Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

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

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Collins plainly states that most of the genome is functional, Joey.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the terminology.
In evolutionary language, the word "neutral" means unconstrained, or evolvable; the word "functional" means constrained, or not evolvable.
More than once I posted a quote that explains the terms, but perhaps it was insufficient.
Here it is again:... [quotes]"

Kalamata: "Of course, that is from an old dictionary."

Right, I "got that", noticed it long ago and also that more recent reports on "functional" DNA don't really use that term "constrained" or "restrained" but instead words like "influenced" meaning somewhere in-between "constrained" and "unconstrained".
So, how "influenced" is "influenced"?
How much does evolution seriously weed out such mutations and how much does it allow them to multiply without restrictions?

My guess is there's a sliding scale ranging from "totally restrained" to "minimally restrained", and that "minimally restrained" is the vast, vast majority meaning the word "junk" while inelegant might not be so terribly inaccurate.

But regardless, none of this serves as an argument against evolution.

[Kalamata]

>>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."
>>Joey wrote: "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."

That is a serious problem, not that evolution has not been falsified, but that evolutionists will not allow it to be falsified. When evolution IS falsified, which has happened many times, evolutionists scramble to invent a new process with a fancy-sounding name, that deceptively explains-away the falsification, (like "convergent" evolution, or evolutionary "co-option,") about which they trumpet, "See? Evolution was NOT falsified!" Nothing changed, except the rhetoric.

Over the years, that deception has been performed so many times that no matter what happens, it is touted as evidence of evolution. That is not science.

What evolutionists will not tell you is that most all observances claimed to be evidence of evolution are also evidence of special creation. Special creation predicts variations within the species, and that those species will always remain within the family they were created in -- canines will always be canines, people will always be people, bacteria will always be bacteria, and etc.. That is observable and testable science.

The part that makes evolution unique is common descent (aka, macroevolution,) which has never been observed, neither in the fossil record, in nature, nor in a laboratory. As long as common descent remains unobservable, the scientific evidence fits special creation better, or, put another way, special creation IS science.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Here is a list of evolution predictions later confirmed."

The truth is, without common descent, there is no evolution, Not one truthful thing in that list is evidence of common descent. The things that are false, such as the overhyped claim of transitional fossil series, might be evidence of common descent, if they were true.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Here is a listing of "9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False"

LOL! Not surprisingly, Joey picked an amateurish website to try to discredit creationism/ID. He would never attempt this shenanigan using one of the major creation sites, such as ICR.org, Creation.com, or AnswersInGenesis.org, which are staffed with well-educated PhD's and MD'S.

Try this page for questions that evolutionists should be asked:

15 Questions for Evolutonists

My favorite question to ask is, can you show us evidence for common descent -- any evidence. It never fails that evolutionists, like Joey, trot out a bucket of fish heads to stink up the place; but they never present any solid evidence for common descent, because there is none. Common descent can be found only in museum mock-ups, imaginary artistic drawings, in "science" lectures, and in text books. It has never been observed in the real world.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong"

See what I mean? No one believes that. The author is an amateur, but somehow Joey found him in the midst of all the PhD's and MD's that believe in special creation and intelligent design! That is truly remarkable journalistic prowess!

Joey reminds me of the typical MSM journalist who visits a conservative political rally, and somehow is able to find the only space alien in the crowd, which is then presented as the typical conservative. The Left is famous for that tactic. The truth is meaningless to them, except on the rare occasion when the truth actually serves as a means to the end in promoting their warped ideology.

That said, retired Cornell professor John Sanford, author of "Genetic Entropy", claims Charles Darwin didn't understand Natural Selection:

How Darwin Got It Wrong

I recommend watching the entire lecture.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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." Again, Joey presents this amateur as typical of creation/ID researchers. One of the world's leading ornithologists, evolutionist Alan Feduccia, UNC, said the Archaeopteryx is a bird. That is good enough for me:

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." [Alan Feduccia, in Virginia Morell, "Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms." Science, Vol.259, Iss.5096; Feb 5, 1993, p.764]

Archaeopteryx: Early Bird Catches a Can of Worms

Years ago, there was a fraudulent bird, hyped-up in National Geographic, that had a similar name -- the Archaeoraptor:

Major Evolutionary Blunders

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

>>Joey wrote: "So the anti-evolution case depends on lies."

Again, Joey presents this amateur as typical of creation/ID researchers. Evolution is a lie. Anti-evolutionists need only tell the truth to expose them.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Joey fails to mention that there is no way to prove a historical science, and that common descent has never been observed in any way, shape or form.

*******************
>>Joey wrote: "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."

Joey is playing rhetoric games, again. Genetic research has shown that species cannot cross over the genetic boundary into another family. That includes humans. Yes, humans have never evolved. We are today the same as in the day man was created, except for the accumulation of a gazillion deleterious mutations along the way.

Some college students and evolutionary professors were asked for evidence of common descent. The professors are Peter Nonacs, Craig Stanford, PZ Myers, and Gail E. Kennedy. Their answers are exactly what you would expect from those who accept evolution as their faith-based religion:

Evolution vs. God (Interviews)

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

>>Joey wrote: "Well, a lot of evolution happens before a population reaches the alleged "family barrier". Kalamata's response: "that's not evolution". But it is.

That is true, but loaded with deceptive rhetoric. There is absolutely no evidence of any new genetic material ever evolved. Without new genetic information, there is no evolution, by definition. There is plenty of devolution, or loss of genetic information, but no evolution. Joey's pretense that devolution is evolution is pure sophistry.

Existing genomes are "reshuffled" and mutated over the generations to bring out various created and inherited characteristics. But none allow a species of one family to cross over into another family. The only conclusion is that organisms are intelligently-designed and/or specially-created.

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

>>Joey wrote: "This site lists several noteworthy frauds -- Piltdown, Haeckel, Nebraska & Protsch implying these represent the full body of scientific work on evolution over 150+ years."

That is not all evolutionists have accomplished. Besides wasting taxpayer money, they have created a few additional frauds.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Joey is loaded with deceptive rhetoric. Creationists are okay with the term micro-evolution, as long as it is understood that there is no evolution involved -- no increase in genetic information. The only processes at work are gene reshuffling and devolution, which is a loss of genetic information.

Mr. Kalamata

[PeterPrinciple]

. Creationists are okay with the term micro-evolution, as long as it is understood that there is no evolution involved — no increase in genetic information. The only processes at work are gene reshuffling and devolution, which is a loss of genetic information.

---

The old term was genetic expression. There is some thought that all the junk dna is an incredible back up system for lost genetic information................

[Kalamata]

BroJoeK to mdmathis6; bwest; Kalamata; freedumb2003; Riley

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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."

LOL! Joey uses slander for the same reason many other slanderers do: as a lifeboat for the sinking ship called evolutionism.

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Joey has never debated a holocaust denier. I have never met one, and I seriously doubt he has, except perhaps among his Far-Left buddies.

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Evolutionists are typically blasphemous and vulgar, to the point of perversion. According to Joey's silly "rules," they are also holocaust deniers. I am not denying they are holocaust deniers; otherwise Joey will label me a "denier."

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

>>Joey said: "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?"

I do have a "research assistant," Joey, in a manner of speaking. It is called the Research Library. This is the Footnote Form:

I have thousands of footnotes stored in the library (mostly science) for quick retrieval. For example, when I search the footnote text for "holocaust deni", this one is among those that came up:

"The most anti-psychiatry people on the planet are the Scientologists, who regard us as torturers, murderers, Holocaust-deniers. That, to some degree, is where this notion comes from. It's anti-medical. It's a belief system, not a scientific one.'" [Will Storr, "The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science." The Overlook Press, 2014, Chap.9]

Donald Prothero, Michael Shermer's sidekick and partner in crime, mentioned Storr and his book in one of his, "if you don't believe exactly like I believe, you are a science denier, or worse!", lectures.

The Mind of the Science Denier

It appears that books on science denial is a lucrative business.

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

>>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!"

Not yet. LOL!

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Hey? I have only called him an anti-conservative, anti-God, anti-Christian, abortion-supporting, climate-change-promoting Leftist. . . and perhaps a few other things I cannot recall off the top of my head.

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Stop the charade, Joey. You have never debated a holocaust denier.

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Your silly grade-school rules are written for you, personally, Joey.

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

>>mdmathis6 "Kalamata is eating you alive...stop digging the hole deeper!"
>>Joey said: "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."

Ad hominem's and mockery? Say it ain't so, Joe? This was Joey's 2nd post that mentioned me:

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

Joey is such a congenial fellow . . .

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier post #397: "Child ... You are rewriting history, again, Child."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Just Danny obeying Denier Rules #1, #7 & #12."

Child.

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

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

No, Joey. As aforementioned, my "research assistant," in a manner of speaking, is the Research Library

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

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

Neither does imaginary whale evolution. Evolution will remain false, no matter how much it is propped up.

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

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

That is silly, Joey. There are no walking whales.

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

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

Joey, your gigantic exaggerations remind me of this paragraph from Michael Behe's last book:

"So, in light of its struggles in tiny matters, how should we think of the grand claims for Darwinism? Analogies can help. The claim that Darwin's theory explains life is like the claim that an illiterate who doesn't know that u follows q authored Romeo and Juliet. It's like a guy who says he's an Olympic hurdler, but can't lift his foot over a curb without tripping. It's like saying the theory can easily explain an outboard motor—it just has trouble explaining the hook-and-eye latch on the shed where it's stored. It's like Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite asking, 'How much you wanna make a bet I can throw a football over them mountains?' It's like... Well, you get the idea. No unaccomplished braggart in the world could match Darwinism's record." [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.9]

Obviously, Michael has never met or debated you.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Just as I suspected: a professional con-man."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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.'

LOL! Now I understand. You are a stand-up comic.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

You forgot about them? Don't you think it is odd that Shermer mentions "evolution" 14 times in the body of the text (the first on page 15, and the last on page 246,) and has 8 references that include "evolution" in the title? It appears he is using the memory of the Holocaust to attack his ideological enemies.

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

>>Danny Denier: "I am impressed by your ability to manipulate the truth, Joey. I hear CNN is hiring."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Denier Rules #5 & #7."

Child.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Shermer's 2000 book is 99% about the Holocaust."

Except, perhaps, for the 22 times Shermer mentions evolution, 12 times for conservative, 22 times for Christian, 10 times for creationist/creationism, and 16 times for right-wing. To "balance" it out, he used the phrase left-wing only twice, and favorably. That was mighty nice of him.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "Shermer's 2007 book, so far as I've read, is 100% about evolution."

It is mostly about the "enemies of evolution." For example, chapters 3 and 4 are about God and Intelligent Design; and Chapter 8, titled, "Why Christians and Conservatives Should Accept Evolution," appears to be a bit of proselytizing. If you search real hard, you may find something about evolution that is not embellished; but don't hold your breath.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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.

I have a difficult time believing someone who teaches there is no God, and Christ is a myth, is not anti-Christian. Perhaps you can rationalize it for us.

Have you seen this?

Dr Michael Shermer: God does NOT exist

Shermer's last words to the audience are:

"You are atheists for all those other gods, so I would just implore you to go one God further."

Shermer is a helluv an evangelist for Satan, Joey.

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

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

There you go again, appealing to the authority of the judiciary and their standing army. You would have fit in well with the establishment in the days of Galileo.

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

>>Danny Denier: "For the rest of you, the Discovery Institute has Senior Fellows from practically every ideology..."
>>Joey Science Denier: "So, you represent Discovery Institute?"

I like their scientific aptitude and curiosity. Even the lawyer Phillip Johnson, one of the founding members, has an inquisitive scientific mind, though he is now getting on up in his age. This is a playlist of some interviews and speeches:

Phillip E. Johnson Interviews and Lectures

A list of fellows:

https://www.discovery.org/about/fellows

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

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

I was not aware that I have been quote-mining, Joey. That is not how I usually operate. Perhaps you will point out them out for me so I can learn from them.

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

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

Are you sure you have read the book?

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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.

This was my theme, which I followed-up with a long quote from Shermer's book:

"The next statement is very clever. Shermer first introduces a few quacks into the discussion, and then conflates them with evidence-seekers who reject the circular arguments of modern Bible-hating "archeologists" – those who use the pretense that the Egyptian Shoshenq WAS the biblical Shishak in order to fabricate dates for historical events in the Ancient Middle East (ANE) that will never, ever match biblical chronology."

Joey copied the small segment about the quacks from the long Shermer quote that followed, and asked:

[Joey] "Now, why is this denial instead of revision?"

Perhaps my argument was over your head, Joey.

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

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

I must have hit a nerve. Notice how quickly Joey switched back into his Slander Mode.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Shermer is also a denier, Joey. He denies the existence of God. Does that make him a holocaust denier?"
>>Joey Science Denier: "Shermer's religious views are said to be agnostic. That would make him a doubter, not a denier.

Shermer teaches audiences that there is no God, Joey. Try to get up to speed.

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

>>Danny Denier: "What is your opinion of the professor who called for the death penalty for "Climate Change Deniers?"
>>Joey Science Denier: "Absurd, not interested, no Denial Tactics are required to defeat Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) warriors' arguments."

The word "denier" is the new "Nazi" or "racist" label, Joey. You should know. You thrive on casting it onto ideological opponents.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "That's Denier Rule #8 -- guilt by association.

You are responsible for your own actions, Joey. Don't blame Shermer and Prothero for your slanderous behavior, even though you may have learned it from them.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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?"

I am not a narcissist, Joey. Mirrors are reserved for those like Shermer, and you.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "I think, Danny boy, you should begin by carefully examining your own egregious denials.'

Why, Joey? You yourself said that "Shermer's rules" can apply to all sorts of denial, not just the Holocaust. I merely provided a few suggestions.

I am currently focused on my primary role as a junk-science detective, with secondary roles of exposing closet God-deniers and closet conservative-deniers.

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

>>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.)"
>>Joey Science Denier: "In fact, you not only don't know that, you have no reason to even suspect it."

I have every reason to suspect your motives, Joey.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

In your 2nd post to me, Mr. Innocent, you butted into a discussion simply to cast this ad hominem at me.

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

You are not believable on anything, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "I never said that, Joey? Are you delusional? This was my statement in #352:"
>>Joey Science Denier: "Sorry Danny, but the fact is you've frequently and unashamedly proclaimed there is no evidence for evolution in natural history museums."

There is no evidence for evolutionism to be found in any museum, Joey; and I am not going to lie to make you feel good about your religion.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "I have merely pointed out this is precisely the same claim Holocaust deniers make of Holocaust museums."

By conflating Holocaust museums with Natural History museums, you are abusing the memory of the Holocaust.

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

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

There you go again. You obviously have no respect whatsoever for the victims of the Holocaust.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Sorry, but that is a lot of nonsense to package in just one sentence... {sigh}"

I am victim of your slander, Joey. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that you slandered me ONLY because I was criticizing your prophet, Charlie Darwin, and your religion, evolutionism.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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.

You have beat that dead horse flat, Joey. Hitler, like you, grew up under the dark cloud of Darwinism; the German public school system was rigidly Darwinist, and according to those close to him, Hitler was a Darwinist. This is another Jew, Jerry Bergman on Hitler and Darwinism:

"The theory of evolution is based on individuals acquiring unique traits that enable those possessing the new traits to better survive adverse conditions compared to those who don't possess them. Superior individuals will be more likely to survive and pass on these traits to their offspring so such traits will increase in number, while the 'weaker' individuals will eventually die off. If every member of a species were fully equal, natural selection would have nothing to select from, and evolution would cease for that species."

"These differences gradually produce new groups, some of which have an advantage in terms of survival. These new groups became the superior, or the more evolved races. When a trait eventually spreads throughout the entire race because of the survival advantage it confers on those that possess it, a higher, more evolved form of animal will result. Hitler and the Nazi party claimed that one of their major goals was to apply this accepted 'science' to society. And 'the core idea of Darwinism was not evolution, but selection. Evolution … describes the results of selection'. Hitler stressed that to produce a better society 'we [the Nazis] must understand, and cooperate with science'."

"As the one race above all others, Aryans believed that their evolutionary superiority gave them not only the right, but the duty to subjugate all other peoples." [Bergman, Jerry, "Darwinism And The Nazi Race Holocaust." Talk Origins, Aug 13, 1999]

There is more:

"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. His race views were not from fringe science as often claimed but rather Hitler's views were:"

" … 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. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin's theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist 'biopolicy,' … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical 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…[G.Stein]" [Ibid.]

In this passage, Dr. Bergman places the responsibility of the Holocaust squarely at the feet of Social Darwinism:

"Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war. If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred."

"Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal) theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust. 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. Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community." [Ibid.]

The Link:

Darwinism And The Nazi Race Holocaust

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "Second, I've said nothing about Jews so your claims here are pure fantasy -- Denier Rule #12."

Foolish Child.

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

>>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!"
>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

I have no reason to lie, Joey. But you do.

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

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

No I didn't. You, again, foolishly compared the Holocaust with evolutionism:

[Joey] "History books on the Holocaust "prove" nothing, just as science books on evolution "prove" nothing.

Science books on evolution prove nothing, Joey!

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

I am a scientist, Joey. I am not easily swayed by pseudoscience.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Do you really believe the Holocaust forensic evidence is faked, Joey?"
>>Joey Science Denier: "No, but Deniers do, just as Evolution Deniers claim evidence is faked."

You are conflating the Holocaust with your religion of evolutionism, and in doing so so you are abusing the memory of the Holocaust.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

You are confused, Joey. The Holocaust is historically well-documented. Evolution is not.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

I wouldn't go so far as to claim the millions of radicalized school children, who routinely scream the word "Nazis" at conservatives, republicans, and Trump supporters, are in any way imaginary, Joey.

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

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

Such as?

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

I have both versions, Joey.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

LOL! No, Joey. You are the Alinskyite, remember? You are the one with the silly rules.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Ignorance is no excuse, Joey, nor is your reliance on the Far-Left-controlled Wikipedia."
>>Joey Science Denier: "But ignorance is 100% of your entire argument, Danny "I see nothing" boy."

Perhaps you need to work on your reading comprehension.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

Wikipedia is slanted toward the Left, and heavily toward Evolutionism. I don't see anything wrong with referencing the research of evolutionists -- I do it all the time. But I prefer to go directly to the source so there are no misunderstandings or left-wing weasel words to contend with.

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

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

Shermer's 2009 Edition is Updated and Expanded. The copyright page contains these words:

© 2000 by Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman, and the Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust

Chapter 10, “The New Revisionism,” and the epilogue, “Enigma,”
© 2009 by Michael Shermer

This is the book:

Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? Updated and Expanded

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

>>Danny Denier: "Again, you can "thank" far-left propagandists, like your hero, Michael Shermer."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Complete nonsense, Denier Rule #8.

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That is malicious sophistry, Joey."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Claims our highly recognized Third Order, 33rd Degree Sovereign Grand Master of Malicious Sophistry, Danny Denier boy."

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You are rewriting history, again, Child."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Says our Sovereign Master History Rewriter."

Child.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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.

One day perhaps you will let little Adolf grow up and leave Vienna.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

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

The latter.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

Anyone can claim to be Christian, Joey. Corrupt politicians name-drop Christianity all the time. And I have no doubt there are violent people who think they are Christians. But to be a Christian you have to do the will of the Father:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." -- Mat 7:21 KJV

Jesus also explained his will, in a negative sense, in this statement to some of the Jews:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." -- John 8:44 KJV

He also warned us to keep a pure heart:

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:" -- Mat 15:19 KJV

I don't see any wiggle-room to accommodate the violent, Joey. The violent can repent, like Paul; but they cannot be Christian and violent.

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

>>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."
>>Joey Science Denier: "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.

That is what the scripture says.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

Why would that be my problem, Joey? It is their problem.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

I am reminded of the routine warnings by the Lord to the Israelites that they be kind to strangers. The warnings go something like this:

"Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land." -- Deu 23:7 KJV

"Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge: But thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence: therefore I command thee to do this thing. When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing." -- Deu 24:17-22 KJV

One of the dire warnings to Israel approaching the days of Christ is found in Malachi, which continues that early warning from Deuteronomy:

"And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts." -- Mal 3:5 KJV

In any case, every work shall be brought into judgment: whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

Some very good historians disagree with you, Joey. And so do I. Further, your injection of Hitler's childhood Catholicism into the issue, which he abandoned before entering the Army, is a red herring.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Many Jews are Christian, Joey, and Christians do not persecute anyone."
>>Joey Science Denier: "Historically, your repeated denials notwithstanding, Christian churches helped persecute many different categories of non-believers. And all that many centuries before Darwin was born."

I can only tell you what the scripture says, Joey.

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

>>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. "

Of course he did. Bergman explains it this way:

"Of the many factors that produced the Nazi holocaust and World War II, one of the most important was Darwin's notion that evolutionary progress occurs mainly as a result of the elimination of the weak in the struggle for survival. Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war. If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred. Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal) theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust. 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. Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community." [Jerry Bergman, "Darwinism And The Nazi Race Holocaust." Talk Origins, Aug 13, 1999] And your implication that there were no mass-murderous thugs before Darwin is beyond ludicrous.

This is Arthur Keith:

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

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

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

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

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

Weikart mentions two others:

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

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

>>Joey Science Denier: "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."

Your constant harping on Hitler's childhood is a pitiful attempt to rescue Darwin's legacy.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "That is what evolutionists do: move the goal posts."

It's called mathematics, you were supposed to learn it in school.
There are any number of ways to calculate DNA similarities among species and somebody who reports 98% DNA similarity between two species uses one set of assumptions, somebody else reporting, say, 80% is using different assumptions.

Both can be "correct", but the point of the number is to illustrate how closely related the species are and if we are talking about humans & chimpanzees, then what matters most is that no other living species is more closely related to humans than chimps.
In other words: 80% might be valid provided you don't somehow find that, say, elephants are 90% similar.
Then we'd know something is rotten in Denierland.

Kalamata: "Not even close, Joey.
Even when using the old, fabricated number of 98.8% genetic similarity, there are about 35 million differences in our genomes.
That’s 35 MILLION, Joey."

Sure, and there are millions of DNA differences among different human beings too.
But that's out of, what is it, 3.3 billion base pairs?
And when they compared human to ancient Neanderthal DNA they found Neanderthals were much closer to humans than to chimpanzees.
That makes perfect sense when you consider the timeline of evolution as revealed in thousands of fossils.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier from post #413: "No, Joey.
The “established chronology”, which is known as the “Conventional Archeological Chronology,” or CAC, comes from the conflation of the archaeologically discovered Egyptian Pharoah Shoshenk with the biblical Pharoah Shishak, which is then used to inaccurately date biblical events prior to Shishak.
It essentially pushes the biblical date of the Exodus forward a couple of hundred years, which points wrongly to Ramsees as the Pharoah of the Exodus, and consequently, to no presence of Israel in Egypt."

I understand that serious scholars differ on this particular point and my faith does not depend on which ones are right or wrong.
I'm patient and at my age expect to learn the real truth, all in due time.

Danny Denier: "There is plenty of evidence for Israel in Egypt, but not at the “right” time.
The CAC also points to Jericho being destroyed before Joshua arrives, since the CAC puts Joshua at about 1200 BC, rather than the biblical 1400 BC."

Sorry, but I can't get excited over those 200 years.
Either is fine by me.

Danny Denier "Don’t waste our time with quotes from the Left-Wing Wikipedia, Joey."

Once again: Wikipedia represents standard cultural "conventional wisdom" supported by well known references.
It's great for looking up names, dates & basic ideas.
At best its reporting is "fair & balanced", intending to present both sides with a neutral tone.
Wikipedia is also the only similar site I know not cluttered up with ads & other popup nonsense.

In other words, I can find the standard data I'm looking for in Wikipedia often in far less than half the time it takes looking anywhere else.
Danny, if I understand correctly, you yourself have "thousands of books" which you (or your lovely research assistant) can apparently access through word searches.
By contrast, I have dozens-hundreds of hard-copy books on many subjects, some last read decades ago.
And as that exercise with Shermer's Holocaust book illustrated, with word searches you can ferret out quotes from electronic books, quotes that I had long since forgotten were even there in my hard copies.

So Wikipedia provides quick access to standard data and represents today's "conventional wisdom" -- a pretty good place to start any discussion.
It doesn't necessarily mean the Wiki report is correct, but does suggest where debate should begin.

Danny Denier on Jericho's age: "Baloney.
There are no ancient cities older than about 4000-5000 years.
The earlier ones were destroyed in the flood.
There are dinosaur fossils, coal and diamonds that date less than 10,000 years using Carbon 14."

All lies, total complete scurrilous lies, absolute fantasies.
The scientific data is what it is and carbon-14 dating can go back about 50,000 years.
There are no confirmed legitimate dates as you suggest here.

Danny Denier quoting Wood 1999: "The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. "

Like I said, serious scholars disagree and I expect to learn the real truth, all in due time.

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith from post #415: "The chance that any strand of amino acids will work is one in ten to the seventy-seventh power.
(That is, if they assemble according to chance.)
The total number of organisms since life began is ten to the fortieth power.
This tells us that random mutations cannot produce workable biological change."

G.I.G.O. math based on absurd assumptions.
The reality is vastly different.
Rather than one impossibly small probability of life "springing forth", abiogenesis doubtless began with millions of small baby-steps each one inevitable under the right conditions.
What were those conditions, were they even possible on Earth?
Nobody knows, but geological evidence suggests the very earliest, simplest, organic chemistry-cum-life began relatively "soon" (a few hundred million years) after the Earth itself cooled enough for solid land.

[aspasia]

organic chemistry Convenient! Good they thought of that.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #417: "LOL!
It appears Joey has bought into the claims of hucksters that "cumulative selection" could even exist in nature without an "Intelligently-Designed Template" (or, "IDT.")
Richard "Tricky Dicky" Dawkins tried to pull that fast-one in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," as follows:
Dawkins first acknowledged that it would take virtually forever for a monkey typing at a typewriter to luck upon a particular 28-character phrase."

So Danny boy's mockery aside, he here acknowledges that science itself does not expect millions of random chemicals to suddenly come together, on their own, to make primitive life.
Therefore all the many Denier arguments against that probability are wasted efforts.

Danny Denier on Dawkins' idea: "Wow!
That is an incredibly slick con!
Remember, Natural Selection doesn't have a clue where it is going, or how to get there!
So, the key phrases in Richard's scam is, the computer examines [intelligently], chooses [intelligently], and target phrase [the IDT], which is how Dawkins snuck intelligent design into the simulation via an intelligently-designed template, or IDT (and has mostly gotten away with it.)"

Again, setting aside Danny boy's mockery, the computer here was programmed to simulate "natural selection" and in the end even Danny boy confesses that he understands what natural selection is and how it works to weed out less effective forms.
And natural selection is part of what process?
Oh, that's right, evolution.

Danny Denier: "Evolutionism hucksters, like Dawkins, are able to get away with this kind of chicanery because for years our children have been brainwashed into believing that "natural selection" has some sort of magical powers.
What they are seldom taught is "natural selection" is just a fancy way of saying "death before reproduction".
The least fit are selected out of life, naturally, because they don't produce enough offspring. "

And here it is: Danny freely confesses that natural selection is real, all the while pretending that evolution, of which natural selection is a key part, is not real.

Danny Denier: "As you can see, Joey bought into the cumulative selection hogwash."

So seemingly here Danny wishes us to believe that natural selection in one generation is real but then somehow "cumulative selection" after that is not?

"Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

[Boogieman]

“Danny freely confesses that natural selection is real, all the while pretending that evolution, of which natural selection is a key part, is not real.”

Umm, do you think that’s some kind of win? Everyone admits freely that natural selection is real, even those who disbelieve evolution. That isn’t controversial at all.

What are controversial are the rest of the suppositions and assumptions heaped on top of natural selection that are simply not demonstrable in any scientific way, such as: common descent, the infinite malleability of the genome, or the idea that mutation and natural selection are sufficient to transform one form of life into the full variety that we have today, if only given enough time.

Demonstrating the truism that is natural selection doesn’t move you any closer to supporting those other essential parts of evolution.

[Boogieman]

“Nobody knows, but geological evidence suggests the very earliest, simplest, organic chemistry-cum-life began relatively “soon” (a few hundred million years) after the Earth itself cooled enough for solid land.”

It only “suggests” that to you because you already believe that abiogenesis is the only possible way to explain the appearance of life. There’s really no evidence that chemicals just slapped themselves together into a cell, but you dream that the evidence “suggests” that because that’s what you desperately need to believe in order to support the fantastic notion of some naturalistic origin of life.

[Kalamata]

>>Joey the History Denier said: "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.

I am one of many, Joey.

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

>>Joey the History Denier said: "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"
>>Joey the History Denier said: "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"."

No, Joey. Darwin used the word evolution extensively. For example, in this passage, from a book published a decade after "Origin," Charlie specifically uses the phrase, "theory of evolution":

"We can further see why a great amount of modification in some one character ought not to lead us to separate widely any two organisms. A part which already differs much from the game part in other allied forms has already, according to the theory of evolution, varied much; consequently it would (as long as the organism remained exposed to the same exciting conditions) be liable to further variations of the same kind; and these, if beneficial, would be preserved, and thus be continually augmented." [Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." Hurst & Company, New Ed, 1870, Chap.VI, p.165]

In this passage Charlie labels himself and others who believe in common descent as "evolutionists." Make note that Charlie also praises Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent recapitulation theory:

"He who wishes to see what ingenuity and knowledge can effect, may consult Prof Hackel's works. I will content myself with a few general remarks. Every evolutionist will admit that the five great vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, are descended from some one prototype; for they have much in common, especially during their embryonic state." [Ibid. p.174]

In this passage Charlie uses the phrase "principle of evolution," while admitting he may have exaggerated the power of natural selection (You think?):

"I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognized, service. Anyone with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." [Ibid. Chap.II, p.77]

This wouldn't be complete unless there was a reference to "gradual evolution," as found in this passage where Charlie, like a good politician, uses his gift of rhetoric to correlate his theory to the Law of the Lord:

"The half-art, half-instinct of language still bears the stamp of its gradual evolution. The ennobling belief in God is not universal with man; and the belief in spiritual agencies naturally follows from other mental powers. The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals; but I need say nothing on this head, as I have so lately endeavored to show that the social instincts —the prime principle of man's moral constitution—with the aid of active intellectual powers and the effects of habit, naturally lead to the golden rule, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise;" and this lies at the foundation of morality." [Ibid. Chap.IV, p.142]

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

>>Joey the History Denier said: "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."

Hitler used it exactly like Darwin presented it in his later works, and even in "Origin." Remember, Charlie's cousin and "founding father" of eugenics, Francis Galton, claims he got his ideas from "On the Origin of Species". This is Jerry Bergman, author of "Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview" and "The Darwin Effect""

"Galton's lifelong eugenic crusade began with his acceptance of macroevolution (Bynum 2002, 379). The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species transformed Galton's life and removed 'any lingering religious sentiments' he had had before reading Darwin (Bynum 2002, 379). Galton wrote in his autobiography that reading"

"the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science (1908, 287)."

[Bergman, Jerry, "The Darwin Effect." Master Books, 2014, Chap.3]

Charlie wrote a letter to Galton praising Galton's book that promoted eugenics:

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

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

[Letter to Francis Galton, Dec 23, 1870, in Francis Darwin, "More Letters of Charles Darwin, a Record of His Works in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Vol II." John Murray, 1903, p.41]

On Charlie's contribution to the Holocaust:

"An example of the racism that Darwin produced is illustrated in the following quote from a widely used zoology text in the 1920s:

"The gulf between the most highly civilized and capable races of Europeans and the degraded brute-like African pygmies is so vast that some authorities are impelled to conclude that they belong to distinct species, or at least to subspecies (Newman 1925, 403).

"This tragic application, some would argue misapplication, of Darwinism eventually contributed to the Nazi Holocaust and other destructive social movements such as eugenics (Proctor 1988). A critically important player in this movement was Francis Galton (1822–1911), the nephew of Erasmus Darwin, and the younger cousin to Charles Darwin. Galton was independently wealthy and never held a scientific or teaching post. Best known for his work as the founder of eugenics, he argued that it was largely genetics ('nature') that determined human intellect. Thus, our destiny was fixed at conception and, in the belief that certain people were superior, he strongly advocated controlled breeding to maintain the finest ruling classes (Taylor 2001)"

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

[Bergman, Jerry, "The Darwin Effect." Master Books, 2014, Chap.3]

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

>>Joey the History Denier said: "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): >>Joey quoting 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..."

I have four of Richard's books by the University of Chicago Press, Joey, and he is not a very reliable historian. This is from a 3-part rebuttal of Richard's 2014 work:

"Apparently my two books, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, and Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, caused Robert J. Richards of the University of Chicago to pop a fuse. His fifty-page essay,"Was Hitler a Darwinian?" in his new book of the same name, published by the University of Chicago Press, aims primarily at refuting my works. He also snipes at David Berlinski, Stephen Jay Gould, Larry Arnhart, even Peter Bowler, along with unspecified "members of the Intelligent Design crowd."

"Unfortunately his analysis is marred by the following problems:

1) Richards misquotes and/or ignores the context of quotations, sometimes making them say the opposite of what is intended.

2) Richards ignores mountains of evidence, much of which is already contained in my books and articles.

3) Richards caricatures the positions of those he disagrees with (especially me, since I'm the main target of his essay).

4) Richards conflates certain key concepts.

5) In addition to ignoring specific lines of evidence, Richards totally ignores many of the most salient points I set forth in my books about what connects Darwinism and Hitler.

6) At one point Richards even creates a new historical "fact.""

[Richard Weikart, "Was Hitler a Darwinian? Reviewing Robert Richards." Evolution News & Science Today, Jan 6, 2014]

This is the entire 3-part series of Professor Weikart's rebuttal, which contains a great deal of useful information:

Part 1: "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" Reviewing Robert Richards

Part 2: Ignoring Evidence, Caricaturing Critics: Robert J. Richards’s Was Hitler a Darwinian?

Part 3: Is Robert Richards Right to Deny that Hitler Was a Darwinian?

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

>>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."
>>Joey the History Denier said: "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."

Many politicians and charlatans, in general, name-drop "God," "Christian," and "Constitution" for political expediency. These days, fascists even call themselves "anti-fascists."

This is a short video on the nature of Hitler's anti-semetic views:

Did Hitler base his anti-Semitic views on Christianity?

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

>>Joey the History Denier said: "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."

Again, Christians cannot be socialists.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That may be true, Joey, but where are your references?"
>>Joey the History Denier said: "I've now posted many, especially #465 above."

Not good enough, Joey. My question was based on this statement by you from #388:

[Joey in #388] "Nonsense, the fact is that Hitler never mentioned Darwin, natural selection or evolution as natural selection in Mein Kampf. He did claim to have first learned anti-Semitism in the anti-Semetic Christian Workers Party. By his own telling of it, Hitler came to anti-Semitism through politics not science. In reality, there were other strong influences as well, but none had anything to do with Darwin. So blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate."

That is a red-herring, Joey. You name-drop "Christian" like a sleazy politician, and you persist in keeping Hitler confined to a little box in Vienna. I need concrete references that Hitler came to his later form of hard-racial anti-semitism in the manner in which you claim.

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

>>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."
>>Joey the History Denier said: "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"??!"

There are no weasel words in that quote, Joey. Here it is again:

"Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war. If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred. Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal) theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust. 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. Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community." [Jerry Bergman, "Darwinism And The Nazi Race Holocaust." Talk Origins, Aug 13, 1999]

This is Chamberlain:

"The overwhelming majority of men with their display of ant-like activity are quite incapable of viewing things in such an original manner; productive power can be generated only by simple healthy specialisation. A manifestly unsound system like that of Darwin exercises a much more powerful influence than the deepest speculations, just because of its 'practicability.' And so we have seen the idea of evolution develop itself till it spread from biology and geology to all spheres of thought and investigation, and, intoxicated by its success, exercised such a tyranny that any one who did not swear by it was to be looked upon as a simpleton." [Houston Stewart Chamberlain, "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century Vol 1." John Lane Company, 1968, p.lxxxvii-lxxxviii]

Those are pretty powerful words. The German, Ernst Haeckel, who was highly praised by Charles Darwin, was one of the earlier promoters of eugenics and euthanasia; and Charlie seemed elated at his cousin's (Galton's) book on eugenics, and even rationalized it.

No matter which road you take, Joey, they all lead back to Charlie.

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

>>Joey the History Denier said: "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!"

Once Charlie Darwin endorsed eugenics, the gig was up for the "less civilized" or "less favoured," as Charlie might label them.

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

>>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...."
>>Joey the History Denier said: "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.

I have provided several quotes in this post of Charlie using the word "evolution." However, you may have noted that he reserved the term "evolution" for his racist book, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," published in 1870, and not in his earlier "let's get acquainted" book called "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

I wonder how little Adolf interpreted the phrase, "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?"

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

>>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). "
>>Joey the History Denier said: "The fact is that insane people can take any perfectly reasonable idea and twist it to their own nefarious purposes."

That is what Charlie did with God's Word, and I don't hear you complaining.

This is Stein's full quote:

"There is no originality here, crazy or otherwise. Hitler's views are rather 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. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that this "crazy originality" was the specific characteristic of Nazism. 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). Once it becomes clear that a particular biopolicy was the basis of the regime, various historical problems such as the seeming inconsistency or opportunism of tactics, the strategic blunders such as the invasion of Russia, or the totally irrational efforts expended on the extermination of undesirables become clear." [George J. Stein, "Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism." American Scientist, Vol.76, Iss.1; January, 1988, p.51]

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata post #324: "The number of tree rings formed in a year is variable, depending on the climate and other factors; and there have been wild climate swings since the flood."

Danny, dendrochronology science goes back at least 150 years and includes an international tree ring data bank:

"The International Tree-Ring Data Bank(ITRDB) is a data repository for tree ring measurements that has been maintained since 1990 by the United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Paleoclimatology Program and World Data Center for Paleoclimatology.[1]
The ITRDB was initially established by Hal Fritts through the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona through a grant from the US National Science Foundation after the First International Workshop on Dendrochronology in 1974.[2][3]"

Experts in the field can well recognize the tell-tale signs of unusual drought, cold winters, etc.

"As of 2013, the oldest tree-ring measurements in the Northern Hemisphere are a floating sequence extending from about 12,580 to 13,900 years.[2]"

This listing includes dozens of different tree-ring sequences, some dating back ~10,000 years.

Kalamata on ice-core layers: "There are way too many assumptions built into old-earth methodology to be believable, Joey.
Foremost, the layers are not necessarily annual; and circular reasoning is utilized to adjust counts to fit old-earth expectations."

Complete rubbish, in fact there are any number of methods to cross reference & calibrate ice-core layer results, for one example, volcano explosions & geomagnetic reversals leave traces in the ice of that year which can be used to validate the layer count.

"Any method of counting layers eventually runs into difficulties as the flow of the ice causes the layers to become thinner and harder to see with increasing depth.[59]
The problem is more acute at locations where accumulation is high; low accumulation sites, such as central Antarctica, must be dated by other methods.[60]
For example, at Vostok, layer counting is only possible down to an age of 55,000 years.[61] "

Kalamata "At current average precipation rates, the Antartic and Greenland ice sheets would form in only 10,000 and 5,000 years, respectively, absent melting, which mocks the hundreds of thousands of years claimed under old-earth models.
Even then, the supposed “annual” layers of the Greenland GISP2 were far fewer than predicted, by about half."

OK, so let's review GISP:

"The hole reached bedrock at 2037 m, in 1981.
Two holes, 30 km apart, were eventually drilled at the north-central location in the early 1990s by two groups: GRIP, a European consortium, and GISP-2, a group of US universities.
GRIP reached bedrock at 3029 m in 1992, and GISP-2 reached bedrock at 3053 m the following year.[116]
Both cores were limited to about 100,000 years of climatic information, and since this was thought to be connected to the topography of the rock underlying the ice sheet at the drill sites, a new site was selected 200 km north of GRIP, and a new project, NorthGRIP, was launched as an international consortium led by Denmark.
Drilling began in 1996; the first hole had to be abandoned at 1400 m in 1997, and a new hole was begun in 1999, reaching 3085 m in 2003.
The hole did not reach bedrock, but terminated at a subglacial river.
The core provided climatic data back to 123,000 years ago, which covered part of the last interglacial period.
The subsequent North Greenland Eemian (NEEM) project retrieved a 2537 m core in 2010 from a site further north, extending the climatic record to 128,500 years ago...[111]"

So, 8,500 feet covering 128,500 years averages out to roughly one inch per year.
Your claim this could be accumulated in 10,000 years or less does not take into account the annual effects of summer warming and pressures at depth.

[BroJoeK]

To all:

In my spare time, which is surprisingly little lately, I've been reading the proposed high school text book, "Of Pandas & People" with the idea of learning exactly what all the fuss was about.
It turns out the book is about 80% straight science, but oriented towards pointing out alleged "gaps" or "weaknesses" in evolution theory.

The other 10% to 20% makes the case for Intelligent Design, and I'm starting to think that, unlike Danny Denier here, the book argues somewhat honestly, or almost honestly, that Intelligent Design is not a natural explanation, but rather it implies supernatural interventions.

Supernatural interventions mean that Intelligent Design is not natural-science, but is instead a form of theology, and one that I don't think passes even theological scrutiny.
But I'll have more on it later.

[Kalamata]

>>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."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "You already know perfectly well the evidence for common descent -- it's in repeated discoveries of similar looking fossils (aka transitions),"

There are none. However, there are a handful of completely distinct species that the highly imaginative among the evolutionism groupthink crowd pretend are transitional fossils; but it is only wishful thinking. Scientific evidence for a transitional line would require much more than a handful of distinct species and an artist.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "it's in repeated findings of similar & matching sequences of DNA"

Modern research has exposed that to be a highly exaggerated just-so story, Joey, invented out of desperation by the evolutionism groupthink crowd.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "it's in multiple, repeated historical records of human directed evolution of new varieties & species of domesticated plants & animals."

Domestic breeding is a form of Intelligent Design, Joey.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Human directed evolution shows how common descent works; fossils, DNA and other evidence suggests it happened long before we arrived."

No, Joey. There is no such thing as common descent -- human-directed or otherwise -- except in the imaginations of the evolutionism groupthink crowd.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

I am a scientist, Joey. Show me verifiable evidence and I will be an instant convert.

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

>>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."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

LOL! This is the Pharisee and Rabbi named Josephus on the conduct of the Pharisees called reason:

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

That sounds a lot like the "if it feels good, do it" secular "Enlightenment" crowd, doesn't it?

Perhaps Josephus didn't mean it.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

You cannot point out a single lie I have told, Joey. As for "insults," I am a counter-puncher, which means you first insulted me. Your insult is permanently recorded in this thread for all to see.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

Those childish rules you throw out when you don't know how to respond were written by you, and for you, Joey.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "You demonstrate your own weaknesses when you refuse to tell or acknowledge the truth and instead substitute insulting language."

Quit insulting me, and I will quit insulting you. Oh, you must also admit you insulted me first, and apologize for it.

Child.

Dan

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier post #406: "It is not the data that forms world-views like yours, Joey. It is the misinterpretation of data."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Here's the fact: there is no other scientific interpretation of the data."

There are numerous ways to interpret data, Joey.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Your young-earth ID-Creationism requires supernatural interventions and those, by definition, have nothing to do with natural science."

I don't require supernatural intervention, Joey. The data points to it. Remember, I was an evolutionist until I saw the data up front-and-center.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Of course, young-earth creationism might conceivably be 100% correct, but the fact remains that scientific data all points to old earth & evolution."

I haven't seen any of that data, Joey, and I am a reasonably good analyst. My job required it.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>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:"
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

It is hard to argue with that kind of illogic.

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

>>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.)"
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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.

I guess that rules out you being a normal person, Joey.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "For you it's a simple case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", however temporarily."

No. Joey. My enemies are my enemies.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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".

You have a science comprehension problem, Joey. The 2018 Swiss team verified the 2012 ENCODE report.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

You truly are scientifically-challenged, Joey.

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

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

How could you know? You don't understand the science! Perhaps this fellow can explain it. He has a PhD in Genetics with many years of research experience:

"According to the popular neutral model of evolutionary theory, much of the human genome is nothing but randomly evolving junk. All of this so-called neutral DNA that is allegedly not under any 'selective restraint' only serves as fodder for functional new genes and traits to somehow magically arise and thus provide the engine of evolution... Global data among diverse people groups for DNA sequence variability across the human genome was inputted into a statistical model of neutral evolution. It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published [Swiss] study stated, 'What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as 'neutral.'' Oops, so much for human evolution! ... This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions." [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "95% of Human Genome Can't Evolve." Institute for Creation Research, Oct 25, 2018]

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

>>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."
>>Danny Denier: "I disagree with Graur. I am of the opinion that ENCODE can’t be wrong, and evolution can’t be right."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

You are very confused, Joey; perhaps because you are in way over your head.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

I don't need them or anyone else to trash evolution, Joey. I never tire of flogging that beast.

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

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

You need a good dose of repentance, Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

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

You really are confused, Joey.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

No, Joey, I didn't backtrack.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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!

No, Joey, you don't get it.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "I think, if I were you, I'd just drop it and move on to another topic.

You are the one who keeps bringing it up.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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... ;-)

You really are confused, Joey.

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

>>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%."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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 am not sure if you can understand the data, Joey. You are scientifically challenged.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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."

You can't see them, Joey, because they have real data. You can only see make-believe data.

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

>>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]"
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "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?

Yes, that is what it means.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier said: "I don't think so, for one reason because nowhere does any quote other than ICR make such a claim."

You really don't expect the evolutionism cult to give up their power over the minds of our children that easy, do you?

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

>>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."
>>Joey the Science Denier said: "Possibly, but no quote you've posted here said that."

It is always difficult to spoon-feed the scientifically-challenged.

Mr Kalamata