Replies

Kalamata on Shermer's book "Denying History": "What, in particular, did you like about that book?"

I used it debating Holocaust deniers -- it not only debunks their nonsense, but also provides brief biographies of then leading deniers.

Kalamata "Shermer is not a skeptic of "science" so-called, and certainly not of its popularizers, of which he is one."

I disagree with any effort to turn science into a religion.
The conservative perspective is that science is simply a search for natural explanations of natural processes, so there should be nothing "religious" about it, just the opposite.
Science specifically rejects any appeal to supernatural or spiritual realities, which means that, by definition, science cannot be a religion.

Again, people being human can glom-on & make a religion of most anything, but it's not something we should encourage.

Kalamata "You really should try to keep up.
Evolution is the established religion of the United States, and everyone who is anyone knows it. as the visiting Chinese scientist explained:

'In China you can question Darwin, but not the government.
In the United States, you can question the government, but not Darwin.' "

Complete nonsense -- people can & do "question Darwin" anywhere, any time.
The question in public schools is whether teachers should be required to present "alternate theories" in class.
I think they should -- in theology class, or western civ.
But in science classes teachers should hold to traditional distinctions between what is, or is not, science.

Kalamata quoting Michael Ruse, 1993: "... what [Phillip E.] Johnson was arguing was that, at a certain level, the kind of position of a person like myself, an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level, just as much as the kind of position of let us say somebody, some creationist, someone like Gish or somebody like that.
And to a certain extent, I must confess, in the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself... "

Ruse's term, metaphysical is a key word and equates to "philosophical", "ontological" and even sometimes "scientific" naturalism.
They all mean the same thing -- atheistic.
So:

metaphysical naturalism = atheism.
ontological naturalism = atheism.
philosophical naturalism = atheism.
scientific naturalism = atheism.

All of those terms signify an atheist using science to bolster his/her theological views.
Methodological naturalism is something different -- it simply says, in effect, "we will only consider natural explanations for natural processes and leave theology to the theologians."

Kalamata "This is Julian Huxley on evolution as 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.' "

So atheist Huxley, lacking other religious beliefs, gloms onto "evolution as religion".
I'd say, as a religion, Huxley's "Evolutionary Humanism" is a rather pathetic substitute for the real thing.

Kalamata "Colin Patterson describes evolution not necessarily as a religion, but as faith-based:

'I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge, to evolution as faith."

Dated from 1981 -- sorry, but I missed that "wave", was busy elsewhere.

Kalamata "This scientist implies a sort of religious fanaticism among some evolutionists:

'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.' "

Again, from 1980 and again, I missed that "wave".
I hold to the original Enlightenment Era view of our Founders, among others: methodological naturalism does not "dispense with God", but merely shows us some of the workings of His Creation.

Kalamata "Are you claiming that Russell and Paine were not ideologically in the same ball-park?
Both were anti-Christian."

It turns out that Paine thought of himself as a Quaker -- hardly "anti-Christian" -- and wanted to be buried amongst his Quaker neighbors.
He wasn't and they wouldn't have him, but it suggests Paine had less affinity for the modern European Russell than for traditional Christian-American values.

Kalamata on 17th century Steno & others: "You mean, they were not given the chance to be brainwashed, don't you?"

No, to repeat, they had no information, none, which would let them make informed decisions about such matters as the age of the earth.

Kalamata "What was the question?"

Your post #130, my response #149:

"I showed you where “kinds” has been used in scientific literature?
Did you not bother to read my post?"

BJK: "And that is post number what?"

Kalamata: "Why all the science in God's Word, if God doesn't give a "hoot about science"?"

Nothing in the Bible is natural-science as we understand the term.
Nor is there any suggestion that the Bible even cares whether it matches to today's science or not.

Kalamata: "I call that sophistry . . . major league!"

Sophistry is what Kalamata is here to sell.
I stick to the facts & truth, as best I can.

Kalamata: "What you pretend are idle words, are the inspired words of God:...
...There is a cloud of witnesses disputing you."

They dispute you, FRiend.
And they prove beyond reasonable doubt that your purposes here are entirely theological, not scientific.

Kalamata: "...many are too pig-headed to use the name "kind", choosing rather to use the name "family" to distance themselves from the Word of God, as you do."

In none of your quotes did Linnaeus use the term "family".
Was he trying to distance himself from God?

Kalamata "But, no matter what you call it, the "kind" denotes the genetic boundary which no plant or animal can cross."

And you have a quote from the Bible which says as much?

Kalamata: "The Bible states that plants and animals multiply after their kinds: "

As would Darwin -- nothing in evolution theory requires any individual to suddenly jump from one "kind" to another.
Every step is a small change from the one before it.

Kalamata: "You missed my point.
Charlie's "science" was his wild imagination, which interprets to, he wasn't a scientist."

Well... anybody can cast reckless aspersions.
Yours are only recognized by others like you who hate science as we understand it.

Kalamata on Paley: "I have his book, Natural Theology, and it promotes intelligent design and fine-tuning, unlike the pseudo-science Darwin imagined."

As of today, "intelligent design" is theology, not natural-science.
That's one reason why Paley is listed as a theologian.

Kalamata: "Scientists do not resort to wild extrapolations of observable data, like Charlie did."

Nonsense, of course they do, if that's what the data suggests -- it's called a hypothesis.
Next step: confirm the hypothesis by attempting to falsify it.
Evolution theory has never been seriously falsified.

Kalamata "Neither is magic "natural" according to your own definition, but you seem to have no problem believing it."

And the lies just keep on coming...
Natural science, by definition, rejects "magic".

Kalamata "I was indoctrinated for most of my life, like you.
Only late in life did I get an education."

You seem not to know of some basics of western civilization.

Kalamata: "There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation."

And there's a perfect example.
Nobody with a basic western education would claim such a ludicrous idea.

Kalamata "Evolution is completely useless to science, and every real scientist knows it."

No, evolution theory underlies all of DNA research and much of cutting-edge medicine.
When you have your family's DNA tested, the reports tell you where your ancestors came from, based on our understandings of mutations, a fact in evolution theory.

Kalamata: "Your platitudes are getting tiresome.
Take your Bible out of the trash can and show us why my claims are false."

No need, because your claims that the Bible condemns science are justified by nothing more than your own "wild extrapolations of observable data"

Kalamata: "In this statement, Linnaeus seems to be saying there can be multiple genera within a single kind, distinguishable by their "essential character"."

I'll repeat: in none of your quotes does Linnaeus use the term "family", much less define it as "kind".

Kalamata "The term "evolutionary science" is an oxymoron."

Please, when they put Kalamata in charge of redefining the English language to suit your theological purposes, send me an invite to your coronation.
Until then, I'll assume that all such comments are just you puffing yourself up.

Kalamata: "Long-term scientific observation of both living organisms, and the fossil record, has shown my statement to be true, and yours to be hogwash."

Hogwash.

Kalamata: "Only the scientifically-challenged, and/or those protecting their turf like street thugs, would say such foolishness.
Michael Behe's books are masterpieces of scientific rigor, unlike the junk science you are accustomed to."

Michael J. Behe

"Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[4][5] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.[6][7]"

So... no thanks.

Kalamata "You are even more scientifically-challenged than I imagined.
Speciation is the result of a loss of genetic information, period.
There are no exceptions."

And yet another flat-out lie.

Kalamata: "That is insanity.
The myth of whale evolution is the stuff fairy tales are made of, like the unicorn."

Like all of evolution, it's a confirmed theory based on tons of evidence from fossil morphology & species DNA comparisons.

Kalamata: "There is no disagreement.
The Ambulocetus is Thewissen's "baby", so his sensational admission may have caused some to change their mock-ups, or if creating new ones, to leave out the imaginary blow hole."

And still more nonsense.
If you actually talked to Thewissen, I'm certain he'd tell you, in his mind there were sufficient reasons why he included a blow-hole for Ambulocetus, and that new discoveries could yet prove him right.
Consider a similar living creature, the Walrus:

Looks like a blow-hole to me, goo goo g'joob.

Kalamata: "But Evolution Icons DIE HARD, and we are stuck with Ambulocetus for years to come, despite the fact that all eight characteristics Thewissen reported as whale features are questionable, or absent altogether."

Evidence for which you presented where?

Kalamata: "Get a clue, fellow!
The revelations by Gingrich and Thewissen were from many years back, perhaps as early as 2012. "

In other words, it's all just science doing what science does, nothing more.

Kalamata: "You just cannot let it go, can you.
That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel's Embryos; and, now, fraudulent "whale evolution"."

Total nonsense which reveals Kalamata to be a man of propaganda, not science.
No data was presented to justify such claims.

Kalamata: "That is meaningless.
The observable evidence in the fossil record shows disparity before diversity, and abrupt appearance followed by statis.
That matches the observable evidence of living organisms. "

But the "observable evidence" is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.
"Disparity before diversity" makes perfect sence when viewed against mass extinctions:

Kalamata: "The paleontologists at the University of Michigan have unusually vivid imaginations."

It's how science is supposed to work.

>>Joe the Denier says, “I used [Shermer’s book “Denying History”] debating Holocaust deniers — it not only debunks their nonsense, but also provides brief biographies of then leading deniers.”

I am in my 70’s, well-traveled, and a long-time WWII History buff; and yet I have never met a holocaust denier. But I do know an arrogant, slanderous, know-nothing jackass when I read his posts.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I disagree with any effort to turn science into a religion.”

It is too late. Evolutionism is the established religion of the United States, thanks to the ACLU, the thugs at the NCSE, and a few tyrannical judges who thought nothing of usurping the power of free expression from the states and the people.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Science specifically rejects any appeal to supernatural or spiritual realities, which means that, by definition, science cannot be a religion.”

Science doesn’t reject anything.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Complete nonsense — people can & do “question Darwin” anywhere, any time.”

Not in the classroom, if they want to obtain tenure; and not in their research, if they want to get published. You need to get out more, Joe.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “The question in public schools is whether teachers should be required to present “alternate theories” in class. I think they should — in theology class, or western civ. But in science classes teachers should hold to traditional distinctions between what is, or is not, science.”

If evolutionism was not the established religion of the United States, it could be challenged in the classroom by other theories. But evolutionism has become the modern-day Church of England, which caused the colonists to flee England and come to America.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Ruse’s term, metaphysical is a key word and equates to “philosophical”, “ontological” and even sometimes “scientific” naturalism. They all mean the same thing — atheistic. So: metaphysical naturalism = atheism. ontological naturalism = atheism. philosophical naturalism = atheism. scientific naturalism = atheism.
All of those terms signify an atheist using science to bolster his/her theological views”

That is exactly how the orthodoxy promotes evolutionism — as theology.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “So atheist Huxley, lacking other religious beliefs, gloms onto “evolution as religion”.
I’d say, as a religion, Huxley’s “Evolutionary Humanism” is a rather pathetic substitute for the real thing.”

The orthodoxy liked him well enough to invite him to be the guest speaker at the 100th anniversary of Charlie’s silly book.

https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.DARWIN100

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Dated from 1981 — sorry, but I missed that “wave”, was busy elsewhere.”

You never missed it. Faith has been the prime mover of evolutionism from the beginning. You believe on sheer faith that someone out there has scientific evidence for evolution, and you have faith that the highly creative artwork that adorns many of your posts are based on something other than highly fragmentary fossils and vivid imaginations.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “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.

Evolutionism doesn’t solve anything except for those who hate societal order and stability. Well, it did provide myriads of tax-payer funded jobs over the years to those desperately trying to prove Charlie right.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I hold to the original Enlightenment Era view of our Founders, among others: methodological naturalism does not “dispense with God”, but merely shows us some of the workings of His Creation.”

Darwinism is not natural.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “It turns out that Paine thought of himself as a Quaker — hardly “anti-Christian” — and wanted to be buried amongst his Quaker neighbors.”

Paine was not a Christian when he wrote this book:

“As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me a species of Atheism— a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the surf, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.” [Paine, Thomas, “The Age of Reason.” Citadel Press, 1988, pp.72-73]

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No, to repeat, they had no information, none, which would let them make informed decisions about such matters as the age of the earth.”

Nor does anyone, even today, except those of the faith of Newton, Faraday and Maxwell. Those three were able to make informed decisions, since they were not around to be corrupted by the fake geology of the lawyer Lyell.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Nothing in the Bible is natural-science as we understand the term. Nor is there any suggestion that the Bible even cares whether it matches to today’s science or not.”

Are you going to spend the rest of your life with your head in the sand. God’s Word is loaded with scientific gems. For example, at the beginning of creation he created plant and animal “kinds”, or “types” (if you will,) which eliminates the possibility of common descent, which we are only now finding out, 6000-7000 years later.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Sophistry is what Kalamata is here to sell. I stick to the facts & truth, as best I can.”

Says the arrogant Jackass who slandered me with his imaginary ability to read minds.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And they prove beyond reasonable doubt that your purposes here are entirely theological, not scientific.”

Your purposes here are theological, thinly disguised as science.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “In none of your quotes did Linnaeus use the term “family”. Was he trying to distance himself from God?”

He used the Latin Vulgate mis-translation of genera and species.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And you have a quote from the Bible which says as much?”

No. Only scientific observation. The Word of God implies as much, when 2 of each kind went aboard the ark with Noah; and when later God said to multiply AFTER their respective kinds.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As would Darwin — nothing in evolution theory requires any individual to suddenly jump from one “kind” to another. Every step is a small change from the one before it.”

Real science disputes Darwin’s extrapolation. There is not a shred of evidence for common descent — not in the fossil record, nor in the living record. If you were a scientist, you would know that.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Well... anybody can cast reckless aspersions.”

Casting aspersions is your bread and butter.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Yours are only recognized by others like you who hate science as we understand it.”

See what I mean?

Joe, I know you are going to deny this, but I made a good living in science; and in all those years, I never saw or heard of anyone using evolution for anything.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “As of today, “intelligent design” is theology, not natural-science. That’s one reason why Paley is listed as a theologian.”

Intelligent design is the only possible solution to the mind-boggling complexity of the cell, the symbiotic nature of every living organism, both within and without, and the fine-tuning of the universe.

Evolutionism is pure theology.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Nonsense, of course they do, if that’s what the data suggests — it’s called a hypothesis.
Next step: confirm the hypothesis by attempting to falsify it. Evolution theory has never been seriously falsified.”

That is where you went astray from science. Evolutionism cannot be falsified, because it is not science. Evolutionists have been brainwashed into believing that the absence of evidence is evidence, making it impossible to falsify. You yourself are guilty of claiming, in this very thread, that the lack of evidence is evidence.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And the lies just keep on coming... Natural science, by definition, rejects ‘magic’.”

Evolutionism and big-bangism are based on magic.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “You seem not to know of some basics of western civilization.”

I did very well in western civilization courses, and it is still one of my favorite subjects. I have over 50 books in my libary on Western Civ, alone, not to mention all the books on U.S. History, WWII and World Civ. Therefore, you are talking to be talking.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And there’s a perfect example. Nobody with a basic western education would claim such a ludicrous idea (that there is nothing more natural than our creator).

Western civilization was founded on, and blessed by Christianity. The rejection of Christianity will destroy it.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No, evolution theory underlies all of DNA research and much of cutting-edge medicine. When you have your family’s DNA tested, the reports tell you where your ancestors came from, based on our understandings of mutations, a fact in evolution theory.”

Evolution has nothing to do with medicine, or DNA. Evolutionists have attempted to hijack the prestige of them, but their folly will not continue much longer.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “No need, because your claims that the Bible condemns science are justified by nothing ore than your own “wild extrapolations of observable data”.

You are lying again, Joe. I would never claim the Bible condemns science. To the contrary. The Bible promotes science.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “I’ll repeat: in none of your quotes does Linnaeus use the term “family”, much less define it as “kind”.

Why the misdirection? I showed you where Linnaeus grouped genera by “kind”. Let’s try it again. This time, I will capitalize those two words for clarity:

“The succulent plants are worthy of distinction; so are the largest GENERA, e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this KIND are: Haller’s Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the essential character distinguishes a GENUS from those of the same KIND included in the same natural order.” [Freer, Stephen, Translator, “Linnaeus’ Philosophia Botanica.” Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]

Pretty neat stuff, huh?

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Please, when they put Kalamata in charge of redefining the English language to suit your theological purposes, send me an invite to your coronation. Until then, I’ll assume that all such comments are just you puffing yourself up.

No, just being a scientific observer. I will say it again so everyone will know what were are talking about: evolutionary science is an oxymoron.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Michael J. Behe. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. “

I see you learned how to use Wikipedia. Michael Behe is probably the most brilliant scientist on earth, except for perhaps the organic chemist James Tour. It is a tossup.

This is a segment of a recent interview of Behe discussing his most recent book, Darwin Devolves, followed by the full interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWxC4ncb5vc&list=PLrCQerz2L0IfFCguKDL1ohtlFFYskKCFJ&index=2

Behe is not only brilliant, but he is a genuinely nice and funny guy.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.”

That’s it. But his new book will propel him into history as the one who exposed the fraud called common descent.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was not science and was religious in nature.[3]”

It is always good to know there are lawyers and judges available who can tell everyone what science is.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Behe’s claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast ajority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe’s views and intelligent design.”

“Consensus is the refuge of the scoundrel.” — Crichton

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “And yet another flat-out lie.”

You gotta stop lying, Joe. Every geneticist worth his salt knows that speciation is the result of breaking genes, not gaining new ones.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Like all of evolution, it’s a confirmed theory based on tons of evidence from fossil morphology & species DNA comparisons.”

You are severely scientifically-challenged, Joe. There is no evidence any of those handful of fragmented, fossilized land animal forms ever had babies, nor ever had any whale features. Gingrich and Thewissen made it all up, and Carl Werner exposed their charlantry. But evolution icons DIE HARD! We are still trying to ge rid of Haeckel’s Embryos, over a century after they were exposed as fraudulent. This is a short article on the whale fraud:

https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “If you actually talked to Thewissen, I’m certain he’d tell you, in his mind there were sufficient reasons why he included a blow-hole for Ambulocetus, and that new discoveries could yet prove him right.”

Are you really that dense? There is no blowhole. He imagined it!

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Consider a similar living creature, the Walrus: Looks like a blow-hole to me, goo goo g’joob.

It is a walrus, Joe, with two nostrils.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Evidence for which you presented where?”

I didn’t. It is mentioned here:

https://creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “In other words, it’s all just science doing what science does, nothing more.”

No, they are two sleazy scientists who were trying to make a name for themselves by fudging the data. There was no science involved.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Total nonsense which reveals Kalamata to be a man of propaganda, not science. No data was presented to justify such claims.”

That kind of attitude gave our children a half-century of the fraudulent Piltdown Man, and more than a century (and counting) of the fraudulent Haeckel’s Embryos; and, now, fraudulent “whale evolution”.”

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “But the “observable evidence” is highly skewed by the fact that 99%+ of it is missing.”

There you go again, pretending the absence of evidence is evidence.

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “Disparity before diversity” makes perfect sence when viewed against mass extinctions:”

That occurred in the Cambrian, Joe, when all the major phyla, including Chordata, showed up all at once, with no transitional forms. This is Gould:

“Older textbooks proclaim that our phylum, the Chordata, did not appear until the subsequent Ordovician period, and that this later evolution must imply advanced status. But the Burgess Shale contains a chordate, the genus Pikaia, misidentified by Walcott as a polychaete annelid... Chen and colleagues’ discovery and description of a beautifully preserved and unambiguously identified chordate from the still earlier Chengjiang fauna now seals the fate of this misguided effort in asserting specialness for our ancestry. Chordates arose in the Cambrian Explosion... During the past decade, however, the discovery and development of another fauna of marvellously preserved soft-bodied Cambrian organisms at Chengjiang in China has proven that full diversity was reached within the explosion itself... Charles Darwin faced this challenge to his gradualistic preferences with characteristic honesty, writing in the first edition of the Origin of Species: “The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained” (1859, p.308).” [Stephen Jay Gould, “Of it, not above it.” Nature, 377, pages 681–682 (26 October), 1995]

*******************
>>Joe the Denier says, “[A vivid imagination] is how science is supposed to work.

I am speechless.

Mr. Kalamata