Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daggah · 12-31-2001, 10:00 PM

He refuses to debate over e-mail, but somehow it's okay to debate here. So, I guess that's what I'll do! To prevent each individual post from getting to be too long, I'll make each e-mail a separate post.

Since I don't know the guy, nothing personal can be revealed by revealing private conversations, so...

First post: my original e-mail to him RE: his website.

Title: "your evolution section is full of errors and lies"

Quote:

First of all, you make the incorrect assumption that belief in gods and acceptance of evolution are mutually exclusive. They are not. While I was still a Christian I accepted evolution just fine. Arguments along the lines of "there is a god" do not prove evolution wrong. And I doubt they prove the evidence of a god. Unless, of course, you are without faith.

Secondly, the "2nd law of thermodynamics" argument is flawed. Even Answers in Genesis has said to creationists that they should not use it, and here's why: the 2nd law applies to closed systems. The universe is not a closed system. Also, you make the (common) mistake that a "theory" in scientific terminology means the same as a theory in real-world terminology. Are you aware that gravity is "just" a theory? Know anyone who denies that gravity exists, because it's "just" a theory?

Thirdly, you assert that evolution is an "assumption without evidence." That's a blatant lie. Evolution's first evidence came when Darwin observed animals and noted his observations. Then, the fossil record and paleontology confirmed Darwin's observations. Then even genetics further confirms evolution. Moreover, any microbiologist will tell you that they observe evolution in the lab when working with bacteria and viruses.

Finally, your essay "isevolutiontheanswer.doc" is flawed as well. It's one big argument from incredulity - a logical fallacy. Einstein's theory of relativity is hard to grasp intuitively as well, and yet, just because it's hard to grasp from an ignorant perspective doesn't mean it's wrong.

Daggah · 12-31-2001, 10:01 PM

His response to me:

Quote:

First off, I'm not getting into an e-mail debate about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'll just leave it at this: It's a scientific law......not a theory. If it was wrong, then it wouldn't be a law.
Second off, I do believe that we evolve. I do not believe it's from any type of "monkey".....that's just funny. There is too many errors in that "theory".
Also, just because there is a GOD, doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. I never said that in my articles. I may have other peoples articles that say that, but not mine. That evolution section isn't my articles, so don't argue with me about them, because I didn't write them. My articles are in the Jesus Online link.

You say there is facts for evolution, but if that was tru then it wouldn't be a theory. Yes, I know about scientists methods and crap.......I've heard it over and over from evolutionists in the P.O.D forum. But, evolutionists just can't accept the truth. Evolution has too many flaws to be called a "law of science".....if that wasn't true, then it wouldn't still be a theory after all this time.

I also find it amazing that the Bible, being the oldest book in the world hasn't ever been proved wrong. Even with all this technology, it still stands strong.

I'd like to let you know again, that my articles are located in the jesus Online Link. All the other ones aren't mine. I post other peoples, because they ask for me to. If they have an opinion about something, then let them say their opinion.
If you would like to write an article on your opinion and asked for me to put it on the site, then I'd put it on there. Because it's just your opinion, as the other articles are other peoples opinions.
I'm sorry if you found the articles bjectionable.
I also would like to point out again, that I do agree with you about evolution to a certain degree. I believe that we do evolve in certain ways, but not from animals. that's just too funny.

Daggah · 12-31-2001, 10:05 PM

I replied: (what he said is in [ ] brackets)

Quote:

[First off, I'm not getting into an e-mail debate about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'll just leave it at this: It's a scientific law......not a theory. If it was wrong, then it wouldn't be a law.]

I never said it was wrong. I said it doesn't apply the way you claim it does. The 2nd law applies to closed systems - the universe is an open system. Simple as that. It also is relevant ONLY to thermodynamics. You got that off of a creationist site - you should be aware that they're full of lies and dishonesty. Rebuttals to the 2nd law of thermodynamics claims
are easily found on the internet.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html</a>

[Second off, I do believe that we evolve. I do not believe it's from any type of "monkey".....that's just funny. There is too many errors in that "theory".]

Such as? What scientific evidence do you have? Come on now, don't be shy. Post your arguments. Or even better, go for a bigger audience, and post on the Evolution/Creation forum at infidels. Of course, you should be warned:
if you do so, you will have more than just me to contend with. My knowledge of biology is limited, but that isn't the case for most on the forum.

[Also, just because there is a GOD, doesn't mean that evolution is wrong. I never said that in my articles. I may have other peoples articles that say that, but not mine. That evolution section isn't my articles, so don't argue with me about them, because I didn't write them. My articles are in the Jesus Online link.]

That's where I got the articles. In any case, it's on your website, so it's dishonest to post stuff like that if you don't agree with it - unless you say that you don't agree with it.

[You say there is facts for evolution, but if that was tru then it wouldn't be a theory. Yes, I know about scientists methods and crap.......I've heard it over and over from evolutionists in the P.O.D forum. But, evolutionists just can't accept the truth. Evolution has too many flaws to be called a
"law of science".....if that wasn't true, then it wouldn't still be a theory after all this time.]

If you've heard it over and over again, you're a blockhead. Again, gravity is also a theory. There's a fundamental difference between "law" and
"theory" that you obviously don't understand. Again, post the flaws. I have never - not ONCE - seen a creationist post real scientific evidence
against evolution.

The scientific definition of theory: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." Where in that is the wording that
makes true the claim that something is "just a theory" and therefore not true? You're thinking of the definition "An assumption based on limited
information or knowledge; a conjecture," which is not a scientific definition. This is the definition of the word "theory" in every-day usage.

In science, "law" means: "A statement describing a relationship observed to be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the
specified conditions are met: the law of gravity." There is a biological law dealing with evolution: the Hardy-Weinburg (sic?) equilibrium. But how can there be a law dealing with evolution if evolution is false?

[I also find it amazing that the Bible, being the oldest book in the world hasn't ever been proved wrong. Even with all this technology, it still
stands strong.]

Are you so sure about that? LOL! Hmm...well, there's the creation, which lists the animals in an incorrect order of creation. It's description of the firmament is absurd - the mere fact that we have men who walked on the moon proves that incorrect. It also claims that, before the fall, animals were herbivores, but we know that carnivorous animals existed long before
man did on earth. Man isn't made of dust. Serpents and snakes don't eat dirt. And where is the evidence of the giants mentioned in Gen 6:4? The flood story is proven to be incorrect - there was never a worldwide flood. If there was, we'd see some geological evidence. There is none for it. Genesis 11:1 is wrong to claim that there was only one language in those days - we know that many languages already existed at that time. Genesis 30:37-39 mentions a completely incorrect version of hereditary genetics (two goats copulate while looking at a streaked rod, and as a result, give birth to streaked baby goat? Riiight.) There's the passages that imply
geocentricity - proven to be incorrect. Leviticus says that bats are birds.
Bats are mammals. In Numbers, the Israeli population explodes from 70 to at least a million (600,000) males in a few generations. That's a bit absurd, don't you think? This error is repeated in Exodus. There's the plagues put on the Pharoah in Egypt - never happened. There's several verses that imply that the earth is stable and doesn't move. That's incorrect. The story in Daniel about Nebuchadnezzar invading is erroneous - Jehoiakim was dead when Nebuchadnezzar invaded, though Daniel 1:1 claims otherwise. And go ahead and find an earthly disease such as that described in Daniel 4:32-33. No human can survive three days and nights in the belly of a fish or whale. There are several verses in Matthew, Luke, and Mark that claim that diseases like epilepsy, blindness, and the inability to speak are caused by demon
posession. Matthew 24:29 demonstrates the belief that the moon actually creates light - it doesn't. It acts as a mirror, using the light from the sun. Several of the details of the Jesus story are incorrect - the slaughter of babies by Herod never happened, and neither did the massive census of the known world that required everyone to go to the birthplace of
their ancestors. Think for a second about whether that's feasible. Is that enough for you? I'm sure I could come up with more, if you'd like.

And even if it's historically accurate, well, so is the Iliad by Homer. Do the Greek gods therefore exist?

[I'd like to let you know again, that my articles are located in the jesus Online Link. All the other ones aren't mine. I post other peoples, because they ask for me to. If they have an opinion about something, then let them
say their opinion.]

It's dishonest of you to post their writings (not their opinions, but what they claim to be fact or not fact) and not say if it's wrong.

[If you would like to write an article on your opinion and asked for me to put it on the site, then I'd put it on there. Because it's just your
opinion, as the other articles are other peoples opinions.]

Sure you would. But I'd just be repeating talk.origins anyway. Spend some time there: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org</a>

[I'm sorry if you found the articles objectionable.]

I didn't find them "objectionable." I found them to be false and dishonest.

[I also would like to point out again, that I do agree with you about evolution to a certain degree. I believe that we do evolve in certain ways, but not from animals. that's just too funny.]

Emotional argument. The fact that you think it's "funny" doesn't make it not true. Your grasp of logic is as poor as your grasp of science.

So let me know when you come up with something new, as opposed to the same old creationist drivel that is easily disproved.

Daggah · 12-31-2001, 10:05 PM

His response back to me:

Quote:

I never said it was wrong. I said it doesn't apply the way you claim it
does. The 2nd law applies to closed systems - the universe is an open
system. Simple as that. It also is relevant ONLY to thermodynamics. You
got that off of a creationist site - you should be aware that they're full
of lies and dishonesty. Rebuttals to the 2nd law of thermodynamics claims
are easily found on the internet.]

You can find flaws to cerationist sites, while I can also find flaws with evolutionist sites. They each go in circles on the subject because neither can be prove right or wrong. I'll leave it at this: you have your opinion on the subject and I have mine. I am not the type of person to be immature and argue back and forth online ( have better stuff to do), so I'm just going to say that I respect your opinion 100%.

[Such as? What scientific evidence do you have? Come on now, don't be shy.
Post your arguments. Or even better, go for a bigger audience, and post on
the Evolution/Creation forum at infidels. Of course, you should be warned:
if you do so, you will have more than just me to contend with. My knowledge
of biology is limited, but that isn't the case for most on the forum.]

Did you not read my first e-mail. Didn't I make it clear that I have better things to do than waste my time arguing over e-mails. Here, I'll make it clearer. If you don't like my site....too bad; get over it. You can't do anything at all to have it taken down, so find someone else who is immature enough to argue with you over something that can't be proven right or wrong. I find that a waste of my time
I don't understand your point at the end of your above reply. First you want to debate with me over something that can't be proven right or wrong, now you want me to go argue with other immature people about something that can't be proven right or wrong.....man, you have me laughing over here.
You my have knowledge about something, but it takes wisdoms and maturity to not argue about something that can't be proven wrong or right. Just state your opinion to me and leave it at that. Is it that hard?

[That's where I got the articles. In any case, it's on your website, so it's
dishonest to post stuff like that if you don't agree with it - unless you
say that you don't agree with it.]

No, it isn't dishonest to post peoples articles that they want to have up there. If you don't agree with it, then go argue with them. Not me.

If you've heard it over and over again, you're a blockhead. Again, gravity
is also a theory. There's a fundamental difference between "law" and
"theory" that you obviously don't understand. Again, post the flaws. I
have never - not ONCE - seen a creationist post real scientific evidence
against evolution.

[The scientific definition of theory: "A set of statements or principles
devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has
been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make
predictions about natural phenomena." Where in that is the wording that
makes true the claim that something is "just a theory" and therefore not
true? You're thinking of the definition "An assumption based on limited
information or knowledge; a conjecture," which is not a scientific
definition. This is the definition of the word "theory" in every-day usage.
In science, "law" means: "A statement describing a relationship observed to
be invariable between or among phenomena for all cases in which the
specified conditions are met: the law of gravity." There is a biological
law dealing with evolution: the Hardy-Weinburg (sic?) equilibrium. But how
can there be a law dealing with evolution if evolution is false?]

I notice that you have "scientific definition.....I'll leave it at that.
I've looked up evolution in all kinds of dictionaries and they all have theory in them. If the scientific definition is right, then it would be in the dictionary.
It's my opinion that scientists came up with that crap just so their little asumption could stay alive. That's just my opinion, so don't jump on it.

Are you so sure about that? LOL! Hmm...well, there's the creation, which
lists the animals in an incorrect order of creation. It's description of
the firmament is absurd - the mere fact that we have men who walked on the
moon proves that incorrect. It also claims that, before the fall, animals
were herbivores, but we know that carnivorous animals existed long before
man did on earth. Man isn't made of dust. Serpents and snakes don't eat
dirt. And where is the evidence of the giants mentioned in Gen 6:4? The
flood story is proven to be incorrect - there was never a worldwide flood.
If there was, we'd see some geological evidence. There is none for it.
Genesis 11:1 is wrong to claim that there was only one language in those
days - we know that many languages already existed at that time. Genesis
30:37-39 mentions a completely incorrect version of hereditary genetics (two
goats copulate while looking at a streaked rod, and as a result, give birth
to streaked baby goat? Riiight.) There's the passages that imply
geocentricity - proven to be incorrect. Leviticus says that bats are birds.
Bats are mammals. In Numbers, the Israeli population explodes from 70 to at
least a million (600,000) males in a few generations. That's a bit absurd,
don't you think? This error is repeated in Exodus. There's the plagues put
on the Pharoah in Egypt - never happened. There's several verses that imply
that the earth is stable and doesn't move. That's incorrect. The story in
Daniel about Nebuchadnezzar invading is erroneous - Jehoiakim was dead when
Nebuchadnezzar invaded, though Daniel 1:1 claims otherwise. And go ahead
and find an earthly disease such as that described in Daniel 4:32-33. No
human can survive three days and nights in the belly of a fish or whale.
There are several verses in Matthew, Luke, and Mark that claim that diseases
like epilepsy, blindness, and the inability to speak are caused by demon
posession. Matthew 24:29 demonstrates the belief that the moon actually
creates light - it doesn't. It acts as a mirror, using the light from the
sun. Several of the details of the Jesus story are incorrect - the
slaughter of babies by Herod never happened, and neither did the massive
census of the known world that required everyone to go to the birthplace of
their ancestors. Think for a second about whether that's feasible. Is that
enough for you? I'm sure I could come up with more, if you'd like.

And even if it's historically accurate, well, so is the Iliad by Homer. Do
the Greek gods therefore exist?

Please list where the animals are labeled incorrect and how they are?
Please list where the firmament is labeled incorrect and how it is?
Where is the evidence that carnivorous animals existed long before man did?
Did you make man, then how do you know what they are made of?
GOD is all-powerful, so why can't he make man out of dust?
How should I know where the evidence of giants are? Did I bury them? No. So, that question is kinda dumb.
Tel me how the flood story is proven incorrect? Until then, that's just an assumption.
I believe the Leviticus thing that you put had some of GOD's doing in it. I'm not sure, because you didn't give a specific scripture
Actually, back then I don't think the word mammal existed. Did it? So, they would consider bats to be birds
Genesis 11:1 is wrong to claim that there was only one language in those
days - we know that many languages already existed at that time.
Do you have evidence for anything?
You said that the pop. explosion is absurd. How is it absurd? And where's the evidence that it's a million?

Man, I'm not even going to waste my time reading the rest of that. I'll just give you this one site and it will answer all of, if not all, those questions. If you have any questions, then ask them. <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/#" target="_blank">http://www.christiananswers.net/#</a> Like you said about knowledge, I don't have much biblical knowledge. I just got into this stuff not too long ago. I could sit here and ask all kind of dumb questions like you did, except I wouldn't imply something without evidence of it....like you did.

I'd like for you to read my first two replys to your questions and take in the fact that I'm not immature enough to argue about something that can't be proven right or wrong, so I'd like it if you would realize that what I just typed is true and stop replying to my e-mails. Thanks

Also, man, you need to grow up if you have to call people names over e-mail....grow up

Daggah · 12-31-2001, 10:11 PM

My next reply: (again, his words are enclosed in [ ] brackets)

Quote:

[You can find flaws to cerationist sites, while I can also find flaws with evolutionist sites. They each go in circles on the subject because neither can be prove right or wrong. I'll leave it at this: you have your opinion
on the subject and I have mine. I am not the type of person to be immature and argue back and forth online ( have better stuff to do), so I'm just going to say that I respect your opinion 100%.]

So suddenly debating over a topic is "immature." That's interesting. Did you not register on Internet Infidels for that very purpose? The problem is that this isn't an opinion. It's a fact: the use of the 2nd law of thermodynamics against IS WRONG.

And here's a hint: if you registered on Internet Infidels to preach/witness to us poor ol' heathens, then don't bother. We've had your type. You won't convince us. Most of us were Christians before we became atheists, so
naturally your John 3:16 speech won't affect us.

[Did you not read my first e-mail. Didn't I make it clear that I have better things to do than waste my time arguing over e-mails. Here, I'll
make it clearer. If you don't like my site....too bad; get over it. You can't do anything at all to have it taken down, so find someone else who is immature enough to argue with you over something that can't be proven right
or wrong. I find that a waste of my time]

Problem: while any specific aspect of science can never be "proven," it can be shown to be a "probable" truth. So you're just finding excuses. In any case, the context of your previous e-mail was that you didn't want to debate
the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[I don't understand your point at the end of your above reply. First you want to debate with me over something that can't be proven right or wrong, now you want me to go argue with other immature people about something that can't be proven right or wrong.....man, you have me laughing over here.]

Hey, YOU were the one who registered on Internet Infidels. It said right in your profile that you were there as a Christian and intended to "bring the truth to the evolutionists." Now you don't want to do that? You're a strange one. You wouldn't happen to be suffering from multiple-personality disorder, would you?

[You my have knowledge about something, but it takes wisdoms and maturity to not argue about something that can't be proven wrong or right. Just state your opinion to me and leave it at that. Is it that hard?]

The problem here is that the articles on your website are not just opinions: they are presented as fact, and they are erroneous.

[No, it isn't dishonest to post peoples articles that they want to have up
there. If you don't agree with it, then go argue with them. Not me.]

At least put a disclaimer such as "the views being espoused in these
articles may not necessarily be true."

[I notice that you have "scientific definition.....I'll leave it at that.
I've looked up evolution in all kinds of dictionaries and they all have theory in them. If the scientific definition is right, then it would be in the dictionary. It's my opinion that scientists came up with that crap just so their little asumption could stay alive. That's just my opinion, so don't jump on it.]

I'm not going to be gentle with you just because you mislable erroneous statements as opinions. I got the scientific definition of theory FROM a
dictionary...don't believe me? Crack open a dictionary. Go to dictionary.com. Webster's offers a similiar definition. The scientific
definition is the applicable one, since we are talking about science. If you want to assert that scientists changed the appropriate definition of "theory" to suit evolution, then you would be wise to find a pre-Darwin
dictionary that offers the scientific definition of the word and point out the difference. Otherwise you're just making erroneous assertations that you cannot back up.

[Please list where the animals are labeled incorrect and how they are?]

The order that the animals appeared on earth is erroneous. I'll go into more detail in a future e-mail.

[Please list where the firmament is labeled incorrect and how it is?]

Well, there's no solid barrier keeping rain from falling - if there was, space shuttles would NOT be able to leave the atmosphere.

[Where is the evidence that carnivorous animals existed long before man did?]

The fossil record.

[Did you make man, then how do you know what they are made of? GOD is all-powerful, so why can't he make man out of dust?]

Erm, have you no knowledge of biology AT ALL? Man is made mostly of water. Cells are made of various materials, including phospholipid bilayers forming the cell membranes, proteins and organelles to accomplish various tasks
within the cell. DNA makes up the genetic code, and DNA is made up of various chemicals. Notice that none of this qualifies as "dust."

[How should I know where the evidence of giants are? Did I bury them? No. So, that question is kinda dumb.]

With all the paleontology going on, you'd think that if these giants existed, someone would have discovered their fossils by now. But, in fact,
no one has. In this case, absence of evidence means probable evidence of absense.

[Tel me how the flood story is proven incorrect? Until then, that's just an assumption.]

Ask any geologist. NONE of the evidence that would be present if such a worldwide flood had occured is present. In fact, the evidence clearly
points to an old earth. This is not absense of evidence as with the "giants." I'm talking about serious evidence that proves that no world-wide
flood EVER occurred.

[I believe the Leviticus thing that you put had some of GOD's doing in it. I'm not sure, because you didn't give a specific scripture Actually, back then I don't think the word mammal existed. Did it? So, they would consider bats to be birds.]

Ah...see, here's the problem: man would have considered bats to be birds. An omniscient god would have known better. According to you, god wrote the Bible. Therefore, either your god is not actually omniscient, or he could not have written the Bible, because an omniscient god would have known better.

[Do you have evidence for anything?]

It's a known historical fact - human civilization predates the tower of Babel story by at least several thousand years, and probably more. The
great majority of these human civilizations were not in contact with each other. Unless you're going to claim that, by some miracle, all of these
civilizations developed the *exact* same languages, it's even common sense to state that the Babel story is wrong. And even taking it further, we have the Egyption hieroglyphs predating 4,004 B.C., which is when man was created according to the Bible. We also have several other cultures around the same
time period that had their own languages.

[You said that the pop. explosion is absurd. How is it absurd? And where's the evidence that it's a million?]

The Bible claims that there were about 600,000 males at the end of this incredible breeding spree. Logically, there were about as many females. 600,000 + 600,000 = 1,200,000. For 35 couples (70 people) to become over a million in 4 generations, each couple in each generation would have had to have 40 children. If it occurred in 5, then each couple in each generation would have had to have 20 children. 6 generations would require 10 in each generation . 7 would require 5, and is approaching "reasonable," but the
word used is "several," which implies a smaller number of generations than 7. And even then, that doesn't account for the fact that in those days, giving birth could often be lethal to the woman, and this math assumes the best possible conditions: that no man or woman was sterile, and that everyone survived long enough to reproduce several times. All of these
requirements are unlikely to have actually been met..

[Man, I'm not even going to waste my time reading the rest of that. I'll just give you this one site and it will answer all of, if not all, those
questions. If you have any questions, then ask them. <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/#" target="_blank">http://www.christiananswers.net/#</a> Like you said about knowledge, I don't have much biblical knowledge. I just got into this stuff not too long ago. I could sit here and ask all kind of dumb questions like you did, except I wouldn't imply something without evidence of it....like you did.]

Excuses. Each and every statement I made is supported by evidence. I've been to that site, and found it unimpressive. Apologist sites such as that one are meant for Christians who have doubts but want to continue being Christians. They're not convincing to those who have gone the extra step and rationally concluded that they believe Christianity is wrong. Plus, annoyingly, it's Christian video-game review section is full of absolute false-hoods (for example, in DOOM, christiananswers implies that you get extra points for shooting monsters in the head. Problem: #1, DOOM doesn't even have a points system. #2, DOOM does not differentiate between
different body parts.) How do you know an apologist is lying? His mouth is moving. :-)

[I'd like for you to read my first two replys to your questions and take in the fact that I'm not immature enough to argue about something that can't be proven right or wrong, so I'd like it if you would realize that what I just typed is true and stop replying to my e-mails. Thanks Also, man, you need to grow up if you have to call people names over e-mail....grow up]

I smell a hypocrite here. By saying that you're not "immature enough" to argue over this (all after having registered on Internet Infidels for that very purpose), you are implying that I am immature, and therefore, you are insulting me as well. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

In any case, what you've been writing out here is NOT true. In fact, most of your claims and assertions are demonstratably false. And that's why I've been writing. Your website is helping to propagate lies that we more scientific types find incredibly annoying.

How old do you think the earth is? 6,000 years, or 4.5 billion?

Happy New Year, by the way.

Daggah · 12-31-2001, 10:19 PM

And his reply:

He titled this e-mail "reply to your annoying e-mails"

Quote:

[So suddenly debating over a topic is "immature." That's interesting. Did you not register on Internet Infidels for that very purpose? The problem is that this isn't an opinion. It's a fact: the use of the 2nd law of
thermodynamics against IS WRONG.

And here's a hint: if you registered on Internet Infidels to preach/witness to us poor ol' heathens, then don't bother. We've had your type. You won't convince us. Most of us were Christians before we became atheists, so naturally your John 3:16 speech won't affect us.]

over e-mail, yes, it is. did i register to debate on the forums? yes. If it's wrong, then I guess this is, also: <a href="http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw-fs.html" target="_blank">http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw-fs.html</a>

As far as your opinion goes on my point being there: you can keep your opinions on my reason for anything out of what you type.

[Problem: while any specific aspect of science can never be "proven," it can be shown to be a "probable" truth. So you're just finding excuses. In any case, the context of your previous e-mail was that you didn't want to debate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.]

I don't care anything about a probable truth. It can't be proven, so I consider it false. If you have a problem with that....too bad.

[Hey, YOU were the one who registered on Internet Infidels. It said right in your profile that you were there as a Christian and intended to "bring the truth to the evolutionists." Now you don't want to do that? You're a strange one. You wouldn't happen to be suffering from multiple-personality disorder, would you?]

On the debate board, yes. Over e-mail. No. If you have a debate with me, then post it on the forum or on the P.O.D Forum. (spiritual)

[The problem here is that the articles on your website are not just opinions: they are presented as fact, and they are erroneous.]

You're welcome to your opinion. Now that you've stated it, you can quit e-mailing me about that. thanks

[At least put a disclaimer such as "the views being espoused in these articles may not necessarily be true."]

I don't see a disclaimer on any evolution site, so I'm not going to put one up.

[I'm not going to be gentle with you just because you mislable erroneous statements as opinions. I got the scientific definition of theory FROM a
dictionary...don't believe me? Crack open a dictionary. Go to dictionary.com. Webster's offers a similiar definition. The scientific
definition is the applicable one, since we are talking about science. If you want to assert that scientists changed the appropriate definition of
"theory" to suit evolution, then you would be wise to find a pre-Darwin dictionary that offers the scientific definition of the word and point out the difference. Otherwise you're just making erroneous assertations that you cannot back up.]

I'm noticing the "similar definition" that you have. Why don't you have "exact definition"
Actually, i get my definition from a Webster's Dictionary, which is right in front of my face. It clearly states that a "theory" is an assumption. Don't argue with me about that; argue with the author of the dictionary.

[The order that the animals appeared on earth is erroneous. I'll go into more detail in a future e-mail.]

Why not now?

[Well, there's no solid barrier keeping rain from falling - if there was, space shuttles would NOT be able to leave the atmosphere.]

Could you list where it says that it stops rain from falling in the bible?

[The fossil record.]

It's common sense that scientists only use the dates of the fossils that fit their little assumptions. The ones that don't fit their assumptions they just toss aside without telling the public about them. i know this, because there are, in textbooks, fossils that have been shown to be mistakes, but the scientists haven't addressed their mistakes to the nation properly. I don't blame them, though, if I claimed an answer for a long time, then I found out my answer was wrong, I'd lie too (if i was a disbeliever).

[Erm, have you no knowledge of biology AT ALL? Man is made mostly of water. Cells are made of various materials, including phospholipid bilayers forming the cell membranes, proteins and organelles to accomplish various tasks within the cell. DNA makes up the genetic code, and DNA is made up of various chemicals. Notice that none of this qualifies as "dust."

[Erm, have you no knowledge of biology AT ALL? Man is made mostly of water. Cells are made of various materials, including phospholipid bilayers forming the cell membranes, proteins and organelles to accomplish various tasks within the cell. DNA makes up the genetic code, and DNA is made up of various chemicals. Notice that none of this qualifies as "dust."]

That isn't my point. My point is that I'm not GOD. I don't know how he accomplished the feat of making a human body out of dust. All I do know is that GOD is all-powerful and if he wants to do that, then he can do it. Why don't you ask "Him" and not me?

[With all the paleontology going on, you'd think that if these giants existed, someone would have discovered their fossils by now. But, in fact,
no one has. In this case, absence of evidence means probable evidence of absense.]

Actually, you're singling out one thing that scientists haven't found. What about all the other "missing links" that scientists haven't found? You failed to mention that.

[Ask any geologist. NONE of the evidence that would be present if such a worldwide flood had occured is present. In fact, the evidence clearly
points to an old earth. This is not absense of evidence as with the "giants." I'm talking about serious evidence that proves that no world-wide
flood EVER occurred.]

I don't see any evidence in the above post, man.

[Ah...see, here's the problem: man would have considered bats to be birds. An omniscient god would have known better. According to you, god wrote the Bible. Therefore, either your god is not actually omniscient, or he could not have written the Bible, because an omniscient god would have known better.]

GOD gave us free will. The free will do discover things on our own being included in that.

[It's a known historical fact - human civilization predates the tower of Babel story by at least several thousand years, and probably more. The great majority of these human civilizations were not in contact with each
other. Unless you're going to claim that, by some miracle, all of these civilizations developed the *exact* same languages, it's even common sense
to state that the Babel story is wrong. And even taking it further, we have the Egyption hieroglyphs predating 4,004 B.C., which is when man was created according to the Bible. We also have several other cultures around the same
time period that had their own languages.]

The people did have the same language, then. There isn't any proof to claim they didn't.
That Christian Answers answered that, but you didn't search through there, obviously.
How do you know that they were dating 4,004 B.C. Is it because of that "time-telling" machine that has been wrong just as much, if not more, than it has been right. How do they know if it's right, when it's been wrong so much?

[ The Bible claims that there were about 600,000 males at the end of this incredible breeding spree. Logically, there were about as many females. 600,000 + 600,000 = 1,200,000. For 35 couples (70 people) to become over a million in 4 generations, each couple in each generation would have had to have 40 children. If it occurred in 5, then each couple in each generation would have had to have 20 children. 6 generations would require 10 in each generation . 7 would require 5, and is approaching "reasonable," but the
word used is "several," which implies a smaller number of generations than 7. And even then, that doesn't account for the fact that in those days,
giving birth could often be lethal to the woman, and this math assumes the best possible conditions: that no man or woman was sterile, and that everyone survived long enough to reproduce several times. All of these requirements are unlikely to have actually been met..]

Please put where it says 600,000 in the Bible and please put where they came from 4 generations, so I can explain your misunderstanding a little better.

[Excuses. Each and every statement I made is supported by evidence. I've been to that site, and found it unimpressive. Apologist sites such as that one are meant for Christians who have doubts but want to continue being Christians. They're not convincing to those who have gone the extra step and rationally concluded that they believe Christianity is wrong. Plus, annoyingly, it's Christian video-game review section is full of absolute false-hoods (for example, in DOOM, christiananswers implies that you get extra points for shooting monsters in the head. Problem: #1, DOOM doesn't even have a points system. #2, DOOM does not differentiate between
different body parts.) How do you know an apologist is lying? His mouth is moving. :-)]

Excuses for what? I don't understand you on that one....???

Also, I don't see any evidence where you backed up your assumptions. Actualy that site explains a lot of your replys to me. If you wont check out my links, then don't expect me to check out yours. The rest of that is just a bunch of crap that has no meaning.

[ I smell a hypocrite here. By saying that you're not "immature enough" to argue over this (all after having registered on Internet Infidels for that very purpose), you are implying that I am immature, and therefore, you are insulting me as well. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.]

I'm not insulting you. If you want me to insult, I will....i can show you insulting. That was just the truth, because I told you that I don't feel like arguing/debating over e-mails and you keep on e-mailing me. So you can have that both ways, I'm afraid.

[In any case, what you've been writing out here is NOT true. In fact, most of your claims and assertions are demonstratably false. And that's why I've been writing. Your website is helping to propagate lies that we more scientific types find incredibly annoying.]

Please tell me what isn't true. What did I type all through my e-mails? That all that both of us have is just opinions from each other and other people. So, if evolutions opinions are true, then so are mine. You more scientific types, huh?lol If you find it annoying, then go cry to mommy and suck on a milkey button, because I don't care. You people spread lies also. High School textbooks are full of them. So practice what you preach, kid.

[How old do you think the earth is? 6,000 years, or 4.5 billion?]

To be honest, I don't care about that crap. I never think about it, because there is no point in it. I only care about living my life right and getting to heaven. You're opinions about that mean nothing to me.

For convenience, I'll post his second (and last) e-mail here as well:

Quote:

[The Genesis 1 account also conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In this account the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know the true order of events was just the opposite. 1:1-2:3." - Skeptic's Annotated Bible]

I'm noticing the "known to science" part. GOD knows more than science could ever dream of. You'll find out in the end. GOD can do anything, so if he wants to create them in his way then he can do that. Who are you to argue with that?

From this point on I'll address his points using a normal quote procedure to adapt my replies to the abilities of this forum.

NiGhT SpAwN · 12-31-2001, 10:51 PM

what is the point in any of that.
Also, I addressed to you how it is annoying to debate over e-mails. Are you blind or do you skip over my replys, man.

I typed to you that people e-mail me a lot, so I'd rather reply on these forums, because it's much easier. It's easier cause my computer is slow.....very slow in sending and typing e-mails for some reason. Do you understand now?

I also, don't get the point in all the posts above. Can we just start where we left off at? Geez....evolutionists are all the same.

NiGhT SpAwN · 12-31-2001, 10:56 PM

what is the point in any of that.
Also, I addressed to you how it is annoying to debate over e-mails. Are you blind or do you skip over my replys, man.

I typed to you that people e-mail me a lot, so I'd rather reply on these forums, because it's much easier. It's easier cause my computer is slow.....very slow in sending and typing e-mails for some reason. Do you understand now?

I also, don't get the point in all the posts above. Can we just start where we left off at? Geez....evolutionists are all the same.

If you want to chat about it. My AIM ID is Messenjah20. It would be cooler if we could chat about it, so we can argue all day long every day about this subject.lol

Daggah · 12-31-2001, 11:08 PM

Quote:

over e-mail, yes, it is. did i register to debate on the forums? yes. If it's wrong, then I guess this is, also: <a href="http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw-fs.html" target="_blank">http://www.aboundingjoy.com/2ndlaw-fs.html

</a>

What was the point of posting this? I've already pointed out that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is irrelevant to evolution. I've pointed out why. Repeating yourself won't change that.

It only took a few seconds to spot dishonesty on that site, as well:

In recent years there has been an assumption on the part of many that to question evolutionism in a public school is tantamount to a violation of the establishment of religion clause of the first amendment of the U.S. constitution!

Uh, no, what's unconstitutional is the creationist push to have their ideas taught in public science classes, as creation is religion, not science. Under the first amendment's establishment clause, such an endorsement of religion is unconstitutional.

The rest of it is just as incorrect as it ever was. The 2nd law does NOT and never has applied to evolution.

Quote:

I don't care anything about a probable truth. It can't be proven, so I consider it false. If you have a problem with that....too bad.

So therefore, logically, you consider all science false? Then why are you typing e-mails and visiting internet forums? All of this technology is based on science that can't technically be proven.

Quote:

I don't see a disclaimer on any evolution site, so I'm not going to put one up.

There's a difference: if an evolution site has a statement that's shown to be wrong, it's generally removed. That's because science is self-correcting. The same cannot be said about your religion.

Quote:

I'm noticing the "similar definition" that you have. Why don't you have "exact definition"
Actually, i get my definition from a Webster's Dictionary, which is right in front of my face. It clearly states that a "theory" is an assumption. Don't argue with me about that; argue with the author of the dictionary.

I never said that the definition you just gave does not match "theory." I said that that is not the proper definition of the word theory in a scientific context - which is true. You do realize that words can have multiple meanings, right?

In any case, here's what the Merriam-Webster dictionary has to say about "theory" -

"1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"

"5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>"

So, basically, what we have here is a case of Night Spawn being dishonest about what he read in the dictionary. I've already posted the relevant definition of "theory" from dictionary.com.

Quote:

Could you list where it says that it stops rain from falling in the bible?

While not quite the same thing: Genesis 7:11-12 describes the windows of heaven opening to pour down the rain for the flood. Genesis 1:6 and 1:7 describe the firmament, but this description in no way matches anything we know not about the atmosphere and the earth. The firmament divides the waters above from the waters below, according to the Bible.

Quote:

It's common sense that scientists only use the dates of the fossils that fit their little assumptions. The ones that don't fit their assumptions they just toss aside without telling the public about them. i know this, because there are, in textbooks, fossils that have been shown to be mistakes, but the scientists haven't addressed their mistakes to the nation properly. I don't blame them, though, if I claimed an answer for a long time, then I found out my answer was wrong, I'd lie too (if i was a disbeliever).

Specifics? If you're talking about Piltdown man, surprise surprise - it was evolutionary scientists who revealed that it was a hoax. It's not in science textbooks - not as a valid fossil. So other than that, where are these thrown-away fossils? Yes, there's a massive conspiracy here.

And why do you again assume that evolutionary biologists are automatically atheists/disbelievers?

Quote:

That isn't my point. My point is that I'm not GOD. I don't know how he accomplished the feat of making a human body out of dust. All I do know is that GOD is all-powerful and if he wants to do that, then he can do it. Why don't you ask "Him" and not me?

Then you didn't answer the error I pointed out. It doesn't matter what you claim your god CAN do - what matters is that you said the Bible is without error, and it says that man was created from the dust of the earth. The fact is, man was not. The Bible was wrong. Your entire paragraph here is a red herring, meant to distract your opponent from the real discussion at hand.

Quote:

Actually, you're singling out one thing that scientists haven't found. What about all the other "missing links" that scientists haven't found? You failed to mention that.

If they found them, the fossils wouldn't be missing links. Therefore, you're defining missing link as something which cannot exist - you're being dishonest. The fact is that scientists HAVE found transitional fossils, and plenty of them: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>

Quote:

[Ask any geologist. NONE of the evidence that would be present if such a
worldwide flood had occured is present. In fact, the evidence clearly
points to an old earth. This is not absense of evidence as with the
"giants." I'm talking about serious evidence that proves that no world-wide
flood EVER occurred.]

I don't see any evidence in the above post, man.

Get your reading glasses out and go here: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html</a>

Quote:

[Ah...see, here's the problem: man would have considered bats to be birds.
An omniscient god would have known better. According to you, god wrote the
Bible. Therefore, either your god is not actually omniscient, or he could
not have written the Bible, because an omniscient god would have known
better.]

GOD gave us free will. The free will do discover things on our own being included in that.

Again with the red herring. You again did not answer my point. The point is that the Bible makes an erroneous claim. You said originally:

"I also find it amazing that the Bible, being the oldest book in the world hasn't ever been proved wrong. Even with all this technology, it still stands strong."

I have shown it to be wrong. Several times. You have not retracted this statement, so I assume you still think this.

Quote:

The people did have the same language, then. There isn't any proof to claim they didn't.
That Christian Answers answered that, but you didn't search through there, obviously.
How do you know that they were dating 4,004 B.C. Is it because of that "time-telling" machine that has been wrong just as much, if not more, than it has been right. How do they know if it's right, when it's been wrong so much?

I've had a look at ChristianAnswers. It's the same old apologetics trash. In any case, 4,004 B.C. is the generally agreed-upon starting point of the earth according to YECism, and even if you don't think that the six days of Genesis were a literal six days, the rest of it still points to man being on earth starting at about 4,000 B.C. This number is achieved by tracing the people described in the Bible. There's apparently some room for variance. Anyway, the Babel tower itself is dated at around 2400 B.C. I only need two languages pre-dating that to prove the Bible's statement wrong, and I have them: the Egyptian language, and the Sumerian language.

Quote:

Please put where it says 600,000 in the Bible and please put where they came from 4 generations, so I can explain your misunderstanding a little better.

It's not a misunderstanding. Exodus 1:7 claims 70. Exodus 12:37 says 600,000 men, not including children. I never said anything about 4 generations so I don't know where you got that from.

Quote:

Excuses for what? I don't understand you on that one....???

Excuses for not answering the rest of my criticisms.

Quote:

Also, I don't see any evidence where you backed up your assumptions. Actualy that site explains a lot of your replys to me. If you wont check out my links, then don't expect me to check out yours. The rest of that is just a bunch of crap that has no meaning.

ChristianAnswers is the same old trash. Apologetics aren't interested in honest research; they're only interested in explaining away Biblical problems. If you want to argue against my points, do so by linking individual pages. I'm not going to sit here and waste my time exploring a site like ChristianAnswers.

Quote:

Please tell me what isn't true. What did I type all through my e-mails? That all that both of us have is just opinions from each other and other people. So, if evolutions opinions are true, then so are mine. You more scientific types, huh?lol If you find it annoying, then go cry to mommy and suck on a milkey button, because I don't care. You people spread lies also. High School textbooks are full of them. So practice what you preach, kid.

What isn't true: your assertions about the nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your assertions about the meaning of the word "theory" in science. I've been talking about scientific fact, not opinion.

Give me one example of a "lie" in a high school textbook. Then show me that same lie in a higher-quality college textbook. Then I'll address it. It's not a surprise to me to see a general lack of quality in high school textbooks; this was addressed in the thread about Jonathan Wells on this very forum. It's still on the first page. Other than that, give me one single, specific examle of an evolutionary biologist lying.

On the other hand, there are countless examples of lying committed by creationists: everything from blatant lies, to misrepresentations of actual scientists' words.

Quote:

To be honest, I don't care about that crap. I never think about it, because there is no point in it. I only care about living my life right and getting to heaven. You're opinions about that mean nothing to me.

If you don't care about it, then maybe you shouldn't be going around trying to argue about it. Just a thought.

Quote:

I'm noticing the "known to science" part. GOD knows more than science could ever dream of. You'll find out in the end. GOD can do anything, so if he wants to create them in his way then he can do that. Who are you to argue with that?

Still a red herring...

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Daggah ]</p>

NiGhT SpAwN · 12-31-2001, 11:18 PM

Daggah, can you please IM me at AIM, so we can finish this debate without my having to recheck these links, cause my computer is slow and I'm debating in too many forums right now....big time
My ID is Messenjah20

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-31-2001, 10:51 PM	#7
NiGhT SpAwN Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: US Posts: 24	what is the point in any of that. Also, I addressed to you how it is annoying to debate over e-mails. Are you blind or do you skip over my replys, man. I typed to you that people e-mail me a lot, so I'd rather reply on these forums, because it's much easier. It's easier cause my computer is slow.....very slow in sending and typing e-mails for some reason. Do you understand now? I also, don't get the point in all the posts above. Can we just start where we left off at? Geez....evolutionists are all the same.

12-31-2001, 10:56 PM	#8
NiGhT SpAwN Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: US Posts: 24	what is the point in any of that. Also, I addressed to you how it is annoying to debate over e-mails. Are you blind or do you skip over my replys, man. I typed to you that people e-mail me a lot, so I'd rather reply on these forums, because it's much easier. It's easier cause my computer is slow.....very slow in sending and typing e-mails for some reason. Do you understand now? I also, don't get the point in all the posts above. Can we just start where we left off at? Geez....evolutionists are all the same. If you want to chat about it. My AIM ID is Messenjah20. It would be cooler if we could chat about it, so we can argue all day long every day about this subject.lol

12-31-2001, 11:18 PM	#10
NiGhT SpAwN Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: US Posts: 24	Daggah, can you please IM me at AIM, so we can finish this debate without my having to recheck these links, cause my computer is slow and I'm debating in too many forums right now....big time My ID is Messenjah20

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.