Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

Kalamata: "Joe the Science Denier says..."

That's Denier Rule #5, see my post #272 or #316.
Kalamata has proved himself slavishly obedient to those rules, simply cannot break himself out of their "jail".

Kalamata: "You really are paleontology-challenged, Alinsky Joe.
Museum fossils are well-documented."

So you claim.
If these were so well documented, somebody would publish it, peer-reviewed, and a debate would ensue.

Kalamata: "But what about the sedimentary rock folding?
How did all of those sedimentary rock layers remain pliable until the geological upheavals occurred?
That would be a pretty neat trick!"

Doubtless another branch of science Kalamata denies -- plate tectonics.
Continents measured to be moving at roughly the rate of fingernail growth, over millions of years push up mountains, bend solid rock, especially when under pressure & temperature deep underground.

Kalamata: "Nah, it has to be a single, catastrophic, global flood -- not multiples.
Perhaps God's Word was right after all:"

Right, you don't like the idea theologically, so you reject the science.

Kalamata: "That chart is based on just-so stories, Alinsky Joe; not observable evidence.
Mass extinction theories abound, but there is no evidence for any, except for a single, global catastrophe."

That is Kalamata being slavishly obedient to Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "No, you cannot.
There are no dinosaur transitional fossil lines to be seen anywhere on earth."

All told, about 1,000 dinosaur species have been discovered & classified.
Without exception, they are all transitional.
So your comment here represents just slavish obedience to Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "Stevie writes good science fiction. So doe Pim:"

Those passages you quoted are reasonable conclusions based on available evidence, especially the crater near Chicxulub, Mexico.

Kalamata: "Within all that dogmatism – that air of certainty -- there never seems to be a reasonable explanation for why so many plants and animals that should have much more vulnerable that dinosaurs, survived intact, appearing today as they appeared in the dinosaur fossil layers. "

Some scientists -- i.e., Bob Bakker -- argue it was not just the asteroid/comet which finished off the dinosaurs, but also other factors like disease.
It's a reasonable argument among reasonable (if passionate) scientists.

As for some fossils which seem relatively unchanged, if it ain't broke, nature may not fix it, ever.

Kalamata: "Museums contain many mockups and drawings, but not a single one is based on anything other than conjecture and extrapolation."

And yet again Kalamata sounds like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum -- "no evidence here!" they say.
That's Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "I have thousands of books on evolution, including every major author in every field of evolutionary "science," and there is not one iota of scientific evidence for evolution in any of them."

"Thousands of books"??
That's an astonishing claim, not to be believed without some explanation such as access to the US Library of Congress database of books.
Even then, to "have" is not the same as to "have read" all those thousands.
And to "have read" all those thousands while rejecting their basic premises seems more than far-fetched.

Except under one very reasonable condition: if by the word "Kalamata" we are referring to a school with a library of its own dedicated to anti-evolution studies, such as we might find at... oh, any number of places.
This would put Kalamata in the lead of an organization dedicated to propagandizing fake science.

That's not necessarily a problem for me, but I'm only one person and my time here is limited.

Kalamata: "Horner was being kind by labeling your religion of evolutionism as a "historical science".
It is not science by any stretch of the imagination."

That is an example of Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rule #2.

Kalamata quoting Futuyma 1986: "The rapid origin of the animal phyla, apparently transpiring in the 100 Myr between the Ediacara and Burgess Shale faunas..."

From the beginning of the Ediacaran era (635 mya) to the Burgess Shale (508 mya) was 127 million years.
Only in God's eyes could 127 million years be considered "rapid".

Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe doesn't understand this concept, but the sudden appearance of all Phyla in the earliest rock formations reveals disparity before diversity.
Evolutionary theory predicts diversity first, that is, a single phyla should have diversified and THEN evolved into other phyla, as explained here."

Total nonsense.
First, there's nothing "sudden" about 127 million years.
127 million years ago would take us back to the early Cretaceous, when dinosaurs ruled and mammals scurried around underfoot.
A lot has changed since then.

Second, one reason such fossils appear "suddenly" (over 127 million years!) is that their earlier soft-bodied predecessors left few to no remains.

Third, there are about 100 recognized Ediacaran genera found so far, as compared to hundreds of thousands of animal genera today.
Such diversification is just what evolution theory predicts.

Kalamata quoting Mayr, Ernst 2001: "Indeed there are rather few cases of continuous series of gradually evolving species."

Kalamata: "Mayr was rather generous with the phrasing of his last sentence, e.g., "there are rather FEW cases".
The truth is, there are NONE!"

Mayr's statement is perfectly understandable, given the rarity of fossilization.
Kalamata's comment is simply a case of his slavish devotion to Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata misattributing BJK's words to himself: ">>Kalamata: "And yet the quote claims fossil sequences are still more "jerky" and evolution more "complex" than he'd like"

Kalamata: "There you go again!
You have NO CLUE how many species have not been found.
It could be 1% for all we know, or even 0.1 %, or LESS!.
The "absence of evidence" seems to be the only evidence you have, Alinsky Joe."

More nonsense.
Sure, we have lots of clues beginning with the fact that hundreds to thousands of new fossil species are found every year.
That tells us we are a long way from exhausting the treasure trove of fossils buried in the Earth.

Second, after every major extinction event the numbers of fossil species found are reduced drastically, up to 90%, but then gradually increase until the next extinction event.
Working those percentages of increases backwards from today's known number of species should give us a pretty good "clue" as to the numbers of species alive in geological eras.

Kalamata: "Did you notice that Alinsky Joe never addressed my arguments, resorting instead to misdirection? "

Addressing first things first: you lied, you didn't have to lie, and yet you chose to, why?
I can only think it's because you love to lie, maybe for the pure thrill of it?

Kalamata: "I guess it may be possible that Alinsky Joe has never heard of the best friend and sidekick of his hero, Michael Shermer, but that is highly unlikely."

You see, there it is again!
There's no reason for you to lie, no need for you to lie, and yet, you just can't stop yourself, can't control it, the lies just flow naturally through you.
So, can you tell us, who is the father of these lies?

Kalamata: "My statement about whale evolution and Haeckel's embryo's still stand.
Imaginary and/or fake evidence, and the myth of Junk DNA, is all the evolutionism cult has."

On Haeckel's drawings -- they were not necessarily intended as frauds, despite what Haeckel's enemies claimed.
As recently as 2008 Robert Harris defended Haeckel's representations as the best then available to him.
And Haeckel's basic idea remains valid: there are surprising similarities in the embryonic development of quite different animals.

On whale evolution, Kalamata is here just slavishly following Denier Rule #6 -- lie big and repeat, repeat your lie until it magically becomes true.

As for alleged "junk DNA", "junk" is just a word for non-coding DNA, originally found to be unconstrained (or unrestrained) by evolution.
Today it's unclear just what percent of non-coding DNA has enough functionality to be "constrained", "restrained" or even slightly "influenced" by evolution.

But whatever that percentage is, even if it's still 80%, that word "junk" will stick in some people's craw as... well, inappropriate, dare we say it?
It's theologically incorrect.

Kalamata misattributing his own words to BJK: ">>Kalamata: "Facts are facts, Alinsky Joe. >>Joe the Science Denier says, "The fact that you don’t have any facts supporting your cult demonstrates that it is founded on religion, not science."

Those are your words, not mine.

Kalamata: "Enough of the sophistry, Alinsky Joe.
I believed those imaginary mockups, drawings, and clever positionings were based on facts for most of my life.
Yes, I was once as naive about evolutionism as you are now."

Of course the basic evidences are facts and only a dedicated anti-scientist like Kalamata would slavishly obey every Denier Rule to oppose them.

Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe knows that any one he picks can be ripped to shreds with the facts, which reminds me of another Science Denier Rule, which we shall substitute for former Science Denier Rule #10:"

That is Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rule #2.

>>Joe wrote, "That is actually Rule #7, which Kalamata slavishly practices, but for this purpose conveniently ignores.

Child.

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

>>Joe wrote, "Blaming evolution theory for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate."

Really? This is one of Joe's most admired authors, atheist Michael Shermer, blaming the holocaust on the racial theories of Social Darwinism:

"The racial theories of social Darwinism gave the Nazis and others the scientific sanction they needed to make their racist ideology seem wholly rational and their actions justifiable in defense against what they considered to be a real threat to their nation and their culture." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.227]

This is history professor Richard Weikart on the Darwinian evolution indoctrination of German children:

"Evolutionary biology had been well entrenched in the German biology curriculum long before the Nazis came to power... All the biology texts published in Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s needed official approval of the Ministry of Education, and all provided extensive discussion of evolution, including the evolution of human races. Jakob Graf's 1942 biology textbook has an entire chapter on 'Evolution and Its Importance for Worldview.' Therein Graf combated Lamarckism and promoted Darwinian evolution through natural selection. He claimed that knowing about human evolution is important, because it shows that humans are not special among organisms. He also argued that evolution substantiates human inequality. In the following chapter on 'Racial Science' Graf spent about fifteen pages discussing human evolution and insisted that humans and apes have common ancestors." [Weikart, Richard, "The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought." German Studies Review, 36.3, 2013, pp.542-543]

Of course, that also applies to most every school in the United States in which children are forced to listen to Darwinian propaganda.

This is a letter from Charlie himself expressing his belief in the inevitability of the "higher" races exterminating the "lower" races:

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." [Letter to W. Graham, Down, July 3, 1881, in Darwin, Francis, "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter Vol I." Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.316]

And, finally, this is Stephen Jay Gould attempting to deflect the blame from Darwinism:

"Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot be diminished, either morally or scientifically, because later racists and warmongers perverted the concept of a "struggle for existence" into a rationale for genocide. However, we must admit a crucial difference between the origin and later use of a biological feature, and the origin and later use of an idea. The first, or anatomical, case involves no conscious action and cannot be submitted to any moral judgment. But ideas originate by explicit intent for overt purposes, and we have some ethical responsibility for the consequences of our deeds. An inventor may be fully exonerated for true perversions of his purposes (Hitler's use of Darwin), but unfair extensions consistent with the logic of original motivations do entail some moral demerit (academic racists of the nineteenth century did not envision or intend the Holocaust, but some of their ideas did fuel the "final solution")." [Gould, Stephen Jay, "I Have Landed.", p.336]

Hitler used the term "struggle for existence" 16 times in the 1939 translation of Mein Kampf. Darwin used the phrase 11 times in Part I of "The Descent of Man", and over 20 times in the 1859 "Origin of Species".

I consider that pretty strong evidence that Adolf was influenced by Charlie, and there is much more.

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

>>Joe wrote, "Kalamata on origin of life research: "Who paid for it?"
>>You don't know, but you claim it must be Federal tax dollars. That's Rule #10.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Assuming the so-called prebiotic molecules magically organized into self-replicating RNA, how does the RNA replication occur without the assistance of protein polymerases?"
>>Joe wrote, "Natural science is all about research to answer such questions."

Should not that bit of science also be included in those intelligently-designed "origin-of-life" experiments performed in intelligently-designed labs using intelligently-designed chemicals and molecules? Just curious.

**************** Kalamata mis-attributing his own words to BJK: " >>Joe the Science Denier says, 'Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the ’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove."

Thank you for catching that misapplication of my words.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is more than appropriate to explain today's usurpations and left-wing fanaticism. Those trying to destroy our nation and culture with the religions of evolutionism and socialism, frequently use the "Stop thief" first deception, as you do."
>>Joey wrote, "I agree that the political tactics of our Leftists are despicable, even when used by propagandists like Kalamata."

There you go again with your "'Stop thief!', first” misdirection tactic! You are the one who swoons over far-left, anti-Christian atheists, and frequently resorts to using their tactics. I am surprised you haven't played the Hitler Card on me.

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

>>Kalamata: "The word "gutter" appropriately identifies the filthy, foul-mouthed trash on Youtube and in other open forums who rabidly defend their religions of evolutionism and socialism (the religions that led to the holocaust and killing fields) with the most vile language and slander imaginable. Alinsky Joe uses all of those tactics, except for the filthy language, so far."
>>Joey said: "I know nothing of any of those people or forums, can't answer for them. Your comment here is a good example of Rules #6 & #8."

My comment was in response to one of your earlier comments in which you compared my debating style to one of your imaginary debate opponents:

>>Joey: "The key point for Kalamata to take away here is that your tone of voice, your use of “logic”, your debate tactics in denying evolution are identical to those of Holocaust deniers I debated for many months, many years ago. In one sense you are superior to them — so far, no serious vulgarities. But in all others it’s the same old nonsense, just a new subject."

I was simply returning the "favor", Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata referring to Shermer & Prothero: "We know those fellows are devout atheists. We know both promote the climate-change scam. We know both condemn those who are anti-abortion. And we know that Alinsky Joe uses slander against those who oppose his world view. So where are the lies, Alinsky Joe?"
>>Joey said: "Rules #6, #7 & especially #8."

Still playing with your silly rules, huh Child? You didn't answer my question. Where are the lies?

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

>>Kalamata: "I think he intended to say, Rule #6."
>>Joey said: "I noticed that in attempting to "translate" my Rules of Deniers into your own language you mixed & garbled the numbers. See my post #316 above for clarity on that."

Your childish posts are already garbled, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "No doubt about that. But what about my question? Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?"
>>Joey said: "Possibly you refer here to [quoted] John 8:44 (NIV). First, let's set aside the theological/historical question of whether the Hebrew word "Satan" equates exactly to the Greek word "diablos" translated here as "devil".

No, let's clear it up now:

"And the great dragon (δράκων) was cast out, that old serpent (ὄφις) called the Devil (Διάβολος), And Satan (Σατανᾶς), which deceiveth the whole world:" Rev 12:9 KJV

As you can see, the dragon, the serpent, the devil and Satan are one in the same. The Greek takes Satan back to the garden, where he (as the serpent) taught man to doubt the Word of God:

"Now the serpent (ὄφις ) was the most crafty of all the brutes on the earth," -- Gen 3:2 LXX

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

>>Joey said: "Second, it appears (?) that Jesus is talking to Pharisees, who Matthew 12:24 tells us said of Jesus: "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Jesus first explains that's impossible and then accuses his accusers of being children of the devil, "the father of lies". But were those Pharisees victims of doubt? No, doubt was not their problem, they had no doubts, they held to, instead, misunderstandings -- lies about scripture fostered by their "father", the devil. Indeed, doubt is a problem for Christians, recognized in the New Testament, but it's not necessarily sin. Yes, we are often told not to doubt, but Jude 1:22 also tells us: "Be merciful to those who doubt; "

What does that have to do with Satan teaching man to doubt the Word of God?

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

>>Joey said: "Doubt alone does not make us "children of the devil", but lies do, and lies are what those Pharisees spread, not doubt."

Satan teaches man to doubt the Word of God; like father, like son:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." -- John 8:44 KJV

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

>>Kalamata: "You can pretend the little microorganism your religion claims to be the first life was equipped with nostrils to receive that first breath, but nostrils on a microorganism is way too silly for any rational person to believe. LOL! Evolution has to be the nuttiest theory ever imagined."
>>Joey said: "First, evolution theory is the opposite of any religion because it only provides natural explanations for natural processes, nothing super-natural in it."

Evolution does not exist, except in the imaginations of the faithful. Perhaps you are confusing evolution with devolution. Devolution is observable both in and out of the lab.

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

>>Joey said: "Second, your quote itself provides the link between natural science and our beliefs in super-natural Creation. God's Breath of Life created in Adam a Living Soul, which until that point had never existed. No organism before Adam was a spiritually living human being."

The text doesn't contain the word "spiritually." Adding words to the scripture is a no, no.

Mr. Kalamata

BroJoeK to Kalamata; bert; Riley; aligncare; freedumb2003

>>Kalamata: "Joe the Science Denier says..."
>>Joey said: "That's Denier Rule #5, see my post #272 or #316. Kalamata has proved himself slavishly obedient to those rules, simply cannot break himself out of their "jail".

If you will stop denying science by promoting pseudo-science, I will refrain from labeling you a science denier.

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

>>Kalamata: "You really are paleontology-challenged, Alinsky Joe. Museum fossils are well-documented."
>>Joey said: "So you claim. If these were so well documented, somebody would publish it, peer-reviewed, and a debate would ensue.

Do you really believe any evolutionist who was not solidly tenured would make such a risky move? If you do, you are living a very sheltered life, Joey. Evolutionists have a well-documented history of going out of their way to participate in fraud, or to cover it up. The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos. Other lesser-know cover-ups include the museum fossils Carl Werner found, and the absence of transitional fossils, which Gould labeled the paleontological "trade secret":

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks."

[The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change (Reprinted from Natural History 86:5, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace', May 1977, p.14), in Stephen Jay Gould, "The Panda's Thumb." W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, Chap.17, p.181]

That is not an innocent cover up. I was well into my 60's before I learned I had been lied to about transitional fossils.

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

>>Kalamata: "But what about the sedimentary rock folding? How did all of those sedimentary rock layers remain pliable until the geological upheavals occurred? That would be a pretty neat trick!"
>>Joey said: "Doubtless another branch of science Kalamata denies -- plate tectonics. Continents measured to be moving at roughly the rate of fingernail growth, over millions of years push up mountains, bend solid rock, especially when under pressure & temperature deep underground."

That is one of the dumbest statements you have made thus far, Joey. There is no scientific way that a continental plate moving a few centimeters per year is going to push up anything more than a pebble or two, no matter how much time you allow it. There is this little thing called "momentum" that gets in the way.

I notice you ignored the part about sedimentary rock folds. That is a tough nut to crack for the uniformitarian geologist, and even for many catastrophists. Those rock layers will fold only when they are pliable -- before they harden. Look again:

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

>>Kalamata: "Nah, it has to be a single, catastrophic, global flood -- not multiples. Perhaps God's Word was right after all:"
>>Joey said: "Right, you don't like the idea theologically, so you reject the science.

Joey, you gotta quit saying such dumb things. The scripture and the science match perfectly. God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth, and he did just that, according to the scientific evidence:

"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." -- Gen 6:13 KJV

There is no evidence for gradual deposition of sedimentary rock layers, Joey. No serious geologist (one who is not thoroughly brainwashed) would believe otherwise.

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

>>Kalamata: "That chart is based on just-so stories, Alinsky Joe; not observable evidence. Mass extinction theories abound, but there is no evidence for any, except for a single, global catastrophe."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata being slavishly obedient to Denier Rule #1.

Is that your evidence for mass extinctions, Joey? You are such a child.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, you cannot. There are no dinosaur transitional fossil lines to be seen anywhere on earth. >>Joey said: "All told, about 1,000 dinosaur species have been discovered & classified. Without exception, they are all transitional.

That is an incredibly dumb statement, Joey. Do you have a reference or two in support of your statement?

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

>>Kalamata: "Stevie writes good science fiction. So doe Pim:"
>>Joey said: "Those passages you quoted are reasonable conclusions based on available evidence, especially the crater near Chicxulub, Mexico."

They are nothing more than just-so story-tellers, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "Within all that dogmatism – that air of certainty -- there never seems to be a reasonable explanation for why so many plants and animals that should have much more vulnerable that dinosaurs, survived intact, appearing today as they appeared in the dinosaur fossil layers."
>>Joey said: "Some scientists -- i.e., Bob Bakker -- argue it was not just the asteroid/comet which finished off the dinosaurs, but also other factors like disease. It's a reasonable argument among reasonable (if passionate) scientists.

That is convenient. Can I assume there is no evidence to support Bakker's claims other than what he wrote in the latter part of his book, "The Dinosaur Heresies"?

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

>>Joey said: "As for some fossils which seem relatively unchanged, if it ain't broke, nature may not fix it, ever."

Using your logic, Joey, nothing appears to have been broken. There is no evidence that any animal ever changed from one kind (or family) to another kind (or family).

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

>>Kalamata: "Museums contain many mockups and drawings, but not a single one is based on anything other than conjecture and extrapolation."
>>Joey said: "And yet again Kalamata sounds like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum -- "no evidence here!" they say. That's Denier Rule #1.

Joey, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond?

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

>>Kalamata: "I have thousands of books on evolution, including every major author in every field of evolutionary "science," and there is not one iota of scientific evidence for evolution in any of them."
>>Joey said: ""Thousands of books"??

Thousands.

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

>>Joey said: "That's an astonishing claim, not to be believed without some explanation such as access to the US Library of Congress database of books."

I like books, and I am a stickler for detail, which typically requires checking references, which requires more books, and so forth.

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

>>Joey said: "Even then, to "have" is not the same as to "have read" all those thousands."

That is true. I haven't read them all. Many are for reference.

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

>>Joey said: "And to "have read" all those thousands while rejecting their basic premises seems more than far-fetched."

Gibberish.

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

>>Joey said: "Except under one very reasonable condition: if by the word "Kalamata" we are referring to a school with a library of its own dedicated to anti-evolution studies, such as we might find at... oh, any number of places. This would put Kalamata in the lead of an organization dedicated to propagandizing fake science."

You are wrong on all counts. My calling is to expose the pseudo-science of evolutionism. It just so happened that I had a lot of books on evolution before I understood that it was not science (about 7 or 8 years ago.) I have significantly increased those numbers since then, going where ever I am led.

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

>>Joey said: "That's not necessarily a problem for me, but I'm only one person and my time here is limited."

I am only one person, but I have been retired for well over a decade.

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

>>Kalamata: "Horner was being kind by labeling your religion of evolutionism as a "historical science". It is not science by any stretch of the imagination."
>>Joey said: "That is an example of Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rule #2.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Futuyma 1986: "The rapid origin of the animal phyla, apparently transpiring in the 100 Myr between the Ediacara and Burgess Shale faunas..."
>>Joey said: "From the beginning of the Ediacaran era (635 mya) to the Burgess Shale (508 mya) was 127 million years. Only in God's eyes could 127 million years be considered "rapid".

There are many evolutionists who believe they are gods, but I don't believe that was Futuyma's point. Perhaps if you contact him he will explain it to you:

https://www.stonybrook.edu/experts/profile/douglas-futuyma

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

>>Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe doesn't understand this concept, but the sudden appearance of all Phyla in the earliest rock formations reveals disparity before diversity. Evolutionary theory predicts diversity first, that is, a single phyla should have diversified and THEN evolved into other phyla, as explained here."
>>Joey said: "Total nonsense. First, there's nothing "sudden" about 127 million years. 127 million years ago would take us back to the early Cretaceous, when dinosaurs ruled and mammals scurried around underfoot. A lot has changed since then.

LOL! You are very funny, Joey. If you are going to remain an evolutionist, you should consider getting up to speed on their doctrine.

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

>>Joey said: "Second, one reason such fossils appear "suddenly" (over 127 million years!) is that their earlier soft-bodied predecessors left few to no remains.

No, Joey. You are likely the only person in the world that still believes that myth.

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

>>Joey said: "Third, there are about 100 recognized Ediacaran genera found so far, as compared to hundreds of thousands of animal genera today. Such diversification is just what evolution theory predicts.

No, Joey. You don't understand the theory. I previously quoted several of the experts on disparity and diversity, so you must have skipped right past them, or you do not understand them.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Mayr, Ernst 2001: "Indeed there are rather few cases of continuous series of gradually evolving species."
>>Kalamata: "Mayr was rather generous with the phrasing of his last sentence, e.g., "there are rather FEW cases". The truth is, there are NONE!"
>>Joey said: "Mayr's statement is perfectly understandable, given the rarity of fossilization.

Don't be silly. All serious evolutionists are perplexed by the fossil record.

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

>>Kalamata misattributing BJK's words to himself: ">>Kalamata: "And yet the quote claims fossil sequences are still more "jerky" and evolution more "complex" than he'd like"

Thanks for catching that misapplication. Sometimes I get bored and careless when conversing with children.

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

>>Kalamata: "There you go again! You have NO CLUE how many species have not been found. It could be 1% for all we know, or even 0.1 %, or LESS!. The "absence of evidence" seems to be the only evidence you have, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "More nonsense. Sure, we have lots of clues beginning with the fact that hundreds to thousands of new fossil species are found every year. That tells us we are a long way from exhausting the treasure trove of fossils buried in the Earth."

Meaningless.

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

>>Joey said, "Second, after every major extinction event the numbers of fossil species found are reduced drastically, up to 90%, but then gradually increase until the next extinction event. Working those percentages of increases backwards from today's known number of species should give us a pretty good "clue" as to the numbers of species alive in geological eras."

Another just-so story, presented as a historical fact.

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

>>Kalamata: "Did you notice that Alinsky Joe never addressed my arguments, resorting instead to misdirection? "
>>Joey said, "Addressing first things first: you lied, you didn't have to lie, and yet you chose to, why? I can only think it's because you love to lie, maybe for the pure thrill of it?

The only liar is this discussion is you, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "I guess it may be possible that Alinsky Joe has never heard of the best friend and sidekick of his hero, Michael Shermer, but that is highly unlikely."
>>Joey said, "You see, there it is again! There's no reason for you to lie, no need for you to lie, and yet, you just can't stop yourself, can't control it, the lies just flow naturally through you. So, can you tell us, who is the father of these lies?

Are you really being honest when you say you have never heard of the sidekick of your hero, Michael Shermer? If so, you really fooled me. I was not lying, Alinsky Joe. It simply never dawned on me that you would be that careless in researching those you choose to admire and hold in such high esteem, as you do the anti-Christian, left-wing atheist named Michael Shermer.

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

>>Kalamata: "My statement about whale evolution and Haeckel's embryo's still stand. Imaginary and/or fake evidence, and the myth of Junk DNA, is all the evolutionism cult has."
>>Joey said: "On Haeckel's drawings -- they were not necessarily intended as frauds, despite what Haeckel's enemies claimed. As recently as 2008 Robert Harris defended Haeckel's representations as the best then available to him. And Haeckel's basic idea remains valid: there are surprising similarities in the embryonic development of quite different animals.

That sounds like some of the deception you find in Prothero's books:

"Haeckel's overenthusiasm does not negate the careful embryological work of von Baer that shows that many features of our past evolutionary stages are preserved in our embryos. [Jonathan] Wells, in particular, nags about how some of Haeckel's original diagrams had errors and oversimplifications, but this does not change the overall fact that the sequence of all vertebrate embryos shows the same patterns in the early stages, and all of them go through a fishlike stage with pharyngeal pouches (which become the gill slits in fishes and amphibians) and a long fish-like tail, then some develop into fishes and amphibians and others lose these features and develop into reptiles, birds, and mammals." [Donald R. Prothero, "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters." Columbia University Press, 2nd Ed, 2017]

Do you not see how deceptive that is, Alinsky Joe. Perhaps this photo will help. Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top row, while Richardson's 1997 photos are on the bottom:

Do you see any recapitulation?

Haeckel's embryos are just another in long line of Evolutionism Icons that DIE HARD!

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

>>Joey said: "On whale evolution, Kalamata is here just slavishly following Denier Rule #6 -- lie big and repeat, repeat your lie until it magically becomes true."

Nothing Gingerich et all imagined has panned out, Alinsky Joe. Even some of the "big boys" are shying away from it. But, like all other Evolutionism Icons, including so-called horse evolution (almost forgot about that one,) this one will also DIE HARD!

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

>>Joey said: "As for alleged "junk DNA", "junk" is just a word for non-coding DNA, originally found to be unconstrained (or unrestrained) by evolution. Today it's unclear just what percent of non-coding DNA has enough functionality to be "constrained", "restrained" or even slightly "influenced" by evolution. But whatever that percentage is, even if it's still 80%, that word "junk" will stick in some people's craw as... well, inappropriate, dare we say it? It's theologically incorrect.

It is scientifically incorrect. The myth of Junk DNA was never based on science, but desperation -- desperation to find something -- anything -- that could be presented as proof of evolution, whether or not it was actual proof.

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

>>Kalamata misattributing his own words to BJK: ">>Kalamata: "Facts are facts, Alinsky Joe. >>Joe the Science Denier says, "The fact that you don’t have any facts supporting your cult demonstrates that it is founded on religion, not science."
>>Joey said: "Those are your words, not mine."

I must have been very tired and bored when I posted this thread. That said, you still have not presented any scientific evidence for evolution, nor can you. Hand-waving, such as "the vast preponderance of evidence", is not evidence, nor are imaginary drawings and mockups based on fragmented fossils from few animals.

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

>>Kalamata: "Enough of the sophistry, Alinsky Joe. I believed those imaginary mockups, drawings, and clever positionings were based on facts for most of my life. Yes, I was once as naive about evolutionism as you are now."
>>Joey said: "Of course the basic evidences are facts and only a dedicated anti-scientist like Kalamata would slavishly obey every Denier Rule to oppose them.

The child is still playing his silly games, after all this time.

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

>>Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe knows that any one he picks can be ripped to shreds with the facts, which reminds me of another Science Denier Rule, which we shall substitute for former Science Denier Rule #10:"
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rule #2.

Child, or rather, Child with no evidence.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says,"

You're still obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7, I see.

Kalamata: "You believe God made man in his image?"

Yes.

Kalamata: "I am surprised.
I though you believed in apes-to-man evolution."

That is the scientific explanation.
I believe that whatever science may say, God was in charge of creation.

Kalamata: "You are delusional, Joe.
I have quoted Graur from time to time, but I have not agreed with him on anything since I learned the truth about evolutionism."

So now you've forgotten your own lies?
Do I have to go back & look it up for you?
You used Graur to claim ENCODE disproved evolution!
Then you trashed both Graur and ENCODE in favor of a Swiss Institute of Bioinfomatics study which you say claimed 95% of DNA is "influenced" by... what... what was it influenced by?
Yes, that's right, by evolution, you say!

So already you've forgotten?

Kalamata: "Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe?
You posted a picture of one of Graur's books... "

I never heard of Graur until you introduced him here.
I simply assume from your outrageous attacks on him that he's probably an honorable & reasonable person.

Kalamata: "You are dishonestly substituting the number based on the old myth for the new data.
ENCODE's number is 80% and counting."

I'm just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted?
None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.
ENCODE's numbers were 5% to 10% "constrained" by evolution.

Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is "constrained" by evolution.
Those are your posts, not mine.

Kalamata: "~~Alinsky Joe~~ Kalamata is experiencing the problem all habitual liars eventually face: they cannot remember all of their lies."

Kalamata: "DNA research (and the fossil record) has shown Darwin to be a wild extrapolator of observable data into the mythical."

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #1 & #6.

Kalamata quoting Thompkins 2015: "Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome.
Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7%"

Your quote uses the term "similarity" when it's clearly referring to the kind of identical DNA found among humans.
Similarity is a looser standard and it's how other researchers arrived at the ~98% similar number.

Kalamata on ancient material dating techniques: "Prove it. Show us the data."

This site has a listing of both relative (22) and absolute (25) dating techniques.
It does not even mention tree rings or ice cores, but this site does.

Kalamata: "Let me rephrase my statement: you are a habitual liar."

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "You are a habitual liar, Alinsky Joe."

Those are your quotes, go back & read them yourself.
Show us where ENCODE claims more than 5% to 10% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

Kalamata: "The data agrees me.
Consensus is the "refuge of scoundrels" (Cricthton, 2003)."

You don't agree with your own data from ENCODE.

Kalamata: "No, you equivocated, or you simply do not know what you are talking about.
I am leaning toward the latter."

You are leaning, as always, toward Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "Funtional DNA is constrained:...
Therefore in 2012, at least 80% was constrained:...
That number is now about 95%.
In other words, Human evolution is a myth."

None of your quotes from ENCODE say 80% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.
This is your own quote, post #239:

"Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner.
The rest can be assaulted by random mutationh little effect.” [Wallis & Rhiannon, “Junk DNA, Bunk.” Synthetic Duo, Jan 24, 2016]"

So who is it that found 95%?

" “What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’”, says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study.
“This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes.
These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation.”

Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics

2018

Note again what the Swiss (not ENCODE) are saying: 95% of DNA is "influenced" by "functional sites" which themselves are only 10% to 15% of DNA.
Nowhere in your quotes do the Swiss, or ENCODE, or Collins or Graur claim that more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.

This is your quote from Thompkins:

"It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection.
Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’’
Oops, so much for human evolution!…"

First of all, we need to notice that Thompkins here, like Kalamata, is trying to tell us that since supposedly 95% of DNA is "subject to..." evolution, that somehow proves there is no evolution!

Second, your quote from Pouyet does not say 95% is "constrained" by evolution, only that it is "influenced" by functional DNA.
No quote I've seen claims more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

Kalamata: "Deplorables are not Science Deniers, Alinsky Joe.
Maybe you can grab the coattails of the holocaust deniers."

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.

Kalamata: "To set the record straight, I have agreed with ENCODE's data since I first read about it.
I disagree with Graur on everything he says about ENCODE."

To set the record straight: Kalamata agrees with Graur when Graur said: for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be wrong.

To set the record straight: no quote from Kalamata shows ENCODE agreeing with claims that 80% or 95% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.

Kalamata: "You have been hanging around with the wrong crowd, Alinsky Joe.
Evolutionism is a dead religion, propped up only by the deceptions of the high priesthood."

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.

Kalamata: "This may be a difficult concept for you, Alinsky Joe, but the Bible merely confirms the data."

The Bible does not even confirm Kalamata's theology, much less natural science.
What the Bible intends to show is God's creation of and mastery over the natural realm.

Kalamata: "Where is the cryptologist when you need him?"

I'll need another rule for that response, Rule #11: when your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance.
That makes "Declare Victory" rule #12.

Kalamata: "Are you admitting that you believe the absence of evidence is evidence, or are you admitting you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about?"

Neither.

Kalamata: "That is not how you come across."

Kalamata: "Now, if we can only get Alinsky Joe to admit that he is scientifically-challenged, we can put this hoax of his to rest."

That is Denier Rules #5, #6 & now #12 (Declare Victory).

>>Kalamata: "I guess it is possible that Alinsky Joe has never heard of the best friend and sidekick of his hero, Michael Shermer, but that is highly unlikely."
>>Joey said: "Again, there's no need for you to lie about this, but you chose to anyway. So who is the father of your lies?

You lie and fabricate so much, Alinsky Joe, it is difficult to tell when you are telling the truth. You even promote seal and walrus noses and nostrils as transitional blow holes, without a shred of evidence. LOL! We really get a kick out statements like that, Joey.

It is always fun to debate scientific illiterates who pretend to be scientists; but you are exceptionally funny. It is at times difficult to follow your childish antics, but still fun.

By the way, what is/was your profession? Political Science?

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

>>Kalamata: "I disagree with his tactic of lumping into the category of holocaust denier everyone who disagrees with his warped world-view, which are the same tactics you use."
>>Joey wrote: Nothing in Shermer's Holocaust Denier book says anything about other categories of deniers.

Really? Did you even read the book? I will supply a few excerpts.

This is one of Shermer's rants against anyone who requires scientific evidence to believe his naturalistic (atheistic) world view:

"Creationists demand 'just one fossil transitional form' that shows evolution. But a single fossil cannot prove evolution. Evolution involves a convergence of fossils and many other lines of evidence, such as DNA sequence comparisons across species. For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution. They cannot, without invoking miracles, which are not a part of science . . . The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life has evolved." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.32]

The next statement is very clever. Shermer first introduces a few quacks into the discussion, and then conflates them with evidence-seekers who reject the circular arguments of modern Bible-hating "archeologists" – those who use the pretense that the Egyptian Shoshenq WAS the biblical Shishak in order to fabricate dates for historical events in the Ancient Middle East (ANE) that will never, ever match biblical chronology. Slick, huh?

"Cremo sets out to tell 'the hidden history of the human race' and in the process claims that the historical sciences of paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archaeology have conspired—sometimes deliberately, sometimes by default—to cover up evidence that indicates humans have existed in a civilized state, not for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, but for tens or hundreds of millions of years. Rather than have dinosaurs living alongside humans ten thousand years ago as 'young-earth' Christian creationists do, these 'Krishna creationists' (as some call them) have humans living alongside dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago. These are very 'old-earth' creationists indeed! Now, why is this denial instead of revision? The archaeologist Brad Lepper illuminates not only why, in his opinion, the authors are wrong but, more important, how he believes they distort and deny the past in order to make it fit their present religious beliefs: 'Cremo and Thompson are selectively credulous to an astonishing degree. They accept without question the testimony of nineteenth-century gold miners and quarrymen, but treat with extreme skepticism (or outright derision) the observations of twentieth-century archaeologists." [Ibid. pp.240-241]

And how about the implications of this reference?

Quoted in T. McIver, “The Protocols of Creationism: Racism, Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy in Christian Fundamentalism,” Skeptic 2, no. 4 (1994): 76-87.

Or, worse, this one:

Shermer, M. 1991. “Science Defended, Science Defined: The Louisiana Creationism Case.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 16, no. 4: 517-39.

What does that have to do with the holocaust? NOTHING! But Shermer intentionally associates those who reject the pseudo-science of evolutionism with holocaust deniers, LIKE YOU HAVE DONE!

"Let us pretend for a moment that the majority of people deny the existence of the Holocaust and that they are in the positions of power. If a mechanism for censorship exists, then the believer in the reality of the Holocaust may now be censored. Would we tolerate this? Of course not. The human mind, no matter what ideas it may generate, must never be quashed. By way of example, when evolutionists were in the minority in Tennessee in 1925 and politically powerful fundamentalists had passed legislation making it a crime to teach evolution in public schools," [Ibid. p.15]

The bottom line is, Shermer is shamelessly using the memory of the holocaust to promote his leftist agenda and his religion of evolutionism/atheism. No objective person can read that book and conclude otherwise. But, then again, you are not objective, Alinsky Joe, so you naturally admire it, and him!

I almost forgot to mention that I had previously mentioned that Shermer's propaganda also links Neo-Nazis to conservative Christians and Freepers, by falsely claiming Neo-Nazis are "right-wingers". Some links are subtle, for example, in this one he promotes fascism as right-wing:

"Consider this: Some Holocaust deniers, particularly those with extreme right-wing leanings, might gain greater acceptance if the crime attached to fascism had never actually happened. Without the Holocaust perhaps fascism would seem a more acceptable alternative to democracy." [Ibid. p.16]

Ironically, the most fascist President our nation has been forced to suffer through was Barrack Obama, who sought complete government control over industry through massive regulation. That is exactly what Hitler and Mussolini did. That is what fascism is.

Other examples of Shermer conflating holocaust deniers and fascists with the conservative right-wing are more in-your-face:

"To our minds, one defining factor in [David] Irving's on-again/off-again flirtation with denial is that he earns his living by lecturing and selling books (a difficult challenge for any author). Seemingly, the more he revises the Holocaust, the more books he sells and the more lecture invitations he receives from denier and right-wing groups." [Ibid. p.53]

"A few months later, we documented him as a white supremacist because he was running with neo-Nazi skinheads and had formed a right-wing organization known as the National Socialist Front." [Ibid. p.94]

So, if you hear those wackos on the left screaming "Nazi!" at conservatives and/or Trump supporters, you can "thank" far-left propagandists, like your hero, Michael Shermer.

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

>>Joey said: "So I'll ask again, was Shermer wrong about Holocaust Denial?"

He was disgustingly wrong in using the holocaust as a front to promote his atheist, far-left agenda, as are you.

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

>>Kalamata: "Did Shermer mention that the Nazi doctrine of racial superiority, which “justified” the holocaust, had it roots in Darwinism? Have you?"
>>Joey said: "I'll say it again: blaming the Holocaust on evolution theory is like blaming the 9/11 attacks on the breakfast those terrorists ate.

But it is true. It is a permanent part of history. Even Shermer admitted the link, in one of the rare times he didn't blame conservatives by association:

The Darwinist roots of the Holocaust are well documented, Alinsky Joe, a small part of which I referenced in previous posts.

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

>>Kalamata: "I really am surprised (amazed, actually) that you have never heard of your hero’s best friend and sidekick."
>>Joey said: "Again, you chose to lie when lying was not necessary. Why?

If you didn't lie and fabricate so much, you would be more believable, Alinsky Joe.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "If fossil evidence for evolution actually existed, you wouldn't be trying to send us on wild-goose-chases."

You asked for evidence so I'm showing you where to find it -- physical evidence in a natural history museum, read books for explanations.
Your problem is, by your own admissions, you've spent time in museums and "have thousands of books" (post #290), but still can't find evidence.

That makes you a Denier, Rule #1.

Kalamata: "That is a book for fossil collectors, Alinsky Joe, not scientists:"

You asked for evidence, there are pictures of evidence.

Kalamata: "As you can see, that book was not intended to be a science book.
Perhaps it could be used in a survey course for non-science majors, but not as a science book."

According to your own admission (post #290), you already have thousands (!) of books on evolution, and yet can't find evidence there.
No Holocaust denier I debated ever made such an amazing claim.

Kalamata: "It would be very easy to show us scientific evidence for evolution, if there was such a thing.
It doesn't exist."

That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "Archaeological dating, like evolutionism rock dating, is based on circular reasoning; "

It's based on dozens of different dating techniques, these, for example

Kalamata: "As I told you before, growth rates are not determined by what happens in between the beginning and ending dates, but rather the rate of change of the population over that time period."

Your formula is deceptive because, as the graph shows, the rate of change changed drastically after roughly 1800 AD.

Kalamata: "Baloney."

That is Kalamata slavishly obeying Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "There is no such thing as an evolutionary tree, Alinsky Joe, except in the imaginations of wishful thinkers.
There are, however, lots of Diversity Bushes: one for each kind."

LOL. "Bushes" which date back millions of years are indistinguishable from "trees".

Kalamata: "Fossil dates are cherry-picked, fossils are manipulated to make them appear to be something they are not, and there is no evidence a human, or any other organism existed millions of years ago."

That is Denier Rules #1 & #6.

Kalamata: "Jerry Coyne is a rabid evolutionist and anti-Christian.
For him to write and publish what he did back in 2009, long before the ENCODE report was released, is in-your-face confirmation that the genetic data promoted by evolutionists was highly questionable."

Naw, it's simply a matter of different techniques & assumptions produce different results.
The bottom line is still this: no matter how you measure it, no living species are more closely related to humans than chimps & bonobos.

Kalamata: "Of course, all you have to back up your dogmatic assertion is that silly, fabricated skull chart"

Nonsense, but by your own admission (post #290), you already have "thousands of books" on evolution, and you can't find evidence there!
So nothing I tell you can make a difference.

You are slavishly devoted to Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "Try to stay on topic, Alinsky Joe.
Behe said animals could not "evolve" beyond the family level, and the secular research by the Swiss team that I linked confirmed Behe's conclusion, at least for humans, which cannot evolve."

Total nonsense.
Fossils suggest the higher order of "primates" began splitting into separate "families" of monkeys & apes as long ago as 63 million years.

Kalamata: "The research by the aforementioned Swiss team was reported by the secular American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other mainstream secular science organizations and magazines."

I have no doubt that your unsubstantiated claim here misrepresents the facts.
It's your modus operandi.

Kalamata: "You really are a lightweight, Alinsky Joe."

Kalamata, you are a propagandist, slavishly devoted to every Denier Rule, especially #5, #6 & #7.

>>Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says,"
>>Joey said: You're still obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7, I see.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "You believe God made man in his image?"
>>Joey said: "Yes.

And not in the image of apes? I am surprised.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am surprised. I though you believed in apes-to-man evolution."
>>Joey said: "That is the scientific explanation. I believe that whatever science may say, God was in charge of creation.

My rule of thumb is, there is a lot of bad science out there. It is better to acknowledge the Lord in all thy ways, than to trust in the craftiness of mere men.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are delusional, Joe. I have quoted Graur from time to time, but I have not agreed with him on anything since I learned the truth about evolutionism."
>>Joey said: So now you've forgotten your own lies? Do I have to go back & look it up for you? You used Graur to claim ENCODE disproved evolution!

You are lying again, Alinsky Joe. Dan Graur has repeatedly and vehemently denied that ENCODE disproved evolution. Why would I claim he did not?

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

>>Joey said: "Then you trashed both Graur and ENCODE in favor of a Swiss Institute of Bioinfomatics study which you say claimed 95% of DNA is "influenced" by... what... what was it influenced by? Yes, that's right, by evolution, you say! So already you've forgotten?

Either you are lying, or you don't understand what you read. I have never trashed ENCODE. They were the pioneers that led to the Swiss research conclusion, 6 years later. The scientific research went something like this:

1) ENCODE, according to their 2012 report, found about 80% functionality among what was previously touted by evolutionists as "Junk DNA."
2) Over the next six years more functionality was found by various researchers.
3) The 2018 Swiss team determined the fnctionality had risen to about 95%.
4) Conclusion: an additional 15% functionality was discovered between 2012 and 2018.

Perhaps you would be better off debating something other than science, Alinsky Joe. May I suggest political science, or cooking?

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

>>Kalamata: "Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe? You posted a picture of one of Graur's books... "
>>Joey said: "I never heard of Graur until you introduced him here. I simply assume from your outrageous attacks on him that he's probably an honorable & reasonable person.

Why did you take my statement out of context, Alinsky Joe? This is my full statement:

"Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe? You posted a picture of one of Graur's books, he was the one of the primary interviewee of the 2017 New Scientist article you linked, and you have mentioned him on more than one occasion? In post #260 there was this exchange:

[Me] "I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium.”
[You] "Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur’s remarks."

You are exceptionally dishonest, Alinsky Joe. You can get away with those stunts with the unwashed masses, but not with me.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are dishonestly substituting the number based on the old myth for the new data. ENCODE's number is 80% and counting."
>>Joey said: "I'm just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted? None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution. ENCODE's numbers were 5% to 10% "constrained" by evolution. Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is "constrained" by evolution. Those are your posts, not mine."

You are thoroughly confused, Alinsky Joe. I am not even sure how to unpack that mess you wrote.

For everyone else, Joey is trapped in the past, when evolutionists could get away with speculating that 98.5% of the Human and Chimp genomes were similar by claiming most of the DNA was Junk, and could be ignored. Even Francis Collins, who was chosen to head the human genome project, was caught up in the rhetoric:

"Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as”junk DNA” just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation.” [Collins, Francis, “The Language of God.” 2007, Gen 1:12, p.136]

Collins' statement was in harmony with the ENCODE pilot project report of 2007; but by 2015 (and based on the 2012 Encode report,) Collins had changed his tune, as quoted in this 2015 NYT article:

"In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome—as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’” [Carl Zimmer, “Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?” New York Times, 2015]

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

>>Kalamata: "Alinsky is experiencing the problem all habitual liars eventually face: they cannot remember all of their lies... DNA research (and the fossil record) has shown Darwin to be a wild extrapolator of observable data into the mythical."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #1 & #6.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Thompkins 2015: "Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Chimp autosomal similarity to human on average was 70.7%"
>>Joey said: "Your quote uses the term "similarity" when it's clearly referring to the kind of identical DNA found among humans. Similarity is a looser standard and it's how other researchers arrived at the ~98% similar number.

That is a really dumb of you, Alinsky Joe. The 98% number is the old, fabricated number, when evolutionists were promoting the Junk DNA myth.

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

>>Kalamata on ancient material dating techniques: "Prove it. Show us the data."
>>Joey said: "This site has a listing of both relative (22) and absolute (25) dating techniques.

Your first link, Wikipedia, explains that ancient dating methods require "previously established chronology." Where does that come from, other than from wild guesses?

We know that secular archaeologists cling vehemently to the fake timeline of Shoshenq = Biblical Shishak that was erroneously proposed by Champollion about 2 centuries ago. Using that timeline, they can claim that the excavated city of Jericho, which exists today exactly like the biblical narrative predicts, cannot possibly be the biblical Jericho because it doesn't match the Shoshenq=Shishak timeline. In other words, archeologists use a circular argument of a known biblical date (the ransacking of Jerusalem by Shishak) to "disprove" all previous dates. Slick, huh?

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

>>Joey said: "It does not even mention tree rings or ice cores, but this site does."

Barely. Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is an inexact science. Besides, the oldest living tree, the Bristlecone Pine, is post-flood, so it is not much help to Bible deniers. Ice cores have also proven useless for dating, since the discovery of rapid deposition and non-annual layering.

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

>>Kalamata: "Let me rephrase my statement: you are a habitual liar."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are a habitual liar, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "Those are your quotes, go back & read them yourself. Show us where ENCODE claims more than 5% to 10% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

The 2012 ENCODE report stated 80% is functional, which means 80% is constrained.

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

>>Kalamata: "The data agrees me. Consensus is the "refuge of scoundrels" (Crichton, 2003)."
>>Joey said: "You don't agree with your own data from ENCODE.

Of course my statements agree with ENCODE. I quote them directly to make certain there is no misunderstanding among scientists. If you were a scientist you would know that.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, you equivocated, or you simply do not know what you are talking about. I am leaning toward the latter."
>>Joey said: "You are leaning, as always, toward Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Funtional DNA is constrained:... Therefore in 2012, at least 80% was constrained:... That number is now about 95%. In other words, Human evolution is a myth."
>>Joey said: "None of your quotes from ENCODE say 80% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

If it is functional, it is constrained.

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

>>Joey said: "This is your own quote, post #239:
>>Kalamata: "Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner. The rest can be assaulted by random mutationh little effect.” [Wallis & Rhiannon, “Junk DNA, Bunk.” Synthetic Duo, Jan 24, 2016]"

That was a quote from an article that resorted to Graur's chicanery as "evidence", and only to point to a possible source of a phrase that Tomkins used (e.g. restrained vs. constrained). Why did you take my words out of context? Habit?

This is the full context:

-------

>>Joe the Denier says, “First of all, the word is “constrained”, not “restrained”.

>>Kalamata: "Jeffrey Tomkins used that phrase in his article (above), but added quotes. It is possible he took the phrase from this blog post that was based on the work of Dan Graur, Alexander F. Palazzo and T. Ryan Gregory, in which the authors state that human genome is under “selective restraint”:

>>Kalamata: "The relevance of this to junk DNA is that most of the human genome (~90%) accumulates mutations in this way and that the effective historic size of the human population is small, close to 10’000 which means much of the genome changes unnoticed by natural selection, including viral insertions and other indels. These change the size of the human genome, usually by making it larger than it needs to be. Other research on genome conservation has largely confirmed the predictions of neutral theory. Current estimates looking at comparisons of many related mammalian genomes have shown that about ~9% of the human genome is under some selective restraint, with 5% being highly conserved and another 4% being conserved in a lineage dependant manner. The rest can be assaulted by random mutation with little effect.” [Wallis & Rhiannon, “Junk DNA, Bunk.” Synthetic Duo, Jan 24, 2016]

>>Kalamata: "https://syntheticduo.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/junk-dna-bunk/comment-page-1/

>>Kalamata: "I have seen the phase in other papers.

-------

Why do you continue to obsfuscate, Alinsky Joe? You have already been exposed as scientifically-challenged?

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

>>Joey said: "So who is it that found 95%?

>>Joey quoted my quote: "What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’”, says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. “This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes. These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation.” [”A Genome Under Influence: The faulty yardstick in genomics studies and how to cope with it.” Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, October 9, 2018]"

>>Joey said: Note again what the Swiss (not ENCODE) are saying: 95% of DNA is "influenced" by "functional sites" which themselves are only 10% to 15% of DNA.

LOL! Think of the two as your arm and fingers, Joey. Your functional arm muscles influence your fingers. Are your fingers functional, or non-functional? Can your fingers be functional without your arm? No. Can your arm be functional without your fingers? Maybe.

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

>>Joey said: "Nowhere in your quotes do the Swiss, or ENCODE, or Collins or Graur claim that more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution. This is your quote from Thompkins:

>>Joey quoted my quote: "It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’’ Oops, so much for human evolution!…" [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]"

>>Joey said: "First of all, we need to notice that Thompkins here, like Kalamata, is trying to tell us that since supposedly 95% of DNA is "subject to..." evolution, that somehow proves there is no evolution! Second, your quote from Pouyet does not say 95% is "constrained" by evolution, only that it is "influenced" by functional DNA. No quote I've seen claims more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

Functional means constrained, or conserved, or restrained. Non-functional means it is free to evolve. Pouyet found that only 5% can randomly evolve. Doing the math, we find that 100% - 5% = 95% that cannot evolve = 95% is constrained.

Did you miss the Fay & Wu article I quoted?

"Functional DNA sequences should be conserved over time and shared among closely related species, whereas nonfunctional or neutral sequences are free to change. This approach has been particularly useful for identifying protein coding sequences within a genome and will hopefully be as useful in identifying functional noncoding sequences." [Fay & Wu, "Sequence divergence, functional constraint and selection in protein evolution." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Vol.4; September, 2003, pp.213-214]

You really should stick to politics, Joey, or perhaps cooking.

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

>>Kalamata: "Deplorables are not Science Deniers, Alinsky Joe. Maybe you can grab the coattails of the holocaust deniers."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "To set the record straight, I have agreed with ENCODE's data since I first read about it. I disagree with Graur on everything he says about ENCODE."
>>Joey said: "To set the record straight: Kalamata agrees with Graur when Graur said: for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be wrong.

You are obfuscationing, Alinsky Joe. I quoted the article in which Graur made that statement, or was quoted as saying it, and I agreed only on part of his statement when taken out of his context:

"We read the paper, and looked over Graur’s accompanying PowerPoint. We’re not impressed by theoretical population genetics because it is based on neo-Darwinian assumptions rather than biological realities. Basically, he is using that circular science to add a quantitative gloss to his fundamental position, namely that if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right.” [”Dan Graur, Anti-ENCODE Crusader, Is Back.” Evolution News & Science Today, July 28, 2017]”

As any normal person can see, I agree 100% that ENCODE is right and evolution is wrong, but that is not Graur's context. Graur believes ENCODE is wrong, therefore I am not in agreement with him; and anyone claiming I agree with Graur on that point is lying (hint, Alinsky Joe.)

For the record, evolution is 100% false, with our without the ENCODE data.

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

>>Joey said: "To set the record straight: no quote from Kalamata shows ENCODE agreeing with claims that 80% or 95% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.

LOL! You are a hopeless case, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "You have been hanging around with the wrong crowd, Alinsky Joe. Evolutionism is a dead religion, propped up only by the deceptions of the high priesthood."
>>Joey said: "That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #8.

Child.

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

>>"Kalamata: "This may be a difficult concept for you, Alinsky Joe, but the Bible merely confirms the data."
>>Joey said: "The Bible does not even confirm Kalamata's theology, much less natural science. What the Bible intends to show is God's creation of and mastery over the natural realm.

Joe's theology is similar to that of the constitutional usurpers Jefferson warned us about:

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [Letter to William Johnson, from Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Appleby & Ball, "Thomas Jefferson: Political Writings." Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.455]

Joey's version of science must be squeezed out of the biblical text, or invented against it. The actual words of the Bible, themselves, are meaningless, to Joey.

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

>>"Kalamata: "Where is the cryptologist when you need him?"
>>Joey said: "I'll need another rule for that response, Rule #11: when your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance. That makes "Declare Victory" rule #12.

Child.

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

>>"Kalamata: "Are you admitting that you believe the absence of evidence is evidence, or are you admitting you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about?"
>>Joey said: "Neither.

No, both! LOL!

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

>>"Kalamata: "Now, if we can only get Alinsky Joe to admit that he is scientifically-challenged, we can put this hoax of his to rest."
>>Joey said: "That is Denier Rules #5, #6 & now #12 (Declare Victory).

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says,"

I see you're still slavishly following Denier Rules #5, #6, & #7.

Kalamata: "I don't trust you enough to take your word for it.
Explain those dating methods to us, and show us how they are calibrated.
Explain why we should trust them."

Here again is a partial list of chronological dating techniques, both relative (22) and absolute (25).
This site adds a few more.

As for trust, you don't have to trust anything.
Even the Bible tells us,

"Be merciful to those who doubt."

Scientifically, we are looking at dozens of different dating methods all of which produce results consistent with known facts & theory.

Kalamata: "I don't recall posting any such picture.
Perhaps you mistook vertical shear for horizontal erosion.
Please repost that picture so I can see what you are talking about."

You commented on "flatness and purity", not "horizontal erosion".

Kalamata: "Sorting of transported sediment occurs in every flood.
It never fails.
In the global flood, in which the earth was spinning about 1000 mph inside a giant ball of water"

Pure fantasy.

Kalamata: "That is the only way, unless you can figure out how we ended up with flat coal seams a few inches apart, separated by thin, flat layers of sedimentary rock or soil, Such as these:"

Evidence suggests coal formed in swamps over millions of years.
Rising then falling water levels interspersed layers of coal with sediment.

Kalamata: "Coal seams are typically flat, top and bottom, and are devoid of roots, which means, there is no evidence they were formed in swamps.
The swamp theory is another "just-so" story -- a unverifiable story based on absolutely no evidence."

Coal seams are not always flat, they can get twisted & turned into synclines & anticlines just like any other strata:

Also, lots of swamp plant fossils are found in coal, i.e.:

Kalamata: "Upright, rootless, fossilized trees, supposedly spanning many thousands of years of sediment according to the evolutionism timeline, with some piercing multiple coal layers, are rather common, indicating the coal seams formed quickly.
Derek Ager explains:"

Whoever Ager was, that quote is total nonsense.
These petrified logs were formed during the Triassic period, roughly the same time as many coal deposits.

Kalamata: "100 million years to an evolutionist is as a day to a young earth creationist. LOL!"

That would be Denier Rule #2: "Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific.".

Kalamata: "For 100 million years?
With very little erosion?
100 million years is a long time to sit around and look pretty while waiting to be covered with sediment:"

You have no idea what was or was not eroded.
The map of existing Silurian deposits shows small areas of such deposits, everywhere else, none.

Kalamata: "Explain the lack of erosion between the flat strata, this time without equivocation."

Some "equivocation" is required regarding anything not directly observed.

In answer, first, you can't see what's been eroded away.
Second, deposits are typically laid down under water, in lake or sea bottoms -- that's why they're flat & smooth.

Kalamata: "Now show us a photo of bioturbation that destroyed the lamination in a thick layer, this time without equivocation."

Why?

Kalamata: "God also said that he would never again send a flood to destroy the earth.
Yet, you say multiple floods.
Who should I believe: you or God?"

There have been multiple floods in recorded history, some wiped out whole cities.
Geology suggests the Earth was indeed covered in water, several times -- Marinoan, Sturtian, Kaigas & Huronian periods -- in the form of ice which lasted, all told, hundreds of millions of years.
But there's no evidence that humans were alive then.

I have no doubt that a man named Noah experienced a flood just as the Bible describes it.
But there's no geological evidence such a flood covered the entire earth while mankind was here.

>>Kalamata: “If fossil evidence for evolution actually existed, you wouldn’t be trying to send us on wild-goose-chases.”
>>Joey said: “You asked for evidence so I’m showing you where to find it — physical evidence in a natural history museum, read books for explanations.”

No, Joey, I asked for evidence and you don’t know where to find it, because there is none.

*****************
>>Joey said, “Your problem is, by your own admissions, you’ve spent time in museums and “have thousands of books” (post #290), but still can’t find evidence.

It is not a problem for me, Joey; it is a problem for charlatans like you — those trying to convince me and others that the lack of evidence is evidence.

Charlie explained how his theory was supposed to work. Show us evidence that it actually worked, and I will become an evolutionist (again,) and fade away into the sunset. In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath.

*****************
>>Joey said, “That makes you a Denier, Rule #1.”

Child.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “That is a book for fossil collectors, Alinsky Joe, not scientists:”
>>Joey said, “You asked for evidence, there are pictures of evidence.”

Fossils are evidence of a quick burial in sediment carried by a flood of highly-mineralized sea water, Joey. I asked you for evidence of evolution.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “As you can see, that book was not intended to be a science book. Perhaps it could be used in a survey course for non-science majors, but not as a science book.”
>>Joey said, “According to your own admission (post #290), you already have thousands (!) of books on evolution, and yet can’t find evidence there.”

That is correct. There is no evidence for evolution in any of my books, and I have a very extensive collection, covering all graduate-level evolutionary fields.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “No Holocaust denier I debated ever made such an amazing claim.”

You have never debated a holocaust denier. That claim is your fallback when you cannot defend your warped religion of evolutionism. Slander is the chief tool of practically every evolutionist.

Rule #1 of the evolutionism cult is, “If you can’t convince them, slander them.”

*****************
>>Kalamata: “It would be very easy to show us scientific evidence for evolution, if there was such a thing. It doesn’t exist.”
>>Joey said, “That is Kalamata obeying Denier Rule #1.

Child.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Archaeological dating, like evolutionism rock dating, is based on circular reasoning; “
>>Joey said, “It’s based on dozens of different dating techniques, these, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_dating.

Joey, I exhort you to refrain from using Wikipedia as proof text. It makes you look dumber than you already look.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “As I told you before, growth rates are not determined by what happens in between the beginning and ending dates, but rather the rate of change of the population over that time period.”
>>Joey said, “Your formula is deceptive because, as the graph shows, the rate of change changed drastically after roughly 1800 AD.”

Growth rates are what they are, Joey.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Baloney.”
>>Joey said, “That is Kalamata slavishly obeying Denier Rule #1.

Child.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “There is no such thing as an evolutionary tree, Alinsky Joe, except in the imaginations of wishful thinkers. There are, however, lots of Diversity Bushes: one for each kind.”
>>Joey said: “LOL. “Bushes” which date back millions of years are indistinguishable from “trees”.

Just when I begin to think you have finally ran out of dumb things to say, you say something even dumber. Every evolutionary scholar worth his salt is aware that Darwin’s Tree of Life is a relic. Perhaps this scholar will help you get up to speed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0-hgSjnomA&list=PLrCQerz2L0IfueZknzBALW1pOfwNORn_5&index=18&t=17m47s

The Chinese scholar is really cool, huh?

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Fossil dates are cherry-picked, fossils are manipulated to make them appear to be something they are not, and there is no evidence a human, or any other organism existed millions of years ago.”
>>Joey said: “That is Denier Rules #1 & #6.

Child.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Jerry Coyne is a rabid evolutionist and anti-Christian. For him to write and publish what he did back in 2009, long before the ENCODE report was released, is in-your-face confirmation that the genetic data promoted by evolutionists was highly questionable.”
>>Joey said: “Naw, it’s simply a matter of different techniques & assumptions produce different results.

I am trying to be kind here, Joey, but your obsession in believing you know more about genetics than some of the top scientists in the world is similar to what is typically called, delusions of grandeur.

*****************
>>Joey said: “The bottom line is still this: no matter how you measure it, no living species are more closely related to humans than chimps & bonobos.

That is a just-so story, Joey. Science requires evidence.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Of course, all you have to back up your dogmatic assertion is that silly, fabricated skull chart”
>>Joey said: “Nonsense, but by your own admission (post #290), you already have “thousands of books” on evolution, and you can’t find evidence there! So nothing I tell you can make a difference.

Thus far, Joey, I am unconvinced you have any knowlege about any field of evolution that we have been discussing. You don’t seem to know even the most rudimentary aspects or doctrine. Any child can search Wikipedia, or post photos of Museum mockups, as you are comfortable in doing. But that is not science, Joey.

*****************
>>Joey said: “You are slavishly devoted to Denier Rule #1.

Delusional child.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Try to stay on topic, Alinsky Joe. Behe said animals could not “evolve” beyond the family level, and the secular research by the Swiss team that I linked confirmed Behe’s conclusion, at least for humans, which cannot evolve.”
>>Joey said: “Total nonsense. Fossils suggest the higher order of “primates” began splitting into separate “families” of monkeys & apes as long ago as 63 million years.

That is just another story, Joey, with no supporting evidence, and it is beyond obvious that you are completely and totally ignorant of modern research. May I recommend you confine your debates to something other than science, such as Political Science, which is not science; or cooking, in which you will do well as long as you don’t burn the food or poison anyone.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “The research by the aforementioned Swiss team was reported by the secular American Association for the Advancement of Science, and other mainstream secular science organizations and magazines.”
>>Joey said: “I have no doubt that your unsubstantiated claim here misrepresents the facts. It’s your modus operandi.

You are too scientifically illiterate to understand what I am about to say, Joey; but you are embarrassing yourself.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “You really are a lightweight, Alinsky Joe.”
>>Joey said: “Kalamata, you are a propagandist, slavishly devoted to every Denier Rule, especially #5, #6 & #7.

Foolish child.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: ">>Joe the Science Denier says,"
>>Joey said: "I see you're still slavishly following Denier Rules #5, #6, & #7.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "I don't trust you enough to take your word for it. Explain those dating methods to us, and show us how they are calibrated. Explain why we should trust them."
>>Joey said: "Here again is a partial list of chronological dating techniques, both relative (22) and absolute (25). This site adds a few more.

You are promoting Wikipedia and other non-science websites, Joey. Do you not know the difference between science and story-telling?

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

>>Joey said: "As for trust, you don't have to trust anything. Even the Bible tells us, Jude 1:22 "Be merciful to those who doubt."

What else does it say? Does it say this?

"And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." -- Jude 1:23 KJV

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

>>Joey said: "Scientifically, we are looking at dozens of different dating methods all of which produce results consistent with known facts & theory."

There are no consistent dating methods for ancient materials, Joey.

>>Kalamata: "I don't recall posting any such picture. Perhaps you mistook vertical shear for horizontal erosion. Please repost that picture so I can see what you are talking about."
>>Joey said: "You commented on "flatness and purity", not "horizontal erosion".

LOL! That is really funny, Joey. I seriously thought you were trying to make a valid point.

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

>>Kalamata: "Sorting of transported sediment occurs in every flood. It never fails. In the global flood, in which the earth was spinning about 1000 mph inside a giant ball of water"
>>Joey said: "Pure fantasy."

In your strange world, perhaps. But in the world of science, a global flood is the only explanation for the thick, sorted, uncontaminated, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary rock layers found world wide. We are talking of an average of more than a mile of sedimentary rock layers covering the earth, Joey. Sedimentary rock layers are deposited by water.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is the only way, unless you can figure out how we ended up with flat coal seams a few inches apart, separated by thin, flat layers of sedimentary rock or soil, Such as these:"

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

>>Joey said: "Evidence suggests coal formed in swamps over millions of years. Rising then falling water levels interspersed layers of coal with sediment.

No, Joey. That is just another made-up story. There is no evidence of any connection of coal layers to swamps. Peat is formed in bogs, but not coal.

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

>>Kalamata: "Coal seams are typically flat, top and bottom, and are devoid of roots, which means, there is no evidence they were formed in swamps. The swamp theory is another "just-so" story -- a unverifiable story based on absolutely no evidence."
>>Joey said: "Coal seams are not always flat, they can get twisted & turned into synclines & anticlines just like any other strata:

Can you not read, Joey? I said coal seams are typically flat? Of course they would not be flat in areas of geological upheaval.

No matter. Your photo proves nothing until we can see the angle from which the photo was taken. It appears to be an upward angle, since the flat shale layer is forming what appears to be a platform, or ledge. Perhaps you were thinking of these:

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

>>Joey said: "Also, lots of swamp plant fossils are found in coal, i.e.:"

That should tell you that plants and leaves in coal layers do not necessarily become coal.

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

>>Kalamata: "Upright, rootless, fossilized trees, supposedly spanning many thousands of years of sediment according to the evolutionism timeline, with some piercing multiple coal layers, are rather common, indicating the coal seams formed quickly. Derek Ager explains:"
>>Joey said: "Whoever Ager was, that quote is total nonsense.

The late Derek Ager was a world-famous evolutionary geologist, Joey. I can safely say that nothing Derek Ager wrote in any of his papers and books can be seriously classified as "nonsense".

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

>>Joey said: "These petrified logs were formed during the Triassic period, roughly the same time as many coal deposits.

So?

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

>>Kalamata: "100 million years to an evolutionist is as a day to a young earth creationist. LOL!"
>>Joey said: "That would be Denier Rule #2: "Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific.".

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "For 100 million years? With very little erosion? 100 million years is a long time to sit around and look pretty while waiting to be covered with sediment:"
>>Joey said: "You have no idea what was or was not eroded."

I am not yet blind, Joey. Erosion is easy to spot.

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

>>Joey said: "The map of existing Silurian deposits shows small areas of such deposits, everywhere else, none."

That is not the point, Joey. The point is, the bottom layer remained in position for supposedly 100 million years, with virtually no observable erosion during that time, until the next layer was deposited on top of it. That is a pretty neat trick, if the 100 million year time frame is true. Supernatural, even.

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

>>Kalamata: "Explain the lack of erosion between the flat strata, this time without equivocation."
>>Joey said: "Some "equivocation" is required regarding anything not directly observed."

Faith is the evidence of things not seen, Joey. It is okay to have a religion, as long as you don't pretend it is science and try to ram it down children's throats.

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

>>Joey said: "In answer, first, you can't see what's been eroded away."

Are you saying the lack of evidence for erosion is evidence for erosion? That is pretty crazy, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Second, deposits are typically laid down under water, in lake or sea bottoms -- that's why they're flat & smooth."

I believe I understand what you are claiming. This is an analogy of your method, as I understand it:

First, 30 million years of shale is deposited (give or take millions of years,) followed by 20 million years of limestone, followed by 25 million years of sand, and so forth up the column?

How did we only shale for 30 million years without any sand or limestone mixed in? How do we get limestone for 20 million years with no sand and shale? Do you see my point? It would be virtually impossible for the geological column to form slowly, as you prescribe.

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

>>Kalamata: "Now show us a photo of bioturbation that destroyed the lamination in a thick layer, this time without equivocation."
>>Joey said: "Why?"

Bioturbation is something you should know, Joey, if you want to debate geology and not look stupid. Let me explain:

Bioturbation is the mixing of surface layering my boring animals, down to as deep as perhaps 20-25 feet. If there is no significant bioturbation found in the layer, it was deposited rapidly, and then immediately covered by subsequent layering to prevent boring animals from mixing the lamination.

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

>>Kalamata: "God also said that he would never again send a flood to destroy the earth. Yet, you say multiple floods. Who should I believe: you or God?
>>Joey said "There have been multiple floods in recorded history, some wiped out whole cities. Geology suggests the Earth was indeed covered in water, several times -- Marinoan, Sturtian, Kaigas & Huronian periods -- in the form of ice which lasted, all told, hundreds of millions of years."

Not one of those local floods deposited thousands of feet of sorted sedimentary rock layers over the entire world.

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

>>Joey said: "But there's no evidence that humans were alive then."

Why should there be? If mankind lived on the high ground, away from violent animals, their fossils would be found only in the upper most levels, or buried in the world-wide continental shelf where they were swept away to by rapidly receding flood waters.

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

>>Joey said: "I have no doubt that a man named Noah experienced a flood just as the Bible describes it. But there's no geological evidence such a flood covered the entire earth while mankind was here."

It is written in Genesis 9 that Noah's family repopulated the earth after the flood, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "You mean, the Age of "Dark Reasoners", don't you?"

No, because we are children of the Enlightenment.
Founders like Franklin, Jefferson & Madison were among its greatest minds, George Washington was its greatest leader, our Declaration and Constitution among its greatest political documents.
The Enlightenment was a shining moment in history, when minds had finally escaped the clutches of a highly restrictive Church and before they soon-enough slid under the controls of even more destructive secular ideologies, i.e., Marxism, totalitarianism, etc.
The Enlightenment corresponded to the beginnings of the scientific and industrial revolutions.

We are here to defend our Founders' ideals, which are the Enlightenment ideals, and they include all the traditional Western philosophical concepts, including God, nature and mankind.
The Age of Enlightenment ended far too soon in what we call the "Romantic Era", Age of Revolutions and Modern Era beginning just as our Founders were passing, in the early to mid 1800s.

I gather from your posts that Kalamata has a problem with Enlightenment leaders and thinking, but I can't figure out just why...

Kalamata on Enlightenment religious beliefs: "That is what they claimed; but every "good" politician has a tool called "name-dropping" in his bag of tricks."

Sure, anybody can cynically mock the values of others and point out their failures to match ideals with actions.
But there's no hint during the Enlightenment that men like our Founders didn't take their own ideals very seriously.

Kalamata: "You are greatly deceived. The "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham reinstalled the type of scientific orthodoxy that threatened Galileo, which now hinders the advancement of science, world-wide, while suppressing those who oppose their worldview."

Sorry, but that's pure propaganda.
In fact, Galileo was a scientist suppressed by the Church because his ideas didn't match their interpretations of the Bible -- just as you and Tour would suppress modern science because it doesn't match your own interpretations of the Bible.

Your claim to be the "real science" is pure unadulterated bunk, because you are, in fact, theology masquerading as science.

Kalamata on St. Augustine of Hippo: "He was not a scientist; but if you insist on using him as a reference, you should first know that he was a young earth creationist:"

St. Augustine was the greatest of the early Church theologians, one of the first to be called Doctor of the Church.
He made no pretense of being a scientist, as we understand that word, and he had no reason to think the Bible didn't correspond to scientific evidence.
But he did fully understand that some people could take the Bible's words out of context, misunderstand their intentions and present them to the world as if the Bible were talking nonsense.

Augustine opposed that.

Kalamata: "He denounced old-earthism, calling those who embraced it, "deceived":"

In your quote, Augustine opposed "mendacious documents", he knew nothing of scientific evidence.
But Augustine's views are absolutely correct in this respect, from your quotes:

"If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity." [Augustine, City of God,"

Or, as Psalms 90:4 says:

"A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."

A thousand years, a billion years, a trillion years -- all of no consequence to the Infinite God.

Kalamata: "Theologians routinely claim to be real scientists.
A few examples are, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Richard Lewontin."

And that is pure propaganda, Denier Rule #2.

Kalamata: "Many scientists were and are young earth creationists."

Every scientist regardless is entitled to his or her religious & theological beliefs, but those, by definition, are not science.

Kalamata: "No matter how much you try to attach your religion of evolutionism to the coattails of the Founding Fathers, it is going to be a hard sell.
We are already back in the "Dark Ages" as a society, in part because of evolutionism."

No, no, I'm not trying to "sell" attaching evolution to our Founders -- whatever real burdens they do carry (i.e., slavery), evolution is not one of them.
I am "selling" the traditional idea that, what our Founders called "natural philosophy" or "natural science" has its roots in ancient philosophy (i.e., Aristotle) and theology (i.e., St. Augustine of Hippo) and is the beginnings of modern science.

I'm also telling you, factually, that Charles Darwin was a child of the Enlightenment and was raised in its traditions, including the study of natural science.
Of course, you may claim Darwin went astray from those traditions, which were at the very least Deistic, but Darwin himself never admitted to being atheistic and did life-long support his family's church.

Kalamata: "Are you saying you do not believe in the Darwinist roots of the holocaust?
If you had actually read that book of Shermer's – the one you keep name-dropping -- you would know that Shermer explains the role of Darwinism in the holocaust:"

So now, after first attacking Shermer mercilessly and very unfairly, suddenly Shermer is your hero?
How did that happen?

"The racial theories of social Darwinism gave the Nazis and others the scientific sanction they needed to make their racist ideology seem wholly rational..."

Notice Shermer's key words here, "social Darwinism":

"While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.
Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin's own views on human social and economic issues."

Bottom line, there's no possibility Darwin himself would have supported the Holocaust.
As important, whatever "Social Darwinism" Nazis employed against Jews was just one ideological weapon among many.

So, in my previous analogy: blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate.

Kalamata: "Shermer quoted a significant chunk of Mein Kampf to justify that statement."

But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler mention Darwin, natural selection or evolution in the context of natural selection.
Instead, Hitler tells us his violent anti-Semitism began from his experiences in the Christian Social Party.
Shermer well knows that violent anti-Semitism in Europe generally and Germany specifically did not begin with 20th century Nazis, but dates back many centuries.

Kalamata quoting himself: ""There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation."
The words "more natural" are NOT the same as "merely natural", nor will they ever be."

Sorry, but if you'd said "God is more than natural," you'd be correct, but now you're just piling one more lie atop the others.
Stop it!
Back away from it, it's deadly heresy regardless of how much you try to qualify & sugar coat it, it's simply false.
You're trying to make a point which is impossible and ultimately insane.

The theological truth is, by ancient Biblical exegesis and traditional Western philosophy, God is super-natural, not "natural".
God is not "Gaia" (Mother Earth), God is not Pele (Hawaiian volcano).
God existed before the Universe and outside the Universe, the Universe is His Creation and a home.
Nature's scientific "laws" and processes are God's, but they are not Him.
Again my analogy of the architect and builder of a home.
We can study a home to learn the "mind of the Architect", but the home itself is not His mind.

So you need to abandon the idea that God is less than supernatural.

Kalamata: "For the record, that was in response to your dismissal of God and his church and their role in the advancement of Western Civilization, while promoting pagan philosophers, in your never-ending quest to redefine God's creation as "natural processes", which is a clever way of saying "godless". "

Total lies, not a word of that true.
Obviously, you're hoping to lie your way out of your own ridiculous heresies.

Kalamata: "BTW, angels have nature. God, rather than taking on the nature of angels, took on the nature of a man.
That sounds pretty natural to me:"

Sure, but no Biblical scholar I've heard of, not even heretics, claimed Christ was only natural.
The Bible clearly demonstrates His super-natural powers, even while in human form.

Kalamata: "As you can see, you don't get to define God.
He can do as he pleases, and be anything he pleases, including being "natural." "

I've never "defined" God and you don't get to redefine Him.
I simply take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers.
Even as a "natural" man, Christ had supernatural powers.
No believer I know of has ever claimed otherwise.

Kalamata: "Gobbledygook."

Here's your problem -- what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology.
What you're suggesting is something quite different and alien.

Kalamata: "That should be called "The Darkening" since the days of Charlie & Charlie, perhaps before."

Darwin was a child of the Enlightenment, born at its tail end, in 1808.
Darwin grew up in the "Romantic Era" which followed.

Kalamata: "Besides, the Renaissance played a greater role in the origin of modern science; and those men rejected "enlightenment" type arguments against political and religious traditions."

The Renaissance was an age of scientific inquiry and conflict with traditional Church theology.
Scientists like Galileo were persecuted by Church authorities who couldn't reconcile Galileo's findings with their understanding of the Bible.
Authorities who believed like Kalamata today.

Kalamata: "You have been exaggerating the influence of the enlightenment figures on the Founding Fathers.
The founders secured the idea of "due process" from a 15th century pre-enlightenment document, which included both personal liberty and the rights to property.
In general, the protections in the Bill of Rights are pre-enlightenment."

The word "Enlightenment" is largely defined by the contributions of our Founders.
So you cannot trash the Enlightenment without trashing them too.
And if your intention, consciously or subconsciously, is to trash our Founders, then you don't belong posting on Free Republic, FRiend.

Kalamata: "The "Enlightenment" crowd these days seem to be Marxists and other anti-nationalists, though they seem to be as least as driven toward destroying our traditional morality as they are our national borders."

I can't speak for, or defend, our Leftists, Democrats, Progressives, Socialists or any of those who "wrote the book" from which my brief summary of Denier Rules is derived.
Whatever their notion of "woke" means, it is not our Founders' ideas & ideals.

Conservatives such as Free Republic are keepers of our Founders flame and original intentions -- all of which help define the word "Enlightenment".

Kalamata: "That is why I am here. One way to promote our Constitution and Christian faith is to get evolution and the ACLU out of our classrooms."

Two of my four grandparents were school teachers in the early 1900s, small one-room school houses, began each day with a Bible reading and prayer.

Local schools should be, and generally are, controlled by local governments and so teach children what their voters want children to learn.
So I have no problem if they wish to teach evolution in science classes, but I think they should also have classes where they are not afraid to begin with a Bible reading and prayer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.