|
|
|
Evolution is a Lie, and you Skeptics KNOW it!
By Dr. Mark Purchase
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.
|
This is the first in a series of letters that a creationist named Dr. Mark Purchase, Ph.D., sent to the Skeptic Friends Network and five other skeptic sites on the Web.
Dr. Purchase hates evolution with a vengeance! And he carries a real chip on his shoulder when corresponding with non-believers.
Worse, he aggressively condescends to all of us here at SFN, and his attitude comes across as conceited, overbearing, and immensely self-important.
If you think I''m exaggerating, see for yourself
From: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
To: <tommy_huxley@hotmail.com>
Subject: "Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:41:10 +1200
Just been reading some of the articles on the Sceptic Friends website, where your name and email addresses are.
I thought the "Sceptics" were intelligent people who asked intelligent questions and based what they believe on scientific facts and proven evidence. I thought they debate the issues and used common sense. But any Sceptic who argues for atheistic evolution destroys any possibility of this. What proof is there for atheism? You must answer this if you want people embrace atheism. It''s just simply impossible to disprove God. To say ''God does not exist'' is a universal negative. It''s impossible to prove a universal negative therefore atheism is false and impossible to defend [unless you have complete knowledge of everything].
Atheism is a self-refuting statement; no one knows enough to be an atheist so there''s no logical ground for it. You must have total knowledge of all reality and know all facts and truth of existence. How do you know God is not somewhere out there where you can''t see? You don''t! Is it possible for God to exist outside the knowledge you possess? So there''s no way you can defend your case.
After reading the Septic Friends website it''s obvious evolution is lacking solid sound evidence. The theory of evolution is NOT a scientific proven theory or fact. If Sceptics honestly evaluated the evidence they would KNOW this. If you people want to get into a brick fight, you ought to have a brick. And what''s wrong believing there''s a God? Are we supposed to hate Christians, laugh at God and mock the Bible like you people? Are Allah and Buddha OK then?
My estimation of the Sceptic Society has taken a ''nose-dive'', because atheistic evolutionary theory is a mess. Atheism is essentially a religion based on blind faith - it takes greater faith to be an atheist. One must accept the impossible, believe the ridiculous and trust the absurd. You are asking people to believe
1. Matter is eternal.
2. Matter without life created life.
3. Matter without mind created mind.
4. Matter without intelligence created intelligence.
5. Matter without morals created morals.
6. Matter without conscience created conscience.
7. Matter without purpose created purpose and order.
Chesterton''s dictum is right. ''When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing they believe in anything''. Atheism is rationally impossible, in order to be a atheist
1. You must prove there is no God.
2. Refute all the evidence for the existence of God.
3. Explain away the reality of Christ.
4. Remove the evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
5. Disprove all the prophecies in the Bible.
6. Demonstrate the Bible is a fraud.
7. Establish the credibility of atheism.
The website fails at this and fails in the face of millions who know intuitively there is a God, which indicates the Sceptic Friends Society is a joke. And after reading the comments there, it sounds more like the Septic Tank Society.
Mark Purchase [Ph.D]
''Athesim is only intelligible in a theistic context. It can only be seen as real where God has been seen as real''
From: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
To: <tommy_huxley@hotmail.com>
Subject: Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 12:31:11 +1200
Hi Everyone
Thank you for all your replies, keep them coming. Unfortunately the most vocal atheists appear the most silent. Why? Below are most of the replies to my first email. I thought it only fair to let everyone know the response Enjoy -
Contents:
Reply one - [won''t give his name]
Reply two - [no name]
Reply three - John Stear
Reply four - [no name]
Conclusion
Hi there
Thank you for your very unexpected reply. I hope you have some depth to your convictions are able to continue writing. But I suspect you will disappear very quickly. You wrote,
>>Thank you for taking some of your valuable life time to reading something that just might have been of value to you. I suspect, however that we were simply a target for your spleen.<<
Not exactly. Unfortunately I have found that agnostics and atheists do not make a real effort to know if there is a God. They do not consider the question all that crucial. So they won''t write and defend their unbelief. If you know someone who will, let me know. Your website has made others "a target for your spleen" and apparently [reading your email] you''re unable to provide a reasonable defence for doing so. You wrote,
>>I will take some of my valuable life time to reply to your email but no more than this.<<
I wouldn''t be surprised if you spent even less "time" evaluating the material from Answers in Genesis. But yes, you don''t have much "time" for those who read your website and challenge the information you "wholly endorse." For you "time" is so short with the despair of the grave just around the corner and no hope. You wrote,
>>I wholly endorse all of the items placed there it and the other site No answers in Genesis.<<
Your "endorsement" is empty. I hope you can ''find the time'' to write and reveal your arguments for endorsing it. Do you have some facts the rest of us don''t have that prove there''s no God? Some facts that show people are irrational if they believe evolutionary theory is a shambles? You wrote,
>>I notice that your qualification of Ph.D. suggests an interest in Philosophy so in view of the problems you have with our site I can only recommend http://go.webring.yahoo.com/go?ring=darwinsring&id=24&go This should help you to get to grips with your problem. It is a site I recommend to all people who do not understand us or claim things about us that are untrue.<<
I will look at that site. But its ironic people who insist there''s "no Answers in Genesis" have no answers themselves and quick to suggest, ''go find another website''. And ironic when any Ph.D. who questions their website is said to have a "problem" and doesn''t "understand". If I wrote things "untrue", then please explain. To say there''s "no answers in Genesis" is "untrue". Genesis says, "God created the world" - if that''s not an "answer", what is? You wrote,
>>My reply is short because my life is short and I intend to live it my way not the way anyone else tells me to live it.<<
Yes you "intend" to believe what you want and no one can change your mind. The dilemma of humanism is that man alone is autonomous. And in life he has no way to say certain things are right and certain things are wrong. He makes his own ideas of right and wrong, with no final authority. Humanism ends in despair, it has no meaning for man in moral things. If you begin with that which is finite you can never reach an absolute no matter how far you project it. But I guarantee you, you are ''living life the way someone tells you'' whether you realize it or not. You wrote,
>>If you understand the scientific methods, if you learn the thinking processes of rational men and can use your language carefully and accurately and spend many years developing and honing your thought processes you too may get a lot out of this life.<<
That''s just the reason I write. Also, if you understood "scientific methods" you wouldn''t hold with Atheistic evolution. Real science can only deal with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. How is it you don''t know this?
It''s a scientific fact, life can only come from pre-existent life not from matter alone. The bases for atheism is that matter and chance produced life. The problem with matter is that it''s not eternal. Matter must have originated some time in the past by a method equivalent to creation. You must either say, in the beginning God or in the beginning nothing. How can nothing produce matter and matter produce life? Even the simplest living things are amazingly complex. How can non-living matter can jump the many hurdles required to form living cells?
That''s why the atheist has no explanation for life, because without God life has no sense. Can life come from nothing and develop itself? No! It makes more sense to believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and earth" than in the beginning nothing produced something. And then millions of atoms fell together by themselves without a blueprint and made a simple microbe or cell.
There must be an intelligence to start with, to direct the atoms. All things left to themselves fall apart, not together. Computers don''t happen by chance and matter, it takes intelligence to produce something intelligent. How can matter and chance (both void of intelligence) ultimately produce something as complex as the human brain? Information is stored on DNA code, but the code itself is not intelligent nor improved by random chance. Genetic defects or accidents never improve DNA only destroy or damage it.
"But wait", I hear you say "I''m not interested, I don''t care". Yes I can well believe that. It''s that disinterest that makes your website a sham. You don''t want to find the ultimate truth about life [or even study the material on your website]. For you there can be nothing certain, nothing sure, nothing knowable, no answers, just an aimless drifting. If you really are sincere about getting "a lot out of life" let me know. You wrote,
>>Remember: Only Sheep need a Shepherd.<<
And lost "Sheep" need a "Shepherd" far more, because "life" has no explanation for them. The world doesn''t make sense. No amount of chance and time could produce a world like ours in all its complexity. What''s the use of a man if he has no final thing to relate to? If there''s no Absolute to give us the measure of right and wrong, we are all like lost sheep.
Regards
Mark Purchase
Remember - "Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"
(Prof. L Bounoure Ph.D The Advocate, 8 Mar.1984 pg.17)
Well Hello there,
You wrote,
>>You arrogant man. Everything you say you would be surprised about is true. I have read - I have studied -I have weighed - I have done everything you implied or stated I might not have done and I find NO need or reason to have a god in any shape or form.<<
The reason I doubt you have "read and studied" is because evolution has major problems to over come before it can be accepted as creditable. These you apparently know nothing about. These ''problems'' are not some kind of narrow personal observation but common knowledge among any who have studied the issues. When I write to people who have studied in a particular field two things are obvious [1] They''re delighted to share their expertise in what they know [2] They delight to help others who have misunderstandings about what they know. You have done none of these. So while you claim intelligence, your words reveal otherwise. You wrote,
>>History easily shows that most wars throughout recorded time has been either about territory or religion. One I can understand the other I find reprehensible. <<
Is this the findings of your study, or a personal gripe? Is this the information that reveals "there''s no God"? Or I''m in error regarding evolution? You wrote,
>>Do not waste your poor life on people like me I find the world easy to explain<<
Atheism says there''s no cause [or explanation] for the world. Yet we know of nothing in this world without a cause or explanation behind its existence, even if we don''t yet know the explanation behind it. So there must be a cause behind the world and universe. Things everywhere are explained by a cause lying outside them. The human mind can''t make sense of anything without a cause behind its existence ''From nothing, nothing comes''. The First Cause must have intelligence because there are intelligent beings in the universe and the universe is intelligible, capable of being studied and described intelligently. You wrote,
>> unfortunately religion comes into that understanding in a completely different way to the way you see it.<<
I''m not pushing religion I was just responding to the website. For someone who says, "the world is easy to explain" you don''t have much explanation. But I was really hoping you would "explain" evolution or why there''s no God. You wrote,
>>I am an atheist, an objectivist, a scientist, an evolutionist, a rationalist and any other of the epithets someone like you can find for me<<
I wonder if you really know who you are, or what you believe. While you say these things of yourself yet you can''t hold the position of "Atheist" dogmatically. The atheist''s claim that God does not exist crumbles under examination. For a person to "declare" there''s "NO god", is done in ignorance. You would have to know the universe in its entirety and possess all knowledge. If you had these credentials, then by definition you would be God. Since you are not all knowing, you cannot make a dogmatic statement on God''s existence.
You can state that you are only uncertain whether or not there is a God [this view is agnosticism]. Tell me, are there any absolutes or not? If there is no God, there''s no absolutes. But there is a God and there are absolutes. You contradict yourself insisting there is absolutely no God. You wrote,
>>and I am proud of the non stop study I have undertaken all my life to reach these conclusions<<
At the moment [sorry to doubt you] but your words appear empty and your arguments without substance. Like I said, your "study" is not apparent. One who has a "life" of study "non stop" in a particular field is both a pleasure to listen to and so eager to talk about their study that it''s almost impossible to stop them. You are interested in nothing of the sort. You wrote,
>> - but most of all I am proud of the times I have changed my mind based on evidence and in particular that day I stopped sitting on the fence and declared for NO god (Thank you Isaac Asimov).<<
What changed your mind about the following books? Have you read any of them? Can you quote them? If you can give some "evidence" to the error of these books it would be very remarkable. But please do -
"Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" Dr.Michael Denton.
"Darwin''s Black Box". Pro.M.J. Behe.
"Bones of Contention". Mavin Lubenow.
"Not A Change" Dr. Lee Spetner.
"Evolution: the fossils STILL say NO!" Dr. D.T. Gish.
"Darwin on Trial" P.E. Johnson.
"Darwin''s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems" L.D. Sunderland.
"Collapse of Evolution" S.Huse.
"The Young Earth" Dr.J.D Morris.
"In the Minds of Men; Darwin and the New World Order" Pro.I.T.Taylor.
"Early Earth" Dr. J.C.Whitcomb
"The Fossil Evidence" Dr.G.Parker
"The Biotic Message" W.J.ReMine
"Starlight and Time" Dr.R. Humphreys
"In Six Days" Ed. J.F.Ashton - 50 chapters written by 50 Ph.D scientists.
Many more books could be mentioned. You wrote,
>>I thank you for showing me once again that there is no greater intolerance to others than that shown by, in particular, Christians but any fundamentalists in general.<<
But you are wrong. I have shown myself completely open and ready to read and listen to what you say. I have found you are rude and don''t have time for those who read the website and challenge the information you "wholly endorse." Sure, you "intend" to believe what you want, and no one can change your mind. Those who find security in a false belief system fail to see the light, facts and truth make no difference to them. Perhaps your eyes are blinded to truth? If you have an open mind and years of study, why not defend the truth about these maters? If you know the truth what are you so afraid of?
Regards
Mark Purchase
"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" [Dr. L.Watson Science Digest, vol.90 May 1982 pg.44]
"If there is no absolute to judge society then society is absolute"
Hi John
Thanks for writing. You ask,
>>I''ll reply to your first e-mail later but can you tell me who you are having the dialogue with?<<
No names are given. And I prefer to protect the privacy of those writing. And they appear extremely agitated and don''t like people writing to them about Sceptics, evolution, Answers in Genesis or you. The impression is that he''s a professional [studies "non-stop"] although I''m not sure about that, I doubt "atheists" believe truth is important. You end your mail saying,
>>"Creationism is not the alternative to Evolution, ignorance is." <<
"Lets face it, students, Hydrogen is a gas which, if left long enough, turns into people...." How''s that for "ignorance"? I will say one thing in his favour he makes an attempt to answer his mail. You had time to answer and have not. I doubt you will. Do the Sceptic Society hear no, see no, examine no evidence contrary to their misconceptions? ''Ignorance is Bliss'', or in this case is ''dishonest''.
John the ''news is out'', evolution is a fraud and the Sceptic Society are the last people to know about it. Use your head John, examine the facts, do some research. Evolution is not universally accepted. Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. In the USA alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists [the vast majority not officially linked to creation organizations] who believe in biblical creation.
I shouldn''t be the one having to provide you with the facts. But ask yourself, Why does the scientific community have such a wide radius of thought and not united on evolution? If it''s a universal law of nature, why has the scientific community not found one instance of change from one species into another? Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? Invertebrates to fish? Fish to amphibians? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Reptiles to mammals? Land mammals to sea mammals? Non-flying mammals to bats? Apes to humans? Please write and tell me won''t you. Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those ''missing links'' have not turned up. I''m surprised you have no knowledge of this.
There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. And that''s the facts!
New evidence emerges repeatedly that is devastating to evolutionary hypotheses, none of this finds it way into your head, why not? E.g. Dinosaur bones that are not fossilised have been discovered - proving they cannot be millions of years old. Dinosaur blood cells discovered - blood cells cannot survive millions of years [There''s many other examples]. Since Darwin the history of science is fill of fake discoveries that promised the missing link but never delivered [Consider E. Haeckel]. Numerous claims of "clear evidence" of evolution yet all failed under examination. Remember "Pithecanthropus Erectus" - "Heidelberg Man" - "Lucy" - "Neandlberg Man" - "Pitdown Man" - "Little Foot" - "Swanscombe" - "Hisperopithectus" - "Hesperopithecus" or "Zinjanthropus"? [all fake and there''s others]. Many claims from evolutionist are from paleontologists who spend their lives picking-up fragments of bones, skulls and jaws bones. They have a strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments and you fall for it every-time. Paleontologists want so hard to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and our inability to even imagine and construct functional intermediates is a continual problem for evolution.
How is it you know nothing about these things? You people should be ''leading the charge'' on this one, not in dreamland. I''m very disappointed, Sceptics should expose error not support it.
Regards
Mark Purchase
Hi there,
Thanks for your efforts. You wrote,
>>Any first year Philosophy textbook will suffice to show that the meaning of the way people use the word GOD is inconsistent and not logical or rational.<<
Surely the way atheists take the name of "God" in vain is more inconsistent. Why do so many say "God" "Lord" "Jesus" "Christ" in vain? Yet God''s existence is logical and feasible. Its in harmony with history, mans mental and moral nature, as well as the nature of the material universe. Atheism solves no problems and answers no questions, whereas God''s existence is like a magical key that fits the facts of Scripture, knowledge and science. Men who ignore God do so not because science or reason or "first year Philosophy textbooks" require it, but purely and simply because they want to. "They did not like to retain God in their knowledge" Rom 1:28. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man" Rom 1:22-23. For those who desire to know God, however, He has revealed Himself perfectly through His Son and can be known without consulting a ''Philosophy book''. You wrote,
>>My belief is that if the very people who are the most strong in their belief of a god cannot be consistent then the concept is at best not very helpful.<<
Why reject "the concept" of a God because those you think "strong in their belief" are inconsistent? If so, why ignore the inconsistency within evolutionary theory? There''s a huge amount of evidence life didn''t evolve from some primordial soup, why ignore that? You wrote,
>>Therefore I do not have to worry my head or waste my time considering items that 2000 years of careful thought have not provided sufficient justification for.<<
In your last mail you wrote, "I have read - I have studied - I have weighed...I am proud of the non stop study I have undertaken all my life". But now, you wouldn''t "worry" your "head" or "waste" your "time" about creation or God etc. What about being open-minded for once? You wrote,
>>Children appear to be born with no natural belief in a god, that has to be indoctrinated.<<
Many primitive tribes have been discovered (untouched by civilisation) who believe in a ''great spirit''. Why? Their intuition about God is not an understanding based on knowledge. Nor on the other hand, is it without the process of reasoning or independent of intellect, so it can''t be ''indoctrinated''. Millions believe in God - an awful lot of skulduggery going on?
Men know intuitively there''s a God it''s apart of their nature at birth. Why? Because men generally worship something or someone or believe in a god or gods and if they don''t find or accept the true God, they can''t satisfy their intuitive knowledge and fill their life with material things that don''t satisfy.
Children are certainly not born with a natural belief in evolution but they are indoctrinated about that. It''s sad the way public education systems handle the Creation/Evolution debate. They brainwash children to go a certain direction. The media has had a censorship for years regarding news ideas that do not support the theory of evolution.
Newspapers, magazines and journals are committed to the evolutionary position. They focus on Darwin and neglect to mention such men as Michael Faraday, James Maxwell and William Thomson and Lord Kelvin, who at the time the ''Origin'' was introduced were the true giants of science. These men had great credibility among scientists of the day and never did accept Darwin''s theory. You wrote,
>>The specific religion that is based on the life of Christ has caused more schisms and wars than any scientific theory - if we add in the other two "one god" religions, Judaism and Muhamedism, the potential for World War 3 is already in existence.<<
Your last email claimed its "understandable" to kill for "territory" but not ''religion'', why is that? Would it be all right to have WW3 over "territory" ? Schisms and wars don''t deny God''s existence. You know nothing about the ''life based on Christ'' for someone who claims a "non stop study all life". True Christianity "based on the life of Christ" promotes brotherly love, peace and the sanctity of life.
"Christ" has changed drug addicts, cheats, murders and liars. Little wonder church organizations worldwide have done more good than any theory of evolution. Answers in Genesis say man is made in "God''s image" and so man has dignity. Atheistic evolution argues, "No! he''s just an animal". Since animals kill, naturally men would. Consider Hitler''s Germany, the Master Race, the stronger and better will survive, while Jews and blacks were regarded as inferior. The atheist Stalin who followed Darwin was perhaps history''s greatest mass murder. A world view that says, if no one made me, no one owns me, and there''s no absolute right or wrong, then what''s wrong with murdering people, even millions of them?
Evolution is more of a scientific religion than a theory. Real science can only deal with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer. While its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So by evolution we mean the non-provable [ie. religious] belief that all things have made themselves by means of their own natural properties without outside input. You wrote,
>>Finally I append a short series of articles all readily answering all of the points you have made and selected straight from No Answers in Genesis so you could have spent a little time reading them - the list is not exhaustive and should not take anyone very long to read, I''ve tried to select only those items relating directly to your problem. In case you did not notice my last email this time it is GOODBYE.<<
I had read some websites already and that''s why I wrote. Ironic the people who insist there''s "no Answers in Genesis" have no answers and suggest, ''go find another website'', or ''don''t ask me'' or "GOODBYE". The problem I have with Evolution'' websites is that the owners are much the same. They have information on their site they would rather not discuss. My on-going experience is that they don''t reply to questions, or like Mr. Stear, promise to reply but don''t. Why? If they have the truth what do they have to fear?
Most of the people, who tell me they believe in evolution, when I ask them to tell me why, cannot do so. They cannot explain it in a scientific manner, but when they come across someone who can explain Creation in a scientific valid manner they just turn around and walk away.
Regards
Mark Purchase
Dr. T.N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission) "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact"
J.Reader (Missing Links New Scientist)
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present"
Pro W.Gitt
"The laws about information are the best evidence for creation, as all living things have a ''code'' containing information to reproduce life. Non-living things in nature have no such code; therefore information to produce life is not available to them. There can be no code and no information without an intelligent source of this information. As the theory of evolution has no ultimate aim, it does not explain the purposeful details which we observe in living systems
Conclusion.
"The fool says in his heart there''s no God" [Psa.14:1].
He mocks the Bible but can''t change the facts. The fool believes there''s nothing outside space and time and believes in the ultimate depths of his heart; he''s nothing also. By his denials, he unwittingly offers the strongest possible argument for the existence of God that can possible be conceived. He can never explain his existence. When he hears the truth he shuts his eyes and ears so he can''t hear. If nothing in this world is able to explain its own existence, there must be a God in order to explain the world in which we find ourselves.
Answer this simple question, Why is there something rather than nothing, why is there a universe at all? Voltaire was right, ''If there is no God it would be necessary to invent him''. The proposition that the universe and world is the product of pure chance and believing everything happens at random without rhyme or reason; is mental suicide.
The deeply ingrained perception that a system as complex as the genetic equipment and the origin of living organisms could have been produced by chance must be one of the biggest deceptions ever to occur on earth.
If God did not exist, everything would be permitted. There would be no absolutes, everything is relative, there is no ultimate law of morals, and everything is subjective. If there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard by which to determine what is good and evil.
Regards
Mark Purchase
Larry responds:
From: "Larry Canonica" <raycrx@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 10:38:34 -0700
I am only the webmaster and am not an atheist by the way. In fact, The Skeptic Friends Network doesn''t have a single atheist on its staff. Dunno where you got that information, but it surely wan''t on our site since there are several areas where we talk about how there are no atheists there. It was more than a little obvious that you did little if ANY reading at SFN.
You might try actually reading what you have decided to deride with your "one size fits all" anti-evolution rhetoric.
Skeptic Friends Network
From: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
To: "Larry Canonica" <raycrx@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Hi Larry
You wrote,
>>I am only the webmaster and am not an atheist by the way. In fact, The Skeptic Friends Network doesn''t have a single atheist on its staff. Dunno where you got that information,<<
Do you have some kind of new meaning to the word? I thought Skepticism means
"...a doubt of or disbelief in the existence of God." I suspect that most modern day atheists are more correctly defined as skeptics. The "information" I "got" was from http://www.skepticfriends.org/ If your "staff" were people who believed in God, it''s hard to see how they could rubbish Him and His people so profusely without any regard. Anyone who reads the articles is struck the mocking and ridicule and the evolutionary bias. The "SFN staff" are very clever at rubbishing the Bible but not so clever at presenting a balanced appraisal of the Bible or evolution. You wrote,
>> but it surely wan''t on our site since there are several areas where we talk about how there are no atheists there. It was more than a little obvious that you did little if ANY reading at SFN.<<
For skeptics who believe in God, you people sure are strange. I "did" plenty of "reading" ie. http://www.skepticfriends.org/badfruit.html (written by Tommy and Dawn on the "SFN staff") etc. But where is the balance and understanding in what''s written? Note the Creation/Evolution articles on your site. It''s sad the way you people handle the Creation/Evolution debate. We are constantly brainwashed to believe what defiles common sense. The media also has had a censorship for years regarding news items that do not support the theory of evolution. Newspapers, magazines and journals are committed to the evolutionary position, just as you people. Over and over on your website we are lead to believe that whatever we believe DON''T BELIEVE IN GOD NEVER!! NEVER!! You wrote,
>>You might try actually reading what you have decided to deride with your "one size fits all" anti-evolution rhetoric.<<
I write to you as one who has read the websites like yours and much more "information" than your little site. Larry the ''news is out'', evolution is a fraud and the Sceptic Society are the last people to know about it. Think Larry, examine the facts, do some research. Evolution is not universally accepted. Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. In the USA alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists [the vast majority not officially linked to creation organizations] who believe in biblical creation. This NOT some weird little group of STRANGE people, these are professionals in their fields, very capable people who you people ignore.
I shouldn''t be the one having to provide the facts. Ask yourself, why does the scientific community have such a wide radius of thought and is NOT united on evolution? If it''s a universal law of nature, why has the scientific community not found one instance of change from one species into another? Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? Invertebrates to fish? Fish to amphibians? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Reptiles to mammals? Land mammals to sea mammals? Non-flying mammals to bats? Apes to humans? Please write and tell me won''t you. Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those ''missing links'' have not turned up. I''m surprised you have no knowledge of this.
There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. And that''s the facts!
New evidence emerges repeatedly that is devastating to evolutionary hypotheses, none of this would ever be considered by sceptics, why not? E.g. Dinosaur bones that are not fossilised have been discovered - proving they cannot be millions of years old. Dinosaur blood cells discovered - blood cells cannot survive millions of years [There''s many examples].
Since Darwin the history of evolution theory is FILL of FAKE discoveries that promised the missing link but NEVER delivered [Consider E.Haeckel]. Numerous claims of "clear evidence" of evolution yet all failed under examination. Remember "Pithecanthropus Erectus" - "Heidelberg Man" - "Lucy" - "Neandlberg Man" - "Pitdown Man" - "Little Foot" - "Swanscombe" - "Hisperopithectus" - "Hesperopithecus" or "Zinjanthropus"? [all FAKE and there''s others]. Many claims from evolutionist are from palaeontologists who spend their lives picking-up fragments of bones, skulls and jaws bones. They have a strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments and Larry will fall for it every-time. Palaeontologists want so hard to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and our inability to even imagine and construct functional intermediates is a continual problem for evolution.
Yes you know nothing about these things. You should be ''leading the charge'' on this one, not in dreamland. I''m disappointed, Sceptics should expose error not support it.
THINK Larry. They came out of the sea - after millions of years [no proof for this] turned into cows and then because they feed at the waters edge - after millions of years land mammals turned into sea mammals. Come on Larry, if that''s the theory sceptics indorse, they should have a little area where people can have a laugh at them.
Regards
Mark Purchase
Conclusion.
"The fool says in his heart there''s no God" [Psa.14:1]. He mocks the Bible but can''t change the facts. The fool believes there''s nothing outside space and time and believes in the ultimate depths of his heart; he''s nothing also. By his denials, he unwittingly offers the strongest possible argument for the existence of God that can possible be conceived. He can never explain his existence. When he hears the truth he shuts his eyes and ears so he can''t hear. If nothing in this world is able to explain its own existence, there must be a God in order to explain the world in which we find ourselves.
Answer this simple question, Why is there something rather than nothing, why is there a universe at all? Voltaire was right, ''If there is no God it would be necessary to invent him''. The proposition that the universe and world is the product of pure chance and believing everything happens at random without rhyme or reason; is mental suicide.
The deeply ingrained perception that a system as complex as the genetic equipment and the origin of living organisms could have been produced by chance must be one of the biggest deceptions ever to occur on earth.
If God did not exist, everything would be permitted. There would be no absolutes, everything is relative, there is no ultimate law of morals, and everything is subjective. If there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard by which to determine what is good and evil.
David Glück responds:
From: "David Glück" <Kil@skepticfriends.org>
Reply-To: <Kil@skepticfriends.org>
To: <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
Subject: "Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 00:46:30 -0400
Dear Doctor Purchase,
Thanks for taking the time to write to the staff at Skeptic Friends Network. I''m sorry you didn''t enjoy your visit to our site. I feel compelled to comment on some of your "observations" about us.
>I thought the "Sceptics" were intelligent people who asked intelligent questions and based what they believe on scientific facts and proven evidence. I thought they debate the issues and used common sense. But any Sceptic who argues for atheistic evolution destroys any possibility of this.<
I, for one, argue for evolution. Others here also argue for evolution. I don''t think that any of us argues for "atheistic evolution." I''m not even sure of what that is. I have never seen or heard "atheistic evolution" mentioned in any science class, book or paper on the subject. I have heard the term used by creationists from time to time, but it''s their term. There is no such subject as atheistic evolution in academia. The articles and letters on our site that deal with evolution are in response to attacks on it by a small but vocal minority who either do not understand the theory or reject it because it does not fit a particular religious viewpoint that everything in the bible must be taken literally.
>What proof is there for atheism? You must answer this if you want people embrace atheism. It''s just simply impossible to disprove God. To say ''God does not exist'' is a universal negative. It''s impossible to prove a universal negative therefore atheism is false and impossible to defend [unless you have complete knowledge of everything].<
Our site isn''t about atheism. I am not an atheist and to the best of my knowledge neither are most of the other staff members. I agree with you. I also think its impossible to disprove God, so I make no attempt do that. There are no articles on our site written with the intention of disproving the existence of God. That is not what we are about.
>After reading the Septic Friends website it''s obvious evolution is lacking solid sound evidence. The theory of evolution is NOT a scientific proven theory or fact. If Sceptics honestly valuated the evidence they would KNOW this. If you people want to get into a brick fight, you ought to have a brick. And what''s wrong believing there''s a God? Are we supposed to hate Christians, laugh at God and mock the Bible like you people? Are Allah and Buddha ok then?<
The Theory of Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence. And yes, evolution is a theory. But in science, a theory is about as close to a fact as you are going to get. The Theory of Evolution has withstood every test and attack for over 100 years. The vast majority of biologists consider it the cornerstone of their science. Evolution is the favored theory, again, of the vast majority of geologists, anthropologists, paleontologists and more. Many of those scientists believe there is a God and, because they do not take the narrow view, have no problem with evolution.
There are no articles on our site that mock the bible. If you are referring to "The Bibles Bad Fruit" essay, than you have mis-understood it. The idea is to show how you can take a phrase out of context and give it a new meaning that has nothing to do with the authors intended meaning. "Bad Fruit" is a demonstration of a ploy often used by "Creation Scientists" to add an appearance of scientific credibility to their incredible claims.
>My estimation of the Sceptic Society has taken a ''nose-dive'', because atheistic evolutionary theory is a mess. Atheism is essentially a religion based on blind faith - it takes greater faith to be an atheist. One must accept the impossible, believe the ridiculous and trust the absurd. You are asking people to believe -
1. Matter is eternal.
2. Matter without life created life.
3. Matter without mind created mind.
4. Matter without intelligence created intelligence.
5. Matter without morals created morals.
6. Matter without conscience created conscience.
7. Matter without purpose created purpose and order.<
We are not the Skeptic Society. We like them though.
>Chesterton''s dictum is right. ''When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing they believe in anything''. Atheism is rationally impossible, in order to be a atheist - 1. You must prove there is no God.
2. Refute all the evidence for the existence of God.
3. Explain away the reality of Christ.
4. Remove the evidence for the resurrection of Christ.
5. Disprove all the prophecies in the Bible.
6. Demonstrate the Bible is a fraud.
7. Establish the credibility of atheism.
The website fails at this and fails in the face of millions who know intuitively there is a God, which indicates the Sceptic Friends Society is a joke. And after reading the comments there, it sounds more like the Septic Tank Society.<
Regarding Chestersons dictum, have you visited our claims list? Please do. Oh, and once again, I am not an atheist. However, the above list is silly. Unless you use the bible as evidence for the accuracy of the bible, which is not logical, your list fails. For example, outside of the bible, there is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ. And just why would all the prophesies need to be disproved? It seems to me that disproving any one of them, to a literalist, should do the job. But really, I do not care to mess with your religion. I have no investment in changing your religious beliefs. I will, however, continue to defend the teaching of science, and not religion, in science classrooms.
As for the name calling, well, sticks and stones may break my bones.....
Skeptic Friends Network
From: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
To: <Kil@skepticfriends.org>
Subject: Re: "Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 11:57:15 +1200
Hi David,
Thanks for writing, good to dialogue with you. Could I comment on your letter? You wrote,
>>I, for one, argue for evolution. Others here also argue for evolution. I don''t think that any of us argues for "atheistic evolution." I''m not even sure of what that is. I have never seen or heard "atheistic evolution" mentioned in any science class, book or paper on the subject. I have heard the term used by creationists from time to time, but it''s their term. There is no such subject as atheistic evolution in academia.<<
Evolution is either atheistic or theistic. Atheistic evolution holds that evolution occurred without God and all natural events are explained without Him. And any attempt to explain life''s origins with models where God is included is rejected. Theistic evolution holds that God created original matter and used or allowed evolution to create man. Modern evolutionists are swinging more and more to theistic evolution. Skeptic''s have no concern whether God used evolution or not and their websites don''t reflect any concern. The nature of their comments is that all things can be explained naturally without God. And they don''t seem to know which form of evolution to support. For example you wrote,
>> The articles and letters on our site that deal with evolution are in response to attacks on it by a small but vocal minority who either do not understand the theory or reject it because it does not fit a particular religious viewpoint that everything in the bible must be taken literally.<<
Sceptics are not theologians and have no expertise in determining whats literal or figurative Scripture. Yes, theologians are not scientists, but there are scientists who are Christians. And evolution is not universally accepted. Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. In the USA alone, it''s conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists [the vast majority not officially linked to creation organizations] who believe in biblical creation. The SFN pokes fun at a literalist interpretation of the Bible [ie http://www.skepticfriends.org/badfruit.html written by Tommy and Dawn - the "SFN staff"] as if they know better. Obviously then, Skeptics take sides with atheistic or theistic evolution particularly against literal Creationism. You wrote,
>>Our site isn''t about atheism. I am not an atheist and to the best of my knowledge neither are most of the other staff members. I agree with you. I also think its impossible to disprove God, so I make no attempt do that. There are no articles on our site written with the intention of disproving the existence of God. That is not what we are about.<<
Then lets briefly consider theistic evolution. If God used evolution [as you might suggest] then that denies the central teachings of the Bible. The Bible teaches the creation of the species, not their evolution. They were created to reproduce "after their kind", not to evolve to some higher form. The Bible would lose its authoritative binding truths and be reinterpreted and corrected for every era and every situation. God then, is not the author of Scripture for it becomes a collection of human mythical documents. And death, killing and suffering, for example become an essential prerequisite for evolution. Death becomes an invention of evolution. ''Death'' [in contradiction to the Bible] would exist before mans fall into sin [Gen.3:17-19]. So we find evolution incompatible with Scripture. Yet the intention of your site has nothing to do with proving God used evolution. You comment,
>>The Theory of Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence. And yes, evolution is a theory. But in science, a theory is about as close to a fact as you are going to get. The Theory of Evolution has withstood every test and attack for over 100 years.<<
The Bible "has withstood every test and attack for over" 2000 years and remains credible. But Darwinian evolution is not "supported by a mountain of evidence" [more like an anthill] and the ''facts do not speak for themselves. They are ''read in the light of the theory''. ''Scientists who accept evolution are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof''. If you have no facts you have no right to form a theory. True science must be based on facts. Speculation without facts is not scientific. The powerful 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a serious obstacle for naturalistic evolution. Evolution is a theory with BIG problems, that''s not just a ''literal'' Bible view, but scientific view. There are experienced and intelligent scientists who find all forms of evolution exceedingly unsatisfactory in providing a credible explanation for the origin of the cosmos - based on the known facts and physical laws. Note these 6 quotes from evolutionists below -
[1] (Dr. L.Watson Science Digest, vol.90 May 1982 pg.44) "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"
[2] (J.Reader. (Missing Links New Scientist 26 March1981 pg.802). "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, but it has spawned a science because it is distinguished by two factors which inflate its apparent relevance far beyond its merits. First, the fossils hint at the ancestry of a supremely self-important animal - ourselves. Secondly, the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present"
[3] (Prof.H.S. Lipson FRS Physics, Univ. of Manchester). He wrote, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ''bend'' their observations to fit in with it. It remains an unproven hypothesis in the laboratories of science and utterly destitute of proof". [A Physicist looks at evolution'' Physics Bulletin vol.31 1980 pg.138].
[4] (S.J Gould) "Facts do not speak for themselves; they are read in the light of the theory" [Ever Since Darwin. Burnett Books 78 pg.161-162]. "We are not just evolving slowly. For all practical purposes we''re not evolving. There''s no reason to think we''re going to get bigger brains or smaller toes or whatever - we are what we are" [John''s Lofton''s Journal'' Washington Times Feb.8 1984]
[5] (Dr. Colin Patterson Palaeontologist Museum London Master Books USA 1984 pg.89) "Its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test".
[6] (Dawkins) "The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less can we believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer" [Necessity of Darwinism. New Scientist vol.94 15April82 pg.130]. And - "We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ''designed'' to have come into existence by chance" [Blindwatch Marker pg.43].
It''s VERY strange you know nothing of the huge body of evidence contrary to evolution coming from evolutionists themselves. I could provide hundreds of similar quotes [do ask] but I suspect your mind is closed. As yet, ''evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain and many elements of the cosmos'' [Another quote]. You wrote,
>>The vast majority of biologists consider it the cornerstone of their science. Evolution is the favored theory, again, of the vast majority of geologists, anthropologists, paleontologists and more. Many of those scientists believe there is a God and, because they do not take the narrow view, have no problem with evolution.<<
I can quote evolutionary "geologists, anthropologists, palaeontologists and more" who disagree and have problems with evolution you don''t. Botanist [evolutionist] N.H. Nilsson wrote, "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed". Dr.D.Raup Geology, "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin''s time. By this I mean that some of the classics cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information" [''Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin'' vol.50(1) Jan.1979 pg.25]. "Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer" [D.Kitts Ph.D Zoology Univs. Oklahoma Palaeontology & Evolutionary Theory vol.28 Sept.1974 pg.466]. Like I said, the theory of evolution is NOT a scientific proven theory or fact. If Sceptics honestly valuated the evidence they would KNOW this. You wrote,
>>There are no articles on our site that mock the bible. If you are referring to "The Bibles Bad Fruit" essay, than you have mis-understood it. The idea is to show how you can take a phrase out of context and give it a new meaning that has nothing to do with the authors intended meaning. "Bad Fruit" is a demonstration of a ploy often used by "Creation Scientists" to add an appearance of scientific credibility to their incredible claims.<<
It''s amazing how Sceptics think they understand and read the Bible more correctly than theologians. Amazing how they select verses and take them "out of context" and suggest the Bible says something many readers know it doesn''t. If you people are so clever at that, why aren''t you equally clever at examining evolution? To interpret the Bible, you use a problematic unproven theory that changes like the wind. But your desire to level "Creation Scientists" reveals a bias and ignores the shambles of evolution. Creationists teach, "A reptile can only produce a reptile, a horse can only produce a horse, and a monkey can only produce a monkey, never a man". That has more "credibility" than arguing for the missing links. Where are the missing links David?
I mentioned a list that shows atheistic evolutionary theory is a mess and atheism is essentially a religion based on blind faith. Yet remarkably contrary to your theistic evolutionary belief you respond -
>>the above list is silly. Unless you use the bible as evidence for the accuracy of the bible, which is not logical, your list fails. For example, outside of the bible, there is no evidence for the resurrection of Christ.<<
There''s more information about "Christ" than all evolutionary books combined. Try Ignatius (AD.30-107) Epistle to Ephesians ch.11 or Clement to the Corinthians ch.24 (AD.57) etc. Too much ''evidence for the resurrection of Christ" to mention here, but you are not interested of course. You wrote,
>> And just why would all the prophesies need to be disproved? It seems to me that disproving any one of them, to a literalist, should do the job.<<
There''s 330 prophesies in the OT fulfilled in the NT. All fulfilled literally in one person within a few years, most in one day. Those who set out to disprove them usually become Christians. If an atheist could disprove all the prophesies in the Bible, he could prove conclusively it''s a fraud. You wrote,
>>But really, I do not care to mess with your religion. I have no investment in changing your religious beliefs. I will, however, continue to defend the teaching of science, and not religion, in science classrooms.<<
Don''t worry about messing with my religion, just write and prove evolution plausible. I look forward. Dr. Durant taught in the classroom at University Swansea Wales that, "The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to the gross misuse of science" [How Evolution became a scientific myth'' New Scientist 11 Sept. 1980 pg.765]. Dr. Laing [Geologist] taught - "For nearly 30 years working with recent geological graduates, I have to teach each one to forget the theories he was taught, just observe what is actually there and record it" [The Aust. Geolo, Newsletter no.48 19 March 1984 pg.7]. Why is that? Because "In any case, no evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation" [M.Ridley [Zoologist Oxford Univ.] New Scientist vol.90 25June 1981 pg.831].
Senior Lecturer in Anthropology Syn Univ. taught, "One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences". [Evolved or not, that''s the question'' Quadrant Oct. 1981 pg.45].
We don''t see evolution happening. Every living thing contains a program [eg. DNA - information written on a long molecule]. Even the simplest-known one-celled creatures are mind-bogglingly complex but they never accidentally have an increase of information. That is, a coding for new structures, functions, greater complexity. Changes we do see don''t involve increasing information but a decrease. Consider the ''simple'' E. coli bacteria. If you unravelled the strand of DNA it would go around the equator 33 times! How long do you think it would take DNA ''Data'' to randomly fall in to place for it to function? You see, the origin of the genetic code is another baffling aspect for evolution; there are no laboratory models. Yet for evolution to occur it requires an increase of information to the DNA.
I have never read of any debate on Sceptic websites about evolution. There are many qualified scientists able to dissect the errors in evolutionary theory, yet I have never read one article on the bankrupt nature of evolution, not one! Yet the evidence against evolution is colossal and persuasive. In fact, why is evidence against evolution so rigorously excluded? Has anyone of your ''Friends'' read the books I mentioned? I think not! Otherwise the Sceptics would not give such a fraudulent deceptive theory such credibility.
I no longer believe scientists who are evolutionary are solidly based. More scientists have changing views about evolution. If truth matters, then we are to competently communicate truth. Surely the Sceptics purse truth in other matters, why not regarding evolution?
Regards
Mark Purchase
Larry responds again:
From: "Larry Canonica" <raycrx@ix.netcom.com>
To: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz> Save Address
Subject: Re: Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 21:02:36 -0700
I never said we believed in God. I just said we were not atheists. You also need to look up what skepticism is about. There is no tie to atheism, though, sure, many skeptics are atheists. I have seen Christian skeptic sites that mirror a lot of our own content.
You need a clear view on what skepticism means. Read about it on our home page. You won''t find much about religion there. Much of what skeptics do goes nowhere near religion. Many have, of course, made it their own area of focus. I don''t believe you will find a single comment on our site where the existence of God is refuted. The issue comes up many times, but the statement "I don''t believe in God" is not the same as saying one think they can prove it.
Why not come to our forum to discuss this. Anyone is welcome and that is the sort of place for debate.
Skeptic Friends Network
From: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
To: "Larry Canonica" <raycrx@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:14:05 +1200
Hi all
Larry Canonica is posting his mail around to you guys, so maybe your interested in what I''m posting him. This was my First letter to him [enjoy] (Note what he doesn''t answer in the 2nd mail)
--------------<>---------------
Hi Larry
You wrote,
>>I am only the webmaster and am not an atheist by the way. In fact, The Skeptic Friends Network doesn''t have a single atheist on its staff. Dunno where you got that information,<<
Do you have some kind of new meaning to the word? I thought Skepticism means "...a doubt of or disbelief in the existence of God." I suspect that most modern day atheists are more correctly defined as skeptics. The "information" I "got" was from http://www.skepticfriends.org/ If your "staff" were people who believed in God, it''s hard to see how they could rubbish Him and His people so profusely without any regard. Anyone who reads the articles is struck the mocking and ridicule and the evolutionary bias. The "SFN staff" are very clever at rubbishing the Bible but not so clever at presenting a balanced appraisal of the Bible or evolution. You wrote,
>> but it surely wan''t on our site since there are several areas where we talk about how there are no atheists there. It was more than a little obvious that you did little if ANY reading at SFN.<<
For skeptics who believe in God, you people sure are strange. I "did" plenty of "reading" ie. http://www.skepticfriends.org/badfruit.html (written by Tommy and Dawn on the "SFN staff") etc. But where is the balance and understanding in what''s written? Note the Creation/Evolution articles on your site. It''s sad the way you people handle the Creation/Evolution debate. We are constantly brainwashed to believe what defiles common sense. The media also has had a censorship for years regarding news items that do not support the theory of evolution. Newspapers, magazines and journals are committed to the evolutionary position, just as you people. Over and over on your website we are lead to believe that whatever we believe DON''T BELIEVE IN GOD NEVER!! NEVER!! You wrote,
>>You might try actually reading what you have decided to deride with your "one size fits all" anti-evolution rhetoric.<<
I write to you as one who has read the websites like yours and much more "information" than your little site. Larry the ''news is out'', evolution is a fraud and the Sceptic Society are the last people to know about it. Think Larry, examine the facts, do some research. Evolution is not universally accepted. Many highly qualified scientists today reject evolution. In the USA alone, it is conservatively estimated that there are upwards of 10,000 professional scientists [the vast majority not officially linked to creation organizations] who believe in biblical creation. This NOT some weird little group of STRANGE people, these are professionals in their fields, very capable people who you people ignore.
I shouldn''t be the one having to provide the facts. Ask yourself, why does the scientific community have such a wide radius of thought and is NOT united on evolution? If it''s a universal law of nature, why has the scientific community not found one instance of change from one species into another? Where are the missing links in the evolutionary chain from primitive to modern plants? From single cells to invertebrates? Invertebrates to fish? Fish to amphibians? Amphibians to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Reptiles to mammals? Land mammals to sea mammals? Non-flying mammals to bats? Apes to humans? Please write and tell me won''t you. Millions of fossils have been discovered and identified but those ''missing links'' have not turned up. I''m surprised you have no knowledge of this.
There should be millions of transitional forms between the species. Where are they? If the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years as they say, there should be millions of skeletons. Where are they? The idea of a time-scale and any evolutionary sequence is an utter shambles in the fossil record. And that''s the facts!
New evidence emerges repeatedly that is devastating to evolutionary hypotheses, none of this would ever be considered by sceptics, why not? E.g. Dinosaur bones that are not fossilised have been discovered -- proving they cannot be millions of years old. Dinosaur blood cells discovered -- blood cells cannot survive millions of years [There''s many examples].
Since Darwin the history of evolution theory is FILL of FAKE discoveries that promised the missing link but NEVER delivered [Consider E.Haeckel]. Numerous claims of "clear evidence" of evolution yet all failed under examination. Remember "Pithecanthropus Erectus" -- "Heidelberg Man" -- "Lucy" -- "Neandlberg Man" -- "Pitdown Man" -- "Little Foot" -- "Swanscombe" -- "Hisperopithectus" -- "Hesperopithecus" or "Zinjanthropus"? [all FAKE and there''s others]. Many claims from evolutionist are from palaeontologists who spend their lives picking-up fragments of bones, skulls and jaws bones. They have a strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments and Larry will fall for it every-time. Palaeontologists want so hard to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone. The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions and our inability to even imagine and construct functional intermediates is a continual problem for evolution.
Yes you know nothing about these things. You should be ''leading the charge'' on this one, not in dreamland. I''m disappointed, Sceptics should expose error not support it.
THINK Larry. They came out of the sea -- after millions of years [no proof for this] turned into cows and then because they feed at the waters edge -- after millions of years land mammals turned into sea mammals. Come on Larry, if that''s the theory sceptics indorse, they should have a little area where people can have a laugh at them.
Regards
Mark Purchase
Conclusion.
"The fool says in his heart there''s no God" [Psa.14:1]. He mocks the Bible but can''t change the facts. The fool believes there''s nothing outside space and time and believes in the ultimate depths of his heart; he''s nothing also. By his denials, he unwittingly offers the strongest possible argument for the existence of God that can possible be conceived. He can never explain his existence. When he hears the truth he shuts his eyes and ears so he can''t hear. If nothing in this world is able to explain its own existence, there must be a God in order to explain the world in which we find ourselves.
Answer this simple question, Why is there something rather than nothing, why is there a universe at all? Voltaire was right, ''If there is no God it would be necessary to invent him''. The proposition that the universe and world is the product of pure chance and believing everything happens at random without rhyme or reason; is mental suicide.
The deeply ingrained perception that a system as complex as the genetic equipment and the origin of living organisms could have been produced by chance must be one of the biggest deceptions ever to occur on earth.
If God did not exist, everything would be permitted. There would be no absolutes, everything is relative, there is no ultimate law of morals, and everything is subjective. If there is no God, there is no absolute moral standard by which to determine what is good and evil.
From: "Dr. Mark Purchase" <mpp@xtra.co.nz>
To: "Larry Canonica" <raycrx@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Sceptic" or Septic Society?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:22:00 +1200
Hi everyone again. Larry Canonica is posting his mail around to you guys so maybe your interested in what I''m posting him. This is my SECOND letter [enjoy]
Hi Larry You wrote,
>>I never said we believed in God. I just said we were not atheists. You also need to look up what skepticism is about. There is not tie to atheism, though, sure, many skeptics are atheists. I have seen Christian skeptic sites that mirror a lot of our own content.<<
The last Sceptic Society website I wrote to was an atheist den. You people are ''all sorts'' neither here or there. But it''s interesting in what you are quoting and what you are ignoring from my letters. Arguing semantics was not the reason I wrote. And arguing atheistic or theistic evolution is not your intention. But what you ignore is the fact that evolutionary theory is NOT a scientific proven theory or fact. If Sceptics honestly valuated the evidence they would KNOW this. You can avoid the issue all you want but that fact remains.
Why does your website endorse the atheistic or theistic evolutionary theory so rigorously and exclude a balanced approach to evolution? Why not keep an open mind and look honestly at both sides of the debate? You can ignore my comments on evolution, but the fact remains its utterly destitute of proof. ''I am totally confident that any competent person who will take the time to traverse the evidence now available will reach the same conclusion that I have reached -- that the theory of organic evolution was a very plausible theory for the times of comparative ignorance of the latter part of the 19th century, but now is entirely out of date and hopelessly inadequate in view of the facts of geology, experimental breeding and DNA research'' [Pro.G.Price "Evolution" Book Room. ed Dr.Pettit pg.6]. You wrote,
>>You need a clear view on what skepticism means. Read about it on our home page. You won''t find much about religion there. Much of what skeptics do goes nowhere near religion.<<
Firstly, Evolution is a scientific religion. Real science can only deal with things that can be observed or measured. It depends on measuring or watching something happen, and checking it by doing it again. "Evolution at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer". [D.Kitts Ph.D Zoology Univs. Oklahoma Palaeontology & Evolutionary Theory vol.28 Sept.1974 pg.466]. While its easy to construct stories of how one form gave rise to another, such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So by evolution we mean the non-provable [ie. religious] belief that all things have made themselves by means of their own natural properties without outside input.
Secondly, your website has a great deal about religion. It pokes fun at a literalist interpretation of the Bible [ie http://www.skepticfriends.org/badfruit.html written by Tommy and Dawn -- the "SFN staff"]. It takes sides with atheistic or theistic evolution particularly against literal Creationism. Sceptics are not theologians and have no expertise in determining Scripture. If I accepted SFN as creditable am I supposed to laugh at Christians who believe God created the world? And mock God and the Bible like you people? You wrote,
>> Many have, of course, made it their own area of focus. I don''t believe you will find a single comment on our site where the existence of God is refuted. The issue comes up many times, but the statement "I don''t believe in God" is not the same as saying one think they can prove it.<<
I wish you hadn''t ignored 90% of my last email. Changing the subject, or side-tracking won''t work. Like I said Larry, evolution is a fraud and the Sceptic Society are the last people to know about it. You wrote,
>>Why not come to our forum to discuss this. Anyone is welcome and that is the sort of place for debate.<<
More people are reading our mail than would from your ''forum''. Below is correspondence you might be interested in. "David" [SFN ''staff'']. He''s yet to answer --
|
|
|
Back to Fan Mail
|
