Hate Mail

Edward Anderson

One interesting thing I've noticed about a lot of creationists is that they can tell that their fellow creationists have not put forth a very good accounting of themselves on these Hate Mail pages, but they fail to see those same flaws in themselves. This next hate mailer is a good example of that problem; he accuses me of beating up on easy targets here, but he puts forth arguments which are of far less quality than many arguments already here. I'm sure there's a lesson here somewhere about pride going before the fall.

Oct 21, 2006 (His first E-mail to me):

Interesting website.

It's obvious that you enjoy the head to heads with the emotional far right religionists who email you. Seems you may be a bit overly zealous about your outlook as well though.. It's obvious that you know very littls of what the bible actually says,or what a real Christian is all about. You have no hate mail at all from anyone who would be able to call himself a Christian. You are a psudo-intellectual who likes to talk down to your "inferiors". (or at least make it seem that way). If you would care to have an intelligent, non-biased discussion about where you might have gone totally wrong, post me an email. otherwise go on playing mind games with the emotional seven year olds and feeling real smart.

Right off the bat, you can tell he doesn't intend to argue the science. Notice how there is not one point in his E-mail about the science of evolution at all. No, he obviously intends to "knock me down a peg" by approaching me with an air of superiority. But here's a tip for all of you young people: don't bluff. Especially not when you're trying to confront someone who's older and more experienced than yourself. At this point I have to be honest and admit that in a way, I like it when people start in with the insults right off the bat, like this person does. It means I can "take off the kid gloves", as they say. So if you're expecting Marquis of Queensbury rules, you might want to go to other areas of the Hate Mail pages.

Oct 22, 2006 (My response):

I love the way you simultaneously attack me for "talking down to your inferiors" and then finish your message in an incredibly condescending fashion. It is not often that I see someone contradict himself so quickly and so blatantly.

Oct 25, 2006 (His reply):

Hey Mike,

Perhaps we should back up a bit.Seems you've mistaken a challenge for an attack. What I said was no more an attack than your answers to those who've written to you.Also,I see no condescension on my part nor a contradiction. Your salvo missed its mark.
On to the point... you seem to think the God of the bible is some kind of monster,and anyone who could worship such a vile being has to be mad. So, in order to bolster your own view point you refer to others as "arguing from ignorance" (your words). I just thought it might be advantageous to you to study the bible with an open mind for your self,so others (myself included) couldn't throw the sour grape back at you.
As for Darwinism... not proven, un-provable, because it never happened.
The very first bird that had to fly to preserve its kind, had to be able to fly the very first time it tried. Otherwise it was snapped up by some ozlefinch and that is why we have no birds today. Same principle holds with honey bees and angler fish.
I know most liberals have no real bottom to them,so they have to pretend they're being attacked,and come back with some really ostentatious vocabulary in order to soothe their closed minds. If you should find some contradiction here, please be a bit more specific in pointing it out.
sincerely,
Edward Anderson

[Editor's note: Isn't it interesting how he denies that he was attacking anyone, despite phrases like "You are a psudo-intellectual who likes to talk down to your "inferiors""? Let's not even talk about the humourous irony of misspelling "pseudo-intellectual"]

Oct 26, 2006 (My response):

I see that honesty is not your strong suit. Anyone who reads your message will see the condescension in it, but if you think that denials will change that, go right ahead.

On to the point... you seem to think the God of the bible is some kind of monster,and anyone who could worship such a vile being has to be mad. So, in order to bolster your own view point you refer to others as "arguing from ignorance" (your words).

Correct. The people who argue against Darwinistic evolution almost invariably have no education whatsoever in the scientific method. They literally do argue from ignorance. Your counter-argument is that I do not understand the Bible, yet you fail to provide even a single example of where my interpretation is inconsistent with the text.

I just thought it might be advantageous to you to study the bible with an open mind for your self,so others (myself included) couldn't throw the sour grape back at you.

Interestingly, you argue exclusively in generalizations, rather than picking a specific argument I've made and showing what's wrong with it.

As for Darwinism... not proven, un-provable, because it never happened.

And there you go, proving that you are just as ignorant of science as every other creationist. Science is not about "proof"; it is about empirical accuracy of predictions generated by a model.

The very first bird that had to fly to preserve its kind, had to be able to fly the very first time it tried. Otherwise it was snapped up by some ozlefinch and that is why we have no birds today. Same principle holds with honey bees and angler fish.

Wrong. There are plenty of flightless winged birds even today, so it is obvious that an early bird ancestor with only tentative flight capabilities could have survived if totally flightless ones can.

I know most liberals have no real bottom to them,so they have to pretend they're being attacked,and come back with some really ostentatious vocabulary in order to soothe their closed minds.

The only "ostentatious vocabulary" I need is to point out that A) you are lying about not attacking me, so drop the holier-than-thou rhetoric, B) you think that evolution has something to do with being "liberal" rather than "scientific", C) you obviously don't understand the scientific method, as demonstrated by your demand for a math-style "proof" of Darwinism, and D) you know so little about the natural world that you actually thought that laughable "first bird" argument of yours was a strong one.

If you should find some contradiction here, please be a bit more specific in pointing it out.

sincerely,
Edward Anderson

Ah, so you don't have to be specific, but I do? Typically dishonest creationist once again.

[Editor's note: As expected, his next E-mail addressed none of my points, and went heavy on the "I'm a better person than you" angle. He seems to be blissfully unaware that this is a debate over a matter of science, not politics.]

Oct 26, 2006 (His reply):

Hey Mike,
Rec'd your warm e-mail and was glad to find you well and happy. Thought I'd point out one minor flaw in your reasoning..it's your definition of science. Sure any statement can be misconstrued to fit the hearers expectations, so why bother with such trivialities?
The bird, bee, fish example was just that. You must truly think the rest of the world ignorant if you think they don't know about flightless birds. You missed the point entirely.
I'm not holier than thou..just looking at the world through a different window. And if we're just an evolutionary accident...what's wrong with that? You seem rather judgmental and condescending yourself,in a smug, self important way.
Bottom line is, evolution and religion have more to do with faith than fact. There is only one truth and it is mathematically provable.
Till next time
Ed

Oct 26, 2006 (My response):

Hey Mike,

Rec'd your warm e-mail and was glad to find you well and happy. Thought I'd point out one minor flaw in your reasoning..it's your definition of science.

Why don't you show what's wrong with it then?

Sure any statement can be misconstrued to fit the hearers expectations, so why bother with such trivialities?

See above.

The bird, bee, fish example was just that. You must truly think the rest of the world ignorant if you think they don't know about flightless birds. You missed the /point/ entirely.

Then why don't you explain it for me? You seem to spend all your time talking about how superior you are, and none of your time making real points.

I'm not holier than thou..just looking at the world through a different window. And if we're just an evolutionary accident...what's wrong with that?

Why don't you describe the differences in our thinking then, and explain why mine is so wrong? As I said, all of your arguments have something to do with trying to prove that you're a better person than I am. The only on-topic argument you made so far was that ridiculous "first bird" argument, and when I showed what was wrong with it, your only response was to say that I missed the point, WITHOUT bothering to clarify what you really meant.

You seem rather judgmental and condescending yourself,in a smug, self important way.

Wow, what a shock. Yet another line that has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with trying to prove that you're a better person than me.

Bottom line is, evolution and religion have more to do with faith than fact.

I'll let you in on a secret about debating: you can't justify an assertion by simply stating it emphatically.

There is only one truth and it is mathematically provable.

Yet again, another vague allusion to a point that you can't actually bother explaining.

Till next time
Ed

Get back to me when you have some substance to go along with your style.

Oct 29, 2006 (His reply):

Hey Hey!
Here's a little substance for ya. I re-visited your web site, read some more of your "HATE MAIL" and concluded the reason you call it hate mail is because the letters are received from people you hate. Ha Ha I was a little slow on the draw there Mike. It's pretty obvious you just want to put people down if they happen to disagree with your precious /theory of evolution./ You've shown no more substance than those you hate, if as much./.
You /say we should not react defensively when you say Christianity is irrational and /You/ react defensively when the sacred cow in your pasture is smitten. So much for honesty. Another mistake.. You say there are millions of Christians who are neither fundamentalists nor creationists- Wrong. Any true Christian is a creationist by definition. Because by yielding to your insane theory you make God a liar. (don't know of any Christians with that kind of nerve). You think because someone calls himself a Christian, that somehow makes him one. I got a news upa data for you Mike... it doesn't.
You say we (Christians) disagree with your interpretation of the bible. Nuther little update... You don't have one. If you've read it at all it was from a argumentative point of view,designed solely to bolster your prejudice, by scoffing at something someone else who holds in high regard.You certainly didn't read it in search of truth. In fact, you probably know less about the bible than those who disagree with you know about evolution and yet have the gall to call them ignorant. Guess scholarship is where you find it huh?
Of course no one wants to admit he's bought into a lie. Can't blame you for being a bit defensive.
You have a pain story that you're reliving, and telling, probably on a daily basis and lashing out at what you perceive to be Christianity.
Sorry about the pain ,but the antidote is forgiveness, not bitterness and trying to destroy a religion. :-) Your attackers were not Christians...no matter what they tell you.
One final note,and then I'll wish you peace,love and happiness. Your Family takes precedence over your web site. I find that very noble of you. I'm sure any compliment from me would be regarded as superficial so just take it as an observation.
Best wishes.
Edward Anderson

[Editor's note: I like the way he thinks he's refuting my arguments with "substance" by accusing me of being close-minded or having an agenda, without ever actually picking even a single argument from my site and finding a logical flaw in it, the way you're supposed to refute an argument. By the way, in case you're wondering, he really does format his E-mails like that.]

Oct 29, 2006 (My response):

Find me an example of a point in the Hate Mail pages which I've ignored, the way you ignore all of my points.

You /say we should not react defensively when you say Christianity is irrational and /You/ react defensively when the sacred cow in your pasture is smitten. So much for honesty.

See above.

Another mistake.. You say there are millions of Christians who are neither fundamentalists nor creationists- Wrong. Any true Christian is a creationist by definition. Because by yielding to your insane theory you make God a liar. (don't know of any Christians with that kind of nerve). You think because someone calls himself a Christian, that somehow makes him one. I got a news upa data for you Mike... it doesn't.

Actually, most INTELLIGENT Christians acknowledge that the Bible was not directly written by God himself, and can therefore contain errors, exaggerations, etc. That's why it can contain contradictions, such as the Amalekites being completely destroyed in one book of the Old Testament and yet still existing in a subsequent book.

You say we (Christians) disagree with your interpretation of the bible. Nuther little update... You don't have one. If you've read it at all it was from a argumentative point of view,designed solely to bolster your prejudice, by scoffing at something someone else who holds in high regard.

Obviously, you can't find a real problem in my interpretation so you chose to use this ridiculous "You don't have one" argument. Even a flawed interpretation is still an interpretation, and you obviously can't find an inconsistency between my interpretation and the text, or you would have provided an example rather than using this non-rebuttal.

You certainly didn't read it in search of truth. In fact, you probably know less about the bible than those who disagree with you know about evolution and yet have the gall to call them ignorant. Guess scholarship is where you find it huh?

I guess I'll have to chalk up "scholarship" as yet another word that you use but don't understand, much like "science". A real scholar would always provide EXAMPLES to support his claims. I provide pages of examples which can be examined by others. So far, in three messages, you have failed to provide even one.

Of course no one wants to admit he's bought into a lie. Can't blame you for being a bit defensive.

You started this exchange by telling me that the people on my Hate Mail pages were obviously just put there because they're easy targets, and that it was time for me to face a real opponent, by which I can only assume you meant yourself. But the FACT is that many of the people already on my Hate Mail pages put up a FAR better argument than you did.

You have a pain story that you're reliving, and telling, probably on a daily basis and lashing out at what you perceive to be Christianity. Sorry about the pain ,but the antidote is forgiveness, not bitterness and trying to destroy a religion. :-) Your attackers were not Christians...no matter what they tell you. One final note,and then I'll wish you peace,love and happiness. Your Family takes precedence over your web site. I find that very noble of you. I'm sure any compliment from me would be regarded as superficial so just take it as an observation.
Best wishes.
Edward Anderson

I imagine you think this Appeal to Motive fallacy was a very dignified way to end your message. But the fact is that despite all of your histrionics, it's totally irrelevant whether I have a grudge against Christianity; even if I do, you still have to show what's wrong with my ARGUMENTS, and you have utterly failed to do so (probably because you never even TRIED). Why don't you just admit that you know absolutely NOTHING about science, and that you can't find even a single flaw in my arguments against creationism? You're obviously in way over your head, and perhaps you shouldn't have been so arrogant as to suggest earlier that you were some kind of superior debater who would put the people on my Hate Mail page to shame.

The fact is that you have shied away from every attempt to pin you down on a particular point and wring a real debate out of this exchange. You claimed my description of science was "flawed", but when I asked you to clarify, you declined. You claimed that my interpretation of your "bird" argument was wrong, but when I asked you to clarify, you declined. You claimed that there was a problem with my interpretation of the Bible, but when I asked you to provide examples of cases where my interpretation was inconsistent with the source text, you declined. When I demanded some substance to go along with your style, you responded with yet another series of vague claims, not even one of which you could bother fleshing out.

You will no doubt interpret this as more "prejudice" on my part, but I tell you this because it's a fact: you would have gotten laughed off a high-school debate team. If you really want to debate people in future, you should try learning how to debate.

Oct 29 (His reply):

Why don't you show what's wrong with it then?

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Neither of your arguments conform to either of these definitions. I'm sure you have your own.

See above.

Wize retort there.

Then why don't you explain it for me? You seem to spend all your time talking about how superior you are, and none of your time making real points.

The point was, Any defense mechanism given by God Has worked from the beginning... some Flightless birds can run real fast, in case you hadn't noticed. Guess we need to spell out everything since you aren't real good at inferences.

I think the differences in our thinking should be obvious...major difference being, you have a bigger chip on your shoulder. Not to imply that this makes me a "better" person. You may be hiding behind that one mike.

Wow, what a shock. Yet another line that has nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with trying to prove that you're a better person than me.

NOPE, you accused me of condescension in our very first exchange. What did THAT have to do with evolution...okay for you, but not for me I suppose. What a shock indeed.

If we're looking for points in patronization, you get two for this one.

I'll let you in on a secret about debating: you can't justify an assertion by simply stating it emphatically.

My faith says there is a creator yours says there isn't. My model stands up to scrutiny as well as yours, since science isn't about proof (your definition).

Yet again, another vague allusion to a point that you can't actually bother explaining.

Yet another finger pointing to make yourself seem brilliant.

Find me an example of a point in the Hate Mail pages which I've ignored, the way you ignore all of my points.

No, I'm not re reading the hatefull stuff. ha ha.

See above.

There was no point made above.

By INTELLIGENT of course you mean those who are willing to compromise any modicum of faith they might have (had) in order not to be intimidated my the scientific jargon you spew without any real proof. If you can send me chapter and verse on your ridiculous Amalekite argument ,I'll research it. no, really! I will.

" In the beginning God created" how many ways can you "interpret" that Mike?

"scholarship"learning; knowledge acquired by study; the academic attainments of a scholar.... Not real vague.

As long as you're using the word "scholarship", you're supposed to explain WHY something is a lie, rather than just continually repeating that it is. It's pretty ironic that you had earlier claimed that "liberals" have no real substance and wilt when challenged, because I challenged you to back up your claims and you have refused to do so. You just keep repeating those claims without clarification or supporting evidence, and it's pretty clear that this is actually your first real attempt to debate the subject. Do you really think you do Christianity any credit by behaving in this manner?

You started this exchange by telling me that the people on my Hate Mail pages were obviously just put there because they're easy targets, and that it was time for me to face a real opponent, by which I can only assume you meant yourself. But the FACT is that many of the people already on my Hate Mail pages put up a FAR better argument than you did.

This time I was pointing out the irony of you calling it "Hate Mail". Only one that i saw...(didn't read them all) could have been construed as hate mail... truth is those people are concerned for you and for all the others, children especially, who are being poisoned by your ilk. (Isn't that a fun word, ilk?)

But you feel the need to consider them ENEMIES. For no other reason than they disagree with you.

Correct observation. Your arguments hold no more water than The simplicity that is in Christ.

Also correct,a dignified exit is preferable to me but you obviously can't let that happen with a creationist.

Why don't you just admit that you know absolutely NOTHING about science, and that you can't find even a single flaw in my arguments against creationism?

Thought we were talking about evolution, you kinda blew your cover when you said it (science) wasn't about proof. You know NOTHING about science, other than your own definition.

You're obviously in way over your head, and perhaps you shouldn't have been so arrogant as to suggest earlier that you were some kind of superior debater who would put the people on my Hate Mail page to shame.

There you go interpreting again. The people on your hate mail don't hate you...you hate them, simply because they don't have any "faith" in evolutionary theory.

Correct again Mike ! Your whole life philosophy is based on prejudice.

yep, never was a high school debater. would have been the laughing stock.

Oct 29, 2006 (My response):

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of *facts *or *truths *systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation *and experimentation.*

Neither of your arguments conform to either of these definitions. I'm sure you have your own.

I see you are so ignorant that you believe there has never been any experimental verification of evolutionary theory.

No it hasn't. In case you haven't noticed, most of the animal species in the fossil record are EXTINCT. Why is this, if we are so carefully designed by God?

What does "chip on your shoulder" have to do with the validity of a scientific argument?

If I talk down to someone, it is only AFTER I have shown that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You, on the other hand, talk down to someone INSTEAD of showing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

My faith says there is a creator yours says there isn't. My model stands up to scrutiny as well as yours, since science isn't about proof (your definition).

It's interesting how you only read the first half of my description of science. Your habit of reading only enough to rattle off a knee-jerk reply may explain your ignorance of science and evolution. If you actually read the entire statement, my definition is about empirical accuracy of predictions generated by a model. That is how science works; you cannot PROVE a scientific theory; you can only fail to show that its predictions are in line with observation.

How much scientific education do you have? Are you honestly unaware that you cannot prove a scientific theory? Did you make it out of high school? Do you understand why Newtonian kinematics was accepted for more than a hundred years only to be overturned by Einsteinian relativism? How could that be possible, if Newtonian physics had been "proven", as is your expectation for any accepted scientific theory? The answer is that Newtonian physics was NEVER proven; it was only shown to produce highly accurate predictions. When Einstein came along and produced even MORE accurate predictions, then Newtonian physics was overruled. Einstein's theories of relativity were never "proven" either; they were only shown to produce very accurate predictions.

I suggest you read the writings of David Hume about why science cannot really "prove" anything, and then read the writings of Karl Popper and David Stove to see why this is not a problem. Assuming, of course, that you have a genuine interest in learning, rather than the kind of arrogance that you have demonstrated so far in this thread by presuming to declare what is and isn't scientific despite obviously having no education in this matter whatsoever.

Yet another finger pointing to make yourself seem brilliant.

Your Appeal to Motive fallacy does not substantiate your claim. You say there is "only one truth and it is mathematically provable". What is that truth?

No, I'm not re reading the hatefull stuff. ha ha.

In other words, you concede that you made claims about the contents of my Hate Mail pages without actually bothering to read them.

No, I mean actual theologians. Have you ever taken an Old Testament theology course at the university level? Do you honestly think that you can pass for a real scholar? Real theologians are EMBARRASSED to have people like you speaking on their behalf, I assure you. If you don't believe me, try going to a real theologian (not just your church pastor; an actual guy with a doctorate in theology from an accredited university) and asking him.

If you can send me chapter and verse on your ridiculous Amalekite argument ,I'll research it. no, really! I will.

I already posted that information on my website, and you obviously couldn't be bothered to read it.

"In the beginning God created" how many ways can you "interpret" that Mike?

I see the point flew right over your head, as usual. I interpret that the same way you do: it says that God created the Earth. However, I disagree that this represents objective EVIDENCE of anything, and I disagree that God himself dictated these words verbatim.

"scholarship"learning; knowledge acquired by study; the academic attainments of a scholar.... Not real vague.

Correct. And you have not demonstrated any of this. If you had ever taken a university course, you would know that no professor would accept your arguments as an acceptable submission for even the most basic class assignment. You fail to provide concrete examples to support your claims, you fail to elaborate on your points, and you fail to answer direct questions.

Of course those people are concerned. That doesn't change the fact that their arguments do not make any sense, therefore their conclusions are nonsense.

But you feel the need to consider them ENEMIES. For no other reason than they disagree with you.

No, I consider them to be speaking nonsense. They interpret that as making "enemies" of them because they have internalized their religious beliefs. They cannot view them as mere arguments, or conclusions, or ideas. To them, those beliefs are part and parcel of their self-identity, so when I point out that those beliefs are nonsensical, they take it as an assault. Much as you so obviously do.

Correct observation. Your arguments hold no more water than The simplicity that is in Christ.

Please choose one of my arguments and analyze it if you are so confident that this is the case. So far all you do is rant about my arguments without picking one and analyzing it. So why should I or anyone else take your generalizations seriously, if you cannot find so much as a single example to illustrate your case?

Also correct,a dignified exit is preferable to me but you obviously can't let that happen with a creationist.

This isn't the movies, my friend. The solidity of an argument has nothing to do with how well you exit the room.

Thought we were talking about evolution, you kinda blew your cover when you said it (science) wasn't about proof. You know NOTHING about science, other than your own definition.

That's pretty funny; you honestly seem to think you have a handle on how science works, despite obviously not having even the most basic education in the subject. Tell me, if scientific theories must be proven in order to be accepted, then how is it possible for scientific theories to be overturned or modified later? They were already proven true, right?

There you go interpreting again. The people on your hate mail don't hate you...you hate them, simply because they don't have any "faith" in evolutionary /theory./

I point out that they are speaking nonsense and demonstrating ignorance, just as you are. But unlike you, I provide examples and reasoning to support my conclusions. You interpret this as "hate" because you have internalized your beliefs to such an extent that you cannot accept criticism of those beliefs without interpreting it as an assault.

[Editor's note: Christian fundamentalists have always had a double-standard for the word "hate". If you tell a fundamentalist that he's scientifically ignorant, then it's "hate", even if it is factually correct. But when they say that homosexuals are an "abomination", that's "love", even though "abomination" is nothing more than a declaration of "extreme disgust and hatred ; loathing" (look it up in the Merriam-Webster dictionary).]

Correct again Mike ! Your whole life philosophy is based on prejudice.

The only thing I'm "prejudiced" against is ignorance. Unfortunately, that is a trait you demonstrate repeatedly.

yep, never was a high school debater. would have been the laughing stock.

Finally, an accurate statement.

[Editor's note: In his next E-mail, he totally ignored my previous E-mail, but at least he finally picked a few arguments from my site to attack rather than sticking with his "You're a bad bad man" technique. Unfortunately, his rebuttals mostly consist of appealing to his own personal incredulity.]

Nov 7, 2006 (His reply):

Hey Mike

Does this really make any since at all?

"As an aside, if you are still enchanted by the argument that life must be an unnatural creation simply because dead cells can't be re-animated, then perhaps you should consider the example of the diamond: if it is shattered, you will never be able to reassemble its pieces into a single diamond again. This is as close an analogy to death as you will find in the non-living world. And yet, this diamond formed from natural processes, didn't it? Eons of heat and pressure, without any intelligence directing the process. Interesting, isn't it? An object which is worth far more than the sum of its parts, and which cannot be restored if broken, and which possesses structure and order, and which was created by a long-term natural process that we couldn't observe directly, but which we know to exist through observation of its results and verification of its mechanism. Sound familiar?"

Sounds like the same old BS that has been foisted upon us since "Chuck:" Wrote origins. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. LIFE cannot be equated with Diamonds any more than substance can be equated to a vacuum. another ridiculous argument

"He makes the statement that life does not simply consist of the right compounds or proteins, but how does he justify it? Profound one-liners do not constitute valid arguments any more than repetitive strawmen or invalid analogies do. According to the most basic definitions of life, a life form need only demonstrate the ability to replicate itself. A molecule may not seem like anything you or I would consider "life", but the act of reproduction is the minimum standard of life. If he wants to disprove that organic compounds can be considered "life", he will have to show that it is impossible for any organic compounds to reproduce outside of the environment of a modern cell."

Sorry, I must interrupt here..this is also some evolutionary Crap! The burden of proof (or disproof) has to reside in your domain since Science is not about "Proof", but all you need to prove is that a single molecule did replicate its self in the primordial goo.. how convenient for you.

"Since there are already several proposals for organic compounds which might be able to reproduce themselves outside of the environment of a cell (dating all the way back to the "RNA world" theory), I would say that he has his work cut out for him. "

I would say you have your work cut out for you.

"But I doubt he will bother trying. The fact that he isn't even attempting to justify his assumption speaks volumes- either he is totally ignorant, or he is willfully deceptive." ???

This has to be the most ridiculous statements on your site Mike. The man is neither totally ignorant,nor willfully deceptive. You seem to have a bad habit of accusing others of your own faults. Such as mis-reading statements and attacking straw men.
How many self replicating molecular life forms have you seen today? NONE and you NEVER Will. :-)
Another question for you. Do you have any convincing argument as to why life hasn't yet evolved on the other planets of our solar system? After all, mars is just as old as earth (About 10-15,000 years) I wonder why nothing has popped up there! Any reasonable explanation will be appreciated.
Sorry to change the format mid stream but you insisted on a point for point discussion.
Ed

Well, at least he's trying to discuss the actual subject matter now. One step at a time ...

Nov 7, 2006 (My response):

I see. So you decided to pretty much ignore the entire contents of my last E-mail, in order to look through my website for points you could totally misinterpret and attack. Very well ...

Do you understand the concept of an analogy? It is to make a point of comparison for the purpose of illustrating the strength or weakness of a particular logical argument. It is NOT a statement that the two situations are equivalent in every way.

I would say you have your work cut out for you.

How so? If you object to all of the molecular biologists' theories from the RNA world to the present, you should explain what's wrong with them.

And yet, when you attempt to present examples of these behaviours, you fail utterly.

How many self replicating molecular life forms have you seen today? NONE and you NEVER Will.

Obviously not, since the environment is no longer suitable for the formation of primeval life. This point was made on the website; perhaps you need glasses.

Another question for you. Do you have any convincing argument as to why life hasn't yet evolved on the other planets of our solar system? After all, mars is just as old as earth (About 10-15,000 years) I wonder why nothing has popped up there! Any reasonable explanation will be appreciated.

Obviously, because they lack the necessary environmental conditions (although there is still some question as to whether some forms of life may exist on those planets, or may have existed in the past). In any case, the fact that you thought this would actually be a difficult question to answer speaks volumes about your incomprehension of the theories under discussion.

[Editor's note: Yes, I noticed the part where he makes the claim that Mars is only 10-15k years old; I didn't think it was worth pointing out]

Sorry to change the format mid stream but you insisted on a point for point discussion.

Then perhaps you should have answered my points.

Nov 7, 2006 (His reply):

I see. So you decided to pretty much ignore the entire contents of my last E-mail, in order to look through my website for points you could totally misinterpret and attack. Very well ...

False. I looked through your site for points I thought we could discuss or argue about. Fact is I do understand the concept of an analogy. and yes, much to your chagrin I'm sure , I did finish HS and even a little college. Did you? "If the argument is waining, attack the credentials", seems also to be another underhanded Darwinistic ploy.

[Editor's note: it's interesting that he claims I accused him of not finishing high school, when I never technically said that, although I did say that he obviously had no education in the scientific method, and I rhetorically asked at one point whether he'd even finished high school. I suppose one might read it that way, but it doesn't really matter because the proof, as they say, is in the pudding; he does not demonstrate any comprehension of how science is normally conducted, or even how a scientific argument is normally conducted; I would actually say that most of the creationists on this Hate Mail page put in a much better accounting of themselves than he did.]

see above.

How so? If you object to all of the molecular biologists' theories from the RNA world to the present, you should explain what's wrong with them.

What's wrong with them is simply the fact that they're mere speculation,with no possible way to substantiate them. Hard to build a hypothesis on, much less a theory. And yet you treat such drivell as fact, actual history!

And yet, when you attempt to present examples of these behaviours, you fail utterly.

Another false statement Mike. You either were skimming or deliberately mis- read my silly little statement about the first bird. What I actually said was the first bird that had to *fly to escape,* and you come back with "there are many flightless birds.*"

Ok,* The first roadrunner had to get away from(out run,evade,dodge) the first coyote,or he got eaten and there are no roadrunners today. Oh BTW, was the bird a male or a female and where did it come from? an egg perhaps?

Obviously not, since the environment is no longer suitable for the formation of primeval life. This point was made on the website; perhaps you need glasses.

Well, seems to me the atmosphere was more volatile billions and billions of years ago than now...I'd expect them to be springing up all over. How can you know if the environment has changed that much or not? (yes, I know...the Grand Canyon , or some other gobbedy/gook.

Have to disagree with you there Mike. I didn't think it was a difficult question and knew you would have a logical theory.

I just think that if life could spring forth here, it would have a equal chance elsewhere.( in our solar system) So perhaps my comprehension is a bit better than you supposed. Evolution isn't rocket science you know. ha ha

Then perhaps you should have answered my points.

I travel a lot so am using a couple of computers, I will answer your points when I get back to the other.
Vaya Con Dios

Nov 7, 2006 (My response):

How is it an "underhanded Darwinistic ploy" to point out that you obviously have no education in the matter of scientific method at all? And "a little college" is pretty damned unimpressive, I must say.

see above.

Saying that you understand it is not the same as demonstrating that you understand it.

Yet again, you demonstrate that you have no comprehension of the scientific method. A speculation is a perfectly viable theory if its predictions are consistent with fact.

Correct. And that rebuttal stands. The first bird obviously did NOT need to achieve full flight, because you are assuming that full flight was necessary for survival, and it obviously isn't. It's not my fault that you don't understand that this blows a hole in your argument.

Ok,* The first roadrunner had to get away from(out run,evade,dodge) the first coyote,or he got eaten and there are no roadrunners today.

You honestly think these are powerful arguments? What do YOU think evolution says about this? It's pretty obvious you have no clue how evolution theory actually works, so why don't you explain to me what evolution predicts in this case, and then show how it's obviously wrong? If you knew ANYTHING about the scientific method, you would know that this is how you're supposed to disprove theories.

Oh BTW, was the bird a male or a female and where did it come from? an egg perhaps?

You probably think this imaginary "first bird" of yours must have somehow evolved in one generation from a greatly dissimilar organism, don't you?

Upon what do you base this claim of greater atmospheric volatility in the primeval era?

Evolution may not be rocket science, but since you understand neither of them, what difference does it make? How on Earth do you conclude that the probability of life forming is identical regardless of environment?

I travel a lot so am using a couple of computers, I will answer your points when I get back to the other.
Vaya Con Dios

Yeah, sure you will.

[Editor's note: Yes, I admit it. I'm just toying with him now. Give me a break, I'm only human]

Nov 8, 2006 (His reply):

Dang! I did sooo want to impress you. The fact remains, you have nothing to show.Old monkey skulls make an impression on an eight year old (sure made an impression on me) ,but then there's nothing but FAITH beyond that. You build upon a house of cards. Happens to be a UDP because you have no answer to the man...attack credentials. Of course I don't expect you to admit this.

Saying that you understand it is not the same as demonstrating that you understand it.

So, I need to set up several web pages of diatribe in order to demonstrate that I understand it ?

Yet again, you demonstrate that you have no comprehension of the scientific method. A speculation is a perfectly viable theory if its predictions are consistent with fact.

Yep, please note the rather large IF near the center of your last sentence. IF its predictions are consistent with Fact. Where are your facts...lost somewhere in your premo soup. Can't be replicated, but,but, but...it MUST have happened that way! How ridiculous. There you go on your faith kick again.

You obviously still can't grasp the point....you can take this all the way back to the first predator/prey relationship.All I'm saying is the very first defense had to work :-) Same holds for the first offense. First microbe kills off second microbe with really big fangs because second microbe couldn't out swim him. And that is why there is no life on earth to this very day. Catch the absurdity there??

Nope, I don't think he evolved at all.

Upon what do you base this claim of greater atmospheric volatility in the primeval era?

Oh, just several thousand "scientific" artists conceptions of what it might have looked like... I'm sure you've seen them too. Upon what do you base the claim of changed environment so your supposed (fiction) DNA MUST have replicated its self?

I travel a lot so am using a couple of computers, I will answer your points when I get back to the other.
Vaya Con Dios

Yeah, sure you will.

Well, once again it's time to hang up the old keyboard. I'm sure I've given you lots to think about here.
Take care.

Nov 8, 2006 (My response):

Nice strawman. Despite your lies about me not answering your points with anything other than mockery of your obvious lack of education, I answered every single one of your points; something you never even tried to do with mine. And like it or not, your obvious ignorance of science (to the point of not even knowing what a hypothesis is) is a valid criticism of your approach.

So, I need to set up several web pages of diatribe in order to demonstrate that I understand it ?

No, you need to answer it here in this E-mail exchange. But that would require that you actually learn how to answer a point.

Yet again, you fail to demonstrate comprehension of the scientific method. A hypothesis does not need to be observed. In fact, if a hypothesis were observed, it would no longer be a hypothesis; it would be an observation. So pointing out that we cannot observe this hypothesis in action does NOT disprove its validity. A hypothesis is valid not when you can observe it, but when you can show that it successfully models the things we CAN observe. Think about that.

And I'm pointing out that this is not true. Predator/prey relationships are not 100% effective one way or another. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the real-world ecosystem knows this. Sometimes the predator wins, and sometimes the prey gets away. The idea that it either "works" or "doesn't work" is an absurdly childish oversimplification. Unfortunately, creationism thrives on oversimplifications and the people who employ them.

Nope, I don't think he evolved at all.

Sorry, you lose. Once more, in order to show that a scientific theory fails, you're supposed to learn it well enough to understand what it will predict in a given situation, and then show that this prediction is falsified by observation or experiment. You have done NONE of this. And when challenged to do so, you refuse. In fact, you seem almost proud NOT to know what evolution predicts in any given circumstance, and you try to make an argument out of it: "I don't know what evolution says about this, so tell me!"

Oh, just several thousand "scientific" artists conceptions of what it *might* have looked like... I'm sure you've seen them too. Upon what do you base the claim of changed environment so your supposed (fiction) DNA MUST have replicated its self?

In other words, you looked at pictures of what ancient Earth probably looked like, and assumed it was more chemically volatile even though the ACTUAL scientific models indicate that there would have been no free oxygen in the air, thus making it LESS chemically volatile. Oxygen is an extremely reactive element, in case you flunked high-school chemistry (and it appears that you did), and you only get free oxygen in the atmosphere when plant life creates it (apparently, you flunked grade-school biology too). Wait, don't tell me; you figured it was more chemically volatile because there were lots of red colours in those pictures, thus indicating warmth. Right? Honestly, creationists are downright hilarious when they try to argue matters of science.

Well, once again it's time to hang up the old keyboard. I'm sure I've given you lots to think about here.
Take care.

To say that your confidence is unfounded would be a rather spectacular understatement. In point of fact, your confidence in your own correctness is really the ONLY thing you've said which I can't refute.

Nov 9, 2006 (His reply):

I'll Take That As A Compliment; thank you.

Again...*Upon what do you base the claim of environmental change so radical that your precious microbe can't replicate its self?*

Another fair question you couldn't answer so you obviously decided to ignore it.

Guess you looked at some different artsy conceptions. Or do you also time travel?

You have no real answers so you re-define words to your own liking and then accuse others of ignorance.

Also, who said anything about more or less oxygen?? You were the one who said the environment changed. I was speculating as to why you would think so...wanna know why ? *It's the only explanation as to why microbes can't replicate themselves outside a* *cell!* And then when I try to give you the benefit of a doubt, you start throwing chemicals. (just FYI ,Nope, didn't flunk chemistry.)

Evolutionists are down right hilarious when side stepping a question they can't answer. You're pretending to be communicating with an ignoramus so you can feel superior.

I brought up the picture thing of deno with volcanoes in the background and ash spewing all over as a little satire on the whole business. It seems hard for you to grasp that I don't believe the earth or the atmosphere has changed much at all . Since there were trees from the very beginning. there was also oxygen in abundant supply.

buenas noches

Nov 9, 2006 (My response):

I'll Take That As A Compliment; thank you.

I see your reading comprehension has not improved at all.

Again...*Upon what do you base the claim of environmental change so radical that your precious microbe can't replicate its self?*

If you can't understand the importance importance of free oxygen, I can't help you. I strongly suggest you go back to high school and study basic chemistry.

Another fair question you couldn't answer so you obviously decided to ignore it.

The fact that you don't understand the answer does not mean I didn't give one.

Guess you looked at some different artsy conceptions. Or do you also time travel?

Unlike you, I don't waste my time looking at pretty pictures. I looked at what scientists are actually saying about the conditions of primeval Earth. If you're going to refute their models, you should at least know what those models are.

You have no real answers so you re-define words to your own liking and then accuse others of ignorance.

Once again, the fact that you don't understand the answer does not mean I didn't give one.

Also, who said anything about more or less oxygen??

The scientists whose work you are criticizing. If you're going to attack a model, you should at least know what it says first.

You were the one who said the environment changed. I was speculating as to why you would think so...wanna know why ? *It's the only explanation as to why microbes can't replicate themselves outside a* *cell!* And then when I try to give you the benefit of a doubt, you start throwing chemicals. (just FYI ,Nope, didn't flunk chemistry.)

If you didn't flunk, you must have gone to a school with very low standards. Oxygen is extremely reactive, and it will quickly bind itself to other elements in the absence of an active process for releasing free oxygen into the environment. That's why things virtually everything can oxidize. Metal rusts, carbon-based material burns, etc.

Evolutionists are down right hilarious when side stepping a question they can't answer. You're pretending to be communicating with an ignoramus so you can feel superior.

I can answer it; you just can't understand the answer. You honestly can't understand why there would be no oxygen before the first life forms appeared? The lack of oxygen in the primeval environment is NOT a mere assumption; it is a logical conclusion from the KNOWN high chemical reactivity of oxygen and the lack of an active free oxygen producer in the absence of plant life.

I brought up the picture thing of deno with volcanoes in the background and ash spewing all over as a little satire on the whole business. It seems hard for you to grasp that I don't believe the earth or the atmosphere has changed much at all . Since there were trees from the very beginning. there was also oxygen in abundant supply.

News flash: you can't use your conclusion as a premise. That's a basic principle of logic which you fail to grasp.

[Editor's note: the "conclusion" I'm referring to is his assumption that there were trees from the beginning which made oxygen because God made them (of course, one must wonder why he doesn't simply assume that God made the oxygen himself; it's always interesting to see how creationists clumsily try to weld science and religion together). And technically, there are actually some processes which can release small amounts of free oxygen without biological activity, but you need vast amounts of oxygen production in order to counteract the fact that the oxygen will be continually reacting with available materials; this would have come from things like anaerobic microbes long before complex multi-cellular plant life such as trees formed. But I didn't think any of this detail was necessary when speaking to this person, since he is obviously operating at a fairly low level of general comprehension. I probably wouldn't have bothered with him at all if not for his initial attempts to bluff his way through with airs of superiority]

Thank you for this exchange. It will make a nice addition to my Hate Mail page.

By the way, you performed exactly as I expected. You claimed that I was just beating up on easy targets in my Hate Mail page and that you would present a superior opponent. Well you thought wrong. Every creationist can always see the flaws in his fellow creationists' behaviour, but for some reason, he never sees it in his own. I look forward to the next creationist who E-mails me, saying "I won't give you an easy target, unlike that Edward Anderson guy".

Nov 9, 2006 (His final reply):

Well, your e-mail has a ring of finality to it... guess you just ran out of insults. You certainly haven't shown any more evidence for evolution than I have for creation... Seems you just want ammunition for your "Hate Mail" Which I'm sure you will pick apart to make yourself look intelligent.

If the last answer you gave is typical, and it is, you have shown your lack of ability to convey a message, Not my inability to receive one.

I see no flaws in my fellow creationists arguments- Only yours. You have not provided a single shred of evidence for your "scientific argument" as you implied you could.

You obviously don't get it. What's the point?

Have a nice day Mike

[Editor's note: you can almost hear him saying "Whew! I have an excuse not to answer any of those pesky points", can't you? It's interesting how he is obviously much more confident and comfortable when he doesn't have to talk about the science, yet I'm sure he thinks he understands the subject quite well. If you are observant, you may also notice how he steals the rhetorical flourishes from my arguments and throws them back at me, as if he believes those rhetorical flourishes were the most important part of the argument].

Continue to ASU Coward

Jump to:

Creationism versus Science

Hate Mail

Edward Anderson