>>>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
Kalamata:
"The loony Michael Shermer even has a name for your high priests [”shamans”]:" I admire & respect Shermer for his work on this: Denying History, Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do They Say It
Shermer's nature is skepticism, so I suspect the full context of your quote would show his words are intended somewhat ironically.
Calling science-popularizers "shamans" is Shermer's way of saying "be suspicious of them".
Kalamata quoting Michael Ruse: "...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]"
I know nothing of Michael Ruse, but calling evolution "a religion" seems to me just a provocative way to sell books.
The fact is, strictly defined there is nothing "religious" about natural-science in general or evolution theory specifically.
They are the opposite of any religion because they specifically and emphatically refuse to consider any non-natural (i.e., supernatural, spiritual) processes or explanations.
Sadly, it may be true that some people, lacking any other religious inspiration, glom onto science or evolution as a substitute -- similar to the way some fans hold up an Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson as some sort of deity.
Sure, it may happen, but nobody claims that's ideal or even "normal".
Kalamata on Thomas Paine: "I’ll bet he and Bertrand Russell would have gotten along very well."
Russell was a modern atheist, Paine was an Enlightenment Era deist who actually thought of himself as a Quaker.
So, remember my point here: none of our Founding Fathers were atheist, not one, even Thomas Paine, meaning: our Founders' understanding of natural-philosophy, aka natural-science, was purely methodological, not philosophical or ontological.
Kalamata: "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:"
Neither Steno in 1660, nor any of the others you mentioned, knew of data which would allow them to accept or reject theories about the earth's age & evolution.
Kalamata quoting Newton: "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” "
My belief is that nothing in the Universe is outside the scope, plan or intentions of our Creator, so I agree with Newton.
Kalamata: "You commented on Paley. Did you forget?"
Why not just answer the question?
Kalamata: "Again, the Bible is loaded with scientific gems, for anyone who bothers to look."
Maybe, but the Bible doesn't give a … hoot about science, science is not its purpose.
Instead, what the Bible intends to show us is that God created and rules over the natural realm -- and indeed that He can over-rule nature whenever that suits His purposes.
The Bible doesn't care about giving us an accurate picture of nature, instead it cares about demonstrating how God rules nature.
So, the fact that we can find some pretty amazing "gems" as you call them is interesting, but they are not the Bible's purpose.
Kalamata: "Linnaeus was a creationist who wrote of the created kind:"
Sure, we all speak informally of "this kind" or "that kind", but neither Linnaeus nor any other scientist ever defined "kind" as a taxonomic category.
Kalamata: "He also believed in the immutability of the species, but with an inherent potential for variation: '...these forms have produced more forms, according to the laws laid down, but always ones that are similar to themselves. ' "
Right, and what Linnaeus could not appreciate was that if you repeat the process, say, a million times, then the final "forms" produced are not necessarily so "similar to" the very first forms.
Kalamata: "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:"
Every English translation uses "kind" or occasionally "type", neither of which is defined scientifically.
If the Vulgate is a mistranslation, then "genus" and "species" are simply Latin words used in error and Linnaeus' adopting them bring us no closer to a scientific definition of the biblical "kind" -- i.o.w., "genus" and "species" are simply words borrowed from a Bible for use elsewhere.
They tell us nothing specific about the Bible.
Kalamata: "And Darwin was, naturally, a failed theologian."
William Paley's field is listed as "natural theologian".
Charles Darwin's fields are listed as "natural history, geology".
Those were recognized then and now as vastly different schools of study.
Kalamata: "If you were a scientist, like William Paley, and some ideologue claimed you were not, that would be ad hominem. "
Paley was no scientist, he was a theologian -- look it up!
Darwin studied theology, but his field work and publications were in "natural philosophy", aka science.
Your insistence otherwise are simply shameless lies, FRiend.
Kalamata: "Are you conceding my point that evolutionary biologists are not scientists?"
No, why would you suggest it?
Kalamata: "Who invented that stupid rule?
There is nothing more natural than the creator of all nature."
First, by definition & experience, God is not "natural", He's supernatural, spiritual.
Yes, He can take human form, but even then was well beyond "natural" powers.
As for your question, well... sorry, FRiend, but did you ever get an, ah... edumacation?
You know, you need some of that for these sorts of discussions.
Basic history of Western Thought begins with Greeks like Plato & Aristotle and was taught in medieval Universities as various branches of philosophy -- theology, metaphysics and, yes, "natural philosophy" which looked for natural explanations of natural processes.
Natural philosophy is today's natural-science and it all begins with the assumptions that it's not theology, it's not metaphysics, it's not anything except the search for natural explanations of natural processes.
But that was/is strictly a methodological assumption, the philosopher-theologians who invented "natural philosophy" had no intention to deny God's existence, merely to set aside for others to contemplate any considerations of God's influence on nature.
That assumption was, is and will remain part of the core definition of our word "science", whether you like it or not.
Kalamata on science in the Bible: "It doesn’t have to.
It has a perfect record."
Your claims regarding the Bible's intentions toward science are simply false.
You've gone way beyond what the Bible itself says.
Kalamata: "Scientists have always recognized “kinds”, or the modern equivalent, family.
You must be thinking about evolutionists, not scientists."
Even your own man, Linnaeus in 1750, understood that "kind" was not "family" -- indeed, according to your own quote, Linnaeus didn't use the term "family" in his classifications.
He did use "genus" and "species", but there's no suggestion anywhere they define the Biblical word "kind".
Kalamata: "The barrier is the “family”, or “kind”, which is exactly what biblical science predicts, and exactly what real scientists have been claiming all along. "
Your term "biblical scientist" is an oxymoron.
The rest is just more nonsense because, words like "species", "genus" or "family" cannot by themselves be a barrier to anything, and definitions of those terms are not strictly based on the ability (or lack of) of various sub-groups to interbreed.
Yes, the most frequent dividing line is genus, but it is not always a hard rule.
Kalamata: "Biochemist Michael Behe explains it this way:"
The words you quoted are gibberish, meaningless word-salad, unconnected to anything real.
Kalamata: "Speciation is the result of devolution, not evolution.
The “kind” doesn’t change."
And still more gibberish.
Kalamata: "LOL!
You really should get up to speed.
That highly imaginative “whale evolution” chart you presented was debunked years ago. "
It was denied, like Holocaust denial, never "debunked".
Kalamata: "This is Dr. Hans Thewissen on the Ambulocetus:"
Other reconstructions don't include the blow-hole, so it seems some scholarly disagreement there.
Kalamata: "This is Dr. Phil Gingerich on the Rodhocetus:"
Other reconstructions don't include a tail fluke on Rodhocetus:
Kalamata: "This is Thewissen on the ear of the Ambulocetus and Pakicetus:"
Your video shows us one Ambulocetus ear bone, said to be "questionable".
It does not show us what other similar fossils have been found.
It does not tell us what judgments were used to name that a pre-whale ear bone, or indeed, what criticisms have been raised of it.
Kalamata: "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."
Beyond Piltdown & Haeckels, there's no evidence of "fraud" here, only of the usual scholarly debates.
It's how science is supposed to work.
Kalamata: "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."
Sure, despite 150+ years accumulating billions of fossils representing hundreds of thousands of extinct species dated over hundreds of millions of years, it is still estimated that fewer than 1% of all species who ever lived have been found as fossils.
So there are huge gaps in the fossil record, likely always will be.
That's one reason evolution remains a theory, regardless of how many facts confirm it.
to all: sorry for this over-long post. Next time I'll split it up into smaller segments. ![]()