BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION ABOUT POLYSTRATE FOSSILS
by DWise1

The Question:

"Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000 17:29:13 EDT)

This is a stranger question that is sadly so typical of how Bill operates. First, it almost appears that he was using it as yet another "rabbit trail" trick, though with quite a bit of effort, you could possibly make a connection between the question and our then-current discussion of Kent Hovind, who uses polystrate claims.

However, when I asked Bill for an example, he immediately back-pedalled, accepting responsibility for producing an example while effectively disavowing knowledge of any example and trying to change the subject by bragging how he has repeatedly exposed false creationist claims.

But then six weeks later came the real corker: Bill had the audacity of accusing me of never having answered his request for an example of a polystrate fossil, despite the fact that he had freely and voluntarily accepted that responsibility. Besides which I had presented him with an example!

Bill's accusation was a complete and utter falsehood that flies directly in the face of all the facts, with which I made sure to immediately re-acquaint Bill. I immediately informed Bill of the facts and outlined in detail what had actually been said, when, and by whom. Bill's response was his typical act of dropping the subject completely.

Summary:

For brevity and clarity sake, I present this as a summarized timeline. You go below and examine the full text at any time:

1. 2000 Sep 22 -- Bill Morgan announces a Kent Hovind presentation in the area.

2. 2000 Oct 05 -- I respond with what I know about Kent Hovind, including what a Christian friend and a former YEC-addict, Ed, told me about how watching a Kent Hovind debate tape had shaken his faith and led to curing his YEC addiction (the full story is at his page, http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ixthus/a7.html. Part of what I quoted from his page was: "Scientists have answers for each point raised, e.g. shrinking sun, polystrate fossils etc., ..."

3. 2000 Oct 27 -- Bill Morgan responds with this question: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?"

4. 2000 Nov 16 -- I respond by requesting a specific example of a polystrate fossil:

   "It would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and why what kind of a problem you think that it presents to science. Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that describes that fossil. I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose."

   I explained that I found polystrate fossil claims to be "one of the worst documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered" and that "[f]or a long time I could not find a single scientific reference anywhere -- lots of claims of polystrate fossils, but no references." No references, no way to discover the truth about the claims.

   Then I actually gave Bill an example. I described one of the few references I could find, which was given to me by Paul Ekdahl, a creationist on CompuServe, and what I had found when I checked it out:

   1. Ekdahl's creationist source was Steven Austin.
   2. Austin had misrepresented his scientific source and had made several statements that were directly contradicted by the scientific source.
   3. Austin was proceeding from false premises about geology:

      i. That modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of sediment at a uniform rate.

      False! Austin misrepresented the uniformitarian view. "Uniformitarianism" does not require uniform rates. Rather, it is the view that the same processes at work in the present were also at work in the past, which includes processes working at more-or-less uniform rates, but does not restrict itself only to them. Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides occur and that they had occured in the past.

      ii. That modern geology cannot account for rapid depositation.

      Utterly false! Even 19th century geologists could account for rapid depositation and knew how to spot it! As a matter of fact, Austin's own scientific source had described how geologists distinguish between rapid and slow depositation!

      iii. Austin had falsely concluded that any signs of rapid burial disproves uniformitarianism.

      Deceptively false! Again, this was based on his misrepresentation of uniformarianism. Since rapid burial is known to occur in the present, the fact that it had also occured in the past only serves to confirm uniformitarianism, not disprove it.

   4. The creationist source had falsely concluded that any signs of rapid burial is direct evidence of Noah's Flood. Signs of rapid burial is direct evidence of flooding, but offers no evidence that that flooding was part of a single, world-wide flood. Furthermore, signs of repeated instances of rapid burial interspersed by slow depositation, which is what we do find, is direct evidence against a single, world-wide flood.

5. 2000 Nov 16 to 2000 Dec 05 -- As usual, Bill Morgan did not respond to my request. However, it appears that another message thread, which reminded everybody of Bill's very solid "F" grade for answering questions, had prompted him to appear to act a bit more honestly.

6. 2000 Oct 10 -- Bill Morgan and his cohort/shill/sock-puppet Bill Bequette had been mocking me incessantly for not responding immediately with an answer to Bill Morgan's standard "rabbit trail" demand that I explain the origin of life: Bill Morgan to Bill Bequette: "Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry. trust me!"

   Actually, I was very busy at the moment and did not have the time to write a response right then. Also, the two Bills were posting the demands and taunts too rapidly for them to have expected a response. Then when I realized that I had already answered that question twice before and I informed them of that fact and told them where my answer was posted (which I had to do twice, because they completely ignored me the first time), they both immediate shut up about the entire question and refused to respond to my follow-up questions on the matter. Typical!

7. 2000 Nov 22 -- I respond to the Oct 10 mocking taunt (hey, I said that I was very busy at the time)by pointing out Bill Morgan's own abysmal record of answering questions (12.6% in 1996, much worse now) and comparing it to my own record (92% in 1996 and holding steady). This is detailed on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'". This time, I described the results in terms of school grades: I would be holding a decent A whereas Bill has a very solid F which is continuing to plummet.

   Then I reviewed the questions to demonstrate how unreasonable Bill's questions have been (yet I did answer them) compared to how reasonable my questions to Bill have been (yet he repeatedly dodged them).

   I included my questions to Bill about polystrate fossils, to which he had not yet responded.

8. 2000 Nov 16 -- I ask Bill Morgan about the importance of truth to him, since his actions indicate a hatred for truth:

   What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry?
   DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth?
   WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its advancement?
   These questions are central to the issue.

9. 2000 Nov 30 -- I respond to Mark's question about what I had meant by my question to Bill Morgan about the truth and I point out to him that Bill had not answered those questions (he finally did partially at a later date). I also point out that Bill hadn't yet responded to the polystrate fossil question:

   "Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my request for a specific example of one? Yet he is making a big show about my not having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have already answered -- twice)."

10. 2000 Dec 05 -- Bill finally responds. Although he was explicitly responding to my email of 16 Nov in which I requested a specific example of a polystrate fossil and in which I presented one such example, I believe that he was really prompted to respond by those last two messages.

    Bill's response:

    "Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim they exist! If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist."

    Please note that Bill explicitly volunteers to accept responsibility for finding a specific example! This will be an extremely important fact to remember 50 days from this point.

    BTW, as of January 2002, Bill Morgan has never provided that example.

11. 2000 Dec 07 -- While waiting in vain for Bill Morgan to produce that specific example, I followed through on another request from Bill (notice how I try to keep my promises as opposed to Bill always breaking his) and provided him with the list of falsehoods that fundamentalist Christian Carl Drews found in an "Answers in Genesis" video lecture series.

    Among them was a reference to polystrate fossils, in which creationist Gary Parker states "Evolutionists are mystified by these things," and "No one has proposed a way that they can form slowly." Carl Drews points out that geologists have understand and been able to explain "these things" since 1868 (eighteen eixty-eight). Visit Carl's references page for more information on this and other claims.

12. 2000 Dec 11 -- I respond to Bill Morgan's message of 5 Dec 2000 9:42:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, making some comments and asking him several questions about his strange reply:
    1. The whole thing looked too much like he was trying to pull a weasel maneuver, albeit more subtly executed than usual.

    2. Bill's launching into that last sentence in which he says he would correct other creationists making "phoney" claims appears to be an attempt to divert our attention away from the question of the polystrate claim. In other words, it looks like he's starting another "rabbit trail" there. Besides, I have never observed Bill to correct any bogus creationist claims, whereas I have observed him using bogus claims freely, even after they have been shown to him to be bogus.

    3. Why was Bill suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil claims are false? He had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" Now it looks like he is trying to distance himself from the polystrate fossil claim by saying "if I am making the claim they exist".

    4. Well, is Bill making the claim that they exist or wasn't he?
       • If he is making that claim, then he must simply say so.
       • If he is not making that claim, then why did he ask me that question in the first place?
       • If he doesn't know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did he ask me for an explanation for them?
       • "Were you just bluffing? Bill M, you know that I do not bluff. You should also know that I am in these discussions for the information, so a bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect all hands to be shown so that all information can be shared. That is, after all, one of the marks of an open and examining mind."

    5. Or did I short-circuit his example with my own example of a claim I had researched? Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresentedgeology?

    6. If Bill Morgan does not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil, then he needs to make a simple and direct statement to that effect.

    7. If Bill Morgan does have a specific example of a polystrate fossil, then he needs to make a simple and direct statement to that effect and present that example. If he needs more time to dig for the references and will need to get back with us on it later, then he needs to make a simple and direct statement to that effect, tell us what little he does know, being sure to point out what he is doubtful about, and be sure to follow through with his promise to get back with us on it. That would include prompt and honest responses to our subsequent inquiries about that example.

    8. In any case, he also needs to tell us why he thinks that geology is unable to explain polystrate fossils.

    9. Obviously, he believes that polystrate fossils present problems for geologists. Exactly what problems does he believe that they present?

    10. What assumptions is he making in identifying them as problems?

    11. Those questions can still be answered whether polystrate fossils are "phoney" or not. They must still be answered and discussed, because they relate directly to the claims in question, which are still being used by Kent Hovind and many other creationists, whether they are true or not.

    12. Bill asked his question in his reply concerning Kent Hovind, so I would assume that he was thinking of Hovind's claims concerning polystrate fossils. I do know that Kent Hovind uses such claims, including the one about the Lompoc whale fossil. What is he trying to say with those claims and what assumptions is he making?

    13. We have already seen that Steven Austin and Gary Parker made false claims and false assumptions about geology. What claims and assumptions is Kent Hovind making?

    14. And what assumptions were Bill Morgan making and what claims were he planning on making when he had asked me that question?

    I concluded with:

    "As you should know by now, Bill Morgan, I do expect answers. Here's your chance to start pulling your grade up from that rock-solid F you've been maintaining for the past four years."

13. 2000 Dec 11 to 2001 Jan 26 -- Yet again, no response from Bill. Only to have him break the silence with a false accusation.

14. 2001 Jan 26 -- Bill Morgan makes his latest false accusation:

    "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest."

    This email was a reply to a 30-Nov email that Mark had sent to me and CC:'d to Bill in response to my email of the same day (#9 above) in which I pointed out that Bill Morgan "repeatedly dodge[s] simple direct questions and distort[s] what others have said, but I have also observed that that is common behavior among most creationists." I also pointed out in that email that Bill had not yet responded to my request for a specific example of a polystrate fossil.

    Mark's response had been: "Why am I not surprised?"

15. 2001 Jan 26 -- I lay down the law to Bill:
    1. I inform him that his statement, "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest", is totally false.
    2. I condemn him for trying yet another "rabbit trail." Yet again I call upon him to show the actual text written by me upon which he based his accusations against me.
    3. I inform him that I am adding his newest accusation, "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest" to the growing list of his false accusations against me. I indicate that I intend to use it to demonstrate that in the case of the accusations that we ARE able to trace back to their source we find in each and every case that the accusation has no basis in fact and that it actually twists and distorts grossly what had actually happened. From that, I intend to show that the most probable outcome of the investigation of his other accusations which he refuses to substantiate will be that they too will prove to be without basis and contrary-to-fact.
    4. I remind Bill that we are supposed to be trying to make that list of accusations smaller, not increasingly larger. I request that he stop dreaming up new false accusations and start working WITH us to get the old ones resolved.
    5. I inform him that, because he persists in his obstruction of the resolution process, I find that I must abandon my attempts to keep this process just between us and must take it to the public. I informed him where I was posting the pages regarding his false accusations and his obstruction of the resolution process (starting at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/morgan/j_accuse.html.
    6. Yet again, I must take him to task for his recurring lies about our respective records for answering questions; the last time I described them in terms of school grades wherein I have a good A and Bill's solid F is about to hit rock-bottom. Yet again, the whole story, including lists of the questions and the counts/calculations are on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'".
    7. I run Bill through the entire time-line, which served as the starting-point of this time-line summary you are reading now. Only in this one, I also posted the pertinent text from all the messages involved so that Bill could see exactly what was said, when, and by whom.
    8. I conclude:

       And now that we have examined the facts, we all know the true story. We also all know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Bill Morgan's latest accusation -- "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my requqest." -- is completely and utterly false.

    9. I state that this concludes the first and second phases of the resolution process for this accusation and I describe the next phases:
       1. Bill Morgan is required to acknowledge the facts and/or bring other facts to our attention that support his accusation. His failure to do either will be construed as his admission that his accusation is indeed false.
       2. The final phase of the resolution process will require us to ALL consider the matter to be closed. For Bill Morgan in this case (since the accusation has been shown to be blatantly and completely false), this will mean that he must state explicitly and FOR THE RECORD that he realizes that the accusation is false, that he retracts the accusation, that he apologizes for having made the accusation in the first place, and that he will never again believe that accusation to be true. Bill Morgan's past actions has made that last part necessary, in that he continued to make a false accusation even after he had already apologized for having made it in the first place; i.e., even his apologies are lies.
       3. I inform Bill Morgan that it is now his turn to implement the next phase of the resolution process for his latest false accusation.

16. 2001 Jan 29 -- Bill Morgan states his intention to delete all future emails from me:

    Dave, I am going to delete every e mail you send me from now on.

    It will save both of us a lot of time.

    I told you many times I do not save my old emails, unfortunately this never got through to you comprehending that. I take full blame. I apologize.

    I wish you the best.

    Please note:

    • It is far more the matter of Bill's false accusations against me, my dogged efforts to get that matter resolved, and Bill's doggedly efforts to block their resolution that Bill is trying to escape, rather than just the matter of having been caught in a lie about the polystrate fossil claim. Though I have caught Bill in several lies.
    • The false claim about "I do not save my old emails". Although I have repeated asked him, Bill has refused to explain what he means by that statement. As per his explicit request, I made the entire transcript of our correspondence available to him. And I have informed him over eight times where I had posted that entire transcript (more like "over fifteen times", since the eighth time I had to include a listing of the previous seven notifications in order to demonstrate to him that I had given him more than ample notification). You can find it at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html, as can Bill Morgan any time he chooses. So it looks to me like Bill is trying desperately to ignore the facts here so that he can duck responsibility.
    • The lie: "I take full blame. I apologize." Sorry, but he has made blanket apologies before and he lied in the process. That apology is not sincere and I am sure that he does not feel that he is to blame. All that he is trying to do here is to get away with the wrong that he has done.

    Please note that this is the last message that Bill Morgan has posted regarding polystrate fossil claims.

17. 2001 Jan 29 -- I respond to his "farewell" by:
    1. Trying to get him to say what he means by "I do not save my old emails", but without success.
    2. Informing him that the matter has not concluded and that we still need to resolve it.
    3. Questioning his "taking full blame and apologizing" and pointing out that we still need to get this matter resolved. In the process, I point out that his apologies are meaningless:

       "You wouldn't even admit to yourself the terrible things that you have done, so how can you meaningfully accept the blame and apologize? We have already seen what your apologies mean in the case of your "PE slander" accusation: you mumbled an apology and then continued to accuse me."

    4. Trying to talk him into allowing us to resolve the matter:

       "Bill M, you are just trying to run away from your responsibility again. I am trying to get this matter resolved, so please work with me on it. That is what I have been trying to get you to do since August! All you've been doing has been to block that process with your tricks and games. So please stop playing your tricks and games and work with me. I really would like to be able to report something positive about you, but first you have to show me something positive."

18. 2001 Feb 10 -- I send a follow-up email trying to get answers to my questions about Bill's polystrate fossil question and to try to get our problems resolved.

19. 2001 Apr 19 -- Yet another follow-up on the polystrate fossil issue and a repeating of my questions on that matter which had not yet been answered (ie, all of them).

20. 2001 Apr 19 -- I had found some of the information from that earlier example that Paul Ekdahl had given me of Steven Austin's polystrate fossil claim. So I put it together and shared it with Bill.

In the following text, I am "DWise1" and Bill Morgan is "BillyJack1." Liber8r was a third-party witness to our correspondence, AKA "spambuster", AKA "Mark".

#########################################################

Subj:	 Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
Date:	22-Sep-00 20:06:44 Pacific Daylight Time
From:	billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)

Sorry for the late notice but I recently just found out!

Dr. Kent Hovind, the most entertaining and yet informative Creation Speaker 
will be at Calvary Chapel Golden Springs Sunday and Monday.

He will speak:
Sunday at 7:30;    9:30;      11:30 and   6 PM.
Monday 7 PM.

The church address is 22324 Golden Springs Drive, their number is 909 
396-1884, their web site is ww.calvarygs.org.

Kent Hovind's awesome web site is www.drdino.com.

Call me if you have any questions (714) 898-8331
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.

----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <billyjack321@hotmail.com>
Received: from  rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33])
by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.3) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:06:44
-0400
Received: from  hotmail.com (f23.law6.hotmail.com [216.32.241.23]) by
rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:06:35 -0400
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:06:32 -0700
Received: from 152.163.188.9 by lw6fd.law6.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;	Sat, 23
Sep 2000 03:06:31 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [152.163.188.9]
From: "Bill Morgan" <billyjack321@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:06:31 PDT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F23zcbLDiKBsuZ2K4xD00001117@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Sep 2000 03:06:32.0757 (UTC)
FILETIME=[46B5EE50:01C0250B]


################################################

Subj:	Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
Date:	05-Oct-00 17:31:45 Pacific Daylight Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack321@hotmail.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net
CC:	DWise1

Yes, I am familiar with Kent Hovind.  Many Christians and creationists
consider his scientific competence to be questionable.  One creationist
associated with a major creationist organization told me off the record that
they are very concerned about Hovind's claims and the detrimental effects
that they can have on 

Another Christian friend used to be a certifiable YEC addict until he watched
a Kent Hovind video.  In his own words:

"One day, being psyched-up for a new fix, I popped in a video I had received
from a young man at Church. The tape was a series of debates (about eight),
between a famous "young earther" and various evolutionists. After viewing
them, I found my jaw on the floor. I truly expected these evolutionists to
roll over and die after being presented with this battering of "facts" - they
didn't! I was truely numbed and frankly, pretty upset with the manners of
this "young earther." I had to come to some serious conclusions that day.

-- Scientists have answers for each point raised, e.g. shrinking sun,
polystrate fossils etc., they were NOT surprised at all!

-- Creation Science is not science. I watched as this creationist fellow was
repeatedly being cornered, relying on miracle after miracle to answer their
questions. Yes, God can and does perform miracles, but these were miracles
that were not even in the Bible - that's not science!

-- I have been a hypocrite! My favorite reasoning with skeptics is to
challenge them to examine both sides of an issue before reaching their
conclusions.  "How can we dialogue fairly if we only have one point of view?"
I would ask.  But I have NEVER given an evolutionist nor an old earth
creationist the opportunity to present their case!

I talked to my pastor (a young-earther), about my new discoveries. He warned
me as so many other "creationists" have, that to continue on this path was
dangerous and would only lead to me falling away from the faith.  ...  Since
then, I have corresponded with several Christians who have traveled the same
path as I have. One thing that is always agreed upon is the damage
young-earth creationism can do to souls; how many believers they have seen
fall away. We have been taught that the Bible demands a young earth
interpretation and when the facts of nature become inescapable - our faith
becomes shattered! My pastor was wrong, the opposite was the case. If "R" had
been offered the truth from the beginning, he would never have experienced
the turmoil he went through. When "R" could no longer deny that the universe
was billions of years old, the only option left for him was to deny the
Bible.  How many others have been disheartened in like manner?"


I have also visited Hovind's site, where he claims to have researched his
material thoroughly.  However, it is obvious that that is not true.  In
particular in his article that the universe is not billions of years old, I
observed that ALL of his cited sources were by other creationists and that he
had not tried to verify THEIR sources (we should talk some time about how
creationist claims circulate among creationists and are accepted
uncritically, judged only by how convincing they sound).  I know that,
because he uses Ackermann's "It's a Young Earth After All" as a source for
his moon dust argument.  In turn, Ackermann had relied almost entirely on a
reference to a "1976" NASA document "written well into the space age."  I've
read that "1976" NASA document.  It was "Meteor Orbits and Dust", a 1967
printing of papers presented at a 1965 conference.  The actual claim that
Ackermann uses was written by Harold Slusher, who misrepresented the date of
the document and took values out of it to plug into a formula
 of his own making.  That formula inflated its results by a factor of 10,000
by incorporating extra factors that the document and the rules of math
clearly say would not apply.  You can read about it on my Moon Dust page,
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html .  If Hovind had actually
done his research as he should have, back to the primary source, then he
would have known that he was basing his moon dust claim on a hoax.

He also fell for the Oņate Man hoax.  In Philadelphia on 7 May 1999, he told
the packed audience at Calvary Chapel about a recent fossil find that
scientists were trying to cover up:  the fossilized remains of a human in the
jaws of an allosaurus reported at www.darwindisproved.com !  That "find" was
a hoax created by members of New Mexicans for Science & Reason (NMSR).  You
can read all about it at http://www.darwindisproved.com/april_fool.html and
the original at http://www.darwindisproved.com/Archive.html  . 

Here is what Hovind has to say about it in a phone conversation with Stephen
Meyers, as related by Meyers [see http://hometown.aol.com/ibss3/hovind.html]:

"He said that someone told him that morning about www.darwindisproved.com so
he put it in his presentation, later that day he discovered it was a hoax and
removed it (I would think you would want to check out a web site before
recommending it to a large audience)."

Of course, his having removed that claim from his presentation does not help
most of the Philadelphia audience who still have not heard that it was a
hoax, so the damage has been done.  But even worse is that he had simply
accepted HEARSAY at face value, did not make even the slightest attempt to
verify it, and presented it to the public authoritatively as a solid fact  As
I had discovered on his website, HOVIND DOES NOT DO HIS HOMEWORK.  He in fact
does NOT research his claims.

The subject of Hovind's PhD always comes up.  Patriot University is now
nothing more than a diploma mill, but Hovind says that it was accredited when
he got his degree.  However, there are several glaring irregularities about
his thesis, not the least of which being that Hovind is constantly rewriting
it and a complete copy is nowhere to be found (a doctoral candidate publishes
the final form of his thesis, a copy of which is kept by the school).  The
complete story on this can be found at "The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't
Want You to Read:  A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis" by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.,
at
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm .

Bill M, I think I know why you admire Kent Hovind so much.  He also refuses
to engage in a written debate!  Read about it at
http://www.nmsr.org/HOVIND.HTM .  Bill M will especially admire how Hovind
dances about in all directions to avoid the issues.

Dr. Karen E. Bartelt also reports "On the Till-Hovind Debate" at
http://www.holysmoke.org/hovind2.htm .  This tells you something about
Hovind's presentation style -- too rapid-fire for anybody to actually think
about what he is saying.  That must be why he doesn't want to engage in a
written debate; he doesn't want his audience to be able to think about and
test his claims.  This page also includes Hovind's claim about the 11-foot
human skeleton.  I forget if he uses it here, but one of Hovind's tactics is
the "Christian Death Threat": the last thing he says is that his opponent is
going to Hell.

Which is a natural lead-in to Ed Babinski's "Cretinism or Evilution? No. 3:
Men Over Ten Feel Tall" at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.html.
Here, Babinski (a former fundamentalist and YEC) tried his best to research
Hovind and Baugh's claim of a skeleton found in an Italian mine.  What is
more disturbing than the absolute lack of any evidence for this claim, is
that none of the creationists Babinski was trying to work with had any desire
or interest in verifying their claim, even though Babinski was doing all the
work for them.  Supports my current thesis that creationists only care about
how convincing a creationist claim sounds; they really do not care whether
it's actually true.

Have you heard the Hovind claim about an ancient 90-foot plum tree that had
been found in Siberia, frozen in place and bearing fruit?  Ed Babinski
checked that one out too, as he reports in "A Frozen Ninety Foot Tall Plum
Tree with Ripe Fruit and Green Leaves Found North of the Arctic Circle?" at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part3.html .  As I read this and saw the
German explorer's name, von Toll ("toll" = "crazy"), I thought that was part
of the fabrication, but, no, that name was about the only part that was true.
Another creationist had gotten the real story from a second- or
third-generation source and fabricated the plum-tree story from it.  Hovind
got the story from that creationist (or from the n-th creationist to have
passed it on) and didn't bother to check it out.  This is yet another example
of Kent Hovind not actually doing the research that he boasts about doing
(guess that means he's lying about researching his claims).  

Here are a few more sites for more information about Hovind and his claims:

"How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List
of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims" by Dave Matson, April 21, 1994 
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/matson-vs-hovind.html 
An excellent review of Hovind's claims and critiques thereof.  Contains the
best and most thorough coverage of Slusher's moon-dust claim that I have seen
anywhere.  Hovind "critiques" Matson at his site, but if he had actually read
it then he would know that his moon-dust claim is based on a hoax [see
above].

The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind.
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html

No Answers in Genesis!
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/
This is the parent site of a number of the pages listed here and contains
several links to creationist topics, including others about Hovind.

CSE: Specific Responses to Claims Made By Kent Hovind and the Creation
Science Evangelism Web Pages
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~hjlecken/hovind.html

"Dr." Kent Hovind
http://www.geocities.com/odonate/hovind.htm

"Kent Hovind is a Kwazy Kweationist" 
http://www.skepticfriends.org/letter31.html

################################################

Subj:	 Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
Date:	27-Oct-00 13:29:13 Pacific Standard Time
From:	billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
To:	DWise1@aol.com

Excellent E mail!  I do like Kent Hovind, but some of his claims make my eye 
balls roll.  But I don't throw out the baby with the bath water.  Anyone who 
writes a glot or speaks a lot has made mistakes.  They should belly up tot 
he bar and confess these mistakes.

But here is an encouraging letter I got regarding Kent Hovind:

"thank you so much for letting us know about Ken Hovind! We bought his tape 
series. We can't thank you enough. WE appreciate all your emails and 
newsletter. We live in Corona and find it hard to make the meetings...but 
will sure try!!Lynn And Rick"

Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?

################################################

Subj:	Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
Date:	16-Nov-00 17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack321@hotmail.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
CC:	editor@liberator.net

Bill M, sorry I haven't gotten back with you sooner, but I really have been
extremely busy.  I wouldn't want you go jumping to conclusions again and
start accusing me (again falsely) of being afraid of answering your
questions.  From personal experience you should better than that.

Since time is tight, I will address your direct question first and respond to
the rest later.  

But the very first thing we need to do is to bring everybody into the loop:
----Original Message----
Subj:		Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal	
Date:		Fri, 27 Oct 2000 5:29:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time	
From:		"Bill Morgan" <billyjack321@hotmail.com>	
To:		DWise1@aol.com	

Excellent E mail!  I do like Kent Hovind, but some of his claims make my eye 
balls roll.  But I don't throw out the baby with the bath water.  Anyone who 
writes a glot or speaks a lot has made mistakes.  They should belly up tot 
he bar and confess these mistakes.


But here is an encouraging letter I got regarding Kent Hovind:


"thank you so much for letting us know about Ken Hovind! We bought his tape 
series. We can't thank you enough. WE appreciate all your emails and 
newsletter. We live in Corona and find it hard to make the meetings...but 
will sure try!!Lynn And Rick"

Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?

------------------------


>>Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?<<

I'll place my question right up front so that you won't miss it as you don't
bother to read my reply.

It would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me
what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and why what kind of a
problem you think that it presents to science.  Of course, I will also need a
reference to the science journal that describes that fossil.  I simply do not
have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose.  

Now for my reply:

Polystrate fossils had always given me a lot of trouble.  Not with explaining
them, but just in finding references on them.  That is one of the worst
documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered.  For a long
time I could not find a single scientific reference anywhere -- lots of
claims of polystrate fossils, but no references.  

Then finally Paul Ekdahl on CompuServe quoted from a creationist book about
fossil trees found fully intact with roots and branches and extending through
coal seams.  The really great thing about Paul was that he would slavishly
copy creationist passages verbatim, including even footnote numbers!  This
time he had included a reference.  I finally had a reference to a scientific
journal!  When I looked it up, I found that Paul's creationist source had
misrepresented his scientific source.  The article clearly stated that NONE
of the trees extended into the coal seams, not even their roots, and that
most of them were missing their branches.  

Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise
that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of
sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid
depositation.  Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves
uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood.  

Bullfrog!  Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides
occur and that they had occured in the past.  Even 19th century geologists
knew that!  Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a
deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually.  The referenced article even
described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial.  If the
creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... .

I have been trying to find my response to Paul Ekdahl, but with no success.
That was back in 1990.  I had uploaded it into the forum's library, but those
files have been moved around since then and I cannot find out where.  I also
have been unable to find the file at home.  When I do find it, I will share
it with you.

In the meantime, it would help me greatly in answering your question if you
were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and what
kind of a problem you think that it presents to science.  

Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that describes
that fossil.  I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild
goose.  Besides which, your response to my having answered your question
would undoubtedly be your standard immediate dropping of the subject and
ignoring all follow-up questions from me.

If I may share a little something from a fundamentalist Christian who has
contacted me for help.  He is very concerned about the total lack of concern
for truth among his fellow Christians when it comes to creation science; he
has just informed me that after a serious talk with his pastor about the
matter, he has decided to leave his church (his wife is appalled at their
now-former pastor having expressed a total lack of concern for scientific or
scholarly truth).  He counselled me earlier, though I knew it already:

"Two lessons came out of this:
1.  Creationist citations of mainstream or evolutionist sources are almost
always wrong.  You _must_ check them out!  If you can't find the original
source, the citation is worthless.
2.  Creationists have a strong tendency to misunderstand what you say.  State
your case clearly.  Always keep copies of your own correspondence and refer
to them later."

You should take note of both of his lessons, because they apply directly to
you.  

For the first lesson, consider your quotes from "Weird Science" which you
have also posted on your web site.  You've attached names to them, for the
most part, but there is no reference to the original source!  Nor is there
any date attached to them.  The reader cannot tell whether the information is
current or grossly out-of-date.  You really do need to correct that, Bill M.

And the second one is you!  Look at all the times that you have misunderstood
and twisted around what I have written.  And what have I had to do?  I have
had to show you a copy of what I had actually written so that I could correct
your misunderstanding.  

Only you would not allow that to happen to your false and slanderous
accusations against me.  Would you, Bill M?  Oh, why not?  Bill Morgan, for
the FORTIETH TIME, provide the information that we need to resolve the matter
of your slanderous personal attack against me.


Gee, Bill M, wouldn't you think that FORTY TIMES is way too many times for
somebody to have to make a simple request of a CHRISTIAN?  I mean, if a
person were dishonest and a liar, then we could understand that he would want
to do everything he possibly could to avoid having to respond to a simple
request for information that would expose his lies.  We could understand why
he would fear and hate the truth.

But a CHRISTIAN is supposed to be above that.  A CHRISTIAN is supposed to be
in the service of truth.  A CHRISTIAN is supposed to be honest.  It seems to
have something to do with some high moral standards that they keep boasting
about.  And direct responsibility to an Extremely High-Placed Entity that
they keep talking about.  You might have heard something about that at some
time or other, Bill M.

So when we observe a CHRISTIAN behaving in a dishonest manner and exhibiting
fear and hatred for the truth, then that forms a very powerful witness to us.
It witnesses that CHRISTIANS are dishonest and that they do not really serve
truth, but rather they hate and fear it.  It also witnesses to us that
CHRISTIANS' behavior is diametrically opposed to what they claim, which means
that they are hypocritical.  That is what your witness tells us, Bill M.

Are we to assume that that is your intended witness, Bill Morgan?

################################################

Subj:	"Origin of Life"  Question
Date:	22-Nov-00 17:22:06 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
CC:	editor@liberator.net

Bill Morgan, you wrote:

--- Begin Message ---
Subj:	 Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide
Date:	10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time
From:	billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
To:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com
CC:	editor@liberator.net

Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry.  trust me!
--- End Message ---

[Majority of Message clipped here.
It is a long message which deals only in part with the "polystrate fossil"
issue.  Here is my summary of it (reappears later on this page):

I responded to that mocking taunt by pointing out Bill M's abysmal record of
answering questions (12.6% in 1996, much worse now) and comparing it to my
own record (92% in 1996 and holding steady).  I refer you again:
"You can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr.
100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html .  You
should also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at
http://membersaol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html to see my
responses to Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my
responses, and the original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via
"rabbit trails" by asking those "unanswerable" questions."

Then I reviewed the questions to demonstrate how unreasonable Bill's questions
were (yet I did answer them) compared to how reasonable my questions to Bill
were (yet he repeatedly dodged them).  I included my questions to Bill about
polystrate fossils, which follows:]


14. "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000
17:29:13 EDT)
You have all received my response to Bill M.  Basically, I told him:
a. That I needed more information from him about the specific claim that he
had in mind, including scientific references.	
b. That I have traditionally found the polystrate claims to be one of the
worst-documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered.
c. What the results were of checking on a specific claim with references (ie,
the creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source and made
claims directly contradicted by his source).
d. That:
"Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise
that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of
sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid
depositation.  Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves
uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood.  

"Bullfrog!  Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides
occur and that they had occured in the past.  Even 19th century geologists
knew that!  Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a
deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually.  The referenced article even
described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial.  If the
creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ."

I posted my response on 16 Nov 2000.  Bill Morgan has not responded within
the six days since then and, quite frankly, given his past conduct, I do not
expect him to respond.  He doesn't want any real answers.  He just wanted to
try to stump me again and yet again found that he could not.

[Rest of the message clipped, since it is long and not germane.  For more 
information on our questions to each other and on Bill Morgan's blatantly
false claim to have answered all of mine, please read 
Bill "Mr. 100%" Morgan]

################################################

Subj:	 Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
Date:	05-Dec-00 06:42:01 Pacific Standard Time
From:	billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
To:	DWise1@aol.com

Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me 
to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim 
they exist!  If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I 
will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist.

If you would meet me face to face, you could hear of the numerous times I 
correct creation people on false claims (Darwin converting on his death 
bed...not true, the dust on the moon  something I do not use).

Regarding our meeting, I do not understand why you say I have never 
responded to "being insulted."  I think you are smart enough to remember how 
I responded.  I feel insulted that you keep bringing it up.  For the last 
time, when I invited you and your wife to dinner with my wife and I, I 
remember your response as equivalent to your wife would rather do just about 
anything else than eat with people who love Jesus.

Can I paste teh e mail?  No.  Am I 100% over the insult?  Yes.  Do I hold 
anything against you?  No.  Do I think you will bring this up when you give 
my eulogy at my funeral 50 years from now?  Yes.  Let it rest Dave, freinds 
like us have got to get on with life.

################################################

Subj:	Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
Date:	12/11/2000 17:17:46 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack321@hotmail.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
CC:	editor@liberator.net

Well, will miracles never cease?  Bill Morgan has actually responded to my
having answered his question about polystrate fossils!  Almost every other
time I had answered one of his questions, he was next seen high-tailing it
for the next county just as fast as his legs could carry him.  I didn't catch
it -- when did we receive the first report of flying pigs?

>>Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me
to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim
they exist!  If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I
will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist.<<

I'm sorry, Bill M, but that looks too much to me like yet another weasel
maneuver, albeit somewhat more subtle than you usually try to pull, so you're
improving.  I am going to have to ask some direct questions to which I fully
expect to see your answers.

Why are you suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil
claims are false?  And that last sentence in which you say you would correct
other creationists making "phoney" claims appears to be an attempt to divert
our attention away from the question of the polystrate claim.  In other
words, you're starting another "rabbit trail" there, quite a bit more subtly
than you usually do, but a "rabbit trail" nonetheless.


Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate
fossils?"  Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the
polystrate fossil claim by saying "if I am making the claim they exist".
Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you?  If you are
making that claim, then simply say so.  If you are not making that claim,
then why did you ask me that question in the first place?  If you don't know
of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you ask me for an
explanation for them?  Were you just bluffing?  Bill M, you know that I do
not bluff.  You should also know that I am in these discussions for the
information, so a bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect
all hands to be shown so that all information can be shared.  That is, after
all, one of the marks of an open and examining mind.

Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had
researched?  Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented
geology?

Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil,
then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect (actually, I
was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil).  If you do have a
specific example of one, then please make a simple and direct statement to
that effect and present it.  If you need more time to dig for the references
and will need to get back with us on it later, then please make a simple and
direct statement to that effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure
to point out what you are doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
YOUR PROMISE to get back with us on it.  That would include prompt and honest
responses to our subsequent inquiries about that example.

In any of the above cases, you would also need to tell us why you think that
geology is unable to explain them.  Obviously, you believe that polystrate
fossils present problems for geologists.  Exactly what problems do you
believe that they present?  What assumptions are you making in identifying
them as problems?  

Those questions can still be answered whether polystrate fossils are "phoney"
or not.  They must still be answered and discussed, because they relate
directly to the claims in question, which are still being used by Kent Hovind
and many other creationists, whether they are true or not.  

You asked your question in your reply concerning Kent Hovind, so I would
assume that you were thinking of Hovind's claims concerning polystrate
fossils.  I do know that Kent Hovind uses such claims, including the one
about the Lompoc whale fossil.  What is he trying to say with those claims
and what assumptions is he making?  As Carl Drews commented, Gary Parker
makes the false claim that geologists cannot explain polystrate fossils,
whereas in truth geologists have been able to explain them for well over 100
years.  In the example that Paul Ekdahl had given me, his creationist source
claimed that geology only accepts slow gradual depositing and cannot account
for rapid burial (also a common theme in several other Flood Geology claims),
whereas in truth geology readily recognizes rapid burial, has no problem
whatsoever with it, and knows what to look for, as described explicitly in
the scientific source that the creationist had used.  So what claims is Kent
Hovind making?  And what claims were you, Bill M, planning on making when 
you asked that question?

As you should know by now, Bill Morgan, I do expect answers.  Here's your
chance to start pulling your grade up from that rock-solid F you've been
maintaining for the past four years.

################################################

[NOTE: There is a 50-day gap between Bill's acceptance of responsibility
       "to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil" and his false 
       accusation that we had that responsibility: 
           "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and 
           as usual you ignored my requqest."

       That false accusation is made in the next message which follows.
       
       Please also note that his false accusation constitutes yet another 
       "rabbit trail" which tries to draw our attention away from the very
       important issue of the glaring lack of truth and truthfulness in his
       witness and the typical witnesses of most other creationists.]
       
################################################

Subj:	 Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net
Date:	01/25/2001 22:40:38 Pacific Standard Time
From:	billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
To:	spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net

I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my 
requqest.


>From: "Mark" <spambuster@gigagod.com>
>To: <DWise1@aol.com>
>CC: <billyjack1@hotmail.com>, <billbeq@mediaone.net>, <DWise1@aol.com>
>Subject: Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net
>Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:26:45 -0600
>
><DWise1@aol.com>, you wrote:
>
>"Basically, what is the role of truth and truthfulness in Bill Morgan's
>theology?  Would his theology legitimize the use of lying and deceipt in
>proselytizing?
>
>The question of 'lying for the Lord' is a perennial one throughout the
>creation/evolution issue, not just in dealing with Bill Morgan.  Yes, we
>have both watched Bill M repeatedly dodge simple direct questions and
>distort what others have said, but I have also observed that that is common
>behavior among most creationists.  Though I have occasionally encountered 
>an
>honest creationist, but unfortunately they are rare."
>
>Bill Morgan should be a disappointment to those who respect religion.
>
>"Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having
>answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my 
>request
>for a specific example of one?  Yet he is making a big show about my not
>having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have
>already answered -- twice)."
>
>Bill sees this debate as strategy, instead as the pursuit of truth.  If I
>believed in the theories that Bill presents, I would be very disappointed
>with his less than ethical tactics.
>
>"So, by his word and his example, that is one Christian's answer to the
>question of the role of truth in Christianity:  it is supposed to be very
>important.  By his own example, Bill Morgan tells us that the truth is not
>important, even though he has uttered words to the contrary."
>
>Why am I not surprised?
>
>Mark
>The Liberator
>E-Mail: editor@liberator.net
>Web Site: http://liberator.net/
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

################################################

Subj:	Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net
Date:	01/26/2001 18:28:26 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com
CC:	DWise1

>>CC:   billbeq@mediaone.net <<

Bill M, please stop including Bill B in these messages.  He has indicated to
us that he never ever again wants to be included in our discussions.

Bill B, please tell Bill M to stop including you in this message traffic.
Also, please be advised that for each and every message from Bill M in which
he does include you, I must likewise include you in the response.  Otherwise,
you would get only Bill M's false and contrary-to-fact statements and never
be able to benefit from my truthful statements, as is the case here.


>>I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my
requqest.<<

Bill M, what are you talking about?  Your statement is totally false!

FIRST, damn you for trying yet another RABBIT TRAIL!  You are trying to
divert us from the business at hand, which is the resolution of the situation
created by your false and slanderous accusations.  SHAME ON YOU!

The due date for your assignment has already come and gone.  Show us the
ACTUAL TEXT written by me upon which you based your accusations against me!
Also, for your false accusation that I had slandered your professional
reputation on my web pages, present to us the ACTUAL TEXT of what is posted
there which constitutes the alleged slander.  NOW!  AND NO MORE RABBIT
TRAILS!

SECOND, I am adding your "I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and
as usual you ignored my requqest" [please save yourself embaressment later on
by noting that the misspelling is your own and not mine] to the growing list
of your false accusations against me.  I am doing so for the purpose of
demonstrating that in the case of the accusations that we ARE able to trace
back to their source we find in each and every case that the accusation has
no basis in fact and that it actually twists and distorts grossly what had
actually happened.  Therefore, the most probable outcome of the investigation
of your other accusations which you refuse to substantiate will be that they
too will prove to be without basis and contrary-to-fact.

Bill M, we are supposed to trying to make that list of accusations smaller,
not increasingly larger. Please stop dreaming up new false accusations and
start working WITH us to get the old ones resolved!

THIRD, because you are persisting in your obstruction of the resolution
process, I find that I must abandon my attempts to keep this process just
between us and must take it to the public.  Therefore, be notified that the
pages regarding your false accusations and your obstruction start at
http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html .  Two pages linked-to
through that page are http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/dennys.html
(which explains my reasons for refusing to dine with you, what conditions
would have to be met before I could even begin to consider meeting with you,
and why your repeated demands for meeting constitute "rabbit trailing" -- I
will refer you to this page every time to try that particular "rabbit trail"
trick) and http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/clipboard.html (which
repeats my Clipboard lesson to you -- I will refer you to this page every
time you try to feign ignorance of the process).

FOURTH, just what do you mean by "... and as usual you ignored my requqest"?
That is a very old lie of yours that you just keep repeating.  We have all
gone over the actual record of which of us is better at answering the other's
questions:  Bill Morgan less than 12.6% (actually much lower if you do not
factor in the high degree of leniency that was used) compared to my 92%
(graded much more strictly than Bill M was).  You need to read again my page,
"BILL MORGAN, 'Mr. 100%'" at
http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html .  That page was
written in response to the first time Bill Morgan told that lie.  The facts,
Bill M, the facts.

FIFTH, keeping in mind that your immediate task has already been given in
item FIRST (in other words, Bill M, NO RABBIT TRAILS!), we will go over the
FACTS of our correspondence concerning polystrate fossils.  You know, Bill M,
you really should pay more attention to the facts; it would lessen the
sharpness of their bite.

For brevity and clarity sake, I will present this as a timeline.  You may go
back and examine the full text at any time.  But before I do, since I fully
expect Bill M to not read any of this, here is the skinny to the skinny:

1. I quoted somebody else's story about Kent Hovind, in which that other
party mentioned polystrate fossils.

2. Bill M asked me "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?"

3. I asked BILL to please provide a specific example with references that I
could respond to directly.

4. I also told him about one polystrate fossil claim I had researched several
years ago.  In addition, in other messages I have passed on a few other
polystrate-fossil claims along with references.

5. Bill M did not respond to my request, until after I had mentioned this
lapse in another message reminding everybody of Bill's very solid "F" grade
for answering questions.

6. Bill M finally responded and he made sure to respond SPECIFICALLY to my
message.  Bill Morgan explicitly ACKNOWLEDGED MY RESPONSE thus:
"Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me
to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim
they exist!  If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I
will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist."

7. I became very suspicious about the high level of weasel-wording in that
paragraph, so I mentioned to Bill M that it looked suspiciously like he was
and I asked him a number of additional questions:

a. "Why are you suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil
claims are false?"

b. "Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate
fossils?"  Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the
polystrate fossil claim by saying "if [Bill Morgan is] making the claim they
exist".  Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you?  If
you are making that claim, then simply say so."  

c. "If you are not making that claim, then why did you ask me that question
in the first place?"  

d. "If you don't know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you
ask me for an
explanation for them?"  

e. "Were you just bluffing?  Bill M, you know that I do not bluff.  You
should also know that I am in these discussions for the information, so a
bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect all hands to be
shown so that all information can be shared.  That is, after all, one of the
marks of an open and examining mind."

f. "Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had
researched?  Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented
geology?"

g. "Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate
fossil, then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect
(actually, I was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil)."

h. "If you do have a specific example of one, then please make a simple and
direct statement to that effect and present it."

i. "If you need more time to dig for the references and will need to get back
with us on it later, then please make a simple and direct statement to that
effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure to point out what you are
doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR PROMISE to get back
with us on it.  That would include prompt and honest responses to our
subsequent inquiries about that example."

8. I explicitly told Bill M that I fully expected to see his answers to my
questions.  To date, Bill Morgan has responded to none of those questions.


So, we see that Bill Morgan's latest accusation -- 
"I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my
requqest." -- is 
completely and utterly false.

What had actually happened is that *I* had responded to BILL M by asking for
a specific example of a polystrate fossil, to which at first Bill appeared to
not want to answer.  When he did, Bill M EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED MY RESPONSE
and EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE NEEDED TO PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE, but then he
went into a little weasel-dance to get out of it.  Because I saw that
weasel-dance, *I* asked BILL M some more questions which were highly
pertinent.  Bill M has not answered those questions.

Therefore, the first part of Bill Morgan's latest accusation has been shown
to be contrary-to-fact.  Bill Morgan did not ask ME "for examples of
polystrate fossils", but rather *I* had asked HIM!  And Bill has never come
up with any of those examples, but rather tried to weasel his way out of it.
The questions still pending in this matter are all ones that Bill Morgan is
supposed to answer, not me.
 
The second part of part of Bill Morgan's latest accusation has also been
shown to be contrary-to-fact, as a visit to my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr.
100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html ,
shows.
  
Synopses and selected quotes from the messages with actual message headers
included (except for the minus sign at the beginning of the line -- makes
things nicer for perl and grep, don't you know?):
-----------------------------
-Subj:Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
-Date:	22-Sep-00 20:06:44 Pacific Daylight Time
-From:	billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
Bill Morgan announces a Kent Hovind presentation in the area (Calvary Chapel
Golden Springs).

-Subj:	Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
-Date:	05-Oct-00 17:31:45 Pacific Daylight Time
-From:	DWise1
-To:	billyjack321@hotmail.com
-CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, editor@liberator.net
-CC:	DWise1
I respond with what I know about Kent Hovind.  This includes what a Christian
friend and a former YEC-addict, Ed, told me about how watching a Kent Hovind
had shaken his faith and led to curing his YEC addiction.  The full story is
at his page, http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ixthus/a7.html , but part of what
I QUOTED from his page was (note: the "famous 'young earther'" in the quote
was Kent Hovind):
"One day, being psyched-up for a new fix, I popped in a video I had received
from a young man at Church. The tape was a series of debates (about eight),
between a famous "young earther" and various evolutionists. After viewing
them, I found my jaw on the floor. I truly expected these evolutionists to
roll over and die after being presented with this battering of "facts" - they
didn't! I was truely numbed and frankly, pretty upset with the manners of
this "young earther." I had to come to some serious conclusions that day.

-- Scientists have answers for each point raised, e.g. shrinking sun,
polystrate fossils etc., they were NOT surprised at all!
.."


-Subj:	 Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
-Date:	27-Oct-00 13:29:13 Pacific Standard Time
-From:	billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
-To:	DWise1@aol.com
Bill Morgan's response ends with this question:

"Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?"


-Subj:	Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
-Date:	16-Nov-00 17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time
-From:	DWise1
-To:	billyjack321@hotmail.com
-CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
-CC:	editor@liberator.net
Since Bill M had excluded the others, I repeated his previous message for
their benefit and addressed his polystrate fossil question first.

I prefaced my reply with:

"I'll place my question right up front so that you won't miss it as you don't
bother to read my reply.

"It would help me greatly in answering your question if you were to tell me
what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and why what kind of a
problem you think that it presents to science.  Of course, I will also need a
reference to the science journal that describes that fossil.  I simply do not
have the time to waste chasing a phantom wild goose."

Then my reply stated that I found polystrate fossil claims to be "one of the
worst documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered" and
that "[f]or a long time I could not find a single scientific reference
anywhere -- lots of claims of polystrate fossils, but no references."  No
references, no way to discover the truth about the claims.

I then described one of the few references I could find, which was given to
me by Paul Ekdahl, a creationist on CompuServe.  Going back to the "quoted"
scientific source, I found that the creationist that Ekdahl had quoted had
himself misrepresented his own source and had made several statements that
were directly contradicted by the scientific source.  I also found that both
Ekdahl and his creationist source were proceeding from false premises about
geology:
"...that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of
sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid
depositation.  Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves
uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood.  

"Bullfrog!  Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides
occur and that they had occured in the past.  Even 19th century geologists
knew that!  Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a
deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually.  The referenced article even
described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial.  If the
creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ."

I concluded the section on polystrate fossils with:
"In the meantime, it would help me greatly in answering your question if you
were to tell me what particular polystrate fossil you have in mind and what
kind of a problem you think that it presents to science.  

"Of course, I will also need a reference to the science journal that
describes that fossil.  I simply do not have the time to waste chasing a
phantom wild goose.  Besides which, your response to my having answered your
question would undoubtedly be your standard immediate dropping of the subject
and ignoring all follow-up questions from me."


-Subj:	 Re: Dr. Jessel and Mr. Hide,
-Date:	10-Oct-00 13:20:07 Pacific Daylight Time
-From:	billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
-To:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com
-CC:	editor@liberator.net
Bill Morgan wrote in reference to Bill B's repeating of his "Origin of Life"
question:
"Buddy, they are too chicken to answer your sincere inquiry.  trust me!"


-Subj:	"Origin of Life"  Question
-Date:	22-Nov-00 17:22:06 Pacific Standard Time
-From:	DWise1
-To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
-CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
-CC:	editor@liberator.net
I responded to that mocking taunt by pointing out Bill M's abysmal record of
answering questions (12.6% in 1996, much worse now) and comparing it to my
own record (92% in 1996 and holding steady).  I refer you again:
"You can (and should) read the entire story on my page, "BILL MORGAN, 'Mr.
100%'" at http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/mr_100percent.html .  You
should also read my page, "BILL MORGAN'S 'UNANSWERABLE' QUESTIONS" at
http://membersaol.com/billyjack6/morgan/bills_questions.html to see my
responses to Bill M's "unanswerable" questions, Bill M's reaction to my
responses, and the original discussions that Bill M had tried to escape via
"rabbit trails" by asking those "unanswerable" questions."

Then I review the questions to demonstrate how unreasonable Bill's questions
were (yet I did answer them) compared to how reasonable my questions to Bill
were (yet he repeatedly dodged them).  I included my questions to Bill about
polystrate fossils, which he had not yet responded to:
"14. "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (27 Oct 2000
17:29:13 EDT)
You have all received my response to Bill M.  Basically, I told him:
a. That I needed more information from him about the specific claim that he
had in mind, including scientific references.	
b. That I have traditionally found the polystrate claims to be one of the
worst-documented classes of creationist claims that I have encountered.
c. What the results were of checking on a specific claim with references (ie,
the creationist source had misrepresented his scientific source and made
claims directly contradicted by his source).
d. That:
"Now, the creationist and Paul were both proceeding from the false premise
that modern geology requires slow, strictly gradualistic accumulation of
sediment at a uniform rate and that modern geology cannot account for rapid
depositation.  Therefore, they conclude, any signs of rapid burial disproves
uniformitarianism and is direct evidence of Noah's Flood.  

"Bullfrog!  Modern geologists know full well that flooding and landslides
occur and that they had occured in the past.  Even 19th century geologists
knew that!  Geologists also know what to look for to indicate whether a
deposit had been deposited rapidly or gradually.  The referenced article even
described some of the characteristics of rapid vs gradual burial.  If the
creationist had only bothered to read his source, ... ."

I posted my response on 16 Nov 2000.  Bill Morgan has not responded within
the six days since then and, quite frankly, given his past conduct, I do not
expect him to respond.  He doesn't want any real answers.  He just wanted to
try to stump me again and yet again found that he could not."


-Subj:	 Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net
-Date:	30-Nov-00 16:24:50 Pacific Standard Time
-From:	spambuster@gigagod.com (Mark)
-To:	DWise1@aol.com
-CC:	billyjack1@hotmail.com, billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1@aol.com
This is the message to which Bill Morgan has just responded!

This is a response to my response to Mark's question of what I meant by my
question to Bill Morgan:

>>Subj:	Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberal.net
>>Date:	16-Nov-00 17:28:56 Pacific Standard Time
>>From:	DWise1
>>To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
>>CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
>>CC:	editor@liberator.net
>>
>>No, seriously, Bill Morgan.  
>>
>>What IS the role of truth in your creationist ministry?  
>>
>>DO you believe that faith in God is more important than the truth?
>>
>>WOULD you willfully lie for the sake of your religious cause and for its
advancement?
>>
>>These questions are central to the issue.

Please note that Bill Morgan has never answer these questions.

Among the things that Mark quoted me (with complete accuracy) as saying was:

"Gee, Mark, have you noticed that Bill M has not responded to my having
answered his polystrate fossil claim and that he has not answered my request
for a specific example of one?  Yet he is making a big show about my not
having answered his origin-of-life question (which, it turns out, I have
already answered -- twice)."

It appears to be this statement to which Bill Morgan has just responded with
a new false accusation.


-Subj:	 Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
-Date:	05-Dec-00 06:42:01 Pacific Standard Time
-From:	billyjack321@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
-To:	DWise1@aol.com
Bill Morgan, again neglecting to include our witnesses, ACKNOWLEDGED MY
RESPONSE thus:

"Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me
to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim
they exist!  If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I
will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist."

Please note that Bill Morgan was responding SPECIFICALLY to my message of 16
Nov 2000 20:41:58 EST (given above as "17:41:59 Pacific Standard Time"), in
which I had requested a specific example from him.  Please also note that in
this message Bill Morgan explicitly accepts responsibility for providing that
specific example.  To date, Bill Morgan has not provided that example.


-Subj:	Re: List of alleged falsehoods.
-Date:	07-Dec-00 18:32:08 Pacific Standard Time
-From:	DWise1
-To:	billyjack321@hotmail.com
-CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
-CC:	editor@liberator.net
While waiting in vain for Bill Morgan to produce that specific example, I
followed through on another request from Bill (notice how I try to keep my
promises as opposed to Bill always breaking his) and provided him with the
list of falsehoods that fundamentalist Christian Carl Drews found in an
"Answers in Genesis" video lecture series.  Among them was a reference to
polystrate fossils:
"3.  On August 20 Gary Parker spoke about polystrate fossils.  He stated that
"Evolutionists are mystified by these things," and "No one has proposed a way
that they can form slowly."

"Those statements are not correct.  Geologist John William Dawson described
polystrate tree fossils in 1868 and gave a good explanation for their
formation.  Modern geologists are comfortable with these fossils, and call
them "in situ trees." (3)  I found examples of polystrate fossils forming now
at Neskowin Beach in Oregon. (4)  Such findings are outside the popular
media, but if Gary Parker is teaching on these matters he should know about
these cases and not claim that evolutionists can't figure them out.  He gave
an example of a non-tree polystrate fossil (a nautilus), but provided no
reference for me to check."

Referenced footnotes:
(3)  Polystrate Fossils.
John William Dawson (1868) described a classic Carboniferous-age locality at
Joggins, Nova Scotia, and provided a reasonable explanation for its
formation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
Coal deposits were formed from ancient swamps, and the trees grew there.  The
trees kept growing as the level of the swamp slowly rose through accumulation
of sediment and organic matter.  The point of citing such an old reference is
to emphasize how long these fossils have been known and understood.

(4)  Ancient Buried Trees at Neskowin Beach.
A forest was submerged during an earthquake 2,000 years ago.  Now unearthed
by storm erosion.
Visible at Neskowin Beach (reported by Brian T. Meehan in The Oregonian,
March 7, 1998).
This beach is north of Cascade Head.  Also, "This winter, erosion exposed
4,000-year-old stumps at Beverly Beach State Park, north of Newport."
http://www.oregonlive.com/todaysnews/9803/st03073.html
Another news story by Lynda V. Mapes in the Seattle Times, Posted Monday, May
11, 1998:


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/health-science/html98/altstum_051198.html
Pilgrims descended on the beach by the thousands in Neskowin after news
reports described stumps "dating back to the time of Jesus."  A flyer pasted
on a motel-office door notes: "As a matter of general interest, the stumps
are visible most years."  Geologists theorize that a subduction earthquake
lowered the coastline suddenly and shoreline erosion buried the trees.  These
fossils are being formed now without the aid of a global flood.  A
catastrophic event (an earthquake) certainly helps to form fossils, but a
worldwide flood is not necessary to explain the Neskowin trees.  Tree stumps
can take thousands of years to get fully buried.
"Episodically Buried Forests in the Oregon Surf Zone", a scientific paper by
Roger Hart and Curt Peterson.
http://www.netbridge.net/~rogerhart/dogami.html

Carl Drews' references page is at
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/references.html .


-Subj:	Re: Kent Hovind speaking in Southern Cal
-Date:	12/11/2000 17:17:46 Pacific Standard Time
-From:	DWise1
-To:	billyjack321@hotmail.com
-CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, DWise1
-CC:	editor@liberator.net
I respond to Bill Morgan's message of 5 Dec 2000 9:42:01 AM Eastern Standard
Time, asking him several questions about his strange reply:

">>Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on
me to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim
they exist!  If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I
will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist.<<

"I'm sorry, Bill M, but that looks too much to me like yet another weasel
maneuver, albeit somewhat more subtle than you usually try to pull, so you're
improving.  I am going to have to ask some direct questions to which I fully
expect to see your answers.

"Why are you suddenly raising the issue of whether the polystrate fossil
claims are false?  And that last sentence in which you say you would correct
other creationists making "phoney" claims appears to be an attempt to divert
our attention away from the question of the polystrate claim.  In other
words, you're starting another "rabbit trail" there, quite a bit more subtly
than you usually do, but a "rabbit trail" nonetheless.

"Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate
fossils?"  Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the
polystrate fossil claim by saying "if I am making the claim they exist".
Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you?  If you are
making that claim, then simply say so.  If you are not making that claim,
then why did you ask me that question in the first place?  If you don't know
of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you ask me for an
explanation for them?  Were you just bluffing?  Bill M, you know that I do
not bluff.  You should also know that I am in these discussions for the
information, so a bluff has no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect
all hands to be shown so that all information can be shared.  That is, after
all, one of the marks of an open and examining mind.

"Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had
researched?  Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented
geology?

"Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil,
then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect (actually, I
was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil).  If you do have a
specific example of one, then please make a simple and direct statement to
that effect and present it.  If you need more time to dig for the references
and will need to get back with us on it later, then please make a simple and
direct statement to that effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure
to point out what you are doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
YOUR PROMISE to get back with us on it.  That would include prompt and honest
responses to our subsequent inquiries about that example.

"In any of the above cases, you would also need to tell us why you think that
geology is unable to explain them.  Obviously, you believe that polystrate
fossils present problems for geologists.  Exactly what problems do you
believe that they present?  What assumptions are you making in identifying
them as problems?  

"Those questions can still be answered whether polystrate fossils are
"phoney" or not.  They must still be answered and discussed, because they
relate directly to the claims in question, which are still being used by Kent
Hovind and many other creationists, whether they are true or not.  

"You asked your question in your reply concerning Kent Hovind, so I would
assume that you were thinking of Hovind's claims concerning polystrate
fossils.  I do know that Kent Hovind uses such claims, including the one
about the Lompoc whale fossil.  What is he trying to say with those claims
and what assumptions is he making?  As Carl Drews commented, Gary Parker
makes the false claim that geologists cannot explain polystrate fossils,
whereas in truth geologists have been able to explain them for well over 100
years.  In the example that Paul Ekdahl had given me, his creationist source
claimed that geology only accepts slow gradual depositing and cannot account
for rapid burial (also a common theme in several other Flood Geology claims),
whereas in truth geology readily recognizes rapid burial, has no problem
whatsoever with it, and knows what to look for, as described explicitly in
the scientific source that the creationist had used.  So what claims is Kent
Hovind making?  And what claims were you, Bill M, 
planning on making when you asked that question?"

I concluded with:
"As you should know by now, Bill Morgan, I do expect answers.  Here's your
chance to start pulling your grade up from that rock-solid F you've been
maintaining for the past four years."


-Subj:   Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net 
-Date:   Fri, 26 Jan 2001 1:40:38 AM Eastern Standard Time 
-From:   "Bill Morgan" <billyjack1@hotmail.com> 
-To:   spambuster@gigagod.com, DWise1@aol.com 
-CC:   billbeq@mediaone.net 
Bill Morgan makes his latest false accusation: 
"I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my
requqest."




And now that we have examined the facts, we all know the true story.  We also
all know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Bill Morgan's latest accusation --
"I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my
requqest." -- is completely and utterly false.

This concludes the first and second phases of the resolution process for this
accusation.
The next phase requires Bill Morgan to acknowledge the facts and/or bring
other facts to our attention that support his accusation.  His failure to do
either will be construed as his admission that his accusation is indeed
false.  The final phase of the resolution process will require us to ALL
consider the matter to be closed.  For Bill Morgan in this case (since the
accusation has been shown to be blatantly and completely false), this will
mean that he must state explicitly and FOR THE RECORD that he realizes that
the accusation is false, that he retracts the accusation, that he apologizes
for having made the accusation in the first place, and that he will never
again believe that accusation to be true.

Your turn to implement the next phase of the resolution process for your
latest false accusation, Bill Morgan.

################################################

Subj:	 Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net
Date:	01/29/2001 15:25:43 Pacific Standard Time
From:	billyjack1@hotmail.com (Bill Morgan)
To:	DWise1@aol.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com

Dave, I am going to delete every e mail you send me from now on.

It will save both of us a lot of time.

I told you many times I do not save my old emails, unfortunately this never 
got through to you comprehending that.  I take full blame.  I apologize.

I wish you the best.

Bill


################################################

Subj:	Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net
Date:	01/29/2001 18:12:02 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com
CC:	DWise1

>>CC:   billbeq@mediaone.net <<

Bill M, please stop including Bill B in these messages.  He has indicated to
us that he never ever again wants to be included in our discussions.

Bill B, please tell Bill M to stop including you in this message traffic.  As
I had advised you, for each and every message from Bill M in which he does
include you, I must likewise include you in the response.  Otherwise, you
would get only Bill M's false and contrary-to-fact statements and never be
able to benefit from my truthful statements


>>I told you many times I do not save my old emails, unfortunately this never
got through to you comprehending that.<<

Why do you keep saying that?  You know full well that it has absolutely
nothing to do with your ability to produce the EXACT AND ACTUAL TEXT of my
messages which you claim to be basing your accusations on.  Please explain
what you are trying to say here, because it makes no sense.

>>I take full blame.  I apologize.<<

Bill, this matter has not concluded.  You wouldn't even admit to yourself the
terrible things that you have done, so how can you meaningfully accept the
blame and apologize?  We have already seen what your apologies mean in the
case of your "PE slander" accusation:  you mumbled an apology and then
continued to accuse me.  No, we still need to get this matter resolved!

Bill M, you are just trying to run away from your responsibility again.  I am
trying to get this matter resolved, so please work with me on it.  That is
what I have been trying to get you to do since August!  All you've been doing
has been to block that process with your tricks and games.  So please stop
playing your tricks and games and work with me.  I really would like to be
able to report something positive about you, but first you have to show me
something positive.

Then after we have reached a resolution, we can discuss the fun stuff, but we
cannot before that resolution.



################################################

################################################


Subj:	Re: Billy Jack on the psychology of Liberator.net
Date:	02/10/2001 12:57:25 Pacific Standard Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
CC:	billbeq@mediaone.net, spambuster@gigagod.com
CC:	DWise1

Oh, now you're all upset and trying to run away because we caught you trying
to lie to us about who had asked whom for specific examples of "polystrate
fossils" and had to correct you and show you the facts.  How typical of you!

Bill M, running away is not the answer!  If you don't want to be caught
telling lies, then all you need to do is to stop telling lies!  It's that
simple!  

Bill M, we still need to get this matter resolved!  Why are you so determined
to prevent that resolution?  This is the FIFTY-SECOND TIME that I have had to
request a resolution!  Remember, *I* must also agree that the matter has been
resolved!  It is absolutely NOT permissible for you to absolve yourself.


Also, I am still waiting for answers to my questions to you regarding your
weasily response to my answer to your polystrate fossil question.  Do you
know of any specific "polystrate fossils" or not?  If you don't, then why did
you ask me that question in the first place?


>>I take full blame.  I apologize.<<

For what?  BE SPECIFIC!  I think that you have worked yourself into such a
state of self-denial that you don't even think that you have done anything
wrong!  If you need a reminder, go to
http://members.aol.com/billyjack6/morgan/j_accuse.html .

Also, I'm sorry, but I cannot believe you.  You have already demonstrated
that when you are lying when you apologize for something.  You apologized for
your false accusation that I had "slandered" you on my web site regarding
your professional licensing, but then you turned right around and continued
to make that accusation!  

Bill M, you are a known liar, so whenever you make an apology or confession,
we must insist that you very specifically detail what it is that you are
confessing to and what it is that you are apologizing for.  we cannot simply
accept your word on anything; you must back it up with something fairly
substantial.

Your "apology" cannot be accepted as it is.  The matter has still not been
resolved.  You have slandered me.  I demand resolution.


>>I told you many times I do not save my old emails, unfortunately this never
got through to you comprehending that.<<

Nonsense.  Complete and utter nonsense.  Why you spout nothing but nonsense
and lies?  

I have asked you repeatedly keep making that nonsensical statement.  I have
repeatedly told you that I have GIVEN YOU the COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT of our
emails SIX MONTHS AGO, at http://chiefwise.tripod.com/morgan/transcript.html
.  If you have a problem with that, then you need to tell me SPECIFICALLY
what your problem is.

And you had repeatedly used that nonsensical excuse earlier, when I was still
volunteering to do the actual search for you (ie, from August 2000 to
December 2000, a period of over four months).  And I repeatedly pointed out
to you then that you did NOT need to have the transcript before you (though I
also repeatedly told you where to find it), because what we needed to know is
what you THOUGHT that I had written, eg, what "very nasty names" do you
remember me having called you?  


Bill M, earlier I had asked you what good gaining Salvation would do you if
it caused you to lose your soul.  At the time, I was just trying to get you
to think (oh, what a hopeless task!), but now I realize that your theology
has caused you to lose your soul.  You display no sense of morality, no
ethics, no concern for the well-being of your fellow humans, no regard for
the truth.  Truly pitiful.


################################################

################################################

Subj:	Why Did You Ask Your Polystrate Question?
Date:	19-Apr-01 13:05:38 Pacific Daylight Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
CC:	editor@liberator.net, DWise1

Bill, on 25 Jan 2001 you told us this blatant lie:
"I asked you for examples of polystrate fossils and as usual you ignored my
requqest."[sic -- all misspellings are Bill's]

I corrected you on 26 Jan 2001 with a complete explanation of exactly what
had happened and who had written what to whom.  Including the solid fact that
YOU were the one whom YOU had tasked with finding that specific example of a
polystrate fossil.  Also including the manner in which you tried to quickly
weasel out with a minor "rabbit trailing":

"Thank you very much for the e amil and I agree the burden of proof is on me
to find a specific example of a polystrate fossil if I am making the claim
they exist!  If it is a phoney claim, not only won't I state they exist, I
will correct other Creation people not to claim they exist." (Bill Morgan, 05
Dec 2000)

Bill, please also note the fact that you have never made any attempt to
produce the example of a polystrate fossil.  We have already noted that you
have falsely accused me of having committed YOUR crime.  Bill, you have the
worst and most extreme tendency to project your own faults to others that I
have ever seen in anybody else.  You know, you really should not skip your
medication like that.

Also, Bill, you have not answered the simple direct questions I had asked you
about your original question:
"Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate fossils?" (Bill Morgan, 27 Oct
2000)

1. Bill M, you had asked me: "Dave, what is an explanation for polystrate
fossils?"  Now it looks like you are trying to distance yourself from the
polystrate fossil claim by saying "if [Bill Morgan is] making the claim they
exist".  Well, are you making the claim that they exist or aren't you?  If
you are making that claim, then simply say so.

2. If you are not making that claim, then why did you ask me that question in
the first place?

3. If you don't know of any examples of polystrate fossils, then why did you
ask me for an explanation for them?

4. Were you just bluffing?  Bill M, you know that I do not bluff.  You should
also know that I am in these discussions for the information, so a bluff has
no effect on me except to irritate me; I expect all hands to be shown so that
all information can be shared.  That is, after all, one of the marks of an
open and examining mind.

5. Or did I short-circuit your example with my own example of a claim I had
researched?  Or with my short exposition on how that claim misrepresented
geology?

6. Bill M, if you do not know of any specific example of a polystrate fossil,
then please make a simple and direct statement to that effect (actually, I
was expecting you to mention the Lompoc whale fossil).

7. If you do have a specific example of one, then please make a simple and
direct statement to that effect and present it.

8. If you need more time to dig for the references and will need to get back
with us on it later, then please make a simple and direct statement to that
effect, tell us what little you do know, being sure to point out what you are
doubtful about, AND BE SURE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH YOUR PROMISE to get back
with us on it.  That would include prompt and honest responses to our
subsequent inquiries about that example.

9. Just what kind of a problem are polystrate fossils suppose to cause for
modern geology?  Please be specific.  What assumptions about geology are you
making?


################################################

Subj:	A Polystrate Claim
Date:	19-Apr-01 13:06:41 Pacific Daylight Time
From:	DWise1
To:	billyjack1@hotmail.com
CC:	editor@liberator.net, DWise1

Bill and Mark:
I told you before about the one creationist polystrate fossil claim that I
was able to find that was a specific claim.  I had written it up as a library
file for CompuServe, but unfortunately I do not have a copy of it and the
CompuServe fora have been reorganized so that I cannot find it there.

However, I have found other messages which cover most of what my library file
said.  Creationist Paul Ekdahl's source was Steven Austin, whose source was a
1964 issue of American Journal of Science.  Unfortunately, that issue is
missing from the Cal-State Fullerton library, apparently being bound.  

The rest of this email consists of Ekdahl's library file and our subsequent
messages:

[73317,1727]
POLYST                    29-Mar-90 1965

    Title   : POLYSTRATES
    Keywords: POLYSTRATE
    
    A RESPONSE TO DAVID WISE ON NO.13 AND 17... OF 'THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR
    CREATION EVOLUTION HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.' list found in lib.15
    
Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !read

A response to David Wise [72747,3317]... on no.13 (Polystrate fossils)
[CATASTROPHES IN EARTH HISTORY by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.]
168. Broadhurst, F. M., 1964, Some aspects of the paleoecology of
non-marine fauas and rates of sedimentation in the Lancashire coal
measures: American Jornal of Science, vol. 262, pp.858-869.
     Not infrequently, large fossils of plants and animals are found to
penetrate several strata.  Upright fossil trees known as "kettles" or
"polystrate trees" may extend through tens of feet of strata, requiring
that the sedimentation occurred rapidly before the trees could rot and
fall over.  Broadhurst describes trees in Lancashire, England:    In 1959
Broadhurst and Magraw described a fossilized tree, in position of growth,
from the Coal Measures at Blackrod near Wigan in Lancashire.  This tree
was preserved as a cast, and the evidence available suggested that the
cast was at least 38 feet in height.  The original tree must have been
surrounded and buried by sediment which was compacted before the bulk of
the tree decomposed, so that the cavity vacated by the trunk could be
occupied by new sediment which formed the cast.  This implies a rapid rate
of sedimentation around the original tree... It is clear that trees in
position of growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller,
1956, reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen
Coal Measures), and presumably in all cases there must have been a rapid
rate of sedimentation. (p.865-866)
     Response to no.16
> And could you expound on those "few people" who "have not let outside
scientist examine their date""that ancient wood exists which will permit
this calibration to be extended"?<
     David I no longer have my master copy.. so I can not tell you. I good
place to ask would be SOR [bbs]. I saw your name on the board a couple of
weeks ago. If you post it there... someone might be able to help you.

Press <CR> !

[73317,1727]
POLYST                    29-Mar-90 1965

#: 28233 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
    29-Mar-90  21:40:08
Sb: #28067-RESPONSE TO 13 AND 17
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727 (X)

     It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in
an
upright position. It's a little startling, but the ground in that area is
subject to subsidence. I'd be surprised if some HADN'T been found in the
coal.
BTW, this isn't speculation. I'm from Lancashire.
                                      ...Keir

Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !

The Religion Forum Subjects Menu

Subject (# msgs)

#: 41060 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
    08-Jun-90  12:40:20
Sb: "Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones 71257,431

 >  #: 34212 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
 >     02-May-90  08:00:59
 > Sb: POLYSTRATES
 > Fm: Paul Ekdahl 73317,1727
 > To: KEIR JONES 71257,431 (X)
 >
 > > It's not at all unusual for trees on boggy soil to sink into the bog in
 > > an upright position.
 >      I agree situations like that do happen. But, how do you deal with
 > polystrate trees that penetrate through millions of years of strata? Do
 > remember that this is not uncommon.
 >
 > Paul

Keir:
    Earlier in his library file, POLYST, Paul had given a reference for this
claim:  Broadhurst's article from American Journal of Science (1964), "Some
Aspects of the Paleoecology of Non-marine Fauas and Rates of Sedimentation in
the Lancashire Coal Measures."  When I looked it up in the library last week,
I
found that not only does Broadhurst NOT say that fossil trees "penetrate
several strata", but he explicitly points out that of the more than fifty
trees
fossilized in position of growth in Lancashire, "[w]here trees occur in the
roof beds of a coal seam the root system is developed in the beds above the
top
of the coal; in no case has a tree been observed to pass from the roof into
the
coal itself."  He also points out considerable evidence which contradicts
Flood
Geology.

    I have just uploaded into Library 15 a file, POLYST.RSP, which includes
the
entire text of Paul's POLYST and my findings on the matter.  So far, I have
found this claim of "poly-strate fossils" to be one of the more common and
worse documented of creationist claims.

    I would like to get Paul to justify that "millions of years of strata"
line.  So many strawmen, so little time.

Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !

The Religion Forum Subjects Menu

#: 41177 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
    09-Jun-90  09:37:26
Sb: #41060-#"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X)

     That citation matches my own observations (Both grandfathers and several
uncles were Lancashire coal miners) of such trees and the rates of
sedimentation.
                                 ...Keir

There is 1 Reply.

Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !

#: 41362 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
    10-Jun-90  09:45:32
Sb: #41177-"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431

    This "polystrate fossil" claim seems to be trying to discredit modern
geology by first forcing a ridiculous view upon it (i.e. that all sediment
formed at a constant and strictly uniform rate) and then pointing out some of
the many examples of rapid sedimentation.  The creationists seems intent on
erecting an effigy (or voodoo doll) of evolution and science, which they call
their "creation model", and then pronouncing evolution dead because they have
destroyed their effigy.
    Anyway, I have informed Paul of what his reference actually says and have
again requested a reference for this claim.  Who knows, maybe a miracle will
happen and he will start trying to verify his creationists' claims before he
posts them.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !



#: 41542 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
    10-Jun-90  20:51:00
Sb: #41362-#"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431
To: David C. Wise 72747,3317 (X)

     Anyone who thinks sedimentation is uniform has a sedimented brain. One
only has to look anywhere in the world where rainfall comes in heavy storms
with sunny weather between to see that. The layers of mud in Santa Monica Bay
are a readily accessible verification of uneven sedimentation. You can even
read out the months by the type of debris.
     It's always amazed me that creationists spend so much time trying to
knock
down evolution. Sort of like trying to prove the superiority of Goodyear
tires
by knocking Firestone. Not a practical argument when the next guy rolls up
with
a Michelin.
                                ...Keir

There is 1 Reply.

Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !


#: 41671 S15/SCIENCE & RELIGION
    11-Jun-90  13:11:29
Sb: #41542-"Polystrate Trees"?
Fm: David C. Wise 72747,3317
To: Keir Jones (Trifraug) 71257,431

Keir:
    The creationists' dual goal is (1) to kill evolution and (2) to
evangelize
through creationism.  Goal #1 is most readily reached by using their
"evolution
model" to discredit or at least raise doubts about evolution and any science
that might possibly support it.  The "evolution model" is a very rich source
of
strawmen:  misconceptions and distortions of evolutionary ideas and claims
which the general public cannot readily tell from the real thing.  This is
one
big reason why they never take their "findings" to the scientific community;
scientists would see the holes in their arguments immediately.  Instead, they
target the public and public officials who are not well-schooled in science.
    The supposed dependence of modern geology on uniform and constant rates
of
sedimentations is just another of their many strawman arguments.

    Santa Monica Bay?  You live in the LA area?  I'm down here in Orange
County.

Press <CR> for next or type CHOICES !
The Religion Forum Subjects Menu

#########################################################

Bill Morgan never did respond to my reasonable questions about his "polystrate fossil" question nor, or course, did he in any way ever accept responsibility for his actions in this matter. Please bear in mind that he has repeated the standard fundamentalist false claim that people become atheists in order to avoid responsibility for their actions, yet as a professed Christian and a dedicated activist for his faith, he more actively avoids responsibility for his actions than all the atheists I have known lumped together.

Our correspondence was interrupted after 18 May 2001, but when it starts up again I will most definitely continue to ask him about his "polystrate fossil" question.

Share and enjoy!

Return to Top of Page
Return to DWise1's "Bill Morgan's 'Unanswerable' Questions" Page
Return to DWise1's "Bill Morgan" Page
Return to DWise1's "Creation/Evolution" Page

First uploaded on 2002 January 31.
Updated on 2015 October 21.

Contact me.