Winder's early this year

Date: 10-03-98 From: Marty Leipzig Subj: Winder's early this year

After I thought this character took a powder, he popped up in my mailbox again.

Is it just me, or does Herr Winder seem to need a nap?

Author: "c.g. winder" <>
Date: 9/30/98 5:02 PM
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Another question ---- and my rely

--------------------- Message Contents ----------------------

CW> I have not re-read this in any great deal so please excuse the
CW> spelling mistakes, etc. And it is now 1.02pm so goodby in the pm.

If anyone out there has a Gibberish-to-English Dictionary they can lend me, please let me know.

CW> Well Good morning Marty --

It was, until just a few minutes ago,

CW> A request - you know where I am and what I do, etc.etc,. etc.

Well, you paste it all over the Internet; why shouldn't someone with a modicum of sense and a whit of intelligence be able to read what you've written?

CW> By the way when you have absolutely nothing to do

Thank you, no. I fully know the folly of wasting time with the benighted.

CW> then take a look at <>

I have already. It's nothing of any animadvert.

CW> How about some details from you?

Like what?

CW> Where are you?

Right now? Seated in front of a computer, wondering why I'm wasting my time.

CW> qa?? means nothing to me.

Not surprising. There seems to be many such subjects in that particular hopper of yours.

CW> Do I recollect something about oil drilling?

Hell if I know. How am I supposed to know what you do or do not ken?

CW> Work for a company?

Why, yes. I do.

CW> In what capacity?

Senior Petroleum Production Geologist for the largest non-associated gas field in the world. Before that, I held similar positions in Russia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and other places that are a total enigma to you as well.

CW> One problem dealing with the conservatives is they are
CW> reluctant to provide any such details.

One problem dealing with the ignorant is that they are so quick to label.

CW> Take a look at <>.
CW> Got some geological material, once you get past the 'opening
CW> statements'.

Too much chaff, not enough grain.

CW> Notice he has a section about Niagara Falls as I do.

So does Ripley's Believe-It-or-Not Odditorium in Niagara Falls.

Your point?

CW> So is he an old earther or a young earther.

He appears to be someone clamoring for a clue .

CW> And take a look at the links.

Thank you, no. I already have a life.

CW> You can have lots of fun, contacting those people and arguing until
CW> the cows come home.

Or, one can emulate your past actions and contact someone then run for cover when the demands for evidence of your claims come rolling in.

>ML> You say mail to follow - e-mail or snail mail?.
>ML> It was a file attachment with my last response. According
>ML> to the routing slips, it was delivered to your Email-box.

CW> Well that raises a problem.

For you, perhaps.

CW> You see I am a rank amateur at this business,

And which business is that? Science in general or the Internet as a specific?

CW> in fact I am utterly astounding that I have gained the ability
CW> to send e-mail.

Amazing. That now makes two of us.

CW> For years all of my letters went by snail mail --and it got to
CW> the point I was pending much moola.

"Moola"? Is that like "geetus", or is it more closely related to "filthy lucre"?

CW> However I am on the net, and this costs me absolutely nothing,

And your replies are worth every cent.

CW> jsut the time to sent out these missiles, and I have lots of time.

Not surprising.

CW> OH!! the problem - I have yet to figure out how to access an
CW> attachment. I am sure it came in and probably appeared as do this
CW> that or the other thing in order to access, and when I tried, it
CW> disappeared. And because virtually nothing is saved, it is long
CW> gone.

How convenient.

CW> If you send by a straight e-mail message - not an attachment, I can
CW> receive, but not otherwise.

I am curious. When (if) you taught, did you cater to individual student's whims?

>>> I sense you just wish to argument.

>ML> "...just wish to argument?" <sigh, shaking head>. Incredible.

CW> Keep shaking. Let's be realistic. My comments are not going to
CW> change your mind.

That's not, at least at this point, what I'm shaking my head about.

That you missed it entirely adds yet another thing I can sigh and only marvel at.

CW> And your comments are not going to change my mind.

Now there's that scientifically open mind we've all come to know.

Tell me, were all your conclusions this solidly drawn before you (that is, assuming that you did) search for evidence?

CW> You see I have developed an understanding, whereby I can
CW> effectively communicate to those on both sides.

At least, you believe you do.

CW> This morning I was in touch with a conservative theologian
CW> in New York state and we have a good relationship. I also
CW> replied to an unsuspecting 'young earther' advising she has got it
CW> wrong, because he EARTH IS OLD,

You continue to labor under the illusion that I claim otherwise. Why is that?

CW> and both the geosciences and Ye Olde Booke

Dickens says anything about geochronology? Where?

CW> provide the same answer. Will she change her mind? Absolutely
CW> and positively NO!!

Ah, she's just as open minded as you.

CW> So what's the point -

Exactly what I was thinking about conversing with you.

CW> now she knows -- just as you now know that there are people
CW> like me. The difference is that I am taking the message to the
CW> 'faithful'.

Are you as ineffectual with them as well?

CW> Gosg about a month ago, I came in contact with an Old Order
CW> Mennonite on the net - she became aware of my webapge, contacted
CW> me, and after a couple of transmissions, she got out her horse and
CW> carriage and drove for two hours to the University of Waterloo so
CW> she could spent more time reading my webpage. Her access was at the
CW> public library in her home town, and they only allowed her to use
CW> for an hour. But the outcome was she is beignning to she that the
CW> possibility exists that the EARTH IS OLD according to both sources.

That's real nice, Gordo. I'll refer to Dalrymple and radiometric dating of shield rocks of Greenland to support my claim of an ancient earth (I could go on and add a few hundred more choice pieces of physical evidence, but these will do for starts); what you provide, as evidence, that the Bible (at least, I think that's to what you're "Olde Booke" refers) is a scientific source?

>ML> In the New Testament, which I read, and you would be
>ML> absolutely astounded how many more scientists read it

CW> By the way have you ever read the NEW TESTAMENT.

Of course. I've also read the Torah, Qu'ran, Rig Vedas, the Upanishads, the Old Testament (My. But *there's* a cranky God for ya'.), the Popal Vuh, the Book of the Dead, and a few dozen or more so-called holy writs. Have you?

And what makes you give the NT more credence than any of the other holy writs I've mentioned?

CW> It is probably the most influential Book available in the English
CW> language.

And what evidence enables you to make this claim?

CW> More copies are sold every year than any other book,

Ah. The argumentum ad numerum. I guess this makes Mao's little Red Book the most influential book of the 20th century then.

CW> and most people have NEVER read it,

Now there's a real advertisement for influentiality: It's the most bought, but least read book in the world; therefore it's the most influential book in the English language.

Hector's Law still applies north of the border, I see.

CW> and I have encountered a few of the faithful, so they say who have
CW> yet to read it cover to cover. But if you have not then just read
CW> it through once - and then throw it in the garbage -- or read it
CW> again.

I've read it, studied it and found it to be a lovely collection mythology, fables and legend. Apart from that, it's ponderous, patriarchal, and prosaic.

CW> One point of caution - it may change your life -- for the better.

Oh, it has! It's opened my eyes to the type of gullibility and nescience pervasive in society today in how many supposedly thinking and demonstratably unthinking people can accept the nonsense presented therein as factual.

CW> I speak from experience.

Can you say "irony"?

>ML> Back to the old numbers game again. If a billion people do a foolish
>ML> thing, it is still a foolish thing, Gordo.

CW> True for your particular understanding --- too --- Marty0h-oh-oh!!!!

But the difference is that I can present physical evidence to support my claims. All you've done is present some ancient book of Middle Eastern fables.

>ML> Your call; but remember, YOU first mailed me and wished a correspondence.
>ML> When the going gets too deep and murky for your liking, you
>ML> pull the "cut and run". Makes one suspect your true intentions,
>ML> convictions, or lack thereof.

CW> And just what do you think my intentions?

Your intentions are vodka-clear. YOU contacted me with some trite pseudism that you felt was such a truth that it simply had to be pointed out to that upstart who had the audacity to write an article and actually back up what he says with the facts.

I responded and totally flummoxed you because I was NOT what you believed me to be and I actually possess the erudition and acumen to take you to task on your simplistic platitudes.

The fact that I too am a geologist (an international explorationist with more than just a few years in the industry) is merely sauce for the goose, as I apply the heat to parboil yours.

CW> You seem to want to continue this. I shall be happy to continue. I
CW> have lots of time.

May I suggest a bit less stressful hobby for you then?

CW> Presumably you have lots of time.

More than I've had in years, but demolishing your little claims scarcely take a single coffee-break.

CW> My intentions, and convictions are, I have studied this argument for
CW> decades using a totally different method, and that is the essence of
CW> science.

The "essence of science" is not the ignoring of evidence nor appealing to ancient tomes of folklore for answers.

CW> Trying to solve a problem -- and this argument is a problem. The
CW> evidence is available to anyone who wishes to log into any of
CW> the wbapges such as Talks.Origin and consider the banter. Yes it is?

Is what? That you're rambling?

CW> No -you're wrong.

I am? Regarding what, pray tell?

CW> Darwin got it right - he didn't prove anything, and you still can't
CW> prove Darwin right.

Darwin and Wallace were both quite correct, given the data and evidence available to them at the time. They were incredible visionaries and shrewd deductionists; but still knew nothing of genetics.

However correct that may have been, I do not deify them as some do; I merely, in my own way, attempt to emulate their scientific acumen.

CW> At one point I was corresponding with a literalist who said he held
CW> Darwin personally responsible for the Nazi death camps - and
CW> he provided the reasoning for that conclusion.

One can provide "reasoning" (if one may so denigrate the term) for any idiotic claim. It's another items entirely to provide evidence.

CW> I replied -- if that is so, then we must hold Jesus Christ responsible
CW> for the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Jonestown, the burnig at
CW> stake of Joan of Arc, etc.,etrc.,etc.,etc. He dropped the subject.

Both seem equally facetious; as does the whole of religion.

CW> But back to my convictions. Well I ahve come to the conclusion this
CW> 13 decade old argument

Sheesh. You've really hung in there.

CW> will eventually be identified as the most most foolish nonsense of
CW> the 20th century.

No, I disagree. Religion's got a tremendous head start on that particular distinction.

CW> The eventual fate will be the same as geocentricity -- as you know
CW> that particularly idea does not hold much attention by most people.

Seeing as it's demonstratably false; why should one concern oneself with the inane?

CW> But there are two available on the subject - both published in the
CW> last five years -- one authour has a Ph.D. in astronomy. If you wish
CW> the addresses including webpages, just request via <altavista> . I
CW> talked to one authour many years ago - he had a faculty position in
CW> computer science at Berea College in Ohio. The other fellow
CW> livesin Georgia, Cornellia - I write him once a year jsu to keep him
CW> aware that I am stillhere doing my thing toward resolution. I
CW> sometimes think of my activity as like playing a slot machine. As
CW> long as you keep playing, eventually you may hit the jackpot.

Gambler's fallacy. Faulty logic.

CW> Not yet - and maybe never, but at least I am trying something
CW> different, and that is the essence of scientific research -
CW> try something different.

That is not the essences of scientific research. Gathering facts, experimentation, analysis, intrepretation, etc., is the essence of research. Simply "trying something new" is a ridiculous concept.

CW> The present methodology has failed miserable -

How so?

CW> so try something different. By the way - I assume you have looked at
CW> my webpage -

Yes, thank you. It's cured my chronic insomnia.

CW> can be found by typing my name in the search box of <altavista> and
CW> the address emerges.

Gee whiz. For a self-proclaimed Internet nescient, you certainly are not above dispensing all sorts of electronic communication wisdom.

CW> But have you noticed that the third essay has a Presbyterian minister
CW> as co-authour.

How nice.

CW> I can assure you he is an 'old earther' and 'pro-evolution'.
CW> Remarkable, eh!!

No, not really. In the so-called "Scopes 2" trial in Dayton during the late 1980's, fully 2/3'rds of the plaintiff's witnesses were from religious organizations.

>ML> Based on what? You've neither answered any of my objections to what you
>ML> promote nor provided any evidence whatsoever to support your claims.

CW> Why should I?

Why should you want to try and support your claims?

I'll never know nor will I venture a guess.

CW> My explanations would be rejected, and then you would raise several
CW> more.

Forget your explanations; how about try and provide a bit of evidence for a change?

CW> I have had the experience with this sort of thing on the other side.
CW> The fellow who holds Darwin responsible for the Nazi death
CW> camps - Would he accept my reasoning that the EARH IS OLD? Never!!!

I fail to see what one has to do with the other.

CW> He proclaimed vehemently that the Bible true in every aspect. So
CW> asked him if the system is geocentric or heliocentric.

And he replied: "Huh?"

CW> Well he referred me to the little magazine(sic) he produced on this
CW> that and theother page. So I consulted and was unable to understand
CW> hsi expalantion. Then he referred me to another essay. Which did the
CW> same thing. So I sat back and waited and waited and waited

Ah, I can sympathize.

CW> -- and in one issue he made asort of oblique comment from which it
CW> could be inferred he accepted the heliocentric model. I pointed this
CW> out. WELL !!! - did the obfuscation fly. Provided me with looks of
CW> chuckles.He never did come right out and admit one particular
CW> understanding or another.
CW> Where was I?

I have no earthly idea.

CW> Oh - yes I would be happy to answer your objects,

No, you would not. Otherwise you would have instead of all this obfuscation.

CW> but then you would raise a whole lot more and on and on and on and on
CW> and on and on and on and on.

All of which for you have no answer.

CW> Solutions in science are not achieved by spending all the time trying
CW> to answering objections.

It isn't? Well, there's that famous open-mind we've come to know again.

CW> State your position, and take a stand.

Damn the evidence! Full steam ahead! Quote scripture! Cite the Bible!


And you have a keen grasp of the obvious.

CW> This argument is foolishness.

No argument there.

CW> Let's put aside,

Fine. But then why did you bring it up in the first place?

CW> just as is geocentricity, and get on with doing science.

I do that on a daily basis. You?

>>>And I won't be swayed from that position.

>ML> No matter how overwhelming the evidence I present.

CW> You are not about to consider my evidence, so what is the point.

<pounding head on desk> YOU HAVE PRESENTED NONE! Do you always jump to conclusions before you present or are presented the evidence?

>ML> Now there's the very model of a modern scientist <in case
>ML> you don't catch the sublte nuance, that's sarcasm>.

CW> And sarcasm has no place in science.

Like hell it doesn't. Ever read any Gould, Sagan, or numerous other science writers? You claim does not stand up to the evidence just cited.

>ML> I try and keep a much older, much more foolish, "argument"
>ML> out of the science classroom.

CW> My understanding is that is the case now. The law of the land in
CW> Canada. In fact when the Ontario government revised the biology
CW> curriculum a few years ago, definitions were provided which made it
CW> perfectly clear 'creationism' had no place in the science class.

Finally, sensibility reigns.

CW> Actually it has no place in any class except maybe use as a model of
CW> nonsensical thinking.

You keep this up and we'll be agreeing on even more topics.

CW> Of course that might provide the opportunity for my understanding to
CW> be introduced. If fact in another Ontario course, a variation of
CW> the attitudes which I have identified were included in the
CW> curriculum as an alternate subject. However I never did hear if any
CW> teacher used it.

And what understanding was that?

>ML> No, as I don't have to reduce my scientific principles to
>ML> the quantified almighty dollar.

CW> Good for you. But the people of California put out a bundle,
CW> and the money could have been better spent on educating the
CW> kids.

>ML> Indeed. Tax the bloody churches and synagogues, and use
>ML> those funds to increase the quality of science teaching and
>ML> the pay of those science teachers.

CW> GOOD LUCK!! - advise if you accomplish!!!

It has always been my intention. It worked, at least, the latter portion, worked in Texas where I was on 2 school boards that wanted to usurp the Constitution and teach creationism on the taxpayer's nickel.

>ML> It is not my place to excuse or require anything of you.
>ML> You initially contacted me, and I replied. I sent you a detailed
>ML> debunking of one of your articles (which you infer at the beginning
>ML> of this message that you did NOT receive) and now you are
>ML> conveniently "too busy" to respond.

CW> Sorry I did not receive you 'debunking. Send by straight e-mail, and
CW> I will give it my detailed attention. You provide one great benefit.

Odd. The return receipt says that it was delivered. Whatever. I'll resend.

CW> My proficiency typing with two g\fingers is increasing. In fact I
CW> notice that I am statrting to tyoe some of this without looking at
CW> the keys.

Please, never leave me an open straight line like that again.

>ML> Pardon me if I smirk a bit (I've seen this type of behaviour many
>ML> times previously; although not from someone of your alleged
>ML> background); but it sure seems an incredibly convenient method
>ML> of making a dialogue a monologue.
>ML> I won't hold my breath waiting for your reply. So be it. If your beliefs
>ML> are that shaky as to not be able to withstand criticism nor
>ML> investigation; that in and of itself says volumes regarding the very
>ML> nature of those beliefs.

CW> By the way,if you are in a position to get into a scientific library,
CW> look for a new volume by the Geological Association ofCanada,
CW> entitled Urban Geology of Canadian Cities, and look for a paper by
CW> Dreimanis and your correspondent on the geology of London - that's
CW> where the Unversity of Western Ontaio is located

Is that anywhere near Ontario?

CW> - half way between Detroit and Toronto.

Isn't that in a lake of some sort?

>ML> I actually feel somewhat saddened that you did not even deign to respond
>ML> to at least one of my geological objections to what you posed; much less
>ML> the metaphysical or theological. In all truth (and that's what we're both
>ML> after, isn't it?), I do enjoy a good rip-snortin' argument; one composed of
>ML> logic, evidence and sound reasoning. It is extraordinarily unfortunate that
>ML> I am so unable to be presented one; yours included.

CW> I can hardly wait to receive your 'geological objections'.

I've already sent you a few that you've totally ignored.

CW> Maybe I can provide some new insight about it.

Perhaps. I remain skeptical.

CW> And an addition, you never know, I might be able to comment whether
CW> there is a something in the Bible about.

Now there's something that I could not possibly care less about.

CW> For example, although this is another matter, I am sure you have heard
CW> the story of David and Goliath, how the little sheep herder,
CW> confronted the giant, who was roaring and ranting about this
CW> pipsqueek who had come to do battle, waving hois graet sword, had
CW> scared the living daylight out of a whole army --- but this had a
CW> slingshot and a pouch with five pebbles.

Yeah. Is that after the Great Flood story or the story where Turtles have voices?

CW> Afeter a short contemplation, the little guy pulle out one pebble,
CW> fired, and the giant keeled over on the ground, whereupon the
CW> pipsqueak took the giants swaord and cut off his head. But that pebble
CW> was limestone -

What evidence leads you to this concrete conclusion?

CW> a rock type upon which I have done basic research.,

Psst, Gordo. It's CaCO3, that should save you some time.

CW> How do I know it was limestone.

How do you know the story really happened? Once we settle that, then we can get on to particulars of that story.

CW> Well the location of the incident is identified in the Bible.

And we all KNOW what an infallible science text and resource book the Bible is...

CW> Out with the geological map of Israel, located the spot, and the
CW> bedrock is limestone.

So? The bedrock in southeastern Wisconsin is Niagaran Dolomite; but there's quite an assortment of other types of rocks available there.

CW> OH--- YES---I---KNOW--- the peblle wcould have been tansported from
CW> elsewhere -- but then again most of the bedrock in that area is
CW> limestone.

No, Gordo; it is not. I live in the Middle East (Yes. Qa is for Qatar, I'll let you drag out a map and find it), and the surficial bedrock (i.e., that closest to the present unconformable surface) is calcareous and siliceous aeolinites, siliceous shales and then, limestone and dolomite.

First you cite an obviously allegorical parable from a book of ancient Middle Eastern lore as totally factual, then you proceed to conclude, from research that borders on the nonexistent, precise claims of fact.

Do you really not see the obvious fallacy of this train of (and I dare besmirch the term so) "logic"?

CW> Just wtch on TV - you have it? - on the new - the houses are made of
CW> limestone blocks.

I don't need TV, I actually live in the area.

And the block are mostly aeolianites, both calcareous and siliceous.

>ML> Da svidonya,Gordon. >

CW> I'm almost afraid to ask - that an insult - compliment -
CW> what???

<Shaking head in amazement> It's Russian, Gord; Russian for "Sayonara".

"Protest Dinoflagellates": Mesozoic Society Against Perverted Practices.
Email: - -

Go Back to Shy David's New Pages Page.