Response to My Page on Evolution

Click here to View Site Map or to Search Site

From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: You are of primordial slime...
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 02:14:25 -0500

>Dear Mr. Fackerell

>The reason you have had no takers in your discussion on evolution sir,
>is because you are a bit flaky. I suppose you think your are very clever
>when in reality you are very confused.

Is that so? Then please prove you can understand what I have actually said.
Your quotations of me prove you don't.

1. Scientists are sinners too, and would prefer to reject the
uncomfortable idea of a Creator/Judge to whom they will one day
give account.

>You cannot prove that "sin" is real, nor can you can you prove that sin
>is punishable by divine law, therefore, rendering your argument
>meaningless.

You quote me out of context. These were not my "arguments" against evolution, but
suggestions as to why it might be a popular way of thinking. However, here I am talking
about the "idea of a Creator Judge" and hence the idea of sin. This is uncomfortable for
so many - hence it is something that some might not want to believe in.

For actual arguments against evolution, see my text above that, or http://www.origins.org or
http://www.reasons.org/

2. "Creation Science", defending the idea of a 6000 year old Universe
makes alternatives to evolution look foolish, because it
makes out the record in creation is a lie - that all is created with the
appearance of age. Also, it would seem that some
"Creation Scientists", like evolutionists, have been intellectually
dishonest in the way they have handles the data. .

>A 6000 yr. old universe is a foolish concept! We can calculate by the
>rate the universe is expanding that it is much, much older. Math is a
>constant that cannot be refuted. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. The record
>in creation is not a lie, merely an outrageously outdated concept.
>Pretty simple eh?

Here you prove you don't even understand what I am saying! I too cannot
agree with a 6000 year old Universe! Read my page again. The young earth
people have made serious errors. The Universe is about 17 billion years old,
according to our best scientific calculations. The problem is, when people
equate theism with belief in a 6000 year old Universe, as many do, perhaps
including yourself, they immediately dismiss the Bible without further thought.
Tragic ignorance!

3. People assume that what their teachers say is proven. Academics are
sure that the evidence of evolution is conclusive - in
someone else's discipline - not their own. In this way evolution is
passed down like a modern myth and its all a bit like "The
Emperor's New Clothes".

>Yes, much like the resurrection. Only a few supposedly witnessed that,

Actually, more than 500, plus hundreds of testimonies today.

>yet millions believe it, despite the fact that we have yet to see
>another documented case.

Wrong. Ignorance. Many Muslims these days are converting to Christianity
because they have unmistakeable visions of Jesus Christ. I know one, and
have heard of scores of such reports.

>While, evolution has alot of evidence to back
>it up.
You still haven't given me any. Writings that simply assume it is true can be found
everywhere - that is not evidence though.

>Even though some of it is false we are allowed to be wrong
>sometimes. No? Case in point is the idea that evolution happens in quick
>bursts and does not follow a gradual timeline, like we once thought.

So Darwin was seriously wrong. The idea that evolution happens in quick bursts
is there because of a philosophical a priori commitment to naturalism and evolution.
There is absolutely no evidence that such quick evolution happens. Why should
anyone believe it?

If the empirical evidence and the philosophy of materialism/naturalism point in opposite
directions, which way should we go?

>At
>least we can admit that we are wrong. Religion very rarely does.

Well I admit I've been wrong quite a few times. Religion is often wrong. The Bible isn't.
There is a big difference.

>Case in
>point: Copernicus. A man worth his intellectual salt should know who
>this is.

I am not here to defend the historical foolishnesses of the Roman Catholic Church.
I don't believe that religious organisations were appointed by God to dictate on
scientific matters of which the Bible says nothing.

4. The media and the education system in the west has been dominated by
secular humanists for almost 70 years. Thus the lies
are backed up with the influence of the press and the authority of the
education system. Movies and T.V. documentaries have
unquestioningly foisted the ideas of evolution on a gullible public.

>Blah, blah, blah. It is called supply in demand. People watch what they
>like not what you tell them to watch.

Not true. If censorship operates, as it does against the message of theism in scientific
circles and the education system, then people cannot be exposed to that message,
except through media like the internet.

>If the networks thought that there
>was more money in producing religious shows they would.

Does profitability have anything to do with truth?

>Don't cry
>because people are believing what is tangible and has evidence to
>support it. Your arrogance in assuming that what you believe is right,
>is good for everyone is reprehensible.

Show me the evidence. Don't just tell me that it is there. I believe that
natural selection happens, so forget that. Give me evidence that one
species can change into another.

5. People believe in UFOs and intelligent extra-terrestrials, as a proof
of evolution - not realising that the phenomena is
probably due to fallen angels more than anything else. Is it a
co-incidence that these E.T.s give out the same doctrines that
demons do in spiritualist meetings? I think not.

>Huh,? What is the deal here? Fallen angels?!! C'mon what does any of
>this have to do with evolution? And what do you mean by demons?

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in
your philosophy.

I believe this point is what keeps people form responding to your
challenge. How can anybody refute the ideologies of a zealot?

With logic and clear arguments, I suppose. Certainly not by
name-calling and assuming what is to be proved all the time.
If people want proof of the reality of demons, that calls for
another web-page at least as it is a different topic. Perhaps I
should not have included it in my page here on evolution.

>As an atheist, your kind of christianity truly offends me. You assume
>everything you say is law and that anyone who rejects it is a sinner or
>a heathen. You sit in judgment of the rest of the world and cry when no
>one excepts thy great christians verdict.

Are you now sitting in judgment over me? I think you judge me falsely.
Also, why don't you use a spell-checker?

>Evolutionists do not refute
>God they merely state that our origins are different than previously
>thought.

In saying this you show you don't know the true meaning of evolution.
Ask one of your high priests, like Richard Dawkins for example.

2+2=4, don't get mad if it doesn't equal 5.

So to you I say, goodbye. Enjoy your life and remember sitting in
judgment of anything is a sin. Your belief in God should be enough that

I thought you did not believe in sin!

you don't have to shove it down other's throats. Or does he leave you
lacking?

subverse

God has satisfied my soul in so many ways. I want others to know Him too.