Topics
Last Updated December 6, 2003
The Home link will now take you to the blog. This site is no longer being updated.
Beau Whaanga
I'm not sure who this nutball is, but he E-mailed me shortly after the September 11 attacks. He's a typical Creationist who didn't bother reading all of my arguments and rebuttals in detail, simply deciding to engage in a mass-attack against Evolution by spouting generalized and oft-refuted arguments. He even attacked the Big Bang Theory (almost a personal affront to me, being an astronomy student). After I succinctly destroyed him in our first exchange, he E-mailed me back, not responding to anything I said, accused me of being a rapist and tried to convince me to "let go" of my "animalistic" ways. He's an obvious fan of strawman, ad hominem and red herring debate tactics.
Hi evolution man. Im a creationist but don't delete my email yet.
Of course not. During a week like this, I'm always open for entertainment.
My problem with evolution is that no one has ever seen a monkey for instance suddenly evolve in to a human. Have you ? I think I can safely say A resounding NOOOO!!!
No, but we HAVE seen transitional fossils showing traits of both monkeys and men. Furthermore, your use of "suddenly" denotes your obvious ignorance of Evolutionary Theory. It is a process that takes millions of years. Even so, we HAVE observed smaller-scale evolution. Virii will mutate to adapt to new conditions. Cockroaches have been shown to adapt to pesticides, in order to survive. This is all covered in my page. You obviously didn't read it.
And your evidence is that you don't need to see it right ? because you see the fossils right? and how do you know how old the fossells are? radio carbon dating right? Let me just say that they have proved that radio carbon dating wrong so many times but you evolutionests don't want to beleive it.
Baseless claim. Provide evidence. The idiotic claim that radiometric dating is "wrong" is also covered in my page. Try reading more than one essay before you criticize.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: "Evolutionists don't want to believe it"? Is this guy insane? Radio-carbon dating is a tried-and-true method. Notice how he doesn't describe any flaws in the process, doesn't describe how the process works and elects to attack in an overly general format.]
For instance I know a story of a rock that was tested by an evolutionest using the radio carbon technique it showed that the rock was 25 million years old. They then took the same rock the following year and got another evolutionist to take another test and the rock showed 62 million years old. jumping 37 million years in one year hmmmmm.
You heard a story? How about a magazine citation or reference? Do you know what kind of rock it was? Do you know when this test was conducted? Do you know anything about how carbon dating works?
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Notice how he labels scientific progress as a flaw. How does he know that the following year, the scientists didn't refine the method to be more reliable? Are we to toss science out the window because, at one point, it said that the Earth was flat, then said it was round?]
And you say the bible is unsteady and a very unstable source of information. This is just one instance of the many.
That's because the Bible is a religious book written by scientifically-uneducated bigots, passing stories down through oral tradition over the course of hundreds of years. Carbon-dating is scientifically verified, and its conclusions are in agreement with astrophysicists' estimates of how old the Universe is. Which one sounds more reliable?
I also have to say that evolution does require faith because the odds that all those chemicals came together are a 10 with 40,000 zeros after it and you have to have faith to beleive that No matter how much you mix chemicals together you will not produce DNA. only DNA produces DNA.
Wrong, wrong and wrong. Chemical combinations are NOT random events. You obviously failed high school Chemistry. Chemical reactions are guided by very specific rules. That is why 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule will ALWAYS form water. Also, the first form of life was not DNA. It was most likely a proteinoid, which eventually combined with RNA strands to form DNA.
Another thing the big bang theory is another BIG lie because the "source" What unknown. sat in a void of space time unknown. and then suddenly exploded reason unknown.
Wrong, again. You assume that the Universe had to come from somewhere. Why? Big Bang doesn't propose that everything came from nothing. That would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. The Universe has simply always existed, and the Big Bang is responsible ONLY for its CURRENT incarnation.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This is really my own personal opinion. No one really knows what the Universe was like before 10-43 of a second after the Big Bang. Of course, no one can really blame me for trying to follow the Law of Conservation of Energy. The only reason science can exist as it does today is if we make the basic assumption that all the laws and constants of physics are universally constant regardless of time or place, and this is one of the postulates of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. According to the laws of physics, the Universe must have always existed, and simply could not have sprung out of nowhere. There's a whole bunch of my own personal theory I could ramble on about here, regarding an infinitely existing Universe and how Special Relativity permits it, but I think I'll just leave it at the fact that he's dead wrong.]
But it was no bigger than the size of an electron hmmm very small but then amazingly formed this great big earth and all other nine planets in a relatively uniform solar system.
The Universe "started" out in a singularity condition, where all distances were zero. The mass has always been there. After the Big Bang, stars formed and hydrogen began to fuse, forming the heavier elements. When these stars went supernova, these elements could form planets. This process took billions of years. Also, the solar system formed because of gravitational attraction. Nothing amazing about it. That's just how the Universe works.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: He's actually wrong about the size of the Universe prior to the Big Bang. The Universe was much smaller than an electron. In fact, it occupied only one, single point of space, due to the distances between all objects in the early Universe being zero. Incidentally, he also doesn't seem to realize that it's not very hard to believe that something so small could grow so large. Atoms are largely empty space, aside from spontaneous virtual particle emmisions from the quantum fabric in the Universe. So, if you removed all the empty space between all the particles in the Universe, and pushed everything together as closely as you could without reaching singularity condition, it'd be no larger than a basket ball.]
but in truth if you were to take an explosion say the whole of New york and blow it up what wouldyou find?youd find alot of debris and shratnell every where not in just one place, forming say another big building to your left.
False analogy, and remarkably insensitive, considering the events of this past Tuesday. You're proposing that there was space before space was formed. The Big Bang FORMED space, and continues to do so via the accelerating expansion of the Universe.
I really don't understand why anyone would want to believe this as I think it is the biggest lie under the sun. Your chasing the wind.
Only if you're too lazy to do research into the topic. Your understanding of evolution is pathetic enough, but your knowledge of the Big Bang is simply absurd. You have no clue what you're talking about.
anyway nice writing to you and I would really like to hear from you so can talk some more if you dare.
Go try and learn about topics before you attack them, if you dare.
Hi we meet again. I read your page on sex and homosexuality today and I have to say you are one sick puppy to think that we are equal with the animals and by saying that we are entitled to go around and rape women.
Strawman. I never once say that we should go around and rape women. I use that to illustrate as to why the "natural equals moral" argument is flawed. Here is the exact quote from my page:
"Moreover, even rape could be justified as morally-correct. After all, many times in nature, the male simply has sex with a female of his choosing, and the female puts up no resistance. Thus, it is wrong for a woman to resist when a man wants to have sex with her, and the man is right to force himself on her, because what he's doing is only natural."
I guess that you were more or less looking for things to attack, so you just decided to take the statements out of context and warp them into your own, twisted strawman to attack.
I really hope that you don't have children. because If a group of evolutionists were to come up and God forbid rape your daughter.
You're operating under false pretenses. Aside from that, Lot is more than willing to let his virgin daughters be ravaged by an angry mob that his guest, in the Bible.
How would you feel? I'm sure you would be very angry with whomever that was. wouldn't you? But then no It's perfectly fine because you believe we are one with the animals Don't you? and that we are free and it's natural. well Im sorry But I have to disagree. The conclusion I have come up with is that evolutionists made this hole theory up to hide their own animalistic behaviour and to give a reason for their animalistic behaviour because thats how society is today people going around raping women murdering people shooting their teachers. Well who can hardly blame them with what where being taught at school. You evolved from an ape. So your just like the animals.
Now, you're just ranting and raving. Evolutionists didn't "come up" with evolution. It happens in nature. Furthermore, the fact that you're automatically applying what you think I said to all evolutionists is yet another example of your lack of any rational thought processes. You're a typical Creationist. You've given absolutely no rebuttals to any specific points I make on my site, and you're fixating on whatever moral implications that you think Evolution has, rather than it being a simple observation of what goes on in nature. In short, you want to scare me into thinking like you. Appeal to fear.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: What an asshole. Scientific theorizing isn't meant to pass judgment on what happens in nature. It's not meant to apply moral value to what goes on as a result of natural processes. It only seeks to describe the mechanisms of those processes. Biologists aren't purporting social Darwinism, they're supporting evolution. Social Darwinism is an incredible perversion of Darwin's theory, and it has jack shit to do with science. He's effectively blaming all of society's problems on Evolutionary Theory. How typical.]
Let me tell you and this is fact the United States used to have Bible in schools. Back then the crimes done by our youth were talking in class and not doing homework. Since they have taken Bible out of schools the student crime rate has just Skyrocketed from those pidley talking in class crimes to big shootings in school and car theft, Rape. Do I need to go on I think not. Regardless of you adopt the fact that the bible is true, or false The statistics still remain to show that the bible has done alot of good, before it was taken out. By a very silly lady who wanted not to have her child read the best book he will ever read.
Horse shit. You've provided no source for these statistics, and you blatantly disregard the fact that, even if they were true, there is NO excuse for the government to suddenly start supporting one religion over all others, in blatant defiance of the First Amendment. Furthermore, the Bible ENCOURAGES crimes such as rape, killing unbelievers and punishment infinitely greater than deserved (i.e.: Hell).
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Typical religiously-bigotous ranting. The Bible is one of the most atrocious pieces of work ever to slime across the literary table. Notice his degradation of sticking up for the Establishment Clause as "silly." He's casually ignored all of the quotes I have on my page, instead attacking my criticisms in a general fashion, again.]
The bible is one awesome book and your perception of this incredible book is very minute.
Have you ever read the whole thing front to back? Are you saying that I'm misquoting the book? Are you even going to provide one quote from my site that you don't agree with, or are you just going to make generalized attacks, fueled by religious fanaticism?
Spending eight years in a catholic school is nothing. especially some of the things they teach. for instance you have to do really good to get to heaven ie the ten commandments. By the way which we no longer have to hold to. instead we have the two new commandments Love your God and Love your neighbour.Because if you love your neighbour you won't kill him steal from him etc.
Bullshit. The Ten Commandments are still quoted very frequently by Christian fanatics and ARE taught in Catholic schools as a guide to leading a moral life. What's more, Matthew 5:17-20 clearly states that Jesus had not come to abolish the Old Testament, but to fulfill it. The Ten Commandments STILL apply.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Eight years in Catholic school is "nothing"? Toward the end of my senior year, I was just beginning to turn into a very ardent atheist. As a result, I got more and more pissed off and frustrated with all the bigoted bullshit I had to deal with. It was a truly, emotionally taxing time in my life. I was surrounded by everything I held to be wrong. I still get angry and frustrated every time I look back on my experiences in Catholic school. Getting rid of eight years' worth of religious indoctrination is not an easy task, and living in this country, especially in these times of religiously-fueled nationalism, is a very trying experience.]
But anyway They believe you should follow the ten commandments which is wrong as Romans 3:23 says For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. meaning this is impossible.
No surprise, there. Christian fanatics love harping about how imperfect the human race is next to God, and you're no different.
But I'll tell you why this is impossible It's impossible because God wrote the old testament or used people to write it (and these were people who could not read or write) with the commandments in it But at the time people had no way of asking forgiveness of their sins after breaking the law or commandments so they had to offer one of their very best lambs without a blemish. Meaning if someone broke the law and felt guilty of it they had to offer a lamb to sacrifice.
Is there a point to any of this?
However When Jesus Christ came He became the lamb meaning we didn't have to sacrifice a lamb anymore because he came and died for us so that our sins would be forgiven if we only ask.
OK...that's heart-warming and everything, but it's nothing I didn't know.
According to your page on the Bible I see no reason to go on about it as it is all rubbish what you have said.
Translation: "I'm too lazy to actually make an argument using one of your quotes, so I'm just going to make a generalized attack." If you're not going to make a solid argument, then stop wasting my time.
I ve said it before and i'll say it to you the bible does not contain one contradiction. it is the reader that does all the contradicting and twists it all up to say what they want it to say which is quite clear that, that is what you have done.
Bullshit. If Romans 3:23 makes you believe that you should not follow the Ten Commandments, but the new two, instead, then you're in contradiction with Matthew 5:17-20. Also, other Christians I have talked with would seem to disagree with the belief that following the Ten Commandments is wrong, namely Jonathon Boyd.
So I am ending my talk of truth. I hope it encourages you to put up your animalistic behaviour. ( I say that with the most humblist of attitudes). Because we are. We christians are the only ones who will admitt we are all sinners.
Put a stop to my "animalistic behavior?" Give me a break. Try reading the passages in context before you haul off and call me a rapist. Furthermore, stop acting like Christians are the only ones who acknowledge the human race's flaws. Buddhists do the same, the difference is that Buddhists actively strive for perfection, while people like you want the human race to just wallow in its imperfections, prostrating and begging for forgiveness from a mass-murdering psychopath.
