Replies

>>Kalamata: "< >>Kalamata: "You don't want to see it."
>>Joey said: "In all the nonsense you've posted here, I've seen no confirmed fact which would "falsify" evolution theory. And unlike yours, Kalamata, my good eyes are wide open, I don't buy broken reed arguments.

I have shown you many things that falsify evolution, but evolutionists keep moving the goalposts. You are no exception. This is you from #346:

"That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification". In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways. It's all evolution. . ."

That is about the nuttiest thing I have read from someone pretending to be a science expert. That reminds me of this exchange:

"Ernst Mayr made some startling admissions about Darwin's original model of mutation and natural selection. He said, "Popper is right; this model is so good that it can explain everything, as Popper has rightly complained." This relates to the requirement in science that a theory or model must make exclusionary predictions. If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science. For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions." [Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma." Master Books, ISBN 0-89051-108-X, 1984, Chap 6, p.133]

Scientists have known all along that evolution was of no use to science. But it is nice hearing it from straight from the evolution horse's mouth.

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

>>Kalamata: "How does it feel to be an apologist for the ACLU?"
>>Joey said: "Rubbish, the "Dover" teachers, parents and voters clearly expressed their response to the government Creationist school-board trying to ram their own theology down children's throats.

Nonsense. That was just another in a long line of well-orchestrated attacks by atheists at the ACLU and the NCSE against the Christian heritage of our nation.

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

>>Kalamata: "If the states and people had NOT lost its power of free exercise of religion to a usurpation by the Federal Government (at the instigation of the ACLU,) there would have been no trial. But, because of the usurpations, the ACLU and their cult following have been able to brainwash many citizens into believing there was supposed to be "separation of church and state", which is always interpreted to mean, "No Christians Allowed!" You have some strange "bedfellows", Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "And you continue to spin & lie shamelessly. Now I see you've, ahem, devolved back to mindless name-calling.

Says the fellow who uses innuendo to slander those who oppose his materialistic worldview.

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

>>Joey said: "The facts are that teachers, parents & voters did not want Creationist religion taught in their science classes. So the government Creationist school board was fired, by voters.

That is false by omission, Joey. You never addressed the fact that this event would have NEVER happened if not for the collusion of the ACLU and the federal judiciary decades ago. That said, the real culprit underlying all the anti-Christian bigotry is the "Devil's Chaplain," Charlie Darwin, who popularized the apes-to-man myth, which Charlie's disciples viciously defend to this day, despite the overwhelming evidence against it.

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

>>Kalamata: "Is that the same Ken Miller who maintained the fraudulent Haeckel's Embryos through FOUR editions of his Biology textbook, until he was shamed into taking them out in the 5th edition by Richardson et al, in 1997? "
>>Joey said: "So you're telling me that if I buy the 1994 edition of Miller's book I'll find Haeckel's drawings there, but in the 2004 edition I won't, you say? And you say this is because Miller is dishonest?

Why are you pretending ignorance again, Joey? Haeckel's embryos had been exposed as fraudulent long before the time Miller and other modern authors included them in their Biology textbooks. If Miller and the others didn't know about the fraud, they are far too incompetent to be writing textbooks for our children.

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

>>Kalamata: "he lied his behind off at the trial, the most egregious of which was his appeal to being "a person of faith", as if it is okay to lie as long as you claim to be a "person of faith"."
>>Joey said: "So now Kalamata has become mind-reader enough to know if Miller's faith is genuine?Amazing."

Mind-reading is your pretense, Joey. History reveals Ken Miller to be one of the consummate enemies of our traditional Christian Heritage.

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

>>Kalamata: "It is time for creationists and ID'ers to play hardball against that deceitful thug."
>>Joey said: "Hardball? Really? What do you call trying to shove your theology down the throats of teachers, children's parents & voters who don't want it, if not hardball?

That is what you and Miller do, Joey. However, the thug Ken Miller takes an additional step by teaming up with the ACLU and corrupt judges, to force the American people to adopt his agenda using the power -- the sword -- of the State. The "scientific orthodoxy" are using the same old tricks they used against Galileo to suppress those who question their interpretation of science.

That may be a wee bit over your head, Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Don't try to downplay it. Dover was a well-orchestrated, left-wing assault on the Christian heritage of our nation."
>>Joey said: "Total nonsense, "Dover" was a well-orchestrated theological assault by the government Creationist school-board against teachers, students' parents & voters who didn't want it.

That is very deceitful! You completely dismissed the treachery of the ACLU, the NCSE, and the federal judiciary.

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

>>Kalamata: "There is not one shred of evidence for evolution. The accumulation of a vast body of just-so stories, and constant hand-waving, is not, nor shall ever be, evidence!"
>>Joey said: "Right! Just as there is not one shred of evidence for the Holocaust, not even in a Holocaust museum, a "fact" that most of the old Deniers have now taken with them to their graves, at which time they doubtless learned & answered to God's real Truth.

I knew you would instantly revert to slander by innuendo. Your hero -- the atheist, anti-God bigot, Michael Shermer -- taught you well, Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Now you are getting really annoying. Those new-fangled evolution "methods" were nothing more than desperate cover-ups of falsifications of evolution."
>>Joey said: "Regardless of how "annoying", new data can require better explanations, but no data has ever falsified Darwin's basic evolution idea.

It has been falsified, about a gazillion times. The anti-Christian evolution cult keeps moving the goal posts, that is, every time the theory is falsified, the cult followers slap a new fancy name on it and call the falsified part . . . (drum roll) . . . EVOLUTION! Joey has done it himself in this very thread be claiming devolution is evolution. That was pretty slick, Child. Check out this funny video explaining the unfalsifiability of evolutonism, and how evolutionists use deception to cover it up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB0cjZMVjOo

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

>>Kalamata quoting "Pandas & People": "By this definition, descent with modification simply doesn't warrant the status of a fact. Far from compelling a single conclusion, the evidence may legitimately be interpreted in different ways, leading to several possible conclusions. None of those conclusions warrants the status of a "fact"."
>>Joey said: "Just so we're clear on this: the scientific definition of "fact" is a confirmed observation."

No. Try confirmed, repeatable, scientific observations.

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

>>Joey said: "For example: a globe shaped Earth was a hypothesis in Ancient times, it became a confirmed theory in the Age of Exploration and is now a confirmed observed fact. The Earth, of course, was always globe shaped, but humans didn't know that for a fact until relatively recently.

I see you are playing the misdirection game, again, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Today, long-term speciation through evolution is a confirmed theory because the past cannot be observed. However elements of evolution theory are confirmed facts, including short-term adaptations, descent with modifications and natural selection."

False.

1) None of those are examples of evolution. Speciation and adaptation are either genetically neutral, or result in the loss of genetic information, which is devolution, not evolution.

2) There is no confirmed evidence that descent with modification has ever occurred; not in the fossil record, not in real life, nor genetically.

3) The phrase "natural selection" is a much over-hyped, but relatively meaningless term that is used as recognition that organisms with certain characteristics survive better than those that lack those characteristics. It doesn't possess the intelligence to "select" anything.

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

>>Joey said: "As for that drawing from "Pandas & People", it clearly illustrates the disgraceful argument that, "there is no Truth, only perspective" an argument we well expect from Leftists & other such scoundrels, but can absolutely not tolerate from people claiming to represent God's Truth."

I am not surprised that you would attempt to slander those great scientists, Joey. What else can we expect from someone who promotes the myth that man is a descendent of an ape, or a frog. According to Joey's cult, if a frog turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale; but if a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science. LOL!

I am not kidding when I insinuate that evolutionists believe frogs are of the human ancestors. This is Neil Shubin in Scientific American:

"How biological hand-me-downs inherited from fish and tadpoles evolved into human maladies. . ." [Shubin, Neil, "This Old Body." Scientific American, January, 2009, p.64]

This is Neil in one of his books:

"Our tendency to develop hiccups is another influence of our past. There are two issues to think about. The first is what causes the spasm of nerves that initiates the hiccup. The second is what controls that distinctive hic, the abrupt inhalation-glottis closure. The nerve spasm is a product of our fish history, while the hic is an outcome of the history we share with animals such as tadpoles… It turns out that the pattern generator responsible for hiccups is virtually identical to one in amphibians. And not in just any amphibians—in tadpoles, which use both lungs and gills to breathe. Tadpoles use this pattern generator when they breathe with gills… The parallels between our hiccups and gill breathing in tad poles are so extensive that many have proposed that the two phenomena are one and the same." [Shubin, Neil, "Your Inner Fish." Pantheon Books, 2008, Chap.11, p.190, 192]

You can't make that stuff, unless you are an evolutionist. Normal people would never dream of such foolishness.

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

>>Kalamata: " 'Of Panda's and People' is a very good book, and highly recommended. It is co-authored by Professor Dean Kenyon, a former evolutionist, who, along with Dr. Gary Steinman..."

You misquoted me, Joey. Gary Steinman was Kenyon's co-author on "Biochemical Evolution". Kenyon and Percival Davis co-authored "Of Pandas and People".

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

>>Joey said: "I have it, a hard copy, have perused it only, from the outside it looks like a children's book but definitely is not, instead is at least high-school level.

I believe it was intended to be a high-school textbook supplement, to be stored as a reference in high-school libraries so that any child, who wished to, could read it:

"The authors and publisher want you to use this book as a supplement, not a substitute, for your biology text; it cannot replace the main textbook. But without Of Pandas and People, you would miss a lot of interesting science. We hope you finish this book respecting good scientists of all persuasions; we do. The subjects here are treated in depth, and digging deeper brings richer rewards. Your textbook provides a lighter treatment of a broader range of topics. Wander back and forth between the two, using each to enrich the other" [Davis & Kenyon, "Of Pandas and People: the central question of biological origins." Haughton Publishing Company, 2nd Ed, 1993, Introduction, p.ix]

As ususal, Joey over-hyped the Dover trial by falsely claiming the school board was trying to ram Intelligent Design down everyone's throats, which they clearly were not.

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

>>Joey said: "Careful study will take some time, though I suppose most of its arguments I've already seen in one form or another on FR evo/creation threads. But if I get a chance to carefully study it, will make a point of reporting my impressions.

I am looking forward to your "report", Joey. Try not to over-hype it, okay?

The follow-up volume for "Of Pandas and People" is called, "The Design of Life", by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells.

https://www.amazon.com/Design-Life-Discovering-Intelligence-Biological/dp/0980021308

The good rule of thumb to identify a real science book is, evolutionists will hate it. In particular read reviews by the suppressive NCSE, Science & Nature Magazines, and some of the louder, shadier, anti-Christian blogs. If they hate it, you can be guaranteed that it is a good science book.

The one "downside" is, you will not find any name-calling or slurs in these books, which are prevalent in evolutionism books.

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

>>Joey said: "For right now I have only the impression of that poor woman's head -- not a good start."

While you are emotionally coping with that cartoon, Joey, other people are concerned about babies heads bing crushed with heavy forceps as a result of the lingering eugenics mindset instilled in many by Social Darwinism.

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

>>Kalamata: "It was only after the release of "Biochemical Evolution" that Dr. Kenyon realized that evolution was impossible (that is, well beyond the scope of probability.)"
>>Joey said: "G.I.G.O. -- I'm totally unimpressed with people who claim "mathematical or statistical impossibility" without knowing the conditions."

You are mocking the work of some of the top mathematicians in the world, Joey? Even Asimov and Dawkins were not stupid enough to mock the science. Both explained the virtual impossibility of even a single hemoglobin molecule forming by random mutation. Other proteins are required to make it useful, rendering it even more impossible than even they claim.

While we are at it, let's take a look at some of the many symbiotic relationships necessary to sustain the hemoglobin molecule inside the human body. To name a few, we need blood vessels, arteries, plasma, a pump (heart), liver, stomach, lungs, nerves and a brain, not to mention the agents necessary to maintain fluidity (anti-coagulants,) pressure, and other regulatory functions.

Obviously, that is an over-simplified, cartoonish example of the mind-boggling complexity of the body; but no matter how we characterize it, all of those organs will become a putrid pile of goo in a few days without the supernatural breath of life that keep the internal molecular machines in motion.

You have to be severely scientifically-challenged to believe the human body evolved by materialistic dumb luck.

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

>>Joey said: "Finally, on your "Anti-Biblical Philosophy Masquerading as Science", science itself is not anti-Biblical, science can say nothing about the Bible's message."

Science is deaf and dumb, Joey. Scientists, on the other hand can and do choose to say things about the Bible, except when suppressed by tyrants.

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

>>Joey said: "Of course, scientists who support or oppose traditional Biblical understandings are free to express their religious views, but should not claim such views are somehow "scientific".

You claim your religious views are science, Joey? Why are you privileged?

Mr. Kalamata

from post #371 quoting BJK: "That assumes an outdated definition of "evolution" as "forward" progress, aka "complexification".
In fact there are many examples of evolution backward ("devolution") and just sideways.
It's all evolution. . ."

Kalamata responds: "That is about the nuttiest thing I have read from someone pretending to be a science expert."

Nonsense, it's your complaint here which is "nutty".

Kalamata quoting Sutherland 1984: "If the concept is so generalized that it can explain any conceivable type of evidence, then it is of no value in science.
For example, if a theory can explain both dark and light coloration in moths, both the presence and absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, complex life forms either above or below in rock strata, etc., then it has no value in making predictions."

Nonsense, basic evolution theory makes any number of predictions which have never been falsified.
An example is the sequence of fossils found in the geological strata.

Kalamata:"Scientists have known all along that evolution was of no use to science.
But it is nice hearing it from straight from the evolution horse's mouth."

Nonsense since evolution theory is woven into every related science from biology & geology to animal breeding & medicine, even some computer algorithms.

Kalamata on "Dover": "Nonsense.
That was just another in a long line of well-orchestrated attacks by atheists at the ACLU and the NCSE against the Christian heritage of our nation."

Our nation also has a scientific heritage which voters want taught in schools, undiluted by theological interruptions.
Mandatory science in science class, voluntary theology in church.
That's what "Dover" illustrated.

Kalamata:"Says the fellow who uses innuendo to slander those who oppose his materialistic worldview."

Your reference, please?

Kalamata:"That is false by omission, Joey.
You never addressed the fact that this event would have NEVER happened if not for the collusion of the ACLU and the federal judiciary decades ago.
That said, the real culprit underlying all the anti-Christian bigotry is the "Devil's Chaplain," Charlie Darwin, who popularized the apes-to-man myth, which Charlie's disciples viciously defend to this day, despite the overwhelming evidence against it."

First, there's not even a shred of evidence "against" evolution theory, nor have you attempted to present any here.
Second, voter rebellion against the "Dover" school board's mandatory theology began with teachers & parents seeking redress in court, then ended with voters firing the theological school board.

Kalamata:"Why are you pretending ignorance again, Joey?
Haeckel's embryos had been exposed as fraudulent long before the time Miller and other modern authors included them in their Biology textbooks.
If Miller and the others didn't know about the fraud, they are far too incompetent to be writing textbooks for our children."

First, I notice you didn't answer the question of whether Haeckel's drawings were in earlier versions of Miller's textbook and then deleted from later editions.
Instead you assume an answer which is not yet in evidence.

As a young man many years ago I remember seeing something like Haeckel's drawings in biology class, but I never learned his famous hypothesis: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" until years later.
The point as I remember it, was simply that embryos in early stages resemble each other, regardless of species.
That point was valid then, is still valid.

Kalamata: "Mind-reading is your pretense, Joey.
History reveals Ken Miller to be one of the consummate enemies of our traditional Christian Heritage."

Nothing in our Christian Heritage requires us to teach theology in science classes, Danny boy.
As St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in 1271:

"I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle

has to do with the teaching of the faith."

Kalamata: "That is what you and Miller do, Joey.
However, the thug Ken Miller takes an additional step by teaming up with the ACLU and corrupt judges, to force the American people to adopt his agenda using the power -- the sword -- of the State.
The "scientific orthodoxy" are using the same old tricks they used against Galileo to suppress those who question their interpretation of science.
That may be a wee bit over your head, Child."

But Danny boy, lies are never "over my head" and lies are what you're selling here, even though you well know the truth of this matter.
For examples, the rights of parents to seek redress in court from an out-of-control government school board is not disputed.
Neither is the judge's appointment by President Bush and the failure to appeal his ruling or to overturn it in another related case.
Neither is the citizens' solution of voting out the theological school board which tried to impose its religion on science classes.

But more important, you totally ignore the fact that "Dover" is just one of many such court rulings going back over 50 years, including:

1968, Epperson v. Arkansas: "United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution.
The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine."
1981, Segraves v. State of California: Sacrimento Superior Court "found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its antidogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion.
The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically.
The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution."
1982, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education: "a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science".
In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science.
The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature.
The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator."
1987, Edwards v. Aguillard: "the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional Louisiana's "Creationism Act".
This statute prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in "creation science".
The Court found that, by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind, which is embraced by the term creation science, the act impermissibly endorses religion.
In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught."
1990, Webster v. New Lenox School District, near Chicago: "the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated and that religious beliefs are not injected into the public school curriculum.
The court upheld a district court finding that the school district had not violated Webster's free speech rights when it prohibited him from teaching "creation science", since it is a form of religious advocacy."
1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, near Los Angeles: "the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes.
Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class."
1997, Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, Louisiana: "the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana rejected a policy requiring teachers to read aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking".
Noting that the policy singled out the theory of evolution for attention, that the only "concept" from which students were not to be "dissuaded" was "the Biblical concept of Creation", and that students were already encouraged to engage in critical thinking, the Court wrote that, "In mandating this disclaimer, the School Board is endorsing religion by disclaiming the teaching of evolution in such a manner as to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that runs counter to ... other religious views".
Besides addressing disclaimer policies, the decision is noteworthy for recognizing that curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science"."
2000, Minnesota State District Court "Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case of Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. (Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum, Court File Nr. CX-99-793, District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota [2000]).
High school biology teacher LeVake had argued for his right to teach 'evidence both for and against the theory' of evolution.
The school district considered the content of what he was teaching and concluded that it did not match the curriculum, which required the teaching of evolution.
Given the large amount of case law requiring a teacher to teach the employing district's curriculum, the judge declared that LeVake did not have a free speech right to override the curriculum, nor was the district guilty of religious discrimination."
2005, in Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al., Georgia: "U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper ruled that a evolution warning label required in Cobb County textbooks violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The disclaimer stickers stated, 'This textbook contains material on evolution.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.
This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.'
After the district court's decision, the stickers were removed from Cobb’s textbooks.
The school district, however, appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and in May 2006 the Appeals Court remanded the case to the district court for clarification of the evidentiary record.
On December 19, 2006, the lawsuit reached a settlement; the Cobb County School District agreed not to disclaim or denigrate evolution either orally or in written form."
2005, in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, near York PA, "U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III ordered the Dover Area School Board to refrain from maintaining an Intelligent Design Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
The ID policy included a statement in the science curriculum that "students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."
Teachers were also required to announce to their biology classes that "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 to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind".
In his 139-page ruling, Judge Jones wrote it was "abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause".
Furthermore, Judge Jones ruled that "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In reference to whether Intelligent Design is science Judge Jones wrote ID "is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community".
This was the first challenge to the constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" in the public school science classroom."

Near as I can tell, "Dover" is the most recent court case in a long list of similar cases all with the same outcome: ID/Creationism is religion and so cannot be taught in science classes.

I also notice these cases came from:

California -2
Louisiana - 2
Arkansas - 2
Illinois
Minnisota
Georgia
Pennsylvania

And, notice that two of these cases were decided by the US Supreme Court, two by state courts, four by Federal district and two by Federal appeals courts.

Kalamata:"That is very deceitful!
You completely dismissed the treachery of the ACLU, the NCSE, and the federal judiciary."

No, I completely dismiss your fantasies that something unusual or illegal happened at "Dover".

Kalamata:"I knew you would instantly revert to slander by innuendo.
Your hero -- the atheist, anti-God bigot, Michael Shermer -- taught you well, Child."

Danny boy, I'm currently reading three books:

"Of Pandas and People", the 1989 book at issue in "Dover".
"Spying on Whales", 2018, tons of fun about whale evolution, by Nick Pyenson.
"Why Evolution Matters", Shermer's 2006 book defending evolution.

And I knew that you would instantly deny the obvious truth -- that deniers are deniers regardless of the subject of their denials.
Both evolution and Holocaust deniers can, literally, spend all day in a museum and never see a shred of evidence.
They use identical Jedi mind tricks -- "these are not the evidence/droids we're looking for, nothing to see here, move along, move along."

Today, outside the domain of radical Islam, the old Holocaust deniers have mostly died off.
Evolution deniers are still with us, but even they seem to have done not-so-much since "Dover" in 2005.

Kalamata: "It has been falsified, about a gazillion times.
The anti-Christian evolution cult keeps moving the goal posts, that is, every time the theory is falsified, the cult followers slap a new fancy name on it and call the falsified part . . . (drum roll) . . . EVOLUTION!
Joey has done it himself in this very thread be claiming devolution is evolution.
That was pretty slick, Child. "

Danny boy, you just have to stop lying about this, it's bad for you.
The fact is that evidence which increases our understandings of evolutionary processes do not "falsify" the theory.
So your claim here that devolution somehow falsifies evolution is pure nonsense.
That's because by definition evolution is simply change, regardless of which "direction".

The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant, it's still evolution.

Kalamata:"Check out this funny video explaining the unfalsifiability of evolutonism, and how evolutionists use deception to cover it up:"

Just more nonsense.
By definitions, scientific explanations are natural processes while ID-Creationism is supernatural.
We learn natural explanations in science class, we learn supernatural explanations in church.
The task of reconciling the two is what makes us uniquely human.

Kalamata on defining "facts":"No. Try confirmed, repeatable, scientific observations."

Nonsense, because a one-time event which cannot be repeated can still be confirmed as observed fact.

Kalamata: "I see you are playing the misdirection game, again, Joey."

More nonsense, it was a perfectly valid point which you respond to by -- slavish obedience to Denier Rules, in this case #5, #7 & #12.

Kalamata:"False.
1) None of those are examples of evolution.
Speciation and adaptation are either genetically neutral, or result in the loss of genetic information, which is devolution, not evolution."

Danny boy, you just got to stop lying.
By definition, evolution is change, regardless of the "direction", "gain" or "loss" of "information".
You don't get to redefine it just because you don't like it.

Kalamata:"2) There is no confirmed evidence that descent with modification has ever occurred; not in the fossil record, not in real life, nor genetically."

The DNA evidence is observed & confirmed in every individual who has a DNA test.
Tests consistently show "descent with modifications", mutations, in every generation.
The fact that most such mutations prove harmless demonstrates that your claims about "no junk DNA" are highly suspect.

The fossil records show innumerable transition species, especially among human ancestors.

Kalamata:"3) The phrase "natural selection" is a much over-hyped, but relatively meaningless term that is used as recognition that organisms with certain characteristics survive better than those that lack those characteristics.
It doesn't possess the intelligence to "select" anything."

But Danny boy, there's no reason for you to lie about that, because you just admitted its true.
You just don't like the terms "natural selection" & "descent with modifications" so you lie & claim it doesn't happen before admitting it does?

Kalamata on "Pandas & People": "I am not surprised that you would attempt to slander those great scientists, Joey.
What else can we expect from someone who promotes the myth that man is a descendent of an ape, or a frog.
According to Joey's cult, if a frog turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale; but if a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science. LOL!"

I suspect the writers of "Pandas & People" are pure scoundrels, but have not yet finished reading their book.
Will let you know if I can find a word of truth in it when I'm done reading.

Kalamata: "I am not kidding when I insinuate that evolutionists believe frogs are of the human ancestors.
This is Neil Shubin in Scientific American:"

Frogs are not human ancestors but there is enough similarity in frog & human biology to suggest common ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago.

Kalamata post #371 cont. 2: "You misquoted me, Joey.
Gary Steinman was Kenyon's co-author on "Biochemical Evolution".
Kenyon and Percival Davis co-authored "Of Pandas and People"."

Sorry, Danny boy, but I quoted you exactly from your own post #314:

" 'Of Panda's and People' is a very good book, and highly recommended.
It is co-authored by Professor Dean Kenyon, a former evolutionist, who, along with Dr. Gary Steinman

Seriously, I make plenty enough mistakes on my own without also taking the blame for your mistakes.

Kalamata: "As ususal, Joey over-hyped the Dover trial by falsely claiming the school board was trying to ram Intelligent Design down everyone's throats, which they clearly were not."

Danny boy, you got to stop lying about these things, the truth is not what you claim.
The truth, in a nutshell, is the "Dover" government school board created an anti-evolution statement they required science teachers to read, teachers refused, parents sued and voters fired the creationist school board.

Here is a pretty good summary of Kitzmiller v Dover.
It takes about two hours to watch, but covers the subject and makes the key point that the term "Intelligent Design" is simply Creationism renamed for legal purposes.

Kalamata: "The follow-up volume for "Of Pandas and People" is called, "The Design of Life", by William Dembski and Jonathan Wells."

I'll put it on my list.

Kalamata: "The one "downside" is, you will not find any name-calling or slurs in these books, which are prevalent in evolutionism books."

And also far too prevalent in Danny Denier's posts.

Kalamata: "While you are emotionally coping with that cartoon, Joey, other people are concerned about babies heads bing crushed with heavy forceps as a result of the lingering eugenics mindset instilled in many by Social Darwinism."

Oh Danny boy, it may surprise you to learn that the US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade never once mentioned either Darwin, "Social Darwinism" or evolution.
What they did mention, iirc, was the US Constitution and an alleged "right to privacy" which somehow got expanded in the Supremes' minds to "right to kill unborn babies."

{sigh}

Kalamata: "You are mocking the work of some of the top mathematicians in the world, Joey?"

Just as Danny Denier mocks any scientist or mathematician you disagree with, right?
G.I.G.O. -- regardless of how "genius" a mathematician might be, if his basic assumptions are wrong, his results will be... yes, garbage.

Kalamata: "You have to be severely scientifically-challenged to believe the human body evolved by materialistic dumb luck."

Most Christian churches teach just what I believe -- that regardless of what theories science proposes today, God was the designer, creator and implementer of every natural process.
In other words, unless God Himself intended it, there is no such thing as "dumb luck".

Kalamata: "Science is deaf and dumb, Joey.
Scientists, on the other hand can and do choose to say things about the Bible, except when suppressed by tyrants."

Right, just as I've posted before: every scientist regardless is entitled to their nonscientific opinions.
What they are not entitled is to label such opinions as "science".

Kalamata: "You claim your religious views are science, Joey?
Why are you privileged?"

Seriously, why do you keep lying?
You know your job here requires a man of impeccable honesty and you just don't have it.
If I were your boss, I'd fire your sorry r.....