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]

>>I don't do "smug", that's your bailiwick.

Smug is your middle name.

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

>>Your video was a 58 minute rabbit hole which provided no useful information except what amounted to an advertisement for job openings in the research field of abiogenesis.

No, it was an appeal to all knuckleheads trying to do the impossible to return to science.

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

>>But, in the end Tour tried to shut down such research by claiming "some people" hyped up their results beyond what is justified.

He was being kind. They lied.

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

>>Since, Tour tells us, those people need to be punished, he would shut down further research until they are!

You left out the part where he wants them to quit lying to the public.

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

>>That's not just a rabbit hole, it's a Black Hole (& black eye) for science.

That is exactly what James Tour is trying to tell you about abiogenesis, and more, as follows:

Here's the ramifications of calling conjectures"facts":

• Claims that mislead the patient taxpayer are unhelpful, and the public will even distrust scientific claims into other fields.
   
• Uncorrected or unfounded assertions jeopardize science beyond a singular field. especially since there's mounting distrust of higher education in general.
   
• Condescending comments toward the public or a student if they will not embrace our conjectures as facts, will lead to continued division between our scientists and non-scientists, which can yield public reluctance to fund our research.
   
• We must tell the truth with specificity. If it is a fact, say it. if it not a fact, say it.
   
• Blackballing scientists if they bear legitimate non-conformist views, by excluding them from professional societies and academies, withholding their funding or denying them tenure, is anti-scientific and it will retard the advancement of science.

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

>>You're guessing to claim that Federal dollars directly support abiogenesis research.

Okay, you show us how it is funded.

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

>>Here's what I know for certain: deniers, like Holocaust deniers, simply deny anything which contradicts their own claims.

Only a sleazy con-man would attempt to lump holocaust deniers in with those who oppose pseudoscience. But if that is the only argument they have to protect against threats to their fairy tale world-view, then what choice do they have?

Speaking of sleazy con-men, that is the same tactic Donald Prothero uses against those who oppose his version of pseudo-science. In general, that tactic is in common use by the scientifically-challenged.

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

>>You yourself can go and see tons of physical evidence of evolution at any natural history museum, but you won't go, and if you did go you won't see, and if you did see you'd just deny, deny, deny. Denial is who you are, denial is what you do, facts don't matter, nothing matters to you beyond your own claims.

Been there, done that, saw no evidence, only fraud.

Admit it. You know of no evidence for evolution, so you must resort to the party line of ad hominems and wild goose chases.

You are such a lightweight.

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

>>We should shut down ALL research that has been over-hyped.

That would be the honest thing to do, but perhaps with a grace period. But there is a lot of bad science out there, and a lot of hype.

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

>>With "over-hyped" and "religion" to be defined exclusively by Grand Inquisitor Kalamata, and the length of punishment will be set by Pope James Tour, right?

Can I assume you are satisfied with the statis quo of "over-hype" and "religion" being defined by the Grand Inquisitor Richard Dawkins, and the punishment set by Pope Ken Miller?

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

>>So you skip right over the part where Tour makes his "moratorium" a punishment for the irredeemable sin of "over-hyping" science?

Since you insist, I will post it again:

Here's the ramifications of calling conjectures"facts":

• Claims that mislead the patient taxpayer are unhelpful, and the public will even distrust scientific claims into other fields.
   
• Uncorrected or unfounded assertions jeopardize science beyond a singular field. especially since there's mounting distrust of higher education in general.
   
• Condescending comments toward the public or a student if they will not embrace our conjectures as facts, will lead to continued division between our scientists and non-scientists, which can yield public reluctance to fund our research.
   
• We must tell the truth with specificity. If it is a fact, say it. if it not a fact, say it.
   
• Blackballing scientists if they bear legitimate non-conformist views, by excluding them from professional societies and academies, withholding their funding or denying them tenure, is anti-scientific and it will retard the advancement of science.

You know that drives the evolutionism orthodoxy batty.

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

>>I accurately reported what Tour said, and more important, the impression it left. Indeed, you yourself say Tour's punishment of science is not near strong enough, so their's no point in you denying he said it.

Asking for a moratorium is not punishment, except in the strange world you dwell in. I personally would prefer suing to get our tax dollars back from those charlatans. I would also force rehiring and reinstatement by all who have been blackballed by evolutionism thugs.

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

>>Neither text, nor any other similar, has anything remotely to do with natural-science. The "father of lies" are those who pretend they do, FRiend.

The father of lies teaches men to doubt the Word of God. The children of the father of lies teach children their ancestors were apes.

Mr. Kalamata

[Reily]

Oh I don’t...ok that’s good to know.
“...….

From the outset, some scientists expressed scepticism about the Piltdown find (see above). G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that “deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together”. In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere.

In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet.

………..”

Looks to me that the above is a good example of the scientific method in action!

[freedumb2003]

>>Looks to me that the above is a good example of the scientific method in action!<<

Yep. Is this friendly fiof re? My point was that the Scientific Method exposed Piltdown Man as a sham (which any and every theological/philosophical method cannot).

I think we agree. But my uncle with the lopsided backside and the fur on the small his back might BE Piltdown Man. Or he just fugly.

[Reily]

I thought you were shooting at me.
Which I thought was odd, because I thought from past posts we more or less agree.
Anyway if I am shot at I shoot back!
Sort the friendly or not fire issue later.

[Kalamata]

>>You'll find tons of evidence at any natural history museum. See it, touch it, read a book or two. You'll find as much as you're willing to see.

There is not a shred of evidence for evolution in any museum, nor any book.

I am curious as to why you keep trying to send me on wild goose chases, or why you post highly creative artwork based on a few fragmented fossils, rather than showing any real evidence, or even the fossils they are based on..

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

>>Just as I predicted! A denier will look the evidence straight in the face and deny, deny, deny it.

Deny what? I didn't deny anything. I told you exactly what I saw.

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

>>No, you've foolishly denied, denied whale evolution based on very incomplete knowledge of a few scholarly debates. *

Incomplete knowledge is not evidence. Imaginary constructs based on incomplete evidence is pseudo-science, or, perhaps, metaphysics.

Why did you show the highly-creative animal artwork, rather than the few fragmented fossils they are based on? Are you trying to fool everyone?

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

>>Short term evolution has not only been observed, it's been directed by humans for tens of thousands of years, beginning with wolves to dogs and aurochs to cattle. This man-directed evolution has created new breeds, sub-species and even a species. These observed facts make longer term extrapolations entirely reasonable.

That is not evolution. Devolution perhaps, but never evolution.

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

[Kalamata wrote] "That proves nothing except there is plenty of evidence of hydrologic sorting and possible liquefaction. The fossil record shows evidence of a catastrophic, world-wide flood, with increasing terrestriality in the fossil record, from sea to land. The evidence of marine fossils in the highest layers, world-wide, is enough to cause any real scientist to pause, if not to reject uniformitarianism and Darwinism."

>>Complete nonsense.

Those are observable features of the geologic column and the fossil record?

I forgot you don't do science. Never mind.

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

>>>They all do.

You won't' pick one because you are afraid you will be exposed.

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

>>It does seem that Darwin the naturalist admired Paley the theologian.

You got that backwards. Darwin the failed theologian admired Paley the naturalist -- the naturalist who saw design in nature.

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

>>I'll take this quote as representative of the others. If not Gould himself, then certainly others, especially anti-evolutionists, have taken Gould's words to be commentary on the nature of evolution, or lack of evolution. In fact, he simply states the obvious: if an environment remains constant for, say, millions of years, then life itself will also remain relatively unchanged. But when environments change, then life must also change/adapt or die -- sometimes slowly, often abruptly.

I see you are still pushing the pseudo-science called: "The absence of evidence IS evidence."

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

>>>So "punctuated equilibrium" refers to such "punctuation" as that asteroid at Chicxulub, Mexico, which wiped out the Dinosaurs, not to some special feature of evolution which randomly speeds it up or slows it down.

There is no evidence an asteroid wiped out anything on earth.

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

>>No, just the opposite, I'm saying absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

The absence of evidence is the absense of evidence. Nothing else. But if you can imagine evidence, then you can prove anything . . . . . in you mind.

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

>>Gould was certainly smart enough to understand that both "extreme rarity" and "transitional forms" are matters of definition and interpretation.

You have not read much from Gould, have you.

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

>>Looking at the same data I'd say there are huge numbers of transitional forms and, indeed, that any fossil which can be reliably identified & classified is "transitional" between its ancestors and descendants, if any. All of life, without exception, is "transitional".

That is beyond silly.

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

>>It's hard to imagine what Gould is talking about when you've seen these transitional fossils, fresh from the rocks:

Gould was simply saying that he observed what Darwin observed, that no gradual transitional forms have been seen in the rocks. After 160 years one would think we would find something. But, so far, nothing.

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

>>But your reasons are 100% theological, not scientific.

Your reasons for believing in evolutionism are purely theological, as were my reasons for believing in evolutionism for most of my long life. I never saw any evidence, but I believe it on faith. My reasons for rejecting evolutionism (finally) were purely scientific.

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

>>And that is a flat-out lie based on your religious beliefs, not science. . . More religiously motivated lies.

Okay, so prove the earth is millions of years old. Betcha can't.

Your religion will not allow you to admit you are wrong, so the best you can do is throw an aspersion or two, and hope no one notices you are avoiding all challenges.

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

>>In other words, these claims are total hearsay, not confirmed science. Even one such confirmed observation would be big news.

Nonsense. It is virtually impossible to get a paper "peer-reviewed" in secular literature without kissing the rings of Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell. A more appropriate name for "peer-review" is "PAL-review".

By the way, the M.D. who found bird fossils with dinos in museums and dig sites, is the same person interviewing Gingerich and Thewissen about their fraudulent "whale evolution" scheme.

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

[Kalamata quoting]: "The strata shows evidence of rapid deposition of all layers, as would be expected by hydrodynamic sorting and liquifaction. That explains the virtually flat sedimentary layers, including coal, with little or no erosion and bioturbation in and between layers."

>>Totally out of context and without provenance.

You can only avoid so much evidence before people start thinking you have an agenda

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

>>Perhaps refers to some local conditions, but certainly cannot be extrapolated to mean everything on earth.

No, the strata is virtually the same, world-wide, even in areas of intense uplift. Note the folded -- not broken -- strata on this mountain range:

Those layers were still pliable when the mountains were pushed up. Those kind of sedimentary deposits happen rapidly, and not over millions of years.

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

>>Nonsense, my words are a totally reasonable conclusions based on the fact that no dinosaurs are found above what's called the K-T boundary.

But marine fossils are, some in the closed position.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>What’s silly (or worse) is to claim the Bible condemns natural-science. It absolutely does not.

I showed you some of the evidences of science in the Bible, but you ignored them.

>>Many elements of evolution theory are indeed facts.
>>Descent with modifications has been observed, that’s a fact.

That has never been observed, either in life or in the fossil record.

>>Natural selection has been observed, so it’s also fact.

Natural Selection is an observed fact, but it is not evolution. So-called “cumulative selection”, a requirement for common descent, is pseudo-science.

>>Fossils are facts.

No kidding?

>>DNA is a fact, etc.

No kidding, again?

Like I said, there is no evidence for evolution. There is also no evidence that you have a clue about what the scientific method entails.

********************************
>>But as much as evolution refers to events in the past which can never be observed, evolution will always remain a theory.

It is a dead theory. It died from lack of evidence.

********************************
>>Sure, but Tour also said nothing important has been achieved since Miller-Urey, and that makes Miller-Urey a big deal, Tour’s mockery notwithstanding.

No. It was a dud. The media and evolutionists “hyped it” into a big deal.

********************************
>>But “reason” is not what Pharisees relied on nor does the Bible ever condemn “reason”.

Yes, “reason” is what the Pharisees relied up, over and above the scripture. They were the “enlightenment” of their time; and they caused as much mayhem in their era as the “enlightenment” crowd has caused in our era. This is from the Pharisee named Josephus:

“Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice.” [Flavius Josephus, “The Complete Works: Wars of the Jews.” Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1934, p.957]

********************************
>>Like Kalamata, Pharisees relied on their own misunderstandings of the Bible.

No, like you, they believed the Bible was a mere “figurehead”, metaphorically speaking.

********************************
>>Kalamata lying by misquoting BJK: “In fact they have several different methodologies (to predict the age of the earth,) all of which roughly agree. The current estimate of 13.8 billion years is simply considered the best of the group.”

You are lying about me lying. I was in a hurry to finish, so I got careless. So, sue me.

********************************
>>My words which you misquote referred to estimates of the age of the Universe, not the Earth.

True, and there is no evidence to support your assertion that the universe is 13.8 million years old.

********************************
>>No radiometric dating is involved in estimating the age of the Universe.

Duh.

********************************
>>As for the ages of Earth materials, that can indeed involve radiometric dating, of which there are dozens of different types, as well as several other non-radiometric methods. Yes, every method has strict procedures and pitfalls such that even small mistakes can lead to bogus results. But around the world are dozens of radiometric labs dating materials daily (doubtless for fees) and their results relied on people from many walks of life.

All Radiometric dates all bogus, and will remain so until someone invents a time machine to check the initial concentrations of daughter elements.

There is a very funny story on RM Dating surrounding the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, and his encounter with the East African KBS-Tuff strata, and the KNM-ER fossil. The rocks were initially RM dated to 212-230 MA (MA = million years). However, it was later determined there must have been an error in the Argon age due to the presence of certain fossils, and that the “real” age should be between 2 and 5 million years. In other words, the fossils determined the dates, not the radiometric laboratory. Dates were instantly reduced over 200 million years due to the presence of those fossils.

To make a long story short, after many re-tries, they finally got the date they were looking for; but not from the RM dating attempts, but rather from the presence of a fossilized pig’s tooth. I kid you not! LOL!

Martin Lubenow, author of the book “Bones of Contention”, provides a summary, with refs, here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-pigs-took-it-all/

********************************
>>Some scientists practical jokesters decided to test the accuracy of radiometric dating, but without telling the labs how old the rocks were.

LOL! You don’t get it, do you. If the dates from very young rocks are grossly exaggerated, even to millions of years, then none of the RM dates are reliable. That is science.

********************************
>>A total fraud, since Potassium-Argon has a half life of 1.3 billion years and is totally inappropriate for material less than 100,000 years old. Your alleged “scientists” here were just tricksters, who had to lie on their paperwork to get those labs to even accept the materials for dating.

Wow! You really are scientifically-challenged! Think about what you are saying? If K-Ar dating was reliable, the results for very young rocks would be zero, not millions of years. With that test, every rock is old, no matter what! LOL! This is really funny stuff!

Okay, how do you know any rock is 100,000 years old, or older? You don’t, unless there is a way to date it. The dates of all rocks prior to the invention of radiometric dating were imagined. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying to you. There was absolutely NO way to tell how old they were.

So now we have Radiometric Dating, and it works like this. When a rock is submitted for dating, you must know the approximate age of the rock. But you can’t possibly know the age until it has be tested by Radiometric Dating. That is a curcular argument. It is nonsense.

You don’t see it, do you?

********************************
Nonsense, there were other methods used before radiometric dating and other methods developed since radiometric dating — dozens of methods in total. Some are as basic as counting ancient tree rings or ice-core levels.

Tree rings are somewhat useful for-post flood dating, but the dating of ice-core strata is totally unreliable.

For example, are you familiar with the lost WWII squadron that crashed in Greenland in 1942? When the planes were found in 1997, they were buried under at least 250 feet of compacted snow and ice. I hope you understand the rammifications of that find.

********************************
>>Some cover a few thousand years (i.e., carbon-14) others billions of years (ie., Potassium-Argon). Taken together they provide convincing evidence for the ages of materials studied, including meteors from outer space.

You have been misled. It was previously shown that K-Ar dating is circular, so that method is out; and if you believe Carbon 14 dating is reliable, then you must also believe coal, diamonds and some fossils, including dinosaurs, are about 5,000 years old. Those are the dates that keep popping up.

Mr. Kalamata

[freedumb2003]

>>Sort the friendly or not fire issue later.<<

We ain’t in the CRevo wars of old but occasionally rounds come from the brush. I would suggest you look at the CW threads but they seum to have been quiet.’

I, too, have a scorched earth reaction when I perceive an attack.

:)

[Kalamata]

>>Sure, here’s the truth about Kalamata: to defend your own misinterpretations of the Bible you’ve swallowed — hook, line & sinker — a huge pack of lies about natural-science. The results have blinded you to evidence, to facts and even truth itself.

You can do better than that.

********************************
>>Complete nonsense — there’s evidence all around you, but you’ve blinded yourself to it and now claim there’s no sucha thang as “sight”. And yet you saw nothing because you’d already blinded yourself to it.

Okay, you have been brainwashed.

********************************
>>So apparently your acquaintance blinded himself while there?!

Ad hominems are not evidence, no matter what your handlers told you.

********************************
>>You sound just like the Holocaust deniers I debated many years ago — you close your eyes, you say you don’t see it and then claim it’s not even there.

You do know that Darwinism was probably responsible for the holocaust, and worse. All four of the super-thugs of the 20th century believed in natural selection. They also believed there was no power higher than themselves, which is one of the societal burdens placed on us by Darwinism.

********************************
>>Exactly right, and the fact is that Darwin’s little seed of an idea has grown & modified with accumulating evidence, now 150+ years later into a large tree, but his basic little idea has never been falsified.

Nonsence. Evolution cannot be tested, and it cannot be questioned. That is not science, but religion.

********************************
>>Here’s an example: the work of finding, recovering & identifying fossils has occupied many thousands of researchers over many, many decades. Each researcher hopes to find a fossil which will upset, overturn & rewrite existing understandings of our past, and some actually do. Those become famous and often enjoy a long rewarding career. That’s how science is supposed to work.

Science has been working, but you refuse to see it. After 160 years, all the diggers have found in the fossil record is contrary evidence:

1) Abrupt appearance, then stasis
2) Disparity before diversity.
3) No transitional fossils.
4) Soft tissue in fossils
5) Incredible complexity in the Cambrian

All of those are contrary to Darwin’s theory. There is nothing in the fossil record that supports it.

Therefore, science says that evolution is not science.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Neither creationism nor intelligent design are scientific theories, which is why most self-respecting scientists refuse to debate them.

You are a denier.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

I'm called away today, no time for lengthy responses, but I must say that our poster Kalamata is uncanily similar in style, language, techniques & logic to some Holocaust deniers I spent many months debating many years ago.

Ask yourself, how could any reasonable person deny the WWII murders of millions of Jews?
The answer is: using the same techniques we see Kakamata employs here.

Consider, debating Holocaust deniers I invited them to see the evidence for themselves at a Holocaust museum.
Debating evolution denier Kalamata I invite him to see the evidence for himself at any natural history museum.
The response from deniers in both cases is identical -- they claim there's no evidence to be seen there!
And since they can't see the evidence in those museums, that means, they claim, there is no evidence.

Do they realize what they're doing?
Of course, since at their first hint of an opportunity they turn the tables and accuse yours truly of denial.

They know what denial is and they know they shouldn't do it, so what do they do -- accuse their opponent of their own misdeeds.

Now, in my book there's a name for that type of behavior or mental illness, "Democrat".
But who know, maybe it's not exclusive to Democrats?

[Kalamata]

>>I’m called away today, no time for lengthy responses, but I must say that our poster Kalamata is uncanily similar in style, language, techniques & logic to some Holocaust deniers I spent many months debating many years ago.

You disgusting piece of trash! I am of Jewish ancestry, and a strong supporter of Israel.

Con-men like you make me sick!

Me. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

When the ad hominems, smears and downright slander starts flying out of the keyboard of the evolutionism cultist, such as BroJoeK, you can tell his world-view is seriously threatened. I recommend you read my responses to his posts so you can understand why he took this extremist misdirection.

Have you read this article by Dr. Jerry Bergman on the Darwinist roots of the holocaust?

https://trueorigin.org/holocaust.php

Dr. Jerry Bergmam, a Jew and a former evolutionist, is also the author of the article underlying this thread. He wrote a great book which I recommend, titled, “Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview” (Joshua Press, 2013).

https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Nazi-Darwinian-worldview-Holocaust-ebook/dp/B00E0TVLU0

Mind you, in the world of BroJoeK, the Jew, Jerry Bergman, is a holocaust denier since he is an evolutionism denier. So is James Tour, who is also a Jew, and a subject of BroJoeK’s disdain in this very thread. Dr. David Hillel Gelernter, the subject of Dr. Bergman’s article underlying this thread, is also a Jew and an evolutionism denier.

In short, in the mind of BroJoeK, all Jews are holocaust deniers, if they are also evolutionism deniers. World-views do not get any more bizarro than that.

Again, read my responses to his posts so you can see for yourself why he became so unhinged.

Mr. Kalamata

[freedumb2003]

Put down the bong and step away.

Your word salads have ceased to have any meaning.

This is my last post in this thread.

[Kalamata]

>>Put down the bong and step away.

Punk.

[Kalamata]

>>This is my last post in this thread.

Good riddance, again.

[Kalamata]

I believe this is the part that got the snake-oil salesman running for cover. He wrote:

>>Some scientists practical jokesters decided to test the accuracy of radiometric dating, but without telling the labs how old the rocks were.

Yes, he actually wrote that. LOL! Next:

>>A total fraud, since Potassium-Argon has a half life of 1.3 billion years and is totally inappropriate for material less than 100,000 years old. Your alleged “scientists” here were just tricksters, who had to lie on their paperwork to get those labs to even accept the materials for dating.

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read.

He wouldn’t recognize science if it zapped him upside the head.

Mr. Kalamata

[CodeToad]

“Evolution is a confirmed hypothesi”

No, it is not. There has been nothing confirmed about it.

[CodeToad]

“By definition, science deals only in natural explanations for natural processes.”

Nope. Wrong, again. Science deals with observations. An observation can be non-natural.

[Kalamata]

More often than not, you only have to scratch the surfact a little bit to see what is underneath.

As you recall, bizarro Joe viciously slandered me and many other Jews with this statement:

>>I’m called away today, no time for lengthy responses, but I must say that our poster Kalamata is uncanily similar in style, language, techniques & logic to some Holocaust deniers I spent many months debating many years ago. Ask yourself, how could any reasonable person deny the WWII murders of millions of Jews? The answer is: using the same techniques we see Kakamata employs here.

Obviously, this was a diabolical attempt to lump opposition to evolutionism in with holocaust denial; and I don’t believe for a minute his claim that he got his scheme from debating holocaust deniers.

Since his post, I have been wracking my brain trying to understand where he came up with such insanity. Then I recalled this statement he wrote to me earlier in this thread:

>>I admire & respect [Michael] Shermer for his work on this: Denying History, Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do They Say It.<<

I asked him, “What, in particular, did you like about that book?”, but he didn’t respond.

Well, tonight I searched my database for “denier”, “denial” or “denying”, and found this video by Michael Shermer’s wacky sidekick, Donald Prothero:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVVOeZwTBIk&t=4m22s

Did you catch what Prothero did? He mentioned Will Storr’s book and then used it as an avenue to lump creationists in with holocaust deniers. Yet, if you read Storr’s book, you will not find that comparison. Storr said a lot of stupid things, but he is not that stupid.

I guess bizarro Joe figured if Prothero did it, then it was okay for him to do it.

I also checked Shermer’s book — the one bizarro Joe mentioned earlier — and the phrase “holocaust denier(s)” is found 68 times.

The bottom line is, books and videos by Shermer and Prothero are dangerous in the hands of immature, impressionable little people like bizarro Joe.

One other point: I am NOT “Kalamata”. I am “Mr. Kalamata”. Big difference!

This is my last post on this matter, until some responds.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Nope. Wrong, again. Science deals with observations. An observation can be non-natural.

I am reasonably certain that Joe doesn’t understand the relationship between science and observation. He believes science and imagination go together.

Mr. Kalamata