Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

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

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

>>Kalamata post 439 cont. 2: "Child, Jesus said that man and woman were created at the beginning of creation:"
>>Joey said, "Baby Danny, Genesis says it was Day Six, which was not really the beginning but near the end, and it also says that God began with "dust" which is what science speculates on."

No, Child. The creation is our universe, which will exist forever. Don't you recall this passage by Paul?

"For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." -- Rom 8:20-22 KJV

**********

>>Joey said, "Of course it makes perfect sense to me that God could start with "dust" at the beginning and end with mankind on Day Six, but I would not insist on that theologically.

The dust of the earth was not created until day 3. The firmanent was created on day 2:

"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." -- Gen 1:6-8 KJV

On day 3 God exposed part of the firmamnt above the water, which became the dry land:

"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." -- Gen 1:9-13 KJV

**********

>>Kalamata: "Yet, you deny the words of Jesus, rather claiming he +was the descendant of an ape, which evolved from the world of bacteria, or pond scum, or whatever."
>>Joey said, "Rubbish, I'm happy to accept that Jesus was descendent from Adam and Adam was the first true man with God's "breath of life" and the first "living soul". I also notice that the Bible does not tell us exactly how God got "from mud to man", so I'm willing to let science fill in whatever blanks it can.

So am I; but currently there is no science nor scripture that contradicts the special creation of man and other organisms.

**********

>>Joey said, "Finally, unlike the Bible, science never claims to be Divine Truth, only the latest tentative explanations, always subject to revisions or falsification in light on new data & better explanations."

Science does not claim anything, but scientists and evolutionists do; and evolutionists routinely claim the religion of evolutionism is a fact.

**********

>>Kalamata: "If you deny the words of Jesus, is that the same as denying Jesus?"
>>Joey said, "I've denied nothing, but it seems to me, oh Danny boy, that you are the one denying the Bible's words in, for example, trying to stretch its use of "nature" and "natural" to mean Jesus was no more than a "natural man"."

You have a severe reading comprehension problem, Joey. I never said Jesus was "no more than a natural man." I said he was A natural man -- the natural seed of Abraham -- during his ministry. Those are the words of Paul:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." -- 1Cor 15:44-45 KJV

If you are curious about that last part, recall this passage:

"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." -- John 16:7-11 KJV

After Jesus was resurrected and ascended to the Father, he became that quickening spirit, known as the Comforter:

"I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." -- John 14:18 KJV

So, there was a natural Jesus, and there is a spiritual Jesus.

**********

>>Kalamata: "So tell us, Joey, is the seed of Abraham natural, or unnatural?"
>>Baby Joey said, "First baby Danny, I repeat, who is "us"?

Don't get all paranoid on us, Joey. That is a generic statement to represent "me," and whoever is reading this thread.

**********

>>Baby Joey said, "Second, little boy, Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit was never just "natural"."

No, Joey:

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV

God became fully man in the form of his image, Jesus Christ; and your hair-splitting is not going to change that fact:

"[Christ, in] whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" -- Col 1:14-16 KJV

**********

>>Joey said: "From the beginning He was also "truly God" meaning both free from sin and capable of performing supernatural miracles. So, "natural" yes, but not only natural.

I agree, sorta. I don't recall Jesus having the power to perform miracles until he was baptized by John and received the Holy Spirit:

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him." -- John 1:32 KJV

**********

>>Kalamata: "Paul implied in verse 2:16 that angels were natural;"
>>Joey said: "Liar!

The scripture states the angels were natural and spiritual. Recall this verse:

"For verily [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV

And this one:

"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." -- Heb 1:7 KJV

We know that angels can appear as men and do all the things men do, even have children with earthly women:

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." -- Gen 6:1-4 KJV

The Sons of God in the Old Testament were also identified as angels in the LXX.

[For the record, that is one part of the scripture that Augustine completely misinterpreted by claiming the Sons of God were children of Seth. It really doesn't make sense that he would, considering all but maybe one of the Church fathers before him interpreted the traditional way in the manner of Peter, Jude, and the intertestamental book of 1 Enoch.]

We also know the angels at Sodom were at risk of being assaulted by the men of Sodom:

"But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men [the two angels] which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them." -- Gen 19:4-5 KJV

Therefore, angels can be fully men and fully angels: natural and spiritual. Jesus took on the nature of angels, not the spirit of angels, in that he looked like a man, acted like a man, and was a man, until his death.

**********

>>Kalamata: "he said Jesus became a seed of Abraham, who is also natural. In fact, Jesus became just as natural as any other man, except without sin. His ability to perform miracles set him apart until his death and resurrection; but later Peter and Paul also performed miracles after receiving the Comforter."
>>Joey said: "Acts 19:11 says of Paul: "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:"
>>Joey said: "But John 12:37 says of Jesus: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:"
>>Joey said: "Do you see the difference?

No. Show me the difference.

**********

>>Joey said: "It's because (according to doctrine), Jesus was always also true God, never only "natural man".

I agree, with reservations. During his ministry, Jesus told his disciples that he did not have all the answers, and that he was being taught by the Father:

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." -- Mar 13:32 KJV
"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." -- John 5:19-20 KJV

However, Jesus and the Father are one, and the scripture points that out in many places. Add the Holy Spirit that was sent forth from the Father and Son, and as the Son, and you have explained the Godhead, also known as the Trinity.

It is a little complicated.

**********

>>Joey said: "Examples of his divine nature included conquest of natural sin and performance of supernatural miracles. Many others like Peter & Paul also instrumented miracles, but not by themselves, only through God's actions. At least, that's my understanding."

As mentioned above in John 5:19-20, Jesus also received his supernatural abilities from the Father, as needed. I forget to mention that angels also ministered unto Jesus:

"Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him." -- Mat 4:11 KJV

Immediately after their ministry, Jesus began his ministry.

**********

>>Kalamata: "So, were Peter and Paul natural, or supernatural? According to Paul, they were "natural" until they were resurrected, as was Jesus: "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." -- 1Cor 15:44 KJV"
>>Joey said: "Many Christians, including Peter & Paul, performed supernatural miracles after receiving the Holy Spirit. All died natural or martyred deaths, all will be raised again with incorruptible spiritual bodies, if I understand correctly.

The scripture is unclear on that; or at least on the timing. But, yes, they all have been resurrected, or will be.

**********

>>Kalamata: "So, there is a natural God, and a supernatural God, who are one:"
>>Joey said: "In Christ only! While God's "divine nature" is mentioned, God the Father is never called "natural" in the human sense, and from the beginning Jesus was never only "natural"
>>Joey: "I [Jesus] and my Father are one." -- John 10:30 KJV"

This hair-splitting could go on forever.

**********

>>Kalamata: "Jesus made that statement while he was still a natural man, before his resurrection and ascension to the throne of the Father."
>>Joey: "But Jesus was never only "natural", was always also God, according to Trinitarian doctrine, if I understand correctly."

More hair-splitting.

**********

>>Kalamata: "It seems that Joey doesn't believe God was a seed of Abraham, born of a woman, and raised as a Jewish child, who began his ministry at about age 30, and died a horrible death roughly 3.5 years later, at which time he gave up his natural body and became a spiritual body."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Baby Danny boy, you are such a bald-faced shameless liar, it's breathtaking."

Shameless Child.

**********

>>Kalamata: "Science has never been in the conflict with the Bible, Joey. Perhaps you are thinking of inventions of men promoted under the pretense of science, as it was in the days of Galileo, and is today."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And your lies just never stop, do they?"

Shameless Child.

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "Galileo was not tried by some Greek philosophical guild, but by an Inquisition of the Roman Church. Galileo was not charged with crimes against Aristotle, but rather of heresy against the Bible. Galileo was not accused by some philosophical or academic professors, but by Church officials like Dominican friars Niccolò Lorini and Tommaso Caccini, Jesuits like Melchior Inchofer. The Inquisition judge in 1615 was neither secular nor philosophical, but rather Roman Catholic Cardinal Bellarmine. The Church's 1633 judgment against Galileo was "vehemently suspected of heresy" a more serious "crime" than mere "erroneous in faith"."

No, Joey. The Jesuits implied there was no heresy: they simply didn't like Galileo; and the scientific establishment was furious because Galileo didn't kiss the ring of Aristotle (e.g., Galileo was threatening their power.) Those are the ones who instigated the Inquisition upon trumped-up charges. Nothing has changed, except the mode of punishment.

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "I should also note again that it wasn't just Galileo but also Copernicus and Kepler whose works were condemned as heresy for their heliocentrism."

An analogous charge of heresy, today, is reserved for any scientist who doesn't kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin. The power of the scientific orthodoxy depends on perpetuating Darwinism.

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "For Danny boy here to continue pretending the Galileo affair was more about natural-philosophy than Church theology simply confirms your status as a serial bald-faced liar."

I showed you my references, and you ignored them.

**********

>>Kalamata: "You took Augustine's statement out of context, Joey. He is warning Christians not to stray from the positions of the ancient sacred writers."
>>Joey said: "No, that would be you, Danny boy. In full context Augustine is clearly warning against people like you who quote the Bible out of context, to make it look stupid in the eyes of non-believers."

That would be you and your atheist buddies, Joey, and I admit your misquotes have been effective. Generations of children have been brainwashed by the evolutionism cult into believing the Bible is bunch of fairy tales. I am no conspiracy theorist, but sometimes they really are out to get you. This is the sleazy lawyer Charles Lyell, one of Charles Darwin's most admired ape-critters:

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

**********

>>Kalamata: "[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... "
>>Joey said: "Nobody I know of uses "secular literature" to criticize the Bible as "crude and unrefined".

You can't be serious. You do it all the time; and practically every high school and college text book mocks the Bible in one manner or another. In fact, the teaching of evolution mocks the Bible, no matter how it is taught.

**********

>>Kalamata: "Taken together, Augustine is pointing to those puffed-up with secular literature, who dismiss the interpretations of the biblical text by ancient sacred writers as being something crude and unrefined, like you do. How avante garde of you, Child."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more outrageous bald-faced lies from Danny boy, a very mischievous youngster."

Deceitful Child.

**********

>>Kalamata: "Joey still has this bizarre notion that the Bible was never scientific or historic, even though there is not a single scientific or historical error to be found in it."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more Danny-lies. The truth is, the Bible is very historical, but there is no sense in which it even tries to be scientific. Rather, the Bible is at great pains to show us that supernatural God created, rules over and can over-rule the natural realm.

Joey doesn't understand science. The Bible is loaded with scientific gems, which are there for the taking by those worthy to take them. The most famous of the gem-takers was Matthew Maury, who is known as the "Pathfinder of the sea," and the "Father of Modern Oceanography."

**********

>>Kalamata after quoting Hosea & Romans: "It's a little complicated."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Naw, it's all just basic and one more reason why Christians have always resisted attempts to divorce from the Old Testament."

I need a translator for that one.

**********

>>Kalamata: "When are you going to show us that you know the difference?"
>>Drive-By Joey said: "When are you going to stop posting bald-faced lies, little boy?

I will have to post a lie, before I can stop lying, Child. When are you going to answer my questions?

**********

>>Kalamata: "I don't recall the part about Christians, Child. I recall the following statement you made which was part of an ongoing diatribe in #341 in which you were attempting to marginalize the Word of God and traditional Christian theology:"
>>Drive-By Joey said: "Sorry, Danny boy, but you have worked hard to set God's word at war against the best of ancient Greeks & Romans as well as medieval theologians and modern science. I merely tried to restore their traditional positions as supporters, along with Jewish theology, of Western Civilization writ large."

That is gobbledygook. The ancient Greeks and Romans were mostly pagans. Christians gave us modern science. Pagans and atheists gave us the pseudoscience of evolutionism and big-bangism.

**********

>>Kalamata: "You really are delusional, Child."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "You really are a bald-faced liar, Danny boy."

Shameless Child.

**********

>>Kalamata: "That is what you claim, Alinsky Joe, that nature is godless."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more bald-faced lies -- you just can't stop it, can't control it, can't even slow it down a bit, you just have to lie & lie & lie? Truthfully, I think you need serious help for that, baby boy."

Shameless Child.

**********

>>Kalamata after quoting Lewontin on Sagan: "While you pretend to defend God, Joey, you in reality defending the anti-God's, like Lewontin and Shermer."
>>Drive-By Joey said: "It's not clear if the opinions you quoted are strictly Lewontin's (I think) or also Sagan's (I doubt seriously)."

Quit making deceitful insinuations, and show us how I misquoted.

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "Regardless they represent the term "philosophical naturalism" also known as "ontological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" which mean, in essence: atheism. The more traditional view is called "methodological naturalism" which defines the old "natural philosophy", today's natural-science. Methodological naturalism" never denied the existence or works of God, theology or supernatural events. It merely said supernatural miracles are outside the scope of science and so must be left to theologians & philosophers to investigate."

You have to wear mental blinders to believe in the bizarre atheistic concept of "methodological naturalism," as Lewontin revealed. Here he is again:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." [Lewontin, Richard C., "Billions and Billions of Demons: Review of Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'." New York Review of Books, 1997]

It was never about science. This is the link so you can read the original article yourself.

Billions and Billions of Demons

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "So, Danny boy, your insistence on equating all naturalism to atheism is yet another example of your serial bald-faced lying.

No, Joey. Methodological naturalism is just another fancy name for atheism. Even Newton's law of universal gravitation fails under the rules of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism was never about science, but getting our creator out of science, which is futile.

Real science seeks to know whether a theory is true or not. The premise that a good scientific theory must fit certain abstract criteria is a red-herring -- an anti-science power grab.

**********

>>Kalamata: "Are you defending God, or atheistic, secular materialism, Child? The great scientists, like Galileo, Newton and Faraday would hoot at your ridiculous notion that, 'natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject.' "
>>Drive-By Joey said: "And still more bald-faced Danny-lies. In fact Galileo was convicted of heresy, as were the works of Copernicus and Kepler, not because they opposed Greek philosophers, but because they opposed clear Biblical texts."

Galileo's only "heresy" was against the scientific orthodoxy. It is no different today, except for the punishments. Oppose the dogma of the scientific orthodoxy these days and you will be shunned, refused the right to publish, fired, and even lose your career.

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "Isaac Newton, unlike Galileo, had the good fortune to be born in a Protestant country and the good sense to keep his religious views mostly private: [Liar Joey quoted the Leftist rag, Wikipedia]

Newton was a devout Christian who opposed the doctrine of the established church:

"It is interesting to observe the coincidence of the religious views of Sir Isaac Newton with those of John Locke, his illustrious contemporary and friend. Though, like Newton, he lived in communion with the Church of England, "yet it is obvious," as Lord King says, "from an unpublished reply to a work of Dr. Stillingfleet's, that he entertained a strong opinion that the exclusive doctrines of the Church of England were very objectionable—that he thought them much too narrow and confined, and that he wished for a much larger and easier comprehension of Protestants." In a paper dated 1688, and apparently drawn up for the guidance of a religious society when he was in Holland, we find the following noble article, which Newton would have countersigned, and which, without having adopted the peculiar opinions of these distinguished men, we regard as at once the essence and the bulwark of Protestant truth:

"If any one find any doctrinal parts of Scripture difficult to be understood, we recommend him, 1st, The study of the Scriptures in humility and singleness of heart. 2d, Prayer to the Father of lights to enlighten him. 3d, Obedience to what is already revealed to him, remembering that the practice of what we do know is the surest way to more knowledge; our infallible guide having told us, if any man will do the will of him that sent me [his will], he shall know of the doctrine, John vii. 17. 4th, We leave him to the advice and assistance of those whom he thinks best able to instruct him; no men, or society of men, having any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know and believe and give an account for himself."

[Brewster, David, "Memoirs of the life writings, and discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton Vol II." Edmonston and Douglas, 2nd Ed, 1860, pp.281-282]

Newton certainly had no use whatsoever for atheism and the notion of dumb luck:

"Opposite to godliness is Atheism in profession, and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind, that it never had many professors [until Charlie.] Can it be by accident that all birds, beasts, and men have their right side and left side alike shaped (except in their bowels), and just two eyes, and no more, on either side of the face; and just two ears on either side the head, and a nose with two holes; and either two fore-legs, or two wings, or two arms on the shoulders, and two legs on the hips, and no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel and contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom, and the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside a hard transparent skin, and within transparent humours, with a crystalline lens in the middle, and a pupil before the lens, all of them so finely shaped and fitted for vision, that no artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it? These, and suchlike considerations, always have, and ever will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared." [Ibid. 1860, p.277]

And, finally, Newton was a true Father of the Enlightment (not the atheist "Darkening"):

"We have few examples, indeed, of truly great men pursuing simultaneously their own peculiar studies and the critical examination of the Scriptures. The most illustrious have been the ornaments of our own land, and England may well be proud of having had Napier, and Milton, and Locke, and Newton, for the champions both of its faith and its Protestantism. From the study of the material universe—the revelation of God's wisdom, to the study of his holy word—the revelation of his will, the transition is neither difficult nor startling. From the homes of planetary life to the homes of its future destiny the mind passes with a firm and joyous step, and it is only when scepticism or intellectual pride has obstructed the path, that the pilgrim falters in his journey, or faints by the way." [Ibid. pp.283-284]

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "Michael Faraday, so far as I know, never ran afoul of Christian orthodoxy and indeed, the institute founded in his name seems dedicated to bridging gaps between science & Christianity . . . "

I didn't find any science on that website, Joey. I did find a little history:

"The impact of Galileo's best-selling Sidereus Nuncius (1610) all across Europe was dramatic. Aristotle's cosmology had, for centuries, been standard fare in all the universities; it would take time to absorb this sudden reverse. Galileo was emboldened, however, to go one step further and to present his discoveries as validating the Copernican heliocentric world-system. This allowed his Aristotelian critics in Florence the opportunity to strike back: Aristotle's physics of motion still held good and it claimed to prove the immobility of the earth. More significantly, they could in addition invoke an already familiar theological argument: the Copernican theses were incompatible with Scripture. His Benedictine friend, Benedetto Castelli, reported a discussion at the table of Galileo's Medici patron, Cosimo II, where the dowager Duchess Christina seemed impressed by the theological case against the Copernican view." [Ernan McMullin, "The Galileo Affair." The Faraday Institute, April, 2009]

**********

>>Drive-By Joey said: "Of course, I have no idea if the Faraday Institute teaches beliefs consistent with Faraday's own or with traditional understandings, but I'd suspect their views are much closer to mine, properly understood, Danny boy, than to yours."

It appears that Michael Faraday's understanding of the scripture is consistent with mine, and the "modernizers" at the "Faraday" Institute are fairly consistent with yours (Deism.)

Robert

BroJoeK to Kalamata; freedumb2003

>>Kalamata post #439 cont. 3: ” I must have hit a nerve."
>>Naw, you just piled one more lie atop the others.

Your religion of evolution is the BIG lie, and you promote it with evangelical fervor.

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

>>Kalamata: ” Big time!"
>>Joey said: You lie big, you lie little, you don’t seem to care so long as you’re lying.

Your religion of evolution is the BIG lie, and you promote it with evangelical fervor.

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

>>Kalamata: ” Please point out my lies, Child, so that everyone can see them."
>>Joey said: "I have been and will, even to the point of classifying your lies taxonomically according to your own Denier Rules."

I must have missed that. Be more specific.

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

>>Kalamata: "You didn't respond, Child."
>>Joey said: "Of course I did, baby Danny, In your post #341 you said: ” God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:” I responded in post #436: “Nor is He subject to Danny boy's idiotic definitions.” To which you responded in #439 with yet another pile of stinking lies."

I must have missed the lie in my statement. Are you claiming that God CANNOT do as he pleases? Did God tell you that?

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

>>Kalamata from post #341: ”BTW, I didn't say Christ was "only" natural; but I did say he can do as he pleases. I also said, with him all things are possible."
>>Joey said: "Your second sentence is a small lie or typographical error. It can become true if you just change the word “said” to “say” or “believe”."

Wrong, Joey. In #303 I said, "As you can see, you don't get to define God. He can do as he pleases, and be anything he pleases, including being "natural."

Frankly, Joey, your quibbling over this and other theological points leads me to believe you haven't a clue how to defend Darwin's Idiot Theory, except with vague generalities and slander.

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

>>Joey said: "But, if I understand correctly, what you’re trying to argue here is that since Christ was “truly man” He was also wholly natural and therefore his supernatural miracles can be taught in mandatory public school science classes as natural-science!"

You are so desperate to defend Darwin's Idiot Theory you can no longer write coherent sentences.

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

>>Kalamata: ” So, I did say it! Then why the bluster? Besides, that quote wasn't found "just above", as you claim. Rather, you cherry-picked from a longer conversation in #341 to make it appear I had just said it. Tricky Child."
>>Joey said: "No, sorry, but you are confused little Danny, note my explanation above."

I don't see any explanation, Joey. Perhaps I am missing something. How about copy/pasting it, like you do the Leftwing, "Snopes-on-Steroids" Wikipedia articles.

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

>>Kalamata: ”Really? The early Church Fathers, almost to a man, believed in a global flood in which Noah and his family were the only human survivors. You seem to be selective in your understanding. … From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said you simply "take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers"?"
>>Joey said: "No, but we can reasonably conclude that virtually everything, excepting quotes, Danny boy posts is a lie of some sort."

Your religion of evolution is the BIG lie, and you promote it with evangelical fervor.

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

>>Joey said: "In this particular case you are using Denier Rule #12 to distract, divert & dissemble away from your own uniquely false definitions. Anyway, once again, on your question about Noah: the Bible and science agree that the Earth has been subject to flood and mass extinction from which God rescued small remnants for repopulation. So here's the important difference: the Bible tells us God promises not to do it again, while science tells us another "big one" like the Dinosaur mass extinction is, ahem, "unlikely" in the near future. I have no doubt that some believing scientists pray that by the time the next "big one" comes our way, God will have given scientists enough insight on how to divert it away harmlessly."

LOL! You refuse to accept the obvious: that the dinosaurs were slaughtered, sorted and buried quickly by the great flood, which began when the fountains of the great deep burst open. That contradicts the doctrine of your religion of evolutionism, which was founded on a BIG lie.

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

>>Kalamata: ”So is your pretense that man is evolving from an ape, while on the way from evolving from a bacteria. You don't seem to have a problem with that... From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said "what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology"? >>Joey said: "No, you can well assume rather that Kalamata-boy works long & hard to misunderstand, misinterpret and lie about anything that doesn’t fit your own narrative. In this particular case the Bible and science agree that God created mankind from “dust”.

The Bible and scientists agree. Evolutionists do not agree with either. Scientists and the Bible agree that life was intelligently designed, but evolutionists believe life spontaneously appeared from a "primordial soup," or something:

"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation. What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the belief that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that they do so no longer." [George Wald, "The Origin of Life." Scientific American, Vol 191, Issue 2, August, 1954, p.45]
"We tell this story to beginning students in biology as though it represented a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view [before Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity". It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." [Ibid.]

The refusal of evolutionists to believe in intelligent design was never about science, but religion, or, as Wald labels it, "philosophical necessity."

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

>>Kalamata: ” If Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"? How does that work?"
>>Joey said: "Neither the Bible nor any ancient writer I know of speaks of Christ as “natural man” in the sense of 2 Peter 2:12: ”natural brute beasts” or Romans 7:18 where Paul speaks of his own “sinful nature”, or 1 Corinthians 2:14 where Paul says: ”the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God”. Instead, Christ is always said to be both man and God – man enough for death, God enough for miracles & resurrection."

Christ took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. The last time I checked, the nature of seed of Abraham was "natural," and the men themselves were natural men.

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

>>Kalamata: ” Again, if Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"?”

>>Joey said: "Here is a standard definition of Trinitarian doctrine on this subject:"
>>Joey quoting: "The most widely accepted definitions of the incarnation and the nature of Jesus were made by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. These councils declared that Jesus was both fully God: begotten from, but not created by the Father; and fully man: taking His flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary. These two natures, human and divine, were hypostatically united into the one personhood of Jesus Christ.[note 1] According to the Catholic Church, an ecumenical council's declarations are infallible, making the incarnation a dogma in the Catholic Church.[10].

Mere men sometimes do tend to think their opinions are infallible. But even if they were in this instance, which is a reasonable interpretation, that still doesn't answer my question.

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

>>Joey quoting: "The body of Christ was therefore subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature is universally subject; such are hunger (Matthew.4:2), thirst (John 19:28), fatigue (John 4:6), pain, and death. They were the natural results of the human nature He assumed.[13]"
>>Joey said: "So, Danny boy, here’s what you can be 100% certain of: the ancient Church Fathers believed the divine Christ became also human so that his death & resurection could save mankind, us, from our own naturally sinful natures."

That I am certain of.

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

>>Joey said: "You can also be 100% certain that no Church Father ever thought Christ became human so that Danny Denier could preach against evolution in public school science classes.

That is another red-herring, Joey. What the Church Fathers said or didn't say had no bearing on my complete and total rejection of Darwin's Idiot Theory about 7 or 8 years ago. My reasoning was strictly scientific. You keep forgetting that I was an evolutionist and a Christian for about 35 years, believing in much of the the same nonsense you believe in, before I realized that evolution was not science, but religious dogma.

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

>>Kalamata: ” Like I said, the Early Church Fathers used the word "natural", well, naturally!"
>>Joey said: "Sure, but no recognized Church Father ever insisted Christ was only “natural” or that his natural body included, say, Paul’s human “sinful nature”, or indeed, that Christ’s nature had anything to do with teaching evolution in public school science classes."

That is another red-herring, Joey. Teaching the religion of evolutionism in public schools is subjecting our children to a philosophy that lacks purpose -- that our children were NOT created in the image of God, but rather in the image of an ape. That is a sick, dangerous religion. I object on moral, as well as scientific grounds.

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

>>Kalamata: "True. I don't recall any ECF saying that. Why would they?"
>>Joey said: "They wouldn’t, but you do, Danny boy.

You quote-mined me, Joey. What exactly was the topic?

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

>>Kalamata on Christ’s miracles: "So did Peter and Paul, after receiving the Holy Spirit from Christ."
>>Joey said: "The Bible is clear in distinguishing the miracles Jesus performed (i.e. John 12:37) from those God performed using Peter and Paul (i.e., Acts 19:11) See my post #569 on this."

You didn't expound. Explain why Paul receiving miraculous powers from God was different from Jesus receiving miraculous powers from God? The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, is it not?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me." -- John 13:20 KJV

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

>>Kalamata: ” I never said that, Child. My statement was only to alert everyone that evolutionists' confine God's supernatural powers inside a neat little box of their own invention, so God doesn't interfere with their new-fangled understanding of science as "all-natural," like organic butter. What they are really refusing to accept is, the ruler of all nature is God; the laws of physics are putty in his hands."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, baby Danny, but you still have it exactly wrong. That’s because traditional, classical Enlightenment Era methodological naturalism said nothing of the sort you claim, it simply defined itself as researching only natural explanations for natural processes. It intended to leave theological studies to theologians, that’s all. And that is the version of natural science I’m here to defend."

There is nothing natural about your version of so-called "natural science," which is a deceptive name for methodological naturalism. There is no scientific mechanism, no method, just faith! [hint: Dumb Luck is not a mechanism.]

Like I said, "just faith."

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

>>Kalamata on the Age of Enlightenment: ”It looks pretty dark and gloomy to me, Child, and history shows that Charlie's anti-God philosophy had a major hand in it. But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about Charlie."
>>Joey said: "Say what you wish, but it’s just insane to blame a scientist, any scientist, for evil deeds of political leaders."

It is insane to deny that political leaders are not influenced, and even in collusion with scientists, especially junk-scientists like evolutionists and "climate changers."

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

>>Kalamata: ”But you refuse to acknowledge that Galileo accusers included the scientific orthodoxy. But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about the scientific orthodoxy."
>>Joey said: "Danny baby boy, infant child, STOP LYING they weren’t scientists!! They were the Church Inquisition and they convicted Galileo of heresy against the Bible, not of stupidity against Aristotle."

Joey's religion of evolution is the BIG lie, and he promotes it with the fervor of a TV evangelist. Galileo was charged by the scientific establishment with opposing the pseudoscience of Aristotle, which they had usurped into Church doctrine (law,) much like the pseudoscience of evolutionism has been usurped into law in the U.S.

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

>>Kalamata on the Enlightenment: ”So, it was not all "light", Child. Further, the posterity of those American immigrants who fled oppression now find their religious traditions suppressed by the atheistic religious doctrine of your "child of the enlightenment," Charlie Darwin.
>>Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, you sound like a GD Democrat complaining about our President’s economy"

What is a "GD Democrat," Joey? Is that someone who associates evolution denial with Holocaust denial, or is it less slightly less nefarious?

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

>>Joey said: "sure, they say, people are better off now, but they feeeeeeeeel more… oh, yeh, that’s it: stressed, that’s the ticket!"

Are you claiming western civilization is better off since Darwin, or are you just playing dumb?

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

>>Joey said: "As for those descendants of my Anabaptist ancestors, unlike me most of them attend private schools where they are taught more from the Bible, less of modern science."

You really mean they are taught more science and less evolutionism, don't you? You are not credible.

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

>>Kalamata: ” Child, I was under the impression that one of the primary driving forces of the "enlightenment" was man's rejection of traditional values, including God's religious instructions, in favor of "reason." Pinker explains it this way: . . . "
>>Pinker in 2018: ”… If there's anything the Enlightenment thinkers had in common, it was an insistence that we energetically apply the standard of reason to understanding our world, and not fall back on generators of delusion like faith, dogma, revelation, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, gut feelings, or the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts….""
>>Kalamata: ” We can safely assume Pinker is no fan of Augustine."
>>Joey said: "Maybe, but our Enlightenment Founders were, especially regarding Augustine’s views on Christians serving in just wars (Augustine favored it) and slavery (Augustine opposed it)."

Certainly you are not referring to Erasmus Darwin, are you? For the record, it was Christians, such as Wilberforce, who fought for the abolition of slavery. Some of the anti-Christian so-called "Enlightenment" characters, such as Kant, Hume, and Voltaire considered themselves to be of the "civilized races" rather than the "savage races," as Charlie Darwin segregated them.

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

>>Joey said: "As for ancients’ ideas on government, our Founders looked more toward Greek (small-d) democrats and Roman (small-r) republicans than to early Christian theologians."

That was true ONLY in determining the best form of government. It had nothing to do with science, which followed the tradition of Newton; nor of morals, which followed the tradition of Christians, like Newton.

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

>>Joey said: "So Pinker apparently sees in the Enlightenment what he wants to see, not necessarily everything that was really there. In fact, many Founders were quite religious though they often favored ideas of Unitarians, freemasons and Deists."

With the exception of Paine, who was a radical, anti-Christian deist, who are you referring to? Many of the founders that modern day revisionists claim to have been deists, were said to have believed in miracles, a personal God, and Jesus as our redeemer. Some deists.

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

>>Kalamata on his quirky opposition to equality: ”Another straw man, Joey? Why did you not address the issue?"
>>Joey said: "Of course I did, in the only sense which matters: ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

Don't be silly. The "equality" I was referring to is government-made equality, as in socialism.

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

>>Joey said: "So, Danny baby boy, explain to everyone why you want those words deleted from our Declaration of Independence?"

How did you ever manage to become such a deceiver, Joey?

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

>>Kalamata: ” Joey frequently rehashes his imaginary debates with" holocaust deniers" on this thread; but he will never convince me he debated a holocaust denier."
>>Joey said: "Right, because you hate the truth so much in this as everything else, so you concoct your own set lies to live. The proof of those debates is my copy of Shermer’s copyright 2000 book, Denying History, as well as several others like it."

Proof? Where in Shermer's book can I find YOUR debate with a holocaust denier, Joey? What pages?

Joey appears to be living in La-La Land. LOL!

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

>>Joey said: "Just as I am today boning up on evolution by reading related books, so back then I boned up on the Holocaust by reading Shermer & others."

I hope you learn how to debate the Holocaust far better than you debate your religion of evolutionism. Otherwise, if you ever do debate a Holocaust-denier, you may convince him he is right.

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

>>Joey said: "I have cheerfully acknowledged that you are an upgrade over old Holocaust deniers in that the worst of them were quite vulgar, though you are no less insulting, belittling or name-calling."

You are slandererous, Joey; but that is how the Far-Left Soros moles operate. I am surprised you are not labeling conservatives you disagree with as Nazis. Perhaps you do, but on different forums.

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

>>Joey said: "I also recognize that your lovely “research assistant” puts a lot of effort into getting your quotes accurate, complete and correctly attributed, for which I thank her. But otherwise you behave just like the worst of them in your tactics, insults & lies."

My "research assistant" is on strike for better cat food. I must rely on the Research Library software. The following image is the Library Form filtered for "hitler" in the Title. There are 98 matches:

This the same form filtered for "biology" in the title. There are 501 matches:

Those were simple searches. Multi-word searches can narrow the results. Also, I can make the table of contents searchable, and attach any number of footnotes to a publication.

Now, stick to the topics, and quit whining.

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

>>Kalamata: ”However, I am convinced he has become adept at using the tool of slander against anyone who challenges his anti-tradition worldview. He probably got his "you are a holocaust denier if you don't bow down to Darwin" scheme from someone he truly admires, the atheist Michael Shermer."
>>Joey said: "That, for just one example, is a pack of lies which any decent person, especially somebody trying to defend the Bible would never post."

Remember, you slandered me, Joey? Am I your first? I doubt it.

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

>>Kalamata: ”Again, Child, our Founding Fathers were great in spite of the so- called "enlightenment," because they refused to abandon Christianity, but rather incorporated it into our Constitution, as well as in an initial Act of Congress. The demise of Christianity came from later infiltration of our culture by "children of the enlightenment," such as Charlie Darwin and his cult followers."
>>Joey said: "Oh baby Danny boy, now you’re just babbling nonsense for the sake of it. In fact, for better or worse, our Founders were the Enlightenment and they like many others – Newton, Paley & Priestly come to mind quickly – were quite religious, though not always 100% orthodox.

There was a simulataneous "Darkening," which was influenced by shady, anti-God, anti Christian bigots who thought they were smarter than God.

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey is a big supporter of the judiciary telling the people of our nation what science is, and is not. What can we expect from someone who admires one of the most famous anti-Christian, anti-God, Far-Left bigots on earth: Michael "Mikey" Shermer."
>>Joey said: "Danny baby boy, your visceral hatred for Shermer convinces me my comparison of you to Holocaust deniers is very close to the mark of truth."

I don't hate him, Joey. I despise his rhetoric. He comes across as an arrogant jackass, and he leads a lot of people astray. Perhaps you are one of them he led astray:

We all know why you have been persistently slandering me as a Holocaust denier, Joey. You are trying to take the heat off of Charlie Darwin for his substantial contribution to the Holocaust, like Shermer does. Labeling me a Holocaust denier is your version of the Russian Hoax -- your cover-up. Shermer adds a third "denier" category, smearing those who deny he is a climate prophet as climate-change deniers.

LOL! You can't make this stuff up!

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

>>Joey said: "Just like you baby boy they too went berserk at the mention of his name, they too frothed at the mouth, smoke from their ears on seeing his words, they too exploded into incoherence in dealing with his ideas. That’s why it’s clear to me you guys all went to the same denial school, or palled around together, or served the same devil master – who knows, but Shermer’s is the one name that most solidly glues you to them, baby boy."

Does anyone know what Joey is talking about? It seems Joey is having a psychological break?

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

>>Kalamata: ”This is Mikey teaching others that God doesn't exist:"
>>Joey said: "Nothing in Shermer’s 16 minute talk is new to me, sounds like college dorm (or frat-house) sophomore year bull sessions, and the answers to Shermer’s questions are pretty simple: belief & faith is a choice which can be rational or emotional or both."

He is proselytizing anti-God bigotry all over the world, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "A rational choice can begin here, question: is it reasonable to think that our physical bodies are the highest values possible, or are there values which exceed our own well-being?
The obvious answer is, of course there are, love & loyalty to our families & country, for examples.
Question: OK, but what about love & loyalty to the Creator of the Universe, of life and of mankind? Answer: sure, but now we get into Shermer’s talk about many different religions.
Question: OK, but why not just pick one, the one which makes the most sense and feels the most right to you? Answer: of course, but how do I know for sure? Question: how do you know anything for sure? My point is: Shermer himself acknowledged he is in the “skepticism” business, but I’d say that particular talk was a very, very mild form of “skepticism”, easily answered and moved on from."

I am reasonably certain Shermer is promoting the "none of the above" choice. That is just what the world doesn't need: more potential Mao's, Hitler's, Stalin's and Pol Pot's -- more potential blood-thirsty freaks who believe there is no higher power than themselves."

You are on the wrong side on that one, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: ”Perhaps Mikey knows God doesn't exist because God told him so, or perhaps it was Satan."
>>Joey said: "Perhaps."

I wasn't being facetious, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: ” The ACLU and their partners in crime, the NCSE, were not local, concerned citizens, Joey; but rather anti-Constitution, anti-Christian activists and infiltrators."
>>Joey said: And here again, Danny baby boy, you just can’t stop your lying, can you? Do those lies come from God? No, they have to come from elsewhere. Probably, I suspect, the same place those old Holocaust deniers got all their lies. How else can we explain it?"

Are you claiming the ACLU and NCSE were local, concerned, Constitution-loving Christian citizens, Joey? Or, are you claiming evolution is so pitiful that you must obtain the services of a corrupt federal judge to keep others from questioning it?

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

>>Joey said: "So yet again, let me tell you the truth, try to learn it this time young child:"

The truth is not in you, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Dover science teachers refused to teach the school board’s bogus theology in their science classes:

They were not required to teach theology. That was all a ruse, promoted by deceitful people like you and the ACLU. This is the statement:

The Dover statement
Text of the intelligent design statement Dover, PA, teachers were instructed to read to their students:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
[Source: Dover Area School District News: Biology Curriculum Update]

You have been mischaracterizing the School Board policy, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Parents sued in court to stop the school board. Unhappy voters fired the school board. Both sides in court were represented by “outside interests”, but the theological interests hung their hopes on your buddy Behe plus a slight-of-hand “textbook” called, “Of Pandas and People” which itself admitted it was all about supernatural interventions in natural processes."

As usual, Joey presents the atheist/communist side of the argument. What Joey doesn't tell you is, this was a local matter, not a federal case. He also didn't tell you that only eleven (11!) parents in the district expressed their disapproval of their children being read that statement. ELEVEN!

But, the evolution cult would have none of it! Their religion is going to remain the federally-established religion of the United States, or they will bankrupt every school district in the United States. That is sick.

And what is your hangup about the supernatural? Is it this?

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

>>Kalamata: ”That is the kind of argument I hear from leftists, Joey. The real story is that the Christian denominations were respected by governments, at all levels,"
>>Joey said: "Sorry but no, iirc, the first schools to remove prayer were in cities where Catholics & Protestants could not agree on which prayers to say, or large Jewish minorities objected to Christian prayers. To me the obvious answer is to let parents & children chose homerooms & religious classes which are most compatible, but the more practical solution has been to teach religions in Sunday schools and private schools for those who care most about it."

You didn't provide any sources, Joey. What are you trying to cover up this time?

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

>>Kalamata: ” Hopefully, one day, the nonsense will stop, and we will kick the sick, dangerous religion of evolutionism out of our schools and into the trash-bin of history where it rightly belongs.”

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

>>Joey said: "You and I will then be long dead and, even without a second coming, many questions now speculated on will be answered with more clarity, such as: is there also life on other stars’ planets and if so, how did it get there? If not, then exactly how unique is life on Earth, and why?

You are probably right on that one, Joey: at least on the first part. According to Max Planck, the establishment must die before younger scientists are allowed to take out the trash:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." [Max Planck, "Scientific Autobiography And Other Papers." Williams and Norgate, 1968, pp.33-34]

Ain't that the truth.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata post #448: "You gotta quit quoting Wikipedia, Joey, if you want to be taken seriously?
{sigh}"

Seriously, Wikipedia mostly just repeats what I first learned in school or studied since.
It is usually just our "conventional wisdom" based on standard sources.
I use it to illustrate that my opinions are not just personal, but are based on what "everybody knows", when that is indeed the case.

A lot of what I quote from Wikipedia can also be found, with vastly more time-consuming effort, on other sites.
But unlike those other sites, Wikipedia loads quickly, is free of clutter, free of popups and other advertisements, and never crashes my old computer.
Finally, it is generally well referenced to standard sources.

Of course, none of that makes Wikipedia necessarily the last word on any subject, but it is often a good place to begin.

Kalamata on the definition of evolution: "Now everyone can plainly see what I have been saying.
Evolution, to the anti-God types, "proves" everything!
Evolution is their god!"

Complete nonsense.
Seriously, FRiend, what are you smoking or drinking?
Your response here is not even remotely rational.

Kalamata: "You do not understand evolution, Joey.
There is no such thing as "sideways evolution."
Evolution, by definition, requires an increase in genetic information; otherwise, common descent is impossible."

And now you're just babbling incoherent nonsense, childishly inventing word definitions which never existed.
Here are some actual definitions of the word "evolution":

Webster: "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..."
Webster: "the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) "
Dictionary.com: "Biology -- change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."
Wikipedia: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]"
Collins: "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics. ...the evolution of plants and animals."
Biology on line:
- "(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
- (2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny."
Wikipedia: "Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive (orthogenesis) and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5]
This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6]
Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant."

In other words, by definitions: evolution is any change, whether it includes complexification or not.

Kalamata: "Without common descent, evolution fits the special creation narrative, whereby created organism multiply after their respective families, or "kinds."
It is okay for you to hijack special creation, Joey; but please don't call it evolution."

"Special creation" is a nonsense non-scientific term created by anti-scientists to confuse the unwary.

So let's review a summary of taxonomic categories:
The complete listing, including sub-groups for, say, human beings is 26 taxonomic categories, of which 20 come before "family" and five after:

Domain: Eukaryotes -- 1st evidence 2.1 billion years ago
Kingdom: Animals -- 1st fossils 590 million years ago.
Phylum: Chordates -- 1st fossils 530 million years ago = "Cambrian Explosion"
Today there are about 36 animal phyla.
Sub-phylum: Vertebrates -- 1st fossils 505 mya.
Super-class: Tetrapods -- (animals with four limbs) from 395 mya.
Clade: Amniotes -- (fully terrestrial tetrapods whose eggs are "equipped with an amnios"), 1st fossils 340 mya.
Clade: Synapsida -- Proto-Mammals 308 mya.
Class: Mammals -- 220 mya.
Today there are about 100 animal classes.
Sub-class: Theria -- mammals born live, 160 mya.
Infra-class: Eutheria -- Placental mammals 125 mya.
Magna-order: Boreoeutheria -- Supraprimates, (most) hoofed mammals, (most) carnivorous mammals, whales, and bats, from 112 mya.
Super-order: Euarchontoglires -- Supraprimates: primates, colugos, tree shrews, rodents, and rabbits from 100 mya.
Grand-order: Euarchonta -- Primates, colugos, and tree shrews from 90 mya.
Mir-order: Primatomorpha -- Primates and colugos from 80 mya.
Order: Primates -- from 75 mya.
Today there are about 450 animal orders, 28 of them mammals.
Sub-order: Haplorrhini -- "Dry-nosed" (literally, "simple-nosed") primates: apes, monkeys, and tarsiers from 63 mya.
Infra-order Simiiformes -- "Higher" primates (Simians): apes and monkeys from 40 mya.
Parv-order: Catarrhini -- "Downward-nosed" primates: apes and old-world monkeys, from 40 mya.
Super-family: Hominoidea Apes -- great apes and lesser apes (gibbons) from 28 mya.
FAMILY: Hominidae Great apes -- humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans—the hominids, from 18 mya.
Today there are thought to be 5,000 animal families worldwide, 156 of them mammals.

So let's pause here: from 2.1 billion years ago to 18 million we find fossils in 20 descending taxonomic categories before reaching what Linnaeus called "family" and which Kalamata tells us is the Biblical "kind".
Do we claim that each new sub-category was "Intelligently Designed" independently, without reference to preceding categories?
Or do we notice that each new category was somewhat more complex, from our perspective more advanced that what came before?

Now, from 18 mya to today, we find five more sub-categories:

Sub-family: Homininae -- Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas (the African apes)[1] 14 mya
Tribe: Hominini -- Includes both Homo, Pan (chimpanzees), but not Gorilla 9 mya.
Sub-tribe: Hominina -- Genus Homo and close human relatives and ancestors after splitting from Pan—the hominins 6 mya.
Genus: Homo -- humans 2.5 mya.
There are said to be 75,000 animal genera worldwide, 1,250 of them mammals.
Species: Homo Sapiens -- biologically modern humans 500,000 years ago.
Today there are about 450,000 animal species, 6,000 of them mammals.

My point in this exercise is to illustrate that your selection of 5,000 taxonomic "families" to equal Biblical "kinds" is not just arbitrary, but also it leaves a lot of room for alleged "micro-evolution" to produce hundreds of thousands of new species, genera, tribes, etc.

Enough for post #448 for right now.

Kalamata post #448 cont. 2: "You really should read Professor Behe's books, Joey."

I have been reading my copyright 1989, 1993 (sixth printing 2005) 2nd edition "Of Pandas and People".
Contributors include Davis, Kenyon, Thaxton, Hartwig and Meyer.
Behe is not mentioned in the Book, that I can find, but iirc he was prominent at the trial.

So this may be as good a place as any to list some general comments on it:

The book is roughly 30 years out of date, meaning some of its questions have been answered, others have "moved on" to other grounds of contention based on new discoveries, for example: "junk DNA".
The book notices that "some people" disagree with Old Earth timelines, but makes no attempts to review or adjudicate the question.
Generally it seems to have no problems with Old Earth geology.
There is no mention I could find of Noah's flood.
Unlike Kalamata, the book is reasonably respectful of science and scientists -- there is no mocking derision, no insults or name-calling, no redefining science as "religion" (though hints in that direction), no harping on alleged "frauds", no blaming of Darwin for the Holocaust, etc.
The arguments seem to me all standard Creationism under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" and boil down to a few short phrases:
- "Science doesn't know everything."
- "Science can get it wrong."
- "No transitional forms."
- "No common descent".
- "No complexification."
- "Irreducible complexity."
Therefore, they say, "Intelligent Design".

There may be more, so will save that for later.

Kalamata: "Then, as I have been saying all along, evolution is not science.
The great journalist Melanie Phillips [from 2010] explained it in more scholarly terms:

"But by seeking to colonize another sphere of thinking altogether, the Darwinists have overreached themselves with disastrous results.
Trying to use science to prove that religion is irrational, they have instead made science irrational by making grandiose claims for evolution that are not backed up by evidence..."

Complete rubbish!
In fact, evolution theory is the only entirely natural explanation, making it the only one which is truly scientific.
Every other suggestion (i.e., "Intelligent Design") requires supernatural interventions and those by definition are not natural-science.

Kalamata: "That is a red herring: more of "the absence of evidence is evidence" pseudoscience.
Animals tend to segregate, even today.
Besides, fossilization only proves that plants and animals were quickly buried by sediment, which is deposited during flooding.
During global flooding, hydrologically sorting of plants, animals and sediment would occur."

And so you explain the "sorting" of dinosaurs from elephants, whales from plesiosaurs and Alley Oop from Pterosaurs how, exactly?

Kalamata: "How about a Coelacanth, Joey?
Fossils of those large fish are found below and within the dinosaur layers, but not in the layers above.
According to your logic, the Coelacanth should be extinct!
But it is alive and well in the Indian Ocean, 65 million years after supposedly becoming extinct!"

So let's see if I understand your logic here?
You say 65 million years of lack of fossil evidence for Coelacanths is evidence they should be considered non-extinct, even if no "living fossils" were ever found?

"Another important discovery made from the genome sequencing is that the coelacanths are still evolving today (but at a relatively slow rate).
While they were initially thought to be a prehistoric species that remained unchanged over millions of years, the discovery that they are still evolving, albeit slowly, causes some to question whether "living fossil" is an appropriate descriptor.[41] "

Kalamata: "How do you explain blood, soft tissue, and possibly even DNA being found in dinosaur bones, Joey?
How do you explain the many dinosaur bones that have been tested and found to contain significant amounts of Carbon 14?"

No dino-DNA has yet been identified in fossils, but some "soft tissue" (i.e., collagen) can survive long periods if specially preserved.

Life can be hardy, for example, in some salt mines dated as hundreds of millions of years old they found dead bacteria in the salt which, when water was added, came back to life, swimming & reproducing happily, possibly the oldest living things on Earth.

As for alleged carbon-14, unless proven otherwise, I'd suppose that was some form of contamination.

Kalamata: "Your religion of evolution claims that all creatures are products of common descent.
Show us evidence of common descent."

Well... first, here are some definitions of "religion":

Oxford: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."

Webster: "(1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance "
Dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the "
Wikipedia: "Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. "

ID/Creationism is, by definition, religion, natural science is not.

As for evidence of common descent: the entire collected fossil record, including innumerable "transitional forms", plus the entire DNA data base of global species, including innumerable shared & similar alleles, are evidences suggesting common descent.

Here is a short but useful video on this very question.

Kalamata: "More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey?
Is that all you have?"

Handwaving & mockery, is that all you have Danny boy?

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
I simply want to see evidence for common descent.
There is none, Joey.
It is a fairy tale."

Right, in exactly the same sense that a Holocaust denier can find "no evidence" of the Holocaust, even in a Holocaust museum!
I know just how you people work, it's denial on the grandest of scales, to look evidence straight on and still claim it's not there.

Kalamata: "LOL! In this very post you prove what I wrote, Joey. You said:

[Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period." Which is also how any dictionary defines evolution -- see my post #585 above.
Your problem is that you hate it so badly, like any Lefitst, you busy-beaver yourself redefining terms and changing rules until your "reality" more suits your own desires for it.

Kalamata quoting Patterson 1999: "Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression.
This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England.
This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. "

That's a total lie which, if true, would prevent Crime Scene Investigation from presenting evidence in court to convict perpetrators "beyond reasonable doubt".
Defense lawyers would only have to claim: "it's not science, can't prove it".

Kalamata: "One other point, Joey: adaptation is not evolution."

Only in your own fantasy world of lies & make-believe.
In the real world evolution begins at the point of descent with modifications and natural (or directed) selection.

End of post #448.

>>Kalamata post #431: "Those rules fit you, as well, Tricky Joey. Woo well! But, in reality, they can be made to "fit" anyone in a debate. If you don't like what they say, call them a liar, or slander them as a racist, a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier. That is what you do, Joey, and that is what the Left has been trained to do. It is one of the premier rule's in the Leftist playbook."
>>Joey said: "Now, now, Danny boy, I know it's hard, but you must, must try harder to be honest. The real truth here is I only call out your most blatant & obvious dishonesty or Denier Rules tactics. If it seems to me that, however insultingly, you are actually trying to make a serious argument, then I respond as seriously as I can, with data & logic."

That reads like a Leftist rant. The truth is not in you, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "So let me suggest to you that since you are not here to defend an obscenity like Holocaust denial, but rather the greatest value & virtue we know of, God and His Bible, you must, must yourself be at the peak of your own honesty & truthfulness."

You continually mischaracterize the debate, Joey. Are you a Soros mole?

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

>>Joey said: "You just cannot defend God with obvious lies or His Truth with clear dishonesty. Of course my standard is not "perfection" because that's humanly impossible. But we have to do our best with whatever we have, that's all anyone can expect."

Joey continually labels me a liar (when he is not labeling me a holocaust denier,) yet he never explains how I lied.

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

>>Kalamata: "More slander, Joey? Can you string two syllables together without slandering me? >>Joey said: "Oh, so now you're the victim here? You post insulting lie after lie and then complain about slander when I point them out? Get over yourself, FRiend. Focus, focus on telling the truth and nothing but.

The tactic Joey is using -- accusing your opponent of what you are doing -- is called Gaslighting. The tactic is attributed to Marx, and Lenin, and Goebbels, but I cannot find a reasonable attribution for either. In the field of Psychology, the tactic is attributed to manipulative sociopaths, generally.

Joey insulted me and lied about me in his 2nd post to me. This is Joey in #101 butting in on my reply to freedumb2003's insult:

"It appears to me that Mr. Kalamata has no clue what is, or is not, real science."

That was then, and this is now. Now Joey is using the same tactic the University Snowflakes use, which is: "I can insult you, but you are not allowed to insult me." Typical Leftist.

BTW, up until the time Joey insulted me, I had not responded to any of Joey's post. He went out of his way to insult me.

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

>>Kalamata: "There are many debating tricks that I could use, but I intentionally avoid them, seeking rather to edify, than to obfuscate. "
>>Joey said: "I've pointed out when that's not true, but whenever you've made a serious argument, I've given you a serious response."

I am glad you brought that up. In your very first post to me, in which you butted in on a post by me to freedumb2003, you made this dismissive, dogmatic assertion:

"By definition "the created kind" is a non-scientific term referring to supernatural creation, and therefore has no place in natural-science."

You did not address any of my points, Joey, but rather interjected a typical atheist talking point.

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

>>Kalamata: "My quotes are geniuine -- directly out of the original text -- and in context. I intentionally supply more of the text than necessary to ensure the context is well-understood by the reader."
>>Joey said: "I fully recognize that and thank your lovely "research assistant" for her excellent work."

I don't have a research assistant, Joey. I am retired, and have been for over a decade. Besides, I don't need an assistant to respond to your poorly-researched, poorly-presented arguments. My Research Library software is more than sufficient to handle a lightweight like you.

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

>>Kalamata: "But it doesn't' matter with Tricky Joey. If I supply little of the original, I am accused of quote-mining. If I quote the entire paragraph (typically,) then I am accused of using them "promiscuously," or whatever Joey's word-of-the-week for "marginalize" happens to be at the time. That is the way the Left operates. That is the way Joey operates."
>>Joey said: "So let's review how Danny boy operates -- you first introduced the term "quote mining" (post #244) to this thread and accused me of it (#397)."

My statement had nothing to do with previous replies. You accused me of quote-mining in this one -- in #441 -- but deceptively, like a good little Leftist, as follows:

"That rule is not intended to criticize [Kalamata's] quotes, per say, because quotes are good. Rather it refers to the fact that some deniers promisquisly mix together fake quotes, or out-of-context quotes, with genuine quotes to make it seem like some famous people support their ideas."

The definition of quote-mining is "taking quotes out of context." My statement about being accused of quote-mining was directly in response to your accusation that I took quotes out of context. You accused me of quote mining, Joey, but presented no evidence of quote mining: only accusations.

In response to Joey's accusation about #244, I did not introduce the term "quote-mining" in #244, rather I simply posted a quote on another topic by a leftist named Donald Prothero who just happen to accused creationists of quote-mining within the same quote. But there was no mention of quote-mining by me. Joey lied.

In #397, Joey clearly quote-mined (massacred) my statement in order to easily dismiss it.

You are a deceiver, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "I picked up your term and threw it back at you, where it seemed appropriate, and now you suddenly complain of being the victim here?"

You can't remember your own lies, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Here's the truth: you've done a good job with your quotes and I appreciate that, but you also obviously use word searches to quote mine in books like Shermer's "Denying History" to make it sound like his work there was more about evolution and "right winger" conservatives than it was the Holocaust. I merely called you out for that."

The minute Shermer strayed from the theme of the Holocaust and introduced his personal agenda, he was discredited. It was particularly troubling to me that he virtually ignored the political left and their blatant anti-semitism; and the few times he couldn't, he served as their apologist. Rather, he promoted the theme that holocaust denial is a characteristic of the right-wing, and even labeled Neo-Nazis as right wing, which is a lie.

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

>>Kalamata: "Now, compare Joey's quotes. He primarily copy/pastes from other websites, including the left-leaning Wikipedia, without a clue whether they are reliable, or not. When challenged, he dumps a load of "fish heads" (e.g., a long list of links to research papers) to stink up the place; not at all for edification, but rather as "punishment" for challenging him. It certainly makes life easier for Joey, but much more difficult for those seeking the truth."
>>Joey said: "Naw, you got it all wrong. First of all, something like 1/3 of my effort goes into simply making my posts look presentable -- i.e., correcting typographical mistakes, adding links & pictures, etc. Second, the quotes I post, regardless of source, almost always represent what I first learned in school or from some study in the years since. I post them as quotes so you can see they are not just my opinions, but also represent "conventional wisdom". >>Joey said: "Third, please understand, because of my long-past debates with Holocaust deniers, I fully understand how you guys work -- you redefine terms such that only something impossible can "prove" it, "common descent" for example."

There you go again, slandering me with innuendo. I realize I rocked your world by challenging your dogmatic assertions about evolution, and I understand that you saw your life-long dream of being Mr. Big Shot crumbling before your very eyes. But I didn't understand at first why you felt the need to resort to slander of such a vicious nature? Only Leftists do that. Now I know.

Regarding my request that you show proof of common descent, there is nothing out of the ordinary about that question. I am a scientist, so I was trained to know what is and is not science, and to seek answers to things I don't know or understand. One of the key things I have been taught is, if there is no evidence, it is not science.

Evidence can take several forms: it can be mathematical, observable, or historical, which is an inferential form of "observable." The chief cornerstone of Darwin's theory of evolution is "common descent;" yet to date there is no evidence to support it. Without evidence for common descent, evolution is not science.

One of the open secrets of being a successful lawyer is: never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. That is also true in a debate. I asked you to provide evidence of common descent to see how you would respond. I already knew the answer.

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

>>Joey said: "Well, nobody can truly "prove" what cannot be observed, that's why it's evolution theory, but the observed facts do include hundreds of thousands of fossil species which can indeed be lined up to show transitional forms, and yet deniers refuse to see even the facts, much less the whole theory."

In all the pictures you posted, Joey, you never posted a lineup of transitional fossils. You included several pictures of art work and museum mockups that resemble transitional lines, but those are imaginary -- they are not the fossils! Without the fossils, it is impossible to tell if someone is lying, or not; and evolutionists have a dark history of fraud and deceit when it comes to fossils.

The truth is, there are no transitional lines in the fossil record, Joey. There are only distinct species.

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

>>Kalamata: "You see, I don't need a research assistant, Joey (nor could I afford one.) I use the Research Library to store, index, and footnote my personal library, which includes about 8 years of research on the religion of evolutionism, and perhaps 50 years of research on history, including constitutional history. I also had a minor in Psychology/Sociology while in college, so I include those subjects in my library, as well."
>>Joey said: "I'm impressed, I have nothing remotely resembling that, so in due time, when my brain begins to fail, whatever rational thought I've had will also fail, nothing much to fall back on."
>>Joey said: "Anyway, my "theory of the crime" regarding Kalamata has been your wife as "research assistant" did honest work while Danny-boy concentrated on insults, mockery and lies."

I am a counter-puncher, Joey. I only insult those who insult me. Refrain from insulting others, and perhaps they will return the favor.

My wife is neither a scientist nor a historian, so she wouldn't be of any help, even if she wanted to. She is focused on politics and justice.

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

>>Kalamata: "One other point: I can store and index every forum post, such as this one, with the URL, so that I can quickly perform multiple-word searches, such as, "BroJoeK paranoid wife," which instantly found the above quote from #397."
>>Joey said: "Truly, I notice and appreciate things like that."

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey, if you were not so intensely focused on trying to shut down debate with your treacherous slander and your silly, childish "rules," perhaps my posts would be less confusing to you. For example, in #247, you could have simply asked, "What is historical science?" Instead of taken the "let's find out the truth" route, your posts are generally comprised of little more than "you disagreed with me, so you must be destroyed." That is sick, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Naw, again you misunderstand. I have no doubt the term "historical sciences" was coined innocently enough by real scientists to refer to such studies as geology and archaeology. However, the first time I ever heard it used was in that 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. Ham used "historical science" disparagingly dozens of times to describe evolution studies and equate them to "creation science" as if the name "historical" made them equally scientific!"

I saw that debate on Youtube, and Ken's use of the phrase, historical science, was accurate, as follows:

Bill Nye & Ken Ham, Creation vs Evolution

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

>>Joey said: "Since I have no desire to let dishonest creationists weaponize language against truth, I object to that term "historical science"."

I object to your objection. If evolution was science, it would be a historical science, whether you like it or not.

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

>>Kalamata: "It is not a problem unless you have an anti-Bible, anti-science agenda, Joey. Even your hero, the devout atheist and anti-Christian bigot Michael Shermer has no problems with the term "historical science":"
>>Joey said: "Really? Well... first, where other than PJ Goebbels Propaganda University do they teach you such dishonest Denier Tactics?"

LOL! I quoted Shermer, Joey. Those are his words! Here it is again:

"Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science." [Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things; Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." Henry Holt and Company, 2002, p.142]

Note that Shermer said Evolutionary Biology is a valid and legitimate historical science. I certainly don't agree that evolution is science, but Shermer recognizes the importance of labeling it a historical science (that is, if evolutionists wish to continue to fool the masses.)

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

>>Joey said: "Second, sure, the term "historical science" is, or at least was, a legitimate term, imho, until weaponized by people like Ham & Kalamata to equate real science with phony-baloney "creation science" or "intelligent design".

You are confused, Joey. Neither Ken Ham nor I consider evolution to be science, historical or otherwise; pseudoscience, perhaps, but not science.

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

>>Kalamata: "I can't let you get away with that, Joey. You are attempting to confound myth and faith, with science. But, science, historical or not, requires empirical evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for a global flood, which was widely believed by scientists until the slick rhetoric of the lawyer named Charles Lyell "won the day" in the 1800's. Now, 150 years or so later, there is still no supporting evidence for Lyell's "geology:" only a collection of just-so stories and myths, but I repeat myself."
>>Joey said: "Near as I can tell and so far as I know, every word, without exception of your post here is an absolute propaganda lie."

The truth is not in you, Joey. That is why you have trouble recognizing the truth.

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

>>Joey said: "Out of kindness I'd wonder if possibly you even believe it, but from your overall tone & demeanor I think far more likely that you went to Goebbels' Propaganda school where they taught you to lie big, lie often and lie with passion. Do that enough and your lies become magically true, so they claim."

Joey! I am not like you! I don't lie.

Most of my original knowledge about evolution came from college coursework; but it was sparse. If you are not in one of the evolutionary fields (e.g., evolutionary biology, paleontology, etc.,) the word evolution rarely if ever comes up in school, or during your career. After rejecting evolution, I began a research program that targeted books and papers written by secular, evolutionary scientists. Later, I learned about creation science and Intelligent Design, which solidified my understanding.

Check this video segment on the fossil record by Jerry Bergman:

The Fossil Record

Dr. Bergman's 2017 book, Fossil Forensics: Separating Fact from Fantasy in Paleontology, is a good, readable book on the fossil record.

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

>>Kalamata: "The Biblical "kind", which the great scientist Linnaeus ranked above the level of genus, and which we now call "family," has been shown over and over again, even in the fossil record, to be the genetic boundary of all species. That is exactly what the Bible predicts."
>>Joey said: "Naw, real science has never found such a "boundary" only ever species, genera, etc. with different calculated times to their last common ancestors."

That is all speculation, Joey. There is no evidence of evolution by any organism. To the contrary, the fields of Genetics and Cellular Biology are finally catching up with reality, as explained in this article (there is also a good history lesson in this article):

The Darwinian Regime Can’t Hide Emerging Clues to Life’s Design.

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey continues to smear me as a liar, but he had no evidence, other than imaginary "evidence" the Left typically resorts to, which is, "He disagrees with me, so he must be lying.""
>>Joey said: "No, it's far more than that, my evidence is: so many of your posts are so blatantly, outrageously false, it would be impossible for even you to believe them."

I am a scientist, Joey, so I follow the evidence. It is not my fault the evidence destroys your world view; it is yours for believing such nuttiness.

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

>>Joey said: "Therefore I conclude that, like any GD Democrat, you are driven by malice & hatred to cast whatever aspersions come to your mind."

That is quite a statement from someone who slandered me as a liar and a Holocaust denier using Far-Left smear tactics.

Kalamata

>>Kalamata post #448: "You gotta quit quoting Wikipedia, Joey, if you want to be taken seriously?{sigh}"
>>Joey said: "Seriously, Wikipedia mostly just repeats what I first learned in school or studied since. It is usually just our "conventional wisdom" based on standard sources. I use it to illustrate that my opinions are not just personal, but are based on what "everybody knows", when that is indeed the case. A lot of what I quote from Wikipedia can also be found, with vastly more time-consuming effort, on other sites. But unlike those other sites, Wikipedia loads quickly, is free of clutter, free of popups and other advertisements, and never crashes my old computer. Finally, it is generally well referenced to standard sources. Of course, none of that makes Wikipedia necessarily the last word on any subject, but it is often a good place to begin."

Wikipedia is a left-leaning organization that censures or mischaracterizes anything coming from the right, including special creation and intelligent design. These words are found under "Creationism":

"Since the 1970s, the commonest form of this has been young Earth creationism which posits special creation of the universe and lifeforms within the last 10,000 years on the basis of Flood geology, and promotes pseudoscientific creation science."
"Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view."

What does anyone at Wikipedia know about science and pseudoscience? Probably nothing.

The truth is, evolution is pseudoscience masquerading as science, but you will never read that in Wikipedia, or at least not for very long.

Link: Wikipedia on Creationism.

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

>>Kalamata on the definition of evolution: "Now everyone can plainly see what I have been saying. Evolution, to the anti-God types, "proves" everything! Evolution is their god!"
>>Joey said: "Complete nonsense. Seriously, FRiend, what are you smoking or drinking? Your response here is not even remotely rational."

LOL! I was going to ask you the same question after you made these loony statements in #442:

"Evolution by definition is any change, period. Complexification, devolution, or something as simple as a moth changing colors -- sideways evolution. It's all evolution/adaptation, regardless of how much you hate it and wish it to go away." [Joey #442]

It appears Joey has invented the "Theory of Everything." LOL!

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

>>Kalamata: "You do not understand evolution, Joey. There is no such thing as "sideways evolution." Evolution, by definition, requires an increase in genetic information; otherwise, common descent is impossible."
>>Joey said: "And now you're just babbling incoherent nonsense, childishly inventing word definitions which never existed. Here are some actual definitions of the word "evolution":

This will be interesting . . .

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

>>Joey quoting Webster: "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...

That IS a very good definition of evolution, Joey. Where can I find your definition in that one?

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

>>Joey quoting Webster (again?): "the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization) "

That is a weak definition because common descent is not emphasized.

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

>>Joey quoting Dictionary.com: "Biology -- change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

That IS NOT the definition of evolution. A definition of evolution MUST include and emphasize common descent.

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

>>Joey quoting Wikipedia: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]"
>>Joey quoting Wikipedia (again): "Many biologists used to believe that evolution was progressive (orthogenesis) and had a direction that led towards so-called "higher organisms," despite a lack of evidence for this viewpoint.[5] This idea of "progression" and "higher organisms" in evolution is now regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.[6] Although there has been an increase in the maximum level of complexity over the history of life, there has always been a large majority of small and simple organisms and the most common level of complexity appears to have remained relatively constant. "

Those are NOT definitions of evolution. (I warned you about Wikipedia, Joey!)

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

>>Joey quoting Collins: "Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics. ...the evolution of plants and animals."
>>Joey quoting Biology on line: "(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. (2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny."

Those are NOT definitions of evolution.

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

>>Joey said: "In other words, by definitions: evolution is any change, whether it includes complexification or not."

LOL! You are clueless. Common descent is the part of evolutionary theory that distinguishes it from special creation. Special Creation emphasizes change over time, with the restriction that a species is confined within the genetic barriers or boundaries of its family (Bible: created "kind".) If common descent were true, a species could descend into multiple families, which has never been observed in any manner: only imagined.

This is the theory defined by Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne, which includes common descent (highlighted):

"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, Chap 1, p.3]

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

>>Kalamata: "Without common descent, evolution fits the special creation narrative, whereby created organism multiply after their respective families, or "kinds." It is okay for you to hijack special creation, Joey; but please don't call it evolution."
>>Joey said: "'Special creation' is a nonsense non-scientific term created by anti-scientists to confuse the unwary."

There is no doubt among real scientists that evolution is nonsense. Your definition -- "evolution is any change" -- is an example of "bait and switch." You watered down the real definition of evolution (by excluding common descent) to make evolution believable to the naive. In the process, you rendered evolution unfalsifiable, e.g., NOT science. LOL!

For the record, common descent has never been observed in any way, shape or form. Therefore, evolution is pseudoscience -- a faith-based religion.

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

>>Joey said: "So let's review a summary of taxonomic categories: The complete listing, including sub-groups for, say, human beings is 26 taxonomic categories, of which 20 come before "family" and five after:"

You have to believe the evolutionism timeline of millions of years and hundreds of feet of sand deposition, followed by millions of years and hundreds of feet of limestone deposition, followed by millions of years and hundreds of feet of shale mud deposition, and so forth, to believe the millions-of-years dates Joey provided.

On this chart you will see what I am talking about. Each named section is typically hundreds of feet thick (middle column,) and of the SAME MATERIAL (left column,) supposedly deposited over millions of years (right column.) Those "layers" can spread over most of the earth.

Think about what you are seeing! How is that even possible over millions of years without serious mixing, contamination and erosion of the layers?

Now consider that there are many more layers like them above the Grand Canyon, and most layers, including the top most layers, contain marine fossils, world-wide. Many of the marine clams are in the closed position, indicating they were buried rapidly, while the clams were still alive. If those layers are not the result of a global flood, then how were they formed? I cannot imagine any other way.

When I examined the strata for the first time, about 8 years ago, I abandoned uniformitarianism and evolution. I was in my 60's at the time.

Summarizing, God miraculously created all of the plant and animal kinds (families) during the week of creation. The fossils are remnants of plants and animals buried during the global flood that God sent a couple of thousand years later, as are the thick sedimentary layers found world-wide. The land animals you see today are those that were on the ark, such as dogs, cats, lizards, turtles, deer, bears, etc..

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

>>Joey said: "Today there are thought to be 5,000 animal families worldwide, 156 of them mammals."

The land animals are still with us today because they were saved on the ark along with Noah and his family.

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

>>Joey said: "So let's pause here: from 2.1 billion years ago to 18 million we find fossils in 20 descending taxonomic categories before reaching what Linnaeus called "family" and which Kalamata tells us is the Biblical "kind".

Joey is deceiving you. The earth is no more than about 7,500 years old using the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint,) and about 6,000 years old with the Hebrew text. Taxonomic categories are composed only of the created kinds, arranged according to the whims of the categorizer.

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

>>Joey said: "Do we claim that each new sub-category was "Intelligently Designed" independently, without reference to preceding categories? Or do we notice that each new category was somewhat more complex, from our perspective more advanced that what came before?"

Neither. Each kind (or family) was created by our creator with all the genetic material necessary to multiply into many varieties.

For example, there are many potential varieties of the canidae kind, all of which came from a single pair, The kind produced a recognizable subgroup of a dozen or more genera. The classifications are confusing, but in general, these are some, if not most of the genera:

Through natural and intelligent breeding, the genus "domestic" has multiplied into these varieties, and many more:

Those vary from the tiny Chihuahua to the huge Great Dane (and don't forget Clifford!) If you saw those for the first time as fossils, rather than as living animals, you might be led to believe they were not related..

When God commanded the animals to "be fruitful and multiply," he had already given them the tools necessary to carry out that command (e.g., the gene pool, cellular machinery, life, etc..)

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

>>Joey said: "Today there are about 450,000 animal species, 6,000 of them mammals. My point in this exercise is to illustrate that your selection of 5,000 taxonomic "families" to equal Biblical "kinds" is not just arbitrary, but also it leaves a lot of room for alleged "micro-evolution" to produce hundreds of thousands of new species, genera, tribes, etc."

That is reasonable with respect to land animals. Each of the individual land animal kinds that walked off the Ark multiplied according to the potential varieties God originally coded into them. This short video explains:

Created Kinds (Baraminology)

This page explains classification:

Classifying Life

Special creation is the reason each kind remains distinct from other kinds. The term "micro-evolution" is a misuse of the word "evolution" since there has been NO increase in genetic information at any time.

BTW, your chart of Human Evolution is silly.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata post #448 cont. 2: "You really should read Professor Behe's books, Joey." I have been reading my copyright 1989, 1993 (sixth printing 2005) 2nd edition "Of Pandas and People". >>Joey said: "Contributors include Davis, Kenyon, Thaxton, Hartwig and Meyer. Behe is not mentioned in the Book, that I can find, but iirc he was prominent at the trial."

Dr. Michael Behe was one of the many critical reviewers listed under "Acknowledgements" on page iii.

Now that you mentioned him, Dr. Charles Thaxton, PhD Chemistry, is co-author of "Mystery of Life's Origin", with a Foreword by Dr. Dean Kenyon. Dr. Stephen Meyer mentioned Thaxton in this short segment:

What did Dr. Charles Thaxton Contribute to the Origin of Life Debate?

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

>>Joey said: "So this may be as good a place as any to list some general comments on it: The book is roughly 30 years out of date, meaning some of its questions have been answered, others have "moved on" to other grounds of contention based on new discoveries, for example: "junk DNA"."

What does it say about Junk DNA, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "The book notices that "some people" disagree with Old Earth timelines, but makes no attempts to review or adjudicate the question. Generally it seems to have no problems with Old Earth geology. There is no mention I could find of Noah's flood."

The book "Of Pandas and People" is about Intelligent Design vs Common Descent.

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

>>Joey said: "Unlike Kalamata, the book is reasonably respectful of science and scientists -- there is no mocking derision, no insults or name-calling, no redefining science as "religion" (though hints in that direction), no harping on alleged "frauds", no blaming of Darwin for the Holocaust, etc."

Joey should not be whining about insults or name-calling by others. That is his stock-in-trade.

Unlike Joey, and atheistic evolutionists generally, the book is respectful of science and scientists -- there is no mocking and insulting traditional creationists, no redefining science as "methodological materialism," no labeling those who reject evolutionism as holocaust deniers, no patronizing just-so stories, ..., no Joey tactics.

It is difficult to pick up a book by an evolutionist, including text books, that does not mock real scientists who trust the Genesis foundation of the scripture. It is rare to find a good high-school level science book, like "Of Pandas and People," that treats real scientists fairly.

For a good video on Smithsonian ape-to-man fakery, try this one that shows how the mockups are highly embellished to make them appear to be transitional:

Smithsonian's Fake Hominids

It is absolutely criminal that no evolutionist of any stature has called out the Smithsonian and other museums on their fakery. The author of the video, Dr. Stephen Blume, wrote this about another video on so-called apes-to-man evolution:

"So much fun making cartoons about how man evolved from apes. That’s the only evidence that that happened: cartoons. Mankind had to increase their brain size from 40 billion neurons to 100 billion neurons, plus add tens of thousands of dendrite connections to each neuron in 500,000 years or so. So let’s do the math: evolution had to add about 500,000 neurons per generation from 700,000 years ago to make the brain of modern man. Plus about 2.4 billion dendrite connections. Plus add 500,000 glial cells, cells that support brain neurons. Plus add thousands of miles of blood vessels, plus…And then when the human brain was just the right size, evolution had to come to a dead stop. Oh, it also had to add intelligence and human consciousness. . . Reality is we have no idea what our source is. And we probably never will. But we can sure make up some incredible fables."
[From the comments of: How to Tell Ape from Human Bones]

Stephen has written three books on evolution: The DNA Delusion, Evo-Illusion, and the Evo-Illusion of Man:

Books by Stephen Blume

I have DNA Delusion in my library, and it is quite good.

For the record, Stephen is definitely not a creationist. It appears he is agnostic.

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

>>Joey said: "The arguments seem to me all standard Creationism under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" and boil down to a few short phrases: "Science doesn't know everything." "Science can get it wrong." "No transitional forms." "No common descent". "No complexification." "Irreducible complexity."

All of those are true, Joey. Do you have trouble with the truth?

I do not believe you are being candid. If you were, you would be providing page numbers and quotes, like this one:

"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." [Davis & Kenyon, "Of Pandas and People: the central question of biological origins." Haughton Publishing Company, 2nd Ed, 1993, p.161]

I get it! In your protected snowflake bubble there can be no criticism of Darwin's Dumb Luck theory, or your kind will call in the federal troops to suppress free speech and free exercise of religion.

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

>>Joey said: "Therefore, they say, "Intelligent Design"."

. . . as opposed to "mind-bogglingly-complex life forms evolved by Dumb Luck," which the evolutionism thugs force-feeds out children under the pretense of science.

This is a short video segment on the astonishing operations within the Cell:

Unlocking the Mystery of Life

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

>>Kalamata: "Then, as I have been saying all along, evolution is not science. The great journalist Melanie Phillips [from 2010] explained it in more scholarly terms:
>>Kalamata quoting Philips: "But by seeking to colonize another sphere of thinking altogether, the Darwinists have overreached themselves with disastrous results. Trying to use science to prove that religion is irrational, they have instead made science irrational by making grandiose claims for evolution that are not backed up by evidence..."
>>Joey said: "Complete rubbish! In fact, evolution theory is the only entirely natural explanation, making it the only one which is truly scientific. Every other suggestion (i.e., "Intelligent Design") requires supernatural interventions and those by definition are not natural-science.

There is nothing scientific about Dumb Luck; yet Dumb Luck is the sum total of "science" in Charlie Darwin's nutty theory. The rest is imaginary over-extrapolation of observable science, which is not science, but pseudoscience. Of course, so is Dumb Luck.

It would be nice if there was some solid evidence for common descent, but there is none to be found on earth. Without "common descent," the remaining claims about evolution -- adaptation, speciation, etc.. -- are the same as those for Special Creation.

The bottom line is, Charlie hijacked Special Creation by pretending he was smarter than God, while knowing there was a large reservoir of useful idiots that would believe him, instead of God's Word.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is a red herring: more of "the absence of evidence is evidence" pseudoscience. Animals tend to segregate, even today. Besides, fossilization only proves that plants and animals were quickly buried by sediment, which is deposited during flooding. During global flooding, hydrologically sorting of plants, animals and sediment would occur."
>>Joey said: "And so you explain the "sorting" of dinosaurs from elephants, whales from plesiosaurs and Alley Oop from Pterosaurs how, exactly?"

I am not sure about the Alley Oop part. Cartoons are your specialty. But it is a scientific/engineering fact that everything loose -- everything not attached -- will hydrodynamically sort during a flood. During a gravitational/tidal flood, there will also be a certain degree of liquifaction, which enhances sorting dynamics.

This is one experiment that you will never hear about in an atheist geology class:

Evolution - Fact or Belief - Geology - Stratification - Sedimentary Layering

It is highly recommended you watch the entire video. When you do, you will understand why I rejected uniformitarianism and evolution based on a first-time analysis of the geologic column.

This is the lab experiment portion of the video:

Fundamental Experiments in Stratification

The lab scientist, Dr. Pierre Julien, has written a highly-technical graduate-level text book on this subject called "Erosion and Sedimentation."

This is a detailed paper by Guy Berthault on sedimentology:

Analysis of Main Principles of Stratigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data

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

>>Kalamata: "How about a Coelacanth, Joey? Fossils of those large fish are found below and within the dinosaur layers, but not in the layers above. According to your logic, the Coelacanth should be extinct! But it is alive and well in the Indian Ocean, 65 million years after supposedly becoming extinct!"
>>Joey said: "So let's see if I understand your logic here? You say 65 million years of lack of fossil evidence for Coelacanths is evidence they should be considered non-extinct, even if no "living fossils" were ever found?"

My point is, according to the evolutionist, everything is evidence of evolution. If fossils are found, that is evidence of evolution. If fossils are not found, that is evidence of evolution. If the Pope is Catholic, that is evidence of evolution. And so forth . . .

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

>>Joey said: "Another important discovery made from the genome sequencing is that the coelacanths are still evolving today (but at a relatively slow rate). While they were initially thought to be a prehistoric species that remained unchanged over millions of years, the discovery that they are still evolving, albeit slowly, causes some to question whether "living fossil" is an appropriate descriptor.[41] "

Joey is right-on-time with another just-so story! LOL!

All individuals within a species are different from every other individual within the species. But they will never "stray" from their family -- there will be no "cross-overs" from one family (or, "kind") to another. That is the way God designed the genome, and that is what real scientists observe.

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

>>Kalamata: "How do you explain blood, soft tissue, and possibly even DNA being found in dinosaur bones, Joey? How do you explain the many dinosaur bones that have been tested and found to contain significant amounts of Carbon 14?"
>>Joey said: "No dino-DNA has yet been identified in fossils, but some "soft tissue" (i.e., collagen) can survive long periods if specially preserved."

You forgot to mention that proteins such as hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin have also been found. Nor did you mention that DNA was found, but not verified as dinosaur DNA. However, in 2012, Mary Schweitzer et al. found DNA, and was reasonably sure she ruled-out contamination by microbial DNA:

"Evidence for DNA: Extant osteocytes contain DNA, required for production of proteins involved in bone maintenance. We have shown localized binding of antibodies to DNA, and positive reactivity to PI and DAPI, two histochemical stains for DNA, to internal regions of 'cells' from each dinosaur, though signal is greatly reduced from that seen in extant cells. More importantly, antibodies to DNA bind dinosaur 'cells' in an identical pattern to the histochemical stains, and completely different from antibodies to actin, tubulin and PHEX. Antibody and histochemical staining indicate the presence of material within dinosaur 'cells' that is chemically and structurally consistent with DNA. That this is eukaryotic DNA is supported by recovery of histone H4 sequence (Table 1 and Supplemental Fig. S3D–H), and the binding of antibodies to histone H4 in the same pattern as DNA antibodies and histochemical stains (Supplemental Fig. S5). This DNA-binding protein is not found in microbes, thus a microbial source for these microstructures is not supported. It is highly doubtful that contaminant DNA from exogenous sources would localize to a single point inside these cell-like microstructures, and not in other regions." [Schweitzer et al, "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Elsevier, Bone 52 (2013), 2012, p.421]

The rearchers covered their evolutionary behinds by adding this:

"These data are not sufficient to support the claim that DNA visualized in these cells is dinosaurian in origin; only sequence data can testify to its source. However, these data suggest that affinity purification using antibodies may provide a means of recovering and concentrating sufficient amounts of DNA to be useful for next generation genomic sequencing. Because only about 15%–20% of cells from the dinosaurs reacted positively, and because reactivity that was observed was minimal relative to extant cells, there may be insufficient DNA present to validate its origin by current sequencing technology." [Schweitzer et al, "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Elsevier, Bone 52 (2013), 2012, p.421]

The fact remains, there was DNA present inside fossilized Dino bones.

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

>>Joey said: "Life can be hardy, for example, in some salt mines dated as hundreds of millions of years old they found dead bacteria in the salt which, when water was added, came back to life, swimming & reproducing happily, possibly the oldest living things on Earth."

There are no millions-of-years-old salt mines. The millions-of-years narrative is a myth.

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

>>Joey said: "As for alleged carbon-14, unless proven otherwise, I'd suppose that was some form of contamination."

Contamination? Inside diamonds? LOL! The truth is, the presence of C-14 in diamonds and fossils is well known, but is dismissed by evolutionists under the false pretense of "contamination," every time!

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

>>Kalamata: "Your religion of evolution claims that all creatures are products of common descent. Show us evidence of common descent."
>>Joey said: "Well... first, here are some definitions of "religion": Oxford: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." blah, blah, blah.

Evolution is a faith-based religion. Even devout evolutionists have claimed it is a religion. This is philosopher of science Michael Ruse:

"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]
"Was the progressivist coloring of Wrights theory a deep embarrassment to these American supporters of the synthetic theory of evolution (as they labeled their project)? Had progress become a phylogenetic relic in science, like the appendix? Absolutely not. To a person, all of the new, professional, American evolutionists were ardent progressionists, and for most of them that was precisely why they had been attracted to evolutionary studies in the first place. Like Cuvier over a hundred years before, they realized that for professional reasons they had to play the game of being culture-value-free, otherwise there would be no grants, no prestigious university posts, no students, no respect. Evolution was their profession. But evolutionism was their obsession." [Ruse, Michael, "The Evolution–Creation Struggle." Harvard University Press, 2005, Chap 9, p.187]
"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." [Ibid. Chap 10, pp.212-213]

This is paleontologist Colin Patterson comparing evolutionism to creationism by the evolutionist appeal to mystery:

"There are two points. to be made there. The first concerns another of the parallels between evolutionism and creationism. Back in 1974, Mayr appealed to the genotype as the holder to true knowledge. At that time the genotype was still very much a mystery. Now that we have samples of a genotype from a wide variety of organisms it's no longer quite so mysterious, its dropped and a new mystery is proposed, Broca's center and that long list of unspecified autapomorphies of man. It seems that just like creationists, evolutionists are liable to appeal to mystery." [Patterson, Colin, "Speech at the American Museum of Natural History New York." American Museum of Natural History, 1981]

Physicist Henry Lipson likened evolution to a faith-based scientific religion:

"Religious people disliked [evolution] because it appeared to dispense with God; scientists liked it because it seemed to solve the most important problem in the universe- the existence of living matter. In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it." [Lipson, Henry S., "A Physicist Looks At Evolution, A Physicist Looks At Evolution." Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 4, May, 1980, p.138]

This is Julian Huxley on evolution as a religion:

"I find myself inevitably driven to use the language of religion. For the fact is that all this does add up to something in the nature of a religion: perhaps one might call it Evolutionary Humanism. The word 'religion' is often used restrictively to mean belief in gods; but I am not using it in this sense—I certainly do not want to see man erected into the position of a god, as happened with many individual human beings in the past and is happening still today. I am using it in a broader sense, to denote an overall relation between man and his destiny, and one involving his deepest feelings, including his sense of what is sacred. In this broad sense, evolutionary humanism, it seems to me, is capable of becoming the germ of a new religion, not necessarily supplanting existing religions but supplementing them. " [The Human Phase, in, Huxley, Julian, "Evolution In Action." Harper & Brothers, 1st Ed, 1953, Chap 6, pp.171-172]

Philosopher Paul Feyerbend labels science, itself, as a religious institution, and asserts that a "separation of science and state" is in order:

"Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be supplemented by the separation of state and science that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized." [Paul Feyerabend, "Against Method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge." The Thetford Press Ltd, 1978, p.295]

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

>>Joey said: "ID/Creationism is, by definition, religion, natural science is not."

Evolution has its own supernatural creation story, Joey. It is called Magic!

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

>>Joey said: "As for evidence of common descent: the entire collected fossil record, including innumerable "transitional forms", plus the entire DNA data base of global species, including innumerable shared & similar alleles, are evidences suggesting common descent."

No, Joey. In none of those you will find so much as a whisper of common descent. For that reason you must resort to generalities to trick the naive into believing you.

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

>>Joey said: "Here is a short but useful video on this very question."

That video is based on just-so stories, Joey. There is not a shred of evidence for common descent to be found in it. In fact, in the first minute the narrator told this shamless lie:

"All modern organisms are descended from one original species; and while in its simplest form there's a genetic linear progression that branches and forms a tree like pattern, common descent is not restricted to this linear pattern." ["Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent." Youtube, Feb 15, 2010, time = 0:16]

There are data points ONLY at the nodes and branches. Everything else is inference. Read it from an expert:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory.

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks."
[The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change (Reprinted from Natural History 86:5, 'Evolution's Erratic Pace', May 1977, p.14), in Stephen Jay Gould, "The Panda's Thumb." W. W. Norton & Company, 1980, Chap.17, p.181]

Make note of Gould's obligatory kiss of Charlie Darwin's ring in the next to the last sentence.

The most shameless lie, among a myriad of lies in the video, is probably this one:

"If it is to be called science, it must be testable; and for almost 150 years the research community has done every test imaginable to examine evolution and common descent; and for 150 years not a single test has ever failed to validate that all life on Earth comes from one common ancestor." ["Facts Of Evolution: Universal Common Descent." Youtube, Feb 15, 2010, time = 1:35]

That is mockery of science. All it proves is: indoctrination trumps science and logic.

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

>>Kalamata: "More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey? Is that all you have?"
>>Joey said: "Handwaving & mockery, is that all you have Danny boy?

I don't have to hand-wave, Joey. Evidence for special creation is overwhelming: in life itself, in the fossil record, in the geologic column, and in DNA. I have identified each of those evidences in this thread, and you either mocked them, resorted to hand-waving, or simply dismissed them outright.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. I simply want to see evidence for common descent. There is none, Joey. It is a fairy tale."
>>Joey said: "Right, in exactly the same sense that a Holocaust denier can find "no evidence" of the Holocaust, even in a Holocaust museum!"

There you go again! I ask for evidence, and Joey slanders me with innuendo. Deceptive little fellow, isn't he?

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

>>Joey said: "I know just how you people work, it's denial on the grandest of scales, to look evidence straight on and still claim it's not there."

I have never denied scientific evidence, Joey. If I had never seen evidence contradicting uniformitarianism and an old-earth, I will still be an evolutionist.

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

>>Kalamata: "LOL! In this very post you prove what I wrote, Joey. You said: [Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period."
>>Joey said: "Which is also how any dictionary defines evolution -- see my post #585 above."

Okay, let's look. This is Joey quoting Webster's definition of evolution in #585:

"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..."

Where does that say evolution is "any change"?

That is an accurate definition, Joey, because it includes common descent. If you leave out common descent, you are left with Special Creation, no matter what you call it.

Another trade secret of evolution is the watering-down of the definition of evolution over the years due to the absence of evidence for common descent. For example, this is Collins Dictionary from Joey's list in #585:

"Evolution is a process of gradual change that takes place over many generations, during which species of animals, plants, or insects slowly change some of their physical characteristics. ...the evolution of plants and animals."

Creationists have no problem with that definition, except for the word "evolution" itself. There is no such thing as evolution, only gene pool stasis and devolution. We object to false claims by evolutionists of common descent. That would require an increase in genetic information, which is theoretically impossible, many times over.

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

>>Joey said: "Your problem is that you hate it so badly, like any Lefitst, you busy-beaver yourself redefining terms and changing rules until your "reality" more suits your own desires for it."

I had no problem with evolution for most of my long life, Joey, until I learned it was based on a lie.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Patterson 1999: "Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test."
>>Joey said: "That's a total lie which, if true, would prevent Crime Scene Investigation from presenting evidence in court to convict perpetrators "beyond reasonable doubt". Defense lawyers would only have to claim: "it's not science, can't prove it"."

Joey must think he is the smartest person on earth; or at least he thinks he is smarter than every PhD evolutionary scientist I have quoted in this thread. The late Colin Patterson was a famous British paleontologist. This the full quote from the 1st edition of his book, "Evolution":

"The difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist is, in Popper's view, that the first will look for the most severe tests of his theories, and will not take evasive action if they fail those tests, while the pseudoscientist will look for evidence confirming his ideas and, if he feels his theory is threatened, may avoid refutation by erecting subsidiary, defensive theories around it... If we accept Popper's distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical).... Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test. Historians cannot predict the future (or are deluded when they try to), and they cannot explain the past, but only interpret it. And there is no decisive way of testing their alternative interpretations. For the same reasons, evolutionary biologists can make no predictions about the future evolution of any particular species, and they cannot explain past evolution, but only produce interpretations, or stories, about it." [Colin Patterson, "Evolution." Comstock Publishing Associates, 1999, Chap 12, pp. 145-146]

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "One other point, Joey: adaptation is not evolution."
>>Joey said: "Only in your own fantasy world of lies & make-believe. In the real world evolution begins at the point of descent with modifications and natural (or directed) selection."

There is no such thing as evolution, Joey. It is a "fairy tale for grownups."

Mr. Kalamata

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

That is called adaptation and speciation, not evolution. Evolution requires an increase in genetic information. There is no gain in genetic information in either adaptation or speciation.

**********

>>Joey said: "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."

Same thing. No gain in genetic information, and therefore no evolution.

**********

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

Same thing. No gain in genetic information, and therefore no evolution.

One of the most neglected research areas by evolutionists (and for "good" reason) is the research began by Eric Davidson and Roy Britten on Gene Regulatory Networks. When the embryotic cell begins to divide, the newly formed cells end up as skin, heart muscle, bone, retinas, and other specialized body parts. How does it know?

The coding portion of the genome contains the "blueprints" for new proteins; but that is only a small portion of the genome. The remainder (once foolishly called "Junk DNA",) or at least some of it, has been shown to provide the mechanism for cell differentiation. This is Davidson and Britten back in 1969:

"Cell differentiation is based almost certainly on the regulation of gene activity, so that for each state of differentiation a certain set of genes is active in transcription and other genes are inactive. The establishment of this concept (1) has depended on evidence indicating that the cells of an organism generally contain identical genomes (2). Direct support for the idea that regulation of gene activity underlies cell differentiation comes from evidence that much of the genome in higher cell types is inactive (3) and that different ribonucleic acids (RNA) are synthesized in different cell types (4).
"Little is known, however, of the molecular mechanisms by which gene expression is controlled in differentiated cells. As far as we are aware no theoretical concepts have been advanced which provide an interpretation of certain of the salient features of genomic structure and function in higher organisms. We consider here experimental evidence relating to these features. (i) Change in state of differentiation in higher cell types is often mediated by simple external signals, as, for example, in the action of hormones or embryonic inductive agents. (ii) A given state of differentiation tends to require the integrated activation of a very large number of noncontiguous genes. (iii) There exists a significant class of genomic sequences which are transcribed in the nuclei of higher cell types but appear to be absent from cytoplasmic RNA's. (iv) The genome present in higher cell types is extremely large, compared to that in bacteria. (v) This genome differs strikingly from the bacterial genome due to the presence of large fractions of repetitive nucleotide sequences which are scattered throughout the genome. (vi) Furthermore, these repetitive sequences are transcribed in differentiated cells according to cell type-specific patterns."
[Britten & Davidson, "Gene Regulation for Higher Cells - A Theory. Science." Science, Vol.165, Iss.3891; July 25, 1969, p.349]

Stephen Meyer made me aware of that research in his book, Darwin's Doubt:

"When they proposed their theory in 1969, Britten and Davidson acknowledged that 'little is known... of the molecular mechanisms by which gene expression is controlled in differentiated cells.' Nevertheless, they deduced that such a system must be at work. Given: (1) that tens or hundreds of specialized cell types arise during the development of animals, and (2) that each cell contains the same genome, they reasoned (3) that some control system must determine which genes are expressed in different cells at different times to ensure the differentiation of different cell types from each other—some system-wide regulatory logic must oversee and coordinate the expression of the genome."
"Davidson has dedicated his career to discovering and describing the mechanisms by which these systems of gene regulation and control work during embryological development. During the last two decades, research in genomics has revealed that nonprotein-coding regions of the genome control and regulate the timing of the expression of the protein-coding regions of the genome. Davidson has shown that the nonprotein-coding regions of DNA that regulate and control gene expression and the protein-coding regions of the genome together function as circuits. These circuits, which Davidson calls 'developmental gene regulatory networks' (or dGRNs) control the embryological development of animals."
[Stephen C. Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design." HarperOne, 2013, p.265]

Meyer goes on to write:

"Davidson notes that, once established, the complexity of the dGRNs as integrated circuits makes them stubbornly resistant to mutational change—a point he has stressed in nearly every publication on the topic over the past fifteen years. 'In the sea urchin embryo,' he points out, 'disarming any one of these subcircuits produces some abnormality in expression.'"
"Developmental gene regulatory networks resist mutational change because they are organized hierarchically. This means that some developmental gene regulatory networks control other gene regulatory networks, while some influence only the individual genes and proteins under their control. At the center of this regulatory hierarchy are the regulatory networks that specify the axis and global form of the animal body plan during development. These dGRNs cannot vary without causing catastrophic effects to the organism."
"Indeed, there are no examples of these deeply entrenched, functionally critical circuits varying at all. At the periphery of the hierarchy are gene regulatory networks that specify the arrangements for smaller-scale features that can sometimes vary. Yet, to produce a new body plan requires altering the axis and global form of the animal. This requires mutating the very circuits that do not vary without catastrophic effects. As Davidson emphasizes, mutations affecting the dGRNs that regulate body-plan development lead to 'catastrophic loss of the body part or loss of viability altogether.' He explains in more detail:"

"There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way."

[Ibid. p.268]

That quote came directly from this 2011 paper: Eric H. Davidson, "Evolutionary bioscience as regulatory systems biology." Developmental Biology, Vol.357, Iss.1; Sept 1, 2011, p.40

If you really desired to delve into Gene Regulatory Networks, any book or publication by Eric Davidson is recommended. For example, in his 2006 book shown on the right, Davidson writes:

"Changes in the internal portions of the network, specifically redeployment of plug-ins and making and breaking I/O linkages affect regional regulatory state specification, hence pattern formation, and hence the morphology of body parts. These kinds of change imperfectly reflect the Class, Order, and Family level diversification of animals. The basic stability of phylum-level morphological characters since the advent of bilaterian assemblages may be due to the extreme conservation of network kernels. The most important consequence is that contrary to classical evolution theory, the processes that drive the small changes observed as species diverge cannot be taken as models for evolution of the body plans of animals. These are as apples and oranges, so to speak, and that is why it is necessary to apply new principles that derive from the structure/function relations of gene regulatory networks to approach the mechanisms of body plan evolution." [Eric H. Davidson, "The Regulatory Genome." 2006, p.195]

The highlighted portion challenges the myth that small changes lead to big ones. Put another way, Davidson writes:

"The cross-regulatory subcircuit that controls the differentiation gene battery is also recursively wired and loss of any one of the gene functions would be equally catastrophic for the whole system, a force for conservation of the internal wiring." [Eric H. Davidson, "The Regulatory Genome." 2006, p.139]

In other words, the claim that random mutation can create new both parts for common descent is untenable.

It is not that scientists have ignored cell differentiation:

"To better appreciate the goal of ENCODE, it is first helpful to understand what we mean by 'functional.' Remember that genes encode the information necessary to make proteins, which are the molecules that perform functions in the cell. How much protein a given gene ultimately produces, or whether it is allowed to make any at all, is determined by its gene expression. In the case of the genome, any non-protein-coding sequence that is functional would presumably have some effect on how a gene is expressed; that is to say, a functional sequence in some way regulates how much protein is made from a given coding DNA sequence. It is the difference in the composition of proteins that helps give a cell its identity. Since every cell contains the exact same DNA and genome, it is therefore the levels of gene expression that determine whether a cell will be a neuron, skin, or even an immune cell." [Jonathan Henninger, "The 99 Percent… Of The Human Genome." Harvard University Science In The News, Oct 1, 2012]

Perhaps many were too busy trying to prove Charlie right by promoting imaginary evidence such as Junk DNA, than to advance science.

Robert

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.