FW: Hello

Tue, 29 Aug 95 10:09:00 CDT

From: David McFadzean
Subject: RE: Hello
Date: Monday, August 28, 1995 17:50PM

>>Please, don't make me laugh, I am hardly afraid of anything I come up
>>against, and I believe I know more about the situation than you ever will
>>hiding behind your security blanket. I was trying to use a little bit of

>Please save the insults for someone else. Ad hominem attacks don't
>help your case.

I apologize if you took this as an insult, it was never intended to be one.

>>sarcasm. I understand that for any law or theory or fact or blah, in
>>must not fail one test to be dubbed truth!?! Am I right! And unfortunately

>>for you, not one of evolutions "proving evidences" has passed every test!

>No, you are not right. Theories are never dubbed truth.

Evolution has been dubbed truth by many people, including yourself.

>>>He is an anthropologist. Anthopology doesn't have any laws.
>>>Theories are explanations, not laws.

>>So why base your faith on his fairy tales?

>There is a big difference between a scientific theory and a fairy
>tale. The bible objectively resembles a fairy tale far more than
>a theory.

I have often times given you references, documentations and other known
resources that strongly support creation as a theory. It was only 100 years
ago that evolution began to become mainstream, so that means the millions of
years before, man was wrong? No. God revealed the truth to them. I will send
you more figures later. I would suggest getting a hold of one of the books I
have mentioned, or the one of the centers for creation research. Such as
Institute for Creation Research, Creation Resource Foundation, Or the
Missouri Creation Center. I would suggest getting the book Evolution
Disproved by Dr. William A Williams, or Mysteries of Creation Vol. 1 by
Dennis Petersen. Though I doubt you will go and get any of them, because you
are afraid that your foundation may be shattered. I have objectively looked
into two opposing books already, and have visited many WWW sites. I think
all to often that students have been fed this dogma, and have never been
given any information on apposing theories. Therfore, the Bible is the
proposer of the theory and creationists are the evidence providers, although
their main goal is to defeat the paper thin defence of evolution and other
humanistic theories.

>[lots of math deleted]

>>Want more?

>Unfortunately you are working from the mistaken assumption that
>phenotypic traits evolve at a linear rate. Since that is not part
>of the theory of evolution, all your math is worthless.

So now you defy and contradict the sciences of mathematics and logical
probability. Why did you not answer my questions that where not based on
"linear equation"? Explain 200,000 prehistoric horses, and only four apelike

>>Would it not be wise to educate yourself one what you are up against?

>I don't consider myself "up against" religion. I'm not defending
>evolution so much as pointing out your errors in facts and reasoning.

Creation is quite a valid theory, you just haven't taken the time to study
it. I have been fed evolution all through out school, I have also done some
personal study into the subject. So don't go up against "religion". The
reason why you don't defend evolution is because you have absolutely nothing
to defend it with.

Go to the Creation Science WWW site
(http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm) or CRS Net.

There is ample documentation there to appease you. No religion necissary.

>>>Scientific theories are never verified because evidence is always
>>>incomplete. Theories are always provisional, they change or are
>>>thrown out when the evidence is against them. That is science.

>>So why do you keep saying you have facts?

>I have facts in addition to theories that explain the facts. It is
>very simple really.

Entropy alone provides an incredible argument against evolution, and
evolution cannot stand without many devised excuses. I have provided
sufficient documentation to show that evolution is based on peoples
imaginations. If evolution was science then it would have been tossed long
ago, because there is much evidence against it, especially by other proven
sciences, such as mathematics, and probability.

>>I will gladly give credit to God, though I doubt He melted a moon. He
>>have easily flooded the earth then receded the waters.

>He could easily test your faith by making it seem like you are
>discussing evolution with an atheist when in fact I don't exist.

No prob with me. Because this test is a piece o' cake!!!

>>My purpose is not to prove or disprove the flood, I could do more research

>>in that area if that was my current area of study. The fact that it
>>is undoubtable, and undeniable, and if it took God to pour out all of that

>>water and then dry it up, so be it! The word did say He sent a wind, maybe

>>this wind lifted the waters into space, I am not concerned with that at
>>moment. Could you give me a reference for any of your proposed attacks on
>>the flood?

>Why? Since you are convinced the flood happened, then no evidence to
>the contrary is going to make one iota of difference.

Provide evidence to the contrary. I will do more research if you'd like. If
you would like to find out more about where I stand, read Ken Ham's book,
unfortunately the name of it eludes me right now, but I believe it is called
Answers in Genisis.

>>I will get references if you would like. Oh, check out the Grand Canyon...

>You think the Grand Canyon provides evidence for a global flood?

I wouldn't have said it if I didn't know so.

>>>Insane by human standards. If I killed a bunch of children for mocking
>>>my friend I would be locked up. When God does it, that's OK. That seems
>>>more than a little strange to me.

>>They were hardly innocent children, and I believe that God can do as He
>>pleases. Besides, He might be insane by your standards but not human
>>standards. I think that you think you have more support than you actually
>do. Well, the Bible does say that men are wicked and cling to darkness...

>I don't think children deserve to die just for mocking someone.
>Anyone that does think so has serious problems.

They wren't children, they were teen-agers, and quite accountable for their
actions. Isn't it great how God takes care of his chosen...? Besides, I
thought you said you weren't up against religion!?!

Hitler was an atheist and an evolutionist, and he executed millions of Jews.
Explain his actions. So now it is a cruel God against a Cruel humanity. I
prefer God, because humainty has saved no one.

>>Lot's of simulations have been done, but they require inteligent
>>intervention. Your computer is no more capable of putting those thing s to

>>real life as it is of holding a conversation of its own with you. You have

>>created evolution? Now try it in your bathtub? Doesn't work does it!?!
>>Besides a cartoonist can do it on TV, but that doesn't make it real does

>No, but simulations are not like cartoons.

Instead of an artist drawing, you have a programmer programming. Besides,
Sim-Genisis doesn't count as a valid simulation.

>If you took Biology 101, then you would remember that people have a
>maximum of one recessive gene at any particular site on the chromosome.
>Adam and Eve together can have a maximum of 4 alleles between them.
>Unfortunately for Christians, there are more than that for eye colour

Have you not learned that we a have strands of apparently unused DNA?
Evolutionary speciation requires that eventually a recessive gene
disappears, never has this been found to be true, and in all cases the
recessive gene eventually reapears. If in any case a new species is
developed such as the Horse + Donkey making the Mule, every single time the
creature is incapable of reproducing any offspring of it's own.

>>Actually yes I would like to see it! But how do you know that it is
>>of years old?

>Because it was found in rock strata that is millions of years old.
>The rock strata was dated using a collaboration of carbon dating,
>radioactive dating, sedimentary depth, erosion rates, meteor hit
>fallouts, etc. etc. Perhaps all the techniques are wrong, but it
>is very, very unlikely.

Was it really? I'll bet that none or few of the dates agreed. Did you read
the article I sent you about different forms of dating and how unreliable
they are. Do you have a clock fossil that is stuck on millions of years BC?
No. Sedimentry depth is an awful form of dating, as the pond in my back yard
filled up with sand and mud two feet in two years. That would mean that
anything burried there is two years old right? Wrong, to even further
support my cause, I lost a GI Joe figurine and three months later I dug it
out to find it was at the bootm of the pond? Go figure. Flood. Okay, so set
that aside, dry land: My dog used to drag out the trash and it would go all
over my back yard, and in a mater of a week, the few remaining scraps would
be burried an inch or two into the sand and dirt. Go figure? Now tell me
where Macro Evolution is occuring today. Did you read my math figures?

>>>What can I possibly show you? If the answer is nothing, than why are
>>>you asking?

>>I am trying to find out what evidence that evolutionists can stand on to
>>that they know it is real. I thought i mentioned that a long time ago...


Nope, not empiricle science. In order for it to be an acceptable theory it
must pass every test. It does not pass the tests of mathematics or

>>>How can you say that your text book might be true, and the Word of God be

>>>false? The Word of God has been around for thousands of years, and has
>>>time to be proven trustworthy to all men, and has never ever failed a
>>>Amazing being that it was writen by unenlightened men...?

>Because the text book has evidence to back it up and the only thing going
>for the word of god is age (2000 years) and faith (belief without
>It is very simple.

Wrong. Christianity is 2000 years old, the bible began over 4000 years ago.
My faith is hardly without evidence, no one can explain the miracles that
have taken place in my life. Therefore my experience is my evidence, believe
it or not.

>>>I meant virtually all geologists and they have plenty of facts.
>>>But you can easily ignore them. If they show you a canyon that
>>>took hundreds of thousands of years to create, you can easily
>>>say that god created it perfectly formed 4000 years ago. You can
>>>also say that god created it 10 minutes ago and no one can prove
>>>you wrong.

>>Virtually all geologists that you read about.

>Granted, there may be a large organization of Christian geologists
>keeping a low profile.

Actually not low, I have given you some pointers into where to start your
research, for yourself. I didn't know and still don't know of to many major
sources for evolution, but through diligent research I have stumbled on
quite a few.

>>Where? Or is it a few geologists that contradict biology. Besides, there
>>many cases where the minority has been right and the majority have been

>Were the geology book says the earth is over 4 billion years old
>and the bible says it is a few thousand. Spot the difference.

Aproxamately 3,999,994,000. Geology does not say that, it merely states the
possibility on unempiracle evidence. It is geologists that say it is 4
billion years old.

>>>Virtually all astronomers believe the universe is around 10 billion years


>>A majority might but not all! Hmmm... Stop trying to use exagerations

>I'm not exaggerating when I say virtually all astronomers believe
>the universe is around 10 billion years old.

Then the defeat the laws of probability and mathematics. Quite a few
cosmologists believe the universe to be 300 billion years old, which puts
evolution even closer to the laws of probability, yet still defies them. I
have read articles by astronomers that say the universe is 2 billion years
old, and even 12 billion years, but they also came to the conclusion that
there evidence is highly unsupported and should not be taken as absolute. I
have also read in a evolutionary text, that the universe could be a little
more than six thousand years old... Hmmm...?

>>>The bible contradicts this belief.

>>Good! But it does not go against astronomy!

>So you say...

I have given you references. So I'm not the only one.

>>>Virtually all physicists believe miracles are impossible.

>>Your physicists maybe, but there are a lot of things that they cannot

>There are lots of things they can't explain but you were asking how
>the bible contradicts science.

So the Word of God has the answers that you lack. No contradiction. The only
disagreement is between the Bible and the OPINIONS of certain scientists,
not science.

>>>If god can defy physics, than the bible contradicts physics.

>>God designed the laws of physics. Oh wait no, I take that back, they just
>>happened out of chance right?

>Science currently doesn't know where the laws of physics came from.
>That doesn't mean they were designed.

Therefore you have no foundation to stand on when it comes to explaining the
impossible. "Through God all things are made possible." Even if it doesn't
suit your logic.

>>>Almost all paleontologists believe dinosaurs lived 100 millions years
>>>The bible contradicts them.

>>So what? Most of the paleo's I know and have read about are uncertain or
>>believe thay walked with man. What do you say about the fossils that have

>So what? You were asking how the bible contradicts science. Don't
>you remember?

They also say that they were stupid because of thier low brain capacity. The
canine can prove that a myth.

>>been found where mans footprints have been seen walking along side of a
>>dinosaur? Explain the dinosaur dredged up by the Japanese in 1977? In

>Those footprints have been revealed as a hoax. I don't know of any Japanese


Give me a reference on the hoax if you wouldn't mind.

I am surprised an intelligent independantly stuying evolutionist like you
doesn't know about the dinosaur (one of the water ones, I forget the name
all the time) they dredged up, especially since they made a stamp
comemorating it. Look it up. I have given you a reference that will give you
more references to start with, Mysteries of Creation...

>>condition, couldn't have died to long ago. Or the fish that are on the
>>evolutionary chain that fishherman are fishing up alive!?!

>All fish are on the evolutionary chain.

Then how do they prove evolution!?! If they existed way back when, then why
didn't they die out? There are occurences where fish will dissapear and
reappear on different rock formations... Who knows...

>>>If he does, then he contradicts most chemists.

>>But He does not go against chemistry. He designed the laws.

>Nevertheless, the bible contradicts known chemistry.

So does the oil that is made in four years off of the coast of New Zealand.
Oh well, the texts are always right, right?

>>>Almost all biologists. The bible contradicts them too.

>>Oooh, most biologists teach what they are told to teach but they don't
>>believe what tye are teaching. Most biologists try to remain out of the
>>situation. If the Bible goes against what they say so be it! The bible is
>>older and more authorotative ad stands unscathed, as where theories and
>>ideas come and go!

>That may be true, but you were asking how the bible contradicts science
>and I have provided ample evidence.

I have provided documentation and evidence saying otherwise... Therefore
making your evidence non conclusive.

>>>I realize I don't know for sure. I have faith in the evidence, not
>>>despite the evidence. See the difference?

>>Is the evidence the truth? No. Scientists may go againsts the Bible, but
>>science itself does not. Do you really understand what science is?

>I didn't say the evidence was the truth. I think I understand science
>a great deal more than you do.

I have faith according to the evidence that Christ is real in my life, and
then the evidence that science has given. Do you really understand empiricle
science or do undersatand psuedo science? Evolution as a crumbling
hypothesis, or evolution as the only right answer, of which you have never
personally experienced!?!

>>>Do you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution?
>>>It doesn't because the earth is not a closed system. It gets energy
>>>from the sun.

>>And the sun is dying so YES...

>The fact that the sun is dying is irrelevant to the question.

On the contrary, the law of thermodynamics says that everything is lossing
order and energy, and that the universe will eventually come to a halt. So
if everything is breaking DOWN, how can anything naturalisticly go UP? What
reversed the chain of events tat caused something to come out of absolutely
nill (Big Bang)! Arise, and then suddenly reverse to the point where it will
all go to disarray? Where is evolution happening today? I know that you will
never come up with a good answer that has not been easily addressed before.
If evolution where reality, it should be very very very very very very
evident today.