Kalamata:
"No, science is science.
What many call science today, such as evolution, is not science, but religion." Sorry, but that's just a lie, regardless of how often you repeat it, it never becomes objectively true.
Kalamata quoting Paine: "As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism— a sort of religious denial of God."
Paine was hardly the first to disparage Christians as "atheists" -- that's also what ancient pagan Greeks & Romans called Jews and Christians.
After all, they only believed in one God and He is invisible!
What a laugh, in the minds of ancient pagans.
Kalamata: "Paine was a deist"
Right, not an atheist.
Kalamata: "I adhere to the faith of a young earth and special creation, like Newton, Maxwell, Faraday, and Steno."
Sure, and as you say, it's your faith, not science.
- Isaac Newton -- early 18th century mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist & theologian.
- Clark Maxwell -- 19th century, worked in electrical & chemical fields.
- Michael Faraday -- 19th century, worked in electrical & chemical fields.
- St. Nicholas Steno (Niels Steensen) -- 17th century, abandoned his advanced work in biology and geology after conversion to Catholicism.
None of the above can be described as having made an informed opinion regarding the overall age and natural history of the Earth.
Kalamata: "I showed you where “kinds” has been used in scientific literature?
Did you not bother to read my post?"
And that is post number what?
Kalamata: "Are you not aware that the Bible is not only historical and prophetic literature, but also scientific?"
Nowhere does the Bible itself claim to be scientific.
Kalamata: "You, yourself said there was no strict definition.
The “kind”, on the other hand, has been well-known and well-established in meaning for thousands of years."
In fact, there is no scientific definition of "kind", never was -- not even by Linnaeaus back in 1735!
Kalamata: "The subject was the concept of “kind”, and Paley understood it.
In fact, he frequently used the word to distinguish the different kinds of animals."
Sure, everybody speaks informally about "kinds of animals" or "kinds of plants", but "kinds" has never been a scientific classification.
Nor was Paley a scientist -- he was, naturally, a Unitarian theologian.
Kalamata: "Is that an adhominem?"
Well... would it be an ad hominem if you announce to the world that yours truly, BroJoeK, is literally, no rocket scientist?
Now just suppose I'd claimed to be a famous "rocket scientist" and you informed the world that, no, I'm not.
Is that ad hominem?
Kalamata: "Evolutionary biology is not science, so who cares what they think?"
Which scientists care what Kalamata thinks?
Kalamata: "Anyone who has been paying attention knows that atheists have been trying to erase all mention of the Bible from science and science education. "
Natural science, by definition excludes anything outside natural explanations for natural processes.
It's not a matter of "erasing the Bible from science," because the Bible was never part of science.
Kalamata: "But he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh. Count on it."
Thus speaketh Kalamata!
Kalamata: "As aforementioned, the Bible, which is a book of science..."
The Bible itself never claims to be "a book of science".
Kalamata: "Recent research has substantiated that there are genetic barriers that keep species within their respective kinds.
Therefore, genetic research and observable science both point to the biblical kind as real science."
Science has never recognized "kinds" but instead has always divided plants and animals into many different categories beginning with breeds & varieties up through sub-species, species, genera, families, orders, etc.
At each higher level of generalization it becomes more difficult, then impossible for different sub-groups to interbreed.
Sometimes the dividing line is species -- where different species don't or can't naturally interbreed.
Among other groups it's genera that can't interbreed, but in some cases even different genera can & do sometimes naturally interbreed.
Kalamata: "Why are you quibbling about the created kind?
Shouldn’t you be trying to find evidence of evolution for everyone to see?"
There are literal tons of evidence for anybody to see in any public natural history museum.
You should go look someday.
![]()
>>>Sorry, but that’s just a lie [that evolition is a religion], regardless of how often you repeat it, it never becomes objectively true.
Don’t be silly. Even evolutionists claim it is a religion, or is at least faith-based. The loony Michael Shermer even has a name for your high priests [”shamans”]:
“[C]osmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions. Second, we are, at base, a socially hierarchical primate species. We show deference to our leaders, pay respect to our elders and follow the dictates of our shamans; this being the Age of Science, it is scientism’s shamans who command our veneration. Third, because of language we are also storytelling, mythmaking primates, with scientism as the foundational stratum of our story and scientists as the premier mythmakers of our time... Scientism’s voice can best be heard through a literary genre for both lay readers and professionals that includes the works of such scientists as Carl Sagan, E. O. Wilson, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins and Jared Diamond.” [Shermer, Michael, “The Shamans of Scientism.” Scientific American, 185:6, June, 2002, p.35]
Evolutionist Michael Ruse calls it a secular religion:
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” [Ruse, Michael, “How Evolution Became A Religion.” National Post, May 13, 2000]
***********************
>>>Paine was hardly the first to disparage Christians as “atheists” — that’s also what ancient pagan Greeks & Romans called Jews and Christians. After all, they only believed in one God and He is invisible! What a laugh, in the minds of ancient pagans.
I’ll bet he and Bertrand Russell would have gotten along very well.
***********************
>>>Sure, and as you say, it’s your faith, not science.
>>Isaac Newton — early 18th century mathematician, physicist, astronomer, alchemist & theologian.
>>Clark Maxwell — 19th century, worked in electrical & chemical fields.
>>Michael Faraday — 19th century, worked in electrical & chemical fields.
>>St. Nicholas Steno (Niels Steensen) — 17th century, abandoned his advanced work in biology and geology after conversion to Catholicism.
>>None of the above can be described as having made an informed opinion regarding the overall age and natural history of the Earth.
You forgot to mention they were all were genius scientists and creationists, even Steno, who based his work on the evidence of a global flood and a 6,000 year earth:
“There are those to whom the great length of time seems to destroy the force of the remaining arguments, since the recollection of no age affirms that floods rose to the place where many marine objects are found to-day, if you exclude the universal deluge, four thousand years, more or less, before our time. Nor does it seem in accord with reason that a part of an animal’s body could withstand the ravages of so many years, since we see that the same bodies are often destroyed completely in the space of a few years. But this doubt is easily answered, since the result depends wholly upon the diversity of soil; for I have seen strata of a certain kind of clay which by the thinness of their fluid decomposed all the bodies enclosed within them. I have noticed many other sandy strata which preserved whole all that was entrusted to them. And by this test it might be possible to come to a knowledge of that fluid which disintegrates solid bodies. But that which is certain, that the formation of many mollusks which we find to-day must be referred to times coincident with the universal deluge, is sufficiently shown by the following argument.” [Nicolaus Steno, “The Prodromus of Nicolaus Steno’s Dissertation Concerning a Solid Body Enclosed by Process of Nature Within a Solid - 1916.” The MacMillan Company, 1937, p.258]
Newton was into fine-tuning before fine-tuning was cool:
“the parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the earth s atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in or bits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” [Newton, Isaac, “Newton’s Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.” Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, p.501]
Of course, like any sensible person, Newton gave glory to God.
***********************
>>And that is post number what?
You commented on Paley. Did you forget?
***********************
>>Nowhere does the Bible itself claim to be scientific.
Again, the Bible is loaded with scientific gems, for anyone who bothers to look.
***********************
>>In fact, there is no scientific definition of “kind”, never was — not even by Linnaeaus back in 1735!
Linnaeus was a creationist who wrote of the created kind:
“Like other animals who enjoy life, sensation, and perception; who seek for food, amusements, and rest, and who prepare habitations convenient for their kind, [man] is curious and inquisitive; but, above all other animals, he is noble in his nature, in as much as, by the powers of his mind, he is able to reason justly upon whatever discovers itself to his senses; and to look, with reverence and wonder, upon the works of Him who created all things.” [Carolus Linnaeus, “A General System of Nature Vol I: Animal Kingdom: Mammalia, Birds, Amphibia, Fishes.” Lackington, Allen and Co., 1806, Introduction, p.1]
He also believed in the immutability of the species, but with an inherent potential for variation:
“The 5 classes of plants. The number of species is the number of different forms produced by the Infinite Being from the beginning; and these forms have produced more forms, according to the laws laid down, but always ones that are similar to themselves. Therefore the number of species is the number of different forms or structures that occur today.” [Stephen Freer, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica.” Oxford University Press, 2005, p.113]
The Latin Vulgate erroneously translated the created kind as either species or genus. When Linnaeus adopted his classification scheme, he included both words, with the genus rank just above the species:
“SYSTEM is conveniently divided into five branches, each subordinate to the other: class, order, genus, species, and variety, with their names and characters.” [Carolus Linnaeus, “A General System of Nature Vol I - Animal Kingdom - Mammalia, Birds, Amphibia, Fishes.” Lackington, Allen and Co., 1806, Introduction, p.3]
***********************
>>Nor was Paley a scientist — he was, naturally, a Unitarian theologian.
And Darwin was, naturally, a failed theologian.
***********************
>>Now just suppose I’d claimed to be a famous “rocket scientist” and you informed the world that, no, I’m not.
Is that ad hominem?
If you were a scientist, like William Paley, and some ideologue claimed you were not, that would be ad hominem. Alternately, if you were not a scientist, like Darwin, and someone claimed you were not a scientist, that would not be ad hominem
***********************
>>Which scientists care what Kalamata thinks?
Are you conceding my point that evolutionary biologists are not scientists?
***********************
>>Natural science, by definition excludes anything outside natural explanations for natural processes.
It’s not a matter of “erasing the Bible from science,” because the Bible was never part of science.
Who invented that stupid rule? There is nothing more natural that the creator of all nature.
***********************
>>The Bible itself never claims to be “a book of science”.
It doesn’t have to. It has a perfect record.
***********************
>>>Science has never recognized “kinds” but instead has always divided plants and animals into many different categories beginning with breeds & varieties up through sub-species, species, genera, families, orders, etc.”
Scientists have always recognized “kinds”, or the modern equivalent, family. You must be thinking about evolutionists, not scientists.
***********************
>>At each higher level of generalization it becomes more difficult, then impossible for different sub-groups to interbreed.
The barrier is the “family”, or “kind”, which is exactly what biblical science predicts, and exactly what real scientists have been claiming all along. Biochemist Michael Behe explains it this way:
“Darwin rightly touted natural selection as relentless, as ‘daily and hourly scrutinising... every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.’ Yet, since the mechanism has no foresight, and since in many circumstances the random damaging of genes can be helpful to an organism, then selection ‘adds up’ those degradative changes only in the sense that broken pieces of machinery might be added to a growing pile of junk. Its inexorable predilection to hastily squander genetic information for short-term gain—encapsulated by the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution—guarantees that Darwin’s mechanism is powerfully devolutionary and explains why unguided evolution is self-limiting. Ironically, random mutation and natural selection do help form new species and new genera, but chiefly by promoting the loss of genetic abilities. Over time, dwindling degradatory options fence in an evolutionary lineage, halting organismal change before it crosses the family line.” [Michael J. Behe, “Darwin Devolves.” HarperOne, 2019, Chap.10]
***********************
>>Sometimes the dividing line is species — where different species don’t or can’t naturally interbreed.”
Speciation is the result of devolution, not evolution. The “kind” doesn’t change.
***********************
>>There are literal tons of evidence for anybody to see in any public natural history museum.
You should go look someday.
LOL! You really should get up to speed. That highly imaginative “whale evolution” chart you presented was debunked years ago. The wild-eyed claims of U. Michigan’s Phil Gingerich and associates for the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus and Rhodocetus have all been proven false, from out of their own mouths.
This is Dr. Hans Thewissen on the Ambulocetus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkwhd_gIR7c&index=6&list=PLrCQerz2L0Ifpe9QdbWBZ1ACbEa3kMO2g
This is Dr. Phil Gingerich on the Rodhocetus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N—Xtcr8h7k&list=PLrCQerz2L0Ifpe9QdbWBZ1ACbEa3kMO2g&index=8
This is Thewissen on the ear of the Ambulocetus and Pakicetus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxcZCJ_WgXo
Like all other evolution frauds (Piltdown Man, Haeckels Embryos, Junk DNA, Vestigial Organs, etc.), it will be years before they are removed from museums and our children’s textbooks.
The dirty little secret of the “whale evolution” fraud is that even if all the animals turned out to be exactly as claimed, there would still be no proof of whale evolution. Each species in that chart is not only distinct and specialized, but there is no evidence that any of them had offspring, nor is there evidence of the minute transitions that would be required to support species transitions.
When are you going to show us scientific evidence for evolution? Betcha can’t.
Mr. Kalamata