Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

No. Suggesting that science includes the supernatural is a clear sign the author (you) does not know science.

The supernatural cannot be used as a science tool. It is not reproducible, among the many other qualities science requires that the supernatural does not meet.

By definition science studies the natural universe.

Therefore that small statement in the midst of your screeds says it all. You do not know science. As I said, there was no point in reading further.

Danny Denier: Danny Denier post #433: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Still more of Danny boy's reliance on Denier Rules #5, #7 & #12.

Danny Denier: "The Left-leaning Wikipedia is the Snopes of the evolutionism cult."

More of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #12.

Danny Denier: "Do you believe Sodom and Gomorrha were real cities that the Lord destroyed in the days of Lot and Abraham, Joey?
Jude seems to think so."

Sure, here's just one example of a recent report on it.

Danny Denier: "Child, don't you remember the story I posted earlier on Radiometric (RM) Dating surrounding the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, and his encounter with the East African KBS-Tuff strata and the KNM-ER fossil."

Somehow, despite my best efforts, I missed your post #206 where you mentioned this before.

Danny Denier: "The rocks were initially RM dated to 212-230 MA (MA = million years).
However, it was later determined there must have been an error in the Argon age due to the presence of certain fossils, and that the “real” age should be between 2 and 5 million years.
In other words, the fossils determined the dates, not the radiometric laboratory.
Dates were instantly reduced over 200 million years due to the presence of those fossils."

Nonsense, that's not what happened.
This site reviews the entire controversy, confirming some of your details here, but then concluding:

"The conflict was resolved after geochemist Garniss Curtis and his student Thure E. Cerling conducted independent investigations of the age of the KBS Tuff using Argon-Argon and Potassium-Argon dating at the Berkeley Geochronology Laboratory.
Curtis and Cerling found that the material dated by the Cambridge team actually belonged to two separate tuffs, which they estimated at 1.8 and 1.6 Ma.[6]
This date was confirmed by Potassium-Argon dating conducted by Ian McDougall, and later Fission-Track dating conducted by Andy Gleadow.[6] [7][8]"

Multiple independent radiometric dating techniques were used to establish the dates of Leakey's fossil finds.

Danny Denier: "To make a long story short, after many re-tries, Leakey's bunch finally got the date they were looking for; but not from the expensive laboratory RM dating attempts, but rather from the presence of a fossilized pig’s tooth.
You see, evolutionists rely on a circular argument for dating fossils and rocks: fossils are used to date the rocks, and rocks are used to date the fossils.
But, above all else, they rely on their faith that evolution is true, no matter what.
If the data doesn't fit, make it fit!"

Nice story, but that's not what happened.

Danny Denier: "Incredible!
The books on geology by the Moses-hating lawyer Charles Lyell contain the dumbest theories on strata deposition imaginable; but theologian Charlie Darwin believed it, as does much of his cult following.
The truth is, science doesn't see anything.
Ideologically-driven "scientists" interpret geological data according to their worldview, which is typically a worldview based on the theological doctrine of Lyell."

Lies, lies & more lies -- Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.
The real fact is that no physical evidence has ever been confirmed supporting any scientific theories other than evolution of fossils over geological time periods -- millions to billions of years.

Danny Denier: "Only to the geologically-challenged or the ideologically-blinded, Child."

And still more of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier: "There is no science to be found in that link, Joey; it is simply another in a long list of just-so stories passed off as science to the gullible.
For the rest of you, this photo shows several coal layers that formed within hydrologically-sorted sedimentary layers."

For the rest of you... Danny boy has never explained how coal formed during "the Flood".

Danny Denier: "You will not find evidence of a swamp below any of those coal seams: only flat sedimentary rock."

Right, coal was the swamp, other sedimentary rock formed in water too deep for swamps.

Danny Denier: "No, Child, it requires rapid plate movement with the momentum to push up enormous, sedimentary-rock covered mountain ranges.
Instead of inches per year, try meters per second."

And your physical evidence for such "rapid plate movement" is what?

Danny Denier: "No, Joey.
That is picture of a fossilized fern leaf on layer of coal.
If you examine the coal, it was probably formed from a large chunk of bark."

Probably not!
Probably formed as a mat of organic debris such as found in swamps today, some of which forms into peat and if compressed longer into lignite, then coal.

Danny Denier: "Derek Ager was a devout evolutionist who served as a professor of Geology and as President of the British Geological Association; yet, he rejected uniformitarianism, generally.
However, you can "see" him kiss the ring of Charles Lyell in the last sentence in order to keep the evolutionism fundamentalists off his back."

Ager was in no sense a young earth creationist.
Ager simply recognized correctly that in addition to "slow and steady" uniformitarianism, nature sometimes acts with catastrophic rapidity, i.e., volcanoes, earthquakes & meteor strikes.

Ager objected to you people hijacking his words for your own nefarious purposes.

Danny Denier: "Well, which is it, Child: gradualism, or catastrophisim? (Joey is still suffering from short-term memory loss.)"

Both, Danny baby boy.

Enough for now on Danny boy's post #433, more later...

>>Kalamata to Joey, post #429: “Whiny child,” “Quit whining... child, “ “Fair enough, Whiny Child?,” “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.” , “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.”, “Whiny child.”

Quit whining, little Joey, and I will refrain from calling you a whiner.

********************
Whiny Joey wrote, “So again, and not to over-belabor the obvious, Danny boy here uses exactly the tactics & logic of Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago. The worst of them were more vulgar, but no less insulting and all employed the same “reasoning”, spelled out in my listing of Denier Rules, especially #1, #2, #5, #7 & #9.”

Little Joey is lying (again) about debating Holocaust deniers. He has never debated one, nor even met one. Joey learned that slanderous debating tactic (e.g., label those who reject evolutionism as a Holocaust Denier) from his ideological hero: the Far-Left, anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Conservative, anti-Constitution, anti-Free-Republic ATHEIST named Michael Shermer.

Joey cannot stand the thought of having human ancestors. That would render him subordinate to God, rather than superior to apes.

Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "In this particular case Kalamata has redefined evolution as only "common descent", then demanded to see "proof" of common descent, then denied ever seeing such "proof" and therefore declares evolution false."

I define evolution the same way the hard-core atheist and evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne, defines it:

"In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3,5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, p.3]

That is about as straightforward a definition you will find anywhere. Another straight-forward definition is found in the Merriam-Webster:

"Definition of evolution: descent with modification from preexisting species: cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms: the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations'"

Joey prefers to ignore the common descent part, which requires the creation of new forms and body parts. He rather pretends that minor variations within a kind (within a family) are evidence of evolution, even though that would require unverifiable extrapolation, which is not science, but pseudoscience.

On the other hand, the Word of God predicts variations within a kind. Therefore variations within a kind, including variations we call adaptations, are evidence of special creation.

The bottom line is, there is no evidence that life evolved. None! It is a fairy tale propped up by vivid imaginations and story-telling, and codified into law via usurpations by corrupt judges.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "It is exactly the "logic" Holocaust deniers used 20 years ago. They began by redefining "Holocaust" to mean only gas chambers, then demanded "proof" of gas chambers, then denied ever seeing such "proof" and therefore declared the Holocaust false -- "Holo-hoax" was their word for it. Any evidence presented to them was declared false, witnesses were all liars, documents were all forgeries, physical structures were used for something else -- i.e., showers, they claimed. In the end they'd do their little end-zone victory dance, whooping & hollering their "victory" in declaring the Holocaust dead & buried (Rule #13)."

Joey has been reading so many Michael Shermer novels, and has been taught so many ACLU tactics, that he now argues exactly like a hard-core Leftist: if he cannot win the debate, he slanders his opponents. Joey is no conservative.

The difference sneaky Joey doesn't want you to see is, there were multitudes of eye-witnesses to the holocaust, while there have been NO eye-witnesses to evolution: not in life, not in the fossil record, and, now, not in the genome.

Evolution is simply a nutty theory imagined inside Charlie-Darwin's deranged mind back when scientists believed the unimaginably-complex mini-factory called the Cell was just a blob of "jelly', which they called protoplasm. Now, through genetic research, we know that the odds of even a pair of coordinated mutations occurring is about as likely as winning the Powerball; and those would be absolutely useless by themselves. Add a third coordinated mutation to that number, and the odds are astronomical.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Today, so far as I can tell, Holocaust denial is almost unheard of outside the realms of Islam, since that old generation of European deniers followed... (to use Adolf Eichmann's words): "I will leap into my grave laughing because the feeling that I have five million human beings on my conscience is for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction."

The Left has a history of mischaracterizing the holocaust. Joey sees a holocaust-denier in the eyes of everyone who criticizes his god called evolution, or its prophet, Charlie Darwin. Others on the Left see a Nazi concentration camp in every illegal-immigrant holding center. Each of them uses the history of the Holocaust for their own nefarious purposes, thus dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Manifestly, evolution denial is a vastly more worthy cause, especially since anti-evolutionists conspicuously blame "Social Darwinism" for the Holocaust."

The root doctrines for eugenics and euthanasia were derived from Charlie's books, not to mention that the doctrine of "savage races," whose destiny Charlie prophesized in this manner:

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

Wow! Charlie was the consummate racist! He even spoke unfavorably of the civilized societies caring for the weak:

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

Charlie was a very bitter and deranged little man.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "But the tactics and "logic" of posters like Kalamata are straight out of the old Holocaust Deniers' playbook. Is that because Kalamata was himself once a Holocaust denier, and knows how they worked? Or more likely, did he simply study hard at Denier University, gaining a general knowledge of how to deny anything and now just applying that to evolution? Or, highly unlikely, is it a case of weird "convergent evolution" where deniers of one taxonomic "family" independently "evolved" the exact same tactics as those from an entirely different world? Sadly, there is no specifically anti-denier school, so far as I know, it's all just O.J.T. … {sigh}"

Joey's radical propaganda tactics are straight out of Saul Alinsky's playbook. Alinsky and Barry Obama would be proud of him. You can bet that all hard-core, Left-wing God-haters, like Michael Shermer, are proud of him.

If I understand Joey's previous conversations on this thread correctly, Joey is also an apologist for those on the Far-Left, like Michael Shermer, who associate those on the Right with the Nazis, while ignoring the big-government, big-regulation fascist tactics of the Left.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Show us some observable, repeatable scientific evidence, child, and you can put this matter to rest. No highly-imaginative museum mockups, or appeals to your mystical “mountains of evidence,” please."
>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Right, by your own claims, Danny boy, you have been to museums and have "thousands of books" on this subject, which means you just can't see the evidence, whether it's big as mountains (geological strata) or small as DNA."

Out of those "mountains" of evidence, Joey cannot present a single solid pebble of evidence, only a cloud of dust. I have been asking this same question for about 8 years, and the answer is always the same.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Perhaps you will be so kind as to point to a page number and paragraph in any of them where I can find scientifically veriable evidence for common descent. If you will do so, I will post the paragraph in context, for everyone to read, and I will admit that evolution is true."
>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "And there it is: Denier Boy redefines "evolution" as "scientifically verifiable evidence for common descent" none of which he can find in the "thousands of books" he already has."

Charlie did, in a matter of speaking. This is Charlie on common descent:

"Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number. Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on tin's earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." [Darwin, Charles, "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection." John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, pp.483-484]

But since there is no evidence, Charlie stated, over and over again, that if you have enough faith, you can "see" descent with modification (and if you cannot, then make excuses):

"The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." [Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection." John Murray, 1st Ed, 1859, Chap IX, pp.279-80]

There is always an excuse for the absence of evidence for evolution, but never any evidence. I haven't counted them, but Charlie used the words "descent with modification", or variants, at least 20 times in the 1859 edition; but never presented any evidence -- only inferred it.

Joey, like all other evolutionism apologists, deceitfully attempts to conflate "modification" with "descent with modification." BIG difference! Everyone who is not blind can see modifications among the species; but no one (NO ONE!) can see or has seen descent with modification.

Therefore, common descent, also known as "from goo to the zoo to you," must be taken on faith. Like I said and will continue to say (absent evidence popping up out of nowhere,) evolutionism is a faith-based religion.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Well... here is a summary of the types of evidence supporting the theory of common descent."

There is no evidence of descent with modification (common descent) to be found in that Left-Wing Wikipedia article. Mostly it is pure speculation. Some claims, such as speciation, are in fact evidence of the loss of genetic information, which is devolution, not evolution. There is, however, evidence of intelligent design:

"[E]vidence of common descent extends from direct laboratory experimentation with the selective breeding of organisms—historically and currently—and other controlled experiments involving many of the topics in the article."

LOL! How sneaky of them to smuggle intelligent design into the narrative and pretend it to be evolution? Intelligently-designed experiments in intelligently-designed laboratories is evidence of intelligent-design, not evolution.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Here is another, more detailed."

LOL! Joey has mocked me for saying things like this, from the article:

"Universal common descent is the hypothesis that all known living, terrestrial organisms are genealogically related. All existing species originated gradually by biological, reproductive processes on a geological timescale. Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one ancient, original species (broadly defined as a communal population of organisms exchanging genetic material)."

That was from the first paragraph in the link.

Okay, now let's look at some of the "evidence" that is presented.

***
Evidence #1: Introduction to Phylogenetics,"

The field of phylogenetics essentially consists of creating trees diagrams and cladograms of organisms grouped according to physical similarities or differences, and according to these rules:

1. You must believe common descent to be true.
2. When you cannot make things fit, refer to rule #1 for comfort.

Phylogeny cannot prove evolution: it can only infer it. It is a circular argument to claim that phylogentic trees prove evolution, when the proof of evolution must be assumed before drawing the tree.

The dirty little secret is, many scientists spend their entire careers developing them, and there are thousands of stick drawings and cartoons that are called "phyologenetic trees":

Phylogenetic Trees

As you can see, the data points are imaginary and arbitrary; but our children's textbooks make them appear to be scientific; the amateurish "Talk Orgins" website likewise:

From:

"By studying the standard phylogenetic tree, it can be seen that every species has a unique genealogical history. Each species has a unique series of common ancestors linking it to the original common ancestor. We should expect that organisms carry evidence of this history and ancestry with them. The standard phylogenetic tree predicts what historical evidence is possible and what is impossible for each given species."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

That is absolute nonsense.

***
Evidence #2: Past History.

Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

The first example of a so-called "vestigial" structure or organ is that of flightless wings:

"For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displays—a situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard."

Talk Origins forgot to mention that even if it were true that flightless wings were not part of the original design, the loss of flight would not prove evolution, but devolution. They also forgot to mention that the wings are not useless, but have muscles and many functions, such as:

"balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (I’ve seen emus run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc."
'Vestigial' Organs: What do they prove?

The promotion of the junk science of "vestigial organs" by evolutionists has led to thousands, maybe millions of unnecessary appendectomies. I am amazed Talk Origins still promotes such craziness, but they are, after all, amateurs.

Every imaginary proof on that page has been debunked, so let's move to the next one.

***
Evidence #3: Opportunism and Evolutionary Constraint

Sounds impressive, but what does it mean? They claim:

"Descent with gradual modification means that new organisms can only use and modify what they initially are given; they are slaves to their history. New structures and functions must be recruited from previous, older structures (Futuyma 1998, pp. 110, 671-674). This is because structures, as opposed to functions, are strictly inherited. True unprecedented structural novelty should be very rare. This provides extreme constraints on the possible paths of evolution, as Huxley well noted in the quote above."
[My note: the phrase "gradual modification" comes from Darwin, Origins 1859, p.312]

Prediction 3.1: Anatomical parahomology

"One major consequence of the constraint of gradualism is the predicted existence of parahomology. Parahomology, as the term is used here, is similarity of structure despite difference in function. When one species branches into two species, one or both of the species may acquire new functions. Since the new species must recruit and modify preexisting structures to perform these new functions, the same structure shared by these two species will now perform a different function in each of the two species."

That would be considered to be evidence, if there was any evidence that it actually occurred through gradual modifications of existing species. Unfortunately for the evolutionism die-hard, the fossil record shows only distinct species. Worse, it shows the major body plans - the phyla - FIRST! The scientific terms for that observation is "disparity before diversity." Darwin predicted the opposite. Joey claims there is no difference (can you say, scientifically-challenged?) LOL!

***

Anyway, that should be sufficient to make you aware that all of the so-called evidences for evolution are imaginary just-so stories. When I was a child, we called imaginary stories 'fairy tales.'

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

>>Danny Denier: "When all else fails, Whiny Joey seeks one of the refuges of scoundrels, in this case, slander! Some of the other refugees, which Joey frequently resorts to, are called “appeals to authority,”, such as “overwhelming evidence,” or “consensus says,” or the “Federal Courts ruled.” But none of that is science, but rather is brow-beating — thuggery."
>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "But Danny boy, you yourself "appeal to the authority" of, for example, a mathematical genius like Kenyon, or a scientific icon like Newton, whenever they can be used to support your own views. So you don't in the least object to "authority" itself, only to authorities who oppose your own opinions."

Joey has yet to grasp the difference between the delivery of scientific evidence vs. appeals to authority. Don't hold your breath. He has convinced himself that he is right.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "And, you were totally fine with the "brow-beating thuggery" of the Dover Area School Board imposing its own theology on science classes, but you object when voters or courts use their own authority to stop the school board."

That is what school boards are elected to do, Joey. They are elected to examine the evidence, make proposals, and vote on them. There is nothing unconstitutional or immoral about exposing evolutionism as dangerous pseudo-science, nor to identify better alternatives.

BTW, Joey endorsed the ACLU. I, on the other hand, was taught that the ACLU always has nefarious motives, no matter how it presented. I am a conservative, so I interpret the law according to the Constitution, not the rules of the ACLU or the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

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

>>Danny Denier: "There is plenty of evidence for a bush of life, but none for a tree of life. Besides, the bush of [life] was coined by a devout evolutionist, Craig Venter, to the astonishment of other devout evolutionists in the room (naughty, naughty, musn’t publically doubt Darwin.)"
>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Bushes" and "trees" are metaphors illustrating the idea of common descent. Some ancient bushes -- i.e, the King Clone creosote in Mojave Desert, nearly 12,000 years old -- work as metaphors just as well as "trees" of life."

Perhaps you should tell that to those drawing the trees:

Again:

Phylogenetic Trees

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

>>Danny Denier: "I quote them, Joey. You pretend to speak for them through your CNN, I mean Snopes, I mean Wikipedia copy/paste adventures."
>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Apparently you do speak for anti-evolutionists, since I've so far seen no others of them objecting to even your most obnoxious posts. And you do quote legitimate scientists, whenever their words can be twisted to oppose their own opinions."

I confess, I am an anti-evolutionst! Also, I never twist the words of scientists or historians. I am not an evolutionist, nor an atheist, nor a Democrat, but a Christian conservative, and we don't do that.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Joey is obviously comfortable in slandering Jews who do not buy into his warped worldview. Isn’t slander a Far-Left political tactic? Of course it is. They also whine when they do not get their way, like Joey. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Joey is a closet Leftist. Perhaps one of the Seminar Caller types."
>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Utter nonsense, and apparently the term, "Danny Denier", doesn't make this point strongly enough and so you wish now to be known as "Danny Slander-Whiner Denier".That comes from Denier Rule #5: accuse your opponent of whatever you are most guilty."

LOL! Foolish Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "The truth of the matter is that I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolutionism. I require scientific evidence. I should have been from Missouri."
>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "I did once live in Missouri and still visit there often. It's a great place with great people. Anyway, as repeatedly pointed out: by definitions science does not use terms like "belief", "faith", "truth", "dogma", "canon", "tenet" or "creed". Such words belong to religion & philosophy. By sharp contrast, at its core natural science deals in only two things: observations (aka "facts") and explanations (aka "hypotheses", "theories" or mathematical "laws"). All are understood to be mere models or metaphors for reality; none are based on "faith" or "belief" but rather, if strongly confirmed, are tentatively accepted pending new falsifying facts or better explanations."

No matter how you look at it, evolutionism is a faith-based religion. Unlike gravity, which can be experienced, evolution can never be proved, only inferred. Even some evolutionists admit that evolutionism is religion. This is from the keynote speaker at a 1993 AAAS anual meeting, hosted by Eugenics Scott:

"I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things... it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may... evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there." [Michael Ruse, "Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, AAAS Annual Meeting." 1993]_
http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm

More Ruse:

"After Darwin, the claim could no longer be made that (absolute) biological progress is value-neutral, something that one can simply read from the evolutionary picture, justified by theory. Rather, progress was a value that humans added. And in the adding, they shifted from a scientific theory of evolution to a quasi-religious commitment to evolutionism. Those who made this shift were not fringe figures, with no standing or respect in the evolutionary profession. To the contrary, there are no more honored names in the field than William D. Hamilton and Edward O. Wilson. The outstanding leaders of the discipline are among those people who promote social and ethical programs on the basis of their evolutionary commitment. This holds true in England and even more so in America. In this sense, evolutionary biology— Darwinian evolutionary biology—continues to function as a kind of secular religion. It offers a story of origins. It provides a privileged place at the top for humans. It exhorts humans to action, on the basis of evolutionary principles. It opposes other solutions to questions of social behavior and morality. And it points to a brighter future if all is done as it should be done, in accordance with evolutionary theory. Wilson may be right that he has shucked the literal apocalyptic commitments of his childhood, but if he is not committed to a postmillennial theology, I do not know who is." [Ruse, Michael, "The Evolution–Creation Struggle." Harvard University Press, 2005, Chap 10, pp.212-213]
"If Creationism crosses the divide between science and religion, then why on earth is it not the case that the New Atheists likewise cross the divide? They mix up their atheism and their ardent evolutionism at all and every occasion," [Ruse, Michael, "Accomodationist and Proud Of It." BioLogos, 2012, p.17]

I require evidence, Joey. Nothing personal. It is just the way I am.

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

>>Sneaky Joey the Science Denier said: "Danny boy, your whining slanders that science amounts to just another religion is in fact yet another case of your using Denier Rule #5."

You should practice what you preach, Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

More supernatural answers to natural issues.

Jeeze, how many paragraphs do you need to exhibit your complete misunderstanding of science? You made yourself clear: “science includes the supernatural.”

BroJoeK — need we go deeper? I don’t think we need a point by point refutation when the underlying thesis is so flawed as to render subsequent arguments glitter on a parade float.

Yes, said I would say out of it but the “supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth and not Harry Potter level fantasies.

Always cut to the core. It saves time and keystrokes.

Danny Denier post #433 cont. 2: "I wonder how the NAGS might explain the 5 or so perfectly-sorted, micritic-carbonate-capped megasequences discovered by the geologist Sloss?
I am particularly curious how they might try to explain away the micritic carbonate caps."

Danny Whiny Denier: "A rule of thumb in the evolutionism cult smear game is:
1) If creationists quote secular scientists, the creationists are guilty of hijacking the secular scientists' work.
2) If creationists quote other creationists, they are guilty of avoiding peer-reviewed sources.
Now you know how the "you can't win" smear game is played by the devout, fundamentalist evolutionist."

So now you whine, lie, deny... lie, whine, deny.... deny, lie, whine, always the same, never stops.
Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Whiny Denier: "We love you anyway, Derek.
After all, you did help shatter the uniformitarian myth."

It was a simple case of science following the evidence, which is what they're supposed to do and which you whiner-deniers will never do.

Danny Whiny Denier: "Ager never said his previous calculations were ridiculous."

Of course he did, go back and read your own quote again.
In it he performed some calculations producing absurd results -- which however you deniers love & embrace -- then Ager commented that was "ridiculous".
Ager did not appreciate your quote mining and hijacking his words out of context.

Danny Whiny Denier: "In his calculations regarding polystrate trees, he merely explained that applying uniformitarian principles to those polystrate coal seam trees is ridiculous."

So you do agree those calculations were ridiculous, you just don't want to say so publicly?

Danny Whiny Denier: "I am not sure if he mentioned that polystrates have been found pointing upward through multiple coal seams, which is evidence of rapid coal seam formation over perhaps a year, rather than hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years."

And yet somehow we have neither photos nor scientific reports on such alleged occurrences.

Danny Whiny Denier: "We have not hijacked Ager's work, Child. "

Liar.

Danny Whiny Denier: "Creation scientists were catastrophists long before Ager showed up. "

Well... first, your term "creation scientists" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, a nonexistent mythical being equivalent to unicorns & dragons.
Denier Rule #2.

Second, the first catastrophist was not a "creation scientist" but an early paleontologist named Georges Cuvier (1769-1832).
Cuvier explained extinctions in the fossil record as resulting from periodic catastrophic events, including region-wide floods.
Some of Cuvier's followers (i.e., Buckland & Jamison) tried to tie Cuvier's ideas to Noah's flood, but that was not Cuvier's intent.

Uniformitarian gradualism came later, popularized by Charles Lyell (1797-1875) & others, it became dominant and still today is considered the biggest of geological factors, with catastrophic asteroid strikes like Chicxulub, Mexico, the relatively infrequent exceptions.

Danny Whiny Denier on Ager: "No, Joey, you misunderstood him, or you are not making yourself clear."

No, I understood perfectly your own quote, by which you hoped to hijack Ager's words for your own nefarious purposes.

Danny Whiny Denier: "Those trees reveal only that, at one time, they were buried in highly-mineralized mud, of some sort."

Petrified over millions of years.

Danny Whiny Denier: "You are avoiding my point, Joey, which is the widespread presence of uneroded, unbioturbated strata in the geological column."

So, yet again you claim the absence of evidence is evidence of... what?
In fact there was lots of erosion between and within cratonic sequences.

Danny Whiny Denier: "The photo posted above of the alternate mud-coal layering demonstrates the absence of erosion."

Note again the six Cratonic Sequences:

So, again, you claim the absence of evidence is evidence of... what?

As for erosion & weathering, the Grand Canyon has a great example in what's called, "the Great Unconformity".

"Powell's Great Unconformity is part of a continent-wide unconformity that extends across Laurentia, the ancient core of North America.
It marks the progressive submergence of this landmass by a shallow cratonic

sea and its burial by shallow marine sediments of the Cambrian-Early Ordovician Sauk sequence.
The submergence of Laurentia ended a lengthy period of widespread continental denudation that exhumed and deeply eroded Precambrian rocks and exposed them to extensive physical and chemical weathering at the Earth's surface.
As a result, Powell's Great Unconformity is unusual in its geographic extent and its stratigraphic significance.[8][9]"

Danny Whiny Denier: "No, Joey.
The presence of uneroded, unbioturbated, layering is evidence enough of a global flood.
The lack of erosion of the layers "sandwiching" a missing layer is additional evidence that cannot be quibbled or obfuscated away."

Here is yet another example of erosion in Grand Canyon strata.

"About 800 million years ago the supergroup was tilted 15° and block faulted in the Grand Canyon Orogeny.[21][22]
Some of the block units moved down and others moved up while fault movement created north–south-trending fault-block mountain ranges.[9]
About 100 million years of erosion took place that washed most of the Chuar Group away along with part of the Unkar Group....
The mountain ranges were reduced to hills, and in some places, the whole 12,000 feet (3,700 m) of the supergroup were removed entirely, exposing the basement rocks below.[5]
Any rocks that were deposited on top of the Grand Canyon Supergroup in the Precambrian were completely removed.
This created a major unconformity that represents 460 million years of lost geologic history in the area.[23]"

And another:

"Nankoweap Formation is around 1,050 million years old and is not part of a group.[16]
This rock unit is made of coarse-grained sandstone, and was deposited in a shallow sea on top of the eroded surface of the Cardenas Basalt.[9]"

"The lower (ferruginous) member of the Nankoweap Formation consists of thin, 15 m or less thick, erosional remnants that overlie deeply eroded and often deeply weathered basaltic lava flows of the Cardenas Basalt. "

And yet more:

"Temple Butte Formation was deposited on the eroded surface of the Muav Limestone.
It in turn was buried by Redwall Limestone"

"The Grand Canyon Supergroup, of which the Nankoweap Formation is part, unconformably overlies deeply eroded granites, gneisses, pegmatites, and schists that comprise Vishnu Basement Rocks.[6][7][8] "

"In late Mississippian time, the Grand Canyon region was slowly uplifted and the Redwall was partly eroded away.
A Karst topography consisting of caves, sinkholes, and subterranean river channels resulted but were later filled with more limestone.[8]"

"Formations totaling over 4,000 to 5,000 feet (1,200 to 1,500 m) in thickness were deposited in the region in the Mesozoic and Cenozoic but were almost entirely removed from the Grand Canyon sequence by subsequent erosion.[56]
The geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area and the geology of the Bryce Canyon area records some of these formations.
All these rock units together form a super sequence of rock known as the Grand Staircase."

"The next two periods of geologic history, the Ordovician and the Silurian, are missing from the Grand Canyon sequence.[25]
Geologists do not know if sediments were deposited in these periods and were later removed by erosion or if they were never deposited in the first place.[31]
Either way, this break in the geologic history of the area spans about 65 million years."

"Geologists do know that deep channels were carved on the top of the Muav Limestone during this time.[31][32]
Streams were the likely cause, but marine scour may be to blame.
Either way, these depressions were filled with freshwater limestone about 385 million years ago in the Middle Devonian in a formation that geologists call the Temple Butte Formation (see 4a in figure 1).[10]"

As for "bioturbation", fossils & tracks should fill that bill nicely:

"Averaging 1,250 million years old, this is the oldest layer exposed in the Grand Canyon that contains fossils—stromatolites.[11]"

"Tapeats Sandstone averages 525 million years old and is made of medium- to coarse-grained sand and conglomerate that was deposited on an ancient shore (see 3a in figure 1).[10]
Ripple marks are common in the upper members of this dark brown thin-bedded layer.
Fossils and imprint trails of trilobites and brachiopods have also been found in the Tapeats."

"Temple Butte Formation is a cliff-former in the western part of the park where it is gray to cream-colored dolomite.
Fossils of animals with backbones are found in this formation; bony plates from freshwater fish in the eastern part and numerous marine fish fossils in the western part"

"Many fossilized crinoids, brachiopods, bryozoans, horn corals, nautiloids, and sponges, along with other marine organisms such as large and complex trilobites have been found in the Redwall.[31]"

"Surprise Canyon Formation is a sedimentary layer of purplish-red shale that was laid down in discontinuous beds of sand and lime above the Redwall (see 4c in figure 1).
It was created in very late Mississippian and possibly in very earliest Pennsylvanian time as the land subsided and tidal estuaries filled river valleys with sediment.[31]
This formation only exists in isolated lenses that are 50 to 400 feet (15 to 122 m) thick.[37]
Surprise Canyon was unknown to science until 1973 and can be reached only by helicopter.[36]
Fossil logs, other plant material and marine shells are found in this formation.[31]
An unconformity marks the top of the Surprise Canyon Formation and in most places this unconformity has entirely removed the Surprise Canyon and exposed the underlying Redwall."

"Supai Group formations in the western part of the canyon contain limestone, indicative of a warm, shallow sea, while the eastern part was probably a muddy river delta...
...Fossils of amphibian footprints, reptiles, and plentiful plant material are found in the eastern part and increasing numbers of marine fossils are found in the western part.[40]"

"Like the Supai Group below it, the Permian-aged Hermit Formation was probably deposited on a broad coastal plain (see 6a in figure 1).[38]
The alternating thin-bedded iron oxide, mud and silt were deposited via freshwater streams in a semiarid environment around 280 million years ago.[10]
Fossils of winged insects, cone-bearing plants, and ferns are found in this formation as well as tracks of vertebrate animals.[32] "

"Coconino Sandstone formed about 275 million years ago as the area dried out and sand dunes made of quartz sand invaded a growing desert (see 6b in figure 1).[10]
Some Coconino fills deep mudcracks in the underlying Hermit Shale[38] and the desert that created the Coconino lasted for 5 to 10 million years.[46]…
...Also fossilized are tracks from lizard-like creatures and what look like tracks from millipedes and scorpions.[50]
An unconformity marks the top of this formation. "

Danny Whiny Denier: "LOL!
It this guy for real?
Nobody cares about the missing layer, Joey.
The lack of erosion in the layers adjacent to the missing layer is what should make any old-earth geologist worth his salt reconsider his intrepretations."

Nonsense, erosion and bioturbation are found in many places between Grand Canyon strata, as illustrated above.

Danny Whiny Denier: "If I didn't know better, I would think you were trying to be funny, Joey."

No, I simply note with amazement how frequently you attempt to use the lack of evidence of... {whatever}… as evidence for... {wait for it}… yes, Noah's flood!

Danny Whiny Denier: "LOL! This is like talking to a wall."

And yet again you fall back on Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Whiny Denier: "That is an observable, scientific fact, Joey.
Practically everywhere you walk on earth, even in many desert areas, there is evidence of bioturbation.
There is also evidence of the beginning of bioturbation in many of the sedimentary rock layers, which suddenly stopped, leaving only a few tunnels and fossilized borers.
That reveals there was potential for bioturbation, but some process stopped it, such as a new layer of sediment."

As illustrated above, "bioturbation" in the form of fossils and animal tracks is found in many Grand Canyon strata.
The tracks are proof positive that the ground was exposed before being buried under later layers of sediment.

Danny Whiny Denier: "These parts from Gingras et al. explains bioturbation.
They also mention sequence stratigraphy:"

I can't find anything on your man Gingras suggesting he is either young earth or creationist.
So I have to wonder if you people have yet again hijacked a serious scientist for your own nefarious purposes?

Danny Whiny Denier: "The Journal of Creation is a peer-reviewed journal."

No, it's bogus theology masquerading as science.

Danny Whiny Denier on igneous strata: "No. Perhaps you will enlighten us."

Naw, you are incurious about matters outside the scope of your theological fantasies.

Danny Whiny Denier quoting Hood 2017: "In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans..."

Which those researchers said was about 200,000 years ago... ooops, so much for young earth.
Reports on this study are few and uninformative, but suggest to me it was highly flawed in both assumptions and methodology.
For starters, they only looked at a sub-set of mitochondrial genes called COI, which may, or may not, represent overall speciation.

For another, the study totally begs the question "what is a species?"
For another, the study assumes a constant rate of COI mutations over hundreds of thousands of years, a "fact" which is not fully in evidence, and is not accepted by Creationists as evidence in any other context I know of.

Danny Whiny Denier: "Regarding the last sentence, I wonder what the catastrophic event could have been that nearly "wiped the slate clean"? LOL!"

We're talking 200,000 years ago here.
Roughly 200,000 years ago the Earth was ending a long interglacial period, climate then similar to today:

““supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth “

Yet our constitution that every Conservative loves includes the supernatural like Adams said...”Because we have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

When the scientific method can be employed to produce morally sane and just people without resort to the tautology of God and religion(as current worshippers of the scientific method has faddishly described them), then science may have found something truly useful other than experiments that simply explain the grand entropy of the universe. Otherwise, everyone will just have to keep putting on their fig leaves and keep borrowing ideas from the tautologous nouminal LOGOS to try to restore societies every time they go totally entropic; as they have been want to do for as long as humans have been around to employ the term “I Am...” (as a means of self description of individually experienced sentience!)

The Burning Bush gave away the whole secret as to what fashion man was made in God’s image...it wasn’t because we were bipeds....

You mean when nature had a beginning?

And therefore, as a finite entity, is not all-encompassing, but is necessarily encompassed by something other than itself?

Such that logical coherence mandates that the broad acceptance of the Big Bang by mainstream science necessarily comes with an acceptance of the supernatural?

>>When the scientific method can be employed to produce morally sane and just people without resort to the tautology of God and religion(as current worshippers of the scientific method has faddishly described them), then science may have found something truly useful other than experiments that simply explain the grand entropy of the universe.<<

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that is the definition of Science. What IS not what we WANT to be.

>>And therefore, as a finite entity, is not all-encompassing, but is necessarily encompassed by something other than itself?

Such that logical coherence mandates that the broad acceptance of the Big Bang by mainstream science necessarily comes with an acceptance of the supernatural?<<

Lovely theology. Not science.

The abiogenesis canard, as fun as it is, means nothing. From whence is not the question at issue, no more than geology must explain how the Earth formed nor Astrophysics need explain the lights in the sky we now know as stars.

If you buy God-initiated Abiogenesis you must also buy the stars in the sky are illusions created by a trickster God.

I was only trying to demonstrate to you that nature is not all-encompassing.

And if nature is not all encompassing, then there must be things that are other than natural.

freedumb2003: "BroJoeK — need we go deeper?
I don’t think we need a point by point refutation when the underlying thesis is so flawed as to render subsequent arguments glitter on a parade float."

Well... I've mentioned here a metaphorical Intelligent Design "Denier University" where young theurgists can learn their... ahem... trade craft.
At Denier University's Matriculated Body of Students (aka, "the D.U.M.B.S.") they are, I suspect, taught Kalamata's ideas as "gospel truth", and it's what they wish to teach, complete with insults & whining, in public schools too.

Of course I'm no expert in any of the fields we cover here and unlike Kalamata don't have "thousands of books" I can quote mine with word searches.
Also, my time is limited -- so long as my health stays good I can be of service elsewhere and am frequently called.

On the other hand, I do have education, books and life experience in every related field, and can google up online encyclopedias as well as the next guy.
So, for example, when Kalamata throws out names like Laurence Sloss and cratonic sequences, I can both remember back to geology class and look it up whenever memory fails me.
And I do have some time, though clearly not nearly as much as Kalamata & company.

Anyway, if you wonder what I'm doing there, then think of all the kids at Denier University being bullied & insulted by people like Kalamata into thinking that natural science is just another religious cult that can be denied & defeated by tactics of alleged "biblical science".

freedumb2003: "Yes, said I would say out of it but the “supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth and not Harry Potter level fantasies."

I'm taking Kalamata's posts on one by one, so have not yet reached his "supernatural is science" comment.
Previously he claimed that "God is natural", leaning on traditional trinitarian theology which proclaims Christ is both "fully human and fully God".
I responded by showing that even while "fully human", Jesus had supernatural powers to perform miracles over both human and natural realms.
I also noted that Kalamata's high school text book, "Of Pandas and People" does admit that "Intelligent Design" appeals to supernatural forces.

Indeed, that is the basis on which Judge Jones in 2006 declared ID to be "not science" and threw it out of Dover Area public schools.

Kalamata: "Benedict Arnold was a war hero, Joey."

Sure, until he wasn't -- wanted to replace George Washington, flipped sides when disappointed.

Thomas Paine supported the American Revolution with words and money, afterwards joined the French Revolution and was jailed there by Robespierre's Jacobins.
Paine eventually became deeply unpopular in the United States for his attacks on Christianity.

Kalamata: "It was most foolish of Paine to attack the faith that had sustained the colonists since they first arrived in America."

Even though jailed by Robespierre's Jacobins, Paine was more at home in the French Revolution -- which not only overthrew the King, but also guillotined French aristocracy and Catholic Church officials.
It was not the first, or last, time the wealth of an established religion was stolen to finance a revolution intended to destroy it.

Kalamata: "My point was, the revolution by scientists who were also Christians began in the Renaissance and continued until the rhetoric of Darwin and Lyell corrupted everything.
In general, the change was from “let’s try to prove this theory wrong,” to “let’s try to prove Darwin and Lyell right.”
That is not science."

Your version here is also fantasy, not true history.
In fact, as I pointed out in post #449, over the past 150+ years huge volumes of new data and ideas were added to Darwin's basic evolution ideas.
None "falsified" basic evolution but all improved our understandings to some degree.
That's how science is supposed to work.

Kalamata: "No, Joey, I am at odds with your understanding of the Founding Fathers and science, and those like you."

My understandings are based on historical facts, yours on self-serving fantasies & distortions.
For just one example: our Founders nearly all believed in the importance of religiously based morality, believed no republic could survive long without it, however, in 1794 future president, then Ambassador James Monroe, also reached out to get anti-religious Thomas Paine released from French Revolution prison.
Monroe eventually soured on Paine and they split, but President Jefferson invited Paine back to the US in 1802
Point is, at least some of our Founders were able to tolerate Paine, despite his, ah, eccentric opinions.

Today Paine is honored for, among others: his support of the American Revolution, his early opposition to slavery, his "Rights of Man" ideas which we take more or less for granted.
Paine's "Age of Reason" presents traditional deistic ideas and opposed corrupt established religions, people we today might call the "theological swamp".

Kalamata: "And get your facts straight about Galileo.
The scientific orthodoxy of today is no different than the scientific orthodoxy of Galileo’s day.
Both have recruited the power of government to suppress opposing views.
I believe science can stand on it own without suppression.
You obviously do not."

Well... first of all, by your own admission, Intelligent Design is supernatural, not natural-science.

Second, Danny boy, I've now instructed you several times on the truth about Galileo, but you continue to lie & deny, deny & lie, without end.
So, one more time: even in Galileo's time, it was no crime to be stupid.
But it was a serious crime to commit heresy and that is what Galileo was punished for.

In my post #452 above I quoted five Biblical verses Galileo's ideas contradicted.
In posts #350 & #482 among others I quoted from the Church Inquisition which convicted Galileo while also opposing Copernicus and Kepler.

Kalamata: "You always have to get your little dig in, Joey."

Not a "dig", Danny boy, since I have huge respect for freemasons and a son-in-law is one, as were several Founding Fathers -- i.e., Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Lafayette, Marshall, Burr & Monroe along with European Enlightenment leaders like Locke, Voltaire, Hayden & Mozart.
Freemasons were not historically anti-Christian though sometimes persecuted by established government churches.

Kalamata: "It was not as if there was a light switch to turn it off, Joey.
The dangers to society that come from abandoing traditional Christian faith in favor of “reason” still linger.
For example, Social Darwinism was very much a product of the Enlightenment.
In fact, Charlie’s grandfather, Erasmus, a major held some of the same anti-biblical views that Charlie later adopted."

First, sure, I "get" that you wish to blame "Enlightenment" for every bad thing, Danny baby boy.
The very word "enlightenment" sends you into paroxysms of incoherence -- smoke from your ears, froth from your mouth, "enlightenment" be d*mned to, ah, heck, right?

But as Americans, as political "children" of our Founding Fathers, we are committed to their Enlightenment ideas and history.
We are not necessarily committed to what came after in other historical ages -- Age of Revolution, Romantic Age, Victorian Age, etc., certainly not to atheistic Marxist totalitarianism.
But our Founders represent pinnacles of Enlightenment Era political & philosophical achievement and as such deserve our respect and honor.

Our Founders held a "decent respect" for the opinions of mankind and for what they called "natural philosophy", our term "natural science" = natural explanations for natural processes, only.

Kalamata on "separation of church & state": "Some of the most extreme are your buds, the evolutionists."

Maybe, but natural science assumptions are intended to be a methodology only, not philosophical or ontological commitments.
Religious opinions of individual scientists vary as much as those of any other citizens.
Regardless, I have no problem with, ahem, methodologically separating science from theology in mandatory public school science classes.
I also have no problem with teaching & practicing traditional religion in voluntary classes.

Kalamata: "No, Joey, Galileo was fodder for the scientific establishment of his day, as are the scientists of our day who refuse to bow to the establishment and kiss the ring of Darwin."

Oh, Danny baby boy, you just got to stop lying about this.
Stupidity was never a crime, but heresy was in Galileo's time as in many other times.
And heresy against the Bible is what you, Danny boy, are here fighting against, under the banner of "Intelligent Design".

>>I was only trying to demonstrate to you that nature is not all-encompassing.

And if nature is not all encompassing, then there must be things that are other than natural.<<

100% agree. But that is not useful for science. That there is a Creator is bedrock. But I cannot use that to validate a hypothesis nor compose a Scientific Theory.

Science tries to explain the natural universe. The what. It does NOT try to explain where it all came from and why.

Genesis IMHO is 100% correct. (interpreted by John) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That jerk Dawkins notwithstanding, that is the basis for All Things.

>>I’m taking Kalamata’s posts on one by one, so have not yet reached his “supernatural is science”<<

Just look at my replies. I answer him verbatim.

My comment was “no need to read further” (or something to that effect). When someone says “supernatural is science” need we say more?

reasonisfaith post #437: "Then we agree that one species changing to another has never been observed."

I agree to this: two populations of the same species, separated from each other by some barrier (i.e., mountain, water, etc.) will slowly diverge or drift away genetically, eventually to the point where they now can't or won't interbreed.
Then we humans call them separate "species" or "genera", etc.

This has been observed in both natural and manmade selection.
For natural selection consider Zebras -- (see my post #281) in over four million years of fossils: nine different species (3 living 6 extinct) with eight living subspecies, obviously all the same "kind" and similar common ancestors.
For human selection consider any domesticated animal or plant compared to their ancient ancestors.

In the case of teosinte (ancient wild corn) and modern varieties, teosinte can still fertilize corn but not always visa versa.

Agreed?

Danny Denier post #438: "You don't appear to have much of a scientific aptitude, Joey."

Says our anti-science theologian.

Danny Denier: "I recall that you were attempting to interpret the words of a young earth creationist (Augustine) as if he was an old-earth deist.
Is that what you are referring to?"

In post #228, I quoted St. Augustine's warning against people like you Danny boy:

"Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Danny Denier: "That quote by Augustine reveals you have been misconstruing his words to make them appear to endorse your worldview.
Augustine says those who believe history is more than 6,000 years old are deceived."

I agree that Augustine took scripture to mean the Earth was "not 6,000 years" old.
But even in his own time Augustine noticed that men would sometimes quote scripture foolishly, bringing discredit on both themselves and the Bible.

How did Augustine define such "reckless and incompetent expounders"?

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience."

Augustine is telling Christians not to talk nonsense on such subjects, even if you can find Biblical texts which seemingly support your opinions.

Danny Denier: "That statement is about God's time, Joey, not man's.
But when God created the heaven, the earth, and all its host, he used man's time. "

So you claim.
The Bible itself makes no such clear distinctions and instead allows us to believe that a "day" to God can be as long or short as He wants it to be.

Danny Denier: "Augustine's words also contain this warning to those who are dismissive of the Word:"

""[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts which are all expressed in a way designed to nourish devout hearts."

Nobody here deems the Bible "crude and unrefined", far from it.
The question on the table here is whether the Bible is necessarily at war against natural-science?
You say it is, I say it's not and I say Augustine would agree with me, oh Danny boy.

Danny Denier: "No, Child.
It is called faithfulness to the Word of God."

Right, I "get" that -- you fantasize the Bible at war against natural-science so you take the Bible's "side".
I disagree the two are necessarily in conflict and would allow science methodologically whatever physical space it needs.
Philosophically & theologically I remain committed to traditional, classical ideas of God as Creator of everything natural and spiritual.

Danny Denier: "I believe Newton is saying that scientists should be leery of claiming any principle or theory to be a fact."

Well... that's actually not what he said or meant in this particular quote, though I'm pretty sure if/when you ask him, he'll agree with you on it, since such ideas come from traditional scientific understandings.

But that particular Newton quote -- "a boy playing on the sea-shore" -- referred instead to the fact that science as a metaphor for reality is vastly tinier than the great unknown reality before us.

Danny Denier: "My statement about Augustine and his noticeable absence from the constitutional narrative was in response to this statement you made in #341:..."

But you are mixing apples & oranges.
Augustine was a theologian, not a philosopher of (small-r) republican government.
As such I was referring to books like this one which trace the course of Western Civilization from ancient Greek philosophers though early Church theologians like Augustine and to Aquinas in the High Middle Ages.
Indeed, at grave risk of oversimplifying, let me dramatize my point by saying traditional Western Civilization can be thought of as the offspring of Jewish theology, Greek philosophy and Roman government ideals, launched to world domination by Western European science & industry.

So, Kalamata, I see you here as working to split those apart, making one the enemy of the others, and I'm hoping to stop you, FRiend.

Danny Denier: "More Wikipedia, Joey?
Anyone can search Wikipedia, should they desire to do so."

Well... I gathered you think poor Erasmus Darwin was some kind of demon from... heck, so I put him in his proper context -- British Midlands Enlightenment.

Danny Denier: "You are lying again about Graur, Joey; either that, or you are too ignorant to understand what was actually said.
I agreed with Graur's words when taken out of context, but not in context.
In other words, I didn't agree with Graur.
Forget it.
That is probably over your head, as well."

No, no, I did finally figure out what's going on inside your devious little mind regarding young Graur -- you heartily agree with what he said while you strongly disagree with what he meant by it!
Sorry, I'm a little slow on some things, took me awhile to "get" all that.... ;-)

Danny Denier: "Shermer is not a credible historian, Joey.
History Professor Richard Weikart is:"

Your point here is the same one you made in posts #505 & #506 among others, quoting Bergmann: "Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others...".
"As modified by..." is a ludicrous standard, you might as well say, "Christ's teachings as modified by the devil are to blame for X, Y and Z..."!
Utter nonsense.

Danny Denier: "When are you going to learn how to keep things in context, Child?"

Nonsense, just more Danny Denier Rule #12.

Danny Denier: "Yes, in the last sentence, Joey, but not in the words in between.
The entire paragraph insinuates that Darwin spoke out of both sides of his mouth; but when called on it, cried, "My intent was to speak only out of this side of my mouth, and not the other."
Did I mention Charlie was also a slick politician?"

But it's total, pure malicious fantasy on your part, Danny baby, to claim that Darwin would somehow support the Holocaust.
Really, that's just hate speech.

Danny Denier on Darwin & Holocaust: "Where did I say he did?
Be specific."

Oh, so now you want to back away from it?
Having spent post after post equating Darwin to Hitler and Holocaust, now you wish to deny it?
Now you're going to run for the hills, whining, denying & lying about it?

I'm calling you for Denier Rule #11, ten yard penalty.

Danny Denier: "I merely quoted historians, Hitler, Dalton, Charlie, and perhaps a few others.
What have I written that makes you think I believe Charlie was responsible for the holocaust, the World Wars, Eugenics, the corruption of societal mores, and the explosion of racism after his 1859 release of "Origin"?
Just curious."

Oh Danny boy, by Free Republic traditions, when you are trying, trying, trying to make a funny like that, you are supposed to end it with a tag like this: </sarcasm>

Danny Denier: "It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over."

Since you see fit to repost your own comments originally from #280, I'll repost my original response from #299:

The fact is, Hitler was strictly a political opportunist, taking ideas from wherever he could find them.
When, for example, he planned his 1935 Nuremburg Laws against Jews, he had Nazi officials study the American examples:

"Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States.
Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis?
The unsettling answer is yes.
In Hitler’s American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime.
Both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws―the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law.
Contrary to those who have insisted otherwise, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies.
He looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened but too harsh.
Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler’s American Model upends the understanding of America’s influence on racist practices in the wider world."

Sure, I "get" that you most desperately wish to blame the Brit Darwin for pretty-darn-near everything, but in this particular case, the source of Hitler's discrimination laws was much closer to Americans' own home.

Enough post #438 for now, will finish it up later.

>>freeDUMB2003 wrote, "The supernatural cannot be used as a science tool. It is not reproducible, among the many other qualities science requires that the supernatural does not meet."

Evolution is not reproducible, yet you believe that silliness.

The reason Einstein's heros -- Newton, Faraday and Maxwell -- were such great scientists was because they understood the limitations of science as established by our supernatural creator. They didn't waste their time (and taxpayer money) chasing windmills, such as the "big bang" and abiogenesis.

===============
>>freeDUMB2003 wrote, "By definition science studies the natural universe."

You mean like multiverses? The singularity? LOL!

This astrophysicist, who is also a real scientist, explains the singularity in the first 25 seconds of the video (hint: the singularity is supernatural):

Frank Tipler: The Singularity

Like I said, he is a real scientist, unlike that clown-show promoting evolutionism and big-bangism.

===============
>>freeDUMB2003 wrote, "Therefore that small statement in the midst of your screeds says it all. You do not know science. As I said, there was no point in reading further."

I am pretty certain you are clueless about science.

Are you going to keep your promise this time and not read any further? I doubt it. You can't sleep unless you attempt a cheap-shot, or two, as lame as they are.

Mr Kalamata

quoting Kalamata post #341: "Stephen Jay Gould claimed that racism "increased by orders of magnitude" after evolution was accepted:"

BJK response post #432: "Your own quote says biological arguments for racism existed before Darwin, Darwin did not invent them."

Kalamata post #438: "I never said he did."

No, but in your eagerness to blame Darwin for pretty near everything bad, you have exaggerated the role of Darwin's ideas beyond recognition.
You blame Darwin for a "rise in racism" at the very time the US passed constitutional amendments to abolish slavery and grant full citizenship to former slaves.
You wish to somehow blame Darwin for the resulting lack of perfect racial harmony, as if the races were perfectly in love under slavery!

Kalamata after lengthy Gould quotes: "Gould's emphasis on recapitulation could not be more damaging to the notion that Darwin was an innocent bystander."

Nonsense, because yet again your lovely "research assistant" has messed-up by providing enough data to argue against your own assertions.
Now I've already used the simile of: blaming Darwin is like blaming 9/11/2001 on the terrorists' breakfast.
Let's add another: blaming Darwin is not even like blaming Einstein for the ~200,000 who died at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, since arguably without Einstein those bombs could not be built.
But there's no post-Darwin political movement, not even so-called "social Darwinism" which arguably would not exist, in some closely related form, even without Darwin.

To support my argument we need only review carefully your own lengthy quotes from Gould, strip away words referring strictly to Darwin himself and then look to see if the results are materially changed.
They're not.

Kalamata quoting Gould from 2002: "An inventor may be fully exonerated for true perversions of his purposes (Hitler's use of Darwin), but unfair extensions consistent with the logic of original motivations do entail some moral demerit (academic racists of the nineteenth century did not envision or intend the Holocaust, but some of their ideas did fuel the "final solution")."
[Stephen Jay Gould, "I Have Landed.", p.336]"

"Fueled the final solution", just as breakfast fueled the 9/11 terrorists, so let's blame the cook!

Further, "academic racists" (not Darwin) "entail some moral demerit" according to Gould.
But Kalamata takes such words to blame Darwin for something of which Gould specifically exonerated him -- "Hitler's use of Darwin".

Kalamata post #439: "You, as a deist, have convinced yourself that God must remain forever confined inside a neat little box of your own invention, which is then neatly tucked away outside the realm of a mystical thing you call "natural." "

And so your bald-faced, outrageous lies never stop?
Should I even bother to unpackage such a stinking pile of nonsense?
Well... let's see where this leads...

Kalamata quoting: "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." -- 1Cor 15:41-44 KJV"

Kalamata: "...was Christ's body, prior to the resurrection, a natural body, or spiritual body?"

Christian theology since Nicaea has insisted that Christ was both fully man and fully God.
You yourself have quoted text to say that Christ was natural man enough to die, but otherwise not subject to mere human sinful nature.

Kalamata: "If all fullness dwells in Christ, is nature included, or not?"

We covered this ground before, for example post #436, in which I included several Bible verses showing that the word "nature" and "natural" can refer to any number of things,
It can refer to human sensual instincts (Jude 1:19), or to the "nature of angels" (Hebres 2:16) and to "God's divine nature" (i.e., Romans 1:20 NIV, 2 Peter 1:4 KJV).

2 Peter 2:12 mentions "natural brute beasts".
Romans 1:27 talks of "the natural use of the woman".
Romans 7:18 Paul speaks of his own "sinful nature".
James 1:23 observes a man's "natural face".
2 Timothy 3:3 remarks on "natural affection".
1 Corinthians 14:44, as you quoted tells us, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."
1 Corinthians 2:14 very importantly says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

That last comment from Paul should tells us something about Christ's nature as "fully man" since according to Trinitarian doctrine He was also "fully God".
How all this works can get complicated, but this site, for example, explains it about as simply as possible.

In 451 AD the Chalcedonian Creed again grappled with Christ's dual nature as both man and God:

"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin... etc. "

Bottom line, if I understand correctly: Christ was fully God and fully man.
As man He was born, lived, suffered & died for our salvation, but as God with us, He was without sin, performed amazing miracles and rose again from death, among others.

Enough of post #439 for now, more later...