BILL MORGAN, "Mr. 100%"
by DWise1


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  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.

Contact me.