Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:04:57 -0800
To: Andrew Arensburger <>
From: David McDougall
Subject: Re: Mitochonrdrial Eve is Younger Than First Thought 

At 12:42 AM 2/10/98 -0500, Andrew Arensburger wrote:
>	Did he, or did he not omit important context to make it sound
>as if McHenry was talking about more than a single bone?

I don't know because I didn't see his whole presentation or understand the
point he was trying to make with it.... and neither do you.  If he went
beyond truth, then I would be very surprized because it would be very
uncharacteristic of him. This, I most definately can not say about any of
those who say they found something that supports the creation model, but
conclude evolution just the same.

Maybe your so used to the seemlessness of the creation arguement, you just
can't pass up one of the few opportunities you'll ever have to debunk... if
that's even what it is.  You've done the same thing with me, not answering
the unanswerable, but attacking what you think to be a weakness.  You'll
never see the facts that way.  I no more need Dr. Patton to be infalible in
order to see the obvious and overwhelming support for creationism than I
need a preacher to be perfect in order to be saved by Christ... but I do
need to be willing to accept the truth when I see it and what I see with
evolution is deception.

>> >	In the second case, Patton adds to the text: Falk's article
>> >says that it is not clear whether the specimen in question is of the
>> >genus _Homo_ or the genus _Australopithecus_. Patton *inserts* the
>> >words "Homo habilis," which makes it sound as if there was no doubt.
>> >	This means Patton is a liar.
>> Australopithecus is the biggest fraud of all of the supposed categories of
>> "ancestral man."
>	That's beside the point. Did Patton, or did he not add to the
>text he was quoting, thereby changing its meaning?

I don't know and neither do you... for the same reasons as above.  Is
australopithecus debunked?  YES.  Do we still read about him in the text
books of our nation's schools?  YES.  Let's deal with that, shall we?  Or do
you find your best defense to be attacks on a person rather than his teaching?

>> On the other hand, if this is all you can find
>> in the sea of evidence against your beloved "science," then it speaks
>> volumes as to the lack of actual evidence you have to support your faith.
>	No, this is just the point where I got bored and stopped. And
>the two examples above are just the most egregious examples of
>Patton's dishonesty (the others are all at the URL I sent you).
>> >	On top of this, in the section on Noah's Ark, Patton
>> >demonstrates his inability to use a simple mathematical formula
>> >correctly, not to mention the fact that he didn't bother checking his
>> >assumptions against published data.
>> If the published data is erroneous, why can't he publish the truth?
>	Sure he can. My point is that he just pulled a number out of
>his hat, when published figures were available. If he thought they
>were correct, he could have used them. If he thought they were
>incorrect, he should have said so.

Okay, it's been published that volcanic activity at the CURRENT rate would
account for the ENTIRE earth's crust in less than 50,000 years.  This was
published by an evolution scientist that still believes in the 4.5 billion
year figure.  There are so many more... but I just got bored.

>	Oh, and should I take your silence as meaning that you agree
>that he used his formula incorrectly?
>> Patton has the same
>> credentials as any other of these so-called PhDs in their fields and just as
>> much "right" to publish the facts as he honestly sees them as do they.
>	Okay, I'll bite:
>	What degrees does Patton hold?
>	What fields are they in?
>	What insititutions are they from?
>	What has he published?
>	What has he published in peer-reviewed journals?
>	The last two questions shouldn't take more than a few minutes
>with a good abstract search engine (available at most university
>libraries). As for the first three, I'll make it easy on you:
>according to , Patton's e-mail
>address is . You can ask him yourself, if you like.

....and so could you if you had any honest intentions of caring...

At this point I can't say that I don't care about your soul, but I can see
that you really don't.  There are plenty of people who are willing to look
at both sides.  I'll not waste any more of either of our time....
David McDougall

Chapter 22