Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 8-5-19 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

[fishtank]

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

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

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

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]

>>Kalamata post #346: "Try not to make stuff up as you go, and refrain from your childish "Rules" game, and the debate will go much smoother."
>>Tricky Joey said: "But you must understand, the only real issue here is not evolution or even science itself, rather it's Kalamata's innate dishonesty, as illustrated in your slavish obedience to my derived Denier Rules. I cannot confirm a single case where you consciously disobeyed even one of those "rules". Why is that?"

Those rules fit you, as well, Tricky Joey. Too well! But, in reality, they can be made to "fit" anyone in a debate. If you don't like what they say, call them a liar, or slander them as a racist, a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier. That is what you do, Joey, and that is what the Left has been trained to do. It is one of the premier rule's in the Leftist playbook.

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "Now I will entertain the suggestion that you do consciously disobey my rule #3, which refers to your large collection of quotes. That rule is not intended to criticize your quotes, per say, because quotes are good. Rather it refers to the fact that some deniers promisquisly mix together fake quotes, or out-of-context quotes, with genuine quotes to make it seem like some famous people support their ideas."

More slander, Joey? Can you string two syllables together without slandering me?

There are many debating tricks that I could use, but I intentionally avoid them, seeking rather to edify, than to obfuscate. My quotes are geniuine -- directly out of the original text -- and in context. I intentionally supply more of the text than necessary to ensure the context is well-understood by the reader.

But it doesn't' matter with Tricky Joey. If I supply little of the original, I am accused of quote-mining. If I quote the entire paragraph (typically,) then I am accused of using them "promiscuously," or whatever Joey's word-of-the-week for "marginalize" happens to be at the time. That is the way the Left operates. That is the way Joey operates.

Now, compare Joey's quotes. He primarily copy/pastes from other websites, including the left-leaning Wikipedia, without a clue whether they are reliable, or not. When challenged, he dumps a load of "fish heads" (e.g., a long list of links to research papers) to stink up the place; not at all for edification, but rather as "punishment" for challenging him. It certainly makes life easier for Joey, but much more difficult for those seeking the truth.

The rule of thumb for analyzing research, or debates, is the same: "Verify, then trust."

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "I haven't seen that yet from Kalamata -- your quotes, so far as I can tell, all seem genuine. I'm especially impressed by the fact that some of your quotes actually support my positions, and that's my problem -- how can that be?

Do you see how easy that was? First Joey instills in your brain that I use selective editing or quote-overload to confound the issue; then he plays Mr. Niceguy by saying, "but I wasn't talking about you!" I must admit, that is a slick propaganda tactic. I wonder who trained him?

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "How can someone as normally denier-prone as Kalamata knowingly post data which contradicts his own claims?

I don't.

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "My best guess is, you don't, not knowingly."

There you go again. Perhaps you will provide examples or those that you believe contradict my own claims. I won't hold your breath.

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "And this leads me to a definition of "we" by which Kalamata sometimes refers to himself. I'm guessing now that "we" includes a, shall I say, "research assistant" who looks up and provides provenance for your quotes, and in the process sometimes slips in contradictory words. I attribute such words to your honest research assistant because I've never yet seen an example of Kalamata yourself honestly acknowledging their meaning & importance."

There is no need to get triggered over my use of a first person personal pronoun, Joey. As I clearly explained to you earlier, when I use the pronoun "we," I am referring to my lovely wife and me. This is my quote from #397:

"Don't get all paranoid on us, Joey: I am referring to just the wife and me."

You see, I don't need a research assistant, Joey (nor could I afford one.) I use the Research Library to store, index, and footnote my personal library, which includes about 8 years of research on the religion of evolutionism, and perhaps 50 years of research on history, including constitutional history. I also had a minor in Psychology/Sociology while in college, so I include those subjects in my library, as well.

The Research Library is also an excellent Bible research source, with built-in and searchable early-Church history (to Augustine,) and one of the best Bible search engines you will find anywhere.

One other point: I can store and index every forum post, such as this one, with the URL, so that I can quickly perform multiple-word searches, such as, "BroJoeK paranoid wife," which instantly found the above quote from #397.

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "A typical example is the collection of great quotes on "historical sciences" here in your post #346. All are totally reasonable explanations of the term, and also begin to suggest why I object to it."

I would not have listed them if not for your ignorant, snarky posts in #247 & #346; for example:

[Joey from #247] "“Historical science” - what’s that? Is it Aristotelian mechanics, Galen’s Medical Theory, etc. That’s the only thing I can think of that qualifies."

[Kalamata from #346] "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's reply] "That is an example of Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rule #2."

Joey, if you were not so intensely focused on trying to shut down debate with your treacherous slander and your silly, childish "rules," perhaps my posts would be less confusing to you. For example, in #247, you could have simply asked, "What is historical science?" Instead of taken the "let's find out the truth" route, your posts are generally comprised of little more than "you disagreed with me, so you must be destroyed." That is sick, Joey.

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "One problem with the term "historical sciences" is it too easily allows deniers like Kalamata to equate them to the "historical Bible."

It is not a problem unless you have an anti-Bible, anti-science agenda, Joey. Even your hero, the devout atheist and anti-Christian bigot Michael Shermer has no problems with the term "historical science":

"Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science." [Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things; Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." Henry Holt and Company, 2002, p.142]

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "Both, you say, are "historical" so both equally valid scientifically and both can be believed, or not, according to you faith in one religion or the other, so you tell us."

I can't let you get away with that, Joey. You are attempting to confound myth and faith, with science. But, science, historical or not, requires empirical evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for a global flood, which was widely believed by scientists until the slick rhetoric of the lawyer named Charles Lyell "won the day" in the 1800's. Now, 150 years or so later, there is still no supporting evidence for Lyell's "geology:" only a collection of just-so stories and myths, but I repeat myself.

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "But the reality is, "historical sciences" are historical in the same sense as Crime Scene Investigators forensic analysis is historical. They all start with evidence to hypothesize a possible "theory of the crime", then continue to look for more evidence to confirm or falsify various hypotheses. Such "historical science" has no comparison to using the Bible as your starting point for "investigation."

Of course it does, if the evidence fits; and it does, even in genetics. The Biblical "kind", which the great scientist Linnaeus ranked above the level of genus, and which we now call "family," has been shown over and over again, even in the fossil record, to be the genetic boundary of all species. That is exactly what the Bible predicts.

>>*****************

>>Tricky Joey said: "So, my answer to the question of how someone as innately dishonest as Kalamata can post such lengthy quotes which, so far as I can tell, are accurate and even balanced -- my best guess is: you don't, somebody else is doing that work for you, someone likely more interesting than Danny Liar-Denier Kalamata."

Joey continues to smear me as a liar, but he had no evidence, other than imaginary "evidence" the Left typically resorts to, which is, "He disagrees with me, so he must be lying."

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #346: "You just confirmed one my previous points that evolution is NOT falsifiable because EVERYTHING IS EVOLUTION!
LOL! This is hilarious!
The term "devolution" implies the breaking or loss of genes, Joey.
That will never be evolution, no matter how loudly and passionately the evolutionism apologist whines."

Sorry, but your sense of humor, like so much else, is a bit... off.

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] "

Evolution by definition is any change, period.
Complexification, devolution, or something as simple as a moth changing colors -- sideways evolution.
It's all evolution/adaptation, regardless of how much you hate it and wish it to go away.

Danny Denier: "Can we assume Professor Behe left you speechless by revealing that the Polar Bear didn't evolve its unique traits?"

By definition, evolution is change, period, regardless of how much you hate it, lie about it and wish it would go away.
It is what it is.

Danny Denier: "That is what I previously explained, Joey, that evolution cannot be falsified, no matter what happens, because evolution is always true, that is, in the mind of the evolutionism cultist."

Nonsense, evolution theory could easily be falsified by confirming evidence which contradicts it.
Elephants living with dinosaurs or big whales & plesiosaurs frolicking together, come to mind.
Alley Oop flying pterosaurs... that would do it.

What else?
How about an obvious copyright written into our DNA codes by the Intelligence Who designed it?
Here is a long discussion on the subject of evolution's falsifiability.

But let's cut to the chase, shall we?
You wish desperately to redefine the word "evolution" such that every new fossil or DNA discovery "falsifies" it, as if the theory was carved-in-stone gospel to be broken by any new fact.
And it frustrates you to tears that every new fact, instead of falsifying is said to confirm evolution's predictions.

Sorry about that.

Danny Denier "Evolution is such a "great theory" to the evolutionist that it can explain everything.
That is not science, but a faith-based religion, with evolution as god."

Total lies & rubbish.

Danny Denier quoting Popper: "Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.""

Feeble?
More nonsense, such ideas are "tested" everywhere environments change and life-forms are required to adapt or die.
Often they die out but sometimes they adapt, occasionally even in the very short term.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier: ">>Joey said: "God's creation is natural, God is supernatural."

Danny Denier post #351: "That is philosophical hogwash."

I'd be curious to see what theologians you can quote who tell us that God is not supernatural and/or nature is not natural.
I've never seen it and seriously doubt if your claim here is anything more than Danny Denier going a little nuts with denial anger.

Danny Denier referring to God's supernatural majesty & power: "Your statement is more hogwash.
You do not believe there is science in the Bible, and you mock the historical record, so which parts "demonstrate God's supernatural majesty & power"?
Curious minds want to know."

You'll find it all beginning with Genesis 1:1 and ending with Revelation 22:21.

Danny Denier: "God told us how man became a living soul in the aforementioned statement, and it wasn't by evolving from an ape, as your wild imagination leads you to believe."

The Bible says God began with dirt and science thinks that's about right.
The Bible says God "...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
That "breath of life" and "living soul" appear together, one resulting from the other and, most importantly, none of those words applying to any other creature.
I think God's breath of life gave us living souls and that's what makes us fully human and distinct from every other creature before us.

I also think, Danny boy, that if you thought about it, you'd see it's true but now you are so enraged with denial you literally can't see anything with your good eyes.

Danny Denier: "Show us that in the Bible, or admit that you are adding your own words to the scripture."

No, I neither added to nor subtracted from the Bible.
I simply pointed out the fact that nowhere does the Bible say God breathed the breathe of life into any other creature or created in them a living soul.

Danny Denier: "That is nutty.
God created man uniquely in his own image, and that of his previously created angels."

Now you're just raging against straw men.

Danny Denier referring to Matthew 17:20 : "You haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you?"

So, are you telling us that Jesus lied to Matthew?
No, my point is the Bible tells us that humans are also capable of miracles and I think these are a function our living souls from God's breath of life.
I'm not Catholic but do notice the Catholic Church puts a lot of faith in supernatural miracles to help them define just who is or is not a saint.

Danny Denier: "How does that prove your nutty belief that man evolved from an ape, or a frog, or a bacteria?"

It doesn't need to.
It only needs to show that theologically the Bible is not necessarily opposed to science in general or evolution theory specifically.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier: "I see you are still playing your hard-left “slander them if you cannot dispute them” game.
Do you hate Jews, Little Joey, or only the millions of Jews who reject the apes-to-man myth?"

Oh, Danny boy, now you really are just going nuts with denier anger, concocting false accusations in hopes something, anything, will stick.

The fact is your denier tactics, minus their vulgarities, are the same as those I saw in Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago.

Because of that, and because I love you as a fellow Christian, I'm trying to help you out -- I'm telling you exactly what you're doing wrong.
That's what my Denier Rules are all about.
If you will study them, commit them to heart and then STOP DOING THEM, consciously, deliberately, disobey the Deniers' Rules, then you will begin to become an honest witness, not just a professional propaganda prost... ahem.

Danny Denier: "The evidence in the Holocaust museum is believable, Joey. "

Not to a Holocaust denier!
Such people, just like you Danny boy, can literally spend all day in a museum and never once see a shred of evidence.
How is that even possible, you might ask?
Simple: all the same Jedi mind tricks you play on evolution, they play on the Holocaust.

Danny Denier: "Foolish child."

Denier Rule #7

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #353 on the "Dover" case: "Hogwash.
It demonstrates the power of a few leftist agitators, the ACLU, and a corrupt federal judge, along with the ability to sway public opinion using the deep pockets of the Left.
Moreso, it is symbol of the moral decline of our nation since the ACLU came to power.
How does it feel to be an ACLU apologist?
Never mind.
I don’t want to know."

The case was brought by about a dozen parents of students, supported by the ACLU and others.
Defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center.
The judge is a Republican Bush appointee who I disagree with on some other rulings but in this case find no fault.

The judge did find fault:

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy.
It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors.
Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed.
As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

I have the "Pandas & People" book, by itself it's fake but harmless.
What made it a legal matter was the government school board's order to force it on unwilling teachers, students' parents and voters.
During the course of that the book was exposed as attempting to hide God's glory behind the ludicrous term, "intelligent design", pretending it could refer to anyone other than God.
Indeed the book's authors themselves confessed "intelligent design" was just their idea of God's creation masquerading as science.

As for who, exactly, "swayed public opinion", I've seen no evidence that "Dover" voters ever wanted "Intelligent Design" imposed on their students.

Danny Denier: "That was Joey, the moral relativist and ACLU apologist, at your service."

Nonsense, science is not a "moral relativist", it simply observes natural facts and looks for natural explanations to fit them.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #355 on transitional fossils: "I cannot find them, Joey.
You made the claim that there are transitional fossils, so you show us the fossil evidence."

Denier Rules #1, #7 & #9.

Every fossil is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.

Danny Denier: "Those are clay mockups, plus a long list of fossils posted by a Wikipedia scatterbrain.
Enough of the fish heads, Joey.
Show us a clear and distinct line of fossil evidence from ape to man, or admit you are a snake-oil salesman."

Oh, Danny boy, as a denier you are way, way too good at this.
You sound exactly like those Holocaust deniers from nearly 20 years ago, minus their vulgarities.
So you've learned to be equally insulting without being vulgar, wonderful.
But it seems to me your words here reflect a mind which has spent a long lifetime denying the truth.

Danny Denier: "You are lying again, Joey.
I said, factually, that, 'you don't know if any of those [fossils you claimed to be transitionals] had children.'
Quit lying."

Right, just as I said, you wish us to believe those ancient fossils left no offspring and so whatever came after them must, presto changeo, have sprung ex nihilo from the ground!

Danny Denier: "That is sophistry, Joey.
There is ZERO evidence for the age of any fossil touted by the evolutionism cultists."

That is just your slavish obedience to Denier Rules #1, #7 & #9.

Danny Denier: "Joey has convinced himself that the absence of evidence for evolution is evidence for evolution.
You cannot really blame Joey, personally, since that is what his handlers have brainwashed him into believing.
But, then again, one of the principles on which our nation was founded is that every man is responsible for his own actions."

"Handlers"??
That is a clear & obvious case of Denier Rule #5.
As for "absence of evidence" it is the undeniable basis for Danny boy's claim that every species sprang up ex nihilo from "intelligent design".

Danny Denier: "Child."

Denier Rules #5 & #7.

Danny Denier: "Those are certainly fossils, Joey; but you have not presented any evidence of a solid transitional line, nor have you presented any evidence that any one of those listed is an ancestor of any other, nor can you."

The claim here of no "solid transition" is just Danny obeying Denier Rules #1 & #9.
As for fossil ancestry, there's no evidence to suggest that more recent fossil species originated anywhere other than in populations similar to more ancient fossils.
But Danny boy wants us to believe that this lack of evidence is evidence for "intelligent design".

Danny Denier: "Those are just a bunch of fossils, Joey.
No one on earth can assemble a reasonable transitional line from ape to man, without cheating.
Ape-to-man evolution is just as false today as it was in 1981, except in the minds of the wildly imaginative."

Just more of Danny boy's blind obedience to Denier Rules #1, #5 & #9.
In fact the transitional line from pre-human to human is pretty impressive.

Danny Denier: "Accoding to your timeline, Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley exposed the hoax in 1953, over 40 years afterward.
Like I said earlier, Evolutionism Icons Die Hard!
If not for fraud and wild speculations, there would be nothing that could be hyped as evidence."

Piltdown man had strong defenders, but from Day One there were also skeptics:

1. 1913 -- Waterson
2. 1915 -- Boule & Miller
3. 1923 -- Weidenreich
4. 1925 -- Edmonds
5. 1949 -- Florine content test established Piltdown as recent.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #355 on Haeckel's embryos: "No, Joey. Fraudulent!
In the image below, Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top, while real embryos are on the bottom:"

Well... first of all some of your own lower photos look similar, so are they "fraud" too?
Second, Haeckel himself corrected his drawings as better information became available, so that was not fraud.
Third, most but not all of Haeckel's ideas are today considered "defunct".
The part which remains valid is the similarity of early stage embryos of different species.

"The Haeckelian form of recapitulation theory is considered defunct.[18]
Embryos do undergo a period where their morphology is strongly shaped by their phylogenetic position, rather than selective pressures, but that means only that they resemble other embryos at that stage, not ancestral adults as Haeckel had claimed.[19]"

Danny Denier: "No, Joey. Haeckel faked them.
The vain attempt by historian Robert J. Richards to rehabilitate Haeckel's reputation proved futile in light of the actual embryonic photos taken by scientist's Michael Richardson et al.
Only the blind and the brainwashed fail to see how far Haeckel strayed from reality in order to supplement the evolutionism hype of his day; though, admittedly, Haeckel did not act much differently than the hypesters of today, especially the charlatans pushing ape-to-man evolution."

Those Richardson photos show some remarkable similarities among embryos of different species.
That much of Haeckel's idea remains valid.

Danny Denier: "Are you aware that Hitler adopted Haeckel's recapitulation theory?"

Right, and by that same denier logic (Rule #8), did you also know that Hitler believed two plus two equals four?!
So, if you believe 2+2=4, then you're a Nazi!

{sigh}

Danny Denier: "It is also worth nothing that Robert John Richards is a very poor historian who ignores boatloads of evidence that Hitler was a Darwinian."

So, you read Richards' 2013 book, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory"?

Danny Denier: "No, again, Joey. Haeckel's fake drawings are shown below on the top, while the real embryos from Michael Richardson's 1997 science team are on the bottom:"

I see some remarkable similarities among embryos of different species.

Danny Denier on statistics: "I imagine so!
After all, your motto is, "Damn the scientific evidence against it: evolution is a fact!""

Nonsense, we're talking about statistics and the fact that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure."
Your statistics which claim to "prove" evolution impossible are totally based on false assumptions.

Further, I've never said "evolution is a fact".
Long-term evolution is a theory based on literal mountains of facts.

Danny Denier: "Have you ever taken a college level science course above the survey level, Joey?
You seem absolutely clueless about how to respond to real scientific evidence.
Perhaps the reason you mock Behe's book is because you do not possess the aptitude to read a book of that caliber, even though it is written for the layman scientist."

I took plenty enough heavy-duty science courses to learn the difference between real science and phony-baloney theology masquerading as science.

As for Behe, I have no interest in charlatans, unless they post their lies on Free Republic.

Danny Denier: "Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt are secular mathematicians at Cornell University who reject Intelligent Design, Joey."

Oh for crying out loud!
Yet again you've hijacked an article which opposes Behe's nonsense and used it to support him.

"...we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Denier Rules #5 & #7.

Danny Denier: "Morphological similarity is the result of Dumb Luck?
LOL! You are really funny, Joey."

I didn't say "dumb luck", far from it.

You love whales, so let's consider whales -- about 100 living species, many "morphologically similar" to each other -- minor variations on an overall theme.
But scientists have also discovered about 600 species of extinct whales & pre-whales in geological deposits dated back to about 50 million years.
These are also "morphologically similar" in some degrees to each other and to living whales.
Is that all just "dumb luck"?
No, I believe it was all teleologically directed, by God, and even extinct species served His purposes.
But trial & error appears to be the process by which life accomplishes God's purposes.

Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2004: "When paleontology's 'dirty little secret' of the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record finally got out, it caused great problems for evolutionary theory."

Yet again we're only talking about perspective -- is it an old woman or young woman, is it "stasis" or "punctuated"?
Depends on how you look at it.
Either is a perfectly valid explanation, depending on your perspective.
More important, neither "stasis" nor "punctuated" in morphology implies equal "stasis" or "punctuated" in DNA.
For example, the rapid human-directed "punctuated" speciation of dogs from wolves belies the underlying stasis in dogs' DNA.

Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2004, continued: "The old idea that selection could act on one character at a time just by changing its gene frequencies has been discredited.
Evolution is more than a 'change in gene frequencies through time.' "

So let's see if I "get" what you're saying here -- Prothero tells us that evolution is more complicated and this in Danny boy's mind means evolution is a myth?

Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2017: "...In other words, they would suddenly appear in the fossil record.
Once they were established, speciation theory would predict that the main population would remain stable and not change gradually through time but that new species would continually arise on the periphery and migrate back to the homeland.
Eldredge and Gould (1972) called their idea punctuated equilibrium... "

Sounds reasonable to me.

Danny Denier: "How can we carry on a reasonably discussion if you insist on making stuff up to cover up your ignorance, Joey?"

Total nonsense, Denier Rule #5.

Danny Denier: "Perhaps this will help you understand:

Patterson 2019: "The abrupt first appearance of a multitude of animal fossils in early Cambrian rocks (Terreneuvian to Series 2; ca. 541–509 Ma) epitomizes one of the most significant evolutionary events in Earth’s history."

Yet again Danny boy, you've hijacked scientific arguments about evolution to make claims against evolution.
See again my discussion on this in post #347 above.
Notice first that of 36 living phyla today only 10 are first recorded in the "Cambrian Explosion".
Notice second the Cambrian Age lasted almost as long as the time between the destruction of dinosaurs and today, with another "explosion" in numbers of species -- indeed today there are orders of magnitude more species than fossils found from the Cambrian "Explosion".

Danny Denier: "No one denies there are many billions of fossils, Joey.
They simply do not provide any support for Darwinian theory. None!"

Right, precisely the same "logic" I saw from Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago.
Neither they nor you can see mountains of evidence.
Denier Rules #1 & #9.

Danny Denier: "You must have had your way in discussions in the past, Child.
Perhaps it spoiled you.
How does it feel to have someone expose your deception and ignorance?"

How does it feel to have your long-time denier tactics fully exposed for what they are, Danny boy?

Danny Denier on Gould's theories: "LOL! Of course not.
But data is data, and there are mountains of data that contradict evolution.
Worse for the evolutionist, all of it thus far supports special creation and a single global flood."

But you've presented no data, none, which might falsify basic evolution theory.
Nor have you presented confirmed evidence of "special creation" and a "single global flood".

Danny Denier: "The discussion was about disparity vs. diversity, Joey, not species."

Disparity & diversity of what, Danny boy?
Oh, yeh, of species.
Some with soft bodies, some with hard bodies.
Burgess suggests hard-bodies represented 2% of the total, but elsewhere hard-bodies are all that was found -- hence the idea of a Cambrian "explosion".

"Explosion" over 50+ million years of hard bodies.

Danny Denier quoting McMenamin 2016: "One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995)..."

Nonsense because only 10 of 36 phyla left fossils first found so far in the Cambrian.
It doesn't mean those 10 phyla originated in the Cambrian, only that those are the first fossils found so far.
What about those other 26 phyla?
Some are found from before, some after, most we just don't know yet.

By the way, this site is just one I happened on, a lot of interesting data here.

Danny Denier: "You don't understand what you are trying to defend, Joey.
Darwin predicted diversity before disparity, and gradual appearance of species through evolution, rather than disparity before diversity and abrupt appearance followed by stasis.
You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist, Joey."

That's Denier Rule #13, among others.
Sorry FRiend, but you are an embarrassingly incompetent liar.
For example, I can't find where Darwin ever used the term "disparity" or tried to distinguish it from "diversity".
That idea came 100 years after Darwin.
Here is another discussion (Fortney) which says in more words what I've tried to summarize.

Danny Denier: "There have been no new phyla since the Cambrian, Joey.
See the above statement by McManamim, quoting Valentine and McCoy."

Sorry, Danny boy, but the data here does not support your denials.
So your claims represent nothing more that "the lack of evidence is evidence of" no new phyla.

Danny Denier again quoting McManamim: "One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995)..."

Right, just like Kalamata always says: "the lack of evidence is evidence of" whatever fantasy Danny boy promotes today.

Danny Denier: "You have been magnificently brainwashed, Joey.
You have no clue how ignorant you are."

Oh Danny boy, your slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #7 & #13.

Danny Denier: "LOL! There you go again with, "the absence of evidence is evidence"

LOL, there you go again with Denier Rule #12.

Danny Denier: "The cell certainly appears to be designed, Joey.
It is a mind-bogglingly complex, microscopic factory, complete with conveyor "belts," repair "technicians," ... the works:"

Sure, but the philosophical question is whether God accomplished that naturally or by special divine intervention.
Natural science cannot answer the second option, only, if at all, the first.

Danny Denier: "Lying Child."

Oh Danny boy, our liar-denier, you so often claim you didn't say what you just said.
That's on you, not me.

Danny Denier: "The absense of evidence is not evidence, Joey, no matter how you spin it."

But absence of evidence is always evidence to Danny boy of whatever fantasy you're promoting today.

Danny Denier quoting Raup 1979: "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."

Well... hmmm...
So far as I know David Raup was no Young Earth Creationist and cannot have intended his words to be hijacked for Kalamata's nefarious purposes.
So I will tentatively suggest that you have taken Raup's words out of context.
Said today I'd call Raup dishonest but given the 1979 date just possibly he was only naïve.
It may just represent the newly dawning revelation that actual evolution was more complex than previously understood.
I'd be pretty sure Raup didn't believe "complex" meant "falsified" evolution.
His suggestion here, that somehow more fossils can mean fewer transitions seems beyond bizarre.

Danny Denier still quoting Raup 1979: "...we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

Again, that would be utterly dishonest if said today, but for its time perhaps understandable.
The fact is that complexity in evolutionary processes does not falsify basic evolution theory.

Danny Denier still quoting Raup 1979: "So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."

The obvious answer is that along with natural selection, descent with modifications also plays a role in evolution.

Danny Denier: "Baloney, Joey.
A real scientist does NOT pretend a few skull and jaw fragments, plus a couple of teeth, are evidence of a seal-like whale transitional animal, like the imaginary animal on the left:"

That's nonsense because, first, the number of extinct fossil whale species discovered so far is around 600.
Some are represented by dozens of individuals.
All have morphological similarities to modern whales and other extinct whales or pre-whales.
Each species is also different in some ways from the others.

Specific bones which are missing from one individual may be present in others.
Transitional features (i.e., blow holes) which are present in later species may be partially transitional in earlier ones.
Specialists who study such things at length become very familiar with different species, individuals and even individual bones.

Danny Denier: "Seriously, Joey; you have been living in La-La Land far too long."

Seriously, Danny boy, you have been living in Liar-Liar Land far too long.

Danny Denier: "Foolish child."

Denier Rules #5 & #7.

Danny Denier: "You said they looked like blowholes, Joey. LOL!
Clearly they do not. "

Denier Rule #12.

Danny Denier: "Foolish child, still playing kindergarten games."

No, Danny boy, just exposing the workings of your dishonest heart for all to see.

Danny Denier: "Evolutionists, like other pseudo-scientists, believe everything, real or imagined, is evidence for evolution."

And yet neither Danny Denier nor anyone else has ever presented confirmed evidence that would seriously falsify basic evolution theory.

Danny Denier: "Quit making stuff up, Child."

Oh Danny boy, quit slavishly obeying Denier Rules.
Break out of the box that constrains your mind.
Tell the truth, for once.

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier post #346: "You just confirmed one my previous points that evolution is NOT falsifiable because EVERYTHING IS EVOLUTION! LOL! This is hilarious! The term "devolution" implies the breaking or loss of genes, Joey. That will never be evolution, no matter how loudly and passionately the evolutionism apologist whines."
>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "Sorry, but your sense of humor, like so much else, is a bit... off." Joey quotes Wikipedia . . .

You gotta quit quoting Wikipedia, Joey, if you want to be taken seriously? {sigh}

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

>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey said, "Evolution by definition is any change, period.

Now everyone can plainly see what I have been saying. Evolution, to the anti-God types, "proves" everything! Evolution is their god!

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

>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "Complexification, devolution, or something as simple as a moth changing colors -- sideways evolution. It's all evolution/adaptation, regardless of how much you hate it and wish it to go away.

You do not understand evolution, Joey. There is no such thing as "sideways evolution." Evolution, by definition, requires an increase in genetic information; otherwise, common descent is impossible. Without common descent, evolution fits the special creation narrative, whereby created organism multiply after their respective families, or "kinds."

It is okay for you to hijack special creation, Joey; but please don't call it evolution.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Can we assume Professor Behe left you speechless by revealing that the Polar Bear didn't evolve its unique traits?"

LOL! No. However, I am speechless about the extent to which you have been brainwashed. You really should read Professor Behe's books, Joey.

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

>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "By definition, evolution is change, period, regardless of how much you hate it, lie about it and wish it would go away. It is what it is.

Then, as I have been saying all along, evolution is not science. The great journalist Melanie Phillips explained it in more scholarly terms:

"But by seeking to colonize another sphere of thinking altogether, the Darwinists have overreached themselves with disastrous results. Trying to use science to prove that religion is irrational, they have instead made science irrational by making grandiose claims for evolution that are not backed up by evidence. Their accusation that their opponents deny the facts of evolution is not true. It is more accurate to say that these critics oppose the totalizing creed of Darwinism, which makes claims for evolution that it cannot sustain." [Melanie Phillips, "The World Turned Upside Down: the global battle over god, truth, and power." Encounter Books, 2010]

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

>>Danny Denier: "That is what I previously explained, Joey, that evolution cannot be falsified, no matter what happens, because evolution is always true, that is, in the mind of the evolutionism cultist."
>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "Nonsense, evolution theory could easily be falsified by confirming evidence which contradicts it. Elephants living with dinosaurs or big whales & plesiosaurs frolicking together, come to mind. Alley Oop flying pterosaurs... that would do it.

That is a red herring: more of "the absence of evidence is evidence" pseudoscience. Animals tend to segregate, even today. Besides, fossilization only proves that plants and animals were quickly buried by sediment, which is deposited during flooding. During global flooding, hydrologically sorting of plants, animals and sediment would occur.

How about a Coelacanth, Joey? Fossils of those large fish are found below and within the dinosaur layers, but not in the layers above. According to your logic, the Coelacanth should be extinct! But it is alive and well in the Indian Ocean, 65 million years after supposedly becoming extinct!

How do you explain blood, soft tissue, and possibly even DNA being found in dinosaur bones, Joey? How do you explain the many dinosaur bones that have been tested and found to contain significant amounts of Carbon 14?

Your religion of evolution claims that all creatures are products of common descent. Show us evidence of common descent.

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

>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "What else? How about an obvious copyright written into our DNA codes by the Intelligence Who designed it? Here is a long discussion on the subject of evolution's falsifiability.

More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey? Is that all you have?

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

>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "But let's cut to the chase, shall we? You wish desperately to redefine the word "evolution" such that every new fossil or DNA discovery "falsifies" it, as if the theory was carved-in-stone gospel to be broken by any new fact. And it frustrates you to tears that every new fact, instead of falsifying is said to confirm evolution's predictions. Sorry about that.

No, Joey. I simply want to see evidence for common descent. There is none, Joey. It is a fairy tale.

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

>>Danny Denier said: "Evolution is such a "great theory" to the evolutionist that it can explain everything. That is not science, but a faith-based religion, with evolution as god."
>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "Total lies & rubbish."

LOL! In this very post you prove what I wrote, Joey. You said:

[Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period."
[Joey] "By definition, evolution is change, period"
[Joey] "Complexification, devolution, or something as simple as a moth changing colors -- sideways evolution. It's all evolution/adaptation"

Like I said: "To the evolutionist, everything is evolution." But there is still no evidence of common descent, after 160 years of desperate searching and digging.

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

>>Danny Denier quoting Popper: "Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this."
>>Scientifically-Challenged Joey wrote, "Feeble? More nonsense, such ideas are "tested" everywhere environments change and life-forms are required to adapt or die. Often they die out but sometimes they adapt, occasionally even in the very short term."

The evidence produced by real scientific inquiry backs up Popper, and others who have made similar determinations. This is the great paleontologist Colin Patterson on Popper's deducement, along with Patterson's own observations:

"The difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist is, in Popper's view, that the first will look for the most severe tests of his theories, and will not take evasive action if they fail those tests, while the pseudoscientist will look for evidence confirming his ideas and, if he feels his theory is threatened, may avoid refutation by erecting subsidiary, defensive theories around it... If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical).... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Historians cannot predict the future (or are deluded when they try to), and they cannot explain the past, but only interpret it. And there is no decisive way of testing their alternative interpretations. For the same reasons, evolutionary biologists can make no predictions about the future evolution of any particular species, and they cannot explain past evolution, but only produce interpretations, or stories, about it." [Colin Patterson, "Evolution." Comstock Publishing Associates, 1999, Chap 12, pp. 145-146]

One other point, Joey: adaptation is not evolution.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #360: "I posted this before, mayby twice, where Linnaeus identifies the genus level directly below the kind level:"

Danny Denier: "You are either lying, Joey, or you are too dumb to understand what Linnaeus wrote. Pick your poison."

Neither because you also informed "us", maybe twice, that the Vulgate mistranslated the Hebrew word "kind", first as "genus" then as "species", and these are the terms Linnaeus adapted.
So Linnaeus was using both Latin "genus" and "species" to mean the Bible's Hebrew word for "kind".
In other words, he had no strict definitions of "genus" or "species" or "kind" but used various words indiscriminately and now you tell us, maybe twice, he also used "genus" and "species" as subsets of "kind"?

That's fine, but there's still no firm definition saying if "kind" corresponds to "species", "genus", "family", "order" or "phylum".
And regardless of any of that, these are all just Linnaeus' opinions, not some sort of super-validated Biblical exegesis.

Danny Denier on species "barriers": "Now you are talking like a creationist.
Welcome aboard."

Sorry, my bad, won't happen again.
There is no single "species barrier", there is only increasing difficulty interbreeding between species as they become more & more distantly related.

Danny Denier: "No one -- not the most devout evolutionist, nor the ID'er, nor the YEC'er -- has claimed there is a barrier at the species or the genus level.
Are you talking to be talking, Joey?
Are you trying to sound "smart"?
It is not working."

More of Danny Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

There are certainly, your word, "barriers" at both species and genus level, barriers strong enough to restrict interbreeding in some species but not among other genera.
For examples: African & Indian Elephant genera cannot naturally interbreed, but different Zebra genera can.
Today humans and Neanderthals are classified as separate species in the genus homo, and Neanderthal traits resulting from interbreeding have increased human pathologies like diabetes, Crohn's, Lupus, biliary cirrhosis, addiction & depression.
Point is: even between closely related species, interbreeding is not totally harmless.

Further, Linnaeus, by your own claim, maybe twice, mistranslated the Bible's word "kind" as "genus" and "species".
He implied those words meant "kind" and yet you say there's no "barrier" in genus or species?
The fact is difficulties interbreeding do increase as species become more distantly related.

Danny Denier: "Only in your dreams, Joey. LOL!"

Denier Rules #7 & #12.

Danny Denier: "I must hand it to Joey: he is a master quibbler."

That will be the new Rule #12: minimize your defeats ("quibble"), maximize your victories ("clown").
My point here is not just a "quibble" but key, because it refutes any authority of Linnaeus over Biblical word definitions.

Danny Denier: "Lions and tigers are of the same kind, Joey, known universally as the Felidae family (is this clown Joey for real?)"

Again, the new Rule #12.
Though it's nonsense because, according to Linnaeus, they are the same genus, Panthera.
And that invites the question of whether both lions and tigers, same "kind", were put on the Ark?

Danny Denier: "Child. A serious discussion of the inadequacy of evolutionary theory began no later than 2014, as outlined in this Nature article:"

Yet again Danny boy hopes to turn an academic discussion about evolution into a denier's argument against evolution.
Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink?.
That article, plus this one in no way try to refute or defeat evolution theory, they merely discuss the definitions and importance of such terms as:

1. Darwin's original idea circa 1859 -- aka "Evolution 1.0".
2. Neo-Darwinism, Lamarck is definitely out, ~1900 -- Evolution 1.1.
3. Add in Mendel's laws, circa 1930 -- Evolution 2.0.
4. "modern synthesis", with mutations, heredity, speciation & math, 1940 -- Evolution 2.1.
5. Evo-devo -- evolution of development, post-Haeckel.
6. Standard Evolution Theory (SET) -- today's accepted model.
7. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EEC)-- proposed modifications.

All of these are terms only an academic could know & love, but they suggest: ideas about evolution have grown exponentially in both scope and depth since Darwin.

Also mocked was US President "Ape" Lincoln:

Did any of these evolution versions "falsify" Darwin's original ideas?
Answer: no, they simply brought vastly more details to explain exactly how "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" work, naturally.

Danny Denier: "If you were being honest, you would be denouncing the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism.
The anti-science religion of evolutionism goes back a long way.
It was entrenched as early as Hubble's days.
Read what that religious bigot wrote:"

Really, Edwin Hubble the astronomer?
You're going to weaponize Hubble against Darwin?
Who will you weaponize next, Aunt Jemima?

Danny Denier: "Remarkable, huh?
Ironically, a giant space telescope bearing Hubble's name, with its discovery of deep space galactic clusters, showed the world that the density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance, not to mention that Hubble was a bigot!
God definitely has a sense of humor."

Hubble's religious views were likely agnostic and like Galileo Hubble did not let Biblical interpretations influence his theories on outer space.
As for "density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance", it was Hubble himself who discovered the expanding Universe and would well realize that the further out you look, the further back in time you see and so would expect to find clusters closer together in the early Universe.

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier Rules #5, #7 & #12.

Danny Denier: "Are you really that ignorant, Joey?
You present such an exalted sanctimonious attitude that I am still finding it difficult to believe I am debating a scientifically-challenged blowhard."

Still Danny Denier Rules #5, #7 & #12.

Danny Denier: "Species are the bottom of the taxonomic ladder, Joey, where the most diversity occurs.
Phyla are at the top, where disparity occurs:"

Disparity of phyla is physically the same thing as diversity of species.
Only the degrees of separation are different.
It is similar to alleged distinctions between "micro" and "macro" evolution -- same things different time periods.

But here again you've just deployed Danny Denier Rule #12 -- divert, distract & dissemble from having lost, big time, your point about evolution in the Galapagos Islands.

Danny Denier: "The family (or "kind") level is the barrier.
Many genera can arise from the genepool of a kind, and many species can arise from the genepool of a genus; but everything stops (is fixed) at the kind, or family level."

Total rubbish since about 20,000 taxonomic "families" have arisen from 2,000 "orders" in 36 phyla.
There's no "barrier" to stop speciation at the "family" level, so speciation can continue as long and as far as evolution takes it.

Danny Denier: "The only propagandist in this discussion is you, Child."

Says Danny Liar-Denier Kalamata, Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier: "No, Child.
Behe, like me, is more than happy with the current classification system.
My only dissent might be the never-ending quest of God-haters to remove all biblical references from science, such as the created "kind".
Removing the "kind" from the dialogue is just one more nail in the coffin of freedom of religion and liberty."

Oh Danny boy, even your hero Linnaeus never used the word "kind" as a classification.
Does that make him an enemy of "freedom of religion and liberty"?

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #361: "Pure sophistry.
Joey uses exactly the same smear tactics as his buddies on the Far-Left.
What he will not tell you is, he is an apologist for the anti-Christian ACLU communists and their war on the free exercise of religion, nor will he tell you that his religion of evolutionism was one of the chief holocaust enablers, not to mention the enabler of eugenics, virulent racism, and the other 20th century butchers: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot."

That's an amazing rant, not a word of truth in it -- something I would fully expect from a Holocaust denier and now also confirmed in an evolution denier.
Denial is denial, despicable tactics are the same, only the subject matter changes.

See Denier Rules especially #8.

Danny Denier:"Evolutionism is dead, Joey.
Only a handful of science deniers, like you, still worship that religion, and its prophet, Charlie Darwin."

Written from the hand of a true denier, totally false.
Danny Denier Rules #1, #2, #5, #6, #7 & #13.

Danny Denier:"From the beginning, the theories of evolution and uniformitarianism were used to deceive people, especially children, into doubting the Word of God.
That was one of the stated goals of Charles Lyell:"

The alleged response in 1880 of the Bishop of Birmingham’s wife on learning that Charles Darwin claimed human beings were descended from monkeys, she is reported to have said to her husband,

‘My dear, let us hope it is not true; but, if it is true, let us hope it will not become generally known.’

That story is certainly apocryphal, first invented in 1893 by one pastor Robert Forman Horton, and his point was: Don't Fear the Truth!.

Danny Denier:"You are such a nasty child, Joey."

Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier:"If Joey has a clue what science entailed, and had any respect for it, he would seek out the underlying science, rather than the fake-news headlines of the "scientific" orthodoxy to promote his worldview."

Nonsense, more Danny Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier:"Don't be fooled by Joey's sanctimonious sophistry.
He is the consummate science denier.
There is now, and has been, a virtual army of paleontologists, biologists, and genetic researchers, worldwide, seeking evidence for evolution; and what have they found:
Nothing!
There is not a shred of evidence for evolution to be found anywhere: not in day-to-day observations, not in the fossil record, not in biology, and especially not in genetics.
There is plenty of evidence for devolution (the loss of genetic information), but none for evolution (the gain in genetic information)."

And still more absurd nonsense, Danny Denier Rules #1, #2, #5, #6, #7 & #13.

Danny Denier:"You are lying, Joey.
God told us that, at the beginning of creation, he formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils"

Right, that's just what I said, meaning: if I lied saying it, you're also lying now.

Danny Denier:"God NEVER said man evolved from a bacteria, or a frog, or an ape, before breathing the breath of life into his nostrils.
Only a deceiver would add words to the scripture and pretend they belong there."

Well... first, natural science in general does not add a single word to scripture because science only deals in natural explanations for natural processes.
So scripture is outside the limits of science.

Second, the Bible does not tell us how God created mankind, except that He started with dirt, which is also roughly what science suggests.
I see no conflict there.

[BroJoeK]

mdmathis6 to bwest: "The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology.
The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument.
Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost."

Right, by definition of the term "natural science", it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes.
If you bring God into it, then you are "thinking outside the box" of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.

However, from Enlightenment times "natural philosophy", today's science, was intended to be a methodological not ontological or metaphysical assumption.
It was then intended that we study natural processes to learn how God's creation works, not to find ways to deny God's existence.

The important point here then is to maintain clear distinctions between methodological assumptions on the one side and ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic assumptions on the other.
Consider: a valid religious complaint is that atheists have hijacked methodological naturalism (aka "science") to promote their own agendas.
But that cannot justify a theological counter-hijacking of natural science to promote a religious agenda.
That's because, between such hijacking and counter-hijacking traditional ideas of God & nature would all but disappear.

Now our FRiend Kalamata here has addressed this issue by claiming, astoundingly, that God Himself and His miracles are "natural".
I've never before heard such a claim and doubt if it would withstand even theological scrutiny, much less pass scientific muster.
So we are left to defend the traditional idea of methodological naturalism and oppose ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic naturalism.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #366: "Then why are you not pushing back against those of your persuasion who promote science as atheism, Joey?
What about your most admired author, Michael Shermer, the militant atheist and sanctimonious creep who promotes, to children, the myth that Science refutes God?
How about the militant atheist and con-man, Richard Dawkins, who promotes the myth that God is a delusion?
Why do you not push back against them?"

I see, Danny boy, you are still wallowing in Denier Rules mud.
Here I'm trying to make a respectable woman out of you but you just love, love to wallow -- I can't get you out!
In this case you are slavishly obeying Denier Rules #6, #7 & #8.

As for Shermer & Dawkins, when they begin posting on Free Republic, I will "push back" against them, you can count on it.
But for today I'm dealing with a professional propaganda prost... who just can't give up his dirty ways.

Danny Denier: "Who made that silly rule, Joey?
Certainly not the devout Christian geniuses, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, or James Clerk Maxwell?
So, tell us, who?"

Of course they all did, Danny boy.
They all understood that "natural philosophy" covered only natural explanations for natural processes and all, like Galileo, were willing to propose theories that might be considered anti-Biblical.
Indeed, in your own post #266 you quoted Nicolaas A. Rupke on the history of naturalism in early 19th century Scotland:

"This argument for the separation of science and the Bible was facilitated by the Edinburgh University system in which science had, for a considerable time, enjoyed an academic status independent of the humanities.
The separation was not inspired by lack of faith, but was backed by serious, exegetical arguments, namely that
1. the biblical account of the deluge excludes a mechanism of violent tidal waves;
2. that the story of Noah's Ark implies that all species of land animals survived; and
3. that the deluge drowned not just animals but man as well, so that
4. human fossils ought to occur in diluvial deposits."

Curiously, Danny, a detailed history of methodological naturalism does not seem to be readily "googleable", but a search for it does turn up some interesting names -- names we've seen elsewhere.

One of those names is philosopher Robert T. Pennock, whose arguments on this subject, at least, appear identical to my own.
Pennock was a witness for the plaintiffs in "Kitzmiller v. Dover Schools" and he provided critical information on the history of methodological naturalism that Judge Jones used in his decision.
So in that sense, "methodological naturalism" is now the legal definition of our word "science".

Truly, I'd love to give you a detailed history, but for the moment that's the best I can do.

Danny Denier: "You don't seem to mind that the religion of evolutionism is rammed down the throats of the teachers, students and voters?"

That's a lie, Danny, you need to stifle that urge.

Danny Denier: "Besides, you are missing the point.
Would teachers and parents have sued, or even thought of suing, before the collusion of the ACLU and the judiciary -- before the religious clause of Constitution was rewritten by judicial fiat to say what it was never intended to say?
What do you say about that, Oh Great Defender of the Constitution?"

The US Supreme Court's 1962 Engle v. Vitale decision was 6-1 against mandatory prayer in public schools.
The sole dissenter was Eisenhower appointee, Republican Justice Steward, originally from Michigan.
His opinion was the same as ours -- a simple prayer is not "establishment".
Frankfurter & White took no part, the rest voted against mandatory prayer, and so, that is now the law.
Voluntary prayer by, for example, a religious club is allowed, as of course is prayer in private & home schools.

In 2005, Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller is a different matter, since prayer was not the question.
Rather, the question was "what is science" and Jones decided that Creationism, aka "Intelligent Design", is not.
Your problem, Danny, is that you just can't accept that not only "Dover" science teachers & parents but also voters rejected the Creationist school board's efforts to ram their theology down students' throats.

I can't help you with that.

Danny Denier: "Joey would have you believe that every teacher, student, parent and voter in the Dover School District was an evolutionist, and a handful of people that served on the School Board went against the will of everyone else.
Now, who is the master propagandist?"

In fact, events showed that is exactly right -- voters fired the entire school board which had tried to impose Creationism on science classes.

Danny Denier: "The Bible is silent on whether the earth rotates around the sun, or the sun rotates around the earth, Joey. "

Not so silent, Danny boy:

1. 1 Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth; the world also is being made stable, that it be not moved."

2. 93:1 "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."

3. Psalm 96:10 "Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."

4. Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."

5. Ecclesiastes 1:5 " The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

Sounds pretty clear to me, and also to the Church Inquisition who convicted Galileo of heresy.
But nice try to spin the truth, anyway.

Danny Denier: "In other words, it was the scientific community, not the church clergy, that was holding back the advancement of science.
But, nice try to spin the truth, anyway."

Total rubbish, scientists are supposed to be skeptical, but no scientist convicted Galileo of heresy.
That was the Church Inquisition, but nice try to spin the truth, anyway.

Danny Denier: "My statement also stands as true.
The doctrine of Moses and Christ are scientifically and historically accurate; and there is no one on earth who can prove otherwise.
Many blowhards will pretend they have proof, but that is why they are called blowhards."

Your statements are utter nonsense, depending 100% on Jedi-like mind tricks -- "nothing to see here, move along, move along..."

[mdmathis6]

“Right, by definition of the term “natural science”, it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes.
If you bring God into it, then you are “thinking outside the box” of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.

>However, from Enlightenment times “natural philosophy”, today’s science, was intended to be a methodological not ontological or metaphysical assumption.
It was then intended that we study natural processes to learn how God’s creation works, not to find ways to deny God’s existence.”

Right which was classical rationalism(not today’s debauched notion of what is rational thought or notions that if one is not being “rational”, one is crazy) Operating from a given or accepted notion, supportive rationales are developed to buttress support of the original a priori thought.

Modern scientific thought seeks to derive knowledge directly from what is observed versus the employment of a priori bias in trying to understand that same observed object. Thus the tension points between deductive and inductive reasoning..... Hume vs Descartes. The mistake being made is that I believe both methods may be used and that it is indeed true to our humanity that we should do so.

Old age rational and deductive reasoning is looked upon with suspicion now a days for it quite frequently draws upon apriori bias, even when such reasoning has been shown to lead to testable and repeatable results. Suspicions especially arise against such a researcher who confesses to a belief in the Living God. His science might be good but the Anti-deity Inquisition must ignore that reality for his thinking is tainted by all that untestable God business. His work product is to be declared tainted; all respectable atheistic scientists who are grounded in materialism and the inductive method must ignore such a creature, they must see him vilified...even if the antigravity car he just invented actually works!

[Kalamata]

Last night I recalled a video link in my Research Library to one of Joey's CNN brothers, Brian Stelter, interviewing the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, who tore into Stelter for labeling him a "denier." Watch:

Weather Channel Founder destroys CNN's Brian Stelter on Global Warming

LOL! I cannot help but notice the irony of the Left claiming any change in the weather is proof of "climate change," since that is exactly the way Joey defines evolution, which is, "any change is proof of evolution." See for yourself:

[Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period."
[Joey] "By definition, evolution is change, period"
[Joey] "Complexification, devolution, or something as simple as a moth changing colors -- sideways evolution. It's all evolution/adaptation"

LOL! That is nuts! It is also meaningless. But that is the kind of pseudo-science many on the Left are teaching our children, when they are not teaching them revised history and the imagined glory of Marxism.

Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne defines evolutionism in the more traditional manner:

"In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3,5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, p.3]

There is no evidence in support of that claim; but that is what Coyne believes, and that is what Darwin's theory teaches.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "I'd be curious to see what theologians you can quote who tell us that God is not supernatural and/or nature is not natural. I've never seen it and seriously doubt if your claim here is anything more than Danny Denier going a little nuts with denial anger."

When you show me the word "supernatural" in the scripture, I will repeat the uses of the word "natural" in the scripture and the works of the Early Church Fathers, that you have thus far ignored.

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

>>Danny Denier referring to God's supernatural majesty & power: "Your statement is more hogwash. You do not believe there is science in the Bible, and you mock the historical record, so which parts "demonstrate God's supernatural majesty & power"? Curious minds want to know."
>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "You'll find it all beginning with Genesis 1:1 and ending with Revelation 22:21."

Which parts, Joey?

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

>>Danny Denier: "God told us how man became a living soul in the aforementioned statement, and it wasn't by evolving from an ape, as your wild imagination leads you to believe."
>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "The Bible says God began with dirt and science thinks that's about right. The Bible says God "...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." That "breath of life" and "living soul" appear together, one resulting from the other and, most importantly, none of those words applying to any other creature. I think God's breath of life gave us living souls and that's what makes us fully human and distinct from every other creature before us."

You left out the words, "after man evolved from a "self-replicating" molecule, via an ape" which you added to the scripture to make it fit the doctrine of your evolutionism religion. God frowns on man-made additions to his Word, Joey:

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." -- Pro 30:5-6 KJV

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

>>Bible Denier Joey wrote, "I also think, Danny boy, that if you thought about it, you'd see it's true but now you are so enraged with denial you literally can't see anything with your good eyes."

I don't see how any good can come from teaching our children anything that is contrary to the Word of God, such as man evolving from an ape. I am reasonably certain you have heard this before:

A frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale.
A frog turning into a prince over millions of years is called science.

But it is still a fairy tale, no matter what you call it.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Show us that in the Bible, or admit that you are adding your own words to the scripture."
>>Bible Denier Joey wrote, "No, I neither added to nor subtracted from the Bible. I simply pointed out the fact that nowhere does the Bible say God breathed the breathe of life into any other creature or created in them a living soul."

That is horrendously deceitful, Joey! A LIE by omission! You left out the most important part of your statement: the part where you claim the existence of "pre-humans" who became human! This is your statement in full:

[Joey] "No other creature has a "living soul", meaning no other creature, including pre-humans was truly alive spiritually. That moment in time is the precise moment when pre-human became fully human."

Now, Joey, please show us where in the Bible we can find pre-humans turning into humans, or admit you added your own words to the scripture.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That is nutty. God created man uniquely in his own image, and that of his previously created angels."
>>Bible Denier Joey wrote, "Now you're just raging against straw men."

How so, Joey? Are you denying God created man uniquely in his own image, and the image of his previously created angels? Or, are you in the cover-up mode?

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

>>Danny Denier referring to Matthew 17:20 : "You haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you?"
>>Bible Denier Joey wrote, "So, are you telling us that Jesus lied to Matthew?"

Did I say Jesus lied to Matthew, Joey; or is that more misdirection?

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

>>Bible Denier Joey wrote, "No, my point is the Bible tells us that humans are also capable of miracles and I think these are a function our living souls from God's breath of life. I'm not Catholic but do notice the Catholic Church puts a lot of faith in supernatural miracles to help them define just who is or is not a saint."

Again, you haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you? All it takes is faith as a grain of mustard seed? The disciples and a few early Christians received supernatural powers; but none afterward, that I am aware of.

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

>>Danny Denier: "How does that prove your nutty belief that man evolved from an ape, or a frog, or a bacteria?"
>>Bible Denier Joey wrote, "It doesn't need to. It only needs to show that theologically the Bible is not necessarily opposed to science in general or evolution theory specifically."

That is true perhaps in Joey's "Revised Edition," which apparently reads:

"And the Lord God formed bacteria from the dust of the ground, which over millions of years evolved into an ape, and then a man; and then God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Gen 2:7 KJV

I have 26 Bible translations, Joey, and none mention the part about molecules-to-ape-to-man. Bible Gateway lists even more translations, again without the molecules-to-man part:

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/genesis%202:7

You must have added those words to the scripture, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier: "I see you are still playing your hard-left “slander them if you cannot dispute them” game. Do you hate Jews, Little Joey, or only the millions of Jews who reject the apes-to-man myth?"
>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Oh, Danny boy, now you really are just going nuts with denier anger, concocting false accusations in hopes something, anything, will stick."

I asked you a simple question, Joey. There is no need to get all snow-flake hysterical on us?

For the record, are you denying that you have been insinuating I am a holocaust denier because I refuse to worship at the altar of evolutionism? Just checking to see if you are the denier.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "The fact is your denier tactics, minus their vulgarities, are the same as those I saw in Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago."

You are lying again, Joey. You learned that smear tactic from your far-left atheist hero, Michael Shermer, who teaches children there is no God.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Because of that, and because I love you as a fellow Christian, I'm trying to help you out -- I'm telling you exactly what you're doing wrong. That's what my Denier Rules are all about."

No, Joey. That is your modus operandi, the one you learned from the Far Left, which is, "smear them if they disagree with you." You use the same tactic the "Climate Change" cult uses. Frankly, Joey, you remind me of the left-wing cult-of-hate that congregate on Youtube, minus the vulgar language.

Ironically, Joey, those same tactics you use of, smear, smear, smear, indirectly led me to learn evolution was a giant hoax. A friend, who believed in evolution at the time, stumbled across a Youtube video loaded with hateful, cursing anti-creationists. That aroused his suspicion enough to examine, for the first time, the claims of evolutionists. It didn't take long before he realized the emperor (evolution) had no clothes. He later asked me to take a close look at the geological column; and soon thereafter I became a young earth creationist. It is all about the science, Joey. Nothing personal.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "If you will study them, commit them to heart and then STOP DOING THEM, consciously, deliberately, disobey the Deniers' Rules, then you will begin to become an honest witness, not just a professional propaganda prost... ahem."

Those childish "Denier Rules" you co-opted from the Far Left fit you much better than they fit me, Joey. In fact, you are adept at the use of Leftist tactics, Joey. Who trained you?

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

>>Danny Denier: "The evidence in the Holocaust museum is believable, Joey. "
>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Not to a Holocaust denier!

I was speaking for myself, Joey, not for you.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Such people, just like you Danny boy, can literally spend all day in a museum and never once see a shred of evidence. How is that even possible, you might ask?

Evidence is evidence, Joey. If there IS NO evidence for Evolution in a museum, then only those with vivid imaginations CAN see evidence. On the other hand, if there IS evidence for the holocaust in a museum, only those with vivid imaginations CANNOT see it.

I don't have a vivid imagination, like you, Joey. I am a scientist.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Simple: all the same Jedi mind tricks you play on evolution, they play on the Holocaust.

The Far-Left uses the same Jedi mind-tricks on those who refuse to worship at the altar of the evolutionism cult that they use on those who refuse to worship at the altar of the climate change cult. They label those who refuse to bow as a "denier," or worse.

But the Truth has finally regained the upper hand, and the cultists are panicing.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Foolish child."
>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Denier Rule #7

Deceitful Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

post 366 (cont. 2) quoting BJK: "Science doesn't & can't prove or disprove anything about the supernatural, because by definition that's outside the scope of natural science."

Danny Denier: "Who's definition?"

"Natural philosophy", aka science, and Empiricism date back to ancient Greeks and was recognized by such "doctors of the Church" as St. Thomas Aquinas.

""The Condemnation of 1277, which forbade setting philosophy on a level equal with theology and the debate of religious constructs in a scientific context, showed the persistence with which Catholic leaders resisted the development of natural philosophy even from a theological perspective.[48]
Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, another Catholic theologian of the era, sought to distance theology from science in their works.[49]
"I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle has to do with the teaching of the faith," he wrote in 1271.[50]"

From earliest times some in the Church were suspicious of "natural philosophy" (aka "science") others embraced it.

Danny Denier:"Science doesn't prove or disprove anything, Joey.
Scientists, however, are so burdened with the heavy baggage of Darwin and Lyell that they do not seem to be able to prove much of anything in the way of so-called "natural science.""

Right, again by word-definitions, scientific theories are not "proved", instead they can be tested and "confirmed" or "falsified".
A test failing to falsify is considered to have helped confirm a hypothesis.
A theory confirmed by many tests will be tentatively accepted, pending possible future falsifications or just better explanations.

Danny Denier:"Even when confronted with evidence of a young solar system, such as short-period comets, "scientists" tend to invent just-so stories, such as Oort Clouds, as an escape from the reality of the creation story, and/or to cling to the religion of the two Charlie's."

I've seen no evidence of "a young solar system" and much evidence suggesting billions of years old.
Even the Bible tells us that God's "days" can be much longer than ours.

Danny Denier:"That is what I have been trying to tell you, Joey.
Theologians, such as Charles Darwin, only pretend to be scientists.
You can add lawyers (e.g., Charles Lyell) to that group of non-scientists."

Lyell worked a few years as a lawyer then nearly 50 years as a geologist.
Darwin studied theology at Cambridge but worked for 50 years as a naturalist, geologist & biologist.

Both Lyell & Darwin found considerable push-back from theologians but were generally accepted by other scientists.

Danny Denier:"I had no doubt you would defend Shermer's war against conservatives."

I "get" that you hate Shermer because he opposed Holocaust and other forms of pathological denials.
But I never gave his views on evolution any thought until your constant harangues alerted me that Shermer has something to say on evolution too.
So now, along with "Pandas & People" I have Shermer's book and also one on whale evolution, which is tons of fun.
Will read them all when I get the chance...

Danny Denier:"Michael Shermer deceitfully labels fascists and neo-nazis as right-wingers, thus taking the heat off the real fascists, such as Obama, and placing it squarely on conservatives by association with the right-wing label.
It is Saul Alinsky 101."

Shermer self-describes his politics as Libertarian, admirer of President Thomas Jefferson, of whom Shermer said,

"When he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates."[70]"

I don't consider Libertarians (think Ron & Rand Paul) my political "enemies" though occasionally they can annoy us to tears, normally we are allied.
As for calling Nazis "right wingers" it's a common enough mistake which most children learn in school, something we have to repeatedly, patiently correct.
On this thread Kalamata has quoted (i.e., #329) Shermer on Holocaust denier David Irving:

"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]"

In Europe "extreme right wing" refers to racist National Socialists.
In the US "extreme right wing" refers to racists like KKK or old Dixiecrats, self-proclaimed constitutionalists who adamantly oppose Socialism in any form, national or otherwise.
So the mistake is commonly made to lump together European National Socialists with American anti-socialists as both "extreme right wing" because of their racism.

It's unfortunate but I'm not certain it's the major crime Kalamata makes it out to be.

Danny Denier:"So, the next time some left-wing radical calls you a Nazi, you can thank those like Michael Shermer, and their apologists, like Joey."

The only time in my life I was ever called a "Nazi" was on this very thread, post #377 by mdmathis6:

"You speak and insinuate more like a sniveling Nazi than you do a freeper!"

So, should I blame Shermer for that?

Danny Denier:"So you don't think Shermer's anti-Christian bigotry and hard-left ideology is enough for me to despise him, and his apologists?"

Shermer is a self-described Libertarian and religious agnostic, a professional skeptic.
It's not clear how Shermer's overall views differ from those of other well known Libertarians, i.e., Ron Paul.

Danny Denier:"The bottom line is, Michael Shermer doesn't seem to care as much about the holocaust as he feels a need to use the name of the holocaust to support his warped, leftist agenda, much like you use the name of the holocaust, Joey, to defend your religion of evolutionism."

Libertarians like the Pauls, Bob Bar, Clint Eastwood, Milton Friedman & Walter E. Williams are not our "enemies", they vote about 75% for Republicans.
True they can sometimes be annoying, like when they don't support the "war on drugs" or some military actions.
And many are not notably religious.
But I highly suspect that Kalamata's strident antipathy to Libertarian Michael Shermer have more to do with Shermer's work against deniers than with any particular political position.

Also, science, by definition, is the opposite of any religion, regardless of how often Kalamata falsely claims otherwise.

Danny Denier: "Move down to page 43, and you will find Shermer associating David Duke with the words "ultra conservative" and "right wing", even though that Israel-hater and Jew-hater is neither:"

quoting Shermer: "...Carto also runs Liberty Lobby, a right-wing organization that publishes The Spotlight, with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands, and has sponsored numerous radio programs such as This Is Liberty Lobby and Radio Free America.
Carto's Populist Party ran former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for president in 1988." [Ibid. p.43]"

In the US "extreme right wing" does legitimately refer to racists like the KKK & old Dixiecrats.
In this particular example, somebody named Carto supported both "Radio Free America" and the KKK leader David Duke.
So... in other contexts our FRiend Kalamata uses the term "quibble" to admit he's wrong on an issue.
I'm here saying Kalamata is quibbling with Michael Shermer over the definition of American "extreme right wing".

Danny Denier: "Are you sure you have read that book, Joey?
Those statements are found on the exact same pages in the 2000 edition?"

I confess to admiring Kalamata's talent for searching pretty much any book for key words, as well demonstrated here.
I can also do that on newer electronic books, but my old year 2000 version of Shermer's Holocaust book is a hardback copy, not searchable without considerable time & effort.

Danny Denier:"It appears you are suffering from an extreme case of head-in-the-sandism, Joey."

That term describes your entire argument here, oh Danny boy.

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier post #353 on the "Dover" case: "Hogwash. It demonstrates the power of a few leftist agitators, the ACLU, and a corrupt federal judge, along with the ability to sway public opinion using the deep pockets of the Left. Moreso, it is symbol of the moral decline of our nation since the ACLU came to power. How does it feel to be an ACLU apologist? Never mind. I don’t want to know."
>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "The case was brought by about a dozen parents of students, supported by the ACLU and others."

A dozen parents were able to sue the school board for carrying out their constitutionally authorized duties, and you pretend the ACLU and the parents are the good guys? I wouldn't want to be in a fox hole with you.

Your pretense that something good came from the ACLU's support is troubling, Joey. The ACLU has deep pockets with which to run campaigns against the Constitution and sway public opinion; and they can always find a few leftists in a crowd to represent, and a moldable activist judge.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Defendants were represented by the Thomas More Law Center. The judge is a Republican Bush appointee who I disagree with on some other rulings but in this case find no fault."

When you attempt to confound a Bush appointee with conservatism, you are following the fake news narrative, not the history of judicial appointees. GHWB gave us David Souter and Ford gave us John Paul Stephens, both devout Socialists. Reagan gave us left-leaning Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. And GWB gave us left-leaning John Roberts. Is it any wonder the leftists have been able to corrupt our government and society so thoroughly?

Back to Jones: he is a crystal-clear example of a judicial activist. The minute he took the case, making a federal case out of a state and local matter, he became an activist. A judge's role is to determine constitutionality, and in this case the strict constructionist thing to do would be to refuse to hear the case for jurisdictional reasons.

Jones not only took the case, but played the role of philosopher of science in his ruling. It is not the role of a judge to determine what is and is not science, but he assumed the role. Worse, he didn't rule on ID Theory at all; rather he ruled according to the ACLU caricature of ID Theory.

Part of the reason Jones ruled the way he did was his interpretation that ID failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, which is ridiculously false. Some of the top scientists in the world promote Intelligent Design over Evolution – several of them were in his courtroom. Jones also made the false claim that there were no peer-reviewed ID papers.

You find "no fault," Joey, because you are not interested in the truth.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "The judge did find fault: "The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. . . "

I have not studied the complete transcript, so I don't know for certain if anyone on the board lied; but there is no doubt Ken Miller lied with his perversion of the concept of irreducible complexity. Jones accepted Miller's fake version over the objections of two of the leading authorities on bacterial flagellum, Behe and Scott Minnich, who have been studying the flagellum for decades.

The theory of Intelligent Design has supporters, and at least one Senior Fellow, who have no religious convictions; and the theory does not pretend to claim who or what designed living things, only that the scientific evidence points to design. During the trial, the I.D. defenders repeatedly made that point, but the activist judge ignored them.

In all of that, the main point was never address, which is, it is NOT unconstitutional to teach religion in public schools. That is an invention of the God-hating, anti-Christian, anti-liberty ACLU.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors."

Are you referring to deeply-held Christian beliefs of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell? No doubt they let their religious beliefs "drive their scholarly endeavors," with great success. Some modern ID'ers do, for certain. Behe and Meyer are Christians, but old-earthers. But David Berlinsky is a Jewish agnostic who simply despises evolution and scientism.

What does that have to do with science? Are you pretending atheists make better scientists? I worry about you, Joey.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

You are a false teacher when you claim it is unconsitutional to teach religion in public schools. It is, however, blatantly unconstutitional for the federal government to establish the suppressive religion of evolutionism as the State supported religion.

It appears you support the establishment part of the First Amendment, Joey, and deny the free-exercise part. That is exactly what the ACLU and Marxists want you to support, because that is their best avenue to the destruction of our liberty and nation.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "I have the "Pandas & People" book, by itself it's fake but harmless."

That is nothing fake about it, Joey. It is both brilliant and scientifically sound. But how would you know one way or another? You are not a scientist. You only hear what you want to hear, and you only hear the words of the Left.

But, if you will be so kind, please show us parts where you believe the book is fake. Don't hold back. Your research will be of use to all. Please include Chapter and/or page numbers.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "What made it a legal matter was the government school board's order to force it on unwilling teachers, students' parents and voters."

That was never a problem until the ACLU showed up. School boards always made such decisions, before the dangerous rhetoric of the Left prevailed in our society -- rhetoric which you endorse.

In any case, the Dover School Board policy was apparently not clearly written; but the original purpose was to inform the students that there were holes in the theory of evolution, and there were alternative theories, both of which are absolutely true.

Contrary to the judge's opinion, the Discovery Institute policy did not support the Dover School Board science policy. The DI policy, which was established several years before the Board's action, sought to encourage individual teachers to introduce ID into the curriculum. It opposed mandatory enforcement by states or school boards.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "During the course of that the book was exposed as attempting to hide God's glory behind the ludicrous term, "intelligent design", pretending it could refer to anyone other than God. Indeed the book's authors themselves confessed "intelligent design" was just their idea of God's creation masquerading as science.

You claim to have the book, but you didn't show quotes to back you your claims. Besides, what is wrong with believing an all-powerful God intelligently designed things as mind-boggling complex as cells? Dumb Luck most certainly didn't create it. Only a fool would believe that. It is obvious to me, and anyone else paying attention, that evolutionists are trying to hide their hatred of God behind the veneer of science.

Why are you so quick to support judicial rulings contrary to our Christian heritage? Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled this to be a Christian nation?

"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?" [Justice Brewer, the Opinion of the Court, in Authors Various, "Supreme Court 18920229: Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States." Justia, 143 U.S. 457, 1892]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/143/457/

Where is stare decisis when you need it.

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

>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "As for who, exactly, "swayed public opinion", I've seen no evidence that "Dover" voters ever wanted "Intelligent Design" imposed on their students."

That is what school boards are elected to do, not the ACLU, and not disgruntled, left-wing "science" teachers, or a handful of parents. The school board voted 6-3 in favor of introducing ID. That should have been it, until the next election. But busybodies at the ACLU can't resist meddling in the affairs of others: no communist can. It is in their blood.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That was Joey, the moral relativist and ACLU apologist, at your service."
>>Deceitful Joey wrote, "Nonsense, science is not a "moral relativist", it simply observes natural facts and looks for natural explanations to fit them."

I didn't claim science was moral relativistic, Joey. When are you going to show us a few observed facts that support common descent, Joey? You know you cannot, because all the observed facts support special creation.

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier post #355 on Haeckel's embryos: "No, Joey. Fraudulent! In the image below, Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top, while real embryos are on the bottom:"
>>Joey Denier: "Well... first of all some of your own lower photos look similar, so are they "fraud" too?

Are you blind, or just scientifically-challenged? This is the photo by Richardson et al:

There are no similarities.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Second, Haeckel himself corrected his drawings as better information became available, so that was not fraud."

No, Joey, Haeckel was a fraud! Even in his confession he deliberately misrepresented the facts. His later work with the Nazi's indirectly contributed to the holocaust. Why are you defending him, Joey?

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

>>Joey Denier: "Third, most but not all of Haeckel's ideas are today considered "defunct". The part which remains valid is the similarity of early stage embryos of different species [quoted Wikipedia]."

You are out of the loop, Joey. More from Richardson:

Perhaps you were brainwashed by the same Biology texts that brainwashed me.

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

>>Danny Denier: "No, Joey. Haeckel faked them. The vain attempt by historian Robert J. Richards to rehabilitate Haeckel's reputation proved futile in light of the actual embryonic photos taken by scientist's Michael Richardson et al. Only the blind and the brainwashed fail to see how far Haeckel strayed from reality in order to supplement the evolutionism hype of his day; though, admittedly, Haeckel did not act much differently than the hypesters of today, especially the charlatans pushing ape-to-man evolution."
>>Joey Denier: "Those Richardson photos show some remarkable similarities among embryos of different species. That much of Haeckel's idea remains valid."

You are persistent. Wrong, but persistent.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Are you aware that Hitler adopted Haeckel's recapitulation theory?"
>>Joey Denier: "Right, and by that same denier logic (Rule #8), did you also know that Hitler believed two plus two equals four?! So, if you believe 2+2=4, then you're a Nazi! {sigh}

You sound like a Robert Richards apologist, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "It is also worth nothing that Robert John Richards is a very poor historian who ignores boatloads of evidence that Hitler was a Darwinian."
>>Joey Denier: "So, you read Richards' 2013 book, "Was Hitler a Darwinian?: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory"?

I have it in my library. My analysis of Richard's work concludes that Richards believes Haeckel's reputation must be rescued (e.g., "revised") in order to save Darwin's reputation. Two quick examples:

"Ernst Haeckel was Darwin's foremost champion, not only in Germany but throughout the world (fig. 6.1). In the first decades of the twentieth century, the great historian of biology Erik Nordenskiöld judged that Haeckel's Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (12 editions,1868–1920) was 'the chief source of the world's knowledge of Darwinism.'" [Robert J. Richards, "Was Hitler a Darwinian: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory." 2013, p.135]

"Those critics who have urged a conceptually causal connection between Darwin's or Haeckel's biology and Hitler's racial beliefs—Weikart, Berlinski, and a myriad of religiously and politically constricted thinkers—apparently intend to undermine the validity of Darwinian evolutionary theory and, by regressive implication, morally indict Darwin and Darwinians like Ernst Haeckel. More reputable scholars—Gould, Arnhart, Bowler, and numerous others— are willing to offer up Haeckel to save Darwin by claiming significant differences between their views, a claim, as I've suggested, that cannot be sustained. The arguments arrayed against Darwin and Haeckel have power, no doubt. Whether they should have power is the question I investigate here." [Ibid. p.195]

We got a kick out of the words, "More reputable scholars," which Richards reserves for evolutionists, while Hitler historian and professor Richard Weikart and the genius David Berlinski (whose Jewish parents escaped the Vichy government) are relegated to the dregs as "constricted thinkers." No bias there. Move along now . . .

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

>>Danny Denier: "No, again, Joey. Haeckel's fake drawings are shown below on the top, while the real embryos from Michael Richardson's 1997 science team are on the bottom:"
>>Joey Denier: "I see some remarkable similarities among embryos of different species."

Please point them out, Joey, so that biologists the world over can learn from you.

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

>>Danny Denier on statistics: "I imagine so! After all, your motto is, "Damn the scientific evidence against it: evolution is a fact!"
>>Joey Denier: "Nonsense, we're talking about statistics and the fact that "figures don't lie, but liars can figure." Your statistics which claim to "prove" evolution impossible are totally based on false assumptions."

What false assumptions, Joey?

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

>>Joey Denier: "Further, I've never said "evolution is a fact". Long-term evolution is a theory based on literal mountains of facts."

What is the difference, Joey? BTW, when are you going to show us a pebble or two of that mountain of facts? We really would like to see some evidence.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Have you ever taken a college level science course above the survey level, Joey? You seem absolutely clueless about how to respond to real scientific evidence. Perhaps the reason you mock Behe's book is because you do not possess the aptitude to read a book of that caliber, even though it is written for the layman scientist."
>>Joey Denier: "I took plenty enough heavy-duty science courses to learn the difference between real science and phony-baloney theology masquerading as science."

Just as I thought. Behe's work is too complicated for you.

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

>>Joey Denier: "As for Behe, I have no interest in charlatans, unless they post their lies on Free Republic."

You are confused, Joey. You embrace charlatans of most every "scientific" stripe. The reason you do not understand Behe's work is because he sees right through the charlatans of the evolutionism cult who pretend to be real scientists, and you cannot.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt are secular mathematicians at Cornell University who reject Intelligent Design, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh for crying out loud! Yet again you've hijacked an article which opposes Behe's nonsense and used it to support him. "...we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution."

The paper by Durrett & Schmidt was Ann Gauger's reference, Joey. Besides, Behe states that, overall, their work strongly supports his research. Perhaps you were confused by the words, "in some of Michael Behe's arguments". Try to keep up.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Child." Danny Denier: "Child." Danny Denier: "Child."
>>Joey Denier: "Denier Rules #5 & #7.

Santimonious Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Morphological similarity is the result of Dumb Luck? LOL! You are really funny, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "I didn't say "dumb luck", far from it."

You said "trial and error." Those words in the world of Darwin are synonymous with Dumb Luck.

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

>>Joey Denier: "You love whales, so let's consider whales"

Joey, get a grip! You are the one who keeps parading out pictures of artistic mockups depicting the fantasy world of whale evolution; not me.

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

>>Joey Denier: "You love whales, so let's consider whales -- about 100 living species, many "morphologically similar" to each other -- minor variations on an overall theme. But scientists have also discovered about 600 species of extinct whales & pre-whales in geological deposits dated back to about 50 million years. These are also "morphologically similar" in some degrees to each other and to living whales. Is that all just "dumb luck"?

No, Joey. That is called "bringing forth after their kind." For example, like a single pair of dogs brought forth a myriad of breeds (and mutts;) a single pair of bears brought forth the brown, black and polar bears (and maybe a few others;) and a single pair of humans brought forth humans in various shapes, colors and facial characteristics. The whale family is no different:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." -- Gen 1:21-22 KJV

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

>>Joey Denier: "No, I believe it was all teleologically directed, by God, and even extinct species served His purposes. But trial & error appears to be the process by which life accomplishes God's purposes.

I believed that too, Joey, for most of my long life, until I realized there is no supporting evidence.

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

>>Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2004: "When paleontology's 'dirty little secret' of the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record finally got out, it caused great problems for evolutionary theory."
>>Joey Denier: "Yet again we're only talking about perspective -- is it an old woman or young woman, is it "stasis" or "punctuated"? Depends on how you look at it. Either is a perfectly valid explanation, depending on your perspective.

No, Joey, wrong analogy. When serious paleontologists look at the fossil record, about all they see is stasis. A more creative one may imagine a whale transition line from 4 or 5 fragmented skeletons; but no serious scientist would go that route.

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

>>Joey Denier: "More important, neither "stasis" nor "punctuated" in morphology implies equal "stasis" or "punctuated" in DNA. For example, the rapid human-directed "punctuated" speciation of dogs from wolves belies the underlying stasis in dogs' DNA.

Statis is not about speciation or adaptation, but rather the absence of common descent -- the absence of transitions containing new body parts.

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

>>Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2004, continued: "The old idea that selection could act on one character at a time just by changing its gene frequencies has been discredited. Evolution is more than a 'change in gene frequencies through time.'"
>>Joey Denier: "So let's see if I "get" what you're saying here -- Prothero tells us that evolution is more complicated and this in Danny boy's mind means evolution is a myth?

No. Evolution is a myth. Prothero is attempting to explain it away. Essentially what is he saying is there is no evidence of common descent, which he alluded to in the first sentence of this quote, and in the other book I quoted:

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

>>Danny Denier quoting Prothero 2017: "...In other words, they would suddenly appear in the fossil record. Once they were established, speciation theory would predict that the main population would remain stable and not change gradually through time but that new species would continually arise on the periphery and migrate back to the homeland. Eldredge and Gould (1972) called their idea punctuated equilibrium... "
>>Joey Denier: "Sounds reasonable to me."

Of course it does, since you believe the absence of evidence is evidence. It does make for a nice story, doesn't it? It is too bad for the evolutionist that it is not science.

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

>>Danny Denier: "How can we carry on a reasonably discussion if you insist on making stuff up to cover up your ignorance, Joey?"
>>Joey Denier: "Total nonsense, Denier Rule #5."

You claimed that disparity and diversity are functionally the same, Joey, under the pretense that they are synonyms. They are not.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Perhaps this will help you understand: Patterson 2019: "The abrupt first appearance of a multitude of animal fossils in early Cambrian rocks (Terreneuvian to Series 2; ca. 541–509 Ma) epitomizes one of the most significant evolutionary events in Earth’s history."
>>Joey Denier: "Yet again Danny boy, you've hijacked scientific arguments about evolution to make claims against evolution."

You left out the most important part of my quote, Joey:

"This sudden burst of diversity and abundance across most eumetazoan (especially bilaterian) phyla over a relatively short geologic time span, and lack of obvious Precambrian precursors, poses a conundrum when attempting to reconcile the fossil record with the true tempo of early animal evolution... Despite ongoing debate over the true origins of animal phyla, our data, as well as the Ediacaran–Cambrian geochemical, body, and trace fossil records (1, 3, 9), indicate that a modern-style marine biosphere was fully established by Series 2, followed by broad-scale evolutionary stasis throughout the remainder of the Cambrian"

The authors, Paterson et al, are making claims against evolutionary theory, Joey. I am merely quoting them.

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

>>Joey Denier: "See again my discussion on this in post #347 above."

What for?

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

>>Joey Denier: "Notice first that of 36 living phyla today only 10 are first recorded in the "Cambrian Explosion"."

Fossils of all major phyla designs are found in the Cambrian, Joey.

"In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]

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

>>Joey Denier: "Notice second the Cambrian Age lasted almost as long as the time between the destruction of dinosaurs and today, with another "explosion" in numbers of species -- indeed today there are orders of magnitude more species than fossils found from the Cambrian "Explosion"."

The number of species is not a critical issue for evolutionists. The critical level is the family.

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

>>Danny Denier: "No one denies there are many billions of fossils, Joey. They simply do not provide any support for Darwinian theory. None!"
>>Joey Denier: "Right, precisely the same "logic" I saw from Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago. Neither they nor you can see mountains of evidence. Denier Rules #1 & #9.

Joey, rather than insinuate I am a holocaust denier if I don't believe in your nutty religion of evolutionism, why not simply provide some solid evidence for it in the way of common descent? That would instantly put this matter to rest.

Silly Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You must have had your way in discussions in the past, Child. Perhaps it spoiled you. How does it feel to have someone expose your deception and ignorance?"
>>Joey Denier: "How does it feel to have your long-time denier tactics fully exposed for what they are, Danny boy?"

I have been an evolution denier for only 7 or 8 years, Joey; before that I never questioned evolution. I have been a climate change denier for much longer, though previously it was called global cooling (in the 70's,) and then global warming. How long have you been a science denier, Joey?

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

>>Danny Denier on Gould's theories: "LOL! Of course not. But data is data, and there are mountains of data that contradict evolution. Worse for the evolutionist, all of it thus far supports special creation and a single global flood."
>>Joey Denier: "But you've presented no data, none, which might falsify basic evolution theory."

Evolution is not science, so it is unfalsifiable. Only science deniers believe in evolution.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Nor have you presented confirmed evidence of "special creation" and a "single global flood".

The fossil record provides evidence for both special creation and at least one global flood, Joey. The highly sorted geological strata, along with unbroken folding in the mountainous regions, are ample evidence for a single global flood. Those evidences only scratch the surface.

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

>>Danny Denier: "The discussion was about disparity vs. diversity, Joey, not species."
>>Joey Denier: "Disparity & diversity of what, Danny boy? Oh, yeh, of species. Some with soft bodies, some with hard bodies.

No, Joey. Disparity refers to body plans. Diversity refers to variations within basic body plans. Darwin predicted boat loads of diversity before new body plans evolved. The opposite occurred.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Burgess suggests hard-bodies represented 2% of the total, but elsewhere hard-bodies are all that was found -- hence the idea of a Cambrian "explosion"."Explosion" over 50+ million years of hard bodies."

Are you talking to yourself?

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

>>Danny Denier quoting McMenamin 2016: "One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995)..."
>>Joey Denier: "Nonsense because only 10 of 36 phyla left fossils first found so far in the Cambrian. It doesn't mean those 10 phyla originated in the Cambrian, only that those are the first fossils found so far. What about those other 26 phyla? Some are found from before, some after, most we just don't know yet."

Gould explained it in my earlier quotes in #310 and #355. You can also find it earlier in this post. But just in case you read right past it, here it is again:

"In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]

Gould plainly states that no new phyla have been produced (e.g., evolved) since the Cambrian.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You don't understand what you are trying to defend, Joey. Darwin predicted diversity before disparity, and gradual appearance of species through evolution, rather than disparity before diversity and abrupt appearance followed by stasis. You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "That's Denier Rule #13, among others."

I must admit, your silly rules allow you a clever way to shut down debate, or avoid it. But avoiding debate only adds to the size of your label which reads, "You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist."

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

>>Joey Denier: "Sorry FRiend, but you are an embarrassingly incompetent liar. For example, I can't find where Darwin ever used the term "disparity" or tried to distinguish it from "diversity". That idea came 100 years after Darwin."

Disparity is simply a modern term for [significant] difference. Darwin's tree of life denoted increasing diversity, followed by increasing disparity:

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

>>Joey Denier: "Here is another discussion (Fortney) which says in more words what I've tried to summarize."

What should we be looking for in that paper by Briggs & Fortney, Joey?

In the meantime, Briggs co-authored a book on the Burgess Shale in which he mentioned disparity, but in Darwin's language for his day and age:

"When Charles Darwin wrote"The Origin of Species " in 1859, the sudden appearance of animal fossils at the beginning of the Cambrian was of particular concern to him. It was at odds with his view that the diversification of life on earth through natural selection had required a long period of time. Darwin's theory predicted that the major groups of animals should gradually diverge [become disparate] during evolution He knew that the sudden appearance of fossils would be used by his opponents as a powerful argument against his theories of descent with modification and natural selection. Consequently, he argued that a long period of time, unrepresented in the fossil record, must have preceded the Cambrian to allow the various major groups of animals to diverge. At that time the strata that we now regard as Cambrian were subsumed within the concept of the Silurian, so Darwin wrote,

"I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained." [The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 – 314]"

[Briggs et al, "The Fossils of the Burgess Shale." 1994, p.39]

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

>>Danny Denier: "There have been no new phyla since the Cambrian, Joey. See the above statement by McManamim, quoting Valentine and McCoy."
>>Joey Denier: "Sorry, Danny boy, but the data here does not support your denials. So your claims represent nothing more that "the lack of evidence is evidence of" no new phyla.

I am quoting evolutionary paleontologists, Joey. Why would they lie? This is the book I am quoting from:

https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Paleontology-Quantification-Decipher-Springer/dp/3319227769

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

>>Danny Denier again quoting McManamim: "One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995)..."
>>Joey Denier: "Right, just like Kalamata always says: "the lack of evidence is evidence of" whatever fantasy Danny boy promotes today.

McManamim, an evolutionary paleontologist, is quoting James W. Valentine, another evolutionary paleontologist. I checked Valentine's paper, and McManamim is quoting him accurately. This is a link to Valentine's paper:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sepm/palaios/article-abstract/10/2/190/99575/why-no-new-phyla-after-the-cambrian-genome-and

You are acting sorta goofy, Joey. Are you getting enough sleep?

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

>>Danny Denier: "You have been magnificently brainwashed, Joey. You have no clue how ignorant you are."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh Danny boy, your slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #7 & #13.

Foolish Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "LOL! There you go again with, "the absence of evidence is evidence"
>>Joey Denier: "LOL, there you go again with Denier Rule #12.

Foolish Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "The cell certainly appears to be designed, Joey. It is a mind-bogglingly complex, microscopic factory, complete with conveyor "belts," repair "technicians," ... the works:"
>>Joey Denier: "Sure, but the philosophical question is whether God accomplished that naturally or by special divine intervention. Natural science cannot answer the second option, only, if at all, the first.

Either way, cells are intelligently designed, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Lying Child."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh Danny boy, our liar-denier, you so often claim you didn't say what you just said. That's on you, not me.

Quit lying and I will quit calling you a liar.

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

>>Danny Denier: "The absense of evidence is not evidence, Joey, no matter how you spin it."
>>Joey Denier: "But absence of evidence is always evidence to Danny boy of whatever fantasy you're promoting today.

No, Joey. I rely on physical, verifiable evidence; not on dumb luck.

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

>>Danny Denier quoting Raup 1979: "The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
>>Joey Denier: "Well... hmmm... So far as I know David Raup was no Young Earth Creationist and cannot have intended his words to be hijacked for Kalamata's nefarious purposes. So I will tentatively suggest that you have taken Raup's words out of context."

I am a scientist, so I always quote in context. You can download (for free) the bulletin containing the full article by Raup, here:

https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_47737_bulletin50fieldmuseumofnatural1930/page/n2

The portion of the quote you included is found on page 25.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Said today I'd call Raup dishonest but given the 1979 date just possibly he was only naïve. It may just represent the newly dawning revelation that actual evolution was more complex than previously understood. I'd be pretty sure Raup didn't believe "complex" meant "falsified" evolution. His suggestion here, that somehow more fossils can mean fewer transitions seems beyond bizarre.

Raup was referring to the highly-touted "horse evolution," which had to be abandoned when more information, in the way of fossils, became available.

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

>>Danny Denier still quoting Raup 1979: "...we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."

No, Raup was referring to the highly-touted "horse evolution," which had to be abandoned when more information, in the way of fossils, became available.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Again, that would be utterly dishonest if said today, but for its time perhaps understandable."

He would be utterly dishonest if he said what you have been saying about the fossil record.

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

>>Joey Denier: "The fact is that complexity in evolutionary processes does not falsify basic evolution theory."

You are abusing Raup's words.

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

>>Danny Denier still quoting Raup 1979: "So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection."
>>Joey Denier: "The obvious answer is that along with natural selection, descent with modifications also plays a role in evolution."

That would be true if someone found evidence for common descent.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Baloney, Joey. A real scientist does NOT pretend a few skull and jaw fragments, plus a couple of teeth, are evidence of a seal-like whale transitional animal, like the imaginary animal on the left:"
>>Joey Denier: "That's nonsense because, first, the number of extinct fossil whale species discovered so far is around 600. Some are represented by dozens of individuals. All have morphological similarities to modern whales and other extinct whales or pre-whales. Each species is also different in some ways from the others.

There are a gazillion trilobite fossils, Joey, but they are still trilobites. How are whales any different?

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

>>Joey Denier: "Specific bones which are missing from one individual may be present in others. Transitional features (i.e., blow holes) which are present in later species may be partially transitional in earlier ones. Specialists who study such things at length become very familiar with different species, individuals and even individual bones.

That is story-telling, Joey, not scientific evidence.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Seriously, Joey; you have been living in La-La Land far too long."
>>Joey Denier: "Seriously, Danny boy, you have been living in Liar-Liar Land far too long.

Foolish Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Foolish child."
>>Joey Denier: "Denier Rules #5 & #7.

Foolish Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You said they looked like blowholes, Joey. LOL! Clearly they do not. "
>>Joey Denier: "Denier Rule #12.

When Joey gets caught making stupid statements, he brings out the old rule book to distract you.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Foolish child, still playing kindergarten games."
>>Joey Denier: "No, Danny boy, just exposing the workings of your dishonest heart for all to see.

I am certain those reading this thread would be most interested in you exposing any lies I have made. Please do.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Evolutionists, like other pseudo-scientists, believe everything, real or imagined, is evidence for evolution."
>>Joey Denier: "And yet neither Danny Denier nor anyone else has ever presented confirmed evidence that would seriously falsify basic evolution theory.

Evolution is not science, so it cannot be falsified.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Quit making stuff up, Child."
>>Joey Denier: "Oh Danny boy, quit slavishly obeying Denier Rules. Break out of the box that constrains your mind. Tell the truth, for once.

Please point out my lies for all to see, Joey. Be specific.

Lying Joey!

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Joey Denier: "Neither because you also informed "us", maybe twice, that the Vulgate mistranslated the Hebrew word "kind", first as "genus" then as "species", and these are the terms Linnaeus adapted. So Linnaeus was using both Latin "genus" and "species" to mean the Bible's Hebrew word for "kind". In other words, he had no strict definitions of "genus" or "species" or "kind" but used various words indiscriminately and now you tell us, maybe twice, he also used "genus" and "species" as subsets of "kind"? That's fine, but there's still no firm definition saying if "kind" corresponds to "species", "genus", "family", "order" or "phylum". And regardless of any of that, these are all just Linnaeus' opinions, not some sort of super-validated Biblical exegesis.

I will simply repeat what I wrote in previous threads. It is a certainty that Linnaeus used the terms found in the Vulgate, but they were corrupted from the original meaning. Linnaeus simply used them to identify two of the lowest classification levels, as I explained in earlier posts:

***
[Begin Kalamata in #172]

Linnaeus was a creationist who wrote of the created kind:

"Like other animals who enjoy life, sensation, and perception; who seek for food, amusements, and rest, and who prepare habitations convenient for their kind, [man] is curious and inquisitive; but, above all other animals, he is noble in his nature, in as much as, by the powers of his mind, he is able to reason justly upon whatever discovers itself to his senses; and to look, with reverence and wonder, upon the works of Him who created all things.” [Carolus Linnaeus, “A General System of Nature Vol I: Animal Kingdom: Mammalia, Birds, Amphibia, Fishes.” Lackington, Allen and Co., 1806, Introduction, p.1]

He also believed in the immutability of the species, but with an inherent potential for variation:"

"The 5 classes of plants. The number of species is the number of different forms produced by the Infinite Being from the beginning; and these forms have produced more forms, according to the laws laid down, but always ones that are similar to themselves. Therefore the number of species is the number of different forms or structures that occur today.” [Stephen Freer, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica.” Oxford University Press, 2005, p.113]

The Latin Vulgate erroneously translated the created kind as either species or genus. When Linnaeus adopted his classification scheme, he included both words, with the genus rank just above the species:"

"SYSTEM is conveniently divided into five branches, each subordinate to the other: class, order, genus, species, and variety, with their names and characters.” [Carolus Linnaeus, “A General System of Nature Vol I - Animal Kingdom - Mammalia, Birds, Amphibia, Fishes.” Lackington, Allen and Co., 1806, Introduction, p.3]

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=172#172

***
[Begin Kalamata in #196]

The Hebrew word "miyn" is used ONLY to classify plants and animals (Gen 1:11-12, 1:21, 1:24, 6:20, 7:14; Lev 11:14, 11:19, 11:22, 11:29; Deu 14:13, 14:18; Eze 47:10), and for nothing else. The word was translated to "kind" in the English versions. Linnaeus used the Latin Vulgate translation of genus and species, the meaning of which has been corrupted.

[Wow! That wasn't very clear! LOL! But this is:]

In this statement, Linnaeus seems to be saying there can be multiple genera within a single kind, distinguishable by their "essential character".

"The succulent plants are worthy of distinction;so are the largest genera, e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this kind are: Haller's Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the ESSENTIAL character distinguishes a genus from those of the same kind included in the same natural order." [Freer, Stephen, Translator, "Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica." Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=196#196

Variety Within Created Kinds

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

>>Joey Denier: "There is no single "species barrier", there is only increasing difficulty interbreeding between species as they become more & more distantly related. There are certainly, your word, "barriers" at both species and genus level, barriers strong enough to restrict interbreeding in some species but not among other genera.
For examples: African & Indian Elephant genera cannot naturally interbreed, but different Zebra genera can. Today humans and Neanderthals are classified as separate species in the genus homo, and Neanderthal traits resulting from interbreeding have increased human pathologies like diabetes, Crohn's, Lupus, biliary cirrhosis, addiction & depression. Point is: even between closely related species, interbreeding is not totally harmless. Further, Linnaeus, by your own claim, maybe twice, mistranslated the Bible's word "kind" as "genus" and "species". He implied those words meant "kind" and yet you say there's no "barrier" in genus or species? The fact is difficulties interbreeding do increase as species become more distantly related."

The bottom line is, there is a genetic barrier at the family, e.g., "kind" level, which has been known for some time. That is exactly what the Bible predicts. No species can stray outside its own family.

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

>>Joey Denier: "There are certainly, your word, "barriers" at both species and genus level, barriers strong enough to restrict interbreeding in some species but not among other genera. For examples: African & Indian Elephant genera cannot naturally interbreed, but different Zebra genera can. Today humans and Neanderthals are classified as separate species in the genus homo, and Neanderthal traits resulting from interbreeding have increased human pathologies like diabetes, Crohn's, Lupus, biliary cirrhosis, addiction & depression.
Point is: even between closely related species, interbreeding is not totally harmless."

Speciation occurs only within the family. Whether species within a family can interbreed, or not, is irrelevant. The genetic barrier is at the family level. There have been no transitions from one family to another, nor into a new family.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Further, Linnaeus, by your own claim, maybe twice, mistranslated the Bible's word "kind" as "genus" and "species". He implied those words meant "kind" and yet you say there's no "barrier" in genus or species? The fact is difficulties interbreeding do increase as species become more distantly related.

Joey hears what he wants to hear, and denies the rest.

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

>>Kalamata: "A serious discussion of the inadequacy of evolutionary theory began no later than 2014, as outlined in this Nature article:"
>>Joey Denier: "Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink? That article, plus this one in no way try to refute or defeat evolution theory, they merely discuss the definitions and importance of such terms as.

The truth is, papers by secular researchers routinely support the creation model. The evolutionism orthodoxy is scared silly that they are losing their power over the minds of the people and their "right" to continually feed at the taxpayer trough. Worse, they must rely on corrupt federal judges to keep opposing viewpoints out of the classrooms. Science can stand on its own, but not evolutionism.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Did any of these evolution versions "falsify" Darwin's original ideas?Answer: no, they simply brought vastly more details to explain exactly how "descent with modifications" and "natural selection" work, naturally.

Evolutionism cannot be falsified because it is not science. However, it would become instantly accepted by everyone if there was even a shred of evidence for common descent. Without that evidence, the living and the fossil records better fits the creation model.

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

>>Kalamata: "If you were being honest, you would be denouncing the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism. The anti-science religion of evolutionism goes back a long way. It was entrenched as early as Hubble's days. Read what that religious bigot wrote:
>>Joey Denier: "Really, Edwin Hubble the astronomer? You're going to weaponize Hubble against Darwin? Who will you weaponize next, Aunt Jemima?

There is no need to get all hysterical on us, Joey? I was simply exposing Hubble as an anti-God bigot.

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

>>Kalamata: "Remarkable, huh? Ironically, a giant space telescope bearing Hubble's name, with its discovery of deep space galactic clusters, showed the world that the density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance, not to mention that Hubble was a bigot! God definitely has a sense of humor."
>>Joey Denier: "Hubble's religious views were likely agnostic and like Galileo Hubble did not let Biblical interpretations influence his theories on outer space.

Did you not bother to even read what Hubble wrote?

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

>>Joey Denier: "As for "density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance", it was Hubble himself who discovered the expanding Universe and would well realize that the further out you look, the further back in time you see and so would expect to find clusters closer together in the early Universe."

I see that astrophysics is not one of your strong suits. The last thing the big bang theory would predict would be deep space, fully mature, galactic clusters, like the Hubble scope found. Rather, the model, as Hubble alluded to, predicts the distribution of matter to decrease with distance, like an exploding bomb:

"[W]e would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. . . Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance." [Possible Worlds: The Law of Nebular Distribution when Red-Shifts are not interpreted as Velocity-Shifts, in Hubble, Edwin, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology." Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1937, Chap. III, p.40]

The space telescope bearing Hubble's name proved him wrong. So what is the alternative? My choice is, God created the stars, and then stretched out the heavens, leaving the universe fine-tuned, as in the Anthropic Principle.

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

>>Kalamata: "Species are the bottom of the taxonomic ladder, Joey, where the most diversity occurs. Phyla are at the top, where disparity occurs:"
>>Joey Denier: "Disparity of phyla is physically the same thing as diversity of species. Only the degrees of separation are different. It is similar to alleged distinctions between "micro" and "macro" evolution -- same things different time periods."

I feel like I am debating a child.

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

>>Kalamata: "The family (or "kind") level is the barrier. Many genera can arise from the genepool of a kind, and many species can arise from the genepool of a genus; but everything stops (is fixed) at the kind, or family level."
>>Joey Denier: "Total rubbish since about 20,000 taxonomic "families" have arisen from 2,000 "orders" in 36 phyla. There's no "barrier" to stop speciation at the "family" level, so speciation can continue as long and as far as evolution takes it."

That is evolutionism window dressing. There is no evidence that any species has speciated out of one family and into another.

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

>>Kalamata: "Behe, like me, is more than happy with the current classification system. My only dissent might be the never-ending quest of God-haters to remove all biblical references from science, such as the created "kind". Removing the "kind" from the dialogue is just one more nail in the coffin of freedom of religion and liberty."
>>Joey Denier: "even your hero Linnaeus never used the word "kind" as a classification. Does that make him an enemy of "freedom of religion and liberty"?

Is that a red herring or a straw man?

Child.

Mr. Kalamata