About the Book The Crucible Of Creation

[sky4it]

************************************************************************

I want to preface this whole thread by drawing a distinction between atheists and ex TWI members who are now atheists. There is a huge difference. I know that because because I have spent some time posting over at the Internet Infidels atheist soceity. My posts are under the same name Sky4it. What difference? The difference is ex TWI atheists are way brighter and smarter than those guys over there. There brighter light bulbs about basically everything. Let me give you one example. That would be Mr Pmosh. Mr. Pmosh had a post about Fox news calling Republicans Democrats that he saw because Fox News had a (D) behind there name. Unbelievable, the guy hardly ever misses one thing, about anybody. I am not even going to mention wether it is relevant or not, that is the subject of his thread. It’s kind of funny because I always felt that Mr. Pmosh postively couldn’t stand me. Yet, I never sensed one time the hositility in him towards me, that I have in some other atheist. One time MrPMosh was on rare air. He was trying to get me to jump thru two hoops, one for each leg, but I couldn’t reach the other hoop if I put my leg in one of them. The guy had my head swimming around for about an hour until I figured out how to respond to him. The man is like razor sharp smart. For stuff like that, you guys positively can frighten people. And I suppose it’s a good thing. It like most of you guys, never miss a beat. My thing always was, I saw the potential in you guys, with your razor wits, to be something good for the church and the gospel. It is not my right to judge you guys. I mean some of you were in TWI for 20 stinking years. I positively believe someone like God makes a distinction on stuff like that. I will repost this at the bottom of the thread, and say a prayer for you guys, because, you positively changed the way I view the world. With out you guys, and some books I read on Darwinism, I probably never would have broached the subject of Darwinism. And for the fact that you are able to be so razor sharp, you have nothing but my respect.

***********************************************************************

******************************************************************

Evolutionary atheist (I call him an atheist) Simon Conway Morris but maybe he will repent get saved and change his ways. I mean you cant rule that out either.

I figured I would write up a book I read and what I tried to ask Professor Simon Conway Morris, when I sent him questions by email. (The questions are listed at the end of this short paper.) I am doing it for you atheists so you don’t have a bone to pick with me, and to show you how hard I tried to get you to see the light. And because I always try to be caring and this shows that I really did try and care about you guys. So, even if you don’t believe in God, maybe you atheists wont have such a bone to pick with me for things I have said.

Simon Conway Morris is a Professor at the University of Cambridge in England. He is kind of considered a big shot or heavy weight in the Darwinist Evolutionary thought world. Morris was one of the original people who worked with Stephen Jay Gould on the Burgess Shale fossil formation in Canada. Stephen Jay Gould is widely regarding as the most prominent American Biologist and Paleontologist of our time. He passed away some years ago. Stephen Jay Gould wrote a book called “Wonderful Life.” I read that book too. Morris and Stephen Gould worked together on the Burgess Shale formation. They were, it appeared at one time friends Morris wrote a book called The Crucible of Creation. . It is my view and speculation that the only purpose Simon Conway Morris of this book was to over throw the facts that Gould spilled out in his book and masterpiece, Wonderful Life.

Simon Conway Morris, I believe from what I have read, holds himself out to be a believer or a Christian. This is pure nonsense. One cannot be a Christian and believe in Darwinian evolution. Otherwise one would be forced to believe that God at one time was an Amoeba. One cannot have it both ways. It’s like calling yourself an SS member of the Nazi party and a priest in the Church at the same time. Sure somebody might try to do it, but it’s theoretically impossible to hold onto both plates, it cant be done.

As I said I read the book of Morris’s The Crucible of Creation. Then I contacted Morris about the book by email, and asked him if I could ask him some questions. He pretty much said that is Okey dokey, but that he was busy. So I told him to take his time and get back to me. This is now many many months ago since I sent him the questions. He never even bothered to email me back and tell me he was refusing to answer my questions. Anyway, I will summarize the book for you in short order. Morris basically backtracks the true record of the Burgess Shale, and interpets the shale in a way which is convenient to back Darwinian Evolution and dispel making any fuss about Gould’s book Wonderful Life. This whole matter became a literal war in Darwinian camps at the time which is well chronicled. The reason that they had to fight with each other is that Gould’s book, in my view of it, basically dispels Charles Darwins theory of evolution. Gould’s book, was the death knell for Darwinian evolution, and I believe and speculate, that most scientists who were Darwinian evolutionists, if they were as they say “intellectually honest with themselves”, knew it.

Morris book has a Chapter which basically takes one on a carpet ride through what Darwinian evolution could have looked like in the Burgess Shale. Its quite a magic act. Its as though he takes you on a make believe Disney Land tour of the Burgess shale, and is trying to be an apologist for Darwin’s theory. Then, he even tells you that he is pretty much only speculating what could have happened. You have to understand that in the Burgess shale, they discovered several “new phylum”, some of which were later unplugged and not called new phylum at all. They had to do it. They had to do it or Darwinism was dead. That had to reclassify the phylum because there wouldn’t have been enough time for Darwin’s theory to hold any water if they didn’t. Darwin’s theory wouldn’t have held water because there was not enough time for these new phylum to suddenly emerge. The fact that they had to reclassify phylum tells you all you need to know about the bogus Darwinian (and Cladism atheist cult) doctrines. Its there fingerprint on undoing there own work that makes them look like a bunch of liars, thieves and crooks. You have to understand that if they hadn’t reclassified these phylum, Darwinian evolutionary biologists would have read like a dictionary of the unemployed. Now that, is what you call motive, and its not science. That’s not just my theory either, that is a fact. You have to understand Gould. Gould did so much to dismantle them, this is why they always talk about what he said. They have to rationalize everything that Harvard Professor Stephen Gould went in painstaking detail to do, completely away. Some of em even tried to portray Gould as a screwball, or oddball, because of his work. It became very very political for Gould, after his work in his book Wonderful Life, and many other things Gould said, wrote and did. I know that Gould died of cancer. It kind of makes me wonder if somebody didn’t murder the poor guy. I actually wept, after I read Gould’s book Wonderful Life and some of the other writings he did. I wept for the man Gould. I wept for him because of how horribly some people treated him. It’s my view that because of the way they treated him, this is why he kept his mouth shut and would never body slam Darwinian evolution in the latter days of his life. Plus, Gould was a scientist and wanted the facts to speak for themselves. Gould called himself an agnostic. But I personally believe different after reading much of what he said. And Gould was such a marvelous wonder fellow. The term he used for his book, Wonderful Life, that ought to be a description of who the man was. He was a man who was a wonderful human being above all other things. That was the life of Stephen Jay Gould, a Wonderful Life. What did Jesus say again? All that came before him were thieves and robbers. It looks like a lot of people who came after him were thieves and robbers too. Such seems to be the case, of one Simon Conway Morris.

You guys don’t understand how much time all this takes someone like me, or anyone for that matter do put all this together. I have scanned hundreds of articles, read many many books on evolution, to do all this. You have to understand that Darwinians theory of evolution, really kind of pollutes itself and hides itself in thousands and thousands of articles, books and high sounding scientific rhetoric. You know how Doctor Victor Paul Weirwille, kind of hid himself in Greek words and the Aramaic texts, he used that to assert his own mad man scientific looking theology. It’s the same trick that Darwinian’s use, with a different twist. They hide themselves in feasibility peer reviewed studies, where the reviewer is, duh duh duh daaaaaa: Another evolutionary Atheist Biologist. Then they try to pass it off on you as scientific literature. You have to understand one other thing. There are not many people who even want to challenge Darwinism anymore at an academic level. If you want to know the reason why, see Ben Stiens movie. It is called, Expelled, No Intellegence Allowed. When your done viewing the movie, go online and look at what they did to a truly special and wonderful guy like Ben Stien. Go read all the creepy names Darwinists called Ben Stein, and how they savagely attacked his character. Let me tell you something about Ben Stein and some other people I wont mention for brevity sake. Ben Stien is a hero, for the Bible. Ben Stien has been savagely attacked and persecuted. Where were all the Ben Stien hate mongers before this movie? They didn’t exist because Ben Stien is an honest honorable person. Before Ben Stien did this, he was a person of impeccable character. This is what a bunch of low down evil hate mongers, some of these Darwian atheists are. They have to assassinate the person of Stien, to validate there own evil lies of evolution. They did it, because people like Stien point you to people who dispel and displace the theory. And he shows people what they do to others if they even try talking about it. It’s a pivotal movie, a pivotal essay, in the history of American literature. It’s pivotal because it proves that Darwins theory of evolution, has political and educational biased legs to run around. Ben Stien, and some other people, are going to go down in history as some of the great men of faith. Ben Stien and some of these other people, are going to be seen as legendary, in the history books. If history teaches any of us one thing, it is that the truth is always unkind, to people who have told and believe lies. It’s sort of like one of the most savage attacks in the history of America, against an all around nice guy like Ben Stien. The sick thing is, hardly anybody defends the poor guy. It’s like he getting the Stephen Jay Gould hands on to a new level treatment, by Darwinists. I wish somebody would just take Ben Stien out and give him one of those This is Your Life, Ben Stien days. The poor guy has been absolutely demolished. As I am writing this I actually almost have tears in my eyes, for the poor guy. And I hardly ever cry. And not just Ben Stien either have they ripped. Some others as well, and personally, I don’t even know if some of them have told the there stories. I doubt it. Then they would be accused of grandstanding. All I can say they better not ever hurt David Berlinski, Ann Coulter, Michael Behe, or Richard Wiekart. If they do I will come unglued. I have never met or talked to any of these people either, with the one exception being one of them sent me an Email. It was just a short thank you note thanking me for complimenting him on a book. The name of the book is The Devils Delusion by Professor David Berlinski. It’s a masterpiece of work, The man also has a great sense of humor. The book is out of print. Go figure. I wonder how that might have happened. By the way, Professor Berlinski, is a genious. He has, I forget the number, its ridiculous, somewhere around 3-5 degrees. In huge variety of subjects. This man can literally answers questions, on other books ad hoc. He can fire off shots on books off the hip. He is also one of the most dazzling and humourous people ever to live on the planet. He is as smart as Albert Einstien. I would actually love to meet the guy sometime but I really don’t dare. They would probably accuse me of some wrong doing just for that. Furthermore they would probably use someone like me to further sabotage his career. They have ALREADY DONE JUST A FINE STINKING JOB. THEY TOOK THE MAN BERLINSKI’S BOOK OUT OF PRINT AND THE MAN LIVES IN FRANCE. But go over to the store Barnes and the UnNoble. When Richard Dawkins wrote his book, The God Delusion, I saw a copy of the book in three different places. Order up an anti-evolution book, gotta order them in mostly. Oh sometimes they pay a little lip service to Michael Behe and throw a couple of copies of his books here and there, but only because he almost overthrew the Darwinian Cult by himself. If you don’t believe me go over there and find the Anti Evolutionary book shelf. It doesn’t exist. Not because there isn’t information on the topic either.

I’ts my belief that based upon just the works of Professor Berlinski, Professor Michael Behe, Richard Wiekart, Ben Stein and Ann Colther, that those that keep purporting evolution are evil just for trying. It’s been debunked, by scholars.

Instead atheists have a guy like Sam Harris. Now there is a tool if I ever seen one. In his book The End of Faith, he actually advocates the legalization of marijuana. That’s why I just call Sam Harris, ole Pothead. I read that book too. Its like the strangest goofiest book, I have ever read. The book basically reads like an inquistion or crusade against those of Christian and Jewish faith. It attacks Muslims pretty much too. But Harris develops some weird historical supposedly well established record, of Jewish blood letting against Christians and Witches. Then, he turns the table and blames the entire Nazi Holocaust, on Christianity because they were supposedly getting even. The man is absolutely that sick. He tries to pit Jewish people and Christians against each other. Then in the name of intellectualism and science, he tries to ride in like he is some sort of intellectual saviour or messiah. It’s like Here comes Sam Harris and atheists too save the day!!!!!!!! But there is one problem with his entire thesis. Christians and Jewish people to day, pretty much get along great. It’s like he seems to want to put a problem there too, where none exists. But as far as I am concerned with these people, I flow to the bible and try live like it says, which is to as much as lies within you be at peace with all men. Maybe somebody should just try to teach Harris this, so he isnt running around trying to create problems where none exist. Hopefully there is enough of a brain left there with ole pothead that he will at least understand that. It’s like, ole pothead thinks he brilliant, yet he can’t even think that one through. When atheists have intellectuals, you know, you guys might one get one that can think through not trying to manufacture non existent problems. It’s like they have to create a phantom problem now, for Darwinists like Harris to have a reason to crusade on against religion. It’s because Harris knows that there is too much good, in Jewish and Christian faiths, to stand around and attack them. So ole pothead manufactures a reason, to keep the Darwinian cult marching onward. Sam Harris is sort of like, the best reason on the planet not to pay any attention to Darwin evolution. Why? Because ole pothead is a blithering idiot, I am surprised anybody with a clear head would publish book. It’s like when I read his book, I winced. Then I went back and re-read it and laughed. I thought to myself, I finally found the person, that I know no one on earth can be more humanly stupid then. Ole pothead is kinda like the King of Idiots. I seriously don’t think I have ever read someone who can write, who is more of an blithering idiot than Sam Harris. Somebody at some publishing house had to be smoking off the same joint the day they let that one go. I have heard its been said that Barrack Obama is an intellectual genius. He probably is. That’s one guy that Obama could obviously help out. When you read someone like Berlinski’s writings and compare them to Sam Harris’s? Sam Harris isn’t even qualified intellectually to be David Berlinski’s shoe shine boy. Another person, whom atheist claim is bright is Richard Dawkins. I have even heard David Berlinski compliment Dawkin’s for being a brilliant person. It’s the only time I have ever heard Berlinski say something that I really cannot see myself when I read Dawkins stuff. In my opinion, Richard Dawkins isn’t qualified to carry David Berlinski’s jock, intellectually speaking. Some of you might think I have been to hard on Sam Harris. Harris rants and rages all the time, and all but flat out calls people of faith morons. He does it insidiously. That’s kind of the truth of God’s word in a nutshell about judging others, the guy doing all the pointing is the one with jello in his head, or pot or mushrooms or whatever else it might speculatively be. You say to yourself, well I shouldn’t be judging Sam Harris then. Look, I am not judging Sam Harris, I am just telling you the facts. Telling people the facts isn’t judging people. All of us who are Christians are suppose to weigh the facts so when can come to conclusions. It’s a pretty simple test really with Sam Harris, as in, who has a few noodles and who doesn’t. The thing is that those of us who have faith, really do not have any excuse because of Darwinism. There is material out there that dispels it lock stock and barrel. I mean, Michael Behe, David Berlinski,, Richard Wierkart and Ann Colther, and Ben Stein have already dispelled it, leveled it, made a wasteland of it, ALL BY THEMSELVES, WITH JUST SOME HELP FROM THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE. It’s actually a shameful thing, that these people are not held in high regard by the religious community. They have already done all the heavy lifting for them that is why. And here is another reason it is shameful. These people put there careers at risk and rarely does anyone say anything good about them. Fighting Darwinism is a horrible thing, because you have to take abuse for doing it. Nobody likes to go do anything, when they get abused for it. Darwinist’s know this too, that why there such whiny little persecutors to people that do it. I bet you if Jesus Christ came back today from heaven, Darwinists and Cladists would probably go fetch him and try to crucify him. It’s not rocket science. I mean, look what they do to God’s people who oppose them. It’s not difficult to see where that one MIGHT GO. Thats because atheists are very venomous to the truth. It’s also why the Bible haunts them. If you have ever talked to a pack of them, its like they have to prove the bible false in order for themselves to be true. No other academic study operates just like that. I mean, do you see people of history, having to dispel the bible to talk about history? One would think they would have to if they believed any history, because the bible is rich with history. They don’t have to because they establish history based upon the best known information and call it facts. Someone came up with the term for the hodgepodge science and called them Darwiniacs. History is also the Darwiniacs biggest gas attack. They don’t have a history that proves Darwiniac theory. They don’t have too, because the crackpot Darwiniac theory evades it or plugs fossils into the record in weird ways. This spells out roughly the cape an gown act of Darwiniac theory. Let me spell out to you how smart in a nut shell Darwiniac theory is. You have heard of the jeans Calvin Klien. Darwiniacs are about as smart as the guy who sees somebody wearing a pair of Calvin Klien jean, and then they run around and tell everybody the guys name is Calvin Klien. They are like a guy who goes over to Lake Michigan and takes a bottle and fills it with water from the lake and put it in there fridge. Then run around and tell people hey guess what everybody I got Lake Michigan in my refrigerator. Just because somebody can do something like that, it don’t make it true. And thats the kind things Darwianiacs are doing all day long.

One more thing about Professor Berlinski. He is real nice and cordial towards atheists all the time. He never totally strips out there chestnut tree. He leaves a few behind so as not to an embarrassment to atheists. Futhermore, if Berlinski doesn’t know something or is not sure, that is exactly what he says. He never out boxes himself to make himself look better than he is. Such integrity in a person is rare to find. Berlinski pretty much came to the same conclusion I did on Sam Harris however. In the opening page of his preface in his masterpiece The Devil’s Delusion, Professor Berlinski says the following, “Now I count myself among Harris’s warmest detractors. When he remarks that he has been dumbstruck by Christian and Moslem intellectual commitments, I believe the word has met the man.” Dumbstruck , is pretty much what my commentary on Harris makes a commitment to. All I did was add and explanation point to what Professor Berlinski said, with one exception, I think both Professor Berlinski and I have been generous.

When it comes to other atheists, like atheist hot shot Daniel Dennett (I read his book) and the guy I call the Grand Wizard himself (that would be Richard Dawkins) they basically just level anyone who has any faith and call them stuff like idiots and stupid. Your not just stupid and an idiot either, Richard Dawkins says your “insane.” All this in the name of honest intellectualism. It’s appalling. Daniel Dennett, a professor of Philosophy at Tufts University, is sporting a wig about a couple of rungs above the level of Sam Harris. The only reason someone like Dennett even skins by, in my opinion, is that his book looks obtuse, with careful manipulation of facts using what is at once, run on sentences to a new level of a carpet ride. One thing is for certain, apologies from these people are NOT forthcoming about the idiot, stupidity and insane rants towards those of faith, neither can anyone expect one. The bible even told people this is what they would look like. Most atheists don’t mind be called the heathen, they kind of relish in it. In the Psalms it says, something to the effect “Why do the heathen rage?” It describes them to a tee, they rage and vent. So go ahead and bash me if you want, at least I am not as bad as The Grand Wizard Richard Dawkins. I never once called atheists “insane.” About all you have to do these days to get Richard Dawkins upset, is claim that anyone who has faith is rationale and smart. That is about all it takes and he will be out on another Darwiniac crusade looking for converts to the Darwiniac cult.

Lastly, I am not going to run and start arguing about some of the things I wrote in here. Some of you guys who are atheists have pointed out that I am not an expert on the topic anyways. Thus, it hardly matters. But it matter from the standpoint to me that I really really tried, to show you guys what a croc this stuff is, and I wanted to prove it to you so that you know I was earnest in my intentions. Atheists are alwasys so big about telling others that they are ignorant. Well, I am not ignorant anymore, and, it’s a bit of a challenge to read stuff on the topic, when an atheist over at the Internet Infidels Society, cited that fact that there are a million articles on the topic, as tho that proved the point. Gee, did God ever ask people who are Catholics to become Lutherans to understand him? NOT

In the following pages after this paragraph, I attached a list of the questions I wrote myself and asked Simon Conway Morris to answer. I realize that you would not be able to understand the questions without reading his book. I simply include them so that you know my word is true and that I did all this stuff. I did it for you atheists in here, and for anyone who Darwinism bothers in the slightest sense. Thus, I was trying to be kind, friendly and caring. The following therefore is a letter I drafted myself and emailed to Professor Simon Conway Morris about his book The Crucible of Creation for which I received no reply, not so much as a note saying he didn’t want to answer my questions: (It was emailed to Professor Morris on Wednesday April 29th, 2009, which is many months ago.)

Dear Professor Morris:

Thank you for your reply. Okey dokey then, you are busy, so I will keep the questions to a minimum, about 11 lengthy ones only which is not to many. Anyway, take your time about it, if you need a few weeks or more that is certainly okey dokey with me. Here are the questions:

Questions presented to Professor Simon Conway Morris on your book The Crucible of Creation.

1) From Chapter 4 you describe an imaginative situation where if one were to go back in the Cambrian what one might see, then you (Professor Morris) say, " What follows therefore is very much an exercise in scientific imagination. Not all of what I describe can be correct."

I am wondering specifically, if "not all of what you describe could be correct" why would you then advance this scenery as a posit for a possible Cambrian look a like? It seems to only add more to the confusion, so please state why you provided such an down take on the Cambrian explosion?

2) You state in the same chapter 4 the above paragraph the following, "In the Cambrian none of these animals had evolved, and .... etc..) Then in Chapter 7 on page 184 you state "that Anomalocaris is not a member of some weird new phylum but appears to be a fossil crucial to our understanding of the early stages in the emergence of arthropods." Since you clearly state that none of these animals had evolved, why then do you place Anomalocaris in a position of the early stages of arthropods? Are you saying that other arthropods had evolved from Anomalocaris, when you said in the previous chapter none of them had evolved and why so? Then in the next paragraph on page 184 you make some rather large comparisons of Opabina and Anomalocaris, that they are in fact related. You recall then that it was Whittington who called Opabina an entirely new phylum. Are prepared then to say that Whittington was wrong? Lastly, in Stephen Gould’’s book Wonderful Life, you Professor Morris classified six animals as entirely new phylum. I realize that because of some new discoveries and early admission you have changed your mind on some of them. Have you changed your mind on all six of the classifications you originally did?

3. In the next paragraph on page 184 you say the following comments, "Let us accept that all of these animals will ultimately tell us much about the early evolution of arthropods. How much further back shall we be able to trace the roots of the arthropod tree? This is still very uncertain." Why should anyone accept that these animals will tell "us" something about the early evolution of arthropods, if it is "still very uncertain?" If is uncertain they will tell anything to accept this premise would only lead down a road of conjecture. Please explain exactly how this is science? You seem to engender more questions about the Cambrian than you do answers, please explain why this is necessary?

4. On page 183 of your book you say the following, "When does an arthropod become a true arthropod? Then after another line on Marrella you follow it up by saying, "So what do they do? They make a new pigeon hole and say, ‘‘Anomaloclaris must belong to a new phylum.’’ But this is really an evasion and solves nothing, at least in the context of evolution." I am wondering why specifically that this question must be resolved in "the context of evolution." This is precisely what this comment of yours suggests on appearance. Why does the phylum question have to be resolved in the context of evolution?

5. You state on page 154 of your book that, "It requires no great leap of imagination, therefore, to link the abrupt appearance of skeletons in the Cambrian to the introduction of predators." Are you then positing this position as a "just so" adaptation of the skeletal system in these Cambrian animals? It would seem so? Yet you state on page 153, "... as is evident from the fact that for many years it was claimed that Cambrian marine communities were almost entirely free of predators." Then on page 154 you state, "but the story of the rise of predators is still quite tentative." I am wondering why specifically you would advance skeletons in the Cambrian as almost conclusive in nature (it requires no great leap of imagination) if the story and the rise of predators is in the same breath described as "quite tentative"? Tentative infers uncertainty by definition, why then why then do you advance such a position that in another breath you are uncertain about? I need some answers here Professor.

6. Then in Chapter 7 on body plans you go into the story of the animal fossil discovery Wiwaxia.

On page 189 under News from Greenland you make the following comment, "It may also have been the case that the intensity of predation had escalated from the time of the Sirius Passet fauna to that of the Burgess Shale." Then you adopt the concept of predation again in the form of protecting. Page 192 you say the following, " so they defined an intervening and protected recess that made the presence of the cultrate sclerites unnecessary." On page 194 you state, "to protect themselves they had to utilize hard parts." I am wondering exactly, precisely, why you invoke the concepts of protection (which comes in realistic need from predators), if in fact you see the concept of predation in the history of science as so tentative or uncertain? I realize at the end of the chapter you say, "but this parallel story shows how the basic steps might have been achieved." Are prepared to say then that the entire thesis of your book is no more than speculative? If so, why then do you remain a hardcore advocate of evolutionary theory? It seems as though you are simply trying to reestablish the artifact theory by dismissing Gould, by allowing the entrance of what you think might be plausible explanations for doing so. Would you say this is a fair characterization of your book? The reason I have come to that conclusion is your statement also in Chapter 8 on page 205 which says, "I hope that by now I have persuaded you by now that whatever importance is attached to the Burgess Shale, it is not in the operation of either historical contingency or in the fable of re-running the film of the history of life." You did then call Gould’’s work a fable. It seems as if this is a principal reason of this book. Please explain, specifically why your assertions which you describe as "quite tentative" should not be construed as fables also? My problem is Professor, that speculative stories with precursors as out pitches do not quite satisfy my intellect. Please explain? (Also, I do think you and some of your atheist friends could be related to Wiwaxia, as in you have wax in your ears.)

7. I realize you are a big fan of convergent evolution. My problem is that convergent evolution obviously requires much more evolution as in tons and tons more. So that I see convergent evolution as one of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory not a positive principle. Please explain exactly why you are like convergent evolution so much since it requires more evolution in multiple format?

8. On page 108 you discuss Ctenophores and recant that, "living Ctenophores invariably have eight comb-rows." Then you recall on page 109 that Ctenorhabodtotus has 24 rows in Cambrian times and other Ctenophores had even more. Then on 109 you issue this statement, "Perhaps a reduction to 8 rows led to easier coordination via the balancing organ and so improved manoeuvrability." Doesn’’t it seem at least as plausible that 24 rows would give better coordination and improved manoeuvrability? This seems to be selective posturing, for what specific reason does a reduction in rows in this organism play in coordination?

Figure 65 on page 142 is an exhibit of "Trace fossils in the form of a series of scratch marks", which you say on page 141 are, "widely interpreted as representing the digging activity of arthropods." Since trace fossils are being widely suspected of providing some answers for evolution, it would seem that these scratch marks, at least to me are rather Panglossian or excessively optimistic. I mean do think Professor Morris, that these "scratch marks" could be just as easily interpreted as something else say a fallen tree scratch marks or some other non living artifact? And if so, why then do they provide meaningful posits for trace fossils? This seems to be some rather curious celebrating over not much of anything do you think so too? Now I realize these are not your arguments, but since you crutch your arguments on them, don’’t you think that these Swedish fossils are very weak in terms of proof of anything?

9) On page 59 of your book you state, "The discovery of similar faunas elsewhere in the world is showing that the Burgess Shale is far from being unique..." Then if you move forward to page 140 you make a good point about how 95 percent of the Burgess Shale represent soft bodied or "thin skeleton" type fossils." How do you distinguish between thin skeleton and thick skeleton in making such observations? Also, why would you make a distinction, isn’’t a skeleton a skeleton? You then go on to say, "Applied to other Cambrian assemblages they suggest that a vast amount of information is lost." I don’’t think that Stephen Gould’’s argument in Wonderful Life ever was that what was found in the Burgess Shale wouldn’’t be found anywhere else on the planet. The concept of uniqueness (or Phyla which describes how your profession would classify) was in comparison to things moving forward in the evolutionary sense, not in terms of lateral comparison in what one would expect comparing these fossils to other Cambrian ones if the record was perfect. Therefore I fail to see how the distribution of these fossils diminishes the Burgess Shale with respect to uniqueness. Please provide some commentary. How exactly does distribution of the same fossils worldwide make them any less unique?

10) On page146 of your book you state, "It is possible that the Ediacaran fossils will come to be regarded as almost irrelevant to how we understand the early evolution of animals. Frankly, I doubt it. In my opinion understanding Ediacaran fossils remain one of the most interesting challenges in paleontology." I find this statement by you rather curious. Yet Gould and others have argued (see page 313 Wonderful Life) that the Ediacaran fossils suffer from volume constraints too large to evolve along this pathway. This seems like a perfectly sensible argument form which to dismiss the Ediacaran fossils as possible gateways for evolution. Why then do you persist in suggesting that there must be something there? Also on page 26 you make the following notation about fossil finds, "... and the exact date of the sediments in which they are found is often contentious. The fossil record, therefore, is sporadic and the timetable of events is subject to constant revision." Yet you seem perfectly content on page 125 to chart some other Cambrian events prior to the Burgess Shale discovery. The question is then, is this chart accurate or is it Panglossian or excessively optimistic?

11) In a discussion with Stephen Gould called Showdown on the Burgess Shale Stephen Gould makes the following remark, "Why have no new animal phyla(with the single exception of Bryozoa) evolved in more than 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion?" In a recent presentation you gave on the Cambrian explosion, you show a chart which documents only 9 phylum in the Cambrian explosion, 12 more which are recent and 8 (eight in all) that are now shown after the Cambrian explosion. When exactly did all these new phylum get reclassified? It does seem a bit odd that the classification system, (The mother of all classifiers if you will) have come along to beat this hereto for not known system into existence. This seems rather odd don’’t you think? That the classifiers would reclassify at precisely the time when the Cambrian explosion was jeopardizing the evolutionary science? Then, in the same segment you proceed to bash Creationists as if this whole segment was known all along? This seems like some rather poor method of educating, to change the Phylum chart and then posit as though it should be known all along to bash Creationists? Commentary please? (Lastly, I think you are a complete Jackass, if you don’’t make some of these things right after what you did to Gould’’s book, because I believe these questions if not answered would at least dispel the notion that Gould’’s book was wrong on contingency.) If you want to your sure welcome to comment on the fact that I think you are a Jackass if you don’’t do anything. And a complete Jackass at that. Commentary?

*************************

Dear Father in Heaven.

I pray today for all former TWI people, and existing TWI members, that they can find the truth. I pray especially for former TWI members who are now atheists. I pray that they can find you back along an easy road. I pray that they will have the security from you to know, they will never have to go through something like this again. I pray they don’t hate me. I pray they don’t hate me because I have felt hate from other atheists, all thou not so much from ex TWI atheists. I ask this prayer in Jesus name Amen.

[Mister P-Mosh]

sky4it,

I appreciate your compliments and holding me in high regard in terms of my mental ability. That ability is a bit dulled at the moment due to sleep deprivation, so I won't respond in detail, although I have a lot of thoughts that I could respond and answer some of what you said about.

One thing I wanted to mention first, is that it is possible to believe in evolution, or any other scientific principle, and follow religious beliefs. In Judaism, for example, I don't think anyone believes that the story of creation was to be taken literally. It is only some Christians who believe the Earth and all life was created in six days a few thousand years ago. For example, some Christians believe that the Christian god created the Earth by creating the process of evolution, creating the big bang, creating the laws of physics, etc. and simply let everything fall into place.

Also, if anyone has an issue with you, it will be for things that seem patronizing. While to you it seems like you are praying for us to help us and because you want us to be saved and all that, from the outside it seems belittling. Imagine if a Catholic tells you that they are going to pray for you because as a protestant, you are a heretic. Then they say that while there are a few good protestants out there, the leaders of protestant movements and denominations were con men and pure evil looking to fool people away from the true path of Christianity. Or they say that most protestants are ignorant because they don't believe in saints, and that protestants are much more rude than Catholics.

It's a cliche, but keep in mind that "atheists" like myself don't have any lofty beliefs or ideas about religion. We simply have an absence of belief in what you believe in. You too are an atheist to many other religions. I imagine that you don't believe Buddha will give you good luck by putting a statue of him in your home. I imagine you don't put a mirror above the front door of your house to ward off evil spirits. I bet you also don't pray towards Mecca a few times a day in the name of Allah. You surely don't believe that the thunder is caused by Zeus rather than simple electrical charges in the clouds. Everyone is an atheist of some sort, and I think it would help believers of the various faiths to understand us on similar terms rather than trying to differentiate us from each other.

[sky4it]

sky4it,

I appreciate your compliments and holding me in high regard in terms of my mental ability. That ability is a bit dulled at the moment due to sleep deprivation, so I won't respond in detail, although I have a lot of thoughts that I could respond and answer some of what you said about.

One thing I wanted to mention first, is that it is possible to believe in evolution, or any other scientific principle, and follow religious beliefs. In Judaism, for example, I don't think anyone believes that the story of creation was to be taken literally. It is only some Christians who believe the Earth and all life was created in six days a few thousand years ago. For example, some Christians believe that the Christian god created the Earth by creating the process of evolution, creating the big bang, creating the laws of physics, etc. and simply let everything fall into place.

Also, if anyone has an issue with you, it will be for things that seem patronizing. While to you it seems like you are praying for us to help us and because you want us to be saved and all that, from the outside it seems belittling. Imagine if a Catholic tells you that they are going to pray for you because as a protestant, you are a heretic. Then they say that while there are a few good protestants out there, the leaders of protestant movements and denominations were con men and pure evil looking to fool people away from the true path of Christianity. Or they say that most protestants are ignorant because they don't believe in saints, and that protestants are much more rude than Catholics.

It's a cliche, but keep in mind that "atheists" like myself don't have any lofty beliefs or ideas about religion. We simply have an absence of belief in what you believe in. You too are an atheist to many other religions. I imagine that you don't believe Buddha will give you good luck by putting a statue of him in your home. I imagine you don't put a mirror above the front door of your house to ward off evil spirits. I bet you also don't pray towards Mecca a few times a day in the name of Allah. You surely don't believe that the thunder is caused by Zeus rather than simple electrical charges in the clouds. Everyone is an atheist of some sort, and I think it would help believers of the various faiths to understand us on similar terms rather than trying to differentiate us from each other.

Mr. Pmosh

Thanks for the response. I understand what your saying. This is kind of difficult for me to explain. For example, before I came here to GS Café, my interest first was out of curiosity as to what old TWI were doing. I learned a lot. I learned what the damaging effects can be, not just of a belief in a failed set of religious principles can bring, but ALSO what belief in any type of system that uses control, and abuses people.

I understand that you will see the above paragraph as somewhat patronizing. And I think I understand why. It has to do with the fact that ANYTIME someone elses views differ from someone else, PATRONIZING people is and has been used as part of the control process in some religious organizations or otherwise. I would not have learned that, had I not met you here. When I say patronizing, I mean that you view concern or statement of facts of what another person believes at times as patronizing. I have that same problem when I commuciate, but when I try to be direct, to the point with no concern, well then I feel aloof, conceited or rude. I think the only way that problem will ever be solved in communication is if the communicator is honest, sincere and truthful with themselves. And there is no easy way on earth, to know wether the person your talking to is actually that. (It’s kind of funny, I actually learned that last statement from Garth, when he threw me over the fence one time for stereotyping athiests. Only Garth could do that and get by with it with his TWI experience.) The point being, you are the only one, who I ever met who isolates that as a problem in communication.

I guess the only other way I can illustrate it, is to say, congradulations on having a capability that few people have. I believe Mr Pmosh, that I possess the same amount of healthy scepticim as you do. The difference is, I got to where I got to, not so much through TWI, but through being myself a victim in other areas of life where I was abused. I think the nut is, Mr. Pmosh, and it hard to explain so I will just say it. TWI or Non TWI being a victim in any thing in life, makes people very very smart with an edge. The thing I always wanted to be able to say to you and Garth and some others, is that what this all means is that After TWI or After any other abusive system someone has been through, It’s a HUGE HUGE HUGE benefit in life, because nobody can hoodwink or pull the wool over your eyes again. And the hardest part is I do not know how to say that without sounding patronizing. That is why, I really think you guys under estimate the long term value, with God, of your experience. I have under estimated the value of my own sufferings through out my life. Then, I wake up, and I realize I could not of went through what I am now, if I hadn’t had the experiences in the past. And I could’nt have done it, because I wouldn’t have been able to isolate really abusive people from out of my life. I just wouldn’t have had the smarts, nor the fortitude to do it, without the past experience.

I actually share with you MrPmosh, that same curious fascination with why little things in life, are done backwards or are not done correct. It’s for all of the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraphs. I actually believe, that one can look at all the little things that are done backwards, as tips of icebergs, where there is great big leaking stories underneath the little things. I actually believe that a person can roughly put everything that is going on together, by looking at all the little broken down things. The problem is for me, that when I do it, I tend to look either conceited or out of touch. Of course, when I have a hunch, I really need some proof before I can say anything. The difference between me and you I suggest, is that I somehow feel that God may suffer these unknown things NOT to be exposed, for the simple reason a lot of people out there really do not care what is under these tips of the iceberg at all. I am not saying you don’t care, I know you do, otherwise you wouldn’t have such a fascination with detail.

The goofy thing is I believe there are Christians or others of faith, who when finding out that things were not the way they thought they were, will get jolted out of there socks. I just don’t find any reason why, God should be responsible for all of that. I used to all the time hear this anacronym called church shoppers or church bobbers or spiritual gypsies. I think the point the party was making when they brought it up, was that the person doing the shopping was trying to find direction or being content in an organization. I do not believe that any such one particular organization exists. There can be found flaws in as many churches as there are churches. I think it was only when I was comfortable with that being the truth, that I really became comfortable in my own faith. I simply share this last part with you, to explain why I don’t really have a problem with Buddha or the many many countless religious organizations and differing experiences, which explains in large part why the One True God concept for me is rather simple. And I guess the side benefit for me has always been, if there is no one organization which can explain it all, then I feel rather free to try to take stabs at what all those gaps might be. And for that, its actually kind of fun.

Some of the hard things in life, I have had to learn frontwards and backwards, to get em right. That is a tough enough road for me, learning thing like that. I know too, you have been through it big time. You know how Billy Graham tell people to confess that one bible verse in Romans for salvation, I am sure you have heard him say it, the one about confessing the Lord Jesus and believing and so forth. You know, if it doesn’t work for you frontwards, I dunno, trying saying it backwards maybe that will get you miracle or something. Please don’t misunderstand, I am not trying to make fun of you, I simply wouldn’t do that, I know your too wounded as it is. Things are so messed up and backwards all over the place today, a person almost has to do things backwards to get it right around some people.

There are people in this life, nobody can ever please. (No I don’t mean you.) It’s like with some people they want you to admit, that everything you ever did was wrong, or when they look at you they won’t acquit. I don’t believe that God is ever at all like that. Contrawise, he is just the opposite, wanting people to learn from failed experiences, valuable things so people are not running around messing up again.

It’s kind of funny Mr.PMosh, if you ever get mad at somebody and are cleaning up on them, remind me not to come around the corner when you are. If you were, you’d start picking on somebody who has a scab and by the time you were done there wouldn’t be anything left. The goofy thing is that, that is not all bad. There is absolutely no reason to allow others to run around and create havoc for other people with deceit and lies for there own selfish interest.

Some of the attacks on people of any faith by Dawkins, Dennett and Harris and others recently have been just flat out brutal. So after reading some of there stuff, I figured I would just let er rip. Turning the other cheek a multitude of times without lifting up the facts on people like these could get one kicked out of school or worse. But notice also that I specifically differentiated between long time ExTwi people and them. There is a good reason, The ones I have talked to are far far different, in attitude.

You might find former Professor of Harvard Stephen Jay Gould’s book Wonderful Life interesting. Gould called the one who made creation, “the divine tape player” Gould appears to favored letting the facts speak for themselves and in so doing, it was almost as if that was his confession. Because when he called the Creator the divine tape player, it’s difficult to make a case that he didn’t believe in God. One can’t, because there is absolutely no reason for him to call it “divine.” Of course, Gould was throughout his career just like that. He would say certain things almost as if to make the statement, then he would kind of crinkle the edges on his writings, because he was afraid. The crinkled edges tell a story of a man who was beside himself in fear of what other atheists would say, if he let it rip. At least, that is the conclusion I came to after reading many of his writings.

[sky4it]

Anyway, to finish up this thread a few more strokes about Charles Darwin are in order. Weve all been talking about honesty and integrity with oneself around the GS Café recently. You have to understand that in Charles Darwins day, there was no such a thing as a peer reviewed study, there wasn’t someone following Darwin to the Gallapgos Islands, Charles Darwin went and did these things by himself.

You have to remember Charles Darwin was a man who woke up one morning, went off to work and tried to explain to people how a mouse turned itself into a cat. That ought to tell you about all you need to know about Darwin in the first place. So your probably asking yourself, why didn’t they put a straight jacket on Charley right then and there. It’s a good question and it deserves a good answer.

You see, Charlie was a little smarter than that. Charley went out and tried to gather some evidence about evolution, and the chief evidence he supplied was his Galapagos Finches, and there differing beak sizes. But there is a huge huge problem with this. Charley was in all likelihood comparing female finches beaks to male finches beaks, and then pretending they were all from just males. Charlie probably just went out and shot a bunch of finches, and cut off there beaks, and then said they were all males when they were a mix. Also, Charlie could have had a file in his back pocket, and tweeked the beak so to speak. You say to yourself well that is horrible nobody should be allowed to do that. Yeah precisely, but that doesn’t mean that that isnt exactly what happened. You have to realize that Charley did all this stuff 150 years ago, before things like a test tube were actually in use. And there is absolutely no way, no how, can someone from that era, say that Darwins methods were scientific. Darwin had motive, the motive was to push evolution along, and the only viable path was that he needed a reason to fit the theory, so what Charley did was make one up. The other thing is, there is lots of people who do stuff like that to become famous. Charley had all the motive in the world, to push that snake of his up a tree.

I am NOT the first one to say things like this about the theory of evolution. Over the years there has been many other people, who manufactured evidence to propel the theory. If you want to read about them they are in the last 4 chapters of Miss Ann Colther’s book called Godless. Stories like pinning moths on the different parts of a tree to make it look like the moth can evolve. Stories of someone burying a skeleton in the back yard of an English home with a baboons head on it to discover the missing link. The lengths some people have went to to push the wheel barrow that is evolution around is positively astonishing.

Anyway, that is about all I have to say about evolution now, if you need more, and like to look into the scientific parameters of the discussion and where it stands today, I would refer you to Professor David Berlinski’s many writings, because he and some others are the most knowledgeable people around on the subject.

There is right now, a new group of atheists on the horizon called Cladists. The Cladists are far far worse than the Darwinists. Hardcore Cladism, doesn’t even believe in Charles Darwins theory of evolution. What hard core Cladists believe, is that the actual fossil record represents splits in and between species themselves. Its getting weird, and its going to get a whole lot weirder. What do you think it is actually that they are doing with the human genome project? I will tell you this, they are not trying to map out a place for anybody in heaven. They are trying to map out, every last one of your cells, so that they can figure out which people are more viably reproductive. Which people have more to offer society, why some people are more productive and intelligent than others. What it is, is , science with peoples heads on a plate, and it really should scare the living hell out of people. Now there may be some people that work on the human genome project that don’t have this agenda, but it is what it is, and the purpose for it is, its genesis. You say to yourself that the human genome project is about advances in health care, and your right it is. I have no problem with that either. The problem is with people who want to use such information for other purposes, like procreation and such. And if you think that there are not people out there like that, well then your just flat out wrong. There is actually people out there, who based on your genes would want to mate with you and have your baby just based on that. And if that aint flat out weird, I dunno what is. As much as everyone loves to believe in the kindness and generous spirit of humankind, I am just not that trusting, of someone who thinks the only thing that exists in my inner core, is a bag full of genes.

Now when I said its going to get worse, its going to get a whole lot worse. There are actually people out there, in the name of science right now, who think if you have faith or believe in God Almighty, its in your genes. I am not making this stuff up, if you don’t believe me, google it up.

While there are many bible verses that speak to God’s eternal existence, there is one that sticks out and screams rather loud. It’s in I John 4:8 which says, “God is love.” Love didn’t create itself, because God didn’t create himself, he has just simply always existed. Love doesn’t exist in genes or any particle of matter. It can’t: matter has no thought, no reason, no motive. It is hard to imagine or conceive on the face of things, how love could ever be born. Yet, there it is, right in front of everyone’s noses, born in a manger for you and me. It didn’t have to be born, it was born because people wanted to see it born, so that they could have a chance to rip it off. And I can’t think of absolutely any other reason love had to be born. If something can be killed it can die off and not come back. Why the hell anybody would want to kill love, is insane. Love has already been killed once, it sat there on a cross with two spikes in each hand, and two spikes in each foot. It’s pretty much just flat out jealousy, malice and hatred: that Satan, the Devil and Lucifer, wanted to rip off everything God ever had.. And that is why I am pretty much done discussing evolution. After all, that is all evolution is pretty much all about, ripping off God so that someone doesn’t need to have any particular reason to do whatever they want to.