The cure for cults that want to deny others their freedom of speech is more freedom of speech -- Fredric Rice

Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:23:19 -0700
From: "WHATSUPDOC" <WHATSUPDOC@prodigy.net>
Subject: Your website

> Hi Frederic,

Greetings!

> Sorry for the delay in responding to your last e-mail.

No problem for me. I'll be webbing the response I mailed to you, putting it on to http://www.icrcult.org/ since it shows standard Creationist behavior. One finds that no matter how solid a debunking Creationists receive, they merely draw a deep breath, blink once or twice, and then proceed unabated as though nothing happened. It's an interesting phenomena to observe provided the duration of the exposures are short.

> I have to admit that I owe you a bit of an apology. I
> was doing some research on the Internet and somehow came
> across your page about how to debate a creationist and
> I became quite angry about some of the things that were
> stated on that page.

Well, it's almost always pointless to debate flat Earth believers. No serious scientist bothers to debate and debunk people who can't apply reason because they're philosophically opposed to reason. On rare occasion when scientists feel they must oppose some kook, it's almost always because said kook threatens to spread their nutty notions to students in public schools. Other to pressing threats by kooks, scientists usually ignore them -- with the occasional exceptions of wry amusement at the ever- downward trend of science education in the world.

> You state that they use tactics to undermine the
> theory of evolution

Do I? Did I state _which_ theory of evolution? If so I'll need to locate and update that web page because Creationists do no such thing. Few Creationists even bother to address any of the theories covering evolution since few know what evolution is and what it is not.

In any event, if there's anything weak about any of the theories of evolution, that doesn't adversely impact the fact that evolution itself remains a directly observed phenomena any more than weakness in gravitation theories adversely impacts the fact of gravity.

> and that they will lie just to try to win an argument.

Creationists don't "win" arguments on merits. If ever a Creationist could be said to "win" and argument, it is among their fellow poorly educated, superstitious, ignorant colleagues. No Creationist ever won an argument with a scientist on scientific merit. It's never happened.

> Also, you state that creationists don't work and have
> lots of time since they do no research and do no work.

Do I? I'll have to locate and update that web page, too. Most Creationists manage to hold down real jobs -- provided they don't require the application of science in the biological fields, of course. Creationist cult leaders, however, are another story entirely.

> You also state that they know that most of the claims
> they are making are false. I just don't understand this.

Yes, Creationist cult leaders have repeatedly had their freakishly bizarre notions corrected by their intellectual and educated betters. The doesn't stop Creationists from continuing to knowingly make false claims about what evolution is, what evolution is not, and what the various theories of evolution contain.

> Now, I have never attended any of these debates and
> really have no desire to. All I am interested in is
> the truth.

Your local library is the place to go to find out technical information on evolution and all related fields of biological study.

Also, I already told you that if you're interested in truth, you need to investigate mathematics since science doesn't deal in truth, only evidence.

> After reading your other page on the history of the
> Skeptic Tank, I can see why you feel this way.

The reason "I feel this way" is because I managed to acquire an education -- despite the fact that I was raised and educated in California. }:-}

> The nuns you talked about in school represent a real
> problem that some churches have always had. They have
> stated that you must believe but have not done an adequate
> job in stating just why you should believe.

Nobody should _believe_ anything. Evidence dictates what is real and what is not. It doesn't matter if it's Catholic nuns selling superstitions, a Flat Earther selling bizarre notions, or flying saucer nuts selling their notions.

Vampires, werewolves, pixies, fairies, gods, aliens from outer space, flying saucers... all such notions are equally invalid. If one believes in gods, one logically has to believe in fairies since they're both equally un-evidenced.

> I had this problem when I was growing up also. My
> parents said that I should attend church but when
> I asked why they just said that it was the right
> thing to do, but gave me no hard evidence as to why.
> It seems that this is a problem that many people have.
> I have talked to Catholics that can't tell me what
> they believe in and that they are Catholic because
> that is what their parents and friends are.

And now that you're all "growed up," isn't it time for you to set aside your childish superstitions and start thinking for yourself? Most people give up their invisible playmates when they grow older. Those that don't are considered ripe for psychological treatment. Label one's invisible playmates "god" and for some reason such people suddenly aren't considered to be candidates for the nut hatch.

> I grew up being agnostic, not being sure that there
> was or was not a God. When I met the woman who was
> to become my wife, she attended a church called the
> Church of Christ which is a non denominational church.
> They believe that the Bible is the inspired word of
> God and we do not add or take anything away from the
> Bible.

Well, the classical Christanic mythologies have been revised and rewritten numerous times over the Centuries. Adding to them and taking things away hardly matters since none of the versions widely available today are what existed 4,000 years ago.

> Churches get into real trouble when they try to
> add to what the Bible says. For example, why is there
> a Pope?

For the same reason there are priests and ministers. For the same reasons there are confident men, carpetbaggers, scam artists: there's a sucker born every minutes.

> He is never mentioned in the Bible and yet the
> Catholics seem to have no problem in setting up
> someone to be Pope.

Anyone stupid enough to think that the classical Christanic mythologies are in any way real deserves to be swindled and rooked by the Christanic priesthood.

> Why do the Mormons feel that they can add to the
> Bible when it clearly states that no one should
> add or take away from the words in the Bible.

They didn't. The Jesus mythos was made to spend some time in North America and the Mormon cult's mythologies merely describe the mythos. The classical Christanic mythologies remained intact.

> You state that "I was and remain disgusted by what I
> learned of the truth. There has never been a Christian
> I talked with who would admit that Christianity has
> been historically evil by its own standards and the
> truth was as easy to find as opening honest, scholarly
> history books."

Golly, I find myself in complete agreement with myself.

> Yes, I am appalled by this also,

How about when said Christanic threaten to subvert science and education in the public schools? Like when they try to get their Creationist claptrap taught as fact?

> but it underscores the problem created by man when
> he justifies his evil actions by using God as an
> excuse or reason for his behavior.

Religion was _invented_ in part so that believers could justify their inhuman behavior. The gods wouldn't exist were it not for the people who create them to use as weapons against their fellow mankind.

Did you notice that gods, pixies, fairies, werewolves, and vampires stop existing when people stop believing in them?

> The Bible clearly states that people should not lie,
> murder, commit adultery etc. It does not teach that
> it is OK to go out and do evil in the name of God.

One wonders which heavily altered version of the Christanic mythologies you're worshipping. The Christian mythologies are filled with the gods being used as justification for inhuman tyrannies.

Want some examples? Are you allowed to read your whole paper idol?

> History shows us that evil men will use whatever
> means they can to justify their evil, including using
> religion and God.

Including trying to subvert science.

> This has happened from evolutionary theory also.

Which evolutionary theory?

> Look at the writings of Hitler for example.

Yes, Adolf Hitler was a Christian who did what he did because he was a Christian.

> In Mien Kampf he uses evolution as a justification
> for the murder or millions and millions of people
> to further the advancement of the human race.

No, he used Lemarkianism which Creationists try to pretend is some how a theory of evolution.

> From chapter XI Race and people - Hitler' Mien Kampf
> Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite
> equal results in a product which holds an intermediate
> place between the levels of the two parents.

That's not part of any theory of evolution.

> This means that the offspring will indeed be superior
> to the parent which stands in the biologically lower
> order of being, but not so high as the higher parent.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "superior" or "lower" or "higher." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> For this reason it must eventually succumb in any
> struggle against the higher species.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "higher." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution. What evolution does cover is the observation that species which better fit the ecological niche they are in survive better than those species which don't fit into the ecological niche as well.

> Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards
> the selective improvements of life in general.

Evolution doesn't have a "will of Nature." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> The favorable preliminary to this improvement is not
> to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of
> being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the
> higher order.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "higher" or "lower." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker,
> which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "stronger" or "weaker." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> Only the born weakling can look upon this principle
> as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he
> is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such
> a law did not direct the process of evolution then the
> higher development of organic life would not be
> conceivable at all.

It looks like Adolf Hitler had just as good an understanding of evolution as Creationists do. Evolution doesn't have the concept of what's "cruel" or not. Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the
> former would always increase more rapidly if they
> possessed the same capacities for survival and for
> the procreation of their kind; and the final consequence
> would be that the best in quality would be forced to
> recede into the background.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "superior" or "inferior." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution. Evolution likewise doesn't have the concept of "best in quality," ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution, either.

> Therefore a corrective measure in favor of the better
> quality must intervene.

Evolution doesn't have a concept of "better quality." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions
> of life to which the weaker will have to submit and will
> thereby be numerically restricted; but even that portion
> which survives cannot indiscriminately multiply, for
> here a new and rigorous selection takes place, according
> to strength and health.

Evolution doesn't have a concept of "weaker" or "stronger." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution. What science _does_ have is survival of the fittest species for a given ecological niche.

> If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should
> mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a
> superior race should intermingle with an inferior one;
> because in such a case all her efforts, throughout
> hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an
> evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered
> futile.

Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "stronger," "superior," or "inferior." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution. Ergo Hitler had as good an understanding of what evolution is as Creationists.

> History furnishes us with innumerable instances that
> prove this law. It shows, with a startling clarity,
> that whenever Aryans have mingled their blood with
> that of an inferior race the result has been the downfall
> of the people who were the standard-bearers of a higher
> culture.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "inferior," or "higher." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> Now, then, a necessary condition for the maintenance
> of such ideas is the existence of certain races and
> certain types of men. For example, anyone who sincerely
> wishes that the pacifist idea should prevail in this
> world ought to do all he is capable of doing to help
> the Germans conquer the world; for in case the reverse
> should happen it may easily be that the last pacifist
> would disappear with the last German.

Evolution doesn't have the notion of "races" in terms of allele differences between individuals within a species. Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution. Evolution also doesn't address socio-political militarism and as such is not part of any theory of evolution.

> I say this because, unfortunately, only our people,
> and no other people in the world, fell a prey to this
> idea. Whether you like it or not, you would have to
> make up your mind to forget wars if you would achieve
> the pacifist ideal. Nothing less than this was the
> plan of the American world-redeemer, Woodrow Wilson.
> Anyhow that was what our visionaries believed, and they
> thought that through his plans their ideals would be
> attained.

Evolution doesn't address socio-political militarism and as such is not part of any theory of evolution.

> The pacifist-humanitarian idea may indeed become
> an excellent one when the most superior type of
> manhood will have succeeded in subjugating the world
> to such an extent that this type is then sole master
> of the earth.

Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "superior" or "masters of the Earth." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> This idea could have an injurious effect only in
> the measure according to which its application would
> become difficult and finally impossible. So, first of
> all, the fight and then pacifism. If the case were
> different it would mean that mankind has already
> passed the zenith of its development, and accordingly
> the end would not be the supremacy of some moral
> ideal but degeneration into barbarism and consequent
> chaos.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "zenith of development" or of "supremacy," "moral ideals," "degeneration," "barbarism" or "chaos." Ergo that's not part of any theory of evolution.

> People may laugh at this statement;

Or point out that they're being made by a Christian....

> but our planet has been moving through the spaces of
> ether for millions and millions of years, uninhabited
> by men, and at some future date may easily begin to
> do so again - if men should forget that wherever they
> have reached a superior level of existence, it was not
> the result of following the ideas of crazy visionaries
> but by acknowledging and rigorously observing the iron
> laws of Nature.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "ether," nor the concept of "superior levels of existence." Ergo this is not a part of any theory of evolution.

> The most profound cause of such a decline is to be
> found in the fact that the people ignored the principle
> that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of what constitutes "cultures" except in the biological sense. Ergo this is not a part of any theory of evolution.

> In other words, in order to preserve a certain culture,
> the type of manhood that creates such a culture must
> be preserved. But such a preservation goes hand-in-hand
> with the inexorable law that it is the strongest and the
> best who must triumph and that they have the right to
> endure.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "culture," "manhood," "strongest," "triumph," or any "rights to endure" Ergo this is not a part of any theory of evolution.

> He who would live must fight. He who does not wish
> to fight in this world, where permanent struggle is
> the law of life, has not the right to exist.

Evolution doesn't have such notions and as such this is not part of any theory of evolution. One also notes that most species on Earth don't have to fight to survive. Whales don't. Grass doesn't. Turtles don't. Goldfish don't. Most species get along just fine without finding religious reasons to exterminate Jews.

> Whoever ignores or despises the laws of race really
> deprives himself of the happiness to which he believes
> he can attain.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "happiness." Ergo this is not a part of any theory of evolution.

> For he places an obstacle in the victorious path
> of the superior race and, by so doing, he interferes
> with a prerequisite condition of all human progress.

Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "victory," "superior." "interference," or "human progress." Ergo this is not part of any theory of evolution.

> Loaded with the burden of humanitarian sentiment, he
> falls back to the level of those who are unable to raise
> themselves in the scale of being.

Sounds a lot like L. Ron Hubbard, huh? Still not part of any theory of evolution.

> It would be futile to attempt to discuss the question
> as to what race or races were the original
> standard-bearers of human culture and were thereby the
> real founders of all that we understand by the word
> humanity.

Evolution _does_ address the ancestors of parent species however evolution doesn't contain the concept of "standard bearers" or "culture," neither does it contain the concept of "real founders." Ergo this is not part of any theory of evolution.

> It is much simpler to deal with this question in so far
> as it relates to the present time. Here the answer is
> simple and clear. Every manifestation of human culture,
> every product of art, science and technical skill, which
> we see before our eyes to-day, is almost exclusively the
> product of the Aryan creative power.

Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "culture," "art," "technical skill," or "creative power." Ergo those are not part of any theories of evolution. Evolution _does_ employ science, however.

> This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that
> it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of
> humanity; therefore he represents the architype of what
> we understand by the term: MAN.

Evolution doesn't contain the notion of "superior," nor does it contain the notion of an "archetype." Ergo this is also not part of any theory of evolution. Evolution _does_ address what constitutes Homo sapiens sapient; and no, that includes all of humanity, not just a variation in allele frequency exhibitions lumped under the title "Aryan."

> He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow
> the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth,
> always kindling anew that fire which, in the form of
> knowledge, illuminated the dark night by drawing aside
> the veil of mystery and thus showing man how to rise and
> become master over all the other beings on the earth.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "Prometheus kinds of mankind," "shining brows," "divine sparks," "genius flashing forth," "dark veils of mystery," or "masters of Earth." Ergo these are not part of any theory of evolution.

> Should he be forced to disappear, a profound darkness
> will descend on the earth; within a few thousand years
> human culture will vanish and the world will become a
> desert.

One could hope. Certainly Christianity tried its best.

> If we divide mankind into three categories - founders
> of culture, bearers of culture, and destroyers of
> culture - the Aryan alone can be considered as
> representing the first category.

Evolution doesn't have the concepts of dividing Homo sapien sapien into such ambiguous demarcations. Ergo this is not part of any theory of evolution.

> Evil men will use whatever means at their disposal
> to further their evil. This does not mean that the
> message of Christianity is evil, only that others
> use it for evil.

The history of religion -- not just Christianity -- has been utterly evil. Good men and women have assisted in the evil of religion simply because they're ignorant, uneducated, superstitious cretins who knew no better.

> Throwing out the principles of Christianity is like
> "throwing our the baby with the bath water".

There comes a point when one discovers that there's no baby hidden in all that dirty water.

> Throughout true Christianity it is clearly taught to
> love everyone else, even your enemies.

Look like you're using a different Christian Bible.

> If someone strikes you, turn the other cheek. If someone
> asks for your help, give them the shirt off your back.
> If anyone asks you to walk a mile with them, walk two.

Nice platitudes to give the people one's raping and pillaging in the name of the Christian gods, isn't it?

> So, please don't state that the message of Christianity
> is evil, only those who abuse it and use it for their
> own purposes are the evil ones.

Christianity's history is one of abject evil. It doesn't matter what someone claims to be higher ideals when they're engaged in homophobic bigotry; what remains is the fact of their homophobic bigotry.

Christians point at all the countless Christians that came before them, noting the inhuman tyranny that was committed -- and continues to be committed -- by Christians, and they glibly demand "they're not _true_ Christians" while further adding "they contradict what's written in the mythologies."

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Deeds, not words, describe what both individuals and what groups stand for. One doesn't join the KKK, the Aryan Nations, the Church of Jesus Christ Christian, the Mormon cult, Identity churches, or Focus on the Family and then demand one's not a racist, homophobic bigot. When someone joins a club, they're in de facto agreement with what that club represents.

> That's the amazing thing about the true church of God.

Do you have any evidence that you have this "god" thing of yours? After you provide evidence for this invisible playmate, then you can start providing evidence that it has a "true church."

> I have seen members of my church go to incredible
> extremes to help others. We send people throughout
> the world to bring food, medicine and clothing to
> people in need.

Strange, atheists do that, too. A fair percentage of my own money goes toward a woman's shelter. And much of my time is also spent helping to educate the intellectually disadvantage among us who at times send me e-mail.

Gods don't seem to be required.

> We donate our money to help others. We give our time
> to help others in need. We show compassion to others
> that are less fortunate, because we were taught to be
> compassionate by example.

All without gods forcing you to.

> I am not telling you this to give any recognition to
>: these people. If you do these things for recognition,
> you are doing them for the wrong reasons. People are
> not inherently compassionate, we learn this behavior.

Utter bullocks. Humans are born with the innate desire to help others provided doing so doesn't fatally impact one's own survival.

> In evolutionary terms, why would anyone be compassionate.

Your local library will have text books covering what contemporary theories are on why people exhibit compassion. Helping others is good for oneself because working for the collective good of the group assists in the survival of the individual.

> Animals kill each other to get what they want.

Carnivores, certainly.

> Why wouldn't people kill each other to further
> their own good?

Because harming others adversely impacts one's own health and safety.

> Darwin states that a creature will make decisions that
> are in their own best interests, not the interests of
> others.

And helping others is in accord with one's own best interests.

> Since we descend from animals

Humans _are_ animals.

> why would we act any different.

We don't.

> I commend you as organized Atheists that you have > a standard of morality, but most atheists do not > seem to adhere to your principles.

Utter bullocks. Atheists evidence the higher morality and ethics -- as well as intelligence -- than their poor ideologically suffering brothers and sisters. There is a very good reason why atheists are grossly under represented in the prison populations of Westernized societies. It isn't that their average higher intelligence keeps them from getting caught, it's that they're able to live well with others without needing to commit crimes.

Additionally atheists don't use illegal narcotics to the extent that theists do. That fact alone constitutes one of the major reasons why atheists are so rare in prison.

> I have never personally met another atheist who
> adheres to your principles so I commend you for
> your sense of morality but I don't think you
> necessarily get that because of a rejection of God.

One can't "reject" what doesn't exist. One can only "reject" something that's evidenced... Unless you want to suggest that you "reject" Santa Claus?

> So, this brings us back to the question that is
> the start of the entire issue. Is evolution correct
> or is there a possibility that we are created.

Evolution is a directly observed phenomena that's not subject to belief or disbelief. Notions about "creation" are outside the venue of science and as such are of no interest except to the superstition or, of course, human psychiatry

> I have done a lot of reading in books and on the
> Internet about the evolution debate,

No scientists speaking within his or her venue debate the fact that evolution happens.

> so let me briefly state the unanswered questions I have
> concerning evolutionary theory.

Which evolutionary theory specifically? There are a set of closely-related theories which attempt to explain and describe the observed fact of evolution.

> No, I am not a scientist, but I think that I am
> capable of seeing the basic principles of science.

You failed.

> They teach quite a few of these to high school students > and they seem to be able to understand them.

They failed.

> First, it seems incredibly unlikely that life
> could ever come from non life.

The origins of life have nothing to do with the advent of species. Ergo this is not a part of any theory of evolution.

> I don't care what your definition of evolution
> is or is not,

I don't have a definition of evolution though I could find a definition that's used among scientists if that will help.

> without a beginning to life there could not be
> any evolution to follow.

Without the Sun there could be no origins of life. Like stellar cosmology, the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution.

> Given the right laboratory conditions and elements,
> the best scientists have been able to do is form
> some really basic building blocks of life and not
> life itself.

Golly, it took natural chemical processes a billion years to come up with a molecule that was self replicating and yet scientists have been unable to duplicate that feat in just 30 years? <heh> Long lunch breaks.

> The basic chemicals necessary for life do not
> somehow become living.

The basic chemistry of self-replicating molecules, however, do "somehow become living."

> Scientists can't do it under just the right lab
> conditions and I don't think that it could somehow
> happen randomly by itself.

But then chemistry isn't random.

> Also, it has never been observed that an organism
> has come from anything other that a parent or parents.

But then evolution doesn't suggest otherwise.

> From the About Dictionary of Biology, Oxford
> University Press from Oxford University Press
> definition of spontaneous generation

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "spontaneous generation." Ergo this is not a part of any theory of evolution.

> The discredited belief that living organisms can
> somehow be produced by nonliving matter. For example,
> it was once thought that microorganisms arose by the
> process of decay and even that vermin spontaneously
> developed from household rubbish. Controlled experiments
> using sterilized media by Pasteur and others finally
> disproved these notions. Compare biogenesis. See also
> biopoiesis.

Science knocks down another un-evidenced notion. Isn't science amazing? It's too bad that there's a small percentage of any populace that reject what science has to say about scientific knowledge, isn't it?

> I believe that if someone were given all the best
> scientists in the world with an unlimited budget
> and all the time they needed and all the raw materials
> in chemical form they needed (non-living) and were
> told to make a human being or a humming bird they
> would never be able to do it.

Give one female scientist and one male scientist and nine months, it's easy.

Of course these days all one needs is the egg and sperm and a little technology not much more advanced than the good old turkey baster.

In any event, you're mistaken: given the same five billion years that has passed since the aggregation of the Earth, scientists could give you any organism you could care to outline in a blueprint and a set of specifications. No problem.

> Why would we think that it could have happened
> mindlessly.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "mindlessly." Ergo that is not a part of any theory of evolution.

> Also, the incredible complexity of life happening
> by chance does not make sense to me either.

Evolution doesn't have the concept of "chance" except when it comes to the effects of high energy elementary particles causing genetic changes in the germ of a species.

> Science has been able to see into the cell and the
> incredible set of relationships that occur there and
> that happening by chance seems to me to be impossible.

Science finds that every living cell and every one-living cell contains thousands or millions of atrophied evolutionary appendage codon sequences which are the direct and observable result of ancestral descent with modification:" i.e., evolution.

> I have to stop here because I am out of time, but
> I will continue this in another e-mail.
> Steve

You might consider actually reading my replies to you.

But is no matter, since you're not bothering to find out what evolution actually is and what evolution isn't, it doesn't matter because I'm replying solely so that I may add my debunking of your notions to my own web site at http://www.icrcult.org/

But please do continue. Every mindless, meandering, disjointed cut-and-paste Creationist claim you offer is another opportunity to add a new web page to continue in the never-ending exposure of what it takes to persist in believing in Creationist dogma.