In my first two-year email correspondence with Bill Morgan, a definite pattern soon emerged. Even though at first Bill was very talkative, when I demonstrated my knowledge of the creation/evolution issue, he suddenly became very reticent and tried to disengage as quickly and gracefully as possible. When that failed, he would just plain refuse to respond to most of my questions, would respond with one or two words lacking any context, or else would respond with a standard creationist "unanswerable" question. In contrast, I would answer most of his questions. All of his questions were meant to stump me, to stop or impede the discussion, and to prepare me for proselytization, whereas all of my questions were meant to be answerable, to elicit information, and to further the discussion.
Then one day, Bill accused me of not answering any of his questions while he always answered mine. That accusation was so blatantly false, that I went back through my transcript of our correspondence and tallied up the questions and responses. Then I calculated what percentage of each other's questions we had both answered, trying to bias it as much in Bill's favor as possible: I had answered about 92% of Bill's questions, whereas he had answered less than 13% of mine. I reported my findings to Bill, along with a list of the questions, including more than 60 of my questions that he had never answered.
Then Bill did something unbelievable, even though I should have expected it. He claimed "12.6 % no way! I answered 100% you just did not lke my answers!" Then in typical fashion and despite repeated requests that Bill in some way support his claim of having answered "100%" of my questions, Bill "Mr. 100%" Morgan never responded. No wonder, since his claim was blatantly false.
Instead, Bill adopted the strategy of repeatedly accusing me of not answering his question, even though I just had. Despite my repeated requests for an explanation, any explanation, for why he thought that I didn't answer him, he never ever responded, except to repeat his question that I had just answered.
In the following text, I am "DWise1" and Bill Morgan is "BillyJack6." Liber8r was a third-party witness to our correspondence.
######################################################### Subj: Who's Avoiding Questions? Date: 98-06-25 01:20:57 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1 File: QUESTI~1.TXT (38645 bytes) DL Time (14400 bps): < 1 minute Repeated for Liber8r (Bill, you might make him start to feel left out): ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: "lets have a public debate" Date: 98-06-15 01:05:49 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Me no scared of on line debate. Me not have time to have you avoid my questions. Over and out (Scene from the latest Billy Jack action flick!) ### END ### >Me not have time to have you avoid my questions.< Excuse me, Bill, but you seem to be projecting again. I have a very good record of responding to and answering your questions. On the other hand, you have a very consistent record of avoiding my questions. In addition, your questions are primarily stock rhetorical tricks which are not meant to be answerable. Their format incorporates misconceptions (eg, equating abiogenesis with spontaneous generation and describing evolutionary theory as Lamarckian) and demands detailed information which has either not yet been discovered or may never be discovered (eg, the exact sequence of events in which a blue whale had evolved from its common ancestor with bacteria) or would require advanced and detailed knowledge comparable to or exceeding a doctorate degree specializing in that field. The answers to those questions are usually not accessible to most of your opponents. Their purpose in proselytizing is to throw your opponent off-guard, to confuse him, and to break down his defenses against your attempts to convert him. Their purpose in creation/evolution is to discredit your opponent in the eyes of your audience. Their purpose is never to gain or exchange information. In contrast, my questions to you, while more direct and to the point, are meant to be answerable. I fully expect you to be able to answer a question like, "Do you believe that the earth is about 10,000 years old?" After all, in your newsletter you have made it clear that that is what you believe, so why do you keep running and hiding from this question? True, some of my questions may not be comfortable for you to answer, but you should have no problem in terms of knowledge and skill level in answering them. This is not just my subjective impression, I went through all of our exchanges, pulled out the questions, and grouped them according to who had asked them and whether they had been answered. They are listed at the end of this message. Then I tallied them up and calculated what percentage of each other's questions we have answered. In order to make those results more accessible (ie, not buried at the end of a long email so that you could easily ignore them), they are listed here: SUMMARY: Bill's Questions to Me: Answered: 23 Unanswered: 2 Percent Answered: 23/25 = 92% My Questions to Bill: Answered: 12 Unanswered: 65 Asked Repeated and Not Answered: 18 Percent Answered: 12/(12+65+18) = 12/95 = 12.6% Sources of error: 1. That was a lot of material to go through in very little free time, so some questions may have been missed. 2. Since you never provide any context when you do respond, I may have missed a few of your replies. However, most of the questions just received no response whatsoever. 3. In the case of those questions I had to ask repeatedly and which you never did answer, I only counted them once, thus inflating your percentage. In other words, due to this source of error, you are reported as having done much better than you actually did. 4. When I had to answer the same question from you more than once (eg, how CFCs could get to the stratosphere), I only counted that once, thus making my reported percentage look worse than it actually is. 5. I tried to exclude rhetorical questions. In determining whether a question was rhetorical, with my questions to you I erred on the side of excluding the question, whereas with your questions to me I erred on the side of including the question. Hence, any error generated here is skewed in your favor. 6. Even though a number of your responses avoided answering the question, I usually counted that question as answered. So, we see that I answered 92% of your questions to me, whereas you only answered 12.6% of my questions to you. Who, then, is avoiding whose questions, Bill? I think that the evidence speaks rather eloquently. The rest of this email consists of the lists of questions used to generate the summary table above: Actual Questions: Bill's Questions to Me: Answered: 1. The art work [of "Weird Science"] is a lot better....want to see it? 2. If I send [AOLCREAT.DOC] as DOC and tehy have a MAC are tehy out of luck? 3. Tell me.....what do you know about proteins that I should know....please tell me how they formed independently of plan. 4. Do you feel you have to be "explained away?" 5. Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why? 6. Which life appeared first? Please answer that. 7. Have you ever heard my lesson? 8. Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that teh blue whale is realted to bacteria. 9. lets have a public debate. me versus you at Cal State LA. 10. So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are teh ancestors to blue whales. 11. You consider yourself "wise," yet believe in spontaneous generation. If you do not beleive in spontaneous generation please provide me witht eh best explanation you have for the origin of life. Can you? Will you? 12. How Can Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Get to the Stratosphere If They're Heavier than Air? 13. Why is the Ozone Hole Observed over Antarctica When CFCs Are Released Mainly in the Northern Hemisphere? 14. Does Most of the Chlorine in the Stratosphere Come from Human or Natural Sources? 15. Choir? Is your son a follower of Jesus? 16. Can you answer my simple question of how the R 12 gets 5 miles above the surface of the earth. The proponents endlessly teach what R 12 does to ozone, I have read that endlessly, but my qwuestion is how does it get there. 17. You missed a good butt whipping at UCI! Want to get the video? 18. Want to debae Dr Mark Eastman in public????? 19. What data caused the geologist to almost become an atheist? 20. Why are you scared to? You should kill me I am just a religious fanatic and you hold science so close, so dear to your heart...you are holding the gates of science as we nonscience barbarians are tearing at the gate.....my oh my what is holding you back? 21. Hey, This is great material. Would it be ok if i were to add it to my web page? 22. Do you have a better explanation than the Garden of Eden for the origin of Meisosis reproduction? Do you beleive Mitosis reproducing animals are teh ancestors of Meisosis animals? 23. Why don't you follow God (and truth) and help people like this woman has been helped...here is a memo she sent to me! Unanswered: 1. Would you like a cop of the video and audio tape of the debate for cost? 2. Would you like a shot at eastman? Do you have the desire to debate him? My Questions to Bill: Answered: 1. Why, exactly, do you insist on conducting this over the phone? 2. If I may ask. At the time you kept making such a big deal about nobody ever being able to find a single error in "Weird Science" and yet I found errors in every single frame of every single page and was able to keep my commentary down to a little over 80 pages. Surely I'm not the only one to have seen through it. Would you be willing to share with me the other critiques that you surely must have received? 3. Who are the debators? What will the format be? Will you report on the debate? 4. Bill, you're an ME. Now, I know from experience that fundamentalists tend to have a hard time with Gedankenexperimenten and hypothetical situations, but please bear with me. Try to imagine what it would be like to have been taught that, say, there was no such thing as the Moment of Inertia and, furthermore, if it did exist then Scripture would have no meaning. You go through school having been taught this and you believe it. But then you go out to work as an ME. What do you have to deal with several times over in virtually each and every piece of machinery? Moments of Inertia! They're all over the place! Given the premises of this Gedankenexperiment, what effect would this have on you and on your faith? What conclusions would you reach? 5. So, how did the debate go? 6. An entire month has transpired. If you have not read my geology page, nor visit Glenn Morton's page, nor write to Glenn Morton, then why not? 7. Why do you refer to yourself as a "registered mechanical engineer"? Or is this yet another simple, direct question that you will refuse to answer? 8. What college(s) have you taught at. What classes? What are your credentials? 9. Do you have Joe Tyndall's email address? 10. OK. So what's your point? Do you have a problem with scientists doing science? Why? 11. First, seriously, what did that Fuller professor say he based his "identical twin" idea on? Of course, if you don't remember, then just say so. 12. Having both our pages up there makes it perfect for an on-line debate. What is your answer? Asked repeatedly and not answered: 1. Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why? 2. Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning? 3. What would happen if you found irrefutable proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years? What effect would that have on you? How would it affect your faith? Should it? Why? 4. One thing I did ask for was some of the raw data from Entrez that you had used in your newsletter. What is the word on that request? 5. Do you have a lesson to present? Then please, go right ahead and present it. Nothing is stopping you, nor has anything ever been stopping you. 6. I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant. 7. How, then, can you honestly ever expect to use creation science to convert me or anybody else possessing knowledge of creation science? The only way would be for us to abandon our higher moral and ethical standards of truth and honesty. Why would I ever want to lower my standards so drastically? 8. What is your definition here of "uniformitarian"? 9. Do you have other definitions of this term that you use? (eg, are there differences in how you used the term here and in how science uses the term) 10. Who would use uniformitarian arguments? (obviously, from this example, we know that creationists do) 11. What are the alternatives to uniformitarian arguments? 12. Instead, I have a much better idea. You want a public debate? OK, but why restrict it to a mere college campus (ie, to a very limited audience)? Why not do it in front of the whole world? 13. [C14 "Crash"] So what's your point? You do realize, I trust, that C-14 radio-dating and dendrochronology are not applicable to paleontology or geology (answer me this: what is the claimed oldest date obtainable via C-14?). What is it supposed to have to do with evolution? Bill only answered that C-14 has a short half-life. 14. DO you have something to say? Why can you not say it here? 15. Since you know that your claim to have been an atheist is false, why do you continue to make that claim? 16. Bill, since when did the Truth need to be upheld by lies? 17. Please tell me the reasons I gave you why I cannot and prefer not to do an on-stage type of "debate" and why I consider an on-line debate to be very much preferable. 18. So since you are going to have to type it in anyway, why don't you just go ahead and answer my questions? If you keep a copy, then you will have material for your web page. Unanswered: 1. "As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own." Did you really believe that? Seriously? 2. For that matter, what about yourself? What would happen to you now if you should again become an "atheist"? Wouldn't you again decide that the rules do not apply to you? Wouldn't you again deny responsibility for your actions? Wouldn't you again fall into the trap laid for you in your childhood? 3. What are you having a problem with? That atheists can be moral and virtuous (remember that I am far from being an exception, nor am I an extraordinary individual)? That professional proselytizers have found that creation science is not only not an ineffective tool for proselytizing, but it also has proven to be counter-productive (ie, driving more people away from Christianity than it attracts)? That teaching creation science creates some very real and grave dangers for those who are taught it, especially children? That teaching morality based on theology can endanger the individuals so taught? 4. I responded to the tone of urgency in your message by saying in effect, "Yes, let's discuss these matters." But then you start arguing over the exact medium for the discussion, equivalent to arguing over the shape of the table we'll use. Do you want to discuss this or not? Do you have questions or don't you? Do you wish to respond or not? Do you have something to say or don't you? What is holding you back? 5. To his question, I responded that the oldest fossil evidence is of bacteria. Then I ask him what that is supposed to have to do with anything. 6. Do you care about those you try to convert, or are you just working on your body count? Do you advocate "lying for the Lord", which is a form of situational ethics (ie, the ends justifying the means)? Or does Truth still count for something? 7. If I may begin this message with a couple quotations which you should be able to identify as yours: "... and I hope that the path you take is one of testing and examining with an open mind." " ... it was the evidence of Creation versus Evolution. I wanted the truth." Fine sounding words, but do you live up to them? Do you endeavor to test and examine with an open mind? Your actions indicate to me that you do not. Do you really want and seek the truth? Pardon me for paraphrasing Jack Nicholson, but it is obvious from your persistent avoidance of discussion that you cannot handle the truth. Why then do you persist in proselytizing with something that you refuse to test, examine, or seek the truth about, especially considering your newly acquired knowledge of its detrimental effects on faith? How can you justify your actions morally and ethically? Or even theologically? 8. This discussion, if you will ever let it get started, promises to be rich in content. E-mail is an ideal medium for content, albeit poorer for emotionalism and for obfuscation. Telephony is a richer medium for emotionalism and for obfuscation and a poorer medium for content. A "Gish gallop" would work on the telephone far better than it would work in e-mail, since it could well overwhelm the listener on the phone, but could be picked apart, analyzed, and responded to in e-mail. Besides which, e-mail establishes a record of exactly what was stated, whereas the telephone does not. Hence, your repeated insistence that I call you is made all the more suspicious. Have you disappeared because you are unable to hit me with your own "Gish gallop"? 9. Of course, I guess it did not help matters much that I already knew too much about creation science and that they could not answer my simple and direct questions, like, "What is the valid evidence for your claims?" Is that your problem, Bill? Is it that you know that you have no valid evidence to present? Is it that you only want to target those who do not already know about creation science and so are much easier to trample with your "Gish gallop"? Is it that you know full well that you do not stand a chance against somebody who knows what you are talking about? 10. If so, then what does that say for your ministry of proselytizing through claims that you know to be false? Especially now that you know that such false claims are a leading cause of atheism. Do you really think that God will reward you for spreading lies? If so, then you will have your reward, but it will not be what you expected. 11. If you really believed creation science to be true, then you would have no reason for not presenting and defending its claims and evidence. If you know it to be false, then you have every reason to be evasive and to avoid defending your claims at all costs (eg, your only response to my critique of your "Weird Science" was to say that a name had been misspelled; do you still distribute it with the empty boast that nobody has ever been able to find a single error in it?). That you have been evasive and have avoided discussing or defending you claims indicates that you know your claims to be false. Are Christians indeed so devoid of morality and so enamoured with the lowest form of situational ethics (eg, extolling "lying for the Lord" so long as it results in a higher "body count" of conversions)? 12. Your probability model only allowed for one very specific amino acid sequence for the protein to be functional; you allow no substitutions whatsoever, representing any substitution as destroying the protein's functionality. I won't revisit that you are really describing the probability of producing a protein via creation ex nihilo, instead of via evolution. Now your more recent statement readily allows for substitutions in the amino acid sequence. Have you learned and corrected your mistake, or are you just contradicting yourself, making any claim that sounds good without regard of consistency? In light of your more recent statement, do you intend to go back and correct your box-car analogy? How does your essay read now? 13. You observe that all the other animals in your sample are about equally different from the lamprey and complain that there is no progression. What do you mean by "progression"? Just exactly what were you expecting to see (this is not a rhetorical question) and on exactly what assumptions were you basing that expectation? Since I do not expect you to respond (given your previous evasiveness and your more recent sudden disappearance), would I be correct in assuming that you expect the modern lamprey's proteins to be exactly identical to those of the ancient lampreys who were ancestral to the other species in the comparison (as given in the evolutionary hypothesis that you were "testing")? If so, then could you please explain upon what you base such an assumption? Why should we expect evolution to suddenly stop for a given species, especially in the accumulation of neutral mutations, which is what most base substitutions (which is what causes amino acid substitutions) are? What possible mechanism could account for such an event? 14. But first, a quick question so that it won't get lost: [at the debate at Cerritos College,] did John Peloza present a young-earth position? I remember that earlier, while his litigation was on-going, he was very careful to steer clear of any age-of-the-earth discussion. I'm just wondering whether he is still sticking with the stealthy "intelligent design / abrupt appearance" buzz-word or whether he has rejoined the young-earth creation science mainstream. 15. For that matter, you have avoided answering every question put to you. Why? If you really believe that the truth, the facts, and the evidence is on your side, then why do you avoid any and all discussion of it? 16. Eg, you asked me "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" (97-08-10 21:54:42 EDT) I answered your question and then reversed your question: "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" You never responded. Why not? You have certainly made your young-earth beliefs well known. 17. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If your claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no attempt to defend them? 18. Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein comparison claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague compliment, as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue to make them? 19. Consider the statement: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Does that statement accurately reflect your own beliefs? 20. Dinner? You've got to be kidding! What is your logic here? If we cannot even schedule a telephone conversation, how are we ever supposed to be able to schedule a sit-down dinner? And just how am I supposed to get that one past the Spanish Inquisition? 21. >I am familiar with Ms. Scott and have heard her debate. Let me summarize her >debate: "science has nothing to do withthe supernatural (which I agree with) >there fore creation science has nothing to do with science (Which I disagree >with). Sciecne can not prove creation, but sciecne could falsify the >creation model which it does not. The creation model being matter, energy, >life and order are the result of a supernatural and intelligent source. OK, let's look at that: Premise 1 == "science has nothing to do withthe supernatural" [sic] Premise 2 == "The creation model [is that] matter, energy,life and order are the result of a supernatural and intelligent source" [sic] Conclusion: "there fore creation science [which is based on the creation model] has nothing to do with science" [sic] Gee, Bill, it looks like a QED to me. If science has nothing to do with the supernatural nor with supernaturalistic causes and explanations and the only explanation that the "creation model" has to offer is supernaturalistic, then "creation science", which is based upon that "creation model", would indeed have nothing to do with science. Why do you disagree with that? 22. Now, let's look again at your statement. First you quote and disagree with Dr. Scott's conclusion (as you interpreted her presentation) that "creation science has nothing to do with science". But then you try to shift our attention away from creation science and substitute in the "creation model". Since that kind of trick almost always works in a spoken medium (eg, on the phone or in person) but can be detected and countered in a written medium, I believe that this is the primary reason why you insist on using the phone and are avoiding using email like the plague. Why would the Truth need to be upheld by tricks? 23. You blustered really bigtime in your "Weird Science" that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", but when I presented my 80-page critique of it in which I found errors in every single frame of every single page, your only response was "the only critique is the spelling of Lemcont Demoy's name". I wonder, do you still make that claim in your "new and improved" edition? 24. And again, since I understand, according to your beliefs as I have read them expressed and my own fundamentalist Christian training, my conversion would require me to believe in creation science, which I know to be false and deceptive, why should I want to convert? Don't you understand that creation science places a barrier to conversion in the way of myself and of others like me of high moral standards? Don't you understand that creation science places Christians and Christianity on the moral low ground? 25. Regarding your February newsletter, I was surprised that you, knowing what you do, had presented that scenario of a child asking whether Genesis was talking about literal 24-hour days. Don't you remember how I became an atheist as a child? Having been baptized the year before, I decided to learn what I was required to believe, so I started reading the Bible, starting with Genesis 1:1, with the understanding that I was to take it literally (whether my church at that time required biblical literalism, I do not know). I made it through at least half of Genesis, but it did not take me long to find that what Genesis described was so unbelievable that I realized that I could not believe it. At that point, I became a non-believer, an atheist, because I had read the Bible and took it literally. How, then, knowing that, can you insist that children be taught to take the Bible literally? All our actions have consequences. When are you going to start to think about the consequences of your actions? 26. Given the virtual impossibility for me to call you, just exactly how am I supposed to call you? What workable plan can you present? 27. In the meantime, I would recommend that you go on-line and start asking atheists how they had become atheists. Do not assume that your own past gives you any special insight into the minds or beliefs of atheists. Go to the source. Learn from the atheists themselves what they think and believe. You might learn something for a change. 28. Were you working at Ford Aerospace, DIVAD Division, circa 1983-1985? 29. "What do you want?" (Mr. Morden, with his Rod Serling-like delivery), In other words, why are you involved with creation science? What are your goals? What do you think you'll accomplish? 30. If you want, I could even post our exchanges so far as the first part of the debate. How does that sound? Or would you rather start again from scratch? 31. Tell me, Bill. Who among us here, entre nous trois, comes the closest to believing in the abrupt appearance of fully formed, complex living organisms who lack any progenitors (ie, parents)? In all honesty, who among us three comes the closest to believing in spontaneous generation? 32. Bill, have you asked any scientists that question? Have you researched any of the literature discussing the effects of R-12 on the atmosphere? Have you read any scientific explanations for the localizing of the ozone "hole" over Antarctica? You blame Antarctic volcanic activity, but why wouldn't that happen over more equitorial regions of volcanic activity? (hint: think about the rotation of the earth and the associated wind and weather patterns) ... Again, what does the literature say? 33. Another minor point I would question: "And keep in mind that refrigerants operate in a closed system (systems that are designed not to leak; however if they do leak, they are immediately repaired or replaced)." Excuse me. If you had to replace a unit because the refrigerant had leaked out, then the refrigerant had leaked out. And how does an end-user realize that he has a leak until it has all leaked out or almost all leaked out? How leak-proof are those systems, then I seem to remember something about having to periodically recharge them (ie, put in more refrigerant, which would mean that is missing, as in "leaked out"). And what about the discarded units? Certainly there are reclamation efforts, much more so now than before, but I doubt very much that every single discarded refrigeration unit gets all its refrigerant reclaimed. In short, leaks do happen and have happened. The only question would be, how much. 34. You had started to think about this question, but you stopped way short of completely thinking it through. You certainly did not put it to any real test. Have you read any of the primary source literature? Or even secondary? There are a lot of articles posted on the Web on many subjects, so I'd be surprised if there weren't any on R12 and the ozone layer. For that matter, since the Web offers us the means of finding the email addresses of individuals and organizations (I recently tracked down the author of a shareware program who had been in Columbia but is now in Pakistan, all through the Web), have you tried to email some of the scientists responsible so that you can ask THEM your question? Or are you afraid that your little conspiracy theory will fall apart when they provide you with the answer to your question? Remember, seeking the truth is different from just trying to show somebody up; you were doing the latter when you needed to be doing the former. 35. The next question would be -- besides the question of whether you would be willing to actually test your question -- , when you discover that you were wrong, will the readers of your newsletter or the members of the Creation Science Association of Orange County (CSAOC) ever hear about it? I am sure that they have never heard about the mistake you had made about protein comparisons. And I suspect that you have continued to propagate your mistake, even though you know better. 36. [CFCs and Bill's newsletter article] OK, Bill, now that you know the rest of the story, what will you do about it? Will your readers ever hear about this from you? Will you continue to tell your story of how nobody could answer your questions? 37. First this "Carbon Dating 'Crash'" and then your fixation on R-12 getting into the stratosphere (a fixation so much stronger than your fixation with creation science, that you actually REPLIED to a message, indicating that this is one really hot topic for you). For somebody who claims "I love science and learning about science", it looks suspiciously like you are looking for any and every way to try to discredit science. You know you have no case, so you attack science. So what's your point? 38. Could you give us a synopsis of the arguments and counter-arguments used? What was the apparent mix of the audience (ie, largely creationist, largely pro-evolution*)? How did the audience receive the proceedings? What was the format? 39. You said, "lets have a PUBLIC debate" (emphasis mine). What could you possibly feel freer to say that you have steadfastly refused to say in our email exchanges? If anything, saying something out in public should make one feel more restricted, rather than freer. 40. Well, Bill, I did not get CC'd, so I must assume that you never did follow through in getting the answer to your question. Did you finally read my geology page? Did you visit Glenn Morton's page? Did you write to Glenn Morton? What did you ask him? What was his response? 41 .Also you still have not learned to distribute the file in a universally readable format, like TXT, instead of as a Word6 document, which is something of a binary file. Remember that your penchant for spamming a binary file raised some flames. How badly did those guys in the professional football newsgroups rough you up, BTW? 42. Besides, your protein formation argument still uses the wrong probability model. Rather than using an evolutionary model (which is what you were trying to disprove/discredit), you used a creation ex nihilo model. I already told you about that. You know better. Why haven't you corrected it yet? 43. Why not just tell the truth? Is telling the truth against your religion? 44. Does this mean that you haven't done anything to correct "Weird Science" either? You said that you have a new version of it, but from what I've seen of your work, I'm sure that you have corrected nothing and have added more misinformation. OBTW, do you have an electronic version of it? 45. Since when did your god say that he would reward you for tricking people into converting? 46. If you believe that you are solely responsible to [your god], what do you think your reward will be for casting your web of lies to snare souls? 47. The next question would be, why is [CFCs in the stratosphere] such a hot topic for you? It has moved you to do something you almost never do with creationist topics; you actually responded! Why does it motivate you so? This has nothing to do with evolution, so why did you write about it in your newsletter? And why did you have a speaker on the subject? Did he offer any connection between the ozone layer and evolution/creation? Or was he trying to blame evolution for ozone depletion, like Henry Morris and others have tried to blame evolution for practically every existing evil in the world? 48. >Several years ago a co-worker was excited to inform me his son was accepted to Wheaton College. ... All I have to say is I knew this young man before he went to Wheaton and after he graduated from Wheaton and his faith may not be ruined, but it sure is not where it used to be. Maybe it was a result of some of his instructors, maybe not, but there was a big change never the less. He now strongly argues that it is ridiculous to believe Genesis is literal. No longer do I hear any exciting spiritual news originating from his life.< Have you discussed this with him? What reasons does he give for arguing that "it is ridiculous to believe Genesis is literal"? Have you listened to those reasons and checked them out? Have you asked him what experience(s) had led him to his current position AND LISTENED to him? What "exciting spiritual news originating from his life" did you hear before college and what "spiritual news originating from his life" have you heard after college? Is your current low opinion of his current spiritual life colored solely by it not being based on young-earth creationism? What was his major and what (is he doing)/(has he done) with it? 49. Doesn't your theology give lip service to the inherent depravity of man and of his efforts? How then can you worship as infallible a human's interpretation? 50. << Carbon dating only produces recent dates due to its short half life. >> True. So what was your point? 51. Then why do you ignore the truth and propagate false claims? 52. While you're at it, please explain how you conduct a debate, what you intend to accomplish in a debate (ie, your goals), and how the manner you conduct a debate supports your goals. 53. Bill, as I understand it, your theology calls for you to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Could you please share with us how you are taught to deal with the problems of translation and of different versions of the same verses, etc? What writings, precisely, are you to believe to be literally true? 54. "An entire month has transpired. If you have not read my geology page, nor visit Glenn Morton's page, nor write to Glenn Morton, then why not?" Am I correct? I will have to assume that I am, since your past conduct indicates that you will never answer that simple question either. When you answer in monosyllables, could you please repeat part of my question so that we can tell what you are grunting "yes" or "no" to? If you need to be told what the Clipboard is and how to use it, PLEASE ASK! It's so extremely simple that even MacIntosh people can use it. 55. So, even though you know that there is a serious problem with creation science claims being contrary to fact and that this problem is so great that it has actually caused DEVOUT creationists, even ones far more devout than you are, to have severe crises of faith, you have gone to NINE HIGH SCHOOLS and presented these claims that you know to be false and that you know can cause those kids to LOSE THEIR FAITH!? WHY!?? What is wrong with you? Like Gish, are you doing the Devil's work? What did the Devil promise you? Is it worth what you are trying to do to these kids? 56. You are saying that in over a YEAR you have NOT read my geology page? What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid of the truth? Why does your faith demand that you live in fear and darkness? Why does your faith demand that you drag everybody else down with you? 57. Are you using straight HTML or a developer's kit? 58. Are there parts of the process or about HTML that I might be able to help you with? 59. When do you plan to upload your pages? 60. Do you know what a URL is? (sorry, but I cannot tell what I can assume with you and what I cannot) 61. What are you going to offer on your creationism page? 62. >I have taught at USC, UCLA, Cal State LA, San Diego State, UC Santa Barbara and many community colleges.< OK. But what courses? In what departments? With what credentials? I know that to teach at junior and community colleges, you need at least a master's degree in the subject that you will be teaching. What are your degrees and what are they in? How is your having taught at these colleges relevant to the creation/evolution issue? 63. >I openly beleive in the Garden of Eden account.< Does that mean that you believe that your god directly created the first of all kinds of life: plant and animal, marine and terrestrial? On what basis do you believe that? The Bible? No, seriously. Do you believe that your god directly created the first of all kinds of life and what do you base that belief on? Yes or no? I really do expect an answer. 64. Where did you see anything getting "push[ed]" in that article [about the conference]? For that matter, that article seemed to be rather critical of the conference, so how could the article have been "pushing" the hypotheses coming out of the conference? 65. You grunted "Yes" to which question? ######################################################### Subj: Re: Thanks for Offer Date: 98-06-26 23:47:15 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 12.6 % no way! I answered 100% you just did not lke my answers! ########################################### Subj: Bill's "100%" Date: 98-07-09 02:01:54 EDT From: DWise1 To: liber8r@mcs.com CC: BillyJack6, DWise1 >From the list of unanswered questions, BillyJack has a lot of explaining to do.< Well, Liber8r, here's Bill's "explanation": ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Thanks for Offer Date: 98-06-26 23:47:15 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 12.6 % no way! I answered 100% you just did not lke my answers! ### END ### If he's able to show such disregard for the facts when they're right before him in print, just think of the liberties he would feel free to take in the spoken medium, which allows him to play even faster and looser with the truth. The written word makes it a lot harder to confuse everyone or to hide rhetorical trickery and just plain false claims, like his "100%" claim above. No wonder he tries to avoid the written word whenever possible. He's a fine witness for Christianity. Makes a fellow really glad not to be a Christian. I, for one, have to shave in the morning. ########################################### Subj: Show Me Your 100% Date: 98-07-09 02:04:48 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: liber8r@mcs.com, DWise1 ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Thanks for Offer Date: 98-06-26 23:47:15 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 12.6 % no way! I answered 100% you just did not lke my answers! ### END ### "100%"??? Well, since you claim to have answered 100% of my questions (ie, every single one of them), let's look at a few of the questions from the list in QUESTI~1.TXT (it was QUESTIONS.TXT, but 16-bit AOL 3.0 cannot handle long names) and you can tell me when and how you had answered them. Oh, and please keep in mind that I have asked several of these questions repeatedly and have never received an answer. 1. Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why? When and how did you answer this one? 2. Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning? When and how did you answer this one? 3. What would happen if you found irrefutable proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years? What effect would that have on you? How would it affect your faith? Should it? Why? When and how did you answer this one? 4. One thing I did ask for was some of the raw data from Entrez that you had used in your newsletter. What is the word on that request? When and how did you answer this one? 5. Do you have a lesson to present? Then please, go right ahead and present it. Nothing is stopping you, nor has anything ever been stopping you. When and how did you answer this one? 6. I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant. When and how did you answer this one? 7. How, then, can you honestly ever expect to use creation science to convert me or anybody else possessing knowledge of creation science? The only way would be for us to abandon our higher moral and ethical standards of truth and honesty. Why would I ever want to lower my standards so drastically? When and how did you answer this one? 8. What is your definition here of "uniformitarian"? When and how did you answer this one? 9. Do you have other definitions of this term that you use? (eg, are there differences in how you used the term here and in how science uses the term) When and how did you answer this one? 10. Who would use uniformitarian arguments? (obviously, from this example, we know that creationists do) When and how did you answer this one? 11. What are the alternatives to uniformitarian arguments? When and how did you answer this one? 15. Since you know that your claim to have been an atheist is false, why do you continue to make that claim? When and how did you answer this one? 16. Bill, since when did the Truth need to be upheld by lies? When and how did you answer this one? 17. Please tell me the reasons I gave you why I cannot and prefer not to do an on-stage type of "debate" and why I consider an on-line debate to be very much preferable. When and how did you answer this one? 1. "As an atheist I no longer had to abide by any rules but my own." Did you really believe that? Seriously? When and how did you answer this one? 19. Consider the statement: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Does that statement accurately reflect your own beliefs? When and how did you answer this one? 26. Given the virtual impossibility for me to call you, just exactly how am I supposed to call you? What workable plan can you present? When and how did you answer this one? 28. Were you working at Ford Aerospace, DIVAD Division, circa 1983-1985? When and how did you answer this one? 31. Tell me, Bill. Who among us here, entre nous trois, comes the closest to believing in the abrupt appearance of fully formed, complex living organisms who lack any progenitors (ie, parents)? In all honesty, who among us three comes the closest to believing in spontaneous generation? When and how did you answer this one? 36. [CFCs and Bill's newsletter article] OK, Bill, now that you know the rest of the story, what will you do about it? Will your readers ever hear about this from you? Will you continue to tell your story of how nobody could answer your questions? When and how did you answer this one? 39. You said, "lets have a PUBLIC debate" (emphasis mine). What could you possibly feel freer to say that you have steadfastly refused to say in our email exchanges? If anything, saying something out in public should make one feel more restricted, rather than freer. When and how did you answer this one? 42. Besides, your protein formation argument still uses the wrong probability model. Rather than using an evolutionary model (which is what you were trying to disprove/discredit), you used a creation ex nihilo model. I already told you about that. You know better. Why haven't you corrected it yet? When and how did you answer this one? 46. If you believe that you are solely responsible to [your god], what do you think your reward will be for casting your web of lies to snare souls? When and how did you answer this one? 48. >Several years ago a co-worker was excited to inform me his son was accepted to Wheaton College. ... All I have to say is I knew this young man before he went to Wheaton and after he graduated from Wheaton and his faith may not be ruined, but it sure is not where it used to be. Maybe it was a result of some of his instructors, maybe not, but there was a big change never the less. He now strongly argues that it is ridiculous to believe Genesis is literal. No longer do I hear any exciting spiritual news originating from his life.< Have you discussed this with him? What reasons does he give for arguing that "it is ridiculous to believe Genesis is literal"? Have you listened to those reasons and checked them out? Have you asked him what experience(s) had led him to his current position AND LISTENED to him? What "exciting spiritual news originating from his life" did you hear before college and what "spiritual news originating from his life" have you heard after college? Is your current low opinion of his current spiritual life colored solely by it not being based on young-earth creationism? What was his major and what (is he doing)/(has he done) with it? When and how did you answer this one? 49. Doesn't your theology give lip service to the inherent depravity of man and of his efforts? How then can you worship as infallible a human's interpretation? When and how did you answer this one? 52. While you're at it, please explain how you conduct a debate, what you intend to accomplish in a debate (ie, your goals), and how the manner you conduct a debate supports your goals. When and how did you answer this one? 53. Bill, as I understand it, your theology calls for you to believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Could you please share with us how you are taught to deal with the problems of translation and of different versions of the same verses, etc? What writings, precisely, are you to believe to be literally true? When and how did you answer this one? 55. So, even though you know that there is a serious problem with creation science claims being contrary to fact and that this problem is so great that it has actually caused DEVOUT creationists, even ones far more devout than you are, to have severe crises of faith, you have gone to NINE HIGH SCHOOLS and presented these claims that you know to be false and that you know can cause those kids to LOSE THEIR FAITH!? When and how did you answer this one? When you answer in monosyllables, could you please repeat part of my question so that we can tell what you are grunting "yes" or "no" to? If you need to be told what the Clipboard is and how to use it, PLEASE ASK! When and how did you answer this one? 57. Are you using straight HTML or a developer's kit? When and how did you answer this one? 58. Are there parts of the process or about HTML that I might be able to help you with? When and how did you answer this one? 59. When do you plan to upload your pages? When and how did you answer this one? 60. Do you know what a URL is? (sorry, but I cannot tell what I can assume with you and what I cannot) When and how did you answer this one? 61. What are you going to offer on your creationism page? When and how did you answer this one? 62. >I have taught at USC, UCLA, Cal State LA, San Diego State, UC Santa Barbara and many community colleges.< OK. But what courses? In what departments? With what credentials? I know that to teach at junior and community colleges, you need at least a master's degree in the subject that you will be teaching. What are your degrees and what are they in? How is your having taught at these colleges relevant to the creation/evolution issue? When and how did you answer this one? 63. >I openly beleive in the Garden of Eden account.< Does that mean that you believe that your god directly created the first of all kinds of life: plant and animal, marine and terrestrial? On what basis do you believe that? The Bible? No, seriously. Do you believe that your god directly created the first of all kinds of life and what do you base that belief on? Yes or no? I really do expect an answer. When and how did you answer this one? 64. Where did you see anything getting "push[ed]" in that article [about the conference]? For that matter, that article seemed to be rather critical of the conference, so how could the article have been "pushing" the hypotheses coming out of the conference? When and how did you answer this one? 65. You grunted "Yes" to which question? When and how did you answer this one? Too? Who else that we know of believes in Lamarckian evolution's "Ladder of Life"? When and how did you answer this one? Bill, what does your high school presentation consist of? Tell us PRECISELY what you tell those kids. Then tell us PRECISELY why you refuse to review the facts. Or don't you think that you have any responsibility to those kids? When and how did you answer this one? I did not have to retype your message. I used the Clipboard. If you do not know what the Clipboard is and/or how to use it, then just ask. It will truly make life easier. Again, if you do not know what the Clipboard is or how to use it, then ASK. Since your computer is a PC running Windows, I know that the Clipboard is available for your use; it has been available since Windows v1.0. The only question remaining is whether you know that. When and how did you answer this one? What "evidence" do you intend to show the audience? When and how did you answer this one? Who, then, is avoiding whose questions, Bill? I think that the evidence speaks rather eloquently. ###########################################Although I tried to goad him into answering for (ie, take responsibility for) his false claims by repeatedly addressing him as "Mr. 100%" and requesting that he try to support that claim, Bill completely ignored my requests, as usual. Then Bill closed his AOL account around September 1998 and effectively disappeared from cyber-space.
Or rather, he seemed to have slipped into a stealth mode. Within a couple months, I found a website, "Welcome to Creation vs. Evolution" (no longer in existence), that featured Bill's writings, but always refered to him in the third person and never stated who owned it. That site went through a progression of email addresses for Bill, though he never responded to any email I sent to those addresses, at least not when I used my DWise1 account. It was a full year since his disappearance before he started publishing his new email address, BillyJack1@hotmail.com in his newsletter and a full two years since his disappearance before he started publishing the URL of that website, which finally did turn out to be his. That website is no longer; his website is now www.fishdontwalk.com, which is currently down for remodelling.
Share and enjoy!
Return to Top of Page
Return to DWise1's "Bill Morgan" Page
Return to DWise1's "Creation/Evolution" Page
First uploaded on 2000 July 02.
Updated on 2015 October 21.