Free Republic
Browse · Search 		News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kalamata
Post #459 cont. 2
Kalamata on similarities in embryos of different species: "Please point them out, Joey, so that biologists the world over can learn from you."

Here are some articles pointing out similarities:

  1. Similarities in the embryonic development of various animal species are also found at molecular level Date:December 15, 2010

  2. Developmental Similarities: Karl von Baer

  3. Common Past, Different Paths 2001

  4. Carnegie Stage Comparison 2019
Kalamata on evolution "probabilities": "What false assumptions, Joey?"

Any that assume instantaneous assembly of organic molecules to make lifelike organisms in one improbable step.

Kalamata on facts vs. theory: "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."

You know for someone who pretends to be a scientist, you have remarkably vague notions of basic scientific ideas, i.e., the difference between fact and theory.

As for evidence, you know perfectly well where to find it, but like any denier, Holocaust or otherwise, you can spend all day, or days on end, looking straight at it and yet see nothing.

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

I have no interest in the propaganda of charlatans, whether "complicated" or not.

Kalamata: "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."

That's complete nonsense, however, I'm pretty sure that whatever, if any, golden nuggets of scientific wisdom can be panned out of the charlatan sands of Behe's anti-science propaganda, will be, in due time.
I'll begin to take him seriously when other respected scientists do.

Kalamata: "Perhaps you were confused by the words, "in some of Michael Behe's arguments".
Try to keep up."

Not at all, because "some" is plenty enough to suggest that Behe himself should go back and rethink his ideas.
At the very least, if Kalamata had in himself even an ounce of scientific honesty, such comments would be enough to give you a moment's pause.
But apparently not.

Kalamata: "Santimonious Child."

Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

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

Well... if or when you walk into a gambling casino, you may well think it's "dumb luck" whether you win or lose money.
But you can be 100% certain that all such "gambling" is very carefully designed & engineered to guarantee that the "house" will always win, in the long run.
The Universe is God's House.

Kalamata: "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."

Whale species -- about 100 still living plus 500 now extinct -- seemingly have unique capacities for driving Kalamata into paroxysms of insanity.

Kalamata: "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."

Oh, Danny boy you seem fixated on taxonomic "families" which you fantasize somehow connected to Biblical "kinds".
But taxonomically there are many more categories above "family" than below it -- Kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder, infraorder, parvorder, superfamilies etc., all before you get down to the level of "family".
Among living & extinct whales there are many different categories of superfamily, parvorder, infraorder, & suborder before reaching the levels of family, genus & species.
And there's no evidence -- none -- that any of these categories appeared through any process other than evolution.

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

Naw, you just closed your eyes pretending not to see what is clearly there.

Kalamata: "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."

The numbers are about 600 whale species discovered so far, about 100 still living, 500 extinct, some of the extinct species with dozens of individuals.
Fossils can be lined up by age and taxonomic category to show many transitional forms.

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

Only in your own warped anti-science dictionary.
In real science there are numerous transitional forms, notably these:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls.
Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone).
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

Kalamata: "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:"

I "get" that you dislike Prothero, and so, given your own nature, cannot report honestly or accurately on his words.

Kalamata on "punctuated equilibrium": "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."

Complete nonsense, since "punctuated equilibrium" is a scientific hypothesis which well explains the observed facts.
And, as it happens, there is no other scientific theory for those particular facts.

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

Of course they are, in the same sense that "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" refer to the same processes over different time periods, shorter-term and longer-term.

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

Sorry, but regardless of what Gould said in 1989 the fact is that only 10 of 36 living phyla are first identified in the Cambrian Explosion circa 541 million years ago.
See my post #529 for more details.

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

No, taxonomic "family" is only critical to anti-evolutionists who wish to tie that word to Biblical "kinds" and so defeat natural science with bogus Biblical theology.

Kalamata: "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."

Danny baby boy, why do you always lie about this?
The real truth is not that hard and you could easily say it if there was an honest bone in your body.
The truth is I compare you to Holocaust deniers because you use the same tactics they did -- you close your eyes, pretend not to see the evidence and then claim repeatedly -- claims accompanied by great volumes of bluster, insults & mockery -- that no evidence exists.

That's how they did it, it's how you do it and I conclude it's a general rule for deniers of all stripes.

Kalamata: "Silly Child."

Says Danny liar denier, can't see from your good eyes, Kalamata.

Kalamata: "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?"

LOL!
Even Holocaust deniers never referred to themselves as "deniers", preferring terms like "skeptics" or "doubters" or even "unbelievers" in the "Holo-hoax".
Crude & vulgar as some of them were, they at least understood that "denial" is a pathological condition, implying knowing disregard for obvious evidence.
So I'll take your referral to yourself as a "denier" here is simply a function of late-at-night fatigue, more than self-revealing Freudian slip.

As for science denial, that's what you do, Danny boy, and yes, it is a pathological condition.

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

And that is just more of Danny boy's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #2, #5 & #6.

Will stop here on post #459 for now, more later.

623 posted on 11/02/2019 11:25:50 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK
>>Kalamata on similarities in embryos of different species: "Please point them out, Joey, so that biologists the world over can learn from you."
>>Joey wrote: "Here are some articles pointing out similarities:

The first link you provided is this article:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215112815.htm

The first reference is Kalinka et al, which asserts:

"The notion that early development is similar among related animal species has been a guiding principle in comparative embryology since von Baer (1828) formalized the observation as his third law. Darwin (1859) believed this to be the most compelling evidence in favour of common descent, Reasoning that adult life-stages will afford the greatest opportunity for natural selection to operate, and thus adult structures should show signs of species-specific adaptations more than earlier stages. These earlier stages, where adaptive opportunities are limited, will ultimately represent the 'pruned' but necessary features of ancestral differentiation."

"Despite its intuitive appeal, the principle of early embryonic conservation has not been supported by morphological studies. Counter to the expectations of early embryonic conservation, many studies have shown that there is often remarkable divergence between related species both early and late in development, often with little apparent influence on adult morphology. The extensive variation that is seen in early and late development is contrasted by a period of conserved morphology occurring in mid-embryogenesis. This is known as the phylotypic period because it coincides with a period of maximal similarity between the species within each animal phylum." [Kalinka et al, "Gene expression divergence recapitulates the developmental hourglass model." Nature, Vol.468; Dec 9, 2010, p.811]

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09634

That doesn't seem to support your claim, Joey. Other papers dispute the notion of conserved morphology in the middle stages, as well:

"One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no proof is needed." [Richardson et al, "There is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development." Anatomy and Embryology, 1997, p.92]

"[V]ariations in the adult body plan are often foreshadowed by modifications of early development. A good example is the aortic arch system in the rat that, even during the pharyngula stage, begins to presage the adult pattern of arteries… These modifications of embryonic development are difficult to reconcile with the idea that most or all vertebrate clades pass through an embryonic stage that is highly resistant to evolutionary change. This idea is implicit in Haeckel's drawings, which have been used to substantiate two quite distinct claims. First, that differences between species typically become more apparent at late stages. Second, that vertebrate embryos are virtually identical at earlier stages. This first claim is clearly true. Our survey, however, does not support the second claim, and instead reveals considerable variability – and evolutionary lability – of the tailbud stage, the purported phylotypic stage of vertebrates. We suggest that not all developmental mechanisms are highly constrained by conserved developmental mechanisms such as the zootype. Embryonic stages may be key targets for macroevolutionary change." [Ibid. p.105]

https://hankenlab.oeb.harvard.edu/publications/there-no-highly-conserved-embryonic-stage-vertebrates-implications-current

"For both datasets, the results using two different metrics were counter to the predictions of the definition: phenotypic variation between species was highest in the middle of the developmental sequence. This surprising degree of developmental character independence argues against the existence of a phylotypic stage in vertebrates." [Bininda-Emonds et al, "Inverting the hourglass: Quantitative evidence against the phylotypic stage in vertebrate development." Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol.270; March, 2003, p.341]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10854821_Inverting_the_hourglass_Quantitative_evidence_against_the_phylotypic_stage_in_vertebrate_development

The others links you provided are also not supportive of your position.

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

>>Kalamata on evolution "probabilities": "What false assumptions, Joey?"
>>Joey said: "Any that assume instantaneous assembly of organic molecules to make lifelike organisms in one improbable step."

That wasn't the topic, Joey. Why the misdirection?

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

>>Kalamata on facts vs. theory: "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."
>>Joey said: "You know for someone who pretends to be a scientist, you have remarkably vague notions of basic scientific ideas, i.e., the difference between fact and theory."

I don't pretend to be a scientist, Joey. You do.

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

>>Joey said: "As for evidence, you know perfectly well where to find it, but like any denier, Holocaust or otherwise, you can spend all day, or days on end, looking straight at it and yet see nothing."

In Joey's dream world, you first make up a story, and then you pretend it is science.

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

>>Kalamata: "Just as I thought. Behe's work is too complicated for you."
>>Joey said: "I have no interest in the propaganda of charlatans, whether "complicated" or not."

LOL! Michael Behe has a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania; and Joey is still living in fantasy land.

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

>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey said: "That's complete nonsense, however, I'm pretty sure that whatever, if any, golden nuggets of scientific wisdom can be panned out of the charlatan sands of Behe's anti-science propaganda, will be, in due time. I'll begin to take him seriously when other respected scientists do."

All respectable scientists take Michael Behe seriously, plus he scares the hell out of the establishment (who are not so respectable.) Therefore, it is past time you took him seriously. Two of his three books can be borrowed, and one of those can be downloaded as a permanent copy, here:

Michael Behe books at Archive.org… slow loading

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

>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you were confused by the words, "in some of Michael Behe's arguments". Try to keep up."
>>Joey said: "Not at all, because "some" is plenty enough to suggest that Behe himself should go back and rethink his ideas."

When I see Behe I will tell him that Joey suggests he should rethink his ideas. LOL! You have much too high an opinion of your own understanding, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "At the very least, if Kalamata had in himself even an ounce of scientific honesty, such comments would be enough to give you a moment's pause. But apparently not."

I am a scientist, and so is Behe. That is why you cannot understand us.

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

>>Kalamata: "You said "trial and error." Those words in the world of Darwin are synonymous with Dumb Luck."
>>Joey said: "Well... if or when you walk into a gambling casino, you may well think it's "dumb luck" whether you win or lose money. But you can be 100% certain that all such "gambling" is very carefully designed & engineered to guarantee that the "house" will always win, in the long run. The Universe is God's House."

Charlie Darwin thought there was no higher power than himself. Why bring up God? Don't you believe Charlie?

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

>>Kalamata: "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 said: "Whale species -- about 100 still living plus 500 now extinct -- seemingly have unique capacities for driving Kalamata into paroxysms of insanity."

LOL! Actually, I think the crazy notion of whale evolution is hillarious, except when it is used to brainwash our children.

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

>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy you seem fixated on taxonomic "families" which you fantasize somehow connected to Biblical "kinds"."

That is what the Bible says, and Linnaeus confirmed. You don't expect me to take your word for it, do you?

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

>>Joey said: "But taxonomically there are many more categories above "family" than below it -- Kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder, infraorder, parvorder, superfamilies etc., all before you get down to the level of "family"."

That is classification. Nothing else. Genetic research, the fossil record, and observations of the living, support the theory that the family level contains the genetic barrier that no species can cross.

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

>>Joey said: "Among living & extinct whales there are many different categories of superfamily, parvorder, infraorder, & suborder before reaching the levels of family, genus & species."

Whales are always whales. Nothing else.

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

>>Joey said: "And there's no evidence -- none -- that any of these categories appeared through any process other than evolution."

There is no evidence at all for evolution: not in observation of the living, not in the fossil record, and not in the genome.

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

>>Kalamata: "I believed that too, Joey, for most of my long life, until I realized there is no supporting evidence."
>>Joey said: "Naw, you just closed your eyes pretending not to see what is clearly there.

I will agree that you are closed-minded. That is so obvious I cannot deny it.

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

>>Kalamata: "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 said: "The numbers are about 600 whale species discovered so far, about 100 still living, 500 extinct, some of the extinct species with dozens of individuals."

Yes, there are many variations of the whale kind.

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

>>Joey said: "Fossils can be lined up by age and taxonomic category to show many transitional forms."

There are no transitional lines of fossils except in the imaginations of men, in museum mockups, and in our children's textbooks.

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

>>Kalamata: "Statis is not about speciation or adaptation, but rather the absence of common descent -- the absence of transitions containing new body parts."
>>Joey said: "Only in your own warped anti-science dictionary."

No, the word "stasis" is a scientific term used by evolutionary paleontologists:

"Definition: Stasis: equilibrium, inactivity or stoppage; in biology, the view that nature and all of its organisms are unchanging (e.g. held by Linnaeus c. 1758); recently, the hypothesis that species exist for relatively long periods without morphological change, then evolve rapidly for short periods in response to environmental pressure. Cf. punctuated equilibrium.

"Definition: Species Stasis: apparent lack of change in the morphology of a species during its history."

[Mai et al, "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution." 2005, p.499, 503]

"The prevalence of the belief in phyletic gradualism among paleontologists prior to 1972 is a testament to how far they were out of touch with the current ideas in evolutionary biology. But punctuated equilibrium had far more implications than the simple idea that speciation is geologically rapid. The prevalence of stasis in species over millions of years was something that was not expected by Neo- Darwinists. Even though paleontologists had known for years that most fossil species are static through long periods of geologic time, they never emphasized this, since they were taught to look for gradual evolution. As Gould and Eldredge (1977) put it, 'Stasis is data.' 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." [Donald R. Prothero, "Bringing Fossils To Life: An Introduction To Paleobiology." McGraw-Hill, 2nd Ed, 2004, p.77]

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

>>Joey said: "In real science there are numerous transitional forms, notably these: Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls."

Those are skulls of apes and humans, Joey. Any notions of transitional lines are strictly imaginary.

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

>>Kalamata: "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:"
>>Joey said: "I "get" that you dislike Prothero, and so, given your own nature, cannot report honestly or accurately on his words."

Other than Prothero being a rude, nasty, Far-Left, Climate-Change promoting, anti-Christian bigot, he is probably okay. I never misquote, except by the rare accident, which I immediately correct when notified.

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

>>Kalamata on "punctuated equilibrium": "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."
>>Joey said: "Complete nonsense, since "punctuated equilibrium" is a scientific hypothesis which well explains the observed facts. And, as it happens, there is no other scientific theory for those particular facts."

Of course there is, but you reject it because it doesn't fit inside your narrow little box that has been fashioned and approved by atheists.

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

>>Kalamata: "You claimed that disparity and diversity are functionally the same, Joey, under the pretense that they are synonyms. They are not."
>>Joey said: "Of course they are, in the same sense that "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" refer to the same processes over different time periods, shorter-term and longer-term."

That may be the most scientifically illiterate statement you have made on this thread.

For the rest of you, Joey doesn't understand the scientific concepts of disparity and diversity.

For the record, evolution has never occurred, so micro- and macro-evolution are meaningless terms.

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

>>Kalamata: "Fossils of all major phyla designs are found in the Cambrian, Joey."
>>Kalamata quoting Gould 1989: "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 said: "Sorry, but regardless of what Gould said in 1989 the fact is that only 10 of 36 living phyla are first identified in the Cambrian Explosion circa 541 million years ago. See my post #529 for more details."

Joey doesn't understand the concept of Phyla. That is unsurprising since he also is clueless about disparity vs. diversity. This is the highly-respected invertebrate paleontologist, James Valentine explaining how many phyla appeared after the Cambrian Explosion:

On the Origin of the Phyla

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

>>Kalamata: "The number of species is not a critical issue for evolutionists. The critical level is the family."
>>Joey said: "No, taxonomic "family" is only critical to anti-evolutionists who wish to tie that word to Biblical "kinds" and so defeat natural science with bogus Biblical theology."

That makes no sense, Joey. Secular scientists mention the genetic barrier:

"In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans...Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?... another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said." [Marlowe Hood, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." Phys.Org, May 28, 2017, pp.3-4]

Other researchers have determined the genetic barrier to be at the family (or, "kind") level, which is exactly what we observe in real life, and what God commanded.

For example, these are some of the member of the Canidae (dog) family:

No one has ever observed any member of the Canidae family stray genetically outside its family.

These are members of the Felidae (cat) family:

No one has ever observed any member of the Felidae family stray genetically outside its family.

In other words, the biblical concept of the created kind has never been falsified.

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

>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey said: "Danny baby boy, why do you always lie about this? The real truth is not that hard and you could easily say it if there was an honest bone in your body. The truth is I compare you to Holocaust deniers because you use the same tactics they did -- you close your eyes, pretend not to see the evidence and then claim repeatedly -- claims accompanied by great volumes of bluster, insults & mockery -- that no evidence exists. That's how they did it, it's how you do it and I conclude it's a general rule for deniers of all stripes."

I ask for evidence of evolution, and Joey equivocates. What does that tell you about his confidence in the theory of evolution?

Okay, Joey, I'll make it easier on you. Tell me one thing about evolution that is true. No opinions, please.

In 1981, the late British paleontologist Colin Patterson ask several groups of scientists that same question, and no one could answer it, sorta:

"Well, this time that isn't true. I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either of them. One or the reasons I started taking this antievolutionary view, or let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization that for over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. Then one morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.

"So either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

"The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.'" [Colin Patterson, "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson." American Museum of Natural History, Nov 5, 1981, p.3]

I agree with the only person who answered.

Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? Transcript.

Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? Audio.

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

>>Kalamata: "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?"
>>Joey said: "Even Holocaust deniers never referred to themselves as "deniers".

Neither do science deniers.

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

>>Joey said: "Crude & vulgar as some of them were, they at least understood that "denial" is a pathological condition, implying knowing disregard for obvious evidence."

It appears Joey is taking time-out to self-analyze. That seems to be what progressives SJW's do when they need to let off steam.

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

>>Joey said: "So I'll take your referral to yourself as a "denier" here is simply a function of late-at-night fatigue, more than self-revealing Freudian slip. As for science denial, that's what you do, Danny boy, and yes, it is a pathological condition."

I never deny science, Joey; only the words of bad scientists and pseudoscientists, like your words.

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolution is not science, so it is not falsifiable. Only science deniers believe in evolution."
>>Joey said: "And that is just more of Danny boy's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #2, #5 & #6.

Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

624 posted on 11/02/2019 7:07:35 PM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search 		News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson