank's answers could be taped and transcribed. If it were done
randomly, he might not even catch on. At the very least, he would be
wasting time on his program! I've noticed that several of his callers
really beat around the bush before they get to a point, and I have
wondered whether this is a strategy his opponents routinely use.
I got into a similar one-sided debate with a creationist phony named
Kent Hovind this fall. He went off in all sorts of directions and his
"flock" did not care what I said in rebuttal, but overall, it was a
positive experience because now there are a couple of anti-Hovind
websites, and everyone now knows he has a phony degree.
Thanks again for the time you spent on the rebuttal.
To: Karen Bartelt
From: Tommy Huxley
Date: Unknown Are you the same Karen Bartelt that wrote about your trip to the ICR museum with other members of CSICOP? And then published your account on Talk.Origins?
Despite your essay’s enormous length, I read it several times and used some of your points in arguments with other creationists. In fact, I’m glad that you pointed me to Glenn Morton’s website. I’ve had several creationists tell me that no complete geologic column exists anywhere in the world, and your article helped me prove them wrong.
Also, I agree with you that Kent Hovind is a simple-minded dope that appeals to fundamentalist fears instead of scientific reason. And how about that doctorate of his from Patriot University, that famous diploma mill? Hovind’s such a loser!
Thank you for your compliments. In fact, I wrote my review of Hank’s book for the same reason that Hanegraaff claims he wrote it: “I’m so in love with the truth that I want my readers to recognize a counterfeit on the horizon.”
And my motives are purer than Hank’s. Nobody paid me a dime for my review, and Hank’s getting stupendous royalties for his work of fiction!
Thanks again for writing.
To: Tommy Huxley
From: Karen Bartelt
Date: Unknown
[Tommy wrote:]
Are you the same Karen Bartelt that wrote
about your trip to the ICR museum with other
members of CSICOP? And then published your
account on Talk.Origins?
That's me. Not to be confused with my ex-sister-in-law of the same
name!
Despite your essay's enormous length, I read
it several times and used some of your points
in arguments with other creationists. In fact,
I'm glad that you pointed me to Glenn Morton's
website. I've had several creationists tell
me that no complete geologic column exists
anywhere in the world, and your article helped
me prove them wrong.
Thanks a lot. The ICR really drives that point about the complete
geologic column home. It's funny that the "complete" geologic column
is such a big deal to creationists, though. Having rocks from all the
geologic ages in no way implies that deposition was continuous
throughout all geologic ages (there could be rocks from the mid-
Cretaceous only).
Many geologists have pointed this out to me. Anyone who has taken
enough geology to know about erosion and unconformities knows that
complete columns are unlikely, to say the least. I assume their game
is to simply plant seeds of doubt about ALL scientific procedures,
models, and theories!
One could also make the point that if all of the strata were deposited
in a worldwide flood within a year's time, then the whole Earth should
have much more UNIFORM geologic columns. That's what I throw back at
creationists.
Also, I agree with you that Kent Hovind
is a simple-minded dope that appeals to
fundamentalist fears instead of scientific
reason. And how about that doctorate of
his from Patriot University, that famous
diploma mill? Hovind's such a loser!
Have you seen the picture of Patriot University on the web? I'm proud
to say that I got a friend of mine in Alamosa to shoot the picture.
Thank you for your compliments. In fact,
I wrote my review of Hank's book for the
same reason that Hanegraaff claims he wrote
it: "I'm so in love with the truth that I
want my readers to recognize a counterfeit
on the horizon."
And that's the important thing!
And my motives are purer than Hank's.
Nobody paid me a DIME for my review, and
Hank's getting stupendous royalties for
his work of fiction!
I did read some of the other links in your review. That and Hank's
bleating for $$$ make me think that he is in some financial trouble.
One can at least hope...
Thanks for writing back. I book-marked your site, and will be letting
other "Hank fans" know about it (if they don't already).
|
