[Kalamata]

>>Joe wrote, "That is actually Rule #7, which Kalamata slavishly practices, but for this purpose conveniently ignores.

Child.

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

>>Joe wrote, "Blaming evolution theory for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate."

Really? This is one of Joe's most admired authors, atheist Michael Shermer, blaming the holocaust on the racial theories of Social Darwinism:

"The racial theories of social Darwinism gave the Nazis and others the scientific sanction they needed to make their racist ideology seem wholly rational and their actions justifiable in defense against what they considered to be a real threat to their nation and their culture." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.227]

This is history professor Richard Weikart on the Darwinian evolution indoctrination of German children:

"Evolutionary biology had been well entrenched in the German biology curriculum long before the Nazis came to power... All the biology texts published in Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s needed official approval of the Ministry of Education, and all provided extensive discussion of evolution, including the evolution of human races. Jakob Graf's 1942 biology textbook has an entire chapter on 'Evolution and Its Importance for Worldview.' Therein Graf combated Lamarckism and promoted Darwinian evolution through natural selection. He claimed that knowing about human evolution is important, because it shows that humans are not special among organisms. He also argued that evolution substantiates human inequality. In the following chapter on 'Racial Science' Graf spent about fifteen pages discussing human evolution and insisted that humans and apes have common ancestors." [Weikart, Richard, "The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought." German Studies Review, 36.3, 2013, pp.542-543]

Of course, that also applies to most every school in the United States in which children are forced to listen to Darwinian propaganda.

This is a letter from Charlie himself expressing his belief in the inevitability of the "higher" races exterminating the "lower" races:

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." [Letter to W. Graham, Down, July 3, 1881, in Darwin, Francis, "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter Vol I." Cambridge University Press, 2009, p.316]

And, finally, this is Stephen Jay Gould attempting to deflect the blame from Darwinism:

"Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot be diminished, either morally or scientifically, because later racists and warmongers perverted the concept of a "struggle for existence" into a rationale for genocide. However, we must admit a crucial difference between the origin and later use of a biological feature, and the origin and later use of an idea. The first, or anatomical, case involves no conscious action and cannot be submitted to any moral judgment. But ideas originate by explicit intent for overt purposes, and we have some ethical responsibility for the consequences of our deeds. An inventor may be fully exonerated for true perversions of his purposes (Hitler's use of Darwin), but unfair extensions consistent with the logic of original motivations do entail some moral demerit (academic racists of the nineteenth century did not envision or intend the Holocaust, but some of their ideas did fuel the "final solution")." [Gould, Stephen Jay, "I Have Landed.", p.336]

Hitler used the term "struggle for existence" 16 times in the 1939 translation of Mein Kampf. Darwin used the phrase 11 times in Part I of "The Descent of Man", and over 20 times in the 1859 "Origin of Species".

I consider that pretty strong evidence that Adolf was influenced by Charlie, and there is much more.

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

>>Joe wrote, "Kalamata on origin of life research: "Who paid for it?"
>>You don't know, but you claim it must be Federal tax dollars. That's Rule #10.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Assuming the so-called prebiotic molecules magically organized into self-replicating RNA, how does the RNA replication occur without the assistance of protein polymerases?"
>>Joe wrote, "Natural science is all about research to answer such questions."

Should not that bit of science also be included in those intelligently-designed "origin-of-life" experiments performed in intelligently-designed labs using intelligently-designed chemicals and molecules? Just curious.

**************** Kalamata mis-attributing his own words to BJK: " >>Joe the Science Denier says, 'Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the ’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove."

Thank you for catching that misapplication of my words.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is more than appropriate to explain today's usurpations and left-wing fanaticism. Those trying to destroy our nation and culture with the religions of evolutionism and socialism, frequently use the "Stop thief" first deception, as you do."
>>Joey wrote, "I agree that the political tactics of our Leftists are despicable, even when used by propagandists like Kalamata."

There you go again with your "'Stop thief!', first” misdirection tactic! You are the one who swoons over far-left, anti-Christian atheists, and frequently resorts to using their tactics. I am surprised you haven't played the Hitler Card on me.

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

>>Kalamata: "The word "gutter" appropriately identifies the filthy, foul-mouthed trash on Youtube and in other open forums who rabidly defend their religions of evolutionism and socialism (the religions that led to the holocaust and killing fields) with the most vile language and slander imaginable. Alinsky Joe uses all of those tactics, except for the filthy language, so far."
>>Joey said: "I know nothing of any of those people or forums, can't answer for them. Your comment here is a good example of Rules #6 & #8."

My comment was in response to one of your earlier comments in which you compared my debating style to one of your imaginary debate opponents:

>>Joey: "The key point for Kalamata to take away here is that your tone of voice, your use of “logic”, your debate tactics in denying evolution are identical to those of Holocaust deniers I debated for many months, many years ago. In one sense you are superior to them — so far, no serious vulgarities. But in all others it’s the same old nonsense, just a new subject."

I was simply returning the "favor", Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata referring to Shermer & Prothero: "We know those fellows are devout atheists. We know both promote the climate-change scam. We know both condemn those who are anti-abortion. And we know that Alinsky Joe uses slander against those who oppose his world view. So where are the lies, Alinsky Joe?"
>>Joey said: "Rules #6, #7 & especially #8."

Still playing with your silly rules, huh Child? You didn't answer my question. Where are the lies?

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

>>Kalamata: "I think he intended to say, Rule #6."
>>Joey said: "I noticed that in attempting to "translate" my Rules of Deniers into your own language you mixed & garbled the numbers. See my post #316 above for clarity on that."

Your childish posts are already garbled, Alinsky Joe.

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

>>Kalamata: "No doubt about that. But what about my question? Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?"
>>Joey said: "Possibly you refer here to [quoted] John 8:44 (NIV). First, let's set aside the theological/historical question of whether the Hebrew word "Satan" equates exactly to the Greek word "diablos" translated here as "devil".

No, let's clear it up now:

"And the great dragon (δράκων) was cast out, that old serpent (ὄφις) called the Devil (Διάβολος), And Satan (Σατανᾶς), which deceiveth the whole world:" Rev 12:9 KJV

As you can see, the dragon, the serpent, the devil and Satan are one in the same. The Greek takes Satan back to the garden, where he (as the serpent) taught man to doubt the Word of God:

"Now the serpent (ὄφις ) was the most crafty of all the brutes on the earth," -- Gen 3:2 LXX

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

>>Joey said: "Second, it appears (?) that Jesus is talking to Pharisees, who Matthew 12:24 tells us said of Jesus: "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Jesus first explains that's impossible and then accuses his accusers of being children of the devil, "the father of lies". But were those Pharisees victims of doubt? No, doubt was not their problem, they had no doubts, they held to, instead, misunderstandings -- lies about scripture fostered by their "father", the devil. Indeed, doubt is a problem for Christians, recognized in the New Testament, but it's not necessarily sin. Yes, we are often told not to doubt, but Jude 1:22 also tells us: "Be merciful to those who doubt; "

What does that have to do with Satan teaching man to doubt the Word of God?

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

>>Joey said: "Doubt alone does not make us "children of the devil", but lies do, and lies are what those Pharisees spread, not doubt."

Satan teaches man to doubt the Word of God; like father, like son:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." -- John 8:44 KJV

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

>>Kalamata: "You can pretend the little microorganism your religion claims to be the first life was equipped with nostrils to receive that first breath, but nostrils on a microorganism is way too silly for any rational person to believe. LOL! Evolution has to be the nuttiest theory ever imagined."
>>Joey said: "First, evolution theory is the opposite of any religion because it only provides natural explanations for natural processes, nothing super-natural in it."

Evolution does not exist, except in the imaginations of the faithful. Perhaps you are confusing evolution with devolution. Devolution is observable both in and out of the lab.

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

>>Joey said: "Second, your quote itself provides the link between natural science and our beliefs in super-natural Creation. God's Breath of Life created in Adam a Living Soul, which until that point had never existed. No organism before Adam was a spiritually living human being."

The text doesn't contain the word "spiritually." Adding words to the scripture is a no, no.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Child."

Kalamata: "Joey wrote..."

{sigh} So you've, ahem, devolved back to Rules #5 & #7, I see.

Kalamata: "Hitler used the term "struggle for existence" 16 times in the 1939 translation of Mein Kampf.
Darwin used the phrase 11 times in Part I of "The Descent of Man", and over 20 times in the 1859 "Origin of Species".
I consider that pretty strong evidence that Adolf was influenced by Charlie, and there is much more."

So, like any Leftist, Kalamata would blame gun manufacturers for every murder by gun and blame the US Constitution's 2nd amendment for every mass shooting?
Leftists want to take away our guns because some criminals misuse them, Kalamata wants to deny Evolution Theory because criminal Hitler misused it!

Kalamata: "Should not that bit of science also be included in those intelligently-designed "origin-of-life" experiments performed in intelligently-designed labs using intelligently-designed chemicals and molecules?
Just curious."

I don't know, but I did read the introduction and chapter 1 of "Pandas & People".
It can be boiled down to four words: "Science doesn't know everything".
From that they suggest, it must be "intelligent design".

My opinion/belief is the Universe itself is designed intelligently by God Who somehow (we don't know how) planted "seeds" for life which have now grown according to His plan & actions.
How, when, where & why, in natural terms, we don't know, but should not be so surprised if processes which seemingly took billions of years to unfold take humans more than a few years to figure out.
I'd give God credit for designing a Universe more complicated than the minds of human beings are intended to figure out.

Shakespeare possibly said it first, in Hamlet:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Heisenberg, a champion of uncertainty, maybe said it best:

"Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think"

Kalamata: "Thank you for catching that misapplication of my words."

No problem, I hate it when I make my own clerical mistakes, so something like 1/3 of my effort in posting goes into reviewing, correcting, re-reviewing & re-correcting, etc., my words.
Even then, sometimes glaring mistakes slip past.
It is so, so easy to do... {sigh}

Kalamata: "There you go again with your "'Stop thief!', first” misdirection tactic!
You are the one who swoons over far-left, anti-Christian atheists, and frequently resorts to using their tactics.
I am surprised you haven't played the Hitler Card on me."

In year 2000 Shermer wrote a fine book which I used then in debating Holocaust deniers, but which most curiously, Kalamata can't bring himself to say a kind word about.
Instead Kalamata seems to claim (or hint) Shermer's book lumps together normal American conservatives with Nazis!
I've seen nothing to verify such an idea.

Kalamata also tells us Shermer & others wrote articles lumping together Holocaust deniers with evolution & climate change "deniers."
That I also cannot verify and especially in the case of "climate change" would strongly disagree.
No "Denier Rules" or tactics are needed to defend against those who wish to impose their radical solutions for alleged "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW).

But in the case of "evolution deniers", it's a different story because, at least in Kalamata's case except for Holocaust deniers' vulgarities, Kalamata practices their debate tactics exactly.

That's why I took the trouble to spell out the most common tactics, in "Rules for Deniers".
If Kalamata will take the time to learn what he's doing wrong, and then STOP!, he could become an honest man.

Kalamata: "I was simply returning the "favor", Alinsky Joe."

You've used denier tactics from the beginning.

Kalamata: "Still playing with your silly rules, huh Child?
You didn't answer my question.
Where are the lies?"

What's important here is that you simply refuse to disobey any of the "Denier Rules".
You can't stop yourself, you can't control it, and that's the #1 problem with your whole "case" here.
Clearly, seems to me, you were a denier first, an anti-evolutionist only much later.

Kalamata: "Where are the lies?"

Your post here doesn't specify which lies are being referred to.

Kalamata: "Your childish posts are already garbled, Alinsky Joe."

Rules #1, #5 & #7.

Kalamata: "The Greek takes Satan back to the garden, where he (as the serpent) taught man to doubt the Word of God:"

Sure, but the Pharisees who opposed Jesus in John 8:44 were not victims of doubt, but rather of lies they believed about scriptures and Jesus.
You are fixated on doubt and I'm saying doubt is the lesser problem, lies are the bigger problem.

Kalamata: "Evolution does not exist, except in the imaginations of the faithful.
Perhaps you are confusing evolution with devolution.
Devolution is observable both in and out of the lab."

That's Denier Rules #1 & #2.
First, devolution is a sub-set of evolution.
Second, evolution is a theory based on innumerable observed facts, including fossils & DNA.
Short term evolution (aka., "micro-evolution") has been observed in many species of plants & animals, as well as in human DNA.

Kalamata: "The text doesn't contain the word "spiritually."
Adding words to the scripture is a no, no."

That is nonsense, nonsense.
Let's start here: if the "living soul" (Genesis 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:45) is not spiritual, then what is it?
Are you going to tell me that King James mistranslated?