Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

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

[fishtank]

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

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

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

[BroJoeK]

baby Danny Denier post #378 1: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "Child, are you denying..."

baby Danny Denier: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "You are such a child."

baby Danny Denier: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "Silly child."

baby Danny Denier: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "Brainwashed child."

baby Danny Denier: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "Child."

baby Danny Denier: "Foolish child."

All Denier Rules #5 & #7, Danny boy can only slavishly obey the rules he learned as a baby.

Danny Denier: "You really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey, that is, if you are being truthful, which I question.
Those scientists and educators who have pointed out the overwhelming weaknesses in Darwin's theology (a.k.a. evolutionism,) are ridiculed, slandered, and even have their careers threatened, if not destroyed.
It has happened over an over again.
If we were living in the days of Galileo, I am reasonably certain that many would have been burned at the state for heresy, considering the nasty rhetoric of those pushing the label of "science denier," as you do."

Sorry, Danny boy, but the truth is far different from what you claim.
In fact, natural-science is intended to be self-correcting and over the years any number of bad ideas, mistakes and some outright frauds (i.e., Piltdown man) have been proposed, exposed and corrected, by scientists.
In some cases the corrections were almost immediate, in others it took many years, but in the end the mistakes were fixed and better ideas accepted.

As for your alleged "overwhelming weaknesses", that could well refer to Darwin's lack of understanding about such matters as genetics & DNA, such knowledge has expanded exponentially since Darwin's time, all without any of the dire consequences you claim, Danny boy.
However, in terms of outright scientific falsification of Darwin's basic ideas, that has never happened.

Danny Denier: "Again, you really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey.
Our tax dollars are wasted searching for alien life at the instigation of hard-core, ant-God evolutionists.
Have you not heard of SETI?
Boondoggles do not get any more "boondoggly" than SETI."

SETI is perfectly legitimate science which has so far failed to produce any results except to rule out some possibilities.
"Ancient Aliens" are rubbish TV shows which posit that "aliens", not humans, were responsible for various ancient items, i.e., the Pyramids.
My point is: just as there is no real evidence of "ancient aliens" so there is no real evidence of Darwin's basic theory ever being falsified.

Danny Denier: "Your attempts to spin those examples as "typical" reveals your complete and total dishonesty, Joey.
Those are the two most well-know of a myriad of fake and false claims by the evolutionism cult since Charlie's doctrine corrupted the origin of life narrative and supposedly "released" man from God and his commandments (dream on.)"

That's complete nonsense, Danny boy.
Honest mistakes are one thing, mistakes are what humans do and correcting human mistakes is what science is intended to do.
By one count I saw, millions of peer-reviewed scientific papers are published every year and of those a few -- a few dozen -- are later discovered as mistaken or even fraudulent.
We don't know how many scientific papers are later withdrawn by their own authors in light of better data or better explanations.
But such numbers illustrate that most papers are honest and accurate and honest mistakes are discovered & corrected.

As for deliberate fraud, like Piltdown, those numbers are small and in most cases quickly discovered & corrected.
This listing of evolution theory frauds has only five examples:

1. Piltdown Man -- 19th century
2. Haeckel's Embryos -- 19th century
3. Nebraska Man -- early 20th century
4. Flipperpithecus -- 1983
5. Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten -- 2004

Then there's this:

"In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[24]
For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[25]"

So, just like Danny Denier, the author here handwaves away literal mountains of evidence as any Star Wars Jedi would: "nothing to see here, move along, move along."

As for allegedly, "Charlie's doctrine corrupted the origin of life narrative...", that's a theological issue which most Christian churches have long since, ahem, adapted to -- "theistic evolutionism".
My Dad loved Billie Graham, they were about the same age.
My mother grew up near Graham's home town.

Danny Denier: "That is a blantant lie, Joey.
Haeckel was a well-qualified M.D., and his fraud was exposed early on; yet he continued to promote it and get away with it!"

No, in fact there were several versions of Haeckel's drawings with newer ones incorporating newer information.

"Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations based on the material used for comparison with what Haeckel could access at the time.[46]"

Nobody today defends Haeckel's recapitulation theory, only against the idea that he was deliberately fraudulent.
Honest mistakes are much more frequent than dishonest hoaxes.

Danny Denier: "The so-called "scientific" orthodoxy generally ignored Haeckel's fraud since it was the "best evidence" of evolutionism, at the time, and still is.
How does it feel to know the best evidence for your religion of evolution was based on fake drawings?"

First, evolution theory is the opposite of any religion since evolution excludes all reference to supernatural interventions.
Second, fossils are the best evidence, especially when compared against DNA differences in living species.
Third, Haeckel's idea, modified, survives today in the fact that early stage embryos of very different species can look surprisingly similar.

Danny Denier: "Baloney.
There was never any evidence that the Piltdown man, even if true and not fabricated, meant anything other than some fossilized bones were found.
That fraud survived and was perpetuated by the orthodoxy because of their warped worldview that "evolution is true, no matter what," which is also your worldview, Joey."

Oh, Danny boy, that is Oscar Mayer level bologna.

So-called Piltdown Man filled a "niche" which today is filled with dozens & dozens of actual pre-human fossils, for examples, these:

Danny Denier: "It proves that scientists cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Paraphrasing Reagan, 'Verify, then trust!' "

Unlike Danny boy who can be absolutely 100% certifiably trusted, to lie about pretty much everything.

Danny Denier: "That is a conjecture based on your Darwinist worldview, Joey, which is, "Evolution is always true!
Therefore, the fossils MUST show common descent (even if we cannot see it)!"
That is not science, Joey, but at faith-based religion."

{sigh} Oh Danny boy, and still more B O L O G N A.
Yet again: what can be observed (i.e., a fossil) is fact, while confirmed natural explanations of facts (i.e., common descent) are theories.
By definition that is science, regardless of how hard you wish to deny it away.

Danny Denier: "There are no transitions, Joey.
Dogs have always been dogs, cats have always been cats, bacteria have always been bacteria, and humans have always been humans.
There are no exceptions: not in the fossil record; not in observable life; and not even in the genome, as real scientists have found out, of late."

No, that is just your Jedi religion -- "nothing to see here, move along, move along."
Regardless of your repeated claims, by US law your religion is not science and cannot be taught as such in public schools.

In fact, even in your Danny Denier blindness, you must know that dogs were not always dogs, they were once wolves, and house-cats were not always house-cats, they were once wild.
Cows were once Aurochs, pigs were wild boars, etc.
The fact is that species change (evolve) over time.

Danny Denier: "You really need to keep up with the secular (anti-Christian) literature, Joey.
There has not been a single clearly-defined transitional fossil line found anywhere on earth.
Not one."

Just more of your Jedi religion.

Danny Denier on plate tectonics: "I knew you could not argue with Physics, Joey.
I doubt you can even spell Physics.
It is spelled P-H-Y-S-I-C-S, not F-I-Z-Z-I-X. I hope that helps."

Sorry, no, it's spelled Plate Tectonics = the movements of continents which have been measured at roughly the rate of fingernail growth.
Also mountains like the Himalayas themselves rise along with plate movements.
The Rocky Mountains are said to be "spreading" but I can't find if that means some peaks are actually lowering.

Point is, these measured plate movements are slow but steady.
Over many millions of years they accumulate to thousands of miles.

Danny Denier: "That is another just-so story by the evolutionism cult, Joey, that you bought into hook, line and sinker.
There is not nearly enough momentum stored up in microscopic movement of the plates to push up the enormous, sediment-covered moutain ranges found world-wide."

And yet mountains like the Himalayas are measured as rising around 1/2 inch per year.

Danny Denier on strata layer folding: "Not without metamorphosis within the sedimentary rock layers, Joey."

Melting temperatures are not necessary to fold sedimentary rock under pressure and bending a fraction of an inch per year.

Danny Denier: "Child, are you denying that God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth?
Are you calling God a liar, Joey?"

No, the Bible says what it says, and geology confirms there was a flood.
Geology also suggests many "floods" and sedimentary deposits over billions of years.
Science does not deny the Bible, the Bible does not deny science.

More later...

[BroJoeK]

mdmathis6: "I’ve been aware all my sentient life of the implicit anti-mosaic bias of many of the so called media savvy “scientists and the science writer pundit wannabe types”.
Their whole modus operandi is exposed and derided in Psalms 2."

I read Psalm 2 as talking about politicians we might call secessionists, nothing to do with science.

Clearly both mdmathis6 and Kalamata are terribly confused about the definitions and methods of science.
You want scientists to begin their work by reading the Bible or some theological tome to see how nature operates, when neither the Bible nor theology requires that.
What science requires is that its workers begin with the evidence and follow it to whatever natural explanations work best, regardless of theology.
For over 150 years now the best natural explanations of geological & biological origins begin with Darwin & Lyell.

Now Kalamata regales us with quotes from Newton praising God for His handiwork among stars & planets, by stark contrast to 19th century thinkers like Charles Lyell quoted as saying he wants to "free the science from Moses".

But what Kalamata pretends to forget is that scientists like Galileo, Copernicus & Kepler were also opposed by the Church precisely because they too ignored the Bible's view of astronomy, as expressed in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.

"In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be: "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture".
The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement 'receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.[80]

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true.
On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered:

... to abandon completely ... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.[82]"

Still a hundred years later, Newton's ideas were no less heretical, but he at least had enough good sense to use them to praise God and His creations, and Newton was also lucky enough to live in a more tolerant Protestant land.

But 19th century thinkers like Darwin and Lyell had a far more difficult task, since natural history was not just a matter of a handful of scattered Biblical verses, easily ignored even by alleged literalists like Kalamata & mdmathis6, but natural history is built into the Bible's basic creation narrative.
God's creation and flood are just too big a part of the Bible to be hand-waved away and no scientist of the time, even someone who studied traditional theology like Darwin, could find a way to reconcile them.
So they never tried, instead, as Kalamata frequently quotes, they worked to "free the science from Moses".

However, soon enough many church theologians did find ways to reconcile Old Earth geology & evolutionary biology with Biblical Creation, through "theistic evolutionism" which essentially does for that science what Newton himself did for astronomy -- praises God for His creations, regardless of what methods God used.

[mdmathis6]

“I read Psalm 2 as talking about politicians we might call secessionists, nothing to do with science.”

Your personal biases cause you to see it that way. Psalm 2 speaks of entire nations rebelling against the dictates of the living God. What part of “The Kings of the Earth rise up...” did you not understand?

I am not confused as to how the scientific method is supposed to work; I understand what my internal pre-biased states are so if I were to model experiments, I would model them with those pre-biases set aside or perhaps even included as a means of developing falsifiable controls.

The problem in today’s science world is that most antireligious types of scientists, who seem to be at the top of everything, are inherently pre-biased against the unfalsifiable, believing in their very center beings that what can’t be proven true or false must always be considered AS FALSE. They react, almost in a hyper MORALIST inquisitional manner against anyone that holds to a more religious viewpoint. “Such people must be quashed!”, the Hyper anti-moralist scientists rage, we must take counsel against them and against their fake God and his Anointed, and their fake science,...we must break the bonds of “old timey rationalist Cartesian deductive reasoning” and cast away their yokes from us”. After all, there is no truth in the tautologous, there is no unfalsifiable God person who will hold us in derision and who will dash us to pieces like a potter’s vessel!”

The worst sorts aren’t some of the atheist scientists but the science writer wannabe types who mix a vague minor in environmental and ecology science with a journalist degree and are steeped in socialist Marxist theory. They add to the confusion of what science is supposed to be and what it’s methods are. They are always seizing upon work being done by scientist “A” or Physicist “B” and have spun up all the permutations as to how “A”’s work, if it pans out and is verified by others, will change the world, will lead to needed social changes, and of course further prove how all the world’s religions are full of bunk.

Oh I understand your understanding of what science is supposed to be...do you?

As a young child my first bit of science training started like this...”If there is smoke, there is a fire some where and if the universe is in existence it has origin and a cause!” Thus the origin of all my pre-biases when I consider reason and science!

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "If evolutionists had performed like real scientists, and followed the scientific method, like Newton, they would have sought to falsify the works of Darwin and Lyell in the beginning (as some did,) rather than justify their theories in whatever way possible, even fraud.
You seldom hear of that by the "establishment" these days, but fraud was rampant among evolutionists from the beginning."

The fact is that over the past 150+ years many new ideas have been added to Darwin's basic evolution theory, but the theory itself has never been falsified.
Here is a list of evolution predictions later confirmed.

Here is a listing of "9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False"

1. Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong

2. Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong
   The article falsely claims the famous Archaeopteryx fossil is a fraud, but there are 11 such fossils found so far plus many more similar in China and nobody has claimed they are all frauds.
   So the anti-evolution case depends on lies.

3. Scientific Fact No. 3 - Missing Inferior Evolutionary Branches

4. Scientific Fact No. 4 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

5. Scientific Fact No. 5 - Human Egg and Sperm Prove Evolution is Wrong

6. Scientific Fact No. 6 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

7. Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

8. Scientific Fact No. 8 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

9. Scientific Fact No. 9 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

In fact, none of these "prove" anything about Darwin's basic evolution theory -- 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection, long term, produce new species.
Even Danny Denier Kalamata, for all his boisterous claims, admits that the alleged "species barrier" is no real barrier at all and the supposedly "inviolable barriers" begin at the "Family" (aka "kind") taxonomic category.
Well, a lot of evolution happens before a population reaches the alleged "family barrier".

Kalamata's response: "that's not evolution".
But it is.

Here is a listing of facts which, if true, would actually falsify evolution.

This site lists several noteworthy frauds -- Piltdown, Haeckel, Nebraska & Protsch implying these represent the full body of scientific work on evolution over 150+ years.
In fact they represent only an infinitesimal fraction of it and even this site (eventually) concludes:

"Evolutionists are quick to point out that this is how science works—that it is self-correcting.
And there is a great deal of truth to that statement.
However, one must question how such scientists can continue to support evolution being taught as “fact,” knowing that much of what we believe to be true today will have to be “self-corrected” in the future."

Long-term evolution should never be taught as "fact" since it's a theory, a confirmed explanation, based on literal mountains of facts.
Short-term evolution, aka "adaptation" or "micro-evolution" is observed fact, Kalamata's "heroic" efforts to define it away notwithstanding.

[BroJoeK]

mdmathis6 post #381: "Oh stop with the red herring ad hominem attacks.
I’ve seen proponents of vaccines defending against anti-vaxxers using much the same language patterns and right back att’em as well but I’m not convinced that Pro vaxxers as well as anti vaxxers are holocaust deniers just because they use similar patterns of speech as various holocaust deniers do."

You make a valid point, and it's the reason I've gone to such lengths to spell out exactly what I mean in calling out Danny Denier Kalamata for illegitimate practices which others also use for nefarious purposes.
You'll find version 3.0 of my "Rules for Deniers" in my post #420 above.

The fact that Holocaust deniers I remember from nearly 20 years ago also used those same tactics might be irrelevant, the tactics themselves are illegitimate, regardless.

I've also carefully pointed out that while some Holocaust deniers were extremely vulgar, Kalamata is not, though he is no less insulting than they were.
I've also noticed that, so far as I can tell, to his credit Kalamata has not resorted to fake quotes or even faked contexts.
Indeed, his quotes are even honest enough that in one notable series of exchanges, I was able to use Kalamata's own quotes to make an opposing argument!
That is so unexpected it leads me to wonder if he doesn't have a "research assistant" supplying quotes, the "assistant" being more honest than Kalamata?

mdmathis6 "What does the subject of the holocaust have to do with the subject of evolution vs direct creation by God anyway?
On second thought, it might have a lot to do with it based on Nazi propaganda and their views on racial purity and superiority!
Still I don’t see where Kalamata has advocated extermination of evolution supporters or even you BroJoeK!"

Kalamata himself answers your question in, for example, his maniacal fixation on author Michael Shermer, who has written books on both Holocaust denial and Evolution denial, explicitly comparing the two.
Shermer drives Kalamata bananas and he's spent endless words trashing Shermer up one side and down the other.

On the other hand, iirc, Kalamata has explicitly posted that Holocaust deniers were dishonest and that he never met one.
I take that to also imply he never was one, even though his responses are so quick & fluidly similar to those deniers I highly suspect he's had a lifetime of practice at it.
Regardless, imho, denial tactics are the same and amount to effective admission that you have no better arguments.

So, I ask you to think of it this way: if you and Kalamata will read my "Rules for Deniers", commit them to memory and then Stop Doing Them, it will make you better human beings and more worthy Christians, I think.

mdmathis6 "Kalamata is eating you alive...stop digging the hole deeper!"

Naw, you just love what he says and so you literally can't see the weaknesses in his arguments.
In fact his arguments are total nonsense bolstered by heavy doses of insult, ad hominem & mockery.

[BroJoeK]

mdmathis6 post #383: "Yup you sound just like holocaust denier to me! Deflection is what they do best!"

Deniers are deniers, sharing similar tactics regardless of subject.
For my take on what it means to be a denier, please see my post #420 above.
Read it, learn it and then Stop Doing It.

[mdmathis6]

“”Kalamata is eating you alive...stop digging the hole deeper!”

Naw, you just love what he says and so you literally can’t see the weaknesses in his arguments.
In fact his arguments are total nonsense bolstered by heavy doses of insult, ad hominem & mockery. “

You were the one parsing his words and accusing him of being a fascist Nazi based on his “word patterns”. Soon as I read that I knew you were a purveyor of the corollary of “fake news”, which is to say..antirational “fake science”! Keep the “antifaith”, baby! It’s all you’ve got!

The real issue with Evolution and the various arguments for it is that the data is interpreted from pre-biased premises that ultimately can not be falsified or verified. It’s not like you can set up a billion year experiment to test and see if the hypotheses being modeled will hold up. Then others must be running a similar experiment to cross check the data in the first experiment. All we have are what we can observe from the fossil records using questionable dating methods and a lot of “hooey language” that in the end suggests and guesses as to how things came to be. The competition has simply become who can out “bluster” the other. The question of evolution, much like the question of the existence of God from a scientific standpoint must remain an open unanswerable question. Evolutionary science in its present form is in fact a tautology and I think many in the field suspect this and it drives them nuts!

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #397: "Child"

Danny Denier: "Child"

Danny Denier: "Child"

Danny Denier: "You are rewriting history, again, Child."

Just Danny obeying Denier Rules #1, #7 & #12.

Danny Denier: "Don't get all paranoid on us, Joey: I am referring to just the wife and me.
We really did get a good belly-laugh from your "promotion". LOL!"

So is your wife the suspected "research assistant" who sneaks in your occasional counter-argument quote?
If so, please thank her for me.

Danny Denier: "Huh?
I am not "hung up" on blowholes, Joey.
You are."

Nonsense, because you first introduced the whole blow-hole complaint and have harped incessantly on it, even though the issue is meaningless.
Reasonable scholars can reasonably disagree as to whether any specific fossil had a blow hole or not, it makes no difference to the overall evolution picture.

Danny Denier: "There is no such thing as a "pre-whale," Joey, except in the vivid imaginations of religious zealots."

B A L O G N A!
Physical evidence, aka facts, include fossils of whale-like creatures living many millions of years before modern whales.

Danny Denier: "There you go again, Joey!
The absence of evidence is NOT evidence; nor will it ever be evidence!"

But evidence is evidence and you have ad nauseum obsessed on blow holes in order to ignore literal mountains of evidence -- fossils -- of whale-like creatures which lived many millions of years ago.

Danny Denier: "Just as I suspected: a professional con-man."

Denier Rule #5, that would be you.
You asked what my career was, for many years I got paid to separate facts from fiction and chose the facts which worked best.

Danny Denier: "Shermer snuck those words in, like a true professional con-man.
I believe that is called, "sleight of hand", which could be the title of his book; but pretending it to be a book on holocaust deniers makes it a best seller."

Nothing "slight of hand" about it, "Denying" is the first word of his book title, which focuses 99% on the Holocaust but includes brief discussions (I had forgotten about) of other forms of denial.
Shermer's 2007 book addresses evolution specifically.

Danny Denier: "I am impressed by your ability to manipulate the truth, Joey.
I hear CNN is hiring."

Denier Rules #5 & #7.

Danny Denier: "Shermer pretends his book is about holocaust denial; but in reality it is just another Far-Left hit-piece on conservatives, as well as on those who reject the false religion of evolutionism, who are perhaps conservative, as well."

Shermer's 2000 book is 99% about the Holocaust.
Shermer's 2007 book, so far as I've read, is 100% about evolution.
Shermer's self-professed politics are Libertarian and Libertarians are normally allies of Republicans and conservatives.
Shermer's religious views are said to be agnostic, he is not anti-Christian.

Danny Denier: "The intent of your religion, evolutionism, is to DENY God, Joey.
Was your statement just another misdirection?"

Your misdirection here is in claiming that evolution is somehow different from all other natural-science.
In fact, by definition, science's methodological naturalism can only consider natural explanations for natural processes.
So by definition (and US law), when you introduce "intelligent design" that is not science.

Danny Denier: "For the rest of you, the Discovery Institute has Senior Fellows from practically every ideology..."

So, you represent Discovery Institute?

Danny Denier: "Joey quote-mined my comment, as usual.
My full comment is as follows:"

"Quote mining", sounds like something Danny Denier does regularly.
In fact, I was only hoping to be brief and focus on the words that mattered.

Danny Denier: "Joey also forgot to mention that Shermer discusses evolution several times, in a book he pretends to be about holocaust deniers."

Once again for Shermer-obsessed Kalamata: Shermer's c.2000 book is 259 pages of text, of which about 99% discuss the Holocaust, a few pages mention other forms of denial.

Danny Denier: "Joey again resorted to quote-mining to distort the context of my statement.
He is shameless.
Joey also forgot to mention that Shermer's book is supposed to be about holocaust deniers."

I quoted the part I disagree with and rather than answer that, Danny boy practices Denier Rule #11.
Shermer's c.2000 book is ~99% about the Holocaust.

Danny Denier: "That was one of Michael Shermer's references in the book you continue to praise."

Shermer's book does a fine job exposing Holocaust deniers, but when I quoted Shermer to Holocaust deniers ~20 years ago, they went as apoplectic over Shermer as Danny boy does here.
There's something in Denier psychology that responds to Shermer the same was as Dracula supposedly responded to a cross.

Danny Denier: "Shermer is also a denier, Joey.
He denies the existence of God.
Does that make him a holocaust denier?"

Shermer's religious views are said to be agnostic.
That would make him a doubter, not a denier.

Danny Denier: "What is your opinion of the professor who called for the death penalty for "Climate Change Deniers?" "

Absurd, not interested, no Denial Tactics are required to defeat Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) warriors' arguments.

Danny Denier: "Crazy leftists are not likely to forget that "call to arms."
It is indeed a dangerous game against conservatives that Shermer, Prothero, and you are playing, Joey."

That's Denier Rule #8 -- guilt by association.

Danny Denier: "If Rule #1 is not "Look in the Mirror", then Shermer's rules are even more evidence that he suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder."

So, does this imply that Danny Denier will start his day by "looking in the mirror" to see & stop all the ridiculous Denier tactics he's been using here?

Danny Denier: "I agree.
It can apply to God Denial, Special Creation Denial, Intelligent Design Denial, Man Created in God's Image Denial, Global Flood Denial, Jesus Denial, Resurrection Denial, Devolution Denial, Genetic Entropy Denial, Neo-Nazi's Are Left-Wing Denial, and The Climate is Normal Denial, to name a few."

I think, Danny boy, you should begin by carefully examining your own egregious denials.

Danny Denier: "I know you are lying about your past, Joey; but ironically you inadvertently claimed that YOU use the same debate tactics as holocaust deniers (e.g., personal attacks, insults, belittling & mockery.)"

In fact, you not only don't know that, you have no reason to even suspect it.
So your statement here proves beyond reasonable doubt that, by nature, Danny Denier is a liar.
In fact, aside from pointing out your errors and responding in kind to your own insults, I've made no personal attacks on you or any other poster.

Danny Denier: "I never said that, Joey?
Are you delusional?
This was my statement in #352:"

Sorry Danny, but the fact is you've frequently and unashamedly proclaimed there is no evidence for evolution in natural history museums.
I have merely pointed out this is precisely the same claim Holocaust deniers make of Holocaust museums.
And I've noticed that the mental processes behind such claims, to all appearances, are exactly the same.
In your devious minds you redefine the terms such that what you see is not your definition of "evolution" or in their cases, "Holocaust".

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

Sure, in your mind and mine, but not in the minds of Holocaust deniers.
Just as the evidence in natural history museums is also believable in my mind, but not in the minds of Evolution deniers.

Danny Denier: "The evidence that Charlie Darwin’s philosophy — the origin of your worldview — was the primary driver of Hitler’s worldview, which led to the Holocaust, is why are so defensive and feel compelled to slander and marginalize Jews who reject Darwin and try to expose his treacherous doctrine."

Sorry, but that is a lot of nonsense to package in just one sentence... {sigh}

First of all, Hitler never claimed his anti-Semitism originated with Darwin, rather he said it came from political mentors, notably the Christian Social Party.
Second, I've said nothing about Jews so your claims here are pure fantasy -- Denier Rule #12.

Danny Denier: "Joey cannot let go of his "holocaust denier" misassociation, because slanderous implications is all he has in defense of his evolution-is-god worldview!"

I promise, the moment you stop obeying Denier Rules, I'll stop pointing out how similar your arguments are to those of Holocaust deniers.

I also promise, the moment you stop bald-face lying, I'll stop calling you a bald-faced liar.

Danny Denier: "You must be delusional, Joey.
Do you really believe the Holocaust proves nothing?"

And this from the very man who so loudly complained about my perfectly harmless "quote mining"?!
So, Danny boy, take a break, take a rest before you become completely unhinged.
You quoted my words out of context and completely reversed their intended meaning.

Danny Denier: "You are delusional, Joey.
Perhaps this will help you get your head straight.
Holocaust eye witnesses are eye witnesses to the holocaust.
Scientists do not lie about evolution.
Ideologues disguised as scientists, such as Ernst Haeckel and Eugenie Scott, lie about evolution."

Right, just like any Denier, you redefine all the terms such that up is down, left is right, black is white, religion is science and science is religion.
That's Denier Rule #2.

Danny Denier: "Do you really believe the Holocaust forensic evidence is faked, Joey?"

No, but Deniers do, just as Evolution Deniers claim evidence is faked.

Danny Denier after quoting out of context: "Do you really believe the Holocaust is a politically motivated fantasy, Joey?
Joey, the Holocaust actually happened.
It is a well-verified historical event."

No, to serious Holocaust deniers it is all just as faked, fraudulent, lies and propaganda as is Evolution evidence to Evolution deniers.
They used the same Jedi mind tricks ("nothing to see, move along...") as you use on Evolution.

Danny Denier: "Apparently Joey agrees with Shermer's misassociation of the Neo-Nazi's with the political right-wing; otherwise he would condemn it.
With "friends" like Joey, conservatives do not need enemies."

In Europe, "right wing" and "conservatives" can refer to people who wish to conserve the old monarchies, Church authorities, dictatorships including national socialism, and racist laws.
In the US children are taught in school that "right wing" means racists like KKK and old Dixiecrats.
It's a common enough mistake to lump "right wing" KKK racists in with Nazi racists, even though their political systems are quite different.

I think we should patiently correct such mistakes, but I wouldn't go tilting at windmills over it.

Danny Denier: "That was a quick turn-around, Joey?
Do you have a short-term memory problem?"

No, but you obviously do have a problem with reading comprehension, since you've taken some of my words out of context and reversed their intended meaning.

Danny Denier: "My quote was from Shermer's 2009 book on, "How to use the Holocaust to smear your ideological opponents," deceptively titled, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It.""

Danny boy, you just got to stop lying.
Shermer's book is copyrighted in 2000, not 2009.
It is nearly 99% about the Holocaust, a few pages on other forms of denial.
But I also remember that nearly 20 years ago Holocaust deniers also went ape-cr*p over Shermer.
It's one thing that suggests to me the connection between you.

Danny Denier: "You are defending Shermer's slander of conservatives by misassociation?
I am trying to make sense of this.
I guess that since Shermer taught Joey how to slander by misassociation and innuendo, Joey must feel he owes him something."

Nonsense, you're not "trying to make sense" of it, instead you are working overtime to distort & misunderstand for purposes of mockery, insult & scorn.
In short, you are an Alinskyite, here to practice that nefarious trade-craft in defense of your own anti-science agenda.

Danny Denier: "Ignorance is no excuse, Joey, nor is your reliance on the Far-Left-controlled Wikipedia."

But ignorance is 100% of your entire argument, Danny "I see nothing" boy.
On Wikipedia, if nothing else it represents "conventional wisdom" and is often the only place to quickly find quotes & references on any specific subject.
The point in this particular case is to show that "left wing" and "right wing" are matters of word definitions about which many people can disagree.

I think it's something we should patiently correct people on, but not go bonkers over.

Danny Denier: "You are all over the place, Joey.
Also, Shermer's book was the 2009 revised edition."

Nonsense, you are just deliberately pretending to be confused.
Also, Shermer's Holocaust book was originally copyrighted in 2000.
The audible version was issued in 2009.

Danny Denier: "Again, you can "thank" far-left propagandists, like your hero, Michael Shermer."

Complete nonsense, Denier Rule #8.

Danny Denier: "That is malicious sophistry, Joey."

Claims our highly recognized Third Order, 33rd Degree Sovereign Grand Master of Malicious Sophistry, Danny Denier boy.

Danny Denier: "You are rewriting history, again, Child."

Says our Sovereign Master History Rewriter.

Danny Denier quoting Weikart 2016: "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."

That's not "quote mining", Danny, just trying to keep it short!
The fact is, by Hitler's own admissions his anti-Semitic views did not begin with Darwin but with the anti- Semitic Christian Social Party.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #402: "Christians do not persecute anyone, Joey; but they are routinely persecuted."

So Danny boy, are you truly that ignorant of history, or are you just doing your denier-thing here too?
Do you claim that whatever Christians did historically was not really "persecution"?
Or do you claim that those who persecuted were not really Christians?

Sorry, but the fact is that people self-proclaimed as Christians began persecuting their "enemies" -- non-believers, heretics, apostates, etc. including the death penalty -- beginning right after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Danny Denier: "Christians do not persecute anyone, Joey, because it is impossible to be a Christian and a persecutor. People in positions of power can be Christians, or scientists, or statesmen; but when they abuse their powers they are no longer Christians, or scientists, or statesmen, but thugs."

So, I see, you don't pretend there were no prosecutions, rather you claim those who persecuted were not really Christians.
That's fine, I "get" that.

Here's your problem:
Beginning with Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, after making Christianity the empire's state religion, he immediately started to attack & destroy all other religions both pagan and Christian "heretics", newly declared.
And you don't have to be cynical to grasp that Constantine's motives were probably not just religious piety.
Instead, by "coincidence" it turns out that all those other pagan temples were vast storehouses of wealth accumulated over many centuries, wealth Constantine could & did use to build up his new Eastern Roman Empire capital at old Byzantium.
So, in the name of Christianity Constantine methodically destroyed & took the pagans' wealth to support his dreams of empire.

Did Christians object, did they oppose Constantine's infringements on others' freedom of religion?
No, for the most part, of course not since Christians benefitted in the form of new cathedrals and government financial support.
Somewhere I read that Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, known as Constantine's propagandist, did somewhat object, but in veiled & coded metaphorical language.
I don't know if that counts.

From that point on to early modern times Christian Churches were involved in persecuting non-believers, heretics, Jews & others.
Even Protestant churches after establishing their own official positions soon enough turned to persecuting non-Protestants.

Point is: that was the historical tradition into which Catholics like young Adolf Hitler were born & raised.
It all had nothing -- zip, nada -- to do with Charles Darwin.

Danny Denier: "Many Jews are Christian, Joey, and Christians do not persecute anyone."

Historically, your repeated denials notwithstanding, Christian churches helped persecute many different categories of non-believers.
And all that many centuries before Darwin was born.

Danny Denier: "Charlie Darwin taught the naive his religious doctrine, which emphasized that there was no power higher than themselves.
His doctrine thoroughly corrupted western civilization, and metastasized into Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a myriad of lesser thugs."

Darwin never taught what you claim here.
And your implication that there were no mass-murderous thugs before Darwin is beyond ludicrous.

By odd coincidence both young Hitler and Stalin wanted to become priests long before they embarked on careers as murderous totalitarians.
Neither ever claimed Darwin was their reason.

[freedumb2003]

This will go on a while, I guess.

[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."
>>Joey Boy said, "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."

Joey Boy, like most of us, has never met a holocaust denier. He, unlike most of us, imagines he has.

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

>>Joey Boy said, "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."

Joey, like every true-blood Leftist, accuses his ideological opponents of the things he is guilty of.

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

>>Kalamata: "Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, Joey, and they are very tiresome."
>>Joey Boy said, "And there it is again: Denier Rules #5, #7 & #13. What can I say?

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Silly child."
>>Joey Boy said, "That's a lot of denial packed into two short words: Rules #5, #7 & #13.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Yeah, sure. That is what you say to everyone you smear."
>>Joey Boy said, "Unlike Kalamata who smears everyone that disagrees, I smear nobody, merely report the facts of Denial Rules.

Get a grip on reality, Joey Boy. Labeling a debating opponent as clueless, a liar, and a holocaust denier is called "smearing," to be kind. The later two are actually slander, unless you can prove your claims. You both smeared me, and you slandered me. This is the first time, from your 2nd post to me:

[Joey #101] "It appears to me that Mr. Kalamata has no clue what is, or is not, real science."

That is called an ad hominem, Joey: a "smear."

It all went downhill from there.

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

>>Kalamata: "LOL! I must say that I admire your tenacity, Child."
>>Joey Boy said, "Baby Danny, I've seen your type often enough before.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "You claim that I lied, prove it!"
>>Joey Boy said, "Which of your lies do you wish me to prove?

When did you stop beating your wife?

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

>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you will explain the difference, Oh Great Wise One!"
>>Joey Boy said, "LOL... Lies are what Danny Denier spreads, doubt is what any scientific researcher will feel while investigating some physical anomaly.

Joey Boy is a pretender. He pretends evolution is science, adopts it as his religion, and slanders everyone who doesn't accept his religion. To me, that is the definition of a religious zealot.

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

>>Kalamata on evolution vs. devolution: "Joey is either lying to you, or he doesn't understand what he preaches."
>>Joey Boy said, "As always, the lie here is from baby Danny, attempting redefine scientific terms to suit his own anti-science theology."

Joey can barely read a scientific paper. They don't teach that in history and business classes. But, according to Joey, if you want to understand science, ask Joey. LOL!

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

>>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."
>>Joey Boy said, "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."

There is a multitude of evidence for the Holocaust, Joey; none for evolution. You can pretend those Hollywood productions of Whale Evolution you find in museums are science, if you must; but don't insist we do.

By the way, there is a new "kid" on the block. There are claims of new whale ancestor called the Peregocetus pacificus. These are the fossils.The missing fossils are represented by the dotted lines:

Missing are crucial parts that might, in theory, identify it as a whale, namely the ear bones and a blow hole. It also lacked a tail fluke, but rather has a tail like a crocodile. The fragments reveal it had well-developed feet, and well-developed shoulder and hip girdle attached to the spinal column.

Conclusion: It was just another semi-aquatic animal. Whale evolution is, and always will be, a fairy tale.

By the way, these are the individual fossils from the Current Biology article:

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30220-9

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

>>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."
>>Joey Boy said, "Of course it's science, the same kinds of science used, for example, in courts of law to convict criminals, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

There must be at least some evidence of evolution to move the interpretation beyond a reasonable doubt, Joey. There is none: not in the fossil record, not in genetics, and not in real life. It is a hoax.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Shermer: >>Joey Boy said, ""Evolution involves a convergence of fossils and many other lines of evidence, such as DNA sequence comparisons across species. For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution."

There must be at least some evidence that evolution actually occurred for there to be a convergence of evidence, Joey.

We know the Holocaust happened because of a convergence of evidence, beginning with the evidence of the allied forces liberating the concentration camps, to actual Nazi documents that discuss them, to the testimonies of the survivors and employees of the camps.

But for evolution, there is nothing but a theory plus 160 years of extensive, fruitless efforts trying to prove it. The best evidence of evolution consists of:

1) a lineup of human and ape skulls, which even some evolutionary anthropologists deny a linkage; and

2) a lineup of a handful of fully-formed animals, each distinct from the others, replete with claims they constitute "whale evolution," even though the author of the theory himself, Charles Darwin, expected we would see fine gradations in the transitional lines, rather than distinct species:

"[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]

What you have been promoting is not science, Joey.

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

>>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!"
>>Joey Boy said, "Complete rubbish. Here we see baby Danny all but admitting that ID is no "rival theory" of science."

I am not claiming evolution is science, Joey -- to the contrary. I was pointing out the logical fallacy of that particular evolution argument. So why the misdirection?

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

>>Kalamata: "There is no such thing as microevolution. You gave examples for devolution, which is the loss of genetic information."
>>Joey Boy said, "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."

That was not a science-based rebuttal, Joey, but an emotional one. Genetic and computational research shows there is not the slightest chance that random mutations can create new, useful genetic information. Without new genetic information, there is no evolution. On the other hand, devolution -- the breaking of genes and loss of genetic information -- is common.

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

>>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:"
>>Joey Boy said, "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".

You claimed, Joey, that the term living soul is the same as spiritual, and you referenced 1st Corinthians 15:45 for support. I said you should have read the next verse before commenting, which is:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." -- 1Cor 15:46 KJV

Paul seems to be saying that the first man was not spiritual, but natural, which implies the term living soul is natural, not spiritual. Therefore, when God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils, he became living soul, a.k.a., a natural man.

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

>>Joey Boy said: "However you define those terms, God's actions are unique to human beings."

Not to the evolutionist, who claims man evolved from primordial soup, via an ape, or, as some have expressed, "From goo, to the zoo, to you."

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

>>Joey Boy said: "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."

Now you are playing word games. What does that have to do with this?

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:4-6 KJV

Did God create man from the beginning of the creation, or not? I say he did, because God said he did. It is not rocket science.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>baby Danny Denier post #378 1: "Child. . . Foolish child."
>>fetus Joey Science Denier: "All Denier Rules #5 & #7, Danny boy can only slavishly obey the rules he learned as a baby.

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey, that is, if you are being truthful, which I question. Those scientists and educators who have pointed out the overwhelming weaknesses in Darwin's theology (a.k.a. evolutionism,) are ridiculed, slandered, and even have their careers threatened, if not destroyed. It has happened over an over again. If we were living in the days of Galileo, I am reasonably certain that many would have been burned at the state for heresy, considering the nasty rhetoric of those pushing the label of "science denier," as you do."
>>Science Denier Joey: "Sorry, Danny boy, but the truth is far different from what you claim. In fact, natural-science is intended to be self-correcting and over the years any number of bad ideas, mistakes and some outright frauds (i.e., Piltdown man) have been proposed, exposed and corrected, by scientists. In some cases the corrections were almost immediate, in others it took many years, but in the end the mistakes were fixed and better ideas accepted."

It has been over a century since Haeckel's fraudulent embryos were exposed, and they are still being presented as fact or explanatory in some of our children's textbooks.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "As for your alleged "overwhelming weaknesses", that could well refer to Darwin's lack of understanding about such matters as genetics & DNA, such knowledge has expanded exponentially since Darwin's time, all without any of the dire consequences you claim, Danny boy. However, in terms of outright scientific falsification of Darwin's basic ideas, that has never happened.

The overwhelming weaknesses include the lack of a supporting fossil record (which Darwin knew about,) and the over-extrapolation of observable natural process into the unobservable. That is not science.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Again, you really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey. Our tax dollars are wasted searching for alien life at the instigation of hard-core, ant-God evolutionists. Have you not heard of SETI? Boondoggles do not get any more "boondoggly" than SETI."
>>Science Denier Joey: "SETI is perfectly legitimate science which has so far failed to produce any results except to rule out some possibilities. "Ancient Aliens" are rubbish TV shows which posit that "aliens", not humans, were responsible for various ancient items, i.e., the Pyramids.

LOL! We call that Science-Fiction, Joey. But if you want to continue to believe in space aliens, by all means, do so; but don't waste our tax dollars doing so.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "My point is: just as there is no real evidence of "ancient aliens" so there is no real evidence of Darwin's basic theory ever being falsified."

One doesn't follow the other. Besides, Darwin's theory is not science, but religion, so it is unfalsifiable. If it were real science, paleontologists would have falsified it decades ago due to the presence of the Cambrian explosion, and disparity before diversity.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Your attempts to spin those examples as "typical" reveals your complete and total dishonesty, Joey. Those are the two most well-know of a myriad of fake and false claims by the evolutionism cult since Charlie's doctrine corrupted the origin of life narrative and supposedly "released" man from God and his commandments (dream on.)"
>>Science Denier Joey: "That's complete nonsense, Danny boy. Honest mistakes are one thing, mistakes are what humans do and correcting human mistakes is what science is intended to do. By one count I saw, millions of peer-reviewed scientific papers are published every year and of those a few -- a few dozen -- are later discovered as mistaken or even fraudulent. We don't know how many scientific papers are later withdrawn by their own authors in light of better data or better explanations. But such numbers illustrate that most papers are honest and accurate and honest mistakes are discovered & corrected."

A fact of life that we have all been plagued with since Darwin, both morally, spiritually, socially, educationally and financially, is that evolution is always true, no matter what. Just ask any member of the cult, such as Joey.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "As for deliberate fraud, like Piltdown, those numbers are small and in most cases quickly discovered & corrected. This listing of evolution theory frauds has only five examples:"
>>Piltdown Man -- 19th century
>>Haeckel's Embryos -- 19th century
>>Nebraska Man -- early 20th century
>>Flipperpithecus -- 1983
>>Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten -- 2004

You forgot the staged Peppered Moths, Haeckel's imaginary monera, and of course, the cut-and-paste Archaeoraptor, as reported in this article:

http://csip.cornell.edu/Curriculum_Resources/CEIRP/NGArtHlt.html

While we are at it, you can include in the list of frauds the wildly imaginary claims of Junk DNA, and other such genetic nonsense that no one could predict, one way or the other, but have been presented as fact by the evolutionism cult.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "Then there's this: "In recent times, despite their being little consensus on how evolution allegedly occurred according to the various theories of evolution, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by increasing and frequently using the term "overwhelming evidence" or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[24] For example, prominent atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is "massive evidence" for the theory of evolution.[25]" So, just like Danny Denier, the author here handwaves away literal mountains of evidence as any Star Wars Jedi would: "nothing to see here, move along, move along."

Yet, when you ask for some of that "overwhelming evidence," there is none to be found. Imagine that? If it was "overwhelming," it would be found everywhere in the literature. But it is not.

Joey's narrative is based on the absolute belief that evolution is true. Therefore, everything he sees is evidence. But scientific evidence has a different set of requirements, such as observable, testable, and repeatable -- requirements which Joey avoids like the plague.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "As for allegedly, "Charlie's doctrine corrupted the origin of life narrative...", that's a theological issue which most Christian churches have long since, ahem, adapted to -- "theistic evolutionism". My Dad loved Billie Graham, they were about the same age. My mother grew up near Graham's home town."

Joey is pushing the bandwagon fallacy, which always goes something like this:

"Hey, everyone else believes it! You hear that, Galileo? What's the matter with you?"

For the record, Pat Robinson is also a theistic evolutionist, but many pastors are not. Should I also appeal to the latter's authority as you have done with the former, or should I stick with the scientific evidence as I have always done?

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

>>Danny Denier: "That is a blantant lie, Joey. Haeckel was a well-qualified M.D., and his fraud was exposed early on; yet he continued to promote it and get away with it!"
>>Science Denier Joey: "No, in fact there were several versions of Haeckel's drawings with newer ones incorporating newer information. >>Science Denier Joey: "Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations based on the material used for comparison with what Haeckel could access at the time.[46]"
>>Science Denier Joey: "Nobody today defends Haeckel's recapitulation theory, only against the idea that he was deliberately fraudulent. Honest mistakes are much more frequent than dishonest hoaxes."

There is no evidence that Ernst Haeckel was honest. Further, Robert Richards seems to have also committed fraud by doctoring embryos, including some of the same doctoring Haeckel performed. Read the annotation:

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

>>Danny Denier: "The so-called "scientific" orthodoxy generally ignored Haeckel's fraud since it was the "best evidence" of evolutionism, at the time, and still is. How does it feel to know the best evidence for your religion of evolution was based on fake drawings?"
>>Science Denier Joey: "First, evolution theory is the opposite of any religion since evolution excludes all reference to supernatural interventions."

Exclusion of the supernatural by choice is, in itself, a form of religion. Evolution provides a substitute creation story, making it a full blown religion.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "Second, fossils are the best evidence, especially when compared against DNA differences in living species."

Show us some references, Joey - real references: not Wikipedia or Talkorigins.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "Third, Haeckel's idea, modified, survives today in the fact that early stage embryos of very different species can look surprisingly similar."

No serious biologist believes that any more, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Baloney. There was never any evidence that the Piltdown man, even if true and not fabricated, meant anything other than some fossilized bones were found. That fraud survived and was perpetuated by the orthodoxy because of their warped worldview that "evolution is true, no matter what," which is also your worldview, Joey."
>>Science Denier Joey: "Oh, Danny boy, that is Oscar Mayer level bologna. So-called Piltdown Man filled a "niche" which today is filled with dozens & dozens of actual pre-human fossils, for examples, these:

There are no transitional links to be found in those fossils, Joey. Hollywood type makeup artists create mockups that make them appear to be that way, so they can fool the naive, like you. Museum evolutionary mockups and attractions are little more than sophisticated forms of the old Barnum &Bailey Circus attractions. Little has changed in makeup artist industry in the past 70 years:

"Some anatomists model reconstructions of fossil skulls by building up the soft parts of the head and face upon a skull cast and thus produce a bust purporting to represent the appearance of the fossil man in life. When, however, we recall the fragmentary condition of most of the skulls, the faces usually being missing, we can readily see that even the reconstruction of the facial skeleton, leaves room for a good deal of doubt as to details. To attempt to restore the soft parts is an even more hazardous undertaking. The lips, the eyes, the ears, and the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts. You can, with equal facility, model on a Neanderthaloid skull the features of a chimpanzee or the lineaments of a philosopher. These alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public." [Earnest Albert Hooton, "Up From The Ape." The MacMillan Company, 2nd Ed, 1946, Part IV, p.329]

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

>>Danny Denier: "It proves that scientists cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Paraphrasing Reagan, 'Verify, then trust!'"
>>Science Denier Joey: "Unlike Danny boy who can be absolutely 100% certifiably trusted, to lie about pretty much everything.

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That is a conjecture based on your Darwinist worldview, Joey, which is, "Evolution is always true! Therefore, the fossils MUST show common descent (even if we cannot see it)!" That is not science, Joey, but at faith-based religion."
>>Science Denier Joey: "{sigh} Oh Danny boy, and still more B O L O G N A. Yet again: what can be observed (i.e., a fossil) is fact, while confirmed natural explanations of facts (i.e., common descent) are theories. By definition that is science, regardless of how hard you wish to deny it away."

My career included the evaluation of the science before applying it. One thing I learned early on is, science is always testable -- it is reliable; scientists are not. Joey denies that basic fact, but rather clings desperately to the lie that untestable evolution is always true, no matter what.

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

>>Danny Denier: "There are no transitions, Joey. Dogs have always been dogs, cats have always been cats, bacteria have always been bacteria, and humans have always been humans. There are no exceptions: not in the fossil record; not in observable life; and not even in the genome, as real scientists have found out, of late."
>>Science Denier Joey: "No, that is just your Jedi religion -- "nothing to see here, move along, move along." Regardless of your repeated claims, by US law your religion is not science and cannot be taught as such in public schools."

Junk science needs the support of a federal judge, backed by a standing army. Real science can stand on its own.

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

>>Science Denier Joey: "In fact, even in your Danny Denier blindness, you must know that dogs were not always dogs, they were once wolves, and house-cats were not always house-cats, they were once wild. Cows were once Aurochs, pigs were wild boars, etc. The fact is that species change (evolve) over time.

Do you ever get tired of playing word games, Joey? The wolf and the Chihuahua are from the same family, Canidae – they are both canines, or "dogs." All of those listed are respectively from the same family -- the same Biblical kind. There is no evidence of any species crossing the genetic boundary to another family -- not in real life, nor in the fossil record. That is also what modern genetic research has revealed, and that is what God said from the beginning.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You really need to keep up with the secular (anti-Christian) literature, Joey. There has not been a single clearly-defined transitional fossil line found anywhere on earth. Not one."
>>Science Denier Joey: "Just more of your Jedi religion.

You cannot show us a clearly-defined transitional fossil line, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier on plate tectonics: "I knew you could not argue with Physics, Joey. I doubt you can even spell Physics. It is spelled P-H-Y-S-I-C-S, not F-I-Z-Z-I-X. I hope that helps."
>>Science Denier Joey: "Sorry, no, it's spelled Plate Tectonics = the movements of continents which have been measured at roughly the rate of fingernail growth. Also mountains like the Himalayas themselves rise along with plate movements. The Rocky Mountains are said to be "spreading" but I can't find if that means some peaks are actually lowering."

The plates are moving, but there is no physical way that sedimentary-rock-covered base rock could gradually rise over millions of years to the height of a major mountain range without severe erosion and fracturing of the sedimentary rock layers:

That assumes the movement has been consistent over time, which is a very big IF, and if the movement has actually caused any increase in height (it could be the result of normal plate up and down motion over time.) A reasonable geologist would believe the slower-than-snail-slow compression of two plates would cancel out any upward movement and merely subduct and/or pile up material at the plate boundaries, with the knowledge that before mountains can increase in height, new material must added below the surface.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That is another just-so story by the evolutionism cult, Joey, that you bought into hook, line and sinker. There is not nearly enough momentum stored up in microscopic movement of the plates to push up the enormous, sediment-covered moutain ranges found world-wide."
>>Science Denier Joey: "And yet mountains like the Himalayas are measured as rising around 1/2 inch per year."

There is simply not enough momentum in gradual plate movements to have created any of the major mountain ranges. See if this helps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hhE6tzJR_c&t=1h34m10s

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

>>Danny Denier on strata layer folding: "Not without metamorphosis within the sedimentary rock layers, Joey."
>>Science Denier Joey: "Melting temperatures are not necessary to fold sedimentary rock under pressure and bending a fraction of an inch per year."

Where is your evidence that hardened sedimentary rock can fold without faulting or metamorphosing? No hand-waving, please. Just the evidence.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Child, are you denying that God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth? Are you calling God a liar, Joey?"
>>Science Denier Joey: "No, the Bible says what it says, and geology confirms there was a flood. Geology also suggests many "floods" and sedimentary deposits over billions of years. Science does not deny the Bible, the Bible does not deny science."

God made this promise:

"And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh." -- Gen 9:14-15 KJV

The way I read that, God said he would never again send a flood to destroy all flesh. Why would he make that promise if there was not a previous global flood that destroyed all flesh?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK to mdmathis6; Kalamata

>>mdmathis6: “I’ve been aware all my sentient life of the implicit anti-mosaic bias of many of the so called media savvy “scientists and the science writer pundit wannabe types”. Their whole modus operandi is exposed and derided in Psalms 2.”
>>Joey: “I read Psalm 2 as talking about politicians we might call secessionists, nothing to do with science.<<

No, Joey. God is talking about the heathen trusting in their own understanding, and rejecting the words of Christ.

*****************
>>Joey: “Clearly both mdmathis6 and Kalamata are terribly confused about the definitions and methods of science.’

There is no doubt that Joey is confused about what science is, and is not.

*****************
>>Joey: “You want scientists to begin their work by reading the Bible or some theological tome to see how nature operates, when neither the Bible nor theology requires that.”

I haven’t said that. I am a scientist. I do find it beyond coincidental that everything new I have learned about science over the past 8 years was in the Bible all along.

If you are going to throw out atheist talking points, Joey, you should learn when to apply them.

*****************
>>Joey: “What science requires is that its workers begin with the evidence and follow it to whatever natural explanations work best, regardless of theology. For over 150 years now the best natural explanations of geological & biological origins begin with Darwin & Lyell.”

Not even in your dreams, Joey. Neither Darwin’s theory of evolution, nor the Hutton/Lyell uniformitarian model, have a scientific leg to stand on.

*****************
>>Joey: “Now Kalamata regales us with quotes from Newton praising God for His handiwork among stars & planets, by stark contrast to 19th century thinkers like Charles Lyell quoted as saying he wants to ‘free the science from Moses’.”

Yep, that is what Lyell schemed to do, not because science needed to be free from Moses, but Lyell’s promiscuity.

*****************
>>Joey: “But what Kalamata pretends to forget is that scientists like Galileo, Copernicus & Kepler were also opposed by the Church precisely because they too ignored the Bible’s view of astronomy, as expressed in 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5.”

Joey is so naive. That was the accusation against Galileo; but the historical record speaks of a conspiracy by the Jesuits and the scientific orthodoxy against a scientist they didn’t like, named Galileo. It has nothing to do with the Word of God.

*****************
>>Joey: “In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be: “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture”.
The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth’s movement ‘receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.[80] Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the opinion that heliocentrism was physically true. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine’s residence and ordered: ... to abandon completely ... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.[82]”

As usual, Joey resorts to the left-leaning Wikipedia for his “history”:

*****************
>>Joey: “Still a hundred years later, Newton’s ideas were no less heretical, but he at least had enough good sense to use them to praise God and His creations, and Newton was also lucky enough to live in a more tolerant Protestant land.”

That is irrevelant nonsense. Newton was an almost monkishly devout Christian who wrote more Christian works than science.

*****************
>>Joey: “But 19th century thinkers like Darwin and Lyell had a far more difficult task, since natural history was not just a matter of a handful of scattered Biblical verses, easily ignored even by alleged literalists like Kalamata & mdmathis6, but natural history is built into the Bible’s basic creation narrative.”

Joey and his ever-handy straw men.

*****************
>>Joey: “God’s creation and flood are just too big a part of the Bible to be hand-waved away and no scientist of the time, even someone who studied traditional theology like Darwin, could find a way to reconcile them. So they never tried, instead, as Kalamata frequently quotes, they worked to “free the science from Moses”.’

If there was any science in the works of either Charlie, there might be some semblance of truth in what you wrote. But the truth is, Darwin and Lyell worked not to free science from God, but themselves; and western civilization has been going downhill, since.

*****************
>>Joey: “However, soon enough many church theologians did find ways to reconcile Old Earth geology & evolutionary biology with Biblical Creation, through “theistic evolutionism” which essentially does for that science what Newton himself did for astronomy — praises God for His creations, regardless of what methods God used.”

Now Joey stinks up the place with a red herring. Theologians have a sordid history of kissing up to the scientific establishment; so only a scientific/theological dunce would trot them out as an authority to appeal to.

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Referring to post #403:

In other posts mdmathis6 has expressed perplexment that somehow evolution and Holocaust keep getting entangled with each other, what do Holocaust deniers have to do with anti-evolutionists, he asks?

The answer, as Kalamata is so eager to point out, is that he thinks Darwin was integral to Hitler's beliefs and the Holocaust.
So here we go again:

Danny Denier: "This is Hitler's Mein Kampf on natural selection:"

"...Nature herself tends to check the increase of population in some countries and among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise.
It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it does impede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such tests and privations that everything which is less strong or less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown.
Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold..."

Danny Denier: "This is Hitler' Mein Kampf on the evolution of man:"

"Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa...
Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization"

So let's start here: Darwin himself didn't use the word "evolution" even though it was a valid word in his day, it simply meant "change".
Hitler's use here of "evolution" doesn't mean he'd magically become a Darwinist, since evolution was not Darwin's word.
And the context, context, context here is clear that Hitler meant simply "change" in social conditions, not biological descent with modifications.

Also in Hitler's version of "natural selection", it has nothing to do with biological evolution, from one species to another, but rather with the practice of any ancient agriculture in weeding out the weak so the strong can grow stronger.
That's not evolution, it's just nature's way of farming.

Point is: none of Hitler's words here originated with Darwin, none are credited by Hitler to Darwin, and none represent Darwin's ideas on origins of new species through descent with modifications and natural selection.
Indeed as pointed out by Robert Richards (post #465):

Richards, 2014: "...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..."

Danny Denier: "I have never heard of the Christian Workers Party, Joey.
I have heard of the Christian Social Workers Party which was a left-wing Socialist organization that supposedly disbanded in the early 1900's.
You cannot be a Christian and be a socialist, Joey; so don't be fooled by a label."

Please reread my post #465 for a detailed discussion of political party influences on young Adolf Hitler.
Bottom line: Hitler's anti-Semitism did not begin with Darwin but with political parties who called themselves Christian.
As to whether Christians can be socialists, you might want to discuss that with the Catholics' current pope.
If I understand correctly, he sees things differently.

Danny Denier: "That may be true, Joey, but where are your references?"

I've now posted many, especially #465 above.

Danny Denier: "Dr. Jerry Bergman, a Jew, disagrees with you, Joey:"

Bergman, 1999: "...Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars."

Well... your Dr. Bergman makes a somewhat valid point here, however, notice his weasel-words and logic: "Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain & others...".
"As modified by"??!
If we tolerate such sloppy logic, we could also say, with straight faces: "Christ's teachings, as modified by Marx, Hitler & Stalin killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone!"

"As modified by" is a total complete absolute nothing.
You can't sanely blame Christ for His teachings as modified by devils and you can't blame Darwin for his modest & reasonable scientific theory as modified by lunatics!

Danny Denier quoting Bergman, 1999:

"..."Terms such as 'superior race', 'lower human types', 'pollution of the race', and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders....
...Hitler's views were [quoting George Stein]: " … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true...."

Once again: Darwin himself never used the word "evolution" and Darwin was no "social Darwinist".
All that cr*p came later and should not be blamed on Darwin's modest scientific theory.

Danny Denier quoting Stein, 1988:

"National socialist "biopolicy," a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in racial inequality, a monistic, anti-transcendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection, is what national socialism is all about (Jackel 1972). "

The fact is that insane people can take any perfectly reasonable idea and twist it to their own nefarious purposes.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier: "You can easily convince me, Joey, if you will present any observable/verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence for common descent.
That cannot be difficult to produce if, as you claim, there are mountains of evidence for evolution.
Perhaps you have confused mountains of just-so stories for mountains of evidence."

You already know perfectly well the evidence for common descent -- it's in repeated discoveries of similar looking fossils (aka transitions), it's in repeated findings of similar & matching sequences of DNA, it's in multiple, repeated historical records of human directed evolution of new varieties & species of domesticated plants & animals.
Human directed evolution shows how common descent works; fossils, DNA and other evidence suggests it happened long before we arrived.
The fact that you refuse to see, much less acknowledge, is your choice -- you shut your good eyes ("kalá mátia") and buy broken reed (Καλάμαι, Kalámai) arguments against evolution.

Danny Denier: "That is true of everyone who is blinded by ideology, Joey.
The Pharisees, who relied on “reason,” like you, rather than the Word of God, were also blinded."

Now you're lying about the Bible!
Pharisees didn't rely on "reason", as you claim, but rather on their misunderstandings of Biblical texts, just like you do, Danny boy.

Here's your real problem: in attacking evolution and defending your own young earth creationism, I've seen you sometimes argue very dishonestly and insultingly.
These tactics suggest to me that deep in your own soul there's something wrong going on.
A man with a powerful argument to make doesn't need to lean on Denier Rules to get his points across.

You demonstrate your own weaknesses when you refuse to tell or acknowledge the truth and instead substitute insulting language.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #406: "It is not the data that forms world-views like yours, Joey.
It is the misinterpretation of data."

Here's the fact: there is no other scientific interpretation of the data.
Your young-earth ID-Creationism requires supernatural interventions and those, by definition, have nothing to do with natural science.
Of course, young-earth creationism might conceivably be 100% correct, but the fact remains that scientific data all points to old earth & evolution.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier: "You don’t understand what you read, Joey. or you are too quick to jump to conclusions, or you are simply a liar (I choose door #3.)
It it true that I don’t disagree with Graur on that particular point, but that is not Graur’s complete statement.
This is my quote from # , which included Graur’s complete statement:"

Right, just as I truthfully reported now several times: Kalamata agrees with Graur in trashing ENCODE: "If ENCODE is right, then evolution is wrong."
Since both Graur and ENCODE think evolution is right, Kalamata's temporary agreement with Graur trashes ENCODE's opinion/position on the subject.

Danny Denier: "As any normal person can see, I agree 100% that ENCODE is right and evolution is wrong, but that is not Graur’s context.
Graur believes ENCODE is wrong, therefore I am not in agreement with him; and anyone claiming I agree with Graur on that point is lying (hint, Alinsky Joe.)"

I'd say it takes a very special kind of liar, Danny boy, to claim that you didn't say what you just said: you agree with Graur in trashing ENCODE.
Sure, your reason is different, but the fact is you're happy, happy to team up with Graur to trash ENCODE in the name of anti-evolutionism.
For you it's a simple case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", however temporarily.

Of course it was a temporary alliance of convenience and by your post #180 (repeated in #239) you were using the Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics report to trash both ENCODE and Graur, quoting, "What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral’”.

But so far as I can discover, neither ENCODE nor Graur nor anybody else agrees with Kalamata's claim that the Swiss report means only 5% of human DNA is not "restrained" or "constrained" by evolution.

Danny Denier: "For the record, evolution is 100% false, with our without the ENCODE data."

And yet, neither ENCODE nor Graur nor the Swiss Institute, so far as I can tell, agree with that purpose for which Kalamata has pitted their words against each other.

Danny Denier: "That is the third or fourth time Joey has made that dumb claim, so I must assume he is logically challenged.
Perhaps this will help him understand.
The writer at EN&S Today, stated Graur’s position as:

[Graur:] “if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right.”

"I disagree with Graur.
I am of the opinion that ENCODE can’t be wrong, and evolution can’t be right."

Right, that is the third of fourth time Kalamata you've lied about your position on Graur.
First you said you agree with Graur on the point and when I called you out on it, you claimed, no, no, you agreed and disagreed.
Now you say you disagree and disagree.

But the bottom line is still this: you are happy to use Graur, ENCODE, the Swiss & anybody else to trash evolution even though none of those agree with your views on the subject.

Danny Denier: "I doubt Joey can let go of this, because he has nothing else."

But there's nothing here for me to "let go of".
I merely respond to your lies, as best as I can.
If you just stop lying, there will be no more response from me, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #408: "That is two posts in a row in which you made that same false claim, Delusional Joey."

Sorry, but my post was 100% true -- you agreed with Graur, you said you agreed, in trashing ENCODE's report on evolution.
You agreed that ENCODE's report made evolution wrong.

Of course when I called you out on it you immediately began back-tracking, finally now claiming, no, no, no you really disagree with Graur's meaning even though you do agree with his words.

Believe me, I "get" it -- you didn't at first think it through and now you are stuck ridiculously claiming to disagree with what Graur meant even though you agree with what he said!

I think, if I were you, I'd just drop it and move on to another topic.
But apparently you somehow know these people and really, really don't want to be caught with your pants down on the wrong side of the tracks.
I can sympathize with that... ;-)

Danny Denier "Wrong, again.
In their 2012 report, ENCODE claimed that 80% of the DNA is constrained, which means it is not selectable, and cannot evolve.
A later 2018 paper by a Swiss team pushed that number up to 95%."

Sure, I "get" that is what you think, or imagine.
But no quote you've posted here confirms such numbers or interpretations.
Nor can I google up such a quote, for example here.

I'm not saying you don't have quotes to back you up, I'm just saying I haven't seen them yet, and I have been looking for them.

Danny Denier: "You misquoted me, Joey.
This is where I got the information that the myth of human evolution has been exposed:"

"[Tomkins, Jeffrey P., “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]"

I saw that the first time, your post #239.
Since then I've come to understand that there are tons & tons of ambiguity hiding behind such words as "constrained", "restrained", "conserved", "influenced", etc.
For example, you have frequently quoted Fanny Pouyet saying:

"This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome..."

Does that really mean 95% of human DNA can't evolve, as the ICR report claims?
I don't think so, for one reason because nowhere does any quote other than ICR make such a claim.

Danny Denier: "No, Joey.
ENCODE claimed in their 2012 report that 80% was contrained.
The Swiss team, quoted above by Dr. Tomkins, claimed in 2018 that over 95% was constrained, which means less than 5% can evolve."

Possibly, but no quote you've posted here said that.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #409: "I guess that means you plagiarized, Dishonest Joey.
My apologies for thinking you were being honest — that those were your own words."

Now, now, Danny boy, there's no need for you to lie about this -- I've been very careful to put in quotes, italics and links for whatever is copied here.
So there's no need to "plagiarize" and my own words are in plain text.
But I confess to being utterly baffled by whatever it is that's driving you so bananas over Graur and some others too.

Danny Denier: "Silly child."

Denier Rule #5.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #410: "Joey I have been responding to one silly post of yours after another, all afternoon.
You must be desperate to keep your friends from finding out you are a fraud."

Nah, I'm just trying to keep up with your nonsense.

Danny Denier quoting BJK post #328: "I'm just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted?
None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.
ENCODE's numbers were 5% to 10% "constrained" by evolution.
Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is "constrained" by evolution.
Those are your posts, not mine."

Danny Denier "Those statements have no basis in reality, Joey.
Perhaps you were tired."

That covers Denier Rules #1, #5 & #9.
In fact, my statements you quoted are 100% accurate, at least so far as I've seen.
I'm still hoping you'll somehow produce quotes which prove me wrong.
But hope is fading fast.

Danny Denier: "Forget Graur: he is your useless source. "

No, Danny denier boy, Graur is your source, I never heard of him.
You introduced him here saying you agree (or disagree?) with his trashing of ENCODE.

Danny Denier quoting Science 2012: "A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking."

Sure, I "got that" the first time -- 80% has some function, but what percent is "constrained" by evolution?

Danny Denier quoting Nature 2012: "Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification.
These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome..."

Right, "got it" again -- 80% has some sort of function.
But what percent is "constrained" by evolution?

Danny Denier quoting I.C.R. 2013: "Biochemical functions have been determined for at least 80% of the human genome and most of the rest is also predicted to be functional (Dunham, et al., 2012) to at least some degree."

Right, still "got it", 80% functional but what percent is "constrained" by evolution?

Danny Denier "As you can see, Science, Nature and ICR all reported that ENCODE claimed 80% of the DNA is constrained.
You must suffer from selective memory loss, Joey."

Danny, Danny, Danny, boy, boy, little fellow, your mother was supposed to wash your mouth out with soap for lying, and she failed!
So you keep lying & lying, I blame her in part, and your Dad too, for not strapping you near enough.
Or, who knows, maybe you were just born devious.
But when your lies are so obvious anybody can see them, how "devious" is that?

Do I have to point out the obvious?
Not one of your quotes said anything about any DNA being "constrained" or "restrained" by evolution.