Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>Kalamata: “You are confounding imaginative mockups based on fragmentary fossils with observable scientific evidence. That is a no, no.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “That is a lie, lie.

You are the liar. Prove it. Show us the fossils. Not the models — the fossils.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “There is not a shred of observable scientific evidence for evolutionism. It is a myth,”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Another lie, lie.

You are lying. Show us the observable evidence. Just-so stories don’t count.,

*******************
>>Kalamata: “The evolutionism model is fake, since there is no data before the flood; but it does reveal the population flattens out before 3,000 BC, which is about the time of the flood.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Complete nonsense. The graph shows that your mathematical equation is rubbish.

You are lying. The inventors of your model have no clue how many people were living before 3,000 B.C. The only historical record we have of those living about 3,000 B.C. are the 8 that were on the Ark.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Evidence of common descent doesn’t exist in the fossil record — certainly not in any of the many paleontological books in my library. The fossils show the opposite of common descent.”
>>Joe the Science Denier posted a chart of skulls

What does your chart full of skulls prove? Nothing, except they are dead. Check these out:

“Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo — large brain, tool making and so on — has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years. And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry.” [Lewin, Roger, “Bones of Contention.” University of Chicago Press, 2Ed Ed, 1997, Chap.1, pp.17-18]

“Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as the ‘fossil void’, is between eight and four million years ago.” [Leakey, Richard E., “The Making of Mankind.” 1981, Chap.3, p.43]

Hard-core evolutionists Jerry Coyne questioned the numbers, even before the new numbers came out:

“That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps. … Despite our general resemblance to our primate cousins, then, evolving a human from an apelike ancestor probably required substantial genetic change.” [Jerry A. Coyne, “Why Evolution is True.” Oxford University Press, 2009, Chap 8, pp.230-31]

There is no evidence that apes evolved into man — not in the fossil record, not from observation of the living, and not from DNA.

Ann Gauger at the Discovery Institute wrote a great article on the Ape-to-Human myth:

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/ann_gauger_in_s_1/

This is the Bramble & Lieberman “Nature” article that Ann referenced:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature03052

*******************
>>Kalamata: “Michael Behe’s research reveals there is no common descent to the found in the DNA. Animals cannot evolve past the genetic boundary at the family level; and below that it is no genetic change, or devolution.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Fixed it. No “research” could support such claims.

Did you already forget, Alinsky Joe? Recent secular research backs up Behe’s research. Of course.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: That said, there is no scientific evidence for Darwinism, at all. It is an imaginary construct based on wild extrapolation of observable data.”

>>Joe the Holocaust Denier wrote, “Right, just like the Holocaust.”

Punk.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joe the Science Denier wrote, "Grand Canyon geological layers have been dated from nearly 2 billion years to about 200 million years old:

Baloney. There is no way to date the layers. But the evidence is overwhelming that the layers were deposited rapidly, on top of each other. The flatness and purity of the layers is evidence of hydrologic sorting:

Similar flatness and purity can be found in the coal layers:

A unique feature found in many coal layers are thin coal seam benches. A bench is a sedimentary rock layer between coal seams. Some benches are only a few inches thick, which rules out the "swamp" theory of coal formation.

Another problem with the uniformitarian theory is missing layers. Approximately 100 million years of layering is missing between the Muav and Temple Butte limestone in the Grand Canyon.

Strata are typically flat (e.g., the same thickness, everywhere), yet they should show extensive erosion over long periods of time. There is also virtually non-existent bioturbation (from soil-boring critters), which should be common in these sedimentary layers.

There are also marine (ocean) fossils in almost every sedimentary layer, including the top ones. That in itself is evidence of a global flood.

Mr. Kalamata

“Surely you know that’s not how it works, don’t you?”

“And yet at no time during this was any offspring ever born in a different species from its parents.”

Sorry, but that line of reasoning simply can’t result in the variety of life that we can observe. Species that evolutionists tell us are ancestors of other species have different numbers of chromosomes than their ostensible descendants, some quite radically different. You are not gaining or losing a chromosome in “baby steps”, it is an all or nothing proposal, and when it happens, that is going to be a quite insurmountable barrier to breeding with members of the “ancestral” population, therefore, it would be an evolutionary dead end.

Yet, evolution requires that somehow, millions of times, some miracle happened to allow such a dead end to breed and continue to pass on their genes.

“The fossils show “sudden appearance” and then “stasis”, they say.
But it’s important to notice that still 99%+ of species have not been found.”

Pure speculation. If you haven’t found them, then they are simply figments of your imagination, and slapping a percentage sign on how many species you imagine might exist does not make it any more scientific.

“And we do have one rather important sequence of fossils transition forms:”

It’s really more deceptive than important. Ape skulls and human skulls have a few similarities, but that doesn’t prove common ancestry. Even among the clearly human skulls that seem to show a progression, if you look at the dating of the finds, it does not add up, as more “advanced” forms can be found before the more “primitive” forms, or even in the same layer in the same location, as in this find in Georgia, where four morphologically different hominid skulls dated to 1.8 million years old were found in close proximity, showing they all lived in the same place at the same time:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/131104_lumperssplitters

That doesn’t suggest a progression through different species, it suggests a natural variation of one species, that scientists have misrepresented to fit their preferred narrative.

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE

>>Kalamata: “Evolutionism and big-bangism are based on magic.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “You just can’t stop yourself from lying, can you?

Your do know that your lying becomes pathological once you start believing your own lies, don’t you?

Now, to magic. These are the 3 universe creation stories, according to the Moses-hating evolutionist:

1) The universe magically exploded into existence from nothing.
2) The universe magically exploded into existence from a magic cosmic egg
3) The universe magically exploded into existence from a singularity, whatever that is.

Well, there is also a 4th called the ‘multi-verse”, where a gazillion of so universes magically appear, or were always out there in la-la land, somewhere; and they all evolved. Our universe just happened to be the lucky one that got everything right. I kid you not! LOL!

These are the origin of life stories from the Moses-hating evolutionist:

1) Life magically arose from primordial soup.
2) Life magically formed as molecules on clay
3) Life magically formed in deep-sea vents
4) Life magically formed in ice-covered oceans
5) Life magically formed from RNA, which magically appeared out of nowhere
6) Life was magically formed in outer space and somehow ended up here

There are probably others. The common thread is a wild imagination, and “magic”.

*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “I think we agree that the Universe was designed intelligently. The question on the table here is whether it was designed intelligently enough to, on its own, without further divine intervention, “grow” life from the “seeds” of organic matter?”

Did you ever wonder who imagined that silliness about “no divine intervention”? They certainly fooled you, and me too for a long time.

*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “But if the Universe was designed to create life on its own would that not be the ultimate in Intelligence and theological proof of God?”

No. What good is a creation if there is no one around to enjoy it with. The ultimate proof of God is that he created man in his own image, rendering man to be vastly different from any other living creature that he created. God’s image is Jesus Christ:

“[Jesus,] who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” — Col 1:15 KJV

So, when we read that someone is sitting on God’s throne, that someone is Jesus, since God is invisible:

“And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.” — Rev 4:2 KJV

We are created in that image — the image of him who sits on that throne.

Mr. Kalamata

===========================================
HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION
===========================================

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "This site lists hundreds of historically famous geologists, none of whom would agree with denier Kalamata's description of their work as "fake".

You cannot be serious. That page is not helpful. Study the history of geology if you want to know the truth. And make sure you pay attention to the shenigans of this weasel lawyer:

"I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the'British Critic and Theological Review.' They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Eerussac has done nothing but believe in the universal ocean up to the chalk period till lately. Prevost has done a little, but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France." [Letter to Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, June 14, 1830, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I." John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.268]

The general discussion, pre-Lyell, was along these lines:

"The use of the biblical deluge in the diluvial theory encountered opposition from two extremes. In England it came from the biblical literalists, Penn, Bugg, and others, who felt that the theory severely downgraded the significance of the deluge by restricting its geological effect to no more than superficial gravel deposits and other surface phenomena. In Scotland, however, opposition came from those who believed that the diluvial.theory was yet another scheme of Mosaical geology which, like its eighteenth-century predecessors, attributed far too great a geological significance to the biblical deluge. These Scottish writers argued that geology and the Bible ought to be kept apart; that physical inquiry came under the aegis of science, and that only the moral destiny of man was the proper subject of the Bible; that therefore the biblical deluge was a subject of inquiry, not for geology, but for theology and ancient history. 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 the biblical account of the deluge excludes a mechanism of violent tidal waves; that the story of Noah's Ark implies that all species of land animals survived; and that the deluge drowned not just animals but man as well, so that human fossils ought to occur in diluvial deposits." [Nicolaas A. Rupke, "The Great Chain of History." Clarendon Press, 1983, pp.82-82]

Make note of the part that explains the foolish "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham was still in the developmental stage in the late 1700's and early 1800's. It is a Johnny-Come-Lately sham that has corrupted rather than advanced science.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "And yet you are amazingly ignorant of some basic ideas in Western Thought, such as the origins and definitions of natural-science concepts.

I am very familiar with how the atheists hijacked the definition of science from real scientists.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "My guess is that whatever you did learn at some time in the past has been destroyed by some overwhelming new false anti-western construct that both is itself, and renders everything else, unintelligible."

It is your atheistic religion of evolutionism that is destroying western civilization. In the meantime, it has led to the holocaust, eugenics, abortion, virulent racism, and 4 of the most blood-thirsty dictators in the history of the world.

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

>>Kalamata: "Western civilization was founded on, and blessed by Christianity. The rejection of Christianity will destroy it."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "But neither the Bible nor any Christian thinker ever claimed that God was merely "natural". I can't even think of famous heretics who claimed that. So to my knowledge, yours is a heresy in a class by itself.

There you go lying again. Perhaps you need a rest so you can keep up. This is my statement:

"There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation." [Mr. Kalamata]

Why did you say that I claimed God was "merely 'natural'"? What's the matter with you? Don't you know how to tell the truth?

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Bottom line: Paine was a man of his Enlightenment Era, who held far more in common with contemporaries like Jefferson or Adams than with 20th century atheists like Russell."

The so-called "Age of Enlightenment" turned out to be more of a darkening.

Mr. Kalamata

============================
GENETICS AND DNA
============================

>> Joe the Science Denier says, "As for research, what, exactly, was all that discussion of the 2012 ENCODE report? Some people even claim ENCODE itself falsifies evolution, don't they?"

ENCODE is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, and no doubt the evolutionism high-priesthood will resist as long as they can. But, for all practical purposes, evolutionism is a dead religion. Good riddance.

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolution has nothing to do with medicine, or DNA. Evolutionists have attempted to hijack the prestige of them, but their folly will not continue much longer."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Again you sound like those Holocaust deniers I debated almost 20 years ago, they loudly proclaiming the debate was over, their side won, the Holocaust was disappearing from history, even while they themselves, like the Wicked Witch of the East from Dorothy's water were rapidly melting away.

Your lying is pathological, Alinsky Joe. You have never debated a holocaust denier, except perhaps in the mirror. Frankly, I think you are a projecting your holocaust denial onto me, like a good little Alinskite.

Why did you avoid my statement about medicine and DNA, Alinsky Joe? Everyone know why. Evolution is 100% useless. It does nothing except corrupt whatever it comes in contact with.

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

>>Kalamata: "You gotta stop lying, Joe. Every geneticist worth his salt knows that speciation is the result of breaking genes, not gaining new ones."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Every geneticist worth his/her salt knows that speciation is the result of changes in DNA, not "gaining" or "breaking" genes.

That is pretty ignorant of you, Alinsky Joe. See if this helps you get up to speed:

"This book, however, concentrates on completely unexpected, devastating new problems that could only have come to light after major recent advances in technical methods for probing the molecular level of life. With surpassing irony it turns out that, as with the polar bear, Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counterintuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully devolutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information. Laboratory experiments, field research, and theoretical studies all forcefully indicate that, as a result, random mutation and natural selection make evolution self-limiting. That is, the very same factors that promote diversity at the simplest levels of biology actively prevent it at more complex ones. Darwin's mechanism works chiefly by squandering genetic information for short-term gain." [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.1]

"Its inexorable predilection to hastily squander genetic information for short-term gain—encapsulated by the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution—guarantees that Darwin's mechanism is powerfully devolutionary and explains why unguided evolution is self-limiting. Ironically, random mutation and natural selection do help form new species and new genera, but chiefly by promoting the loss of genetic abilities. Over time, dwindling degradatory options fence in an evolutionary lineage, halting organismal change before it crosses the family line" [Ibid. Chap.10

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Natural-science is a really big subject."

No doubt, and getting bigger every day. The complexity of the cell is becoming more and more mind-boggling with every new discovery. However, if we get rid of the unnecessary and very heavy baggage of evolutionism, science will be much more managable.

Mr. Kalamata

============================
SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY
============================

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "The honest answer is: maybe, scientifically (as opposed to theologically) we don't know for sure.

We know what God told us. He had his scribes write it down for us so we would have no excuse.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Evolution answers many, but far from all, questions about natural history. It supports and is supported by our understandings in biology, geology, cosmology, physics & medicine, among others.

That is little more than hearsay. I have been seeking those answers that you claim to be "out there" for 7 or 8 years, but all I get are generalities, like the one you just spewed. No one seems to know where to find the evidence for evolution, or any scientific use for evolution. But the fanatics are "certain" someone else knows.

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

>>Kalamata: "Science doesn’t reject anything."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Science absolutely rejects your anti-science ideas.

You are so brainwashed you don't even know what science is. Here, learn from a genius:

"Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask,"How does science show it—how did the scientists find out-how, what, where?" Not science has shown, but this experiment, this effect, has shown. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but we must listen to all the evidence), to judge whether a reusable conclusion has been arrived at." [Feynman, Richard P., "The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works Of Richard Feynman." Perseus Publishing, 1999, p.187]

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

>>Kalamata: "You are lying again, Joe. I would never claim the Bible condemns science. To the contrary. The Bible promotes science."
>>And that is one of your biggest lies. You can only pretend it's true by redefining such words to suit your own nefarious purposes.

Now that I look back, I think it might have been you who claimed the Bible rejected science, or marginalized it. Let's see, you wrote:

"Nothing in the Bible is natural-science as we understand the term. Nor is there any suggestion that the Bible even cares whether it matches to today’s science or not." [Alinsky Joe]

"It’s not a matter of “erasing the Bible from science,” because the Bible was never part of science." [Alinsky Joe]

"Maybe, but the Bible doesn't give a … hoot about science, science is not its purpose." [Alinsky Joe]

It seems you cannot keep track of your own lies, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "But you've observed nothing, zero.Your "science" is theology, nothing else.

I am not an evolutionist, so quit accusing me of being one.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Your theology, by contrast, cannot ever correct itself since it insists it's perfect to begin with. That explains why theologians like Kalamata don't see.

I am not a theologian, but thanks for the promotion, anyway. In a meantime I will continue to expose the faith-based religion disguised as science, called evolutionism.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "There's nothing, zero, of natural-science in such "gems" as you call them. They are the opposite of natural, they are creation by divine supernatural actions.

Of course they are. Jesus created everything, including ocean currents, which were discovered and mapped by this fellow after finding one of those scientific gems in the Bible:

https://creation.com/matthew-maury

The Bible also teaches that the life of the body is in the blood. Too bad for the many who lost their lives to the pseudo-science of blood-letting.

The Bible also teaches us to thoroughly wash with clean water if we become contaminated with blood from another person. Yet, foolish doctors a few centuries ago paraded their blood-stained hands around like a badge of honor, rather than wash them between patients, resulting in countless women dying of infection during childbirth.

Only a fool would ignore the science in the Bible.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Says the denier whose entire argument is a slander on natural-science and even on the Bible he pretends to defend."

Quit lying. I love natural science. That is why I despise the religions of evolutionism and uniformitarian "geology" which have corrupted natural science.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Your purposes here are theological, thinly disguised as science."

That would be you, and all of your fellow evolutionist-faithful.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "One cannot discuss Creationism without getting into theology. My purpose is to defend both traditional theology and natural-science.

Your fanaticism is to slander those who believe the words of Moses, while parading the religion of evolutionism around as if it were real science.

This may come as a surprise to you, but Christians have no choice but to believe the words of Moses: from the creation narrative, to the flood narrative, and forward:

"If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." -- Luk 16:31 KJV

Of course, ignorance is an excuse, until you hear the truth. Then you have no cloak for it.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "You don't speak for science or scientists. You speak only for your own misunderstandings of the Bible.

I speak for real scientists, not evolutionists.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "You are here to cast aspersions on science and its defenders.

Not me. I am here to defend science from the corruption of the religion of evolutionism.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I am here to defend both science and the Bible, properly understood."

How can you defend something you don't understand?

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

>>Kalamata: "That is exactly how the orthodoxy promotes evolutionism — as theology."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I agree that atheists searching for some kind of spiritual meaning may glom onto anything, including science. But I strongly disagree that evolution is necessarily contextualized as a "substitute for religion".

If there was any observable evidence for evolution -- any at all, I would agree. No more than seven or eight years ago I believed there was overwhelming evidence for evolution, because that is what was drummed in my head, Goebbels-style, for about 60 years.

Practically every science book I studied in college gave at least lip service to evolution; and even when problems with the theory were revealed to me later on (such as the lack of transitional fossils by Gould and Eldredge,) the authors never expressed any doubts about the validity of evolution. That is the way it is with a religious cult: they can bicker among themselves, but no one criticizes their god, in this case, the god of Charlie Darwin, the prophet.

But, within this decade, I was encouraged by a friend to take a close look at the strata. I soon realized there was no way there could be millions of years, or even years between those layers -- between any of them: a few months maybe, but not years. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it!

Now, without the baggage of "millions of years" and "common descent," the science of life and earth geology is crystal clear.

Mr. Kalamata

SCIENCE AND THE STATE

>>Joe the Science Denier says, “As for Federal funding, you don’t know what that is or was historically.”

People talk. From what I have heard, funding for science exploded in the middle of the 20th century, mostly because of Russia. U.C. Berkeley states that most scientific research is funded by government grants from agencies such as the NSF and NIH, and from some non-profit foundations for things like Breast Cancer Research.

The following paper, written by and for evolutionary biologists, indicates funding for evolutionary biology comes from the NSF and NIH:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.13497

Yale’s website for the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology states, “The National Science Foundation provides numerous opportunities for training and research for graduate students and undergraduates.”

During college my research was funded primarily by the DOE. I also know that SETI was/is federally funded, as is practically all space research projects.

Private companies tend to fund research that will help the bottom line of their companies, which would exclude almost all, if not all, evolution research.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “It is too late. Evolutionism is the established religion of the United States, thanks to the ACLU, the thugs at the NCSE, and a few tyrannical judges who thought nothing of usurping the power of free expression from the states and the people.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Naw, you call it “religion” because you disagree on religious grounds. Strictly defined & taught, science is the opposite of any religion.

I agree that science is the opposite of religion; and evolutionism is not science, but a faith-based religion. The only way a rational populace will accept it is by force — by the sword of the State.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “If evolutionism was not the established religion of the United States, it could be challenged in the classroom by other theories. But evolutionism has become the modern-day Church of England, which caused the colonists to flee England and come to America.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “There is no other scientific theory. By definition, Creationism and Intelligent Design are theology, not science.

Evolution is not a scientific theory, but a faith-based religion that has been established as the religion of the United States. The other two you mentioned are suppressed scientific theories that preceded evolutionism, but are finally making a comeback.

*******************
>>Kalamata on criticizing evolution: “[Scientists will not question evolution] in the classroom, if they want to obtain tenure; and not in their research, if they want to get published.
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Sure they can, in classrooms on theology, philosophy, history of western civilization, etc.

You are being deceptive again, Alinsky Joe.

*******************
>>Kalamata: “It is always good to know there are lawyers and judges available who can tell everyone what science is.”
>>Joe the Science Denier says, “Or, more precisely, what science is not.

You have to be pretty desperate to recruit a corrupt judge and an even more corrupt legal team to suppress the opposition. Science should be able to stand on its own without the threat of a Galilean type of Inquisition to those simply questioning it.

Mr. Kalamata

============================
PALEONTOLOGY
============================

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Billions of "highly fragmentary" fossils representing hundreds of thousands of identified species, together providing clear evidence of transitional forms, these, for example: [Joey posted the same non-annotated chart of human and ape skulls he showed before]:

I was once fooled by those, like you are. But I now realize there is no way you can tie those together. In fact, you don't know if any of those had children. There may be a few apes mixed in to make it appear they are transitionals; but in reality it would take an enormous number of transitions to honestly identify a transitional line from an ape to a man. It has always been like that, according these anthropologists:

"At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids. Pilbeam assumes that the relationship exists, and has so indicated in a chart he has constructed—although he does leave a huge gap in it, and makes no attempt to link any specific dryopithecid with any living ape." [Johanson & Edey, "Lucy: the Beginnings of Humankind." 1981, p.363]

Lewin implies the highly-imaginative claims to be psychological in nature (and, thus, not scientific):

"[T]he real story of it all has been somewhat obscured: 'namely, what could have led so many eminent scientists to embrace such a forgery?' How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and 'see' a clear simian signature in them; and 'see' in an ape's jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists' expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data." [Roger Lewin, "Bones of Contention." University of Chicago Press, 2Ed, 1997, p.61]

In any case, there are simply too many changes required to go from one to the other, as Ann Gauger is quoted as saying in this article:

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/06/ann_gauger_in_s_1/

If you go to her book and bracket the paragraph that mentions Bramble and Lieberman, it reads:

"How many mutations would it take? Bramble and Lieberman count sixteen features of the human body that first appear in H. erectus or H. sapiens. These features are necessary to stabilize the head, permit counter- rotation of the torso with the head and hips, stabilize the trunk, absorb shock and transfer energy during running. Many of these changes must occur together to be of any benefit.

"Is there enough time to get sixteen anatomical changes by a neo- Darwinian process? Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.

"You don't have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect."

[Gauger et al, "Science and Human Origins." Discovery Institute Press, 2012, pp.24-25]

The bottom line is, it doesn't really matter how you look at it, or in what field, there is no scientific support for evolution. It is all based in imaginitive story-telling.

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolutionism cannot be falsified, because it is not science."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "That's a total lie which, even if you repeat it endlessly, remains a lie."

You are lying again, but in this case out of ignorance.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "There simply is no confirmed evidence falsifying evolution. If there were, you'd present it here in a heartbeat.

I have, but you reject it by pretending the absence of evidence is evidence. The fossil record, according to Steven Stanley, is the ONLY DIRECT EVIDENCE for evolution:

"It is doubtful whether, in the absence of fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous hypothesis... Certainly it would still arouse skepticism. The fossil record, and only the fossil record, provides direct evidence of major sequential changes in the Earth's biota." [Steven M. Stanley, "The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species." Basic Books, 1981, Chap 5, p.72]

However, the fossil record reveals disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by stasis, both of which falsify evolution. Yet, you and other evolutionists reject those falsifications under the umbrella of "sooner or later something will come along," because "WE KNOW evolution is true!" That is not science, but religion.

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

>>Kalamata: "That occurred in the Cambrian, Joe, when all the major phyla, including Chordata, showed up all at once, with no transitional forms."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I can't see a useful distinction between the terms "diversity" and "disparity". For practical purposes they seem to be the same thing, both the result of evolution.

You don't see the distinction because you are ignorant of paleontology. Gould and other paleontologists were troubled by the distinction:

"Several of my colleagues (Jaanusson, 1981; Runnegar, 1987) have suggested that we eliminate the confusion about diversity by restricting this vernacular term to the first sense-number of species. The second sense-difference in body plans-should then be called disparity. Using this terminology, we may acknowledge a central and surprising fact of life's history-marked decrease in disparity followed by an outstanding increase in diversity within the few surviving designs. . . Measured as number of species, Burgess [Shale] diversity is not high. This fact embodies a central paradox of early life: How could so much disparity in body plans evolve in the apparent absence of substantial diversity in number of species? of vertebrates? or of life on land? or simply of multicellular persistence for 600 million difficult years? " [The Meanings of Diversity and Disparity, in Gould, Stephen Jay, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." 1989, Chap. I, pp.48-49]

Observations of the fossil record reveal sudden appearance of particular kinds of animals, followed by speciation of those kinds to into genera; but no new kinds, as follows:

"The sweep of anatomical variety reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination, not expansion. The current earth may hold more species than ever before, but most are iterations upon a few basic anatomical designs." [Gould, Stephen Jay, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." 1989, Chap I, p.46]

Those observations led Gould and Eldredge (and Stanley) to propose a new theory -- a sort of "God of the Gaps" type -- that imagined the main theme of Darwin's theory, common descent, occurring in isolated pockets, of which there is absolutely no evidence.

"Before Niles Eldredge and I proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972, the stasis, or non-change, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting non-evidence for non-evolution. Evolution was defined as gradual transformation in extended fossil sequences, and the overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, non-evolution)." [Gould, Stephen Jay, "Cordelia's Dilemma." Stephen Jay Gould Archive]

They called the theory "Punctuated Equlibria", though it was only marginally different from the "hopeful monster" theory proposed much earlier by Goldschmidt.

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

>>Kalamata: "You yourself are guilty of claiming, in this very thread, that the lack of evidence is evidence."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "You yourself have lied endlessly on this point, no matter how often you've been corrected.

You made the claim, so you are the liar. Of course, you made such claims under the cloak of story-telling, as follows:

"But the “observable evidence” is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.” [Joey]

"[Gould] 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." [Joey]

Pure story-telling.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are severely scientifically-challenged, Joe. There is no evidence any of those handful of fragmented, fossilized land animal forms ever had babies, nor ever had any whale features. Gingrich and Thewissen made it all up, and Carl Werner exposed their charlantry."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Your mind is severely corrupted if you suppose that pre-historical creatures didn't normally reproduce.

Quit lying. I didn't say that pre-historical creatures didn't normally reproduce. I said there is no evidence the handful of so-called "whale-transition" animals ever reproduced.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "As for your alleged "handful of fragmented" fossils, there are far more than a handful, and the numbers grow every year.

You are lying. The evidence for whale transitional animals is no more observable today than when Phil Gingrich imagined the scheme in the early 1980's with this unscientific paper:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDFfiles/PDG132_JGeolEdu.pdf

The darkened areas on the skull and jaw are the only fossils he found, and yet he was "able" to imagine the pictured seal-like creature. Evolutionists have vivid imaginations.

Later, one of this former students, Hans Thewissen, found a more complete skeleton, which is found on page 279 of this article:

http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/bio202/202-2002/Lectures%2020202/thesissen%20et%20al%202001.pdf

According to Thewissen, it is the skeleton of a a swift land animal, such as this artist rendition (the one on the right):

The one on the left was the original imaginary creature.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "As for whether those fossils were land or sea animals, which one is Ursus maritimus?

Why the misdirection, Alinsky Joe? Bears are members of the bear kind, nothing else.

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

>>Kalamata: "There is no blowhole. He imagined it!"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "The blow-hole is irrelevant because, for example, this animal has no defined blow-hole, but is also very much a sea creature:

That is a seal, dummy, not a whale.

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

>>Kalamata: "It is a walrus, Joe, with two nostrils."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Regardless of whether you call them "nostrils" or "blow-holes", the walrus is still very much a sea-creature.

Yes, and it is called a Walrus, not a whale.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, they are two sleazy scientists who were trying to make a name for themselves by fudging the data. There was no science involved."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Says our theologian in chief.

Says Joe "I don't know no stinkin' evidence"

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

>>Kalamata: "That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel’s Embryos; and, now, fraudulent “whale evolution”.
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Science, by its very nature is supposed to be self correcting.

It is also loaded with dishonest religious fanatics, such as Darwin, Lyell, Haeckel, Gingrich, Thewissen, Dawkins and Shermer, whose theology trumps science.

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

>>Kalamata: "There you go again, pretending the absence of evidence is evidence."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "And there you go again with bald-faced lies.

You said it, and now you deny it? That is what I have come to expect from the evolutionism cult. These are your words:

"But the "observable evidence" is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing." [Alinsky Joe]

As everyone can see, Alinsky Joe disputed my previous statement by imagining there is missing evidence -- 99% missing, in fact -- with the implication that the proof would be found in the missing evidence.

You are a shameless liar, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am speechless."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Of course, because contrary to your claims, you have no real clue as to how science-discovery works.

I am speechless about the extent to which you have been brainwashed.

Mr. Kalamata

============================
BIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION
============================

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Nowhere did Linnaeus provide evidence as to where biological "barriers" might exist between different categories of life."

This is Linnaeus:

"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]

How do you interpret the underlined words?

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

>>Kalamata: "I see you learned how to use Wikipedia. Michael Behe is probably the most brilliant scientist on earth, except for perhaps the organic chemist James Tour. It is a tossup."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "So there are three (including you) who hate natural-science and wish to replace it with their own unique theology. Wonderful.

They, like me, want to chase the theology of evolutionism out of science.

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

>>Kalamata: "That’s it. But his [Behe's] new book will propel him into history as the one who exposed the fraud called common descent."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Or, more likely, toss his already tarnished reputation onto the trash-heap of history.

The only thing that would tarnish Michael Behe's stellar reputation would be to embrace the religious cult of evolutionism.

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

>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Neither of which translates to "family", and both of which mistranslate the Biblical work "kind".

That is correct. Linnaeus didn't use the word "family". He used the word "kind", and expressed it as multiple genera, which would place "kind" at what is now known as the family level.

"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." [Stephen Freer, "Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica." Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]

It certainly appears that Linnaeus is grouping multiple genera within a single kind.

In discussing Linnaeus and classification, Michael Behe made this observation:

"Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin's vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos. But no, nothing. A surprising but compelling conclusion is that Darwin's mechanism has been wildly overrated—it is incapable of producing much biological change at all." [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.6]

Behe also reminded us that the classification system is a human invention. From his "tone" I assume he was cautioning us against getting too caught in human-devised schemes and processes.

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

>>Kalamata: "The Word of God implies as much, when 2 of each kind went aboard the ark with Noah; and when later God said to multiply AFTER their respective kinds."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Which is nowhere defined in any scientific sense.

The created kind is observable science. Even children can tell the difference between the dog kind, the cat kind, and the human kind.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: "Real scientists were not the target of James Tour’s lecture."

Real scientists will take Tour's claims of "impossible" as challenges for future research.

Kalamata: "Charlie Darwin’s theory is so shady the evolutionism cult must appeal to lawyers and judges to browbeat the opposition into accepting it."

Your word "shady" describes efforts of anti-evolutionists to describe alleged "intelligent design" as anything other than theological Creationism.
I agree that both should be taught in public schools, but as theology, not science.

Kalamata: "Lies are lies.
Wild extrapolations are also lies, when hyped as the truth, like the Origin of Life cult does."

Science, properly defined, is not about words like philosophical "truth", or religious "belief" or "faith", but rather it's about confirmed observations & explanations = theories.
Most Origin of Life ideas today do not rise to the level of hypotheses, much less theory or observed fact.

Kalamata: "Your heros are promoters of the global warming scam: Michael Shermer:"

So, does this mean you believe Shermer is wrong about the Holocaust?

Kalamata quoting: " Prothero noticed that global warming skeptics and climate deniers employed the same tactics as creationists: focusing on minor anomalies in the data, interpreting normal scientific debates as indications that mainstream science is flawed, and quote mining experts to make it sound as if they were saying something in support of their denialist cause."

I never heard of Prothero, but his point here is the same as mine: deniers use the same tactics.
I do know how Holocaust deniers think because I debated some of them for many months, in a format similar to this one.
I see those same tactics coming from Kalamata, so I know something is fishy here.

In Kalamata's defense, seriously: Holocaust deniers were vulgar, hate-filled people, insulting beyond anything allowable on Free Republic.
In no way does Kalamata personally compare to them.
But his tactics are the same, including personal disparagements.
Nor do I find any rigorous honesty in Kalamata's own responses.
When faced with the choice of a weak-but-honest answer, versus a strong-but-dishonest one, Kalamata invariably choses the latter.

That makes you a propagandist, FRiend.

Kalamata: "You have some mighty strange heroes, Alinsky Joe."

Speaking of Alinsky, there's another name I don't remember hearing as recently as 20 years ago.
Alinsky became much better known along with the rising political ambitions of his most famous disciple, Mrs. Clinton.
But I don't remember mentioning "rules for radicals" to Holocaust deniers, though in hind-sight they seemingly "got it".

In that context, let's see if we can observe from Kalamata and others the basic "Rules for Deniers"?

First, foremost & always: ignore all data which contradicts your own claims.
Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific.
Begin your presentation with a large collection of quotes & references -- some meticulously sourced, others mis-quotes, out of context & dubious provenance.
Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments.
Equate defeat on his weakest points to defeat on every point -- "wrong on one = wrong on all."
Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.
For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc.
If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down.
OK to personally insult, disparage & malign.
Guilt by association: if your opponent knows somebody who was wrong about something, then he is wrong about everything!
When all else fails, remember rule #1.

I admit, this may not be the complete list, but it's as good as I can do for right now.
Near as I can tell, our propagandist Kalamata slavishly follows all these rules here.

Kalamata: "Suppose you tell why any private entity would fund Origin of Life research?"

Miller-Urey was done at the University of Chicago, 1952, and California.

"In October 2018, researchers at McMaster University announced the development of a new technology, called a Planet Simulator, to help study the origin of life on planet Earth and beyond.[117][118][119][120]
It consists of a sophisticated climate chamber to study how the building blocks of life were assembled and how these prebiotic molecules transitioned into self-replicating RNA molecules.[117] "

Kalamata: "I am not buying for a minute that Alinsky Joe has ever debated a holocaust denier.
He is a proven liar, not to mention being a rabid evolutionist.
Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the “’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove."

Right, see my "Rules for Deniers" above, this would again be rule #5 -- accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.

Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe lives in the world of the logical gutter; and his hatred of Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews is undeniable."

"Gutter" -- now there's a word from the lexicon of Holocaust deniers.
The rest is a total lie, I serve such people every day.

Kalamata: "His heros, the devout atheists, climate change propagandists, and abortion advocates, Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, have taught him well how to become an expert in the use of slander and ad hominems against anyone who speaks out against his warped view of what is and what is not science.":

More lies and from someone who pretends to defend the Bible, bearing false witness.
Kalamata is obviously the trained propagandist here.

Kalamata: "Substitute the phrase “holocaust denier” for “creationism denier” or “intelligent design denier” in the belligerant rants of any Darwin-hugging bigot, and you will see there is no difference in tactics: same insults, same slander, same nonsense."

Again we see Rule #5 above.

Kalamata: "Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?
It sounds like that is what you are saying."

I don't doubt God's Word, but I don't believe some of what you claim it means.

Kalamata: "I don’t see anything in the bible, or in observational science, that points to man evolving from an ape, or a frog. "

Genesis tells us that God began with dirt, does not say how He got to man.
Science tries to answer that question naturally.

Kalamata: "There are boatloads of evidence for the holocaust, dummy.
None for evolutionism."

Right, just like a Holocaust denier can spend all day in a Holocaust museum and never see a shred of evidence.
It's amazing, really.

Kalamata: "As an aside, Dr. David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute, an “evolutionism denier” and therefore a “holocaust denier” by association, according to the dark mind of Alinsky Joe, came from Jewish parents who fled the Nazi’s... "

So here's one example where Kalamata could easily tell the truth but chose to lie instead.
The truth is, any comparison of different groups of deniers is in the tactics they use to deny, not necessarily any similarity in beliefs.

Kalamata: "I asked for scientific evidence, Alinsky Joe, not just-so stories and fake lineages."

Right, just like Holocaust deniers see no evidence in a Holocaust museum.

Kalamata: "Get a hold of yourself, Alinsky Joe.
There is plenty of evidence for the holocaust in a holocaust museum.
Go look for yourself!
On the other hand, there is no evidence for evolution in a natural history museum."

Right, Kalamata will not back down, even though he must realize that he's using the same deniers' tactics.
I still maintain that Kalamata, however insulting he seems here, is nowhere near the vulgarians of Holocaust denial.

Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe became completely unhinged when I asked him for scientific evidence for evolutionism, rather than the typical just-so stories, imaginary tree diagrams, and the wildly imaginative museum mockups that the evolutionism cult typically feeds the unwashed masses."

"Unhinged" describes our deniers' responses to actual evidence -- "that's not evidence!" they claim.

Kalamata: "Quit denying the fact that there is no evidence for your religion, Alinsky Joe.
Either that, or point us to EMPIRICAL, OBSERVABLE, SCIENTIFIC evidence."

My religion is Christianity, for which there is lot's of evidence.
Scientific evidence for evolution can be observed in any natural history museum, while explanations of evolution theory can be found in any book on the subject.

Kalamata: "The evolution cult has had 160 years to find evidence to support Charlie Darwin’s lame-brain theory, and there was even less evidence 40 years ago, than there was in Charlie’s day, according to this fellow:

'We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much.' "

Remember that number from 40 years ago: 250,000 fossil species, and yet like a true propagandist, our author claims "the situation hasn't changed much"!

That's pure nonsense -- in fact 250,000 species in total means there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of species in any major sequence.
And yet the quote claims fossil sequences are still more "jerky" and evolution more "complex" than he'd like.
Well, sorry, it is what it is, and estimates are still that 99%+ of all species which ever lived have never been found.
So regardless of how many dozens we do have in any sequence, there are still hundreds or thousands more yet to be found.

Kalamata: "There is even less today, now that the whale evolution myth has been exposed, and Haeckel’s fake embryos have been removed from most of our children’s textbooks.
Haeckel’s embryos have been retained only in books written by a few die-hard fanatics, such as the atheist and antichristian bigot, Donald Prothero, one of Alinsky Joe’s heroes."

And yet another example where Kalamata could easily have chosen to tell the truth -- truth would not have damaged his argument at all -- but he chose to lie instead, why?
The truth is I never heard of Prothero before Kalamata introduced him, and yet Kalamata falsely declares Prothero a "hero".
I conclude from this that Kalamata himself hates the truth and loves lies, loves lying, seemingly just for the thrill of it...

Kalamata: "Facts are facts, Alinsky Joe.
The fact that you don’t have any facts supporting your cult demonstrates that it is founded on religion, not science."

The fact that you can spend all day in a natural history museum and not see any evidence of evolution demonstrates that you are a denier, based on your religious beliefs.

Kalamata: "I see that geology and paleontology are not your strong suits, Alinsky Joe."

I see that anti-geology and anti-paleontology are your strong suits, FRiend.

Kalamata: "It is your deceptive link, Alinsky Joe.
Show us the evidence from it.
Pick one."

Step 1: click the link.
Step 2: read the page.
Step 3: respond if you wish.

Kalamata: "Everything you say is a lie, Alinsky Joe."

From Denier Rules #1 & #7, post #272.

Kalamata: "There is only evidence in the world-wide strata for a global flood; no asteroid strikes."

Again, From Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "That is evidence for a global flood; nothing else."

Still again, From Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "I never dispute evidence of any kind."

A total lie (denier rules #2 & #6) since you dispute all evidence which contradicts your religious beliefs.

Kalamata: "When I finally saw the evidence (the geological column) I realized we have been conned."

I'm certain you're lying to claim you'd never seen the geological column, since it's in any textbook on the subject and you can see it yourself on any highway cut through mountains.
So doubtless what changed was not the facts, but your perspective on them.

Kalamata: "You can tell the lies of Alinsky Joe are being exposed when he throws out the “Holocaust Card”. "

In my experience, deniers use the same tactics regardless of their subject.

Kalamata: "You are the one using the same debating tactics with the same religious fervor as holocaust deniers?"

That is Rule #5, post #272.

Kalamata: "You are more naive than even I thought."

That's rule #7.

Kalamata: "He found the fossils in museum and museum drawers that came from dinosar dig sites:"

Right, so their provenances & in situ conditions are completely unknown.
In short, they are worthless as evidence falsifying evolution theory.

Kalamata: "The geologic column and fossil record supports world-wide catastrophe, not uniformitarian gradualism."

Multiple catastrophes as illustrated here:

Kalamata quoting Ager, 1993: "In other words, we have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into avoiding any interpretation of the past that involves extreme and what might be termed ‘catastrophic’ processes.
However, it seems to me that the stratigraphical record is full of examples of processes that are far from ‘normal’ in the usual sense of the word.
In particular we must conclude that sedimentation in the past has often been very rapid indeed and very spasmodic."

The geological record is fully recognized as including any number of catastrophic events, as graphed above.

Kalamata: "So? Where are the dinosaur transitions?"

You can see the fossils in any natural history museum, any textbook will explain what we know & think.
These are from 2018 &1016:
Kalamata: "That is enough lies out of you for one day, Alinsky Joe."

That is rule #7.

Kalamata: "Two of the leftists on your most-admired list, atheists Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, are global warming propagandists."

Never before heard of Prothero, so you can stop lying about that.

I do admire Shermer for his work debunking Holocaust deniers.
Should I take your words here to mean you disagree with Shermer on the Holocaust?

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

No, I'm a shameless truth-teller, but you have yet to violate even one of my discovered "Rules for Deniers", post #272 above.

Kalamata: "I now know why you brought it up.
I could not understand why someone claiming to be a Freeper would stoop as low as a CNN anchor, so I did a little background research from the works of those you admire — well-known bigots such as Dawkins, Shermer, Prothero, et al.."

Calling atheists "bigots" is a bit rich, setting that aside:

"Prothero": never heard of before you named him.
"Dawkins": did hear of, never read, from what I know, Dawkins is an atheist whose theological views I disagree with.
"Shermer": have read, liked & used his book opposing Holocaust deniers, nothing else.

Kalamata: "I soon learned that the act of applying the label of “holocaust denier” to those who reject the foolishness of evolutionism/atheism was the easiest way of dehumanizing them.
That is, by marginalizing or dehumanizing those who believe in the creation narrative of Moses, athiests have been successful in suppressing opposition to the alternate creation narrative given to them by their prophet, Charlie Darwin."

Here's what I know for certain: nearly 20 years ago, when I debated at length Holocaust deniers, they were vastly more vulgar than Kalamata, but that aside, the rest of their tactics, techniques & patterns were the same as yours. FRiend.
In post #272 above I tried to boil down those similarities into a set of practices I'm calling, "Rules for Deniers".

Kalamata: "That is exactly the same tactic the radical left uses against conservatives when they play the Race Card or the Nazi Card; and that is exactly the same tactic the Nazis used against the Jews.
You will find a lot of holocaust deniers in that mix, but they are okay with Joe as long as they do not criticize Darwin."

I'm saying this: as long as you follow my "Rules for Deniers", you're a denier, period.
Do you want to stop being a denier??
Then break my "rules"! Tell the truth! Stop substituting insults for data.

Kalamata: "When you get tired of trying to dehumanizing me, perhaps you will take the time to show us some scientific evidence for evolutionism."

You can find evidence in any natural-history museum.
You can find explanations in any text book on the subject.

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

I have never denied God, though have not always agreed with those who claim to speak for Him.

Kalamata: "Quit lying.
The (not so) “Wise Geek” report is fake news, based on old inferences."

That report is accurate and reasonably up-to-date.

Kalamata: "Quit lying. I never suggested the ENCODE researchers were anti-evolution."

But you agree with Draur -- and proclaimed it here -- that if ENCODE is right, then evolution must be wrong.

Kalamata: "It was your buddy, the sociopath Dan Graur, who suggested they were anti-evolution."

I never before heard of Draur, but you have used his words to support your own anti-evolution theology.
So, is Graur your "buddy"?

Kalamata: "Quit lying.
The 5% number was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report.
The later 2012 report, which released Dan Graur’s rage against ENCODE, was 80% and counting."

But ENCODE never claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" by evolution.
ENCODE's number -- according to your own quotes, should I doubt them? -- ENCODE's number is in the 5% to 10% range.

Kalamata: "Earlier you falsely claimed that I said the ENCODE researchers were “anti-evolution”.
Do you lie so much you can’t keep track of all of your lies?"

Hmmmmm… when it suits Kalamata's purposes you claim to agree with Draur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be wrong.
I took that to mean you were claiming ENCODE is anti-evolution, but I see now there is huge subtilty in your argument.

Kalamata: "You are being deceptive about DNA.
Darwin knew nothing about DNA."

Sure, Darwin new nothing about DNA, so he based his theory on comparative morphologies and observed species modifications in domesticated plants & animals.
DNA came later and confirmed what Darwin first proposed.

Kalamata: "Modern evolutionism theory is based on lies, such as the human and chimpanzee having 98.5% similar DNA."

No lies, but there are several legitimate ways to count & calculate DNA comparisons.

99.5% of human DNA is identical.
That calculation is 20 million base pairs out of 3.4 billion total.
96% to 98% similar, or analogous, humans to chimp DNA -- a looser standard than "identical".
90% cats similar to humans.
And so on...

Sure, different methods of calculating will give different results, but the overall picture remains the same: fossils, morphology and DNA confirm evolution theory.

Kalamata: "You are lying about the fossil record, which shows nothing but a bunch of minealized dead things, none of which have a time stamp."

No, in fact, there are dozens of different time stamps, sometimes several for one site.
Worldwide they are consistent in showing the ages of geological strata & fossils.

Kalamata: "You are lying.
I have never misquoted Graur, nor Li."

But on nearly any matter in which I myself know the truth, you've not told it.

Kalamata: "You are lying.
That quote, and the 5% number, was from the 2007 Pilot Project Report, not the 2012 report."

But ENCODE never disputed or significantly changed that number, according to your own quotes.

Kalamata: "You are being deceitful.
Collins has always been a evolutionist, as far as I know, and I have never disputed it.
I was an evolutionist for most of my long life, so there is still hope for him."

You have on this thread used evolutionist Collins and ENCODE's report to argue against evolution, even enlisting Draur's critique for that purpose.
None of those people agree with you.

Kalamata: "Perhaps you are simply scientifically-challenged, or you cannot read.
Or perhaps you believe your own lies."

Those words clearly tell us you have no reasonable argument, so you've resorted to insults.

Kalamata: "You are being deceitful.
That statement was from a New York Times article about Collins and ENCODE."

Which I reported accurately.

Kalamata: "You are being deceitful.
No where in the ENCODE report does it say anything like that."

Nowhere in any ENCODE report you've quoted does it say more than 10% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution, oh, deceitful one.

Kalamata: "How do you respond to a nut who believes that, if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right?"

So... how do I respond to Kalamata?
Answer: as truthfully and as kindly as possible, under the circumstances.

Kalamata: "Perhaps I should re-label you, “Joe the Science Denier”."

Coming from Kalamata that would be an honor similar to "deplorable" and "irredeemable".

Kalamata: "The definitions haven’t changed.
Human evolution is a myth, and has always been a myth.
The latter number was from a report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science on a research paper by a Swiss team."

Right, that 95% number is not from ENCODE, and so far as Kalamata has quoted, not responded to by ENCODE.
So, to summarize, Kalamata uses Draur to claim ENCODE disproves evolution (even though ENCODE would deny it) and then trashes both Draur and ENCODE in favor of a European report which increases the percent of DNA "influenced" by evolution from 5% to 95%.

All of which, according to Kalamata shows there's no evolution.

Kalamata: "Whenever evolution is falsified, it is a simple matter to repackage it using brand-new imaginary “proofs”, and call it . . . [drum roll] . . . “EVOLUTION!”
In other words, it cannot be falsified.
The orthodoxy will not let it be falsified."

Nonsense, but there is hugely more granularity in our understandings today about how evolution works than Darwin could even imagine.
That's one reason the term "Darwinism" is not normally used outside its historical context.
As for falsifications, it's a simple matter of confirming scientifically that elephants and dinosaurs roamed together, side by side.

Kalamata: "Much has already been “presented”; but nothing will be accepted by the orthodoxy unless the presenter kisses the ring of Charlie Darwin."

Anyone who wishes to "disprove" Darwin scientifically will need to begin by explaining exactly what they understand of Darwin and agree with, then point by point scientifically, where & why they disagree, and what they think the "truth" of each point is.

If your arguments against Darwin include, "the Bible tells me so", then we know you are talking theology, not natural-science.

Kalamata: "You are being deceptive, again!
That blog post was based in part on “research” by the sociopath, Dan Graur."

So, Kalamata uses Graur to show that "constrained" = "restrained" but then you trash Graur for reporting that only 5% of DNA is strongly "constrained" = "restrained".
And you claim that's not deceptive?

Kalamata: "I see you are still pushing the deception that, “the absence of evidence IS evidence” (for “evolution”, that is)."

I see you still can't control your overwhelming urge to lie.

Kalamata: "If you are not lying or being deceptive, you are sleeping.
Frankly, I really believe you are a “Science Denier”."

So, it seems you have no hesitancy to lie and call me a "God denier", but "Science Denier" seems a bit more difficult for you to lie about.
Curious.

Kalamata: "What difference does that make to a Science Denier like you?"

So, seriously, if your only answer is to insult me, it means you have no real idea what you're talking about.

Kalamata: "Not according to YOUR definition of “honesty”, which is, “it is okay to lie to defend the religion of evolutionism”."

Nonsense, dishonesty & lies are not acceptable in any legitimate defense of our ideals.

Kalamata: "Says the liar and deceiver, but I repeat myself."

No human can claim to be perfectly truthful, because objectively, none of us know the whole truth.
The best we can do is work to be faithful to our ideals and reality, as best we understand them.

So I would not hold Kalamata morally culpable for many of your misstatements here, and for much of the rest, I'd set those aside as just sins of passion -- 2nd degree rather than premeditated cold blooded lying.
The balance I'd overlook.

But I'd never pretend that any of it is true or even necessarily honest, FRiend.

Kalamata: "You are the liar.
Prove it.
Show us the fossils.
Not the models — the fossils."

Here is a listing of natural history museums, by state.

This textbook was last updated in 2002, but should be a good start:

Kalamata: "You are lying.
Show us the observable evidence.
Just-so stories don’t count."

You can see evidence whenever you wish.
As for "just so", of course those count, since you'll define anything which doesn't match your theology as "just so".
Science has a different definition.

Kalamata: "You are lying.
The inventors of your model have no clue how many people were living before 3,000 B.C.
The only historical record we have of those living about 3,000 B.C. are the 8 that were on the Ark."

The archaeologic record is full of clues and gives evidence of civilizations in 3000 BC:

But regardless of how many people you claim were alive in 3000 BC -- even if that number is essentially zero -- your mathematical formula does not accurately describe total population growth from then to now.

Kalamata: "What does your chart full of skulls prove? "

It shows very gradual transition forms -- from pre-humans ~3 million years ago, to modern humans.
In other words, it shows exactly what you claim doesn't exist.

Kalamata quoting Lewis 1997: "Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of human origins for nearly half a century now that the line of true man, the line of Homo — large brain, tool making and so on — has a separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years.
And the ape-man, Australopithecus, has nothing to do with human ancestry."

And they may well prove correct -- the homo sapiens evolutionary tree seems to have several dead branches and considerable interbreeding among some branches.

Kalamata quoting Leaky 1981: "The major gap, often referred to as the ‘fossil void’, is between eight and four million years ago."

Since 1981 there have been at least a dozen new discoveries in that "fossil void", three million years and older.
The chart above shows 161 individuals represented in three species.
At the link above I count 17 species older than "Lucy", 3.2 million years ago.

Kalamata quoting Jerry Coyne, 2009: "That oft-quoted 1.5 percent difference between ourselves and chimps, then is really larger than it looks … More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren’t found in any form in chimpanzees."

Again, all depending on what you count and how you calculate.
The fact remains that regardless of how you count or calculate, according to DNA, chimps & bonobos are humans closest living relatives.

Kalamata: "There is no evidence that apes evolved into man — not in the fossil record, not from observation of the living, and not from DNA."

There is literal tons of evidence and no evidence to support any other scientific theory.

Kalamata: "Did you already forget, Alinsky Joe?
Recent secular research backs up Behe’s research.
Of course."

But you can't "back up" lies with more lies.
Surely, your word "secular" does not translate to "recognized scientifically".
What it doubtless means, oh, deceiving one, is "Creationists pretending at science".

Kalamata: "Joe the Holocaust Denier wrote, “Right, just like the Holocaust.”"

Obviously, this conversation has so unhinged you, you can no longer even construct a rational insult.

Might be time for Kalamata to take a break, clear your head, FRiend.

Kalamata: "Baloney.
There is no way to date the layers.
But the evidence is overwhelming that the layers were deposited rapidly, on top of each other.
The flatness and purity of the layers is evidence of hydrologic sorting:"

There are dozens of different methods to date geological strata, all of which produce consistent ancient-earth results.
As for "flatness and purity", you yourself have posted a photo of layers which are anything but.

Finally, this whole suggestion of "hydrologic sorting" is pure fantasy, precisely the kind of conjecturing you claim science is not supposed to do, right?

Kalamata: "Similar flatness and purity can be found in the coal layers:"

And yet, in no conceivable way can coal layers be explained by alleged "hydrologic sorting".

Kalamata: "A bench is a sedimentary rock layer between coal seams.
Some benches are only a few inches thick, which rules out the "swamp" theory of coal formation."

Complete rubbish, since swamps can quickly come & go, as water levels rise & fall.

Kalamata: "Another problem with the uniformitarian theory is missing layers.
Approximately 100 million years of layering is missing between the Muav and Temple Butte limestone in the Grand Canyon."

Wait, 100 million years missing from a young earth?
No, that's only inexplicable to your fantasy "hydrologic sorting".
In real geology it simply represents a geological period without deposits at that particular site.

"The next two periods of geologic history, the Ordovician and the Silurian, are missing from the Grand Canyon sequence.[25]
Geologists do not know if sediments were deposited in these periods and were later removed by erosion or if they were never deposited in the first place.[31]"

It happens I know a little about Ordovician and Silurian deposits because years ago I went fossil hunting there near Niagara Falls.
Their missing from the Grand Canyon simply says the land then wasn't under water (more likely, imho), or such deposits as were made, later eroded away (possible).
This map shows Silurian deposits in New York and near the Grand Canyon, but not necessarily in it.

Kalamata: "Strata are typically flat (e.g., the same thickness, everywhere), yet they should show extensive erosion over long periods of time.
There is also virtually non-existent bioturbation (from soil-boring critters), which should be common in these sedimentary layers."

Strata are typically laid down flat but often then folded into synclines & anticlines, which do erode considerably.
"Bioturbation" is sometimes found in fossils, here are two examples -- Stromatilites and Planolite:

Kalamata: "There are also marine (ocean) fossils in almost every sedimentary layer, including the top ones.
That in itself is evidence of a global flood."

It's evidence that those layers were under water when formed.

>>Kalamata: "Real scientists were not the target of James Tour’s lecture."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Real scientists will take Tour's claims of "impossible" as challenges for future research."

Fools will. The wise know that it is God that gives life.

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

>>Kalamata: "Charlie Darwin’s theory is so shady the evolutionism cult must appeal to lawyers and judges to browbeat the opposition into accepting it."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Your word "shady" describes efforts of anti-evolutionists to describe alleged "intelligent design" as anything other than theological Creationism. I agree that both should be taught in public schools, but as theology, not science.

If the schools and parents object to having the religion of evolution rammed down the children's throats, you can always send in the federal troops.

I seem to recall that "scientists" who clung to the pagan philosophies of Ptolemy and Aristotle in the days of Galileo, also required the assistance of the sword of the State to "stay in business".

I just recalled an organization titled Alliance for the Separation of School and State. That is long overdue.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Your heros are promoters of the global warming scam: Michael Shermer:"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "So, does this mean you believe Shermer is wrong about the Holocaust.

I always question the motives of fanatical antichristian bigots, as well as fanatical promoters of atheism. In the case of Shermer, he is both.

Shermer is wrong in the way he abuses the memory of the holocaust victims to promote his wicked agenda? You, likewise.

For example, in Shermer's book, he marginalized the memory of the holocaust victims by attempting to conflate holocaust deniers with those who are attempting to expose the evil of the very theory that helped precipitate the holocaust in the first place. That, in itself, is a valid reason to question his motives, if not to denounce them.

It is much more likely the holocaust would have never happened, if not for Charlie Darwin's books. It was Darwin who marginalized humans with his insane ape-to-man myth: the same humans who in western civilization almost universally believed to have been made in the image of God, until Charlie came along.

The teaching of ape-to-man evolution eventually became mandatory in German public schools, which made it much easier for the Nazi's to apply their "Racial Science" to naive school children:

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

We cannot ignore the contribution of Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and his promotion of the un-natural selection of man, called eugenics:

"I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations. . . I conclude that each generation has enormous power over the natural gifts of those that follow, and maintain that it is a duty we owe to humanity to investigate the range of that power, and to exercise it in a way that, without being unwise towards ourselves, shall be most advantageous to future inhabitants of the earth." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, Intro., p.2]

Darwin himself was caught up in the "euphoria" of un-natural selection:

"I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges),1 but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original. And how well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself just in the same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these later chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference." [Letter to Francis Galton, Dec 23, 1870, in Darwin, Charles, "More Letters of Charles Darwin, a Record of His Works in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Vol II." John Murray, 1903, p.41]

[1. Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences, by Francis Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865" is the heading of a section of this work (p. 55). See Descent ofMan (1901), p. 41.]

Charlie was referring to Galton's notion that man's gifts were all hereditary, including his work ethic:

"the combination of high intellectual gifts, tact in dealing with men, power of expression in debate, and ability to endure exceedingly hard work, is hereditary." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, p.110]

It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over. And don't forget the the other 20th century butchers: Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

It is past time the world is freed from the evil religion of evolutionism.

Mr. Kalamata