Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>Kalamata post #361: "Joey uses exactly the same smear tactics as his buddies on the Far-Left. What he will not tell you is, he is an apologist for the anti-Christian ACLU communists and their war on the free exercise of religion, nor will he tell you that his religion of evolutionism was one of the chief holocaust enablers, not to mention the enabler of eugenics, virulent racism, and the other 20th century butchers: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot."
>>Joey Denier: "That's an amazing rant, not a word of truth in it -- something I would fully expect from a Holocaust denier and now also confirmed in an evolution denier. Denial is denial, despicable tactics are the same, only the subject matter changes."

It is all true.

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

>>Kalamata:"From the beginning, the theories of evolution and uniformitarianism were used to deceive people, especially children, into doubting the Word of God. That was one of the stated goals of Charles Lyell:"
>>Joey Denier: "The alleged response in 1880 of the Bishop of Birmingham’s wife on learning that Charles Darwin claimed human beings were descended from monkeys, she is reported to have said to her husband, ‘My dear, let us hope it is not true; but, if it is true, let us hope it will not become generally known.’ That story is certainly apocryphal, first invented in 1893 by one pastor Robert Forman Horton, and his point was: Don't Fear the Truth!.

This is Satan's helper, Charlie Lyell, in his own words:

"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]

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

>>Kalamata:"Don't be fooled by Joey's sanctimonious sophistry. He is the consummate science denier. There is now, and has been, a virtual army of paleontologists, biologists, and genetic researchers, worldwide, seeking evidence for evolution; and what have they found: Nothing! There is not a shred of evidence for evolution to be found anywhere: not in day-to-day observations, not in the fossil record, not in biology, and especially not in genetics. There is plenty of evidence for devolution (the loss of genetic information), but none for evolution (the gain in genetic information)."
>>Joey Denier: "And still more absurd nonsense, Kalamata Rules #1, #2, #5, #6, #7 & #13."

It is all true.

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

>>Kalamata:"You are lying, Joey. God told us that, at the beginning of creation, he formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils"
>>Joey Denier: "Right, that's just what I said, meaning: if I lied saying it, you're also lying now."

That is not what you said in #244:

[Joey Denier] "As for our ancestors, the Bible teaches we were made from mud! Sounds amazingly like abiogenesis to me."

Mud? Abiogenesis? Where is that in the text, Joey? It appears you are trying to squeeze man-invented "mud-to bacteria-to apes-to man over millions of years" out of this verse:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" -- Gen 2:7 KJV

And there is more to the story:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them . . . And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day . . . And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul . . . Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Gen 1:26,27,31, 2:7, 9:6; Mar 10:6 KJV

As you can see, God said man and woman were created at the beginning of creation, not many billions of years afterward, as Charlie Darwin imagined, and as Joey teaches.

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

>>Kalamata:"God NEVER said man evolved from a bacteria, or a frog, or an ape, before breathing the breath of life into his nostrils. Only a deceiver would add words to the scripture and pretend they belong there."
>>Joey Denier: "Well... first, natural science in general does not add a single word to scripture because science only deals in natural explanations for natural processes. So scripture is outside the limits of science."

In one instance you claim your teachings are biblical, and in next you claim the bible is outside the scope of your doctrine. I call that speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

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

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

Science doesn't suggest anything of the sort, Joey; but you would have been a good Pharisee.

Mr Kalamata

>>mdmathis6 to bwest: "The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology. The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument. Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost."
>>Joey Denier: "Right, by definition of the term "natural science", it is strictly bounded by natural explanations for natural processes. If you bring God into it, then you are "thinking outside the box" of science, and that, again by definition, is non-science.

Always take the whole armour of God:

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." -- Eph 6:12-16 KJV

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

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

The worn-out canard that the study of science requires the absence of God hinders science, rather than advance it. Spending time and resources trying to prove Charlie right is not science, regardless of whether God is brought into the picture, or not. Bring God into the picture and you instantly get rid of the parasites -- those pretending to be scientists, whose only claim to fame is hating Christians, God, and traditional morality.

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

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

The advancement of science went quite well under the auspices of the great scientists named Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and other devout Christians, prior to the atheist takeover and suppression of all things not atheistic. And if you really stop and think about it, not one thing from the works of Lyell and Darwin has contributed to the advancement of science. Not one! Evolution was never about science, but power.

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

>>Joey Denier: "Now our FRiend Kalamata here has addressed this issue by claiming, astoundingly, that God Himself and His miracles are "natural"."

Joey has trouble with the truth. I never claimed a miracle to be "natural." God, on the other hand, has revealed himself via his Word to be both natural and spiritual. He took on the seed of Abraham to teach us the way of salvation. The last time I checked, the seed of Abraham were and are "natural"; therefore, Jesus was a natural seed of Abraham during his ministry.

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." -- Heb 13:8 KJV

Heretics are defined in this manner:

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." -- 2Pet 2:1 KJV

Jesus said:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV

There is at least one poster on this thread who denies those words of the Lord, and it is not me.

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

>>Joey Denier: "I've never before heard such a claim and doubt if it would withstand even theological scrutiny, much less pass scientific muster."

You are ignorant of both science and theology, Joey, so your opinions are little more than bluster. We know that your religion of evolution will not pass either theological scrutiny, nor scientific muster.

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

>>Joey Denier: "So we are left to defend the traditional idea of methodological naturalism and oppose ontological=metaphysical=philosophical=atheistic naturalism."

I am here to defend both science and the Bible.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata post #366: "Then why are you not pushing back against those of your persuasion who promote science as atheism, Joey? What about your most admired author, Michael Shermer, the militant atheist and sanctimonious creep who promotes, to children, the myth that Science refutes God? How about the militant atheist and con-man, Richard Dawkins, who promotes the myth that God is a delusion? Why do you not push back against them?"
>>Denier Joey: "I see, Danny boy, you are still wallowing in Denier Rules mud. Here I'm trying to make a respectable woman out of you but you just love, love to wallow -- I can't get you out!"

You can only obfuscate so much before people start noticing, Girly Boy.

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

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

You are finally dealing with yourself? That is good news. When you are finished cleaning up your act, you can always post on the Youtube videos and blogs of Shermer and Dawkins. If you give them an "elated-swoon" (and I am certain you will), they may even reply to you.

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

>>Kalamata: "Who made that silly rule, Joey? Certainly not the devout Christian geniuses, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, or James Clerk Maxwell? So, tell us, who?"
>>Denier Joey: "Of course they all did, Danny boy. They all understood that "natural philosophy" covered only natural explanations for natural processes and all, like Galileo, were willing to propose theories that might be considered anti-Biblical."

Rules for scientists are always made by power-hungry mediocrity; and it was no different in the days of Galileo:

"Thus, while the poets were celebrating Galileo's discoveries which had become the talk of the world, the scholars in his own country were, with a few exceptions, hostile or sceptical. The first, and for some time the only, scholarly voice raised in public in defence of Galileo, was Johannes Kepler's" [Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe." The MacMillan Company, 1959, pp.369-370]

Koestler also points out that Galileo's theological conflict was minimal:

"The first serious attack against Copernicanism on religious grounds came also not from clerical quarters but from a layman -- none other than delle Colombe, the leader of the league. His treatise Against the Motion of the Earth contained a number of quotations from Holy Scripture to prove that the earth was in the centre of the world. It was circulated in manuscript in I 610 or '11, before Galileo's public committal, and did not mention Galileo's name. Galileo himself was as yet so little worried about a possible theological conflict, that he had let almost a year pass before he asked the opinion of his friend, Cardinal Conti, on the matter. The Cardinal answered that, concerning the "immutability" of the skies, Holy Scripture seemed to favour Galileo's view rather than Aristotle's." [Ibid. p.431]

Whatever the situation, Galileo's theory was not contrary to the Bible, nor were those of Newton, Faraday, and Maxwell. Rather, the Bible served as a framework for their scientific enquiries, and their lives generally. But they, like the rest of us, were at times puzzled by the sheer complexity of it all, and were naturally concerned about "letting God down."

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

>>Denier Joey: "Indeed, in your own post #266 you quoted Nicolaas A. Rupke on the history of naturalism in early 19th century Scotland:

Why did you rip my post out of context, Joey? I was using that post to explain the foolish "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham was still in the developmental stage in the late 1700's and early 1800's, and that it is a Johnny-Come-Lately sham that has corrupted rather than advanced science.

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

>>Denier Joey: "Curiously, Danny, a detailed history of methodological naturalism does not seem to be readily "googleable", but a search for it does turn up some interesting names -- names we've seen elsewhere. One of those names is philosopher Robert T. Pennock, whose arguments on this subject, at least, appear identical to my own. Pennock was a witness for the plaintiffs in "Kitzmiller v. Dover Schools" and he provided critical information on the history of methodological naturalism that Judge Jones used in his decision. So in that sense, "methodological naturalism" is now the legal definition of our word "science"."

Well, at least you have corrupt judges, the NCSE, AU, and ACLU on your side. Too bad for the advancement of science that the judge was taught to equate non-scientific straw-men, like methodological naturalism, with science.

Please explain to us why "methodological naturalism" is any less a religious term than, say, "theistic naturalism," or "creationist naturalism"?

Real scientists, like Newton, Galileo, and Faraday never doubted in supernatural events. But they also believed miracles were extremely rare -- that nature would behave in a consistent manner nearly all the time. Therefore, their missions in life were to seek understanding of how God did it, and to give him glory. Perhaps that is what separates those productive geniuses, from the loud-mouthed sloths of the evolutionary "sciences."

For the record, how does "science" deal with rare supernatural events? Does "science" ignore them, or pretend they never occurred? Or, do they imagine the impossible, (such as an infinitesimally small "singularity" exploding and creating this incomprehensibly vast universe,) and pretend it was the result of methodological naturalism, and not a supernatural event? Just curious.

I almost forgot. I have two of Pennock's books, and he is no scientist, and not much of a philosopher. Sophomoric is the adjective that comes to mind. Perhaps he could learn from Michael Ruse.

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

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

Is Wikipedia off-line?

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

>>Kalamata: "You don't seem to mind that the religion of evolutionism is rammed down the throats of the teachers, students and voters?"
>>Denier Joey: "That's a lie, Danny, you need to stifle that urge."

You are in a serious state of denial, Joey. Christians are ostracized in schools if they don't bow to the altar of Darwin. Nearly all U. S. students are subjected the type of evolutionism propaganda the German children were subjected to under the Nazis. Perhaps that is why so many have turned into violent, suppressive, big-government fascists.

"

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

>>Kalamata: "Besides, you are missing the point. Would teachers and parents have sued, or even thought of suing, before the collusion of the ACLU and the judiciary -- before the religious clause of Constitution was rewritten by judicial fiat to say what it was never intended to say? What do you say about that, Oh Great Defender of the Constitution?"
>>Denier Joey: "The US Supreme Court's 1962 Engle v. Vitale decision was 6-1 against mandatory prayer in public schools. The sole dissenter was Eisenhower appointee, Republican Justice Steward, originally from Michigan. His opinion was the same as ours -- a simple prayer is not "establishment". Frankfurter & White took no part, the rest voted against mandatory prayer, and so, that is now the law. Voluntary prayer by, for example, a religious club is allowed, as of course is prayer in private & home schools."

None of those justices, even the lone dissenter, supported the Constitution, but a perversion of it. If they were strict constructionists they would have refused to take a case involving state religious matters.

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

>>Denier Joey: "In 2005, Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller is a different matter, since prayer was not the question. Rather, the question was "what is science" and Jones decided that Creationism, aka "Intelligent Design", is not."

It was certainly a religious matter -- the ACLU made it a religious matter. The testimony and cross-examination produced specific religious questions and responses, such as:

"[B]y holding this up as an alternative to evolution, students will get the message in a flash. And the message is, over here, kids. You got your God consistent theory, your theistic theory, your Bible friendly theory, and over on the other side, you got your atheist theory, which is evolution. It produces a false duality. And it tells students basically, and this statement tells them, I think, quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science." [Testimony of Ken Miller, NCSE, in "Kitzmiller vs Dover 2005: Trial Transcript." 2005, Sept 26 PM, p.54]

Even worse for religious liberty, Jones, who was operating out of his jurisdiction, and with no regard for the Constitution, accepted the ACLU's determination -- word for word in some cases, as if he copied their notes.

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

>>Denier Joey: "Your problem, Danny, is that you just can't accept that not only "Dover" science teachers & parents but also voters rejected the Creationist school board's efforts to ram their theology down students' throats."

Your problem, Joey, is you are thoroughly brainwashed by Far-Left propaganda on cultural matters.

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

>>Denier Joey: "I can't help you with that."

You can't even help yourself.

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey would have you believe that every teacher, student, parent and voter in the Dover School District was an evolutionist, and a handful of people that served on the School Board went against the will of everyone else. Now, who is the master propagandist?"
>>Denier Joey: "In fact, events showed that is exactly right -- voters fired the entire school board which had tried to impose Creationism on science classes."

Your premise is, the school board was fired because they tried to impose creationism on science classes, which you have no evidence for.

Answer this: did the people fire the school board because of their decision to promote the teaching of opposing viewpoints on evolution, or because of the publicity, expense and emotional toll from the court case? You won't find the answer on your go-to atheist site, Talkorigins. But you will find the answer cluttering the history of Leftist bullying incidents.

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

>>Kalamata: "The Bible is silent on whether the earth rotates around the sun, or the sun rotates around the earth, Joey. "
>>Denier Joey: "Not so silent, Danny boy:
>>1 Chronicles 16:30 "Fear before him, all the earth; the world also is being made stable, that it be not moved." 93:1 "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved."
>>Psalm 96:10 "Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."
>>Psalm 104:5 "Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever."
>>Ecclesiastes 1:5 " The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."
>>Sounds pretty clear to me, and also to the Church Inquisition who convicted Galileo of heresy. But nice try to spin the truth, anyway.

You forgot these passages about the earth moving, Joey:

"For thus saith the Lord of hosts; Yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land; " -- Hag 2:6 KJV

"Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth;" -- Hag 2:21 KJV

"In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears. Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth." -- 2Sam 22:7-8 KJV

"The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly." -- Isa 24:19 KJV

"Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the Lord of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger." -- Isa 13:13 KJV

"Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." -- Heb 12:26 KJV

"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again." -- Isa 24:20 KJV

Certainly biblical scholars who were familiar with the verses you quoted, Joey, were also familiar with the ones I quoted.

Again, the Bible is silent on geo- and heliocentricity. But the question must have been asked by the ancients, "is the sun at rest and the earth moves, or is the earth at rest and the sun moves." Both are biblical; and both are possible, according to Einstein:

"Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS, not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [Cordinate-System] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative motion? This is indeed possible!" [Einstein & Infeld, "The Evolution of Physics - The Growth of Ideas From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta." Simon & Schuster, 1961, p.212]

George Ellis, who was Steven Hawking's co-author on "The Large Scale Structure Of Space Time," agreed with Einstein:

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,"[George] Ellis argues. "For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." [Gibbs, Wayt, "Profile of George F. R. Ellis - Thinking Globally, Acting Universally." Scientific American, 273(4), October, 1995, p.55]

And Feynman didn't rule it out:

"The assumption we have just mentioned implies a very strong uniformity in the universe. It is a completely arbitrary hypothesis, as far as I understand it—and of course not at all subject to any kind of observational checking, since we have been and will continue to be confined to a very small region about our galaxy, and the time development of the universe follows a"cosmological" scale a billion times longer than our lifetime. I suspect that the assumption of uniformity of the universe reflects a prejudice born of a sequence of overthrows of geocentric ideas. When men admitted the earth was not the center of the universe, they clung for a while to a heliocentric universe, only to find that the sun was an ordinary star much like any other star, occupying an ordinary (not central!) place within a galaxy which is not an extraordinary galaxy but one just like many many others. Thus, it is assumed that our place in the universe should be just like any other place in the universe, as an extension of the sequence I have described. It would be embarrassing to find, after stating that we live in an ordinary planet about an ordinary star in an ordinary galaxy, that our place in the universe is extraordinary, either being the center or the place of smallest density or the place of greatest density, and so forth. To avoid this embarrassment we cling to the hypothesis of uniformity." [Feynman et al, "Feynman Lectures on Gravitation." Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1995, Lecture 12.2, p.166]

Ironic, isn't it.

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

>>Kalamata: "In other words, it was the scientific community, not the church clergy, that was holding back the advancement of science. But, nice try to spin the truth, anyway."
>>Denier Joey: "Total rubbish, scientists are supposed to be skeptical, but no scientist convicted Galileo of heresy. That was the Church Inquisition, but nice try to spin the truth, anyway.

The scientific community were some of Galileo's chief accusers, Joey:

"[T]here existed a powerful body of men whose hostility to Galileo never abated: the Aristotelians at the universities. The inertia of the human mind and its resistance to innovation are most clearly demonstrated not, as one might expect, by the ignorant mass-which is easily swayed once its imagination is caught-but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and in the monopoly of learning. Innovation is a twofold threat to academic mediocrities: it endangers their oracular authority, and it evokes the deeper fear that their whole, laboriously constructed intellectual edifice might collapse." [Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe." The MacMillan Company, 1959, p.427]

"The result of all this was that the Jesuits as a body turned against Galileo. Father Grienberger, who succeeded Clavius as head of the Roman College, was to remark later that "if Galileo had not incurred the displeasure of the Company, he could have gone on writing freely about the motion of the earth to the end of his days." The clash with the Aristotelians was inevitable. The clash with the Jesuits was not. This is not meant as an apology for the vindictiveness with which Grassi and Scheiner reacted when provoked, nor of the deplorable manner in which the Order displayed its esprit de corps. The point to be established is that the attitude of the Collegium Romanum and of the Jesuits in general changed from friendliness to hostility, not because of the Copernican views held by Galileo, but because of his personal attacks on leading authorities of the Order." [Ibid. p.470]

Why don't you face up and admit that:

1) the trial of Galileo was not about the Bible.
2) the scientific establishment is generally a bunch of whiny, arrogant, self-righteous bullies.

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

>>Kalamata: "My statement also stands as true. The doctrine of Moses and Christ are scientifically and historically accurate; and there is no one on earth who can prove otherwise. Many blowhards will pretend they have proof, but that is why they are called blowhards."
>>Denier Joey: "Your statements are utter nonsense, depending 100% on Jedi-like mind tricks -- "nothing to see here, move along, move along..."

Oh, great; another blowhard.

Mr. Kalamata

>>post 366 (cont. 2) quoting Joey Denier: "Science doesn't & can't prove or disprove anything about the supernatural, because by definition that's outside the scope of natural science."
>>Kalamata: "Who's definition?"
>>Joey Denier: "Natural philosophy", aka science, and Empiricism date back to ancient Greeks and was recognized by such "doctors of the Church" as St. Thomas Aquinas."The Condemnation of 1277, which forbade setting philosophy on a level equal with theology and the debate of religious constructs in a scientific context, showed the persistence with which Catholic leaders resisted the development of natural philosophy even from a theological perspective.[48] Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, another Catholic theologian of the era, sought to distance theology from science in their works.[49] "I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle has to do with the teaching of the faith," he wrote in 1271.[50]"
>>Joey Denier: "From earliest times some in the Church were suspicious of "natural philosophy" (aka "science") others embraced it.

Apparently Nicolaus Steno, who lived in the 1600's, is one of those who didn't get the message:

"In regard to the first aspect of the earth Scripture and Nature agree in this, that all things were covered with water; how and when this aspect began, and how long it lasted, Nature says not. Scripture relates. That there was a watery fluid, however, at a time when animals and plants were not yet to be found, and that the fluid covered all things, is proved by the strata of the higher mountains, free from all heterogeneous material. . . But when those mountains, of which Scripture in this connection makes mention, were formed, whether they were identical with mountains of the present day, whether at the beginning of the deluge there was the same depth of valleys as there is to-day, or whether new breaks in the strata opened new chasms to lower the surface of the rising waters, neither Scripture nor Nature declares." [Steno, Nicolaus, "The Prodromus of Nicolaus Steno's Dissertation Concerning a Solid Body Enclosed by Process of Nature Within a Solid." The MacMillan Company, 1916, pp.263-265]

Nor did Isaac Newton get the message:

"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.

"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Rider; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal. the Eternal of Israel the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where."

[Newton, Isaac, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, pp.504-505]

If you desire to learn Mathematics, I recommend you follow the lead of Isaac Newton.

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

>>Kalamata: "Science doesn't prove or disprove anything, Joey. Scientists, however, are so burdened with the heavy baggage of Darwin and Lyell that they do not seem to be able to prove much of anything in the way of so-called "natural science.""
>>Joey Denier: "Right, again by word-definitions, scientific theories are not "proved", instead they can be tested and "confirmed" or "falsified". A test failing to falsify is considered to have helped confirm a hypothesis. A theory confirmed by many tests will be tentatively accepted, pending possible future falsifications or just better explanations."

And, if your favorite theory is falsified, move the goalposts.

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

>>Kalamata:"Even when confronted with evidence of a young solar system, such as short-period comets, "scientists" tend to invent just-so stories, such as Oort Clouds, as an escape from the reality of the creation story, and/or to cling to the religion of the two Charlie's."
>>Joey Denier: "I've seen no evidence of "a young solar system" and much evidence suggesting billions of years old.

The "billions of years" dates are made up. There is no way to tell the date of the solar sytem or the universe, without the scripture. There are, however, many "anomolies" within the solar system that point to a young age. I recommend this video by former NASA scientist, Spike Psarris. It is beautifully made and presented:

What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. I (Our Created Solar System)

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

>>Joey Denier: "Even the Bible tells us that God's "days" can be much longer than ours."

Where does it say that, Joey?

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

>>Kalamata:"That is what I have been trying to tell you, Joey. Theologians, such as Charles Darwin, only pretend to be scientists. You can add lawyers (e.g., Charles Lyell) to that group of non-scientists."
>>Joey Denier: "Lyell worked a few years as a lawyer then nearly 50 years as a geologist. Darwin studied theology at Cambridge but worked for 50 years as a naturalist, geologist & biologist. Both Lyell & Darwin found considerable push-back from theologians but were generally accepted by other scientists.

Neither learned how to be a scientist, and there is no science to be found in their books. Their "acceptance" within the scientific community is generally the same as it is today, due to

anti-Moses, anti-God philosophies that dominate their books, and
brow-beating of the reluctant into submission.

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

>>Kalamata:"I had no doubt you would defend Shermer's war against conservatives."
>>Joey Denier: "I "get" that you hate Shermer because he opposed Holocaust and other forms of pathological denials. But I never gave his views on evolution any thought until your constant harangues alerted me that Shermer has something to say on evolution too.

I don't believe a word you say, Joey. Your shady debating tactics are too much like those of Shermer, his faithful sidekick Donald Prothero, and the Left, generally.

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

>>Joey Denier: "So now, along with "Pandas & People" I have Shermer's book and also one on whale evolution, which is tons of fun. Will read them all when I get the chance...

What is the name of the Whale Evolution novel?

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

>>Kalamata:"Michael Shermer deceitfully labels fascists and neo-nazis as right-wingers, thus taking the heat off the real fascists, such as Obama, and placing it squarely on conservatives by association with the right-wing label. It is Saul Alinsky 101."
>>Joey Denier: "Shermer self-describes his politics as Libertarian, admirer of President Thomas Jefferson, of whom Shermer said, "When he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates. I don't consider Libertarians (think Ron & Rand Paul) my political "enemies" though occasionally they can annoy us to tears, normally we are allied."

Shermer is a hard-core Leftist, Joey. No libertarian would promote "climate change" and conservative-hate, like Shermer. Also, I believe that quote came from Kennedy, himself:

"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House—with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." [John F. Kennedy, at dinner for 49 Nobel laureates, 29 Apr 1962, in Simpson & Boorstin, "Simpson's contemporary quotations." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988, p.211]

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

>>Joey Denier: "As for calling Nazis "right wingers" it's a common enough mistake which most children learn in school, something we have to repeatedly, patiently correct.

It is no mistake with Shermer. He openly presents a visceral hatred for the conservative-right, and for the Christian-right in particular; and he goes out his way to slander them with labels such as "climate change denier", "evolution denier," and "holocaust denier," much like you have done to me in this thread. But, in all fairness, that is what leftist's do: smear, slander, and conflate science with atheism.

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

>>Joey Denier: "On this thread Kalamata has quoted (i.e., #329) Shermer on Holocaust denier David Irving: "A few months later, we documented him as a white supremacist because he was running with neo-Nazi skinheads and had formed a right-wing organization known as the National Socialist Front." [Ibid. p.94]"

Irving has been known as a holocaust denier at least as far back as 1988, Joey; and there is no such thing as a "right-wing socialist." It is a myth, perpetuated by the Left.

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

>>Joey Denier: "In Europe "extreme right wing" refers to racist National Socialists. In the US "extreme right wing" refers to racists like KKK or old Dixiecrats, self-proclaimed constitutionalists who adamantly oppose Socialism in any form, national or otherwise. So the mistake is commonly made to lump together European National Socialists with American anti-socialists as both "extreme right wing" because of their racism. It's unfortunate but I'm not certain it's the major crime Kalamata makes it out to be."

Those labels are intentional slanders of the Right, to redirect extremist left-wing (big government) activities away from the Left where they rightly belong, and onto the innocent Right; and yet you serve as an apologist? I worry about you Joey.

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

>>Kalamata:"So, the next time some left-wing radical calls you a Nazi, you can thank those like Michael Shermer, and their apologists, like Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "The only time in my life I was ever called a "Nazi" was on this very thread, post #377 by mdmathis6: "You speak and insinuate more like a sniveling Nazi than you do a freeper!"

Perhaps that is the way you come across, sometimes, Joey.

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

>>Joey Denier: "So, should I blame Shermer for that?"

You have no one to blame but yourself.

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

>>Kalamata:"So you don't think Shermer's anti-Christian bigotry and hard-left ideology is enough for me to despise him, and his apologists?"
>>Joey Denier: "Shermer is a self-described Libertarian and religious agnostic, a professional skeptic. It's not clear how Shermer's overall views differ from those of other well known Libertarians, i.e., Ron Paul."

Perhaps not to those of like mind as Shermer.

Almost forgot: Shermer is not a religious agnostic. His religion is materialism.

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

>>Kalamata:"The bottom line is, Michael Shermer doesn't seem to care as much about the holocaust as he feels a need to use the name of the holocaust to support his warped, leftist agenda, much like you use the name of the holocaust, Joey, to defend your religion of evolutionism."
>>Joey Denier: "Libertarians like the Pauls, Bob Bar, Clint Eastwood, Milton Friedman & Walter E. Williams are not our "enemies", they vote about 75% for Republicans. True they can sometimes be annoying, like when they don't support the "war on drugs" or some military actions. And many are not notably religious."

What does that have to do with Michael Shermer? He is a member of the Far Left!

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

>>Joey Denier: "But I highly suspect that Kalamata's strident antipathy to Libertarian Michael Shermer have more to do with Shermer's work against deniers than with any particular political position."

Perhaps you are attempting to keep a closet ideology well-hidden, Joey; and the best way to do that has always been to cry "Stop, thief" first:

"15. As it is not to be expected that the change of a republic into a monarchy, with the rapidity desired can be carried through without occasional suspicions and alarms, it will be necessary to be prepared for such events. The best general rule on the subject is to be taken from the example of crying "Stop thief" first - neither lungs nor pens must be spared in charging every man who whispers, or even thinks, that the revolution on foot is meditated, with being himself an enemy to the established government and meaning to overturn it. Let the charge be reiterated and reverberated till at last such confusion and uncertainty be produced that the people, being not able to find out where the truth lies, withdraw their attention from the contest." [Philiip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]

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

>>Joey Denier: "Also, science, by definition, is the opposite of any religion, regardless of how often Kalamata falsely claims otherwise."

Either you are lying, or devout Christians such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, Mendel, Pasteur, and other great scientists did not understand science. I choose the former.

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

>>Kalamata: "Move down to page 43, and you will find Shermer associating David Duke with the words "ultra conservative" and "right wing", even though that Israel-hater and Jew-hater is neither:"
>>Joey Denier: "In the US "extreme right wing" does legitimately refer to racists like the KKK & old Dixiecrats."

There is nothing legitimate about it. But let's finish your sentence, anyway: "... , because apologists like Joey refuse to work to set the record straight."

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

>>Joey Denier: "In this particular example, somebody named Carto supported both "Radio Free America" and the KKK leader David Duke. So... in other contexts our FRiend Kalamata uses the term "quibble" to admit he's wrong on an issue.

You yourself called it a mistake:

[Joey] "As for calling Nazis "right wingers" it's a common enough mistake which most children learn in school, something we have to repeatedly, patiently correct."

But you were polite enough to not offend your friends on the Left.

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

>>Joey Denier: "I'm here saying Kalamata is quibbling with Michael Shermer over the definition of American "extreme right wing".

You bet your life I am; and only a leftist would believe I am quibbling. I work to expose the rottenness of that liberty-hater (and those like him) every way I can. And I must say, Joey, he certainly has a tireless apologist in you.

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

>>Kalamata: "Are you sure you have read that book, Joey? Those statements are found on the exact same pages in the 2000 edition?"
>>Joey Denier: "I confess to admiring Kalamata's talent for searching pretty much any book for key words, as well demonstrated here. I can also do that on newer electronic books, but my old year 2000 version of Shermer's Holocaust book is a hardback copy, not searchable without considerable time & effort."

Perhaps you read Shermer's book with rose-colored glasses, Joey; or perhaps it never dawned on you that big-government socialism is politically the opposite of the limited-government right.

You know, there is an index in the back of the book that lists the pages where he discusses "Holocaust denial" (and "denial, Holocaust," in case you perfer to search that way,) as well as the page number for "Duke, David, 43," and "extremist ideologies, 90-91." Not surprisingly, there is no listing for the words "right wing" or "Christian," though they are commonly used in the book. You have to actually read it to find those words.

Anyway, that should get you started.

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

>>Kalamata:"It appears you are suffering from an extreme case of head-in-the-sandism, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "That term describes your entire argument here, oh Danny boy."

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata post 366 (cont. 3): "I recall that Hitler joined the German Workers Party; but I don't recall anything about them being Christian, other than perhaps a name-drop or two.
Do you have references?"

I'll start a collection of references for you, here's one, a PDF
Also try here, then click on pdf above:

Boy Hitler

As a boy Adolf Hitler sang in his church choir and wanted to become a priest.

Christian Social Workers' Party (Germany), founded by Adolf Stoecker.
Christian Social Party (Austria), founded by Karl Kueger
Georg Ritter von Schönerer, Pan German Party
Karl Lueger, Christian Social Party
Adolf Hitler, National Socialist Workers Party

"The Catholic Lueger was quite anti-Semitic, mostly it seems for political advantage.
When challenged on one occasion that his dinner companions were Jewish, he famous proclaimed: “I decide who’s a Yid.”119
Opportunistic perhaps, but his newspaper, the Volksblatt, was so vehemently anti-Semitic that the Archbishop of Vienna denounced it.
Leuger’s party shared both name and outlook with those of the Protestant Court Preacher and deeply anti-Semitic Adolf Stöcker.

Karl Lueger
Hitler explicitly said that it was Lueger and his Christian Social Party that caused his “opinions regarding anti-Semitism to undergo a slow change in the course of time.”
“It was,” he said, “my most serious change of opinion.”120
"Schönerer was even more anti-Semitic than Lueger, but, at least, from deep conviction rather than political opportunism.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler compared Schönerer to Lueger: “At the time, Schönerer seemed to me the better and more fundamental thinker in regard to the principal problems.”
One of the strong attractive features of Schönerer, at least was a leader of the Pan German league, which sought a union of all German-speaking territories, a goal that Hitler embraced as a young man.
But, as he recalled, he finally determined that Lueger was the sounder theorist of the two.121

Georg Ritter von Schoener

"Hitler scholars Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw concur with Hitler’s own estimate that these two politicians were the most significant in forming his attitudes about Jews and the need for a racially homogeneous German land.122
So by Hitler’s own admission, these political figures, not Darwin, were pivotal in forming his anti-Semitic attitudes.
Thus neither Hitler’s conception of race was Darwinian nor was Darwinism the source of his anti-Semitism.
The motivation and origin of his views were political, not scientific, and certainly not Darwinian.123"

On Georg Ritter von Schönerer:

"During these years, while the Kulturkampf divided Imperial Germany, Schönerer founded the Los von Rom! movement, which advocated the conversion of all Roman Catholic German-speaking people of Austria to Lutheran Protestantism, or, in some cases, to the Old Catholic Churches.
Schönerer became even more powerful in 1901, when 21 members of his party gained seats in the Parliament.
His influence and career rapidly declined thereafter, however, due to his forceful views and personality.
His party suffered as well, and had virtually disintegrated by 1907.
But his views and philosophy, not to mention his great skill as an agitator, would go on to influence and inspire Hitler as well as the Nazi Party.[11]"

Schönerer, Lueger, and Hitler: The Politics of the Vienna Years, 1907-1913:

"Adolf Hitler spent the years between 1908 and 1913 in Vienna, Austria, the crown jewel of the Hapsburg Empire.
Hitler’s Vienna was a bustling metropolis, full of the rich and elite of Austrian society, but also the most impoverished.
A massive influx of labourers from the countryside at the turn of the century had overwhelmed the employers and architects of the city, leaving many of the workers unemployed and homeless.
These horrible economic conditions formed a breeding ground for extremist politics and philosophy, particularly that of the anti-Semites, who used the Jews as a scapegoat for their economic hardships, and the pan-Germans, who supported an “ethnic unification” between Germany and Austria.
The two most prominent proponents of those ideas were Georg von Schönerer, an influential Austro-Hungarian politician and Karl Lueger, mayor of Vienna from 1897 to 1910.
The words of these men circulated through the men’s hostels and the poorest class, gaining followers, particularly one down-and-out architect by the name of Adolf Hitler.
"Hitler was nineteen when he arrived in Vienna on an orphan’s pension and with a dream of studying painting at the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts...
Hitler was not admitted to the Academy on his first try; the comments he received criticised his inability to draw the human form, but suggested that he would be well suited to the architecture program.
That program required a Leaving Certificate from a higher Realschule, which Hitler did not have, and he was rejected a second time from the Academy....

When the school term ended in July, Kubizek [Hitler's roommate] went back home to Linz [Hitler's home town], and this, in effect, ended their friendship.
Hitler moved out, settling in increasingly rundown apartments, before making his way to the Men’s Home on Meldemanstraße.
At the Men’s Home men could sleep, eat, and even bathe for just a few coins a day.
The home was already overflowing when Hitler arrived, but he soon became a regular.
He worked odd jobs and painted postcards in a meagre attempt to support himself.

Much of his time was spent discussing politics with the other men at the Home.
Poor economic conditions tend to facilitate the discussion of political rhetoric, and early twentieth century Vienna was no exception.
Karl Lueger, the mayor at the time, was hugely influential in all aspects of Viennese life, and the dying theorist Georg von Schönerer contributed the radical ideas of Pan-Germanism and racial anti-Semitisim.
Hitler soaked in these ideas, building on ones he already had coming out of Linz to try to come up with an excuse for his own failures.
By the time Hitler left the city in 1913 for Munich, Schönerer and Lueger had given him many of the basic skills and dogma he would need to take over the Nazi Party, and ultimately attempt to take over all of Europe."

Houston Stewart Chamberlain

Robert Richards, "Was Hitler a Darwinian"

"Several scholars and a host of religious conservatives have argued that Hitler derived his anti-Semitic racism from Darwin’s theory.
They suggest this connection morally taints Darwinians and undermines evolutionary conceptions.
Careful examination shows that Hitler’s racial views had no connection with Darwinian ideas; indeed, he held to the fixity of species and thought descent of human beings from animal forbearers absurd.
Hitler’s anti-Semitism comes mostly from Houston Stewart Chamberlain and political sources.
Those biologists most closely allied with the Nazi party rejected Darwinian and Haeckelian theory because it was assumed to be rigidly mechanistic, and volkisch biology was not mechanistic.
The moral and epistemic implications often drawn are without merit.
Those who attempt to link Hitler’s ideas with those of Darwin are either blindly driven by ideology or have failed to consider the evidence.
Likely both."

Early Adulthood in Vienna and Munich

"It was in Vienna that Hitler first became exposed to racist rhetoric.[47]
Populists such as mayor Karl Lueger exploited the climate of virulent anti-Semitism and occasionally espoused German nationalist notions for political effect.
German nationalism had a particularly widespread following in the Mariahilf district, where Hitler lived.[48]
Georg Ritter von Schönerer became a major influence on Hitler.[49]
He also developed an admiration for Martin Luther.[50]
Hitler read local newspapers such as Deutsches Volksblatt that fanned prejudice and played on Christian fears of being swamped by an influx of Eastern European Jews.[51]
He read newspapers and pamphlets that published the thoughts of philosophers and theoreticians such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gustave Le Bon and Arthur Schopenhauer.[52]

"The origin and development of Hitler's anti-Semitism remains a matter of debate.[53]
His friend, August Kubizek, claimed that Hitler was a "confirmed anti-Semite" before he left Linz.[54]
However, historian Brigitte Hamann describes Kubizek's claim as "problematical".[55]
While Hitler states in Mein Kampf that he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna,[56] Reinhold Hanisch, who helped him sell his paintings, disagrees.
Hitler had dealings with Jews while living in Vienna.[57][58][59]
Historian Richard J. Evans states that "historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat [in World War I], as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe".[60]"

Also, note above the reference to Martin Luther, doubtless including his 1543 book: On the Jews and their Lies.
Nothing Charles Darwin wrote could remotely approach the influence on a mind like Hitler's of Luther's 400 year old words.
Nietzsche, Le Bon, Schopenhauer:

Kalamata post #366 cont. 4: "The term "struggle for existence" (which both Hitler and Darwin frequently used,) combined with the explosion of virulent racism after the release of Darwin's books, not to mention the arrival of eugenics in political life, could easily be considered all the seed a madman would need to plan an extermination."

The Timeline of Anti-Semitism goes all the way back to Biblical times, long before Darwin or anyone else thought of evolution.
It includes many massacres of Jews, some in Germany, including:

"During the civil war between Adolph of Nassau and Albrecht of Austria, German knight Rintfleisch claims to have received a mission from heaven to exterminate "the accursed race of the Jews".
Under his leadership, the mob goes from town to town destroying Jewish communities and massacring about 100,000 Jews, often by mass burning at stake.
Among 146 localities in Franconia, Bavaria and Austria are Röttingen (20 April), Würzburg (24 July), Nuremberg (1 August).[79]"

"European Jews are blamed for the plague in the Black Death persecutions.
Charge laid to the Jews that they poisoned the wells.
Massacres spread throughout Spain, France, Germany and Austria.
More than 200 Jewish communities destroyed by violence.
Many communities have been expelled and settle down in Poland."

And many other similar examples proving that anti-Semites did not sit around waiting for Darwin to give them some kind of excuse for their wickedness.

"Jews of Mecklenburg, Germany are accused of stabbing a consecrated wafer.
27 Jews are burned, including two women.
The spot is still called the Judenberg.
All the Jews are expelled from the Duchy."

Still no Darwin to blame their anti-Semitism on.

"Forty Jews are executed in Brandenburg, Germany for allegedly desecrating the host; remainder expelled.
23 November.
Less-wealthy Jews expelled from Naples; remainder heavily taxed.
38 Jews burned at the stake in Berlin."

"In his pamphlet 'On the Jews and Their Lies' Martin Luther advocates an eight-point plan to get rid of the Jews as a distinct group either by religious conversion or by expulsion:

"...set fire to their synagogues or schools..."
"...their houses also be razed and destroyed..."
"...their prayer books and Talmudic writings... be taken from them..."
"...their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb..."
"...safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews..."
"...usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them..." and
"Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [certain amount]..."

"...young, strong Jews and Jewesses [should]... earn their bread in the sweat of their brow..."
"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them.
They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs.""

All this from Martin Luther 300 years before Darwin and 400 years before the Holocaust!

"A series of anti-Jewish riots in Germany that spread to several neighboring countries: Denmark, Latvia and Bohemia known as Hep-Hep riots, from the derogatory rallying cry against the Jews in Germany."

Charles Darwin was about 10 years old during the Hep-Hep riots in Germany.

"Das Judenthum in der Musik (German for "Jewishness in Music", but normally translated Judaism in Music; spelled after its first publications, according to modern German spelling practice, as ‘Judentum’), is an essay by Richard Wagner which attacks Jews in general and the composers Giacomo Meyerbeer and Felix Mendelssohn in particular.
It was published under a pseudonym in the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik (NZM) of Leipzig in September 1850 and was reissued in a greatly expanded version under Wagner's name in 1869.
It is regarded by some as an important landmark in the history of German antisemitism."

An "important landmark" by Richard Wagner still years before Darwin first published his first book on evolution.

"Adolf Stoecker, German antisemitic preacher and politician, founds the Christian Social Party, which marks the beginning of the political antisemitic movement in Germany."

Stoecker influenced Hitler, founded his Christian Social Party 10 years before baby Adolf was even a glint in his father, old Alois', eye.

"Heinrich von Treitschke, German historian and politician, justifies the antisemitic campaigns in Germany, bringing antisemitism into learned circles."

It's said that von Treitschke was a "Social Darwinist":

"Treitschke also endorsed Social Darwinian theories of brutal competition among races.
In an essay published in 1862, Treitschke praised the "pitiless racial struggle" of Germans against Lithuanians, Poles and Old Prussians; he claimed that "magic" emanated from "eastern German soil" which had been "fertilised" by "noble German blood". "

But Darwin said nothing about "magic" in anybody's soil and von Treitschke did not invent anti-Semitism, he merely gave it yet another excuse.

"First International Anti-Jewish Congress convenes at Dresden, Germany."

In Dresden, a beautiful old city spared from Allied bombings until February 1945.

"Salomon Reinach and Florence Simmonds refer to 'this new antisemitism, masquerading as patriotism, which was first propagated at Berlin by the court chaplain Stöcker, with the connivance of Bismarck.'[4]
Similarly, Peter N. Stearns comments that 'the ideology behind the new anti-Semitism [in Germany] was more racist than religious.'[5]"

In 1909, while Hitler struggles to become a painter and learns political anti-Semitism in Vienna, Austria, in Germany antisemitism masquerades as patriotism, not Darwinism.

Point is: in none of the "Timeline of Anti-Semitism" items is Darwin or evolution even mentioned, much less cited as a source.
Where we do see the term "Social Darwinism" it can hardly be considered an original source of anti-Semitism, merely another term for behavior which goes back thousands of years before Darwin.

Kalamata post #366 cont. 5: "I recall that Keith was a supporter of the Piltdown Man before it was proven to be a hoax (the history is muddy.)
Keith was also a supporter of the concept of scientific racism.
Why would he lie about someone as close in ideology as Hitler?"

Like Kalamata Keith could only see what he wished to see.
In this case Keith wished to see Hitler as a reflection of his own ideals.

Kalamata "Charlie became somewhat of a prophet of extermination with these words:"

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

Darwin hardly needed to be a "prophet" in 1871, but merely looking back a few centuries on what Europeans had already done to more "savage races" they encountered.
For example, by 1871 after centuries of pushing native Americans westward, destruction of huge buffalo herds drastically reduced the numbers buffalo could support.
So Darwin was no "prophet" merely a reporter on what was then happening.

Kalamata: "The word "support" [the Holocaust'] may be a little strong, but there is no doubt Charlie deemed it only slightly less than inevitable."

That's a total crock.
Neither Darwin nor anybody else in 1871 could imagine the Holocaust.
What he could imagine is what had already happened and was even then happening, in the American West, for example.

Kalamata "Child.
An example of guilt by association would be the hard left labeling conservatives as Nazis after being brainwashed by the propaganda of some radical orator, like Shermer, who falsely linked the political right to fascism.
On the other hand, the historical linkage of Hitler with evolutionism is strong."

Neither Libertarian Shermer nor anybody else this side of "the Squad" calls normal US Conservatives "Nazis".
The radical Left, on the other hand, while loudly claiming to be "Antifa" has in fact cozied up to such anti-Semitic Nazi lovers as Muslim extremists.
So the historical linkage of Hitler with Muslim extremism is much stronger.

Kalamata "Evolution has had more than its share of evil uses: from the millions who lost their appendixes unnecessarily due the hoax of "vestigial" organs; to the virulent racism that exploded on the scene after men were tricked into believing they were descendants of apes, rather than created in the image of God; and to the genocide of eugenics; all on the way to the Holocaust.
The evil of evolutionism will continue to weaken the nations until it is relegated to the dustbin of history, where it rightly belongs."

Almost any idea, no matter how innocent, can be weaponized for evil purposes.
Even Christianity, for all its peaceful intentions, was often weaponized historically to justify massacres of Jews, and others.

So I don't blame Christianity for what evil people did in its name and I certainly don't blame Darwin for what people who never used his name supposedly did under Darwin's "influence".

Kalamata: "Words can be very dangerous things, Joey, and propaganda can brainwash people into becoming killers.
Think of all the young women who, if they lived 60 years ago, would never dream of killing their unborn, whereas today it is their "right" -- their "choice".
Of course, we shouldn't forget the Hitler Youth, and the Columbine killers."

Vehicles -- cars especially -- kill thousands every year by accident, and are sometimes weaponized to kill for political terror.
But how many people suggest we must therefore go back to horses & buggies?
Guns also kill thousands by accident or criminal intent and some do claim we must therefore infringe on our constitutional right.
Words -- radical words especially -- can be weaponized to kill people, and so the Left wants to shut us up if they could, while protecting their own violent radicals under the umbrella of "free speech".

Point is, we don't ban any of those just because some people misuse them.
We do what we can to increase their safe use.

Kalamata: "Woodrow Wilson was the President of Princeton and the Governor of New Jersey before becoming president.
He was a virulent racist, but he hardly qualified as a Southern Democrat."

Wrong.
Wilson, born in 1856 to a slave-owning family, was a child of the Confederacy -- literally.
As a boy he watched Union troops march past his home in Augusta, Georgia.
As an adult Wilson moved North, but as President was arguably the most racist of any since the Civil War.
So Wilson was indeed your typical Southern Democrat, indeed in today's terms a renegade Dixiecrat.

Kalamata: "It is worth nothing that post-Lincoln Republican southerners elected many blacks to public office; the democrats, none until 1935:"

I suspect that's a typo and you intended to post: "It is worth noting that..."
Of course, I agree, for once.

Kalamata "The racism was primarily confined to the Democrat party, regardless of where they lived."

Agreed.

Kalamata: "How could racism originate in the North if already existed in the South?"

My guess is somebody is again playing word definition games.
Is there some definition of "slavery" which does not include racism?

Kalamata "Let's make a deal.
Let's keep our guns, and get rid of Darwin, so that in the future, after the culture rot caused by evolutionism has healed, we can return to the days when we could keep our shotguns hanging in the back window of our unlocked pickup trucks, and not worry about anyone stealing them.
Deal?"

I live way back in "the sticks" where people sometimes keep shotguns in their unlocked trucks, some even fly Confederate flags and small private schools pray before class each day.
The "deal" I'd offer for big public schools is: science only in science classes but voluntary "home rooms" which are allowed to freely chose to begin their day with Bible readings, prayer and even a lesson on it.

from post #371 quoting BJK: "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification".
In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways.
It's all evolution. . ."

Kalamata responds: "That is about the nuttiest thing I have read from someone pretending to be a science expert."

Nonsense, it's your complaint here which is "nutty".

Kalamata quoting Sutherland 1984: "If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science.
For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions."

Nonsense, basic evolution theory makes any number of predictions which have never been falsified.
An example is the sequence of fossils found in the geological strata.

Kalamata:"Scientists have known all along that evolution was of no use to science.
But it is nice hearing it from straight from the evolution horse's mouth."

Nonsense since evolution theory is woven into every related science from biology & geology to animal breeding & medicine, even some computer algorithms.

Kalamata on "Dover": "Nonsense.
That was just another in a long line of well-orchestrated attacks by atheists at the ACLU and the NCSE against the Christian heritage of our nation."

Our nation also has a scientific heritage which voters want taught in schools, undiluted by theological interruptions.
Mandatory science in science class, voluntary theology in church.
That's what "Dover" illustrated.

Kalamata:"Says the fellow who uses innuendo to slander those who oppose his materialistic worldview."

Your reference, please?

Kalamata:"That is false by omission, Joey.
You never addressed the fact that this event would have NEVER happened if not for the collusion of the ACLU and the federal judiciary decades ago.
That said, the real culprit underlying all the anti-Christian bigotry is the "Devil's Chaplain," Charlie Darwin, who popularized the apes-to-man myth, which Charlie's disciples viciously defend to this day, despite the overwhelming evidence against it."

First, there's not even a shred of evidence "against" evolution theory, nor have you attempted to present any here.
Second, voter rebellion against the "Dover" school board's mandatory theology began with teachers & parents seeking redress in court, then ended with voters firing the theological school board.

Kalamata:"Why are you pretending ignorance again, Joey?
Haeckel's embryos had been exposed as fraudulent long before the time Miller and other modern authors included them in their Biology textbooks.
If Miller and the others didn't know about the fraud, they are far too incompetent to be writing textbooks for our children."

First, I notice you didn't answer the question of whether Haeckel's drawings were in earlier versions of Miller's textbook and then deleted from later editions.
Instead you assume an answer which is not yet in evidence.

As a young man many years ago I remember seeing something like Haeckel's drawings in biology class, but I never learned his famous hypothesis: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" until years later.
The point as I remember it, was simply that embryos in early stages resemble each other, regardless of species.
That point was valid then, is still valid.

Kalamata: "Mind-reading is your pretense, Joey.
History reveals Ken Miller to be one of the consummate enemies of our traditional Christian Heritage."

Nothing in our Christian Heritage requires us to teach theology in science classes, Danny boy.
As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in 1271:

"I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle

has to do with the teaching of the faith."

Kalamata: "That is what you and Miller do, Joey.
However, the thug Ken Miller takes an additional step by teaming up with the ACLU and corrupt judges, to force the American people to adopt his agenda using the power -- the sword -- of the State.
The "scientific orthodoxy" are using the same old tricks they used against Galileo to suppress those who question their interpretation of science.
That may be a wee bit over your head, Child."

But Danny boy, lies are never "over my head" and lies are what you're selling here, even though you well know the truth of this matter.
For examples, the rights of parents to seek redress in court from an out-of-control government school board is not disputed.
Neither is the judge's appointment by President Bush and the failure to appeal his ruling or to overturn it in another related case.
Neither is the citizens' solution of voting out the theological school board which tried to impose its religion on science classes.

But more important, you totally ignore the fact that "Dover" is just one of many such court rulings going back over 50 years, including:

1968, Epperson v. Arkansas: "United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution.
The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine."
1981, Segraves v. State of California: Sacrimento Superior Court "found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion.
The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically.
The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution."
1982, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education: "a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science".
In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science.
The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature.
The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator."
1987, Edwards v. Aguillard: "the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act".
This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science".
The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.
In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught."
1990, Webster v. New Lenox School District, near Chicago: "the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum.
The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy."
1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, near Los Angeles: "the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.
Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class."
1997, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, Louisiana: "the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking".
Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views".
Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science"."
2000, Minnesota State District Court "Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]).
High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach 'evidence both for and against the theory' of evolution.
The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution.
Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination."
2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., Georgia: "U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The disclaimer stickers stated, 'This textbook contains material on evolution.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.'
After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks.
The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record.
On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form."
2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, near York PA, "U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.
The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".
In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause".
Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".
This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom."

Near as I can tell, "Dover" is the most recent court case in a long list of similar cases all with the same outcome: ID/Creationism is religion and so cannot be taught in science classes.

I also notice these cases came from:

California -2
Louisiana - 2
Arkansas - 2
Illinois
Minnisota
Georgia
Pennsylvania

And, notice that two of these cases were decided by the US Supreme Court, two by state courts, four by Federal district and two by Federal appeals courts.

Kalamata:"That is very deceitful!
You completely dismissed the treachery of the ACLU, the NCSE, and the federal judiciary."

No, I completely dismiss your fantasies that something unusual or illegal happened at "Dover".

Kalamata:"I knew you would instantly revert to slander by innuendo.
Your hero -- the atheist, anti-God bigot, Michael Shermer -- taught you well, Child."

Danny boy, I'm currently reading three books:

"Of Pandas and People", the 1989 book at issue in "Dover".
"Spying on Whales", 2018, tons of fun about whale evolution, by Nick Pyenson.
"Why Evolution Matters", Shermer's 2006 book defending evolution.

And I knew that you would instantly deny the obvious truth -- that deniers are deniers regardless of the subject of their denials.
Both evolution and Holocaust deniers can, literally, spend all day in a museum and never see a shred of evidence.
They use identical Jedi mind tricks -- "these are not the evidence/droids we're looking for, nothing to see here, move along, move along."

Today, outside the domain of radical Islam, the old Holocaust deniers have mostly died off.
Evolution deniers are still with us, but even they seem to have done not-so-much since "Dover" in 2005.

Kalamata: "It has been falsified, about a gazillion times.
The anti-Christian evolution cult keeps moving the goal posts, that is, every time the theory is falsified, the cult followers slap a new fancy name on it and call the falsified part . . . (drum roll) . . . EVOLUTION!
Joey has done it himself in this very thread be claiming devolution is evolution.
That was pretty slick, Child. "

Danny boy, you just have to stop lying about this, it's bad for you.
The fact is that evidence which increases our understandings of evolutionary processes do not "falsify" the theory.
So your claim here that devolution somehow falsifies evolution is pure nonsense.
That's because by definition evolution is simply change, regardless of which "direction".

The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant, it's still evolution.

Kalamata:"Check out this funny video explaining the unfalsifiability of evolutonism, and how evolutionists use deception to cover it up:"

Just more nonsense.
By definitions, scientific explanations are natural processes while ID-Creationism is supernatural.
We learn natural explanations in science class, we learn supernatural explanations in church.
The task of reconciling the two is what makes us uniquely human.

Kalamata on defining "facts":"No. Try confirmed, repeatable, scientific observations."

Nonsense, because a one-time event which cannot be repeated can still be confirmed as observed fact.

Kalamata: "I see you are playing the misdirection game, again, Joey."

More nonsense, it was a perfectly valid point which you respond to by -- slavish obedience to Denier Rules, in this case #5, #7 & #12.

Kalamata:"False.
1) None of those are examples of evolution.
Speciation and adaptation are either genetically neutral, or result in the loss of genetic information, which is devolution, not evolution."

Danny boy, you just got to stop lying.
By definition, evolution is change, regardless of the "direction", "gain" or "loss" of "information".
You don't get to redefine it just because you don't like it.

Kalamata:"2) There is no confirmed evidence that descent with modification has ever occurred; not in the fossil record, not in real life, nor genetically."

The DNA evidence is observed & confirmed in every individual who has a DNA test.
Tests consistently show "descent with modifications", mutations, in every generation.
The fact that most such mutations prove harmless demonstrates that your claims about "no junk DNA" are highly suspect.

The fossil records show innumerable transition species, especially among human ancestors.

Kalamata:"3) The phrase "natural selection" is a much over-hyped, but relatively meaningless term that is used as recognition that organisms with certain characteristics survive better than those that lack those characteristics.
It doesn't possess the intelligence to "select" anything."

But Danny boy, there's no reason for you to lie about that, because you just admitted its true.
You just don't like the terms "natural selection" & "descent with modifications" so you lie & claim it doesn't happen before admitting it does?

Kalamata on "Pandas & People": "I am not surprised that you would attempt to slander those great scientists, Joey.
What else can we expect from someone who promotes the myth that man is a descendent of an ape, or a frog.
According to Joey's cult, if a frog turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale; but if a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science. LOL!"

I suspect the writers of "Pandas & People" are pure scoundrels, but have not yet finished reading their book.
Will let you know if I can find a word of truth in it when I'm done reading.

Kalamata: "I am not kidding when I insinuate that evolutionists believe frogs are of the human ancestors.
This is Neil Shubin in Scientific American:"

Frogs are not human ancestors but there is enough similarity in frog & human biology to suggest common ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago.

>>Kalamata post 366 (cont. 3): "I recall that Hitler joined the German Workers Party; but I don't recall anything about them being Christian, other than perhaps a name-drop or two. Do you have references?"
>>Joey: "I'll start a collection of references for you, here's one, a PDF Also try here, then click on pdf above:

Those link to the same PDF file by Robert Richards. I have that paper in my libary which mentions the German Workers Party, but not the Christain Workers Party as you asserted. It did however mention the Christian-Social Party. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, the Christain Social Workers Party was renamed to the Christian Social Party in 1881, a few years after it was formed; but neither Weikart nor Richards include "Workers" in the name.

In an English translation of Mein Kampf, Hitler called it the Christian-Socialist Movement and/or Party, as mentioned later.

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

>>Joey: "As a boy Adolf Hitler sang in his church choir and wanted to become a priest."

You linked to Wikipedia, again, Joey; so let me expound that over-simplification.

Hitler was baptized and received confirmation, as did most young Catholics; but his ambitions as a youth soon gave way to those of a more militaristic nature, of which he mentioned in Mein Kampf:

"In my freetime I practised singing in the choir of the monastery church at Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed in a very favourable position to be emotionally impressed again and again by the magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. What could be more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representing the highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position of the humble village priest had appeared to my father in his own boyhood days? At least, that was my idea for a while. But the juvenile disputes I had with my father did not lead him to appreciate his son's oratorical gifts in such a way as to see in them a favourable promise for such a career, and so he naturally could not understand the boyish ideas I had in my head at that time. This contradiction in my character made him feel somewhat anxious… Browsing through my father's books, I chanced to come across some publications that dealt with military subjects. One of these publications was a popular history of the Franco-German War of 1870-71. It consisted of two volumes of an illustrated periodical dating from those years. These became my favourite reading. In a little while that great and heroic conflict began to take first place in my mind. And from that time onwards I became more and more enthusiastic about everything that was in any way connected with war or military affairs." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p.19]

According to Richard Weikart's sources, Hitler was estranged from Catholicism by the time he left home:

"Like most young people in his society, he was confirmed in the Catholic Church. However, despite the fact that confirmation is supposed to be a solemn expression of one's personal Christian faith, Hitler's godfather claimed Hitler seemed disgusted with his confirmation ceremony in 1904. One of Hitler's religion teachers in Linz, Franz Sales Schwarz, made such a negative impression on his students that he alienated most of them from Catholicism. Hitler's boyhood friend Kubizek believed that Hitler had been truly devout in the days when he sang in the Lambach choir, but as he grew older, 'his father's freethinking attitude won the upper hand.' Kubizek also could not remember Hitler ever going to a church service."

"By the time Hitler left home in 1907 to live in Vienna, he was already estranged from Catholicism. Brigitte Hamann, who has done the closest analysis thus far of Hitler's Vienna years, reports that no sources ever mentioned Hitler going to church in Vienna. Further, Hamann claims that almost all the eyewitness accounts of Hitler's time in Vienna note his hatred of the Catholic Church. One source reported that around 1912, 'Hitler said the biggest evil for the German people was accepting Christian humility.' This certainly jibes with Hitler's later outlook. Though the source base is scant, the evidence we do have suggests that Hitler had a negative view of Catholicism already while living in Vienna from 1907 to 1913."

"[Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016]"

By the time Hitler joined the military, his faith and reverence toward the church had virtually disappeared. Weikart explained that, according to Thomas Weber's book, "Hitler's First War," the war did not renew Hitler's appreciation for religion, as it did for others. Weikart cites several apostatic scenes during the war, including this one:

"Although [Hitler] was out of the line in reserve, discussion arose about crossing into Niemandsland to share Christmas with the British. He refused. 'Such a thing should not happen in wartime/' Hitler argued. 'Have you no German sense of honor left at all?' More than patriotic scruples were involved. Although a baptized Catholic, he rejected every vestige of religious observance while his unit marked the day in the cellar of the Messines monastery to which they had retired on the 23rd. 'Adi' was distinctly odd. He received no mail or parcels, never spoke of family or friends, neither smoked nor drank, and often brooded alone in his dugout. In the ruins open to the sky, Corporal Frobenius, a Lutheran theology student also decorated with the Iron Cross, read the Christmas gospel to a joint congregation of Catholics and Protestants, but not to Corporal Hitler." [Stanley Weintraub, "Silent Night: the story of the World War I Christmas truce." Free Press, 2001, pp.70-71]

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

Joey name-dropped a few links from Wikipedia.

>>Joey: "Christian Social Workers' Party (Germany), founded by Adolf Stoecker."
>>Joey: "Christian Social Party (Austria), founded by Karl Kueger >>Joey: "Georg Ritter von Schönerer, Pan German Party >>Joey: "Karl Lueger, Christian Social Party, >>Joey: "Adolf Hitler, National Socialist Workers Party,

The following segment is directly out of Richard's paper and book of the same name, "Was Hitler a Darwinian":

>>Joey: "The Catholic Lueger was quite anti-Semitic, mostly it seems for political advantage. When challenged on one occasion that his dinner companions were Jewish, he famous proclaimed: “I decide who’s a Yid.”119 Opportunistic perhaps, but his newspaper, the Volksblatt, was so vehemently anti-Semitic that the Archbishop of Vienna denounced it. Leuger’s party shared both name and outlook with those of the Protestant Court Preacher and deeply anti-Semitic Adolf Stöcker."
>>Joey: Hitler explicitly said that it was Lueger and his Christian Social Party that caused his “opinions regarding anti-Semitism to undergo a slow change in the course of time.” “It was,” he said, “my most serious change of opinion.”120

The word "explicitly" may be somewhat overstated, Joey. This is one translation:

"To-day, as well as then, I hold Dr. Karl Lueger as the most eminent type of German Burgermeister. How many prejudices were thrown over through such a change in my attitude towards the Christian-Socialist Movement! My ideas about anti-Semitism changed also in the course of time, but that was the change which I found most difficult. It cost me a greater internal conflict with myself, and it was only after a struggle between reason and sentiment that victory began to be decided in favour of the former. Two years later sentiment rallied to the side of reasons and became a faithful guardian and counsellor." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p.54]

Hitler may have attributed his anti-semitism to the Christian-Socialist Movement, but he doesn't mention it in that translation, which seems to be the common translation. However, the Manheim translation leans toward Richard's interpretation:

"How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement! My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all. It cost me the greatest inner soul struggles, and only after months of battle between my reason and my sentiments did my reason begin to emerge victorious. Two years later, my sentiment had followed my reason, and from then on became its most loyal guardian and sentinel." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.55]

There is at least one translation in which it appears that Hitler specifically attributed his change in attitude to Lueger:

"How many of my deliberate opinions were thrown over by my change of attitude towards the Christian Socialist movement! When because of this my opinions in regard to anti-Semitism also slowly began to change in the course of time, it was probably my most serious change. This change caused me most of my severe mental struggles, and only after months of agonizing between reason and feeling, victory began to favor reason. Two years later feeling had followed reason, and from now on became its most faithful guard and monitor." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Complete and Unabridged." Reynal & Hitchcock, 1940, pp.71-72]

A direct word-for-word translation from the German is not a lot of help; but it does seem to pointing in that direction, as well:

"How many of my intentional views have been but by such a change in my opinion overturned to the Christian-social movement! If this slowly also my views in relation subject to anti-semitism the change of time, then this was probably my worst change ever. It cost me the most inner mental struggles, and only after months of struggle between minds And feeling the victory began to side with to beat the intellect." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kamp: Unabridged Edition - German." Eher-Verlag, 1943, p.59]

However, later in Mein Kampf, Hitler writes that he rejected the Christian-Socialist Party form of anti-semitism because it was religious, rather than racial:

"The failure of this [Christian-Socialist] Party to carry into effect the dream of saving Austria from dissolution must be attributed to two main defects in the means they employed and also the lack of a clear perception of the ends they wished to reach. The anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists was based on religious instead of racial principles. The reason for this mistake gave rise to the second error also. The founders of the Christian-Socialist Party were of the opinion that they could not base their position on the racial principle if they wished to save Austria, because they felt that a general disintegration of the State might quickly result from the adoption of such a policy… It was obvious, however, that this kind of anti-Semitism did not upset the Jews very much, simply because it had a purely religious foundation. If the worst came to the worst a few drops of baptismal water would settle the matter, hereupon the Jew could still carry on his business safely and at the same time retain his Jewish nationality… Through this shilly-shally way of dealing with the problem the anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists turned out to be quite ineffective. It was anti-Semitic only in outward appearance. And this was worse than if it had made no pretences at all to anti-Semitism; for the pretence gave rise to a false sense of security among people who believed that the enemy had been taken by the ears; but, as a matter of fact, the people themselves were being led by the nose." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, pp.103,104]

So, above all, Hitler was a racist, and there is no doubt that racism "exploded" after the arrival of Darwin's, Galton's, and Haeckel's works.

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

That is a continuation of Joey's previous statement from Richard's paper and book.

>>Joey: "Hitler scholars Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw concur with Hitler’s own estimate that these two politicians were the most significant in forming his attitudes about Jews and the need for a racially homogeneous German land.122 >>Joey: "So by Hitler’s own admission, these political figures, not Darwin, were pivotal in forming his anti-Semitic attitudes. Thus neither Hitler’s conception of race was Darwinian nor was Darwinism the source of his anti-Semitism. The motivation and origin of his views were political, not scientific, and certainly not Darwinian.123"

Perhaps; but there are holes in the story, and in your interpretation. Weikart discussed it in this manner, in which he mentions the Mein Kampf statement I previously quoted:

"Hitler's attitude about Jews early in his life is difficult to figure out because the testimony is ambiguous. While he was in Vienna, its Catholic mayor Karl Lueger peddled a populist version of anti-Semitism, and Hitler later praised Lueger's ability to mobilize the masses. However, he ultimately did not approve of Lueger's form of anti-Semitism, calling it a 'sham anti-Semitism which was almost worse than none at all,' because any Jew could save himself and his business with 'a splash of baptismal water.' Hitler viewed this kind of anti- Semitism as superficial, not scientific. Also, Hitler was alienated from Catholicism at an early age, so it is not clear how much credence he would have given to Lueger's anti-Semitic rhetoric. In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated that the Pan-Germans such as Schönerer had the right attitude toward anti-Semitism because they based it 'on a correct understanding of the importance of the racial problem, and not on religious ideas." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.6]

There's more. In this statement, Weikart uses one of Richard's own references, Ian Kershaw, to support Weikart's interpretation:

"Despite Hitler's claim in Mein Kampf that he developed into a consistent racial anti-Semite while in Vienna, historians Brigitte Hamann and Ian Kershaw, who have done the closest analyses of Hitler's early attitudes toward the Jews, do not believe his concocted story. Both conclude that Hitler did not fully develop his harsh anti-Semitic ideology until 1918–19. The shock of German defeat in World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and especially the short-lived communist republic in Munich, which had some Jewish leaders, galvanized anti-Semitic agitation in 1919. Hitler was still in the army when the communists took over in Munich, and his role during that time is murky. After the White forces bloodily suppressed the Bavarian communist regime, Hitler was recruited into an army propaganda unit, where he was trained to ply the troops with ultra-nationalist speeches. One of the nationalist figures who helped train Hitler and his fellow orators was Gottfried Feder, an anti-Semite whose central mission was to combat the alleged economic domination of the Jews. Hitler claimed that after hearing Feder's first lecture, he immediately recognized he 'had now found the way to one of the most essential premises for the foundation of a new party.' Hitler's anti-Semitism drew heavily from Feder's interpretation of the Jews as greedy, exploitative parasites on the German economy." [Ibid.]

Kershaw even rejected some of the statements by Hitler's supposed childhood friend:

"For Kubizek, Vienna had made Hitler's antisemitism more radical. But it had not created it. In his opinion, Hitler had gone to Vienna 'already as a pronounced antisemite'. Kubizek went on to recount one or two episodes of Hitler's aversion to Jews during the time they were together in Vienna. He claimed an encounter with a Galician Jew was the caftan story of Mein Kampf. But this, and a purported visit to a synagogue in which Hitler took Kubizek along to witness a Jewish wedding, have the appearance of an outright fabrication. Palpably false is Kubizek's assertion that Hitler joined the Antisemitenbund (Antisemitic League) during the months in 1908 that the friends were together in Vienna. There was no such organization in Austria-Hungary before 1918.292." [Ian Kershaw, "Hitler: 1889-1936 - Hubris." Penguin Books, 2001, Chap. V]

Kershaw went on to say, "The formation of the ideological antisemite [Hitler] had to wait until a further crucial phase in Hitler's development, ranging from the end of the war to his political awakening in Munich in 1919."

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

Joey returns to Wikipedia:

>>Joey: "On Georg Ritter von Schönerer: "During these years, while the Kulturkampf divided Imperial Germany, Schönerer founded the Los von Rom! movement, which advocated the conversion of all Roman Catholic German-speaking people of Austria to Lutheran Protestantism, or, in some cases, to the Old Catholic Churches. Schönerer became even more powerful in 1901, when 21 members of his party gained seats in the Parliament. His influence and career rapidly declined thereafter, however, due to his forceful views and personality. His party suffered as well, and had virtually disintegrated by 1907. But his views and philosophy, not to mention his great skill as an agitator, would go on to influence and inspire Hitler as well as the Nazi Party.[11]"

As aforementioned, Weikart said that Hitler claimed the Pan-Germans such as Schönerer had the right attitude toward anti-Semitism because they based it on a correct understanding of the importance of the racial problem, and not on religious ideas. Hear if from Hitler himself:

"The Pan-German movement was right in its theoretical view about the aim of a German renascence, but unfortunate in its choice of methods. It was nationalistic, but unhappily not socialistic enough to win the masses. But its anti-Semitism was based on a correct understanding of the importance of the racial problem, and not on religious ideas. Its struggle against a definite denomination [Catholicism,] however, was actually and tactically false." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.122]

Hitler lamented Schönerer's alienation of the Catholics, fearing they would lose the political war, which they did; but he also revealed a belief in a "divide-and-conquer" conspiracy by the Jews:

"Hitler viewed the Los-von-Rom [Away-from-Rome] Movement as an unmitigated disaster because it unnecessarily alienated the masses from the Pan-German Party, precipitating its decline. Hitler suggested the proper political course would be to imbue ethnically German Catholics (and Protestants) with nationalist sentiments so they would support a 'single holy German nation,' just as they had done during World War I. Hitler also rejected Schönerer's anti-Catholic crusade because he insisted that a successful political movement must concentrate all its fury on a single enemy. A struggle against Catholicism would dissipate the Nazi movement's power and sense of conviction it needed to carry on its fight against the Jews. In the second volume of Mein Kampf, Hitler even accused the Jews of conspiring to divide Germans from each other by arousing religious sectarianism. By stirring up German Catholics to fight against German Protestants, Jews were diverting them from confronting their real threat: the Jews themselves. Hitler insisted that his political movement should unite all Germans to oppose the Jews, becoming a party where 'the most devout Protestant could sit beside the most devout Catholic, without coming into the slightest conflict with his religious convictions.' He did not care whether his fellow Germans were Protestant or Catholic (or of some other religious persuasion). However, he wanted to ensure that religion did not create divisions and thereby weaken the German Volk." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.1]

Above all, the context of Mein Kampf requires consideration that Hitler is writing after the war, and after being thoroughly alienated from the Jews.

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

Joey quoting Emily Himmel from a paper on Academia.edu:

>>Joey: "Schönerer, Lueger, and Hitler: The Politics of the Vienna Years, 1907-1913: "Adolf Hitler spent the years between 1908 and 1913 in Vienna, Austria, the crown jewel of the Hapsburg Empire. Hitler’s Vienna was a bustling metropolis, full of the rich and elite of Austrian society, but also the most impoverished. A massive influx of labourers from the countryside at the turn of the century had overwhelmed the employers and architects of the city, leaving many of the workers unemployed and homeless. These horrible economic conditions formed a breeding ground for extremist politics and philosophy, particularly that of the anti-Semites, who used the Jews as a scapegoat for their economic hardships, and the pan-Germans, who supported an “ethnic unification” between Germany and Austria. The two most prominent proponents of those ideas were Georg von Schönerer, an influential Austro-Hungarian politician and Karl Lueger, mayor of Vienna from 1897 to 1910. The words of these men circulated through the men’s hostels and the poorest class, gaining followers, particularly one down-and-out architect by the name of Adolf Hitler..."

That is a rather lengthy copy/paste that contains no new information or interpretations, so I chopped it off and presented her summary, instead:

"Hitler entered Vienna with Schönerer's ideals and left with Lueger's political prowess. In Lueger, Hitler saw someone who knew how to work his people. Lueger understood the need to have a common enemy, to appeal to the lower-middle classes, and to use propaganda to his advantage. Hitler greatly respected Schönerer for his ideas, but Lueger for his politics. It can be argued that Hitler was exposed to anti-Semitism as a child, and then again in Linz, but the true formative years for his personal and political dogma were spent in Vienna. Never in his life was he so exposed to two perfect sources of information: Georg von Schönerer taught him about Pan-Germanism and racial anti-Semitism, while Karl Lueger taught him how to control the masses and run a successful political party. Adolf Hitler's time in Vienna perfectly prepared him for his future role as the head of the Nazi Party and the Führer of Germany." [Emily Hummel, "Schönerer, Lueger, and Hitler: The Politics of the Vienna Years, 1907-1913." 2013]

I mostly agree.

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

Joey quoting Robert Richards, "Was Hitler a Darwinian":

>>Joey: "Several scholars and a host of religious conservatives have argued that Hitler derived his anti-Semitic racism from Darwin’s theory. They suggest this connection morally taints Darwinians and undermines evolutionary conceptions. Careful examination shows that Hitler’s racial views had no connection with Darwinian ideas; indeed, he held to the fixity of species and thought descent of human beings from animal forbearers absurd. Hitler’s anti-Semitism comes mostly from Houston Stewart Chamberlain and political sources. Those biologists most closely allied with the Nazi party rejected Darwinian and Haeckelian theory because it was assumed to be rigidly mechanistic, and volkisch biology was not mechanistic. The moral and epistemic implications often drawn are without merit. Those who attempt to link Hitler’s ideas with those of Darwin are either blindly driven by ideology or have failed to consider the evidence. Likely both."

Naturally I think that statement is a bunch of baloney from an ideologically-driven Darwin/Haeckel apologist. Weikart, however, is more congenial in his rebuttal (but it is obvious that he, too, thinks it is baloney):

"In his two books, Hitler discussed evolutionary theory as vital to his theory of racial struggle and eugenics. Several times throughout Mein Kampf, he specifically employs the term 'struggle for existence' ('Kampf um das Dasein'); in fact, the phrase or its plural appears three times in a passage several pages long where Hitler described why the Germans should be both pro-natalist and expansionist. Historian Robert Richards, however, inexplicably claims that Hitler's views in this passage are un-Darwinian, because—according to Richards—a Darwinian should supposedly want population expansion only within restricted borders, which would allow the fit to triumph over the unfit. Richards argues expanding into new territory would lessen the struggle, allowing the fit and less fit 'to have fairly equal chances.' Richards, however, miscalculates here because he leaves out one of the most important factors in Hitler's reasoning: the living space (Lebensraum) is to be taken from allegedly inferior races. Thus, expanding is part of the Darwinian racial struggle that allows the allegedly fitter Nordic race to outcompete allegedly inferior races. Contra Richards, Hitler's discussion makes perfect sense in a Darwinian world if unequal races are waging a struggle for existence. In fact, the whole idea of Lebensraum was first formulated by Friedrich Ratzel, a Darwinian biologist who later became a geographer. In addition, many pro-natalist eugenicists with impeccable Darwinian credentials, such as Alfred Ploetz or Max von Gruber, agreed with Hitler's position on expansionism (indeed, they may have influenced Hitler in this matter)." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.8]

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

Joey is back to Wikipedia [I am omitting the redundant first part]:

>>Joey: [Hitler] also developed an admiration for Martin Luther.[50]

Luther is one of the go-to boys for the Darwin apologists; yet, Hitler rarely mentioned Luther, except perhaps to praise him as a reformer (against the Catholic Church,) and, in Hitler's opinion, for Luther's lack of strict adherence to the scripture:

"Strangely, Hitler praised the Jesuits for stimulating the Counter-Reformation, whose architecture he appreciated. Luther, on the other hand, had succumbed to a mystical inwardness—according to Hitler—that was inferior to the Jesuit's pursuit of sensuous pleasure (Hitler obviously did not know much about Ignatius of Loyola's own mysticism.) Luther, however, had one thing going for him, Hitler believed: he 'did not bind humanity to the letter of the scripture; there are an entire string of utterances, in which he takes a position against the scriptures, in that he ascertains that they contain much that is not good.' This is a rather backhanded compliment of the man who made 'scripture alone' one of the guiding principles of his life and ministry. If nothing else, it proved Hitler did not have a very high opinion of the Bible." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.4]

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

[Removed distractions.]

>>Joey, continuing: "The origin and development of Hitler's anti-Semitism remains a matter of debate.[53] His friend, August Kubizek, claimed that Hitler was a "confirmed anti-Semite" before he left Linz.[54] However, historian Brigitte Hamann describes Kubizek's claim as "problematical".[55] While Hitler states in Mein Kampf that he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna,[56] Reinhold Hanisch, who helped him sell his paintings, disagrees. Hitler had dealings with Jews while living in Vienna.[57][58][59] Historian Richard J. Evans states that "historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat [in World War I], as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe".[60]"

I tend to agree with Evans. This is the link to his article:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/hitlers-first-war-by-thomas-weber/article4261721/

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

Finally, back to the go-to boy for the Darwin apologetics:

>>Joey: "Also, note above the reference to Martin Luther, doubtless including his 1543 book: On the Jews and their Lies. Nothing Charles Darwin wrote could remotely approach the influence on a mind like Hitler's of Luther's 400 year old words."

You must have forgotten about Charlie's "The Descent of Man," Joey:

"Natural selection follows from the struggle for existence ; and this from a rapid rate of increase. It is impossible not bitterly to regret, but whether wisely is another question, the rate at which man tends to increase; for this leads in barbarous tribes to infanticide and many other evils, and in civilised nations to abject poverty, celibacy, and to the late marriages of the prudent. But as man suffers from the same physical evils with the lower animals, lie has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to the rank of manhood." [Ibid. p.180]

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." [Civilised Nations, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex - Indexed." Princeton University Press, 1st Ed, 1981, Chap V, p.168]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]

"So in regard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other domestic animals. Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good temper,&c., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts in almost every family; and we now know, through the admirable labours of Mr. Galton, that genius which implies a wonderfully complex combination of high faculties, tends to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families." [Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, New Ed, 1901, Chap.II, p.41]

Charlie certainly appears to be promoting genocide and eugenics.

What were the Hitlerian Nazi's guilty of? Geocide and eugenics, of all things. . .

Mr.Kalamata

Kalamata post #371 cont. 2: "You misquoted me, Joey.
Gary Steinman was Kenyon's co-author on "Biochemical Evolution".
Kenyon and Percival Davis co-authored "Of Pandas and People"."

Sorry, Danny boy, but I quoted you exactly from your own post #314:

" 'Of Panda's and People' is a very good book, and highly recommended.
It is co-authored by Professor Dean Kenyon, a former evolutionist, who, along with Dr. Gary Steinman

Seriously, I make plenty enough mistakes on my own without also taking the blame for your mistakes.

Kalamata: "As ususal, Joey over-hyped the Dover trial by falsely claiming the school board was trying to ram Intelligent Design down everyone's throats, which they clearly were not."

Danny boy, you got to stop lying about these things, the truth is not what you claim.
The truth, in a nutshell, is the "Dover" government school board created an anti-evolution statement they required science teachers to read, teachers refused, parents sued and voters fired the creationist school board.

Here is a pretty good summary of Kitzmiller v Dover.
It takes about two hours to watch, but covers the subject and makes the key point that the term "Intelligent Design" is simply Creationism renamed for legal purposes.

Kalamata: "The follow-up volume for "Of Pandas and People" is called, "The Design of Life", by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells."

I'll put it on my list.

Kalamata: "The one "downside" is, you will not find any name-calling or slurs in these books, which are prevalent in evolutionism books."

And also far too prevalent in Danny Denier's posts.

Kalamata: "While you are emotionally coping with that cartoon, Joey, other people are concerned about babies heads bing crushed with heavy forceps as a result of the lingering eugenics mindset instilled in many by Social Darwinism."

Oh Danny boy, it may surprise you to learn that the US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade never once mentioned either Darwin, "Social Darwinism" or evolution.
What they did mention, iirc, was the US Constitution and an alleged "right to privacy" which somehow got expanded in the Supremes' minds to "right to kill unborn babies."

{sigh}

Kalamata: "You are mocking the work of some of the top mathematicians in the world, Joey?"

Just as Danny Denier mocks any scientist or mathematician you disagree with, right?
G.I.G.O. -- regardless of how "genius" a mathematician might be, if his basic assumptions are wrong, his results will be... yes, garbage.

Kalamata: "You have to be severely scientifically-challenged to believe the human body evolved by materialistic dumb luck."

Most Christian churches teach just what I believe -- that regardless of what theories science proposes today, God was the designer, creator and implementer of every natural process.
In other words, unless God Himself intended it, there is no such thing as "dumb luck".

Kalamata: "Science is deaf and dumb, Joey.
Scientists, on the other hand can and do choose to say things about the Bible, except when suppressed by tyrants."

Right, just as I've posted before: every scientist regardless is entitled to their nonscientific opinions.
What they are not entitled is to label such opinions as "science".

Kalamata: "You claim your religious views are science, Joey?
Why are you privileged?"

Seriously, why do you keep lying?
You know your job here requires a man of impeccable honesty and you just don't have it.
If I were your boss, I'd fire your sorry r.....

>>Kalamata post #366 cont. 4: "The term "struggle for existence" (which both Hitler and Darwin frequently used,) combined with the explosion of virulent racism after the release of Darwin's books, not to mention the arrival of eugenics in political life, could easily be considered all the seed a madman would need to plan an extermination."
>>Joey: "The Timeline of Anti-Semitism goes all the way back to Biblical times, long before Darwin or anyone else thought of evolution."

Actually, it goes back much further than that, or at least the prophecy does:

"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee . . . And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the Lord shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life: In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see. And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you." -- Deu 28:15, 63-68 KJV

That is exactly what happened when my ancestors rejected Christ.

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

>>Joey: "It includes many massacres of Jews, some in Germany, including:"

Why the distraction, Joey? That is all well-documented history; but there were no Hitler's along the way.

Let's fast forward to the days after Darwin corrupted the moral narrative by convincing the naïve they were not created in the image of God, but in the image of an ape.

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

>>Joey: "Treitschke also endorsed Social Darwinian theories of brutal competition among races. In an essay published in 1862, Treitschke praised the "pitiless racial struggle" of Germans against Lithuanians, Poles and Old Prussians; he claimed that "magic" emanated from "eastern German soil" which had been "fertilised" by "noble German blood". >>Joey: "But Darwin said nothing about "magic" in anybody's soil and von Treitschke did not invent anti-Semitism, he merely gave it yet another excuse."

Darwin gave it "legitimacy":

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Affinities and Genealogies, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]

All the mad man had to do was convince himself that his race was civilized, and the other "race" (the Jews) was not. It is important to note that the early Nazi suppression of the Jews occurred at a time in history when eugenics was widespread and socially acceptable -- thanks to Hitler's cousin, Francis Galton, of which Darwin himself gave his stamp of approval (and so did Haeckel and Hitler.) We cannot ignore that doctrine, which I mentioned in an earlier post of un-natural selection from the pen of Charlie's cousin, Francis Galton, the father of eugenics:

***
"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, as expressed in this letter to Galton about Galton's book:

"I have only read about fifty pages of your book [1] (to the Judges), 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]

Footnote 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 of Man (1901), p. 41.

In the highlighted portion, Charlie was referring to Galton's notion that man's gifts were all hereditary, including his work ethic. This is Galton, again:

"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 of Darwinism and Galtonism, 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 other 20th century butchers: Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, who were also Darwinists.
***

The bottom line is, after Darwin's "legitimized" in the minds of mere men the notion that there was no higher power than themselves, the arrival of butchers like Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were, and are, inevitable.

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

>>Joey: "1882: "First International Anti-Jewish Congress convenes at Dresden, Germany." In Dresden, a beautiful old city spared from Allied bombings until February 1945. 1909: "Salomon Reinach and Florence Simmonds refer to 'this new antisemitism, masquerading as patriotism, which was first propagated at Berlin by the court chaplain Stöcker, with the connivance of Bismarck.'[4] Similarly, Peter N. Stearns comments that 'the ideology behind the new anti-Semitism [in Germany] was more racist than religious.'[5]"

That is post-Darwin, Joey.

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

>>Joey: "In 1909, while Hitler struggles to become a painter and learns political anti-Semitism in Vienna, Austria, in Germany antisemitism masquerades as patriotism, not Darwinism.

You keep referring back to Vienna, even though one of your own references points to post-World War I as the time Hitler's violent antisemitism emerged. I quote:

[Joey] "Historian Richard J. Evans states that "historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat [in World War I], as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe".[60]"

This is the full quote by Evans from a book review by him. The book review followed this quote:

"[H]istorians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany's defeat, as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe. His first political activities for the army during the Revolution of 1918 even involved propagandizing in the ranks for the revolutionary government in Munich. It was only later, when he was sent to observe far-right political groups, that his political convictions became clear and firm. What effect service in the war had on his political views is shrouded in mystery." [Richard J. Evans, "Hitler's First War, by Thomas Weber - Review." The Globe and Mail, June 22, 2011]

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

>>Joey: Point is: in none of the "Timeline of Anti-Semitism" items is Darwin or evolution even mentioned, much less cited as a source. Where we do see the term "Social Darwinism" it can hardly be considered an original source of anti-Semitism, merely another term for behavior which goes back thousands of years before Darwin."

You refuse to allow Hitler to grow up, Joey. Perhaps in later posts you will let him "escape" Vienna; but in the meantime I must tow the line. This passage refers to the Darwinian-inspired "moral" code of eugenics:

"I must stress, however, that even the most hardcore secularists often still retain religious influences (and Hitler was not as radically secular as most atheists or agnostics). Hitler still believed in some kind of God, and his thinking remained colored by religious elements, although in the end, earthly concerns dominated his political and racial ideology. This is especially true if we consider the moral philosophy of Nazism, which centered on promoting the biological welfare and advancement of the Nordic race and often conflicted with Christian ethics. Hitler's Darwinian-inspired moral code called for the eradication of the weak, sick, and those deemed inferior, rather than universal love." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Introduction]

This refers to the association of Hitler's pantheism with Darwinism:

"At first glance, it might seem that Hitler's pantheistic worship of nature is incidental, a bit of trivia that does little or nothing to help us understand the man and the atrocities that he committed. But to suppose this would be a mistake. Hitler's devotion to nature as a divine being had a grim corollary: the laws of nature became his infallible guide to morality. Whatever conformed to the laws of nature was morally good, and whatever contravened nature and its ways was evil. When Hitler explained how he hoped to harmonize human society with the scientific laws of nature, he emphasized principles derived from Darwinian theory, especially the racist forms of Darwinism prominent among Darwin's German disciples. These laws included human biological inequality (especially racial inequality), the human struggle for existence, and natural selection. In the Darwinian struggle for existence, multitudes perish, and only a few of the fittest individuals survive and reproduce. If this is nature's way, Hitler thought, then he should emulate nature by destroying those destined for death. Thus, in his twisted vision of religion, Hitler believed he was serving his God by annihilating the allegedly inferior humans and promoting the welfare and prolific reproduction of the supposedly superior Aryans." [Ibid.]

This refers to Hitler's admiration for Enlightenment thinkers:

"With his stress on will and instinct, Hitler did indeed have an irrationalist bent, and I explore this theme in greater depth elsewhere in this book. However, many of his comments in both public and private about the Enlightenment, religious toleration, and the science-religion nexus seem consistent with rationalism. On the few occasions that Hitler forthrightly discussed his attitude toward Enlightenment thinkers, he uniformly expressed appreciation and admiration for them. Kant, whose bust he wanted to place in his magnificent library in Linz, was one of the leading philosophers of the Enlightenment." [Ibid. Chapter 3]

"This was not the only time Hitler praised Enlightenment philosophers. During a monologue in October 1941, he lamented that current discussions about religion were in a miserable state compared to the writings of the French Enlightenment or to Frederick the Great's discussions with Voltaire. Nine months later, he told Bormann that of the books that Bormann had given him to look at, he was especially interested in Frederick the Great's books, Briefe über die Religion (Letters on Religion) and Theologische Streitschriften (Theological Polemics). Hitler commented that it would be valuable if all Germans, especially leaders and military officers, could read these works by Frederick, because then they would see that Hitler was not alone in his 'heretical thoughts.' Hitler obviously thought highly of Frederick, not only for his military exploits and tenacity but also for his Enlightened religious views. Hans Frank noticed this tendency, too, testifying that Hitler increasingly identified with Frederick the Great's Enlightened rationalism, which completely suppressed his childhood faith. The theologian Paul Hinlicky claims that Hitler's conception of God was shaped by Enlightenment thought, asserting, 'Hitler embraced the rationalist, watch-maker God typical of deistic (not 'theistic') thought whose stern and ruthless law he discovered anew in Darwinian natural selection. In this way, Hitler renounced the God identified by biblical narrative.'" [Ibid. Chapter 3]

More Enlightment "rationalism" mingled with Darwinism:

"Another way that Hitler paralleled Enlightenment rationalism was by stressing the variety of religions in the world. Hitler saw the presence of numerous religions in the world as a major hurdle to believing in any particular one. The basic idea was that since there were so many different religions, each claiming to be the sole and exclusive truth, most religions were necessarily wrong. Why, then, believe in one particular religion, just because by accident you happened to be raised in the society that embraced it? In a monologue in October 1941, Hitler expressed this point clearly. Where he got his statistics from is uncertain, but he claimed that there were 170 large religions in the world, so at least 169 must be wrong. The implication, however, was that all 170 were probably wrong. Then he claimed that no religion still being practiced was older than 2,500 years, while humans have existed for at least 300,000 years (having evolved from primates). This implied that religions were temporary phenomena of questionable validity. A few months later, he made similar remarks, claiming that human conceptions of Providence are constantly shifting. Only about 10 percent of people in the world believed in Catholicism, he claimed, and the rest of humanity had many different beliefs. This time, he gave the figure of 500,000 years for the existence of the human species, noting that Christianity only existed during an 'extremely short epoch of humanity.'" [Ibid.]

Struggle for Existence:

"Bur how should humans fight this struggle for existence? When applying Darwinian principles to human societies, Darwinists had to wrestle with the relative weight to give to competition between individuals within a society versus competition between different groups or societies. As we have seen earlier, many Darwinists-including Darwin himself-believed that group competition, such as war and racial antagonisms, played a crucial role in the development of human societies and even in the evolution of morality. Hitler aligned himself with this approach, believing that racial competition was the primary factor driving human evolution and history. Thus, in order to promote evolutionary progress, Hitler opted for a two-pronged strategy involving both artificial and natural selection: eugenics within German society to improve the health and vitality of the"Aryan race," and racial struggle and warfare toward those outside the German racial community. Hitler's eugenics and racial policies were linked as part of a larger program to preserve and improve the human species, since he considered the Germans the highest race, not only physically, but especially intellectually. Even more important for our purposes, Hitler believed that Germans were morally superior to all other races. Thus, eliminating other races and replacing them with Germans would bring moral improvement to the entire world. I" [Richard Weikart, "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany." Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p.212]

The Final Solution:

"Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection. The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion." [Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap V, p.143]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Affinities and Genealogies, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]

Compare those two by Darwin with this one from Mein Kampf:

"The ultimate cause of such a decline [in culture] was their forgetting that all culture depends on men and not conversely; hence that to preserve a certain culture the man who creates it must be preserved. This preservation is bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best and stronger in this world. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf: Manheim Translation." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999, p.289]

Charlie Darwin's doctrine was evil, Joey; and Hitler embraced it, via one avenue or another.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata post #366 cont. 5: "I recall that Keith was a supporter of the Piltdown Man before it was proven to be a hoax (the history is muddy.) Keith was also a supporter of the concept of scientific racism. Why would he lie about someone as close in ideology as Hitler?"
>>Joey: "Like Kalamata Keith could only see what he wished to see. In this case Keith wished to see Hitler as a reflection of his own ideals."

Where is your evidence, or your references, Joey? These are my footnotes from Keith's work on Hitler:

"The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national 'front' of Europe is also the evolutionary 'front'; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!" [Arthur Keith, "Evolution and Ethics." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1947, p.10]

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution" [Ibid. p.230]

"In the twentieth century the people of Germany were both educated and civilized, yet among them a feeling against the Jews reached a new depth of infamy and cruelty. The German sense of nationality had been blown into a white heat by the breath of their fanatical leader, for Hitler was a naked nationalist, racialist, and evolutionist." [Arthur Keith, "A New Theory Of Human Evolution." Watts & Co., 1948, p.388]

Those close to Hitler seem to agree with Keith. This is one of Hitler's secretaries, Christa Schroeder, quoting Hitler:

"Science does not yet clearly know from which root human beings have arisen. We are certainly the highest stage of evolution of any mammal, which evolved from reptiles to mammals, perhaps through apes, to humans. We are a member of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living organisms. And in nature the law of the struggle rules from the beginning. Everything incapable of living and everything weak will be eliminated." [Christa Schroeder, "He Was My Chief: The Memoirs of Adolf Hitler's Secretary - German." Langen Müller, 1985, p.68]

Weikart mentions two others:

"Two other associates of Hitler testify that belief in Darwinian evolution was integral to his ideology. [Otto] Wagener remembered a conversation in the summer of 1931 when Hitler professed, 'Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives. The simpler life forms have no written constitution. Selection therefore runs a natural course. As Darwin correctly proved: the choice is not made by some agency—nature chooses.' This not only demonstrates Hitler believed in Darwinian natural selection, but it also suggests he saw the process as nonteleological, i.e., not directed by some deity. Wagener claimed that Hitler based his support for killing the weak and the sick on this vision of natural selection. Otto Dietrich generally concurred, stating that Hitler's 'evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel.' Hitler was not an atheist, according to Dietrich, but believed in a Supreme Being who 'had created laws for the preservation and evolution of the human race. He believed that the highest aim of mankind was to survive for the achievement of progress and perfection.' Thus, evolutionary thought was central to Hitler's goals and policies." [Weikart, Richard, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Chap.9]

Isn't that your understanding of evolution, Joey: Deistic creation followed by unguided evolution?

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

>>Kalamata "Charlie became somewhat of a prophet of extermination with these words:"
>>Kalamata quoting Darwin 1871: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
>>Joey: Darwin hardly needed to be a "prophet" in 1871, but merely looking back a few centuries on what Europeans had already done to more "savage races" they encountered. For example, by 1871 after centuries of pushing native Americans westward, destruction of huge buffalo herds drastically reduced the numbers buffalo could support. So Darwin was no "prophet" merely a reporter on what was then happening.>

You are ignoring the "explosion" of racism that occurred after Darwin. He gave them "legitimacy;" and from that point forward, it was "legitimate" for governments to decide which group is and is not "savage," and then to sterilize, enslave, and even eliminate them. I am reasonably certain the Left considers limited-government capitalists as "savages," much like Hitler considered the Jews as "savages." I believe holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl put in the proper perspective:

"If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity, and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment - or, as the Nazis liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil'. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." [Viktor E. Frankl, "The Doctor and the Soul: From Psychotherapy to Logotherapy." Souvenir Press, 2012, Introduction]

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

>>Kalamata: "The word "support" [the Holocaust'] may be a little strong, but there is no doubt Charlie deemed it only slightly less than inevitable."
>>Joey: "That's a total crock. Neither Darwin nor anybody else in 1871 could imagine the Holocaust. What he could imagine is what had already happened and was even then happening, in the American West, for example."

You took my words out of context, and then corrupted it by inserting your words into my statement. My statement was in regards to Charlie's statement quoted above, which many believe gave Hitler a "license;" that is, Charlie provided the nihilist the "legitimacy" to make his own rules, and justify them, at least in the nihilist's own mind. Recall that Dawkins said:

"[A]lthough atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." [Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker." W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, Chap.1]

And what are the rules of atheism? They are anything the atheist happens to choose at the time. There are no rules, but there was and is rebellion against traditional rules:

"[T]he Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science (1908, 287)." [Bergman, Jerry, "The Darwin Effect." Master Books, 2014, Chap.3]

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

>>Kalamata "Child. An example of guilt by association would be the hard left labeling conservatives as Nazis after being brainwashed by the propaganda of some radical orator, like Shermer, who falsely linked the political right to fascism. On the other hand, the historical linkage of Hitler with evolutionism is strong."
>>Joey: "Neither Libertarian Shermer nor anybody else this side of "the Squad" calls normal US Conservatives "Nazis". The radical Left, on the other hand, while loudly claiming to be "Antifa" has in fact cozied up to such anti-Semitic Nazi lovers as Muslim extremists. So the historical linkage of Hitler with Muslim extremism is much stronger."

There you go again again, apologizing for left wing tactics, while muddying the waters about what constitutes the Right. That is exactly what the Left does. Muslims and Antifa are big government, left-wing fascists, along with the Neo-Nazis. It is disingenuous to insinuate they are on the Right. The Far Right are anarchists, not big-government leftists.

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolution has had more than its share of evil uses: from the millions who lost their appendixes unnecessarily due the hoax of "vestigial" organs; to the virulent racism that exploded on the scene after men were tricked into believing they were descendants of apes, rather than created in the image of God; and to the genocide of eugenics; all on the way to the Holocaust. The evil of evolutionism will continue to weaken the nations until it is relegated to the dustbin of history, where it rightly belongs."
>>Joey: "Almost any idea, no matter how innocent, can be weaponized for evil purposes. Even Christianity, for all its peaceful intentions, was often weaponized historically to justify massacres of Jews, and others. So I don't blame Christianity for what evil people did in its name and I certainly don't blame Darwin for what people who never used his name supposedly did under Darwin's 'influence'."

Christianity was never weaponized. Infiltrating antichristians and apostates certainly weaponized it, but no Christians were involved, by definition. You cannot be a Christian and ignore what Christ says. You can be Satan, as Peter found out, but not Christian.

Evolutionists on the other hand, performed their "service to mankind" by actually following the doctrine of Darwin. If Charlie has kept his ignorant mouth shut after writing "On the Origins," I wouldn't have a leg to stand on, except perhaps for the apes-to-man part: which is a lot, but not enough to support eugenics and genocide. But Charlie couldn't keep his mouth shut. Take, for example, the previous quote, above:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries,the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Affinities and Genealogies, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]

So, how was the Darwin cult supposed to take that statement? Perhaps by, "Hey, if gonna happen anyway, let's get it over with!"

Now, what about this one?

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." [Civilised Nations, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex - Indexed." Princeton University Press, 1st Ed, 1981, Chap V, p.168]

That is incentive enough for the eugenicist, without Galton's endorsement. Besides, Galton himself claimed that he got his idea from Charlie, according to the references cited here:

"A central plank in Nazism, communism, and other totalitarianism movements was eugenics (Bergman 2012). Eugenics, the 'science' of improving the human race by scientific control of breeding, was viewed by a large percentage of all life scientists, professors, and social reformers for over a century as an important, if not a major, means of accomplishing the goal of producing paradise on earth (Sewell 2009). The formal founder of this new science was Sir Francis Galton, a cousin and close associate of Charles Darwin. Galton's work was critical in providing the foundation for a movement that culminated in contributing to the loss of tens of millions of lives, and untold suffering of hundreds of millions of people. The now-infamous eugenics movement grew from the core concepts of biological evolution — primarily those ideas expounded by Charles Darwin (Gould 1996; Himmelfarb 1959; Shannon 1920; Haller 1971; Barzun 1958). In fact, all the leading figures in the eugenics movement, including Pearson, Davenport, Forel, Ploetz, Schallmayer, etc., not just Galton, consistently maintained that Darwinism was central to their eugenics." [Jerry Bergman, "The Darwin Effect." Master Books, 2014, Chap.3]

Hear it from Galton himself:

"The publication in 1859 of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science." [Francis Galton, "Memories of My Life." Methuen & Co., 1908, p.287]

There are those pesky words, "rebellion" and "science," again.

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

>>Kalamata: "Words can be very dangerous things, Joey, and propaganda can brainwash people into becoming killers. Think of all the young women who, if they lived 60 years ago, would never dream of killing their unborn, whereas today it is their "right" -- their "choice". Of course, we shouldn't forget the Hitler Youth, and the Columbine killers."
>>Joey: "Vehicles -- cars especially -- kill thousands every year by accident, and are sometimes weaponized to kill for political terror. But how many people suggest we must therefore go back to horses & buggies? Guns also kill thousands by accident or criminal intent and some do claim we must therefore infringe on our constitutional right."

There you go muddying the waters, again. Cars and guns are not words and propaganda, Joey. They can be the weapon, but never the assassin nor executioner.

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

>>Joey: "Words -- radical words especially -- can be weaponized to kill people, and so the Left wants to shut us up if they could, while protecting their own violent radicals under the umbrella of "free speech". Point is, we don't ban any of those just because some people misuse them. We do what we can to increase their safe use."

Is the act of forcibly removing the teaching of and references to Christianity from public schools your idea of "increasing the safe use" of words? What planet are you from?

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

>>Kalamata: "Woodrow Wilson was the President of Princeton and the Governor of New Jersey before becoming president. He was a virulent racist, but he hardly qualified as a Southern Democrat."
>>Joey: Wrong. Wilson, born in 1856 to a slave-owning family, was a child of the Confederacy -- literally. As a boy he watched Union troops march past his home in Augusta, Georgia. As an adult Wilson moved North, but as President was arguably the most racist of any since the Civil War. So Wilson was indeed your typical Southern Democrat, indeed in today's terms a renegade Dixiecrat."

Wilson's background was obviously of no concern to Princeton, nor to the citizens of New Jersey. New Jersey was a former slave state, so it likely racism was just as virulent in New Jersey as in the South. Wilson was a Darwinian/Galtonian eugenicist, who, as governor, signed into law a bill that required compulsory sterlization of criminals and the mentally retarded. So he had the support of the scientific "elite," as well.

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

>>Kalamata: "It is worth nothing that post-Lincoln Republican southerners elected many blacks to public office; the democrats, none until 1935:"
>>Joey: "I suspect that's a typo and you intended to post: "It is worth noting that..." Of course, I agree, for once.

I can write, but I cannot type.

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

>>Kalamata "The racism was primarily confined to the Democrat party, regardless of where they lived."
>>Joey: "Agreed."

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

>>Kalamata: "How could racism originate in the North if already existed in the South?"
>>Joey: "My guess is somebody is again playing word definition games. Is there some definition of "slavery" which does not include racism?"

My original statement was: "A book that came out a few months ago titled, "The Strange Careers of the Jim Crow North," is reported to argue that racism actually originated in the North, not the South." To which you responded:

[Joey] "Possibly, among Northern Democrats who had to compete for jobs with African Americans escaping racism in the South."

Hence, my reply.

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

>>Kalamata "Let's make a deal. Let's keep our guns, and get rid of Darwin, so that in the future, after the culture rot caused by evolutionism has healed, we can return to the days when we could keep our shotguns hanging in the back window of our unlocked pickup trucks, and not worry about anyone stealing them. Deal?"
>>Joey: "I live way back in "the sticks" where people sometimes keep shotguns in their unlocked trucks, some even fly Confederate flags and small private schools pray before class each day. The "deal" I'd offer for big public schools is: science only in science classes but voluntary "home rooms" which are allowed to freely chose to begin their day with Bible readings, prayer and even a lesson on it."

If science was your concern, you would be happy to see Darwin's sick pseudoscience removed from our classrooms.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Joey: "from post #371 quoting BJK: "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification". In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways. It's all evolution. . ."
>>Kalamata responds: "That is about the nuttiest thing I have read from someone pretending to be a science expert."
>>Joey: "Nonsense, it's your complaint here which is "nutty". >>Kalamata quoting Sutherland 1984: "If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science. For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions."
>>Joey:Nonsense, basic evolution theory makes any number of predictions which have never been falsified. An example is the sequence of fossils found in the geological strata."

What Popper said (in Ernst Mayr's quote) was that if a theory can explain everything, it is not science. Regarding the fossil record, it supports special creation. Much extrapolation (or, rather, imagination) is required to make it fit the evolution model.

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

>>Kalamata:"Scientists have known all along that evolution was of no use to science. But it is nice hearing it from straight from the evolution horse's mouth."
>>Joey: "Nonsense since evolution theory is woven into every related science from biology & geology to animal breeding & medicine, even some computer algorithms."

You have bought into the BIG LIE, Joey. First, animal breeding is an intelligently-designed process whereby new species within a family, such as dogs, are formed by selective breeding which breaks or eliminates existing genes. The loss of genetic information in those new species make them genetically "brittle," according to Michael Behe:

"In the Origin of Species Darwin argued that artificial selection—such as has produced various dog breeds—was an analogy for natural selection. He was more right than he knew: they both work predominantly by degrading genes. (As an aside, it seems reasonable to think that such a process may have a large, if indirect, role in extinction as well. The more genes that are degraded for short-term evolutionary adaptation, the fewer available for future adaptation, and the more brittle a species becomes. A further point is that the unexpected pattern of disparity preceding diversity seen in the fossil record—that is, new, higher categories of classification such as phylum and class preceding new, lower levels of classification such as order and family—comports much better with a mechanism of evolution by degradation of preexisting information than with a Darwinian mechanism, which predicts a pattern of diversity preceding disparity.)" [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.7]

Your bold claim that the presence of evolution is found everywhere in science, is merely a cliche. The only time evolution is of any consequence is for those studying evolution (on the taxpayer dime.) It is useless in scientific and medical research, and in applied science (aka, engineering.)

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

>>Kalamata on "Dover": "Nonsense. That was just another in a long line of well-orchestrated attacks by atheists at the ACLU and the NCSE against the Christian heritage of our nation."
>>Joey: "Our nation also has a scientific heritage which voters want taught in schools, undiluted by theological interruptions. Mandatory science in science class, voluntary theology in church. That's what "Dover" illustrated."

You are confusing science with the pseudo-science of evolutionism, Joey. The truth is, the religion of Christianity is excluded from our children's education, while evolutionism and other anti-Christian religions, such as Islam, are allowed.

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

>>Kalamata:"Says the fellow who uses innuendo to slander those who oppose his materialistic worldview."
>>Joey: "Your reference, please?

Are you denying that you have used the innuendo of "holocaust denier," many times, to slander me, Joey?

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

>>Kalamata:"That is false by omission, Joey. You never addressed the fact that this event would have NEVER happened if not for the collusion of the ACLU and the federal judiciary decades ago. That said, the real culprit underlying all the anti-Christian bigotry is the "Devil's Chaplain," Charlie Darwin, who popularized the apes-to-man myth, which Charlie's disciples viciously defend to this day, despite the overwhelming evidence against it."
>>Joey: "First, there's not even a shred of evidence "against" evolution theory, nor have you attempted to present any here."

Don't be silly, Joey. I have presented multiple lines of evidence completely refuting evolutionism, and you have rejected each and every one of them, typically with an accompanying ad hominem. You are not believable, Joey.

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

>>Joey: "Second, voter rebellion against the "Dover" school board's mandatory theology began with teachers & parents seeking redress in court, then ended with voters firing the theological school board."

You are being deceptive by your omission of what actually transpired. But the mere fact that you would go to such lengths to defend the actions of a rogue judge, as well as the greatest enemy to our constitution in the history of our nation, the ACLU, leaves me no alternative but to deem the doctrine of your religion of evolutionism as superior to the Constitution and the future of our nation.

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

>>Kalamata:"Why are you pretending ignorance again, Joey? Haeckel's embryos had been exposed as fraudulent long before the time Miller and other modern authors included them in their Biology textbooks. If Miller and the others didn't know about the fraud, they are far too incompetent to be writing textbooks for our children."
>>Joey: "First, I notice you didn't answer the question of whether Haeckel's drawings were in earlier versions of Miller's textbook and then deleted from later editions. Instead you assume an answer which is not yet in evidence.

Miller & Levine took them out of their 2000, 5th edition:

"British embryologist Michael Richardson and his colleages published an important paper in the August 1997 issue of Anatomy& Embryology showing that Haeckel had fudged his drawings to make the early stages of embryos appear more alike than they actually are! As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours! So, what have we done? Well, we fixed it! In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs (image below):" [Miller & Levine, "Haeckel and his Embryos: A Note on Textbooks." 1997]

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

>>Joey: "As a young man many years ago I remember seeing something like Haeckel's drawings in biology class, but I never learned his famous hypothesis: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" until years later. The point as I remember it, was simply that embryos in early stages resemble each other, regardless of species. That point was valid then, is still valid."

They brainwashed you, Joey, like they did me. By the grace of God, I grew out of it. Maybe someday you will, too.

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

>>Kalamata: "Mind-reading is your pretense, Joey. History reveals Ken Miller to be one of the consummate enemies of our traditional Christian Heritage."
>>Joey: "Nothing in our Christian Heritage requires us to teach theology in science classes, Danny boy.

The first 150 years of the United States illuminates your historical illiteracy, Joey. Practically every public school in the nation endorsed, and even taught Christianity, that is, until the communists of the ACLU came along and corrupted the original intent of the Constitution, with the assistance of a few rogue USSC judges.

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

>>Joey: "As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in 1271: "I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle [aka science] has to do with the teaching of the faith."

I can't find that in the Constitution, Joey. I also cannot find anywhere in the Constitution where is says "scientists" can freely criticize God and Christians in the classrooms, but not Darwin.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is what you and Miller do, Joey. However, the thug Ken Miller takes an additional step by teaming up with the ACLU and corrupt judges, to force the American people to adopt his agenda using the power -- the sword -- of the State. The "scientific orthodoxy" are using the same old tricks they used against Galileo to suppress those who question their interpretation of science. That may be a wee bit over your head, Child."
>>Joey: "But Danny boy, lies are never "over my head" and lies are what you're selling here, even though you well know the truth of this matter."

Calling me a liar doesn't shield you from your acceptance, as fact, the lies of the evolutionism cult.

Make note that evolution, as well as the big-bang, must be accepted and believed as a religion, since there is absolutely no supporting scientific evidence. A new article that came out a few days ago punctuated that fact:

"When challenged with falsifying data, an unbiased scientist is supposed to discard his theory. Don't count on it. Crazy people continue doing what fails. The venerable 'accretion' theory, born from Laplace's nebular model that had no need of the God hypothesis (as he famously told Napoleon), has been falsified by this planet. But astronomers are clever; they keep miracles in their back pockets.

We use simulations to demonstrate that the GJ 3512 planetary system challenges generally accepted formation theories, and that it puts constraints on the planet accretion and migration rates. Disk instabilities may be more efficient in forming planets than previously thought.

"And what is disk instability, you ask? It's basically a miracle. The one who came up with it called it heresy. Any secular heresy is better than the 'God' hypothesis, he figures. Disk instability is a myth that postulates that in a spinning disk of dust and gas, stuff may happen. A wad of stuff may suddenly become unstable, and collapse into a planet. Instant planets. Problem solved!
"Atheists call theists crazy as a premise. Theists call atheists crazy as a conclusion."
[David F. Coppedge, "Anti-Theism Makes Cosmologists Go Crazy." Creation Evolution Headlines, Sept 30, 2019]

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

>>Joey: "For examples, the rights of parents to seek redress in court from an out-of-control government school board is not disputed."

They were not out of control, Joey. That was their job, and what they did was perfectly within their right as a school board.

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

>>Joey: "Neither is the judge's appointment by President Bush and the failure to appeal his ruling or to overturn it in another related case."

Another red herring, Joey? Bush's appointment of a judge (GHWB's and Reagan's as well) has nothing to do with whether a judge will turn rogue, or not, as Jones did.

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

>>Joey: "Neither is the citizens' solution of voting out the theological school board which tried to impose its religion on science classes."

Answer me this: would they have been voted out if not for the strong arm of the ACLU and the Federal Judiciary coming down on them? You cannot answer that, so you equivocate.

Where is your defense of the Constitution in all of this, Joey? Do you even understand the Constitution?

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

>>Joey: "But more important, you totally ignore the fact that "Dover" is just one of many such court rulings going back over 50 years, including:

You forgot this unanimous and accurate opinion, Joey:

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

And this rogue one:

"Our constitutional policy is exactly the opposite. It does not deny the value or the necessity for religious training, teaching or observance. Rather, it secures their free exercise. But, to that end, it does deny that the state can undertake or sustain them in any form or degree. For this reason, the sphere of religious activity, as distinguished from the secular intellectual liberties, has been given the two-fold protection, and, as the state cannot forbid, neither can it perform or aid in performing, the religious function. The dual prohibition makes that function altogether private. It cannot be made a public one by legislative act. This was the very heart of Madison's Remonstrance, as it is of the Amendment itself." [Hugo Black, "Supreme Court: Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1." Justia, 143 U.S. 457, 1947, Page 330 U. S. 52]

Which was "justified" by this usurpation:

"I cannot believe that the great author of those words, or the men who made them law, could have joined in this decision. Neither so high nor so impregnable today as yesterday is the wall raised between church and state by Virginia's great statute of religious freedom and the First Amendment, now made applicable to all the states by the Fourteenth. [Footnote 2/2] New Jersey's statute sustained is the first, if indeed it is not the second, breach to be made by this Court's action. That a third, and a fourth, and still others will be attempted we may be sure. For just as Cochran v. Board of Education, 281 U. S. 370, has opened the way by oblique ruling [Footnote 2/3] for this decision, so will the two make wider the breach for a third." [Ibid. Page 330 U. S. 29]

That is correct, a careful reading of the opinion of 1947 Supreme Court opinion reveals it used one usurpation of the Constitution, to justify another. Under the umbrella of the unconstitutional doctrine of "stare decisis," judicial usurpations, such as those by this court and "Judge" Jones, build on each other, gradually whittling away at our liberty until nothing is left:

"If powers be necessary, apparent danger is not a sufficient reason against conceding them. He has suggested that licentiousness has seldom produced the loss of liberty; but that the tyranny of rulers has almost always effected it. Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes." [James Madison, "Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention in Defense of the Constitution," June 6, 1788]

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

>>Joey: "The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

What is wrong with that? Is it imperative that our children believe the heaven, earth and all its host came into existence by dumb luck, and that men are the posterity of apes?

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

>>Joey: "The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".

What is wrong with teaching children to have an open mind, Joey? Are you afraid they will learn the truth about evolutionism? Do you want them to grow up to be like you? I don't.

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

>>Joey: "In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause".

Spare us the drama from the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, Joey.

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

>>Joey: "Near as I can tell, "Dover" is the most recent court case in a long list of similar cases all with the same outcome: ID/Creationism is religion and so cannot be taught in science classes.

If the Constitution was still in effect, evolutionism would not be taught in any classroom, by the will of the states and of the people.

The ACLU is a very powerful FAR LEFT organization, with deep political ties, and with very deep pockets, including yours and mine. They can sue, and lose, and still get reimbursed. Why Joey is not spending every waking minute despising them, like a true friend of the Constitution, is a mystery.

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

>>Kalamata:"That is very deceitful! You completely dismissed the treachery of the ACLU, the NCSE, and the federal judiciary."
>>Joey: "No, I completely dismiss your fantasies that something unusual or illegal happened at "Dover".

I cannot imagine you would ever say that in public with a straight face.

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

>>Kalamata:"I knew you would instantly revert to slander by innuendo. Your hero -- the atheist, anti-God bigot, Michael Shermer -- taught you well, Child."
>>Joey: "Danny boy, I'm currently reading three books: "Of Pandas and People", the 1989 book at issue in "Dover".

Of Panda's and People is an excellent book, Joey boy.

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

>>Joey: "Spying on Whales", 2018, tons of fun about whale evolution, by Nick Pyenson."

LOL. That is quite the novel, but it is not a science book. For example, this paragraph repeats the just-so story of whale evolution:

"So much for the hows of fossil whales with legs. But why? What led whales to return to the water from land in the first place? That question takes us to the gap between the first and second phases of whale evolution, the gap that remains in the family tree between the branches leading to Maiacetus and Basilosaurus. In about ten million years, whales went from looking like the four-legged Pakicetus to something closer to Basilosaurus. Sometime during that interval (and probably in the last half of it), whales ambled and swam equal amounts, with shorter hind limbs and blowholes migrating backward along their snouts. And then, at some point, a generation of whales never emerged out of the water back onto land, and their descendants begat blue whales, humpbacks, sperm whales, dolphins, and every other living whale species (along with many extinct ones, like Kellogg's finds from the Miocene)." [Nick Pyenson, "Spying on Whales." Viking Penguin, 2018, Chap.3]

LOL! That is one the most far-fetched stories I have ever heard. Notice the author name-drops the Basilosaurus, which probably was an extinct whale, but then tries to smuggle in the Pakicetus, whose skeleton shows that of a fast running animal similar to a Tapir, which incidentally has not a single one of the 8 characteristics a whale was supposed to have, according to the whale expert, paleontologist Hans Thewissen, whose team discovered the first recognizable Pakicetus skeleton.

Now to the next in the so-called Whale Evolution "line" -- the Ambulocetus:

"In 1994 the discovery of Ambulocetus clarified this picture, showing that the earliest whales had weight-bearing fore and hind limbs, with separate phalanges perhaps connected in life by webbing. Relatively large feet in Ambulocetus were a clue about its swimming style, which likely involved flexing its spinal column along with its broad feet, in one motion. Mechanically this style is somewhere between paddling with hands and feet (using drag for forward motion) and employing a hydrofoil, as modern whales do with their tail fluke (using lift, instead of drag). Our pelvis is rigidly connected to our backbone, whereas in Maiacetus, the pelvis was only partially connected to the backbone, permitting a lot of flexibility for the whole spinal column to undulate up and down. The shape of a few tail vertebrae can reveal a lot about locomotion—in Ambulocetus the fact that the tail vertebrae are longer than they are tall tells us that these early whales had long, thickened tails, although we still don't have enough bones to know what direction these powerful tails might have moved." [Nick Pyenson, "Spying on Whales." Viking Penguin, 2018, Chap.2]

The Ambulocetus is another imaginary whale transitional fossil that doesn't have a single one of the characteristics that identify whales.

The scientific data tells us that, unless there are some unbelievable discoveries, there is no such thing as whale evolution from land animals. It is a fairy tale for immature grownups.

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

>>Joey: "Why Evolution Matters", Shermer's 2006 book defending evolution."

I wasn't aware that Shermer wrote a book by that name. I have one by him titled "Why Darwin Matters,' published in 2006. The Prologue is titled "Why Evolution Matters." Perhaps he wrote another book as a spin-off using that name, with the goal of first convincing the public that consensus is science, and quickly switching gears with an, "Aw shucks, I was just kiddin'," followed by another tired cliche pretending there is an astonishing quantity of evidence for evolution (which no one has ever seen):

"It does not matter whether 99 percent or just 1 percent of the public (or politicians) accepts a scientific theory—the theory stands or falls on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution." [Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design." Times Books, 2006, Prologue, pp.xix-xx]

LOL! If you think that is funny, try this one:

"This is what bothers people about evolutionary theory, not the technical details of the science. Most folks don't give one whit about adaptive radiation, allopatric speciation, phenotypic variation, assortative mating, allometry and heterochrony, adaptation and exaptation, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, and the like. What they do care about is whether teaching evolution will make their kids reject God, allow criminals and sinners to blame their genes for their actions, and generally cause society to fall apart." [Michael Shermer, "Why Darwin Matters: the Case Against Intelligent Design." Times Books, 2006, p.24

Did you get that? Shermer spews out a long list of scientifically-sounding, but nonsensical names -- adaptive radiation, allopatric speciation, phenotypic variation, assortative mating, allometry and heterochrony, adaptation and exaptation, gradualism and punctuated equilibrium -- none of which have ever provided the slightest bit of evidence for evolution. But the names certainly look impressive, don't they?

But his theme was accurate, at least in that paragraph: folks do care about the destruction of western civilization by the false, anti-God doctrines of Darwin and Lyell.

The bottom line is, you will not find any thing in that book to demonstrate why Darwin matters. But you will find meaningless statistics, special pleading, appeals to authority and consensus, and other fallacies in an attempt to trick the people into "accepting" evolution, when all it would take is a wee bit of scientific evidence. Perhaps scientific evidence doesn't sell books; or perhaps there is none. I choose the latter.

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

>>Joey: "And I knew that you would instantly deny the obvious truth -- that deniers are deniers regardless of the subject of their denials."

It is okay to be an evolution denier, Joey; but it not okay to pretend evolution is supported by scientific evidence.

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

>>Joey: "Both evolution and Holocaust deniers can, literally, spend all day in a museum and never see a shred of evidence. They use identical Jedi mind tricks -- "these are not the evidence/droids we're looking for, nothing to see here, move along, move along." Today, outside the domain of radical Islam, the old Holocaust deniers have mostly died off. Evolution deniers are still with us, but even they seem to have done not-so-much since "Dover" in 2005."

I have never met a holocaust denier, and I am certain Joey hasn't either. He learned the debating trick of using smear tactics to shut down debate from his anti-God, Far-Left, Climate-Change pushing hero, Michael Shermer. Joey didn't realize that by slandering me, he made me even more determined to expose him as the fraud he truly is.

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

>>Kalamata: "It has been falsified, about a gazillion times. The anti-Christian evolution cult keeps moving the goal posts, that is, every time the theory is falsified, the cult followers slap a new fancy name on it and call the falsified part . . . (drum roll) . . . EVOLUTION! Joey has done it himself in this very thread be claiming devolution is evolution. That was pretty slick, Child. "
>>Joey: "Danny boy, you just have to stop lying about this, it's bad for you.

Why would I lie about something that you wrote in this very thread, Joey boy? In #468 you wrote,

[Joey] "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification". In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways. It's all evolution. . ."

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. LOL! Let me let you in on a little secret, Joey: evolution requires a gain in genetic information. That is G-A-I-N. . . GAIN!

I have no doubt that many claims like Joey's will be popping up in the literature, because, let's face it: evolutionists have ran out of excuses for the lack of evidence necessary to prop up Darwin's stupid theory. Now that professor Michael Behe has exposed common descent as a myth, evolutionists have no choice but to invent new schemes to deceive the nations if they expect to cling to power -- this time using the pretense that devolution was evolution all along! LOL!

Charlie was a bitter, pitiful little man who, with all his family privilege, had nothing better to do than to try to destroy to moral fabric of Western Civilization. Perhaps he was bitter about being rejected by other Christians, or perhaps by the death of his young daughter; but there is no doubt he was an evil genius. He reminds me of this fellow:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;" -- Isa 14:12-16 KJV

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

>>Joey: "The fact is that evidence which increases our understandings of evolutionary processes do not "falsify" the theory. So your claim here that devolution somehow falsifies evolution is pure nonsense. That's because by definition evolution is simply change, regardless of which "direction". The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant, it's still evolution."

Just when I thought you couldn't say anything dumber, you come up with that nonsense. Why not simply rename evolution as "wind", Joey; or "water." Perhaps, as Ian Juby implies, "water" might be the more appropriate name for evolution, since water, like evolution, conforms to fit any container it is poured into.

If you think that is science, Joey, you have a pitiful understanding.

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

>>Kalamata: "Check out this funny video explaining the unfalsifiability of evolutonism, and how evolutionists use deception to cover it up:"
>>Joey: "Just more nonsense.

What is wrong with that video, Joey? Ian Juby is very funny, as well as being scientifically informative. He is, after all, a Mensa genius. Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB0cjZMVjOo

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

>>Kalamata: "By definitions, scientific explanations are natural processes while ID-Creationism is supernatural. We learn natural explanations in science class, we learn supernatural explanations in church. The task of reconciling the two is what makes us uniquely human."

All evolutionists have left is that stupid, selective definition.

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

>>Kalamata on defining "facts":"No. Try confirmed, repeatable, scientific observations."
>>Joey: "Nonsense, because a one-time event which cannot be repeated can still be confirmed as observed fact."

LOL! Joey must have slept though that science class. My science classes taught me that a one-time event cannot be tested, and is therefore, unfalsifiable. Science requires falsification.

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

>>Kalamata: "I see you are playing the misdirection game, again, Joey."
>>Joey: "More nonsense, it was a perfectly valid point which you respond to by -- slavish obedience to Denier Rules, in this case #5, #7 & #12."

The Child and his silly Rules of Desperation . . .

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

>>Kalamata:"False. 1) None of those are examples of evolution. Speciation and adaptation are either genetically neutral, or result in the loss of genetic information, which is devolution, not evolution."
>>Joey: "Danny boy, you just got to stop lying. By definition, evolution is change, regardless of the "direction", "gain" or "loss" of "information". You don't get to redefine it just because you don't like it."

You are embarrassing yourself, Child.

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

>>Kalamata:"2) There is no confirmed evidence that descent with modification has ever occurred; not in the fossil record, not in real life, nor genetically."
>>Joey: "The DNA evidence is observed & confirmed in every individual who has a DNA test. Tests consistently show "descent with modifications", mutations, in every generation."

You are lying, Joey.

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

>>Joey: "The fact that most such mutations prove harmless demonstrates that your claims about "no junk DNA" are highly suspect.

Now you are speaking from ignorance, Joey.

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

>>Joey: "The fossil records show innumerable transition species, especially among human ancestors."

There are no transitional fossil lines, Joey. Not one.

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

>>Kalamata:"3) The phrase "natural selection" is a much over-hyped, but relatively meaningless term that is used as recognition that organisms with certain characteristics survive better than those that lack those characteristics. It doesn't possess the intelligence to "select" anything."
>>Joey: "But Danny boy, there's no reason for you to lie about that, because you just admitted its true."

What are you talking about, Joey?

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

>>Joey: "You just don't like the terms "natural selection" & "descent with modifications" so you lie & claim it doesn't happen before admitting it does?"

That is just plain loony, Joey. Perhaps you need a good rest. Descent with modification has never occurred, except in text books and scientifically-challenged papers; and natural selection has no creative power whatsoever. Evolutionists pretend that it does, but it is only make believe.

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

>>Kalamata on "Pandas & People": "I am not surprised that you would attempt to slander those great scientists, Joey. What else can we expect from someone who promotes the myth that man is a descendent of an ape, or a frog. According to Joey's cult, if a frog turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale; but if a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science. LOL!"
>>Joey: "I suspect the writers of "Pandas & People" are pure scoundrels, but have not yet finished reading their book. Will let you know if I can find a word of truth in it when I'm done reading."

I am certain they would deem you a scoundrel, Joey. This is Professor Dean Kenyon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=uJDa9QLP4aE

This lists some of the books by Percival William Davis (I have several by him, including two Biology texts):

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/106227.Percival_William_Davis

Perhaps you are jealous of their education and skill-set, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am not kidding when I insinuate that evolutionists believe frogs are of the human ancestors. This is Neil Shubin in Scientific American:"
>>Joey: Frogs are not human ancestors but there is enough similarity in frog & human biology to suggest common ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago.

LOL! Now you have really lost it, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata post #371 cont. 2: "You misquoted me, Joey. Gary Steinman was Kenyon's co-author on "Biochemical Evolution". Kenyon and Percival Davis co-authored "Of Pandas and People"."
>>Joey: "Sorry, Danny boy, but I quoted you exactly from your own post #314: >>Joey quoting me, sorta: "'Of Panda's and People' is a very good book, and highly recommended. It is co-authored by Professor Dean Kenyon, a former evolutionist, who, along with Dr. Gary Steinman [authored the 1969 origin-of-life book "Biochemical Predestination" (McGraw-Hill) – a very professional book which received rave reviews from evolutionists:] >>Joey: "Seriously, I make plenty enough mistakes on my own without also taking the blame for your mistakes."

No, Joey boy. My original quote included the part you placed in brackets, which you excluded in your previous post. To the casual reader, your omission made it appear Kenyon and Steinman were the co-authors of "Of Panda's and People." They were not. I wanted to make that clear to those seeking to obtain the book.

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

>>Kalamata: "As ususal, Joey over-hyped the Dover trial by falsely claiming the school board was trying to ram Intelligent Design down everyone's throats, which they clearly were not."
>>Joey boy: "Danny boy, you got to stop lying about these things, the truth is not what you claim. the truth, in a nutshell, is the "Dover" government school board created an anti-evolution statement they required science teachers to read, teachers refused, parents sued and voters fired the creationist school board."

There was nothing anti-evolution about it. It was an "examine both sides of the evidence" policy, which evolutionists can never allow if they expect to remain in power and continue to feed heavily at the public (taxpayer) trough. It is all about power and money to the deep-state establishment, which includes the evolution and climate-change cults.

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

>>Joey boy: "Here is a pretty good summary of Kitzmiller v Dover. It takes about two hours to watch, but covers the subject and makes the key point that the term "Intelligent Design" is simply Creationism renamed for legal purposes."

That is atheist spin, Joey boy! I cannot believe you are defending that treachery against our Constitution!

The activities of the school board was a state, and NOT a federal matter! The judge is a judicial activist who chose to operate outside his jurisdiction. Further, he judged according the myth of separation of church and state, promoted by the ACLU and the atheism/evolutionism cult, rather than the Constitution.

The myth of separation of church and state is based on the BIG lie that the STATE is a combination of the several states AND the federal government. If you believe that, you may as well throw the constitution in the trash can. In your case, Joey boy, I assume you already have, considering how strongly you defend a corrupt, activist judge who took his ruling out of the notes of the anti-American, anti-Free Republic, ACLU!

The Constitution gives the states and the people the power over religion by prohibiting ONLY the Federal Government from establishing a STATE [federal] religion. That provides a separation of powers over religion between the states and the federal government -- a WALL OF SEPARATION -- that renders the federal government meddling in the religious affairs of the states and the people to be an act of tyranny.

But what is given by the framers can also be taken away by activist gangsters pretending to be impartial judges, and that is exactly what has gradually happened since the first usurpation by the Hamiltonian gangster and Chief Justice, John Marshall in the early 1800's; and that is what Judge Jones is guilty of. He was the criminal in the Dover case. The ACLU and NCSE were co-conspirators.

George Washington warned us about the "consolidation of powers" into one branch of government:

"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them." [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what our framers said, rather than the ACLU, little Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "The follow-up volume for "Of Pandas and People" is called, "The Design of Life", by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells."
>>Joey: "I'll put it on my list."

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

>>Kalamata: "The one "downside" is, you will not find any name-calling or slurs in these books, which are prevalent in evolutionism books."
>>Joey: "And also far too prevalent in Danny Denier's posts."

I am a counter-puncher, nasty boy. I am kind to strangers, until they get nasty, like you did, and are.

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

>>Kalamata: "While you are emotionally coping with that cartoon, Joey, other people are concerned about babies heads bing crushed with heavy forceps as a result of the lingering eugenics mindset instilled in many by Social Darwinism."
>>Joey: "Oh Danny boy, it may surprise you to learn that the US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade never once mentioned either Darwin, "Social Darwinism" or evolution. What they did mention, iirc, was the US Constitution and an alleged "right to privacy" which somehow got expanded in the Supremes' minds to "right to kill unborn babies." {sigh}

It that called a straw-man, or a red-herring?

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

>>Kalamata: "You are mocking the work of some of the top mathematicians in the world, Joey?"
>>Joey: "Just as Danny Denier mocks any scientist or mathematician you disagree with, right? G.I.G.O. -- regardless of how "genius" a mathematician might be, if his basic assumptions are wrong, his results will be... yes, garbage."

I have been designing science- and engineering-based software since the 80's, and I know what you said to be absolutely true.

For example, if you falsely assume 95% of the DNA is junk, calculations based on that figure will most likely be useless junk. That is called an algorithm or design error. If your algorithm is correct, but you make one tiny mistake in coding, the results can range from mildly problematic to disastrous. The same occurs during random mutation of the genetic code. The only way such errors can be minimized, and useful functionality can be created, is via an intelligent designer. This is not rocket science, Joey. It is just the way it is.

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

>>Kalamata: "You have to be severely scientifically-challenged to believe the human body evolved by materialistic dumb luck."
>>Joey: "Most Christian churches teach just what I believe -- that regardless of what theories science proposes today, God was the designer, creator and implementer of every natural process. In other words, unless God Himself intended it, there is no such thing as "dumb luck".

Are you saying you believe in intelligently-designed natural processes, Joey? Perhaps you misspoke. No die-hard evolutionist believes in intelligently-designed natural processes.

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

>>Kalamata: "Science is deaf and dumb, Joey. Scientists, on the other hand can and do choose to say things about the Bible, except when suppressed by tyrants."
>>Joey: "Right, just as I've posted before: every scientist regardless is entitled to their nonscientific opinions. What they are not entitled is to label such opinions as "science".

Evolution is not science, Joey, but rather, according to Charles Darwin, a theological opinion. This is Charlie:

"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I sh[oul]d wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance." ["Charles Darwin To Asa Gray - Down Bromley Kent - 22 May, 1860." Darwin Correspondence Project]

Charlie played God when he overruled the Word of God, Joey. That is theology, not science. More accurately, that is the theology of Satan:

"Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." -- 2Th 2:4 KJV

Are you ready to ban the theological teaching of evolution from public schools under the ACLU doctrine of "separation of church and state?" Probably not. It was never about science with you, Joey, but power!

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

>>Kalamata: "You claim your religious views are science, Joey? Why are you privileged?"
>>Joey: "Seriously, why do you keep lying? You know your job here requires a man of impeccable honesty and you just don't have it. If I were your boss, I'd fire your sorry r..... "

Child, no one in his or her right mind would work for you.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata post #372: "Okay, Joey, how does my rejection to your religion of evolutionism compare to the responses of your imaginary Holocaust deniers from 20 years ago?
Be specific."

But Danny boy, I have been precisely specific, I've told you exactly what your denial problems are, over and over again.
And your response is always the same: "Child".

So pay attention, boy, sit up straight in class, focus, focus, focus on telling the truth, and stop with the nonsense lies or I'll wrap your knuckles again with my ruler.

Go to my post #420 Rules for Deniers (version 3.0), read it carefully, commit every rule to your memory and then STOP DOING THEM!.

The moment, the instant you stop acting like a denier, I'll stop calling you on it.
But in all fairness, I strongly suspect the reason you don't, you can't, you won't stop with the denial tactics is simply that without them, you have no case, you got nothing but nonsense and that's the reason you lean so heavily on Denier Rules.

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
The reason you play these slanderous games with other people is because you are a proud, self-absorbed little man who cannot defend his nutty worldview.
It is, after all, undefendable."

Sorry Danny boy, but that is just you projecting your own sorry self onto others -- Denier Rule #5.
By the way, this is not a tactic restricted to just Deniers, it is also practiced by a huge party of political scoundrels known as Democrats.

And in the great scheme of things, which is worse, to be a denier or a Democrat?
I don't know, pretty much of a wash in my view.

Kalamata: "Quit denying observable and testable science, Joey; refrain from teaching false biblical doctrines; and drop your support for the constitution-hating thugs at the ACLU and the NCSE, and I will not feel obligated to challenge your worldview."

Now you're just fantasizing.
Regardless of whether you like it or not, science is what scientists say it is, by law, and it's not what you wish to redefine it as.
And regardless of whether you like it or not, the Bible speaks for itself and as interpreted by recognized theologians for thousands of years, it is not anti-science.
And regardless of whether you like it or not, the parents & voters of Dover did not want government imposed theology taught in science classes, so they sought redress in both court and ballot boxes.

Fake news from fake source

>>Kalamata post #372: "Okay, Joey, how does my rejection to your religion of evolutionism compare to the responses of your imaginary Holocaust deniers from 20 years ago? Be specific."
>>Little Joey said: But Danny boy, I have been precisely specific, I've told you exactly what your denial problems are, over and over again. And your response is always the same: "Child".

There is nothing specific in that reply, Joey. All I have seen thus far is you mimic your hero, the Far Left, anti-Christian atheist, Michael Shermer.

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

>>Little Joey said: "So pay attention, boy, sit up straight in class, focus, focus, focus on telling the truth, and stop with the nonsense lies or I'll wrap your knuckles again with my ruler."

You are a patronizing little Child . . .

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

>>Little Joey said: "Go to my post #420 Rules for Deniers (version 3.0), read it carefully, commit every rule to your memory and then STOP DOING THEM!."

Those silly rules fit you too well, Joey. Perhaps you should STOP DOING THEM!

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

>>Little Joey said: "The moment, the instant you stop acting like a denier, I'll stop calling you on it."

I suspect I will always be a denier of the junk sciences of evolutionism and climate change, Joey. It is in my blood. I love science, and hate junk science. If you were a scientist, you would understand.

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

>>Little Joey said: "But in all fairness, I strongly suspect the reason you don't, you can't, you won't stop with the denial tactics is simply that without them, you have no case, you got nothing but nonsense and that's the reason you lean so heavily on Denier Rules."

All I ask is for you to show me any evidence for common descent. Common descent is the foundation of Charlie's nutty theory, so if you cannot show us evidence for common descent, you are not believable.

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

>>Little Joey said: "Kalamata: "No, Joey. The reason you play these slanderous games with other people is because you are a proud, self-absorbed little man who cannot defend his nutty worldview. It is, after all, undefendable."
>>Little Joey said: "Sorry Danny boy, but that is just you projecting your own sorry self onto others -- Denier Rule #5.

Child.

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

>>Little Joey said: "By the way, this is not a tactic restricted to just Deniers, it is also practiced by a huge party of political scoundrels known as Democrats."

Labeling people "denier" is a tactic of those on the Far Left, like you, in this instance by those who buy into the junk science promoted by "scientists" who feed at the public trough and don't want to lose their cash cow. I simply turn it around on them.

Labeling someone a holocaust denier is the kind of slander only a real scoundrel would resort to.

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

>>Little Joey said: "And in the great scheme of things, which is worse, to be a denier or a Democrat? I don't know, pretty much of a wash in my view."

You are a junk science promoter and living-constitution Leftist pretending to be a conservative, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit denying observable and testable science, Joey; refrain from teaching false biblical doctrines; and drop your support for the constitution-hating thugs at the ACLU and the NCSE, and I will not feel obligated to challenge your worldview."
>>Little Joey said: "Now you're just fantasizing. Regardless of whether you like it or not, science is what scientists say it is, by law, and it's not what you wish to redefine it as."

That kind of statement is why you should not be debating science, Little Joey. You believe science is determined by consensus and judges. Only the scientifically-challenged believe that!

Real science is observable and testable, and even historical science can be observable and testable. The theologian Charlie Darwin understood that simple concept:

"[W]hy, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" [Difficulties on Theory, in Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection." John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap.IV, p.171]

For 160 years paleontologists have been feverishly digging for fossils around the world in a vain attempt to find transitional forms – anything that might prove Charlie's theory. The best they have come up with is perhaps a mosaic (the Archaeopteryx,) and a handful of animals from fragmented fossils that the highly-imaginative tout as "whale evolution," without a shred of supporting evidence. This is how Charlie attempted to explain away the lack of transitionals:

"All these causes taken conjointly, must have tended to make the geological record extremely imperfect, and will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." [Ibid. Geological Succession, Chap X, p.342]

When I read statements like that, I ask myself, "Why must the causes taken together tend to make the geological record extremely imperfect? " The only reason I can think of is, if you do not think that way, Charlie's theory is not believable. That line of reasoning is not science, but the fallacy of special pleading. Therefore I rightly reject Charlie's theory due to the lack of evidence of transitional fossil lines.

For the record, Charlie based his theory on a theological concept:

"With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I sh[oul]d wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance [dumb luck!] Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can." [Francis Darwin, "Charles Darwin To Asa Gray - Down Bromley Kent - 22 May." Darwin Correspondence Project, 1860]

Charlie did not simply reject God, he believed he was smarter than God, as did his father, the devil. Bad move, Charlie. . .

If you are really sincere about getting religion out of science classrooms and textbooks, you must strive to get evolutionism out of science classrooms and textbooks."

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

>>Little Joey said: "And regardless of whether you like it or not, the Bible speaks for itself and as interpreted by recognized theologians for thousands of years, it is not anti-science."

I never said the Bible was anti-science, Joey. I said it is loaded with science, and you mocked me for saying that. Don't you remember? Probably not. You mock everything that doesn't mesh with your simple-minded understanding.

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

>>Little Joey said: "And regardless of whether you like it or not, the parents & voters of Dover did not want government imposed theology taught in science classes, so they sought redress in both court and ballot boxes."

I lived in rural Pennsylvania for several years, around the time of the Dover trial, and the citizens were mostly Christians. At Dover, there is no evidence the citizens as a whole were against intelligent design taught in their children's classrooms, nor was there was any evidence presented at the trial that Intelligent design is theology, except in the notes of the atheist ACLU, which the corrupt, activist Judge Jones copied practically word-for-word.

These are from Judge Jones' opinion, from the proposed "Findings of Fact" presented by the ACLU to the judge, and from the actual trial testimony:

Judge Jones: "He [Professor Behe] was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'"
ACLU: "He [Behe] was confronted with the fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books and several immunology text-book chapters about the evolution of the immune system, P256, 280, 281, 283, 747, 748, 755 and 743, and he insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution - it was "not good enough."
Behe's trial testimony: "These articles are excellent articles I assume. However, they do not address the question that I am posing. So it's not that they aren't good enough. It's simply that they are addressed to a different subject."

Do you see a problem? Professor Behe testified that those paper did not address the question he was posing; yet the judge and ACLU claimed (identically) that Behe said something else. More . . .

Judge Jones: "...ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."
ACLU: " Intelligent design is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications."
Testimony and submissions to the court: "Expert witness Scott Minnich testified at trial that there were between 'seven and ten' peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, and he discussed a pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Additional peer-reviewed publications were listed in an annotated bibliography submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official court record by Judge Jones.

The judge and the ACLU lied! There is also no mention in the judge's opinion that "peer-review" is a Red Herring -- that it is virtually impossible to get intelligent design research peer-reviewed in secular journals. If you don't kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin, your paper doesn't get reviewed, and if your paper is not peer-reviewed in a secular journao, "it is not science," according to the orthodoxy that has a stranglehold on the scientific community. Pseudo-science, like evolutionism, always contains circular reasoning. More . . .

Judge Jones: "Defendants' own expert witnesses acknowledged this point ['that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a nonnatural, or supernatural, designer'].
ACLU: "Even defendants' own expert witnesses acknowledged this point [that 'animals did not evolve naturally, through evolutionary means, but rather were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer'].
Trial testimony: Again, this misrepresents the court record. Consider the testimony of Professor Scott Minnich:

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether intelligent design requires the action of a supernatural creator?
A. I do.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. It does not.

Jones' opinion is loaded with similar examples where he ignored the trial testimony, and copied directly from the ACLU "facts". No wonder the Left, including Joey, fawn over his opinion.

I suspect the reason the citizens of Dover might have been upset is partly due to the propaganda of the deep-pocketed FAR LEFT, and partly due to federal law imposed on the people by the FAR LEFT that makes it virtually impossible to defend yourself and your community from high-powered law firms, like the ACLU. This is law scholar and evolutionist, Jay Wexler, on that point:

"Part of the reason you don't see many of these cases [by school districts] is that according to federal law, if the school board loses, they have to pay a million dollars in legal fees to the other side, since the other side has probably hired people from big law firms [like the ACLU.] So there's a great disincentive for schools to experiment in this area. The next chapter could be simply arguments against evolution, not a positive theory of design but teaching students about the holes in Darwinian theory and places where things aren't certain as a way of kind of introducing doubt into the area." [Jay Wexler, "Judging Intelligent Design: Should the Courts Decide What Counts as Science or Religion." Boston College Law, Sept 28, 2006]

Wexler, a devout evolutionist, despises intelligent design, but defended it in this instance due to the horrific activism of Judge Jones, as well as the fact that the law is stacked against the people, and in favor of activist lawyers and judges.

You protest way too much in support of the ACLU, Child.

BTW, I forgot to mention that the book you pasted an image of in your previous post contains a very good analysis of the trial, including the shenanigans of the judge, the ACLU, and Leftists pretending to be scientists who oppose any intelligence being allowed in our classrooms:

https://www.amazon.com/Traipsing-Into-Evolution-Intelligent-Kitzmiller/dp/0963865498

This is from that book:

"Why, then, did Judge Jones venture so far afield from what was necessary to determine the case? From [Jones'] comments to the news media, it seems he yearned for his place in judicial history. He relished the idea that he could be the first judge to issue a definitive pronouncement on ID, and he apparently was unwilling to forego that opportunity. Judge Jones also had no small estimate of his own importance in the scheme of things. Take the remarkable passage from his opinion cited at the beginning of this Introduction. In it, Judge Jones boasts that "no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.' He insists that his ruling on whether intelligent design is science 'is essential' to his holding in the case, and is further motivated by his hope that he "may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial' on the issue of intelligent design." [Dewolf et al, "Traipsing Into Evolution - intelligent design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision." Discovery Institute, 2006, pp.12-13]

"The dogmatic tone of Judge Jones' opinion is already attracting criticism from thoughtful scholars. Distinguished University of Chicago Law Professor Albert Alschuler, for one, has rebuked Judge Jones for smearing ID proponents as Biblical fundamentalists:

"If fundamentalism still means what it meant in the early twentieth century... accepting the Bible as literal truth—the champions of intelligent design are not fundamentalists. They uniformly disclaim reliance on the Book and focus only on where the biological evidence leads. The court's response—"well, that's what they say, but we know what they mean'—is uncivil, an illustration of the dismissive and contemptuous treatment that characterizes much contemporary discourse. Once we know who you are, we need not listen. We've heard it all already."

"According to Alschuler, in Judge Jones' eyes "Dover is simply Scopes trial redux. The proponents of intelligent design are guilty by association, and today's yahoos are merely yesterday's reincarnated." Alschuler added that "proponents of intelligent design deserve the same respect' as evolutionists in the evaluation of their arguments, something they did not get from Judge Jones. Their ideas should be evaluated on their merits, not on presumed illicit motives. As Alschuler put it, '[f]reedom from psychoanalysis is a basic courtesy." [Ibid. pp.9-10]

You could learn a valuable lesson from that last sentence, Child.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata: Kalamata post #373 1: "Children and their silly games."

No, those are your denial tactics.
Read them, learn them, then Stop doing them.

Kalamata: "Equivocate much, Joey?
I reject evolutionism because it is a false and dangerous religious doctrine."

Danny boy, I never equivocate and your claim here is just another lie.
Stop lying.

Kalamata: "We need the 2nd Amendment more than ever now that our children have been brainwashed into believing they are descendants of apes; there is no purpose in life; and "when you're dead, you're dead."
In other words, your stinking worldview had given them no hope."

And so you pile more lies on top of the other lies -- lies based on lies, you fantasize two lies make a truth??
In fact, hope has nothing to do with evolution, but hope is a function of our families and beliefs in higher purpose, mission and goals.
Your lies notwithstanding, those are independent of our understandings of science.

Kalamata: "I recommend we drop evolution and start teaching out children the Ten Commandments, Matthew 7:12, Ephesians 4:32, and Roman 3:23, which were displayed in the halls of every public school I attended, from grades 1-12 (and everyone seemed to get along pretty well.)
Do you think you can talk your constitution-hating buddies at the ACLU into allowing us to do that?
It seems they control America, not the people, nor our elected officials."

Well... first, I know nobody in the ACLU.
But sadly, second, memory does not serve me well enough to say if I ever saw any of those Bible verses in public schools, though I do remember beginning class with a Bible reading and prayer, mid-1950s.

As for your claim of the ACLU that they somehow "control America" that is not supported by a review of the Top Ten evolution court cases listed here.
Some do mention the ACLU, most do not.
Regardless, it is always court decisions, not the ACLU, which clarify US laws regarding the teaching of religion in science classes.

In Dover the voters also spoke and fired their government school board theologians.

Kalamata on "Of Pandas and People": "I suspect you are spinning their words, Joey.
Please provide that page number and a long, complete quote so we can examine it for context."

So, you never read it? Oooooh Kay.
I've read the beginning and it amounts to nothing more than "science doesn't know everything", therefore Intelligent Design.
But I'll promise you a complete chapter-by-chapter report when I've had time to finish it.

Kalamata: "Where can we find that in the Bible, Joey?"

Oh Danny baby, baby Danny, did your mother never explain to you, baby boy, the difference between the Bible & science?
She was suppose to, you know, it's part of her job description.
The Bible is not scientific and science is not biblical, period.
Where they agree it's a miracle, but you have to work to see it, they will not on their own point it out to you, Danny boy.

Kalamata: "Where can we find earthly processes in the Bible that take billions of years, Joey?"

Danny baby, baby Danny, you won't find natural-science in the Bible, you won't find the Bible in science -- unless you study carefully to see where & how they match up.
You can begin by understanding that God's "day" is not the same as ours.

Kalamata: "I am certain God appreciates all the credit you give him, Joey.
I am also certain that God would also be appreciative if you teach His Words as written, and not add your own words to his."

Science does not add to or subtract words from the Bible.
It's your choice if you wish to learn where & how they may converge.

Kalamata: "No, Joey. God said it first, and best:"

Actually, that was King Solomon, but who's quibbling?

Kalamata: "I am already aware that you read his book through rose-colored glasses, Joey.
If Shermer had confined his theme to the holocaust, and those who deny it, I would be singing his praises. "

I don't believe that for a second, because your anti-Shermer animus is far too visceral.
You don't just disagree with him, you hate him for striking at the very heart and soul of who baby Danny is: a Denier.

Shermer's point in your quotes here is totally valid: pathological deniers are deniers, regardless of what form of reality they deny -- be it Holocaust or evolution or anything else, their tactics are similar.

Kalamata: "But his book (1st and Revised editions) is more of a hit piece on conservatives and Christians, than a treatise on holocaust denial.
And pray tell, what does this have to do with holocaust denial?"

Shermer's Holocaust book is 259 pages, nearly 99% devoted to the Holocaust, a few pages on the subject of pathological Deniers in general.
In 2007 Shermer did write a whole book on Evolution Deniers, which I'm currently reading.
In it he expanded on the points you quoted.
I'll have more to say when I've finished reading it.

Kalamata: "Absolutely nothing.
It is strictly a tool to place guilt by association, as in: "if you don't believe evolution is true, then you must be a holocaust denier."
That is the implication, and that is the same dirty trick Joey uses when his worldview is challenged.
No wonder Joey has such admiration for Shermer? "

Complete rubbish.
Shermer simply identified standard tactics practiced by any pathological deniers, Holocaust or otherwise.
I have only expanded that idea, based on baby Danny's posts, into a set of standard Rules for Deniers.

And the total validity of those "rules" is based on the fact that, try as hard as he might, baby Danny can't stop himself from slavishly obeying them!
I conclude therefore that Shermer is correct in identifying pathological denial as a form of mental illness that can infect minds on many subjects.

Kalamata: "For sure, Shermer trotted out the usual suspects; but he gave us virtually no new information on holocaust deniers. "

Now, now, baby Danny, stop lying -- you never read Shermer's book, you have no idea what he wrote, you only did a word search for items that interest you -- evolution.
So, unless you were already an expert on Holocaust deniers, Shermer's c.2000 book is chock-full of new data on deniers, their false arguments and the real truth about the Holocaust.

Now in 2007 Shermer did the same kind of work on Evolution Deniers, which I'm currently reading, I mean really reading, not just a computer word search.
When I finish, I'll let you know...

Kalamata: "Rather, he went out of his way to protect the Marxist far-left, which is a bastion of anti-Israel bigotry and holocaust denial, while associating the fascist left (fascists, Neo-Nazis, National Alliance, etc.) with the conservative right. "

Complete nonsense.

Kalamata: "I recall years ago I was debating a very intelligent graduate student from Scandanavia; and he was absolutely certain that fascism was a far-right doctrine."

Sure, "left" and "right" are matters of definitions and conventions.
In Europe "conservative" can mean "conserving" monarchism, theocracy, totalitarianism and fascism.
That's their history and definition.

In the USA "conservative" means conserving the Constitution and Bible, as intended.
That is the opposite of monarchism, theocracy or fascism.
But where European and American "ultra-conservatives" join is here: both have historically included some rabid racists -- KKK, Nazis, etc.
That is the point of confusion and the reason why Lefists feel justified in conflating European & American "conservatives".

more later...

>>Kalamata: Kalamata post #373 1: "Children and their silly games."
>>Little Joey: "No, those are your denial tactics. Read them, learn them, then Stop doing them."

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Equivocate much, Joey? I reject evolutionism because it is a false and dangerous religious doctrine."
>>Little Joey: "Danny boy, I never equivocate and your claim here is just another lie. Stop lying."

I don't lie, Little Joey, except maybe about Santa Claus in the appropriate company. Your faith-based religion of evolutionism is a lie, as well as dangerous to the mental health of children, in that it teaches our children the lie that life has no purpose -- that they are little more than glorified apes, rather than created in the image of God.

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

>>Kalamata: "We need the 2nd Amendment more than ever now that our children have been brainwashed into believing they are descendants of apes; there is no purpose in life; and "when you're dead, you're dead." In other words, your stinking worldview had given them no hope."
>>Little Joey: "And so you pile more lies on top of the other lies -- lies based on lies, you fantasize two lies make a truth?? In fact, hope has nothing to do with evolution, but hope is a function of our families and beliefs in higher purpose, mission and goals. Your lies notwithstanding, those are independent of our understandings of science."

Your religion, evolutionism, is a lie, Little Joey; and your support for the thuggish, suppressive tactics carried out against opposing viewpoints to your religion by the "scientific" establishment, the ACLU, and corrupt, activist, federal judges, is the opposite of what Free Republic and the Constitution stands for.

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

>>Kalamata: "I recommend we drop evolution and start teaching out children the Ten Commandments, Matthew 7:12, Ephesians 4:32, and Roman 3:23, which were displayed in the halls of every public school I attended, from grades 1-12 (and everyone seemed to get along pretty well.) Do you think you can talk your constitution-hating buddies at the ACLU into allowing us to do that? It seems they control America, not the people, nor our elected officials."
>>Little Joey: "Well... first, I know nobody in the ACLU."

You certainly kiss up to them!

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

>>Little Joey: "But sadly, second, memory does not serve me well enough to say if I ever saw any of those Bible verses in public schools, though I do remember beginning class with a Bible reading and prayer, mid-1950s."

You are not believable, Joey.

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

>>Little Joey: "As for your claim of the ACLU that they somehow "control America" that is not supported by a review of the Top Ten evolution court cases listed here. Some do mention the ACLU, most do not."

I am not sure what your point is, Joey, except that you believe the rulings of the judicial system is the Constitution, rather than the written legal document. You believe the Constitution is a living document, like Hamilton, Marshall, and all big government types of today.

I, on the other hand, am a strict constructionist, in line with this Jeffersonian doctrine:

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

Jefferson didn't always live up to that doctrine while President, but that statement, written late in his life, is his legacy. If the courts and the Congress adhered to that doctrine, we would be free, out of debt, and our communities would be safe: I have no doubt.

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

>>Little Joey: "Regardless, it is always court decisions, not the ACLU, which clarify US laws regarding the teaching of religion in science classes."

The courts were supposed to be the weaker branch, Joey; and which U.S. Laws did the anti-Christian judges "clarify?" I cannot think of any. They didn't judge the law; they made law! They are not constitutionalists, nor are you.

There are very few judges who have any scientific training whatsoever. Only the yahoos in the evolutionism cult seek suppressive support of federal judges. Real science stands on its own.

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

>>Little Joey: "In Dover the voters also spoke and fired their government school board theologians."

That is another Red-Herring, Joey. Rural conservative Christians do not fire school boards for promoting Christian values, unless there is thuggish, unconstitutional pressure on them to do so.

You should refrain from promoting the doctrine of anti-God sites, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata on "Of Pandas and People": "I suspect you are spinning their words, Joey. Please provide that page number and a long, complete quote so we can examine it for context."
>>Little Joey: " So, you never read it? Oooooh Kay. I've read the beginning and it amounts to nothing more than "science doesn't know everything", therefore Intelligent Design. But I'll promise you a complete chapter-by-chapter report when I've had time to finish it."

The book is supposed to be an alternative to Dumb-Luck Dawinism. This is in the introduction:

"The authors and publisher want you to use this book as a supplement, not a substitute, for your biology text; it cannot replace the main textbook. But without Of Pandas and People, you would miss a lot of interesting science. We hope you finish this book respecting good scientists of all persuasions; we do. The subjects here are treated in depth, and digging deeper brings richer rewards. Your textbook provides a lighter treatment of a broader range of topics. Wander back and forth between the two, using each to enrich the other" [Davis & Kenyon, "Of Pandas and People: the central question of biological origins." Haughton Publishing Company, 2nd Ed, 1993, Introduction, p.ix]

Wow! That is scary stuff: teaching our children to examine both sides of the issue!

How about this one?

"Thus began the search for "missing links." Convinced by Darwin's theory that fossil taxa must be linked by a graded series of intermediates, scientists began an intensive search. A few odd-ball types did show up that failed to fit neatly within any existing taxa, like Archaeopteryx (arkee- OP-tuh-riks, a proposed transition between reptiles and birds), which were initially hailed as transitional." [Ibid. p.23]

That is well-supported in the secular literature, Joey. How about this one?

"[T]he very term "homology" is often defined to include the concept of evolution. Most biology books today define homology as correspondence of structure derived from a common ancestor. As a result, evolutionists sometimes fall unwittingly into a circular argument: the concept of evolutionary descent is employed to explain similar structures, and then the existence of similar structures is cited as evidence that macroevolution has occurred." [Ibid. p.32]

What evolutionists routinely say, but generally not at the same time, is, "homology fits the theory of evolution because evolution is true; and evolution is true because of homology." That is perfect circular reasoning, not science. A good education system would teach our children that crucial point, and others like it. An indoctrination system denies them that knowledge.

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

>>Kalamata: "Where can we find that in the Bible, Joey?"
>>Little Joey: "Oh Danny baby, baby Danny, did your mother never explain to you, baby boy, the difference between the Bible & science? She was suppose to, you know, it's part of her job description. The Bible is not scientific and science is not biblical, period. Where they agree it's a miracle, but you have to work to see it, they will not on their own point it out to you, Danny boy."

You didn't answer my question, Child; so can we assume that what you asserted - the doctrine of deism - cannot be found in the Bible?

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

>>Kalamata: "Where can we find earthly processes in the Bible that take billions of years, Joey?"
>>Little Joey: "Danny baby, baby Danny, you won't find natural-science in the Bible, you won't find the Bible in science -- unless you study carefully to see where & how they match up.

You didn't answer my question, Child; so can we assume that what you asserted about the age of the earth cannot be found in the Bible?

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

>>Little Joey: "You can begin by understanding that God's "day" is not the same as ours."

God defined "our" day as 24 hours long:

"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." -- Exo 20:9-11 KJV

I cannot find any ambiguity in that passage, Joey. It certainly appears that God wants man's work-week to be the same length of time God took to create the heaven, earth, and all its host.

If you can find any scripture to support your view, then I encourage you to present it. Otherwise, I strongly encourage you to abandon it.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "I am certain God appreciates all the credit you give him, Joey. I am also certain that God would also be appreciative if you teach His Words as written, and not add your own words to his."
>>Little Joey: "Science does not add to or subtract words from the Bible. It's your choice if you wish to learn where & how they may converge.":

Your religion, Joey, evolutionism, which is based on pseudo-science (man's imagination,) adds words to God's Word, or denies them altogether! That is a no, no...

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. God said it first, and best:"
>>Little Joey: "Actually, that was King Solomon, but who's quibbling?

No, Joey, that was God. The author of Ecclesiastes was just an instrument used to convey God's Word. If you knew the Bible you would know that.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am already aware that you read his book through rose-colored glasses, Joey. If Shermer had confined his theme to the holocaust, and those who deny it, I would be singing his praises."
>>Little Joey: "I don't believe that for a second, because your anti-Shermer animus is far too visceral. You don't just disagree with him, you hate him for striking at the very heart and soul of who baby Danny is: a Denier."

I despise Michael Shermer's doctrine, Joey, because he teaches people to deny God. You should despise him, too, if you are a Christian.

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

>>Little Joey: "Shermer's point in your quotes here is totally valid: pathological deniers are deniers, regardless of what form of reality they deny -- be it Holocaust or evolution or anything else, their tactics are similar."

Let me get this straight. You are asserting that if I believe evolution is a fraud, which it is, then I am a holocaust and climate-change denier? You are one sick puppy, Joey. You really need help.

Of course, all Leftists need help; and you perhaps more so than most, since you also pretend to be a conservative.

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

>>Kalamata: "But his book (1st and Revised editions) is more of a hit piece on conservatives and Christians, than a treatise on holocaust denial. And pray tell, what does this have to do with holocaust denial?"
>>Little Joey: "Shermer's Holocaust book is 259 pages, nearly 99% devoted to the Holocaust, a few pages on the subject of pathological Deniers in general."

Pathological deniers? LOL! That is a new one!

Shermer is an advocate of abortion, climate change, gun control, and every other Far Left adventure; and I deny them all, like a good conservative. I guess that makes me a "pathological denier," in your pitifully small mind, little Joey; and it makes you a Leftist.

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

>>Little Joey: "In 2007 Shermer did write a whole book on Evolution Deniers, which I'm currently reading. In it he expanded on the points you quoted.I'll have more to say when I've finished reading it."

What is the name of the book, Joey?

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

>>Kalamata: "[And pray tell, what does Shermer's hit piece on Christians and conservatives this have to do with holocaust denial?] Absolutely nothing. It is strictly a tool to place guilt by association, as in: "if you don't believe evolution is true, then you must be a holocaust denier. That is the implication, and that is the same dirty trick Joey uses when his worldview is challenged. Is it any wonder that Joey has such admiration for Shermer?"
>>Little Joey: "Complete rubbish. Shermer simply identified standard tactics practiced by any pathological deniers, Holocaust or otherwise. I have only expanded that idea, based on baby Danny's posts, into a set of standard Rules for Deniers."

You are just like your bud, Michael Shermer: a slanderous, constitution-hating, science-denying scoundrel, and you cannot hide it with silly, childish rules that fit you better than anyone else.

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

>>Little Joey: "And the total validity of those "rules" is based on the fact that, try as hard as he might, baby Danny can't stop himself from slavishly obeying them!

You obey every one of those rules, Little Joey -- religiously! I guess that makes you a holocaust denier, as well. I suspected you were hiding something; but I did not suspect that you were a holocaust denier, on top of being a Far Left, anti-Constitution, Science-denier. Perhaps you should have kept your mouth shut about the holocaust, and debated the issues.

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

>>Little Joey: "I conclude therefore that Shermer is correct in identifying pathological denial as a form of mental illness that can infect minds on many subjects."

Where can I find that? I don't recall Shermer mentioning anything in his book about mental illness or social pathology, at least not in relevant terms. There is a large section on "The Psychology of Extremism," but many of the characteristics he attributes to those groups could equally be applied to members of the evolutionism and climate-change cults, and the Far Left, generally. Two can be applied to conservatives.

For example, attribute #1 is: "Absolute certainty they have the truth." That describes the emotional vigor of those two cults and the left, perfectly.

I, and most conservatives, fall into the 2nd one, which is: "[The belief that] America is controlled to a greater or lesser extent by a conspiratorial group. In fact, they believe this evil group is very powerful and controls most nations." I certainly believe there is a globalist left-wing conspiracy against our nation, western civilization, and traditionally morality. It has been front-and-center since at least the time Obama took office, so it is pretty hard to miss.

The 3rd is, "Open hatred of opponents. Because these opponents (actually "enemies" in the extremists' eyes) are seen as a part of or sympathizers with "The Conspiracy," they deserve hatred and contempt." That defines the far-left to the letter, not to mention the attitude of many in the evolution and climate change cult against the Christians typically, and anyone generally who doesn't join their cult(s).

The 4th is, "Little faith in the democratic process. Mainly because most believe "The Conspiracy" has great influence in the U.S. government, and therefore extremists usually spurn compromise." My question is, "what democratic process?"

The 5th is, "Willingness to deny basic civil liberties to certain fellow citizens, because enemies deserve no liberties." The far-left, the evolution cult, and climate change cult believes it is their right to deny civil liberties to those who oppose them.

The 6th is, "Consistent indulgence in irresponsible accusations and character assassination." That defines you, Joey, perfectly.

But to ensure the holocaust is not forgotten, I contend there is a significant group of people who deny the chief origin of the holocaust, which was the false doctrine of Charlie Darwin, and the Eugenics and Social Darwinist movements that fed off of it.

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

>>Kalamata: "For sure, Shermer trotted out the usual suspects; but he gave us virtually no new information on holocaust deniers. "
>>Little Joey: "Now, now, baby Danny, stop lying -- you never read Shermer's book, you have no idea what he wrote, you only did a word search for items that interest you -- evolution."

Stop lying. I have both editions of that book, Child. In fact, I have most of Shermer's books in my Research Library, and many of his articles. I also have links to many of his Youtube videos, and those he participates in. I even challenge some his loony Youtube groupies from time to time. I know a great deal about him, and he is NOT our nation's friend.

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

>>Little Joey: "So, unless you were already an expert on Holocaust deniers, Shermer's c.2000 book is chock-full of new data on deniers, their false arguments and the real truth about the Holocaust."

There are hundreds of footnotes in Shermer's 2000 book, Joey, and an extensive bibliography. Perhaps you will point to the page number of something original about the holocaust and holocaust deniers. Enlighten us, please!

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

>>Little Joey: "Now in 2007 Shermer did the same kind of work on Evolution Deniers, which I'm currently reading, I mean really reading, not just a computer word search. When I finish, I'll let you know..."

Evolution deniers? Are those the good citizens who believe the failed theologian named Charlie Darwin was a quack? Count me in.

What is the name of that 2007 book?

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

>>Kalamata: "Rather, he went out of his way to protect the Marxist far-left, which is a bastion of anti-Israel bigotry and holocaust denial, while associating the fascist left (fascists, Neo-Nazis, National Alliance, etc.) with the conservative right. "
>>Little Joey: "Complete nonsense."

You are supposedly reading or have read Shermer's book on the Holocaust, so prove me wrong. Show us where Shermer associates the fascists, Neo-Nazis and/or National Alliance with the Left.

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

>>Kalamata: "I recall years ago I was debating a very intelligent graduate student from Scandanavia; and he was absolutely certain that fascism was a far-right doctrine."
>>Little Joey: "Sure, "left" and "right" are matters of definitions and conventions. In Europe "conservative" can mean "conserving" monarchism, theocracy, totalitarianism and fascism. That's their history and definition. In the USA "conservative" means conserving the Constitution and Bible, as intended. That is the opposite of monarchism, theocracy or fascism. But where European and American "ultra-conservatives" join is here: both have historically included some rabid racists -- KKK, Nazis, etc. That is the point of confusion and the reason why Lefists feel justified in conflating European & American "conservatives". more later... "

More misdirection, Joey? The fellow I debated understood most political doctrine, but he misunderstood the Right-Left concept because of the Far-Left's heavy propaganda campaign to shove the Leftist named Hitler, and fascism generally, to the Right. I explained to him that Hitler and Obama had virtually the same political doctrine: some private ownership of industry, but heavy government control. However, when the debate finally broke off, I am certain he still believed that Obama was a Leftist and Hitler was on the Right, and I attribute that to brainwashing by Leftist propaganda -- propaganda which your atheist bud, Michael Shermer uses to smear conservatives; and propaganda for which you are an apologist.

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata post 373 cont 2: "Small world, huh?
I am certain Joey had no clue when he first tried to slander me that I am a long-time "student" of the trashiest authors of the evolution trash, like Shermer, Prothero, and Dawkins."

Danny baby, I have well understood from your first posts that you are a long-time practiced, accomplished denier.
I noticed immediately the similarities between your responses and those of Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago.
That's why I was able to quickly cobble together a list of Rules for Deniers (version 3.0).
I know just what to expect from you because I've seen it all before.

You know all the Denier Rules, you slavishly obey them all and couldn't stop yourself if you wanted to, which of course you don't.
As an accomplished Denier, of course you know and loathe those who expose your trade-craft for what it is.

Kalamata: "Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, Joey, and they are very tiresome."

And there it is again: Denier Rules #5, #7 & #13.
What can I say?

Kalamata: "Silly child."

That's a lot of denial packed into two short words: Rules #5, #7 & #13.

Kalamata: "Yeah, sure. That is what you say to everyone you smear."

Unlike Kalamata who smears everyone that disagrees, I smear nobody, merely report the facts of Denial Rules.

Kalamata: "LOL! I must say that I admire your tenacity, Child."

Baby Danny, I've seen your type often enough before.

Kalamata: "You claim that I lied, prove it!"

Which of your lies do you wish me to prove?

Kalamata: "Perhaps you will explain the difference, Oh Great Wise One!"

LOL... Lies are what Danny Denier spreads, doubt is what any scientific researcher will feel while investigating some physical anomaly.

Kalamata on evolution vs. devolution: "Joey is either lying to you, or he doesn't understand what he preaches."

As always, the lie here is from baby Danny, attempting redefine scientific terms to suit his own anti-science theology.

Kalamata: "I asked you over and over again to show us just one observable scientific fact, and all you gave us was a wild goose chase."

I gave you the locations of many observable scientific facts, but just like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum, you claim there's no evidence there.
You call it a "wild goose chase" because you can spend all day in a natural history museum and never see a shred of evidence.

Kalamata quoting Shermer:

"The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion."Kalamata: "What does that even mean?
It is not science, for certain."

Of course it's science, the same kinds of science used, for example, in courts of law to convict criminals, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Kalamata quoting Shermer:

Kalamata: "Is Shermer for real?
Why on earth would a "rival theory" be necessary before a crappy theory like evolution is flushed down the toilet?
We all know why: power!"

Complete rubbish.
Here we see baby Danny all but admitting that ID is no "rival theory" of science.

Kalamata: "There is no such thing as microevolution.
You gave examples for devolution, which is the loss of genetic information."

Here Danny Denier tries to redefine Creationists' own arguments to suit some other agenda.
In fact, short-term "micro-evolution", aka "adaptation", is what most Creationists claim does exist, only long-term "macro-evolution" is fake, they say.

But Danny boy wishes to deny "evolution" in any form whatever, be it short-term, long-term or in-between.
Theologically speaking, baby Danny can only allow for "devolution" and "loss of genetic information".

And that's complete, total non-scientific nonsense.

Kalamata: "The "last man" that Paul is referring to is Jesus, who was made a quickening spirit.
Perhaps you should have read the next verse before commenting:"

The Bible nowhere tells us that God "breathed the breath of life" into any other creature than mankind, or created anywhere else a "living soul".
However you define those terms, God's actions are unique to human beings.
Apostle Paul tells us Jesus is a life-giving spirit, but many humans in the Bible have the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, some have their own spirits, perhaps a troubled spirit, and some are possessed by evil spirits.
Only humans on Earth have spirits.