Hate Mail

Rachel Cook

[Editor's note: this person starts out with a rather generic argument and eventually escalates into full-blown lunacy]

Name: Rachel
E-Mail: rosechel@sbcglobal.net

Comments: How sad...your work is a waste of wonderful intellect. You have no proof for evolution (except for a pigs tooth!). You are so angry, what happened to you? Your speech is filled with hatred, yet you say you don't hate. What a contradiction. I almost didn't write you, but I am a fairly young Christian and I struggle with sin all the time (no perfection here). I am no well versed scholar of the Bible, but I do know you have no clue about the Ten Commandments. You take much out of context, which is what leads to confusion. Exodus 20:1-17 lists the Ten Commandments, Exodus 34:12-28 is a renewal of the covenant. The original Ten Commandments are even repeated in Deuteronomy 5:1-33, exactly as it was said in Exodus. You can not have enlightenment or understanding of the Bible because you have not opened yourself to God. But I understand that you do not choose to. You say you do not believe in Him, but indeed it seems that you really know He exists otherwise you wouldn’t go to such lengths and expound such anger in every direction in attempt to "announce" with so called "fact" that He doesn't exist. It seems you have hardened your heart just as pharaoh. God is tapping on you shoulder, I pray that you listen with an open heart and mind. He only wants to love you.

Received: from 63.207.141.5 by www.stardestroyer.net with HTTP; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 03:54:50 EDT


[Editor's note: I responded with one of those low-effort "knock-off" replies that a generic message like this normally warrants]

How sad...your work is a waste of wonderful intellect. You have no proof for evolution (except for a pigs tooth!).

There is far more than that, but you have obviously closed your mind to evidence, while keeping it open to superstition.

You are so angry, what happened to you? Your speech is filled with hatred, yet you say you don't hate. What a contradiction.

Criticism of a bad idea is not "hatred", but I see you have leapt to judgement already, so perhaps I shouldn't waste my breath on you.

I almost didn't write you, but I am a fairly young Christian and I struggle with sin all the time (no perfection here). I am no well versed scholar of the Bible, but I do know you have no clue about the Ten Commandments. You take much out of context, which is what leads to confusion. Exodus 20:1-17 lists the Ten Commandments, Exodus 34:12-28 is a renewal of the covenant. The original Ten Commandments are even repeated in Deuteronomy 5:1-33, exactly as it was said in Exodus.

How does this change the fact that the Ten Commandments bear no resemblance to any kind of enlightened morality?

You can not have enlightenment or understanding of the Bible because you have not opened yourself to God.

Non sequitur.

But I understand that you do not choose to.

I open myself to facts and reason, which are the only things I need consider when forming a rational view of the world. Do you have any facts to present, or do you intend to simply continue your attempts at armchair psychoanalysis and redirection away from the heart of the matter?

You say you do not believe in Him, but indeed it seems that you really know He exists otherwise you wouldn’t go to such lengths and expound such anger in every direction in attempt to "announce" with so called "fact" that He doesn't exist.

I must believe in him if I make a point of saying that he does not exist? You are becoming quite a wonderful case study in poor Christian logic. Did it ever occur to you that my anger is directed not at a God who doesn't exist, but rather, at the ignorant and bigoted fundamentalists who continually try to hurt anyone who doesn't obey the tenets of their belief system?

It seems you have hardened your heart just as pharaoh. God is tapping on you shoulder, I pray that you listen with an open heart and mind. He only wants to love you.

Actually, your imaginary God wants to kill me and make me suffer for all eternity, as explained in the Book of Revelations where the fate of all unbelievers is described quite clearly.

I'm sure there are a lot of nice versions of God out there, but the one literally described in the Bible is a murderous sociopath. He does not "love" me any more than Ted Bundy "loved" his victims.


[Editor's note: she responded the next day, but she did not attempt to address what I said point-by-point, as is normally customary in these kinds of debates. Instead, she simply composed a fresh message. As our exchange continues, it will quickly become apparent that she will not make point-by-point rebuttals under any circumstances, and that she will maintain this pattern of largely ignoring the previous message]

O.o .....wow, your wall of sarcasm must be the only thing you have left. Make sure you keep your white knuckle grip...you might fall. Perception is reality...therefore the people you offend that relate to Christianity take offense. That you can not see that is sad in itself. Yes there are extremists who label themselves "Christian", they have no excuse for what they do while using the Lords name or cause, it is quite a shame...but extreme goes both ways.

The only one closed minded to evidence, yet open to superstition is you. Stop by ICR, http://icr.org/ There is scientific proof a plenty. So far your breath is nothing but vile...so respond as you will, but there is only one phrase applicable to you..."your not worth my time."

Received: from [63.207.141.5] by web80407.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 00:13:55 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

O.o .....wow, your wall of sarcasm must be the only thing you have left. Make sure you keep your white knuckle grip...you might fall.

Psychological projection is an amusing thing.

[Editor's note: I didn't really pick up on this the first time I answered, but when she said "wall of sarcasm", she seemed to be thinking that I didn't seriously mean what I said about the Biblical God being a violent, hateful creature. I suspect that many of her ilk find this idea so offensive that they refuse to even consider it, never mind subjecting it to rational debate based on the source material]

Perception is reality...therefore the people you offend that relate to Christianity take offense.

Of course you take offense. You take offense because you are not capable of analyzing facts and logic, so you react to an argument for which you have no rebuttal by simply getting angry.

That you can not see that is sad in itself.

Oh, I can see quite clearly that you are offended. Sadly, that is your only defense mechanism against ideas which contradict your dogma: to become angry at them. Perhaps if you considered them rationally rather than simply getting angry, you might learn some things.

Yes there are extremists who label themselves "Christian", they have no excuse for what they do while using the Lords name or cause, it is quite a shame...but extreme goes _both_ ways.

Hardly. No wars have ever been started in the name of atheism. There have been wars in the name of christianity or Islam, there have been even been wars in the name of governmental systems like communism, capitalism, or democracy, but there has never been a war in the name of atheism.

The only one closed minded to evidence, yet open to superstition is you. Stop by ICR, http://icr.org/ There is scientific proof a plenty.

I've read that site. It is an amateurish collection of pseudoscientific nonsense written by people who try to copy the literary style of scientific papers without understanding their content. Its most amusing claim by far is that Noah's Ark could fit all of the animals because there were a lot fewer species back then, and then they began to speciate once they got off the Ark, thus admitting that evolutionary speciation is possible. Then they turn around and scream in the rest of their website that it is not. That is simply comedic brilliance.

So far your breath is nothing but vile...so respond as you will, but there is only one phrase applicable to you..."your not worth my time."

Ah yes, insult someone rather than answer his points. How unusual for a Christian fundamentalist.


[Editor's note: at this point, after having been criticized for her obviously emotional response, she suddenly adopts the tactic of claiming that she's not angry at all ... while continuing to hurl insults about my character. That will eventually become another recurring pattern: not only does she refuse to do point-by-point rebuttals, but she seems to believe that endless character assassinations somehow strengthen her argument]

Actually...quite the contrary, I am not angry at all (though you wish I were), I am laughing hysterically. I love narcissistic and anti-social people such as you who hid behind a computer monitor (its not an insult, take pride in who you are). It is almost like you pin up your web so that you can catch the banter that you so much enjoy. You are amusing to watch run around in circles, banging your drum, while you defeat your purpose.

What points am I 'supposed to answer', you have never given any nor even answered mine…you only make accusations and argue the same issues that you are familiar with, round and round and round we go. You can’t even hold a civilized conversation with a person of differing beliefs from your own. I stike a conversation, you get all pissy and puffed up. You are the same as the hate mongering Christian fundamentalist that you despise so greatly, except you are on the opposite side of the field. Because I respond to your website, you automatically assume that I am a fundamentalist (a movement or ATTITUDE STRESSING STRICT AND LITERAL ADHERENCE to a set of basic principles). Your insults are the same, yet twisted behind a mirage of smoke. I, on the other hand, am a little more direct...but I am willing to talk about things and see others opinions. I had a curiosity, but you smashed that with your impuslive cutting. You have taken things out of context and twisted them so they can fit your emotional beliefs and agenda.

As for seeing your points...I have read YOUR points, I have taken classes on similar THEORIES, but your BELIEFS are mere theories just as you say mine are...you are stepping out on faith in hopes that you are correct. You have no proof, no factual and hard evidence for evolution. Though you stand up and scream, “I have proof”. You cannot produce a creature of any kind in a morphing phase and your dating methods have major discrepancies and holes. All of your arguments have holes, just as you believe the same of Christians. There is not missing link because we do not evolve the way you say. Your belief is your belief and my belief is my belief. Ah, the beauty of freedom.

Originally, I was making a statement of my opinion, just the same as you, yet the truth of the matter is that you were the one who took offense and vehemently balked at my comments because you are stating yours as irrefutable fact. You defend your belief just as others defend theirs, and that is ok. The fact that you disagree with that belief doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind. But if holding true to the word of Michael Wong, "shut your piehole" you bore me.

Received: from [165.24.135.141] by web80401.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 09:28:18 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

Actually...quite the contrary, I am not angry at all (though you wish I were), I am laughing hysterically. I love narcissistic and anti-social people such as you who hid behind a computer monitor (its not an insult, take pride in who you are). It is almost like you pin up your web so that you can catch the banter that you so much enjoy. You are amusing to watch run around in circles, banging your drum, while you defeat your purpose.

Speak for yourself. You haven't made a single point, and all of your messages revolve around your endless attempts to insult the messenger. I'm sure you believe this is an absolutely devastating mode of attack, but it really isn't.

What points am I 'supposed to answer', you have never given any nor even answered mine…

On the contrary, you accused me of being full of hatred, I pointed out that criticism of an idea is not hatred. You claimed that icr.org was a scientific resource, I pointed out that they are not, and I even pointed out an example of a glaring contradiction within their site. You complained that Christians might find creationism-bashing to be offensive, I pointed out that something can be correct even if you don't like it.

You have no made a single point with respect to creationism or Biblical morality so far; you have only alternated between insulting me and vaguely claiming that creationists' arguments are better than mine without providing a single example of one such argument.

you only make accusations and argue the same issues that you are familiar with, round and round and round we go. You can’t even hold a civilized conversation with a person of differing beliefs from your own. I stike a conversation, you get all pissy and puffed up. You are the same as the hate mongering Christian fundamentalist that you despise so greatly, except you are on the opposite side of the field. Because I respond to your website, you automatically assume that I am a _fundamentalist_ (a movement or _ATTITUDE STRESSING STRICT AND LITERAL ADHERENCE_ to a set of basic principles). Your insults are the same, yet twisted behind a mirage of smoke. I, on the other hand, am a little more direct...but I am willing to talk about things and see others opinions. I had a curiosity, but you smashed that with your impuslive cutting. You have taken things out of context and twisted them so they can fit your emotional beliefs and agenda.

Yet again, you expend your effort attacking me as a person rather than my arguments. It is quite obvious that you see your own worst traits in others.

[Editor's note: I like the way she complains that it's unfair of me to classify her as a fundamentalist even though she agrees with the arguments made at ICR]

As for seeing your points...I have read YOUR points, I have taken classes on similar THEORIES, but your BELIEFS are mere theories just as you say mine are...you are stepping out on faith in hopes that you are correct. You have no proof, no factual and hard evidence for evolution.

I have presented a variety of evidence. Your inability to understand that evidence does not make it go away.

Though you stand up and scream, "I have proof". You cannot produce a creature of any kind in a morphing phase and your dating methods have major discrepancies and holes.

Perhaps if you understood evolution, you would not expect it to predict creatures in a "morphing phase". Evolution and metamorphosis are two completely different concepts.

All of your arguments have holes, just as you believe the same of Christians.

So far, your only attempt to identify a "hole" was your rather laughable confusion of evolution and metamorphosis. Care to take another shot?

There is not missing link because we do not evolve the way you say. Your belief is your belief and my belief is my belief. Ah, the beauty of freedom.

Yes, you have the freedom to hold an obviously irrational opinion based on superstition rather than fact. Not my problem, I'm afraid.

Originally, I was making a statement of my opinion, just the same as you, yet the truth of the matter is that you were the one who took offense and vehemently balked at my comments because you are stating yours as irrefutable fact.

You can make that claim, but you opened this exchange by accusing me of "hatred" and presenting no argument or even coherent question. Your very first E-mail to me was nothing but a string of personal accusations about my personality and mindset, and contained not a single coherent point about either evolution or Biblical morality. I have it all saved, you know.

You defend your belief just as others defend theirs, and that is ok.

The difference is that my belief happens to be coincident with FACTS, while yours is supported by nothing but blind superstition.

The fact that you disagree with that belief doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind.

Of course they're allowed to speak their minds. And I'm allowed to point out where they have obviously gone wrong, thrown reason to the winds, and generally made fools of themselves.

But if holding true to the word of Michael Wong, "shut your piehole" you bore me.

I'm still waiting for you to present an actual argument rather than your seemingly endless string of personal attacks. Perhaps in your next life, you will get a working brain. At the very least, you should learn the definition of evolution before presuming to debate someone about it. Small wonder you rely so much on redirection to personality traits.


[Editor's note: predictably, her next message consists of a series of long-debunked but perennially popular arguments copied and pasted from icr.org, and of course, she does not make a point-by-point rebuttal of my last message]

To name a few...

If evolution takes the millions of years as the theory professes to, then we should be able to see the 'in-between' states.

Evolutionists swear that it is such a slow process that you cannot see the changes, but if the earth is as old as they say it is then there should be some fossil record of some kind...there are none.

Evolutionists say that the earth originated from a big bang in space that had no chemical compound to create that bang; I must say that this is quite a bit of superstition and faith on your part. Plus the fact that after the 'bang' single cell organisms magically appear with out the necessary chemical compounds needed to morph into that creature. Evolutionists claim that the necessary chemical compounds were there and even attempted to recreate it in the lab but were unsuccessful. But supposedly from that we end up with all of the species and variance within while more are constantly evolving.

In fact all of the evidences that previous 'scientists' posed have been fake and fraudulent in their making, i.e. pigs tooth and many more (see icr.org).

Evolution and metamorphosis go hand in hand. There can be no evolving without metamorphosis. If you deny that there are 'in-between' states, then what is it you believe in...the seeding theory and all of the alien junk?

What Christians do believe in is the variance in a species...for example cats. You can start out with one black cat and through breeding end up with a multitude of variance within the cat species. This does not however mean that there are new species of cats then. So with regards to the ark...variance is a high probability. Or do you believe that white people are a different species from black people because they look different and have different characteristics. Does this mean white people are not human because they look different? and therefore are they a new species?

So give an example of evolution that has resulted in a new species? Name the new species that did not previously exist. Where are the in-between or transitional stages? They have tried to use the duckbilled platypus, but it is just an intriguing mammal created that way. It has always been that way even in fossil records that supposedly date back millions of years. They have tried to use the pepper moths, but that theory doesn't hold up either...So where is your proof? You can't use Lucy, which is a total fake and was totally disproved.

And the gap theory...isolated (localized) flood theory...all bogus and ultimately ridiculous.

So as for you giving proof...you have given me none...you only bash the research that disproves you theories. You obviously haven't really read and comprehended the scientific material or you would know that. I am certain that you brain is too small and focused on you to see the validity and proof in scientific creationism. You just don't like it because we now have a rebuttal to your false accusations, and the fact that we can disprove your fictitious proclamations. There are many more, but my time is too valuable to waste on your flagrant narrow-mindedness.

My mode of attack is not meant to be devastating...therefore you bringing up the irrelevant issue is humerous. You wouldn't acknowledge it if didn't bother you, therefore you must feel the need to prove something about yourself. I don't care if my words offend you, that isn't what I am after. If they do, as they obviously seem to...well that issue is really your problem. It is not my fault that you attached improper emotions to my original message. You shouldn't be so defensive from the start...it only shows weakness. Intersting that I see your worst traits, and you try to say they are mine...cute. And you still haven't answered everything...you pick one small portion of my comment and try to generalize over all of the rest, not very thorough.

Received: from [165.24.135.141] by web80406.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:27:29 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

If evolution takes the millions of years as the theory professes to, then we should be able to see the 'in-between' states.

We can. Every species has a clear predecessor and descendant.

Evolutionists swear that it is such a slow process that you cannot see the changes, but if the earth is as old as they say it is then there should be some fossil record of some kind...there are none.

Incorrect. The fossil record is completely consistent with the predictions of evolution theory. What specific predictions do you expect to see?

Evolutionists say that the earth originated from a big bang in space that had no chemical compound to create that bang; I must say that this is quite a bit of superstition and faith on your part.

"No chemical compound to create that bang"? You believe the Big Bang was supposed to be a chemical explosion? That's perhaps the funniest thing I've heard in years.

Plus the fact that after the 'bang' single cell organisms magically appear with out the necessary chemical compounds needed to morph into that creature.

What is this "morphing" you speak of? The first organisms would have been too small to leave fossils; even today, single-celled organisms do not leave fossils. Therefore, it is rather unreasonable (to say the least) to expect them to have done so billions of years ago.

Evolutionists claim that the necessary chemical compounds were there and even attempted to recreate it in the lab but were unsuccessful. But supposedly from that we end up with all of the species and variance within while more are constantly evolving.

Incorrect, and incorrect. The necessary chemicals were mere amino acids, and they have been recreated in the lab. Moreover, the enormous variance of animal species on Earth clearly points to an evolutionary process, since there is no one species in this entire vast array which demonstrates a single feature being "added on", as opposed to being modified from some similar feature in a related species.

In fact all of the evidences that previous 'scientists' posed have been fake and fraudulent in their making, i.e. pigs tooth and many more (see icr.org).

Hasty generalization fallacy: arguing that if a particular biology study was performed incorrectly or even fraudulently, then the entire field of biology is a fraud. This is the same fallacy used by white supremacists who believe that a handful of black criminals indicate that all blacks are criminals.

Evolution and metamorphosis go hand in hand. There can be no evolving without metamorphosis. If you deny that there are 'in-between' states, then what is it you believe in...the seeding theory and all of the alien junk?

Wrong. Evolution and metamorphosis are totally different concepts. Evolution occurs through natural selection from genetic diversity, not through metamorphosis. Please review your elementary biology before presuming to debate a subject which is obviously far beyond your comprehension. How old are you? 12?

What Christians do believe in is the variance in a species...for example cats. You can start out with one black cat and through breeding end up with a multitude of variance within the cat species. This does not however mean that there are new species of cats then.

If you took two populations of cats, separated them, and selectively bred them in different directions for millions of years, the resulting groups would probably no longer be able to cross-breed. At that point, you would have two species of cats. That is how evolution works, since you obviously don't know.

So with regards to the ark...variance is a high probability. Or do you believe that white people are a different species from black people because they look different and have different characteristics. Does this mean white people are not human because they look different? and therefore are they a new species?

If they are sufficiently different to be incompatible, then they would indeed be a different species. That is not the case between black and white people.

So give an example of evolution that has resulted in a new species? Name the new species that did not previously exist.

Humans. Or perhaps you insist on a species which has developed in the last 150 years, even though you know perfectly well that evolution works on long timescales? One might as well demand similar proof of geological erosion processes or tectonic plate movement.

Where are the in-between or transitional stages?

Define the criteria for a "transitional stage" which you would accept as such.

They have tried to use the duckbilled platypus, but it is just an intriguing mammal created that way. It has always been that way even in fossil records that supposedly date back millions of years.

Sharks have been around for millions of years too; so what? The biosystem is billions of years old, not millions.

They have tried to use the pepper moths, but that theory doesn't hold up either...

The moths are simply used to show how obvious species characteristics can change, which is an example of evolution in action. The fact that they did not actually speciate is an evasion of the intent of the example.

So where is your proof? You can't use Lucy, which is a total fake and was totally disproved.

Wrong. Lucy was not a fake, and the argument against Lucy is actually that it was apelike; a rather preposterous argument when the whole point of Lucy is that an upright walking ape is the "transitional stage" people were asking for. The problem with creationist demands for "transitional forms" is that they never define what they would accept as a transitional form, so that when one is found, they promptly move the goalposts and declare no-score.

And the gap theory...isolated (localized) flood theory...all bogus and ultimately ridiculous

Are you seriously arguing that it's more ridiculous to argue for localized floods (which happen all the time, even today) than a global flood, which is physically impossible, thus requiring even its most ardent supporters to admit that it requires physics-defying miracles?

So as for you giving proof...you have given me none...you only bash the research that disproves you theories.

On the contrary, the "research" you speak of does not disprove anything, except for your own credibility.

You obviously haven't really read and comprehended the scientific material or you would know that.

I am certain that you brain is too small and focused on you to see the validity and proof in scientific creationism. You just don't like it because we now have a rebuttal to your false accusations, and the fact that we can disprove your fictitious proclamations. There are many more, but my time is too valuable to waste on your flagrant narrow-mindedness.

Pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid.

My mode of attack is not meant to be devastating...therefore you bringing up the irrelevant issue is humerous. You wouldn't acknowledge it if didn't bother you, therefore you must feel the need to prove something about yourself.

"Appeal to motive" fallacy. The validity of my criticisms regarding the "attack the messenger" technique employed in your first three messages is not affected by your transparent attempt to deflect it (yet again) onto your speculations about my personality. For someone who claims to be amused and not offended (despite having stated quite clearly that you were offended in your second message), you focus quite a bit of effort on denigrating your opponent.

I don't care if my words offend you, that isn't what I am after. If they do, as they obviously seem to...well that issue is really your problem.

It's not a matter of being offended. It's a matter of showing that your claims are erroneous, your scientific competence is clearly lacking, and your debating technique relies heavily upon attacking the messenger's motives and personality, all of which leave you with a diatribe, not a rational argument.

It is not my fault that you attached improper emotions to my original message. You shouldn't be so defensive from the start...it only shows weakness. Intersting that I see your worst traits, and you try to say they are mine...cute.

It also has the inconvenient attribute of being an accurate observation.

And you still haven't answered everything...you pick one small portion of my comment and try to generalize over all of the rest, not very thorough.

[Editor's note: this last "point" of hers is stunning in its audacity; after dismissing a series of successive point-by-point rebuttals on my part without direct comment, she complains that I do not address her points!]

Yet again, pot calling the kettle black. Find me an example of one of these evolution-related arguments in your first three messages that I did not address. If you can't, then perhaps you might be willing to admit that the only one hurling empty generalizations around here is you.


[Editor's note: at this point, her frustration starts to show. When she dismisses a thorough point-by-point rebuttal with "blah...blah...blah" it's pretty obvious that she's losing her grip]

"blah...blah...blah" what did you say? You still haven't shown the proof. You come up with supposed contradictions that are all still theory...idea...speculation based.

Your are presumptuous, when did I ever say anything about single cell organisms and their fossil record...hum, never. Also, the amount of amino acids necessary to create that single cell was not in great enough numbers to sustain anything, which was concluded from the experiment. There are so many gaps in the fossil record, oh but you think you came from monkey, ape or whatever. Plus there should be transitions such as gills and air breathing lungs, scales and feathers, etc. Where are the transitional stages of the so-called "add on's"? There are none.

You still have avoided a response to evolutionists need to lie and come up with fictitious evidences. You know they have.

You have still avoided the error with the dating methods evolutionists use.

Oh and who is attacking the other now, and I am actually almost 19.

When I spoke of localized flood, I was referring to the illogical idea that there was an egg like flood that was localized to Noah's area, yet reached the peaks of Mt. Ararat.

Mount Saint Helen's was a great tool to show a recreation of sedimentary levels that happened in a shot period vs. the millions and billions of years you say it has to take. Spirit lake and the logs becoming water logged, some at the bottom and some on top while the layers of sediment separate to the bottom. Your time frames always change too; first it is thousands and thousands, then millions, then billions and even trillions. You actually have no real clue. What a waste of my time. Oh...wait, let me guess another pathetic response is on its way. How old are you...30ish going on 12?

Received: from [63.207.141.5] by web80407.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:09:47 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

"blah...blah...blah" what did you say? You still haven't shown the proof. You come up with supposed contradictions that are all still theory...idea...speculation based.

In other words, you don't care to address all of the specific points I made in my last message.

Your are presumptuous, when did I ever say anything about single cell organisms and their fossil record...hum, never.

You claimed that single-celled organisms "magically" appear according to evolution theory. Since evolution theory claims no such thing, I was simply trying to anticipate your next move. It appears now that you had none, and that you simply intended to stop with that strawman distortion.

Also, the amount of amino acids necessary to create that single cell was not in great enough numbers to sustain anything, which was concluded from the experiment.

Do you think I can't tell a bluff when I see one? You are not familiar with the experiment at all, and you are clearly making it up as you go along now. But by all means, if you care to continue with this "point", then show me the citation for your claim.

There are so many gaps in the fossil record, oh but you think you came from monkey, ape or whatever. Plus there should be transitions such as gills and air breathing lungs, scales and feathers, etc. Where are the transitional stages of the so-called "add on's"? There are none.

I responded already; I demanded that you define the criteria necessary for something to be accepted as a "transitional stage". You ignored the point and simply demanded this evidence again without defining the conditions, so I simply repeat the demand: define what would be accepted as a "transitional stage". You can't demand a form of evidence which you refuse to define.

You still have avoided a response to evolutionists need to lie and come up with fictitious evidences. You know they have.

I responded already; you are employing a "hasty generalization" fallacy; ICR claims three or four hoaxes out of tens of thousands of biology studies, and you use this claim to "prove" that all of those studies have been fraudulent. Answer the point.

You have still avoided the error with the dating methods evolutionists use.

You have not shown that those methods are in error.

Oh and who is attacking the other now, and I am actually almost 19.

Unlike you, I attacked on the basis of scientific competence and level of education, not your personality. There is a difference, although you are obviously loathe to see it.

[Editor's note: this is actually a common point of contention. People who obviously don't know the subject material often believe that "your arguments are ignorant, therefore you are ignorant" is just as illogical as "you are a scumbag, therefore your arguments are wrong". This is not the case; character assassinations are totally fallacious, but the observation that one's opponent is clearly uneducated is legitimate. Frankly, I think she's lying about her age; she claims that evolution is a "morphing" process, as shown in the children's cartoon series "Pokémon"!]

When I spoke of localized flood, I was referring to the illogical idea that there was an egg like flood that was localized to Noah's area, yet reached the peaks of Mt. Ararat.

In that case, you are speaking of a theory which is not held by mainstream scientific theory. Like all of your other arguments, it is a pointless strawman distortion.

Mount Saint Helen's was a great tool to show a recreation of sedimentary levels that happened in a shot period vs. the millions and billions of years you say it has to take.

Wrong. The petrified remains at Mt. St. Helens have not been compacted into limestone.

Spirit lake and the logs becoming water logged, some at the bottom and some on top while the layers of sediment separate to the bottom.

Again, this area has not been compacted into limestone. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Your time frames always change too; first it is thousands and thousands, then millions, then billions and even trillions.

Incorrect. The timeframe is billions of years, and has been consistently confirmed to be in that region by many different methods.

You actually have no real clue. What a waste of my time. Oh...wait, let me guess another pathetic response is on its way.

You seem to think you are doing spectacularly well, but you have ignored and evaded all of the key points. In fact, none of your messages ever address anything said in the previous message; you simply refuse to debate point-by-point.

How old are you...30ish going on 12?

Old enough to have a university degree in applied science; something which you quite obviously lack.


[Editor's note: her next reply is predictably dismissive, completely ignoring all of my points yet again]

I have explained my criteria quite well you just dont have any idea of what to site...as for the rest, your pathetic attempts to seem superior is once again a bore. I wast my time no more.

Received: from [68.101.200.209] by web80401.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:36:11 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

I have explained my criteria quite well you just dont have any idea of what to site...

Bald-faced lie. Nowhere in any of your messages have you stated what the criteria would be for a species to be considered "transitional" according to you.

as for the rest, your pathetic attempts to seem superior is once again a bore. I wast my time no more.

You seem to have enough time for rhetoric, but not enough time to answer any of my points directly. Why is that?


[Editor's note: this one is priceless; she thinks that by reiterating her demand for a transitional between two stages, she has defined what its characteristics would be. This is a bit like demanding a "missing link" between man and primitive primate without describing what it would look like, hence leaving herself the flexibility to move the goalposts if such a specimen is found ... precisely as I warned her not to do in one of those messages she ignored]

rolf...how extremely predictable yet pathetically annoying all at the same time.

As I stated before...I clearly asked for an example of a transitional creature or fossil record, seen here:

> There are so many gaps in the fossil record, oh but you think you came
> from monkey, ape or whatever. Plus there should be transitions such as
> gills and air breathing lungs, scales and feathers, etc. Where are the
> transitional stages of the so-called "add on's"? There are none.

You have water dwelling creatures, amphibians, flying, and land creatures but you have no fossils that show the transitional forms. If the single cell organisms are ultimately where we came from, then where are all of the fossil records, or any for that matter, of the transitional stages from single cell to where we are now.

But as usual you loop around my questions, trying to divert me elsewhere or place the blame on me because you are incapable of answering my questions or showing proof of any kind because none exists for your argument.

I am through with the run around games you play. If you can not understand "too busy to waste my time" because of life in general or that fact that I work 40 hours a week, go to college full-time and raise my son by myself then I don't know what else to tell you. I don't need the scientific type degree that you have, nor would I want one just so that I could become the bigot that you are. My drive for education is not the study of life, I know where I came from and I am satisfied with the proof that I have. Life is great!

Received: from [165.24.135.141] by web80410.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:02:41 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

rolf...how extremely predictable yet pathetically annoying all at the same time.

Yes, yes, you're very irritated that I don't agree with you. You've made this quite clear already, your emotional reactions do not have anything to do with the argument and I grow weary of your attempts to make them an issue.

As I stated before...I clearly asked for an example of a transitional creature or fossil record, seen here:

> There are so many gaps in the fossil record, oh but you think you came
> from monkey, ape or whatever. Plus there should be transitions such as
> gills and air breathing lungs, scales and feathers, etc.

You call that a definition of criteria? What should these transitionals look like? You honestly don't understand what the word "criteria" means, do you? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised; I'm talking to someone who thinks that the Big Bang was a chemical explosion.

> Where are the transitional stages of the so-called "add on's"? There are none.

Why should there be transitional stages for "add-ons", when you have not yet established that any such "add-on" exists anywhere? Can you find a single example of an organ in your body which does not have some predecessor or relative in other species?

You have water dwelling creatures, amphibians, flying, and land creatures but you have no fossils that show the transitional forms.

Describe what such a fossil should look like.

If the single cell organisms are ultimately where we came from, then where are all of the fossil records, or any for that matter, of the transitional stages from single cell to where we are now.

They are everywhere. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html for an exhaustive list. But since you refuse to define what you think such a "transitional" would look like, you can conveniently dismiss all of them, can't you? Just as icr.org does, because they know that to define what they want in a transitional would lead to one of two possibilities:

  1. Someone would find the evidence they seek, and they would be forced to eat crow.

  2. It would become painfully obvious that their criteria represent a cartoonish distortion of evolution theory.

There's only one reason why someone demands a form of evidence which he won't describe, and that's sophistry.

But as usual you loop around my questions, trying to divert me elsewhere or place the blame on me because you are incapable of answering my questions or showing proof of any kind because none exists for your argument.

Your questions are not defined. You refuse to define what you are asking for, and then you pretend you have made valid points. What would a transitional look like? The only one ducking questions here is you.

I am through with the run around games you play. If you can not understand "too busy to waste my time" because of life in general or that fact that I work 40 hours a week, go to college full-time and raise my son by myself then I don't know what else to tell you.

You have enough time to spew rhetoric, but not enough time to state clearly what you are asking for? If you are truly as time-limited as you say, then you shouldn't have been sending all of these messages in the first place. I didn't come to you; YOU came to ME, remember?

I don't need the scientific type degree that you have, nor would I want one just so that I could become the bigot that you are.

Believe it or not, the purpose of a scientific degree is actually to become more knowledgeable, so that you can differentiate valid scientific principles from bogus ones. Sadly, there are those out there who think that it's "bigotry" to make such differentiations. Sorry, but scientific ignorance is not a race or creed, and people who suffer from it have no more right to claim persecution than people who can't do math.

My drive for education is not the study of life, I know where I came from and I am satisfied with the proof that I have. Life is great!

Life is even greater when you approach it armed with knowledge rather than dogma.


[Editor's note: she really starts losing her grip at this point, and attempts to counter my latest point-by-point rebuttal by simply copying and pasting more material from icr.org (does she really think I will believe she came up with it herself?). It goes without saying that she does not address my rebuttal point-by-point, but now she's starting to sound quite belligerent, particularly at the end of her message]

Eat crow yourself. Your BELIEF is just as much a dogma as mine, you just don't acknowledge that fact. If I have to DEFINE for you what a transitional form looks like, when they don't exist, how am I supposed to say what it looks like? That is what you are supposed to point out to me, seeing as you have the VOLUMES that you speak of. That is the proof, because you don't have even one, your evolution THEORY doesn't work and therefore it never happened the way you proclaim as fact. Your theories 'statements as fact' are FAKE just like you.

Your problems start with thermodynamics...

The First Law:
Energy of the universe is constant.
Energy cannot be created only changed from one form to another.

If there was a 'beginning' as you say with the big bang…how is it possible that energy was CREATED?

All process increase the DISORDER of the universe, not the other way around to ORDER.

It is plainly evident that everything is wearing out.

Thing cannot build up if everything tends to break down.

Creation of order is IMPOSSIBLE without some outside input.

As for your dating methods…

So far the general method is to measure the present state of a process, i.e. lunar dust layer or sediment level at the bottom of the ocean or radioactive decay and isotopes. You measure the rate of accumulation or disappearance and then extrapolate the rate back to a logical beginning point. Some examples…counting tree rings, salinity of the ocean.

You make assumptions of a closed system (are all inputs really accounted for?), constant rate (true most of the time, but can we really know for how long…no!), starting point must be zero (but can this ever be true!???).

Continuing to the age of the Earth and your way of deciding, using years of course…

Deceleration of the earth by tidal forces (500 mill), influx of magma form mantle to form crust (500 mill), influx of juvenile water to the oceans (340 mill), influx of sodium into the oceans (260 mill), influx of chlorine into the ocean (164 mill), Decay of natural plutonium (80 mill), expanding interstellar gas (60 mill), influx of sediment to the ocean via rivers (30 mill), max life of meteor showers (5 mill), influx of tin into ocean (100 thousand), influx of mercury into the ocean (42 thousand), decay of short period comets (10 thousand), influx of lead into the ocean (2 thousand), influx of aluminum into the ocean (1 thousand).

With all of the methods, it is still NOT old enough for evolution. The methods are erroneous because of all of the multitudes of varying dates and none that match.

As to the probability of life from evolution…

First, the probability of several events occurring is equal to the product of the probabilities of each event occurring independently. Secondly the probability of any ONE of several events occurring is equal to the sum of the probabilities of each event occurring independently.

So (for examples sake) we assume that life requires 20 amino acids. If we have an ample supply of each and if we combine them at random with each other, while assuming a protein length of 200 amino acids, then the probability of one such protein forming is 1/20 to the 200th power or about 1/10 to the 260th power. And 1/10 to the 57th power usually is impossible and anything after.

The probability of that is…

If the universe is 30 billion years old and if it is 10 billion light years across, full of electron size particles and if they can act at a rate of 1 billion events per second (one every nanosecond), then there has been about 10 to the 150th particle events in the history of the universe.

Problems with that are that the first protein didn't have to be that long, but with many different choices of sequences possible for the first protein, we are looking for ANY protein. Other problems deal with L&D amino acids and that more than 20 amino acids are needed.

Another big one is that the first protein has to be self-replicating or at least self-sustaining.

Highly improbable seeing that the simplest conceivable organism has at least 256 genes (new scientist, 1997). Plus, the simplest know living organism, mycoplasma genitalia, has 482 genes – 580 thousand nucleotides.

As for the Miller-Urey experiment (that I am not supposed to be familiar with)…

It did produce 2.1% glycine or the SIMPLEST amino acid. (OOCCH2NH3T), 1.7% alanine – the NEXT SIMPLEST amino acid (OOCCH[CH3]NH3T), 0.051% glutamic acid, and 0.024% aspartic acid.

So...your major problem here is that YOU CAN'T GET A PROTIEN!!

Only the simple amino acids formed and in extremely SMALL amount.

PLUS! Miller HIMSELF states that polymers are "too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment". They would have been DESTROYED had they been recalculated.

Natural selection is a TAUTOLOGY – the best survive as they are the fittest and the fittest are best as they survive…quite a lot of hind sight bias!

Evolution decrees that mutation occurs. Being as mutations are a change in the genetic material of DNA, they are VERY rare. Not to mention that they are most often neutral, sometimes harmful, but NEVER beneficial. Some examples you say…bacterial antibiotic resistance…good for the bacteria, bad for us. Pesticide resistance, plants becoming resistant to types of soil that have lots of pesticides or hervacides. Sickle-cell anemia! Depending on the type of mutation (AA, AS or SS) could make you resistant to malaria, but the only real benefit is if you are AS because the other either allow you to get malaria or means you have sickle-cell anemia.

YOU avoiding my demands of evidence is sophistry. Writing the messge isn't what takes up the time, it is you being evasive and avoiding an answer or a truthful reply of "I don't have the proof for which you ask". And believe it or not, there are other types of degree's that allow you to differentiate between valid scientific principles and bogus ones. Sadly there are those out there who think that one is better than the other and I never claimed persecution unlike you, i.e. someone forcing their beliefs or condemnation of unbelievers. Yes, I did contact you...but you not being able to plug your ears is your stupid fault now isn't it. I approach life armed with great knowledge as well as my spiritual belief right by my side. When you die a most horrible death, totally hollow and futile, you will know this fact.

Received: from [63.202.235.122] by web80406.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:02:26 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

Eat crow yourself. Your BELIEF is just as much a dogma as mine, you just don't acknowledge that fact. If I have to DEFINE for you what a transitional form looks like, when they don't exist, how am I supposed to say what it looks like? That is what you are supposed to point out to me, seeing as you have the VOLUMES that you speak of. That is the proof, because you don't have even one, your evolution THEORY doesn't work and therefore it never happened the way you proclaim as fact. Your theories 'statements as fact' are FAKE just like you.

According to my definition of transitional forms, we've found many of them. You obviously disagree with this definition, yet you refuse to provide your own definition. Sorry, but you lose.

Your problems start with thermodynamics...

A subject in which I have a university education, while you don't.

The First Law:
Energy of the universe is constant.
Energy cannot be created only changed from one form to another.

If there was a 'beginning' as you say with the big bang…how is it possible that energy was CREATED?

It wasn't. The energy was always there. Your statement relies on the assumption that there was a time at which there was no mass/energy. Provide evidence of this state.

All process increase the DISORDER of the universe, not the other way around to ORDER.

It is plainly evident that everything is wearing out.

Thing cannot build up if everything tends to break down.

Creation of order is IMPOSSIBLE without some outside input.

Too bad for you that creation of complexity and destruction of entropy are two entirely different concepts, since complexity actually increases entropy.

As for your dating methods…

So far the general method is to measure the present state of a process, i.e. lunar dust layer or sediment level at the bottom of the ocean or radioactive decay and isotopes.

You measure the rate of accumulation or disappearance and then extrapolate the rate back to a logical beginning point. Some examples…counting tree rings, salinity of the ocean.

You make assumptions of a closed system (are all inputs really accounted for?), constant rate (true most of the time, but can we really know for how long…no!), starting point must be zero (but can this ever be true!???).

Wrong. Radiometric dating requires an open system, since mass/energy must leave the specimen as part of the radioactive decay process. If you understood anything about radiation, you would know that. The constant rate of radioactive decay is experimentally confirmed to a sufficient accuracy to easily debunk the ludicrous 6000 year timescales of creationism. And the starting point is not necessarily zero. Isochron dating, in fact, can function with arbitrary initial isotope concentrations.

Continuing to the age of the Earth and your way of deciding, using years of course…

Deceleration of the earth by tidal forces (500 mill), influx of magma form mantle to form crust (500 mill), influx of juvenile water to the oceans (340 mill), influx of sodium into the oceans (260 mill), influx of chlorine into the ocean (164 mill), Decay of natural plutonium (80 mill), expanding interstellar gas (60 mill), influx of sediment to the ocean via rivers (30 mill), max life of meteor showers (5 mill), influx of tin into ocean (100 thousand), influx of mercury into the ocean (42 thousand), decay of short period comets (10 thousand), influx of lead into the ocean (2 thousand), influx of aluminum into the ocean (1 thousand).

Those are creationist claims which were all debunked years ago. If you check your sources, you will find that not one of them comes from a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[Editor's note: this is quite fascinating. First she claims that radiometric dating is based upon a fallacious assumption of a closed system (which is not true), then she quotes a series of icr.org arguments based on that same assumption. Is she trying to argue that the assumption of a closed system is wrong, hence all of the icr.org arguments are wrong even though she praised them previously? Or does she just not realize that she's contradicting herself?]

With all of the methods, it is still NOT old enough for evolution. The methods are erroneous because of all of the multitudes of varying dates and none that match.

As to the probability of life from evolution…

First, the probability of several events occurring is equal to the product of the probabilities of each event occurring independently.

Only if the events are sequentially dependent. If they act in parallel, this is totally untrue. I see your knowledge of mathematics is just as weak as your knowledge of science.

Secondly the probability of any ONE of several events occurring is equal to the sum of the probabilities of each event occurring independently.

So (for examples sake) we assume that life requires 20 amino acids. If we have an ample supply of each and if we combine them at random with each other, while assuming a protein length of 200 amino acids, then the probability of one such protein forming is 1/20 to the 200^th power or about 1/10 to the 260^th power. And 1/10 to the 57^th power usually is impossible and anything after.

Too bad for you I already dealt with this argument on my website. Please read it before sending any more of your lazy copy-and-paste arguments. Or do you really think you can fool anyone into thinking that you understand any of this material rather than merely copying and pasting from websites?

By the way, 11 of 20 amino acids have been produced in prebiotic experiments. Your probabilistic claims are obviously junk.

The probability of that is…

If the universe is 30 billion years old and if it is 10 billion light years across, full of electron size particles and if they can act at a rate of 1 billion events per second (one every nanosecond), then there has been about 10 to the 150^th particle events in the history of the universe.

Problems with that are that the first protein didn't have to be that long, but with many different choices of sequences possible for the first protein, we are looking for ANY protein. Other problems deal with L&D amino acids and that more than 20 amino acids are needed.

*Another big one is that the first protein has to be self-replicating or at least self-sustaining*.

Highly improbable seeing that the simplest conceivable organism has at least 256 genes (new scientist, 1997). Plus, the simplest know living organism, mycoplasma genitalia, has 482 genes – 580 thousand nucleotides.

All of this assumes that the simplest living organism is the first self-replicating molecule, miraculously having remained in its original state after billions of years. Unfortunately for you, evolution predicts no such thing, so the failure of this prediction is your problem not a problem with evolution theory.

As for the Miller-Urey experiment (that I am not supposed to be familiar with)…

It did produce 2.1% glycine or the SIMPLEST amino acid. (OOCCH2NH3T), 1.7% alanine – the NEXT SIMPLEST amino acid (OOCCH[CH3]NH3T), 0.051% glutamic acid, and 0.024% aspartic acid.

Wow, you know how to copy and paste from a website. I guess that means you're an expert, eh? A molecular biology expert fresh out of high school! Should I contact MIT so they can send a recruiter?

So...your major problem here is that YOU CAN'T GET A PROTIEN!!

Only the simple amino acids formed and in extremely SMALL amount.

Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. Perhaps if you spent more time reading textbooks and less time reading creationist propaganda websites, you would know that.

By the way, they can synthesize poliovirus DNA in the lab (see http://www.evilbible.com/Synthetic%20Life.htm). Yet another creationist claim down the toilet.

PLUS! Miller HIMSELF states that polymers are "too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment". They would have been DESTROYED had they been recalculated.

Too bad for you he was talking about limiting factors on prebiotic organic mass in the oceans due to temperature gradients, while you have performed your usual simple-minded misinterpretation to assume that the entire volume of the oceans was a uniform hot temperature which was high enough to break down the polymers.

Natural selection is a TAUTOLOGY – the best survive as they are the fittest and the fittest are best as they survive…quite a lot of hind sight bias!

Wrong. Natural selection is not about mere survival; it is about propagation of characteristics through inheritance.

Evolution decrees that mutation occurs. Being as mutations are a change in the genetic material of DNA, they are VERY rare. Not to mention that they are most often neutral, sometimes harmful, but NEVER beneficial. Some examples you say…bacterial antibiotic resistance…good for the bacteria, bad for us. Pesticide resistance, plants becoming resistant to types of soil that have lots of pesticides or hervacides. Sickle-cell anemia! Depending on the type of mutation (AA, AS or SS) could make you resistant to malaria, but the only real benefit is if you are AS because the other either allow you to get malaria or means you have sickle-cell anemia.

Yet again, incorrect. In reality, every human being is mutated; an important characteristic of organic life which we refer to as "genetic diversity". No two humans (barring identical twins or perfect clones, if that ever works) have the same DNA. You confuse sci-fi style gross mutations with normal genetic diversity, which is all that evolution theory requires.

YOU avoiding my demands of evidence is sophistry.

I will provide the evidence as soon as you explain what kind of evidence you request. Simply demanding a "transitional form" is not of much use to anyone if you refuse to define what you would accept as a transitional form, is it?

Writing the messge isn't what takes up the time, it is you being evasive and avoiding an answer or a truthful reply of "I don't have the proof for which you ask".

You can stick your fingers in your ears and deny that you have to define something before demanding an example of it all day long, but you'll still be wrong. According to the mainstream scientific definition of transitional forms, the fossil record is full of them. Your definition obviously differs, yet you refuse to provide it. Why?

And believe it or not, there are other types of degree's that allow you to differentiate between valid scientific principles and bogus ones.

Yes. There are many different types of scientific degree, such as an MSc, or a PhD in physics or chemistry. However, you obviously have none of these. So far, you have claimed that the Big Bang was supposed to be a chemical explosion, that multiple-event probabilities always multiply regardless of whether they are sequentially dependent, that entropy is the opposite of complexity, and that there is no way to get from an amino acid to a protein.

Sadly there are those out there who think that _one is better than the other_ and I never claimed persecution unlike you, i.e. someone forcing their beliefs or condemnation of unbelievers.

Like it or not, a scientific degree is worth more than your high school education. You can whine all you like, but this remains true. By the way, you claimed that it was "bigotry" to be unimpressed by scientific claims coming from someone with no scientific background; you can deny that you are claiming persecution, but screaming that your opponent is a bigot for questioning your competence is the same thing, and you know it.

Yes, I did contact you...but you not being able to plug your ears is your stupid fault now isn't it. I approach life armed with great knowledge as well as my spiritual belief right by my side.

You obviously believe that you have great knowledge. Unfortunately, you have met only abysmal failure in your attempts to demonstrate this knowledge.

When you die a most horrible death, totally hollow and futile, you will know this fact.

Since you have no way of knowing the manner in which I will eventually die, this prediction of my "most horrible death" could potentially be interpreted as a death threat, which is a very serious criminal offense. You claim that you are not a hatemonger, but much like your claims of scientific competence, you are disproven by your own words. Your hatred for those who will not quietly knuckle under to your enraged ravings is quite clear for all to see.


[Editor's note: as you might expect, she responds to yet another long point-by-point rebuttal with what essentially amounts to "oh yeah? You're a jerk!"]

A little hot and bothered...humm.

HAHAHAhahahah....no cut and paste anywhere in sight. I've been out of school for 2 years, knowledge comes from my education. You blew the majority off with "your an uneducated post high school little person...so ...THERE!" HAHAHAHAHA...Your such a fool. Once again you take a portion that you have 'something' to say about and ignore the rest or totally skip something entirely with an attempt at a rude comment. Your part about death threats, comical...you presume and read into things way too much. Your really not that important (nor are you significant enough to 'take out'). Your worthless. You dont have what I am looking for and you dont know where to get it. Like I said you are totally worthless.

Received: from [63.202.235.122] by web80403.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:07:00 PDT


[Editor's note: my reply]

A little hot and bothered...humm.

Let me get this straight: you're screaming that I'll die horribly, and you still think you can get away with claiming that I'm the one who's losing it? I think you should seek professional help.

HAHAHAhahahah....no cut and paste anywhere in sight. I've been out of school for 2 years, knowledge comes from my education.

Must have been a very poor education then. I'm talking to someone who thinks that the Big Bang was a chemical explosion, that evolution involves "morphing" (sorry, but that's evolution in Pokémon, not science), and that entropy is the opposite of complexity. You can claim to be an expert all you like, but you have demonstrated appalling ignorance of the subject matter.

You blew the majority off with "your an uneducated post high school little person...so ...THERE!" HAHAHAHAHA...Your such a fool.

Actually, I dealt with it point-by-point, and you tried to dismiss all of those rebuttals with this nonsense. In fact, I have dealt with every single one of your messages point by point, while you invariably respond by composing a fresh message as if the last one did not exist.

Once again you take a portion that you have 'something' to say about and ignore the rest or totally skip something entirely with an attempt at a rude comment.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Your part about death threats, comical...you presume and read into things way too much.

And you are obviously a raving lunatic, who deals with exhaustively detailed point-by-point rebuttals by simply sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la la, I can't hear you".

Your really not that important (nor are you significant enough to 'take out'). Your worthless. You dont have what I am looking for and you dont know where to get it. Like I said you are totally worthless.

And you can't deal with my points, so you resort to this incessant ranting and raving. When you tell someone that he's going to die horribly, that's abusive at best and threatening at worst, and you know it. It also annihilates your strident claims that you don't take this too seriously. In fact, I find it astounding that you continue to claim that you're just doing this for laughs when you're so obviously foaming at the mouth with anger.

I say again: seek professional help. You obviously need it.


Last updated: August 24, 2003


Continue to Ben Bartlett

Jump to: