Bill's questions:
"Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that teh blue whale is realted to bacteria." "So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are teh ancestors to blue whales."
This is an example of how Bill Morgan operates. I try to discuss one issue with him and he tries to avoid that discussion by changing the subject completely with an "unanswerable" question: "Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that teh blue whale is realted to bacteria." Indeed, he seems so enamoured with this question that he has it printed on every newsletter like a logo.
You will note that I responded to his question, albeit briefly. You will also note that Bill did not respond to my questions, nor did he follow up on his question to me.
Then, in order to avoid discussion of Christian sites opposing creation science, he again tries to change the subject with his bacteria/blue whale question: "So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are teh ancestors to blue whales." I answered his question and took the opportunity to ask my questions yet again. Of course, Bill never responded.
Then in a later message Bill again falsely claimed that evolutionists believe that bacteria are the ancestors of blue whales, indicating that he never even read my answer. So why did he ask the question in the first place? The answer to that is quite obvious.
In the following text, I am "DWise1" and Bill Morgan is "BillyJack6." Liber8r was a third-party witness to our correspondence.
Also, Glenn Morton's links are broken.
############################# Re: Subj: Re: This Saturday's Debate Date: 97-12-14 12:15:28 EST From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1 > The debate was in my opinion disappointing. All four seemed unorganized and > skittish. [DWISE1: snipped -- extensive discussion of creation/evolution debates] > Have you ever heard my lesson? I don't know, have I? You certainly have had plenty of opportunity to present it to me. What I have found most striking about you is that you seem to do everything you can to NOT say anything. Eg, you asked me "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" (97-08-10 21:54:42 EDT) I answered your question and then reversed your question: "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" You never responded. Why not? You have certainly made your young-earth beliefs well known. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If your claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no attempt to defend them? Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein comparison claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague compliment, as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue to make them? For that matter, you have avoided answering every question put to you. Why? If you really believe that the truth, the facts, and the evidence is on your side, then why do you avoid any and all discussion of it? You might want to take a look at that report by Rob Day, "An Account of a Debate with a Creationist", at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html. Towards the end, he describes how the group organizing the debate had paniced when they discovered that he was already familiar with his creationist opponent's claims and arguments and how his opponent had avoided saying anything about creation science. He also tells of two creationists speaking at another event who quickly changed their presentation and avoided saying anything about creation science claims when they learned that two individuals familiar with the subject were in the audience. Sounds rather familiar to me, you know? Do you have a lesson to present? Then please, go right ahead and present it. Nothing is stopping you, nor has anything ever been stopping you. PS I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant. #################################### #################################### Subj: Re: This Saturday's Debate Date: 97-12-15 00:59:15 EST From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that teh blue whale is realted to bacteria. BillyJack6Re: This Saturday's Debate ##################### Subj: Re: This Saturday's Debate Date: 97-12-23 01:19:51 EST From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1 >Please give me the strongest piece of scientific evidence that teh blue whale is realted to bacteria. DNA and biochemistry for starters. So you're still playing games. The "Gish Gallop" doesn't work so well on-line, does it? But then the "Gish Gallop" is only a cheap rhetorical trick, not a technique employed by someone who seriously seeks discussion and information. I've always tried to be up-front and straight-forward with you. In return, you have been extremely evasive and have avoided all serious discussion and answering any of the questions that I have put to you: Eg, you asked me "Do you think the earth is 4.6 billion years old? Why?" (97-08-10 21:54:42 EDT) I answered your question and then reversed your question: "Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why?" You never responded. Why not? You have certainly made your young-earth beliefs well known. Eg, you claimed that "not one evolutionist has yet [found a single error in Weird Science]", yet when I found it to be full of errors in practically every single frame on every single page and responded to each of those errors, your only response was to say that I had misspelled a name. If your claims were true and defensible, then why would you make absolutely no attempt to defend them? Eg, every month you present claims, such as the recent protein comparison claims à la Denton. Yet when I informed you of the error in that claim and explained it to you, you did nothing more than to pay me a vague compliment, as if you were trying to "smile me out the door". Does that mean that you yourself realize that your claims have no basis? Then why do you continue to make them? I still have no idea what you were talking about in your 10 Oct 97 message to me: Subj: Re: Where'd ya go? Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Its not! BillyJack6 Re: Where'd ya go? What's "not"? Please, explain what you meant. Do I need to start posting a count of how many times I have asked you this question? You asked me: > Have you ever heard my lesson? Well, do you have a lesson to present? Then please, go right ahead and present it. Nothing is stopping you, nor has anything ever been stopping you. #######################################################################
There was no response from Bill, but six months later:
####################################################################### Subj: More Web Sites you can use Date: 98-04-08 22:24:17 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com I'm sorry, Bill. If I had known that you were going to list creationist web-sites in your newsletter, then I would have gotten this to you earlier so that you could include some more addresses for your readers. Perhaps you can include them next time. [DWISE1: snipped to make room. Listed material from a number of Christian sites opposing or critical of creation science.] ######################################################### Subj: Re: More Web Sites you can use Date: 98-04-12 02:16:24 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 CC: liber8r@mcs.com So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are teh ancestors to blue whales. ######################################################### Subj: Re: Re: More Web Sites you can use Date: 98-04-16 22:23:13 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.com > So give me the strongest reason why you think bacteria are teh ancestors to blue whales. I never said that I thought that, nor does evolutionary theory make that claim. Really, Bill, you need to learn what evolution is about, before you can begin to criticize it. Even though he is talking about geology, what Glenn Morton has to say in his "The Entire Geologic Column in North Dakota: The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood" [http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/geo.htm -- link broken] is very a propos: "Geology, like any science, is not immune from criticism. but Christians who criticize geology should do so only after a thorough understanding of the data, not as is usually the case before such an understanding is gained." [NOTE: Morton is speaking from bitter personal experience on that one.] Similarly, you need to gain a more thorough understanding of evolution before you can criticize it effectively; Sun Tsu was right. You have demonstrated before that you do not understand Punctuated Equilibria and now you've demonstrated that you do not understand basic Darwinian evolution, since you are confusing it with Lamarckian evolution's "Ladder of Life", the same mistake that Michael Denton made. You'll be amazed how many of your problems with evolution will be resolved once you start to learn about it. The claim would not be that bacteria are the ancestors of blue whales, but rather that they share a common ancestor or ancestors. The former implies a system in which the lower life forms have stopped evolving and in which the lower forms evolve into the higher forms and continue to do so, the "Ladder of Life." However, the latter says that both the ancestral line of whales AND the ancestral line of modern bacteria would have continued to evolve after the two lines diverged, hence, no "Ladder of Life," but rather a branching out over time as each line branches out into more lines. The "lower" life forms do not evolve into the "higher" ones, but rather all extant life forms have evolved from ancestral forms, some of which are ancestral to other extant life forms as well. Modern bacteria are different from the ancient bacteria from which they had evolved. The reasons for thinking that whales and bacteria share a common ancestor include the similarities in their biochemistry and in their proteins, hence my earlier answer of "DNA and biochemistry for starters." In this case, they are too different to point to most other similarities, with the most basic difference between them being that bacteria are procaryote whereas whale cells are eucaryote. [A comic strip I saw once: the difference between procaryotes and eucaryotes was illustrated by what happens on moving day, where the pro-carry-its use Bekins while the U-carry-its use U-Hauls.] Now, you could have just as well have asked for the evidence of common ancestry between birds and some dinosaurs, or between cats, dogs, and bears, or between apes and man. But they would not have served your purpose because there is a lot of homological, fossil, and genetic evidence for those lineages. Instead, you chose a worst-case example, the longest link you could think of for which there is no fossil evidence, plus the greatest disparity in physical size. Your tactic obviously involved presenting an "ancestor"-descendent pairing that most people would view as ridiculous. You might even have been hinting at a request for a detailed description of the lineage. Implicit in your approach is the need to draw attention away from the ancestral lines for which there is a lot of credible evidence, since your entire premise requires that absolutely none of that evidence exists -- or else Scripture ... well, you know the rest. It looks like I'd better explain to you about how creation science's two-model approach (TMA) works and what its problems are. Then you should be able to understand why poking tiny holes in your "evolution model," which hardly has anything to do with evolution, does nothing to disprove evolution. While I'm thinking of it, I should also include an explanation of bundled hypotheses, which would show why poking tiny holes in real evolutionary theory also would not disprove evolution (indeed, such poking is done by scientists all the time and is very much a part of testing and refining a theory). The TMA explanation will take some time, since I'm currently preparing a web page on it, "in my copious spare time" (engineer phraseology). Well, now that you have asked me a question -- for the second time -- which I have answered -- also for the second time -- you can finally answer some of my questions: 1. Do you think the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Why? Based on what positive evidence? 2. Do you agree with John Morris that if the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning? 3. What would happen if you found irrefutable proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years? What effect would that have on you? How would it affect your faith? Should it? Why? 4. What was meant by your outburst, "Its not!" (Subj: Re: Where'd ya go?; Date: 97-10-10 01:07:56 EDT)? What's "not"? Please, provide some context. What were you talking about? 5. How, then, can you honestly ever expect to use creation science to convert me or anybody else possessing knowledge of creation science? The only way would be for us to abandon our higher moral and ethical standards of truth and honesty. Why would I ever want to lower my standards so drastically? #########################################################
Yet again, there was no response from Bill. Then two months later, I wrote:
######################################################### Subj: Re: Geology Follow-up Date: 98-06-14 23:19:19 EDT From: DWise1 To: BillyJack6 CC: DWise1, liber8r@mcs.comTo keep Liber8r in the loop: ### BEGIN ### Subj: Re: Geology Follow-up Date: 98-06-04 01:44:31 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1 Too busy! But trying to catch up! I spoke to 9 high schools about Creation vs Evolution the past two weeks and it keeps me busy opening their eyes to truth! Bill ### END ### >Too busy! But trying to catch up!< Gee, what is this problem that creationists keep having with context? I assume, since you give no indication, that this is in answer to my question: "An entire month has transpired. If you have not read my geology page, nor visit Glenn Morton's page, nor write to Glenn Morton, then why not?" Am I correct? I will have to assume that I am, since your past conduct indicates that you will never answer that simple question either. When you answer in monosyllables, could you please repeat part of my question so that we can tell what you are grunting "yes" or "no" to? If you need to be told what the Clipboard is and how to use it, PLEASE ASK! It's so extremely simple that even MacIntosh people can use it. So, even though you know that there is a serious problem with creation science claims being contrary to fact and that this problem is so great that it has actually caused DEVOUT creationists, even ones far more devout than you are, to have severe crises of faith, you have gone to NINE HIGH SCHOOLS and presented these claims that you know to be false and that you know can cause those kids to LOSE THEIR FAITH!? WHY!?? What is wrong with you? Like Gish, are you doing the Devil's work? What did the Devil promise you? Is it worth what you are trying to do to these kids? In order to redeem yourself, did you at least point those students to my geology web page or to Glenn Morton's site? At least in that case they could have a chance to see for themselves what the truth is. As it is, if all you told them was the standard contrary-to-fact creation science lies, then you have done them no service. You have definitely NOT "open[ed] their eyes to truth", but rather you have damned them to the Darkness. You are saying that in over a YEAR you have NOT read my geology page? What are you afraid of? Why are you afraid of the truth? Why does your faith demand that you live in fear and darkness? Why does your faith demand that you drag everybody else down with you? Learn the truth, Bill. There are none so blind as refuse to see.######################################################### Subj: Re: Geology Follow-up Date: 98-06-15 01:21:43 EDT From: BillyJack6 To: DWise1I was blind. I thought bacteria were the ancestors of Blue Whales once too.#####################As you can see, Bill seems incapable of learning.
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 2000 July 02.
Updated on 2015 October 21.