Letters to the Editor


Table of Contents Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist) Amazing Transitional Animals interview with a god This Day in Evolution History Chatter Box The Book of Chances Evolution in Action So-So Proofs of Intelligent Design Primordial Soup for the Soulless Opposable Thumbs The Blind Fools Evolution Dictionary Toon Dig EvoNews! Letters to the Editor The Blind Fools Guest Entry Log Who Are We? The Real Story Past Issues - Issues that ran before this Linkage - Other sites that are way more Contact the fools	Letters to the Editor Issue Nine Letters Policy: Basically the only thing we have to officially say is this, "Your letter may be directed to another member of the staff, rather than I, the Editor in Chief, answering it". This is done to insure that you get the most highly qualified answer that we can possibly give. Also, sometimes I am on vacation every week or so. And I, the Editor in Chief, reserve the right to edit all letters posted. Sometimes the "colorful" language has to be omitted or changed which would be distinguished by italicized (parenthesis) because it it causes nice elderly church ladies thump their Bibles too hard. And with their fragile and delicate fingers, this causes considerable pain. And since we love and respect them dearly, we choose to save them from such pain so that they can continue to bake us cookies. Your's truly, The Editor in Chief. for frank dear facetiously consistent frank, the following news item intrigued me....... North Korea -named by US President George Bush as part of an "axis of evil" - has described the US as the "empire of the devil." The official North Korean news agency said Mr Bush was using the threat supposedly posed by North Korea as a pretext for a huge increase in defence spending. i was wondering, since officially north korea is atheist, when they call someone a devil does that mean that they don't believe that person exists. if so, why bother criticizing them. just wondering, beanfarmer Dear Mr. Bean, The North Koreans are what I call "immature" atheists - they have a lot of growing to do (though they have come a long way baby). You are right in determining that they shouldn't use that "devil" term or any other religious term for that matter. But I shan't be too hard on them. Currently I am working on an "intermediate" Olympic report as well as a copiously researched one for the next issue of Blind Fools detailing just how far we have to go to get rid of ALL offensively religious symbols that influence our (and the NK's) brains. You will see just how saturated our world is with religion - and frankly that offends me. The NK's are like some of these young whipper-snapper atheists who use demonic images on their own web sites. They just need to grow (get edumacated) as non-believers. Thanks for the heads up and my brain will be contacting the Korean Workers' Party's brains, the president's brain, the Central People's Committee's brains, the Supreme People's Assembly's brains, and the State Administrative Council's brains and its premier's brain to rectify the situation immediately. Frankly, Frank B. Finite (A chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter) Hi guys! I just read your e-mail regarding reptile evolution into birds. Now as it happens I have three birds. Two of them actually talk (most of the time they make more sense than some people I know.) I read the e-mail to them and I have to tell you that according to Niki and Guido, the person or persons who are propagating this slander (the birds opinion) was or were full of bilge and who knows what else. As Niki put it; "there have never been any scaley lowlifes in my family tree!" I just thought I'd let you know the word right from the horse's, er... I mean the birds mouth. DJ Ha ha! You have just become an honorary Blind Fools board member. Maybe we're directly related to them because we both can talk. Ya think?! Sincerely, Editor in Chief Blind Fools To Anyone, (and I address it this way because I don't know who to send this to.) I copied this quote from your website: Human beings are the result of evolution, and shaped by natural selection. Self-centredness and aggression were essential at every stage of evolution. And once I saw it, it immediately brought to mind one question: If this is true, why haven't we evolved yet? You see, there is enough self-centeredness and aggression in the human race, (at least in the US) for us to have gone through, I'd say, at least the next seventy-five stages of evolution. So, why haven't we evolved? BTW, I am a Christian who believes the Bible from Cover to cover. I love Jesus Christ and I love God. I believe that we are created in His Image, but we are fallen because of sin and therefore seperated from God. The only thing that can save us is Jesus Christ. I don't believe in Evolution because I don't believe in Lies. I merely thought that this would be something to add to your site. In Christ, <>< Dear <>< I (the Editor in Chief) was going to respond to your request, but under our bylaws Frank challenged me to a thumb wrestling match to determine who gets to respond to you. In an illegal move midway through our match, Frank clasped my midsection with his legs in a "scissor lock" hold. And since he works out with his Thigh Master® religiously, he about nearly popped my eyeballs out. When I came to he had already entered his reply into our system which is irretrievable (etched in stone, if you will). So here is his response . . . Hey <>< What's with the symbol stuff? Is this really Prince with a new symbol for his name? Oh well, it doesn't matter. I stopped trying to figure you fundies out a long time ago. Anyway, the proof you seek is in the pudding. Well, it's at the Olympics anyway. Do you see all those records being broken?! This is absolute proof that man is evolving right before our very eyes. And then there's people born with extra legs. You can count that too. Frankly, Frank B. Finite's brain (a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter) Here's my (Editor in Chief's) second response to <>< Here is an article I thought might clear up that fuzzy argument that Frank gave you about people being stronger now therefore evolved. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3069.asp Sincerely, Editor in Chief Blind Fools I see you have some interesting disinformation on your site. How nice for you. Please read the following. >"Atheist >1. A believer in the faith that God does not exist." Visualize reality. An Atheist studies the FACTs and sees that A. there is no need for a god, and B. there is no need to worship a no-thing. No 'faith' necessary. >"Evolution >1. There was once a time when none of the creatures in the world > had lungs (i.e. fish). This means that there was no genetic > information (the 'blueprint' for living things, carried on the > molecule DNA)for lungs - anywhere. Then, at a later time, 'lung > information' arose and was added to the world (i.e. killer whales > and cute dolphins and even lungfishies), but no 'feather > information' as yet - feathers evolved later (i.e. birds). Gosh, Science is hard, isn't it. A. Information about lungs was in fishes gills and EVOLVED to become self-contained. B. Also of note, when a Human fetus is developing in the womb, at one stage, there are vestigial 'gills' on the neck. C. Feathers are just an offshoot of scales (which are very prevalent on fish). Hair is another offshoot which may be found on the near hairless ape decendents known as Humans. >2. Not observable since it happens slowly over millions of years. This will probably come as a shock, but it has been observed in insects and microbes by actual scientists! It does happen slowly to us nearly bald bipeds due to slow reproduction times, and to observe that, one must watch for millenia, and unfortunately we don't live that long. >3. Nothing scientifically true about it. An interesting statement and shows that science isn't something you practice. "Scientifically true" isn't even good grammar. Science is the process of observing things, coming up with theories to explain them, trying to find all the ways that would dis-prove the theories, and running the necessary tests and finding out. Evolution remains a "Theory", but has yet to be disproven. >4. A really really bad 2001 science fiction movie. Okay, I'll almost grant you this one, it wasn't the best, but it was done purely for laughs and I did occationally >5. The fairy tale of a frog turning into a prince (just a bit slower, > that's all) Similar to fairy tales about walking on water? >6. Creation myth of atheists." We don't deal in myths, that is for deists, as is creation. Thank you for your attention. RJR I see you have some interesting disinformation on your site. It's part of our church leaders' plans for world domination by the year 2112. How nice for you. Not really. Our leaders have us here 24 hours a day slaving over this stuff. Can you send help? An Atheist studies the FACTs and sees that A. there is no need for a god, and B. there is no need to worship a no-thing. No 'faith' necessary. A.) Whether somone sees no need for a thing does not argue against its existance. Also, nobody can know everything. 2.) And since we can't know everything, then there is a distinct possibility that some sort of a god exists. Therefore one claiming that it is a fact that there is "no-thing" or "no god" is illogical. A. Information about lungs was in fishes gills and EVOLVED to become self-contained. Please provide the observable evidence that this indeed happened. Also of note, when a Human fetus is developing in the womb, at one stage, there are vestigial 'gills' on the neck. "...the creases in the human embryo which Haeckel referred to as 'gill slits' have no connection with breathing, but develop into ear and jaw areas." http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html Feathers are just an offshoot of scales (which are very prevalent on fish). "The most fundamental difference is that the feather grows out of a follicle. A follicle is a tubular down-growth of the epidermis that protrudes deeply into the skin - all the way down to underlying bone in the case of primary feathers. And this tube of specialized living skin produces the feather inside of itself from a growth matrix at the very bottom. The reptilian scale has absolutely nothing to do with follicles. All of the scales can shed as a sheet because they're nothing but folds in the epidermis, like fabric folded over on itself, whereas feathers would have to come out of their own follicle." - Dr David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp Hair is another offshoot which may be found on the near hairless ape decendents known as Humans. "The list shown here gives 18 very nontrivial similarities between feathers and hairs. So, if evolutionists really wanted to make a case, they could argue that feathers evolved from hair, or vice versa. Now, of course, that wouldn't fit the evolutionary belief that mammals and birds evolved independently from reptiles. So hardly anyone gets to know that in fact, it's hairs, not scales, that are similar to feathers." - Dr David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp This will probably come as a shock, but it has been observed in insects... The problem is that they (genetic mutations) are always harmful. One famous case is Antennapedia, where legs grow where antennae should be. The program showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but failed to mention that they were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Both these flies would be eliminated by natural selection. http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp Are there 'good' mutations? Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such 'good' mistakes are still the wrong types of changes to turn a fish into a philosopher - they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes). http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp ...and microbes by actual scientists! 1. Supergerms are actually not super at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special conditions in hospitals. 2. There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that 'imported' from other bacteria). 3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, 'uphill' change. 4. Supergerms give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years. Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilised in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/337.asp It does happen slowly to us nearly bald bipeds due to slow reproduction times, and to observe that, one must watch for millenia, and unfortunately we don't live that long. Agreed - too slow (if it does indeed happen). The very definition of science deals with "observable" phenomenon, though. This falls outside of scientific criteria. "Scientifically true" isn't even good grammar. Us here at the Institute for the Study of Athianity have not never claimed too have well grammar nor correct speling. Science is the process of observing things, coming up with theories to explain them, trying to find all the ways that would dis-prove the theories, and running the necessary tests and finding out. Like "nearly bald bipedal" evolution has been observed? (BTW - I like the term "nearly bald bipedal", I'll have to work that into my next issue) http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp Evolution remains a "Theory", but has yet to be disproven. Our contention is that it has never been proven in the first place. Similar to fairy tales about walking on water? As in the first argument of this letter, if God (a miracle maker) remains a possibility foe exiatance then so does the possibility of miracles. We don't deal in myths, that is for deists, as is creation. According to you, evolution is indeed a theory. But it's neither been proven or disproven. And if nobody was there to see all of this happening, then it remains a myth (at the very least, a faith) until proven some other way. Thank you for your attention. No, no, no - thank YOU :-) RJR Editor in Chief

Past Issues - Issues that ran before this

Linkage - Other sites that are way more

Letters to the Editor

Issue Nine

Letters Policy:

Basically the only thing we have to officially say is this, "Your letter may be directed to another member of the staff, rather than I, the Editor in Chief, answering it". This is done to insure that you get the most highly qualified answer that we can possibly give.

Also, sometimes I am on vacation every week or so.

And I, the Editor in Chief, reserve the right to edit all letters posted. Sometimes the "colorful" language has to be omitted or changed which would be distinguished by italicized (parenthesis) because it it causes nice elderly church ladies thump their Bibles too hard.

And with their fragile and delicate fingers, this causes considerable pain. And since we love and respect them dearly, we choose to save them from such pain so that they can continue to bake us cookies.

Your's truly,

The Editor in Chief.

for frank

dear facetiously consistent frank, the following news item intrigued me.......

North Korea -named by US President George Bush as part of an "axis of evil" - has described the US as the "empire of the devil." The official North Korean news agency said Mr Bush was using the threat supposedly posed by North Korea as a pretext for a huge increase in defence spending.

i was wondering, since officially north korea is atheist, when they call someone a devil does that mean that they don't believe that person exists. if so, why bother criticizing them.

just wondering,
beanfarmer

Dear Mr. Bean,

The North Koreans are what I call "immature" atheists - they have a lot of growing to do (though they have come a long way baby).

You are right in determining that they shouldn't use that "devil" term or any other religious term for that matter. But I shan't be too hard on them.

Currently I am working on an "intermediate" Olympic report as well as a copiously researched one for the next issue of Blind Fools detailing just how far we have to go to get rid of ALL offensively religious symbols that influence our (and the NK's) brains.

You will see just how saturated our world is with religion - and frankly that offends me. The NK's are like some of these young whipper-snapper atheists who use demonic images on their own web sites. They just need to grow (get edumacated) as non-believers.

Thanks for the heads up and my brain will be contacting the Korean Workers' Party's brains, the president's brain, the Central People's Committee's brains, the Supreme People's Assembly's brains, and the State Administrative Council's brains and its premier's brain to rectify the situation immediately.

Frankly,
Frank B. Finite
(A chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter)

Hi guys!

I just read your e-mail regarding reptile evolution into birds.

Now as it happens I have three birds. Two of them actually talk (most of the time they make more sense than some people I know.)

I read the e-mail to them and I have to tell you that according to Niki and Guido, the person or persons who are propagating this slander (the birds opinion) was or were full of bilge and who knows what else. As Niki put it; "there have never been any scaley lowlifes in my family tree!"

I just thought I'd let you know the word right from the horse's, er... I mean the birds mouth.

Ha ha! You have just become an honorary Blind Fools board member.

Maybe we're directly related to them because we both can talk.

Ya think?!

Sincerely,
Editor in Chief
Blind Fools

To Anyone,
(and I address it this way because I don't know who to send this to.)

I copied this quote from your website: Human beings are the result of evolution, and shaped by natural selection. Self-centredness and aggression were essential at every stage of evolution.

And once I saw it, it immediately brought to mind one question:

If this is true, why haven't we evolved yet?

You see, there is enough self-centeredness and aggression in the human race, (at least in the US) for us to have gone through, I'd say, at least the next seventy-five stages of evolution. So, why haven't we evolved?

BTW,
I am a Christian who believes the Bible from Cover to cover. I love Jesus Christ and I love God. I believe that we are created in His Image, but we are fallen because of sin and therefore seperated from God.

The only thing that can save us is Jesus Christ. I don't believe in Evolution because I don't believe in Lies. I merely thought that this would be something to add to your site.

In Christ,
<><

Dear <><

I (the Editor in Chief) was going to respond to your request, but under our bylaws Frank challenged me to a thumb wrestling match to determine who gets to respond to you.

In an illegal move midway through our match, Frank clasped my midsection with his legs in a "scissor lock" hold. And since he works out with his Thigh Master® religiously, he about nearly popped my eyeballs out.

When I came to he had already entered his reply into our system which is irretrievable (etched in stone, if you will). So here is his response . . .

Hey <><

What's with the symbol stuff? Is this really Prince with a new symbol for his name?

Oh well, it doesn't matter. I stopped trying to figure you fundies out a long time ago.

Anyway, the proof you seek is in the pudding. Well, it's at the Olympics anyway.

Do you see all those records being broken?! This is absolute proof that man is evolving right before our very eyes.

And then there's people born with extra legs. You can count that too.

Frankly,
Frank B. Finite's brain
(a chance evolutionary byproduct since the accidental dawning of time, space and matter)

Here's my (Editor in Chief's) second response to <><

Here is an article I thought might clear up that fuzzy argument that Frank gave you about people being stronger now therefore evolved.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3069.asp

Sincerely,
Editor in Chief
Blind Fools

I see you have some interesting disinformation on your site. How nice for you. Please read the following.

>"Atheist
>1. A believer in the faith that God does not exist."
Visualize reality. An Atheist studies the FACTs and sees that A.
there is no need for a god, and B. there is no need to worship a
no-thing. No 'faith' necessary.

>"Evolution
>1. There was once a time when none of the creatures in the world
> had lungs (i.e. fish). This means that there was no genetic
> information (the 'blueprint' for living things, carried on the
> molecule DNA)for lungs - anywhere. Then, at a later time, 'lung
> information' arose and was added to the world (i.e. killer whales
> and cute dolphins and even lungfishies), but no 'feather
> information' as yet - feathers evolved later (i.e. birds).
Gosh, Science is hard, isn't it. A. Information about lungs was in fishes gills and EVOLVED to become self-contained. B. Also of note, when a Human fetus is developing in the womb, at one stage, there are vestigial 'gills' on the neck. C. Feathers are just an offshoot of scales (which are very prevalent on fish). Hair is another offshoot which may be found on the near hairless ape decendents known as Humans.

>2. Not observable since it happens slowly over millions of years.
This will probably come as a shock, but it has been observed in insects and microbes by actual scientists! It does happen slowly to us nearly bald bipeds due to slow reproduction times, and to observe that, one must watch for millenia, and unfortunately we don't live that long.

>3. Nothing scientifically true about it.
An interesting statement and shows that science isn't something you practice. "Scientifically true" isn't even good grammar. Science is the process of observing things, coming up with theories to explain them, trying to find all the ways that would dis-prove the theories, and running the necessary tests and finding out. Evolution remains a "Theory", but has yet to be disproven.

>4. A really really bad 2001 science fiction movie.
Okay, I'll almost grant you this one, it wasn't the best, but it was done purely for laughs and I did occationally

>5. The fairy tale of a frog turning into a prince (just a bit slower,
> that's all)
Similar to fairy tales about walking on water?

>6. Creation myth of atheists."
We don't deal in myths, that is for deists, as is creation.

Thank you for your attention.
RJR

I see you have some interesting disinformation on your site.

It's part of our church leaders' plans for world domination by the year 2112.

How nice for you.

Not really. Our leaders have us here 24 hours a day slaving over this stuff. Can you send help?

An Atheist studies the FACTs and sees that A. there is no need for a god, and B. there is no need to worship a no-thing. No 'faith' necessary.

A.) Whether somone sees no need for a thing does not argue against its existance. Also, nobody can know everything.
2.) And since we can't know everything, then there is a distinct possibility that some sort of a god exists. Therefore one claiming that it is a fact that there is "no-thing" or "no god" is illogical.

A. Information about lungs was in fishes gills and EVOLVED to become self-contained.

Please provide the observable evidence that this indeed happened.

Also of note, when a Human fetus is developing in the womb, at one stage, there are
vestigial 'gills' on the neck.

"...the creases in the human embryo which Haeckel referred to as 'gill slits' have no connection with breathing, but develop into ear and jaw areas."
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

Feathers are just an offshoot of scales (which are very prevalent on fish).

"The most fundamental difference is that the feather grows out of a follicle. A follicle is a tubular down-growth of the epidermis that protrudes deeply into the skin - all the way down to underlying bone in the case of primary feathers. And this tube of specialized living skin produces the feather inside of itself from a growth matrix at the very bottom. The reptilian scale has absolutely nothing to do with follicles. All of the scales can shed as a sheet because they're nothing but folds in the epidermis, like fabric folded over on itself, whereas feathers would have to come out of their own follicle." - Dr David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp

Hair is another offshoot which may be found on the near hairless ape decendents known as Humans.

"The list shown here gives 18 very nontrivial similarities between feathers and hairs. So, if evolutionists really wanted to make a case, they could argue that feathers evolved from hair, or vice versa. Now, of course, that wouldn't fit the evolutionary belief that mammals and birds evolved independently from reptiles. So hardly anyone gets to know that in fact, it's hairs, not scales, that are similar to feathers." - Dr David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1352.asp

This will probably come as a shock, but it has been observed in insects...

The problem is that they (genetic mutations) are always harmful. One famous case is Antennapedia, where legs grow where antennae should be. The program showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but failed to mention that they were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Both these flies would be eliminated by natural selection.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0926ep2.asp

Are there 'good' mutations? Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such 'good' mistakes are still the wrong types of changes to turn a fish into a philosopher - they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp

...and microbes by actual scientists!

1. Supergerms are actually not super at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive outside of the special conditions in hospitals.
2. There are many instances in which germs become resistant by simple selection of resistance which already existed (including that 'imported' from other bacteria).
3. Where a mutational defect causes resistance, the survival advantage is almost always caused by a loss of information. In no case is there any evidence of an information-adding, 'uphill' change.
4. Supergerms give no evidence to sustain the claim that living things evolved from simple to complex, by adding information progressively over millions of years.

Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilised in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/337.asp

It does happen slowly to us nearly bald bipeds due to slow reproduction times, and to observe that, one must watch for millenia, and unfortunately we don't live that long.

Agreed - too slow (if it does indeed happen). The very definition of science deals with "observable" phenomenon, though. This falls outside of scientific criteria.

"Scientifically true" isn't even good grammar.

Us here at the Institute for the Study of Athianity have not never claimed too have well grammar nor correct speling.

Science is the process of observing things, coming up with theories to explain them, trying to find all the ways that would dis-prove the theories, and running the necessary tests and finding out.

Like "nearly bald bipedal" evolution has been observed? (BTW - I like the term "nearly bald bipedal", I'll have to work that into my next issue)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp

Evolution remains a "Theory", but has yet to be disproven.

Our contention is that it has never been proven in the first place.

Similar to fairy tales about walking on water?

As in the first argument of this letter, if God (a miracle maker) remains a possibility foe exiatance then so does the possibility of miracles.

We don't deal in myths, that is for deists, as is creation.

According to you, evolution is indeed a theory. But it's neither been proven or disproven. And if nobody was there to see all of this happening, then it remains a myth (at the very least, a faith) until proven some other way.

Thank you for your attention.

No, no, no - thank YOU :-)

RJR

Editor in Chief

Table of Contents

Letters to the Editor

Issue Nine