"Since our views represent parallel and opposite worldviews, one of us is wrong on all and the other is correct on all items."

You have said this before and I have made numerous points to show that it isn't true. Obviously, however, we have many points of serious disagreement.

"You have not presented a case for how the world is with me taking an opposing position."

My intention has not been to sell my point of view. You have been trying to convince me of yours and I have been explaining why I don't agree.

"In a similar way you on your website have not taken a strong position against lies, but have emphasized that we should just not be victims of the lies."

I disapprove of lying, but I have two reasons for "not taking a strong position against" it. One is that I am trying to provide material that is not available elsewhere. Everybody and their brother has heard that we aren't supposed to lie. I have nothing original to contribute in this respect. The second reason is that I don't think anybody particularly cares if I disapprove of lying, but they might find it useful to avoid being fooled. I am hopeful that my approach might be more effective in preventing lying than simply preaching it, since if people learn not to be fooled, then liars will cease to gain an advantage by lying, which I think we would both agree is a good thing.

"you have not taken a strong stand against relativism or abortion of innocent preborn babies. This is all consistent with being reactive to Biblical truths rather than professing your own."

Of course the Bible doesn't take a strong stand (or any stand) agains "abortion of innocent preborn babies" (or perhaps we should call it abortion of unthinking fetuses that are automatically sinners by virtue of Adam's fall).

"However, you accept macro evolution with no supporting scientific evidence."

Bill, this statement is a flat-out falsehood on your part and I think you are smart enought to recognize that. Perhaps I should call it a lie.

"if we tear up a encyclopedia, we now have more information."

It would take more information to specify the state of a torn-up encyclopedia than to specify the state of an intact one. Remember we are talking about total information on a molecular level. I realize that my approach is unorthodox and am sorry if it has distracted from the central issue.

"I believe that Dr. Morris's analysis is completely concise and correct. I would like to hear specifics on where others or you have information that he is wrong on any statement. Your broad brush statements regarding closed and open systems were addressed well by Morris."

I have attached a detailed commentary on Morris's argument without reference to my odd way of looking at entropy.

"I am interested in your comments regarding the truth of the facts presented and the profound truth it conveys."

I do live in the Twin Cities area and I did see Yecke's article when it was published but didn't read the whole thing since it seemed to be reiterating the same arguments I have seen from you and others about how this is a Christian nation. I have already explained to you why I think this is nonsense. The point of your response, as I understand it, is that the founders really only had an objection to formal religious organizations and they took for granted that your own brand of Theism was the real state religion. I think this is impossible given that so many of the founders were Deists and did not take the Bible literally. There is no way they would have made this assumption. This strikes me as extreme wishful thinking on your part.


[Attached was a copy of Bill's earlier attachment concerning Henry Morris's claims about thermodynamics into which I had inserted comments.  Email me if interested]