post 366 (cont. 2) quoting BJK: "Science doesn't & can't prove or disprove anything about the supernatural, because
by definition that's outside the scope of natural science."
Danny Denier: "Who's definition?"
"Natural philosophy", aka science, and Empiricism date back to ancient Greeks and was recognized by such "doctors of the Church" as St. Thomas Aquinas. 
""The Condemnation of 1277, which forbade setting philosophy on a level equal with theology and the debate of religious constructs in a scientific context, showed the persistence with which Catholic leaders resisted the development of natural philosophy even from a theological perspective.[48]
Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, another Catholic theologian of the era, sought to distance theology from science in their works.[49]
"I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle has to do with the teaching of the faith," he wrote in 1271.[50]"
From earliest times some in the Church were suspicious of "natural philosophy" (aka "science") others embraced it.
Danny Denier:"Science doesn't prove or disprove anything, Joey.
Scientists, however, are so burdened with the heavy baggage of Darwin and Lyell that they do not seem to be able to prove much of anything in the way of so-called "natural science.""
Right, again by word-definitions, scientific theories are not "proved", instead they can be tested and "confirmed" or "falsified".
A test failing to falsify is considered to have helped confirm a hypothesis.
A theory confirmed by many tests will be tentatively accepted, pending possible future falsifications or just better explanations.
Danny Denier:"Even when confronted with evidence of a young solar system, such as short-period comets, "scientists" tend to invent just-so stories, such as Oort Clouds, as an escape from the reality of the creation story, and/or to cling to the religion of the two Charlie's."
I've seen no evidence of "a young solar system" and much evidence suggesting billions of years old.
Even the Bible tells us that God's "days" can be much longer than ours.
Danny Denier:"That is what I have been trying to tell you, Joey.
Theologians, such as Charles Darwin, only pretend to be scientists.
You can add lawyers (e.g., Charles Lyell) to that group of non-scientists."
Lyell worked a few years as a lawyer then nearly 50 years as a geologist.
Darwin studied theology at Cambridge but worked for 50 years as a naturalist, geologist & biologist.
Both Lyell & Darwin found considerable push-back from theologians but were generally accepted by other scientists.
Danny Denier:"I had no doubt you would defend Shermer's war against conservatives."
I "get" that you hate Shermer because he opposed Holocaust and other forms of pathological denials.
But I never gave his views on evolution any thought until your constant harangues alerted me that Shermer has something to say on evolution too.
So now, along with "Pandas & People" I have Shermer's book and also one on whale evolution, which is tons of fun.
Will read them all when I get the chance...
Danny Denier:"Michael Shermer deceitfully labels fascists and neo-nazis as right-wingers, thus taking the heat off the real fascists, such as Obama, and placing it squarely on conservatives by association with the right-wing label.
It is Saul Alinsky 101."
Shermer self-describes his politics as Libertarian, admirer of President Thomas Jefferson, of whom Shermer said,
"When he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates."[70]"
I don't consider Libertarians (think Ron & Rand Paul) my political "enemies" though occasionally they can annoy us to tears, normally we are allied.
As for calling Nazis "right wingers" it's a common enough mistake which most children learn in school, something we have to repeatedly, patiently correct.
On this thread Kalamata has quoted (i.e., #329) Shermer on Holocaust denier David Irving:
"A few months later, we documented him as a white supremacist because he was running with neo-Nazi skinheads and had formed a right-wing organization known as the National Socialist Front." [Ibid. p.94]"
In Europe "extreme right wing" refers to racist National Socialists.
In the US "extreme right wing" refers to racists like KKK or old Dixiecrats, self-proclaimed constitutionalists who adamantly oppose Socialism in any form, national or otherwise.
So the mistake is commonly made to lump together European National Socialists with American anti-socialists as both "extreme right wing" because of their racism.
It's unfortunate but I'm not certain it's the major crime Kalamata makes it out to be.
Danny Denier:"So, the next time some left-wing radical calls you a Nazi, you can thank those like Michael Shermer, and their apologists, like Joey."
The only time in my life I was ever called a "Nazi" was on this very thread, post #377 by mdmathis6:
"You speak and insinuate more like a sniveling Nazi than you do a freeper!"
So, should I blame Shermer for that?
Danny Denier:"So you don't think Shermer's anti-Christian bigotry and hard-left ideology is enough for me to despise him, and his apologists?"
Shermer is a self-described Libertarian and religious agnostic, a professional skeptic.
It's not clear how Shermer's overall views differ from those of other well known Libertarians, i.e., Ron Paul.
Danny Denier:"The bottom line is, Michael Shermer doesn't seem to care as much about the holocaust as he feels a need to use the name of the holocaust to support his warped, leftist agenda, much like you use the name of the holocaust, Joey, to defend your religion of evolutionism."
Libertarians like the Pauls, Bob Bar, Clint Eastwood, Milton Friedman & Walter E. Williams are not our "enemies", they vote about 75% for Republicans.
True they can sometimes be annoying, like when they don't support the "war on drugs" or some military actions.
And many are not notably religious.
But I highly suspect that Kalamata's strident antipathy to Libertarian Michael Shermer have more to do with Shermer's work against deniers than with any particular political position.
Also, science, by definition, is the opposite of any religion, regardless of how often Kalamata falsely claims otherwise.
Danny Denier: "Move down to page 43, and you will find Shermer associating David Duke with the words "ultra conservative" and "right wing", even though that Israel-hater and Jew-hater is neither:"
quoting Shermer: "...Carto also runs Liberty Lobby, a right-wing organization that publishes The Spotlight, with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands, and has sponsored numerous radio programs such as This Is Liberty Lobby and Radio Free America.
Carto's Populist Party ran former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for president in 1988." [Ibid. p.43]"
In the US "extreme right wing" does legitimately refer to racists like the KKK & old Dixiecrats.
In this particular example, somebody named Carto supported both "Radio Free America" and the KKK leader David Duke.
So... in other contexts our FRiend Kalamata uses the term "quibble" to admit he's wrong on an issue.
I'm here saying Kalamata is
quibbling with Michael Shermer over the definition of American "extreme right wing".
Danny Denier: "Are you sure you have read that book, Joey?
Those statements are found on the exact same pages in the 2000 edition?"
I confess to admiring Kalamata's talent for searching pretty much any book for key words, as well demonstrated here.
I can also do that on newer electronic books, but my old year 2000 version of Shermer's Holocaust book is a hardback copy, not searchable without considerable time & effort.
Danny Denier:"It appears you are suffering from an extreme case of head-in-the-sandism, Joey."
That term describes your entire argument here, oh Danny boy. ![]()
>>post 366 (cont. 2) quoting Joey Denier: "Science doesn't & can't prove or disprove anything about the supernatural, because by definition that's outside the scope of natural science."
>>Kalamata: "Who's definition?"
>>Joey Denier: "Natural philosophy", aka science, and Empiricism date back to ancient Greeks and was recognized by such "doctors of the Church" as St. Thomas Aquinas."The Condemnation of 1277, which forbade setting philosophy on a level equal with theology and the debate of religious constructs in a scientific context, showed the persistence with which Catholic leaders resisted the development of natural philosophy even from a theological perspective.[48] Aquinas and Albertus Magnus, another Catholic theologian of the era, sought to distance theology from science in their works.[49] "I don't see what one's interpretation of Aristotle has to do with the teaching of the faith," he wrote in 1271.[50]"
>>Joey Denier: "From earliest times some in the Church were suspicious of "natural philosophy" (aka "science") others embraced it.
Apparently Nicolaus Steno, who lived in the 1600's, is one of those who didn't get the message:
"In regard to the first aspect of the earth Scripture and Nature agree in this, that all things were covered with water; how and when this aspect began, and how long it lasted, Nature says not. Scripture relates. That there was a watery fluid, however, at a time when animals and plants were not yet to be found, and that the fluid covered all things, is proved by the strata of the higher mountains, free from all heterogeneous material. . . But when those mountains, of which Scripture in this connection makes mention, were formed, whether they were identical with mountains of the present day, whether at the beginning of the deluge there was the same depth of valleys as there is to-day, or whether new breaks in the strata opened new chasms to lower the surface of the rising waters, neither Scripture nor Nature declares." [Steno, Nicolaus, "The Prodromus of Nicolaus Steno's Dissertation Concerning a Solid Body Enclosed by Process of Nature Within a Solid." The MacMillan Company, 1916, pp.263-265]
Nor did Isaac Newton get the message:
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.
"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Rider; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal. the Eternal of Israel the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where."
[Newton, Isaac, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, pp.504-505]
If you desire to learn Mathematics, I recommend you follow the lead of Isaac Newton.
******************
>>Kalamata: "Science doesn't prove or disprove anything, Joey. Scientists, however, are so burdened with the heavy baggage of Darwin and Lyell that they do not seem to be able to prove much of anything in the way of so-called "natural science.""
>>Joey Denier: "Right, again by word-definitions, scientific theories are not "proved", instead they can be tested and "confirmed" or "falsified". A test failing to falsify is considered to have helped confirm a hypothesis. A theory confirmed by many tests will be tentatively accepted, pending possible future falsifications or just better explanations."
And, if your favorite theory is falsified, move the goalposts.
******************
>>Kalamata:"Even when confronted with evidence of a young solar system, such as short-period comets, "scientists" tend to invent just-so stories, such as Oort Clouds, as an escape from the reality of the creation story, and/or to cling to the religion of the two Charlie's."
>>Joey Denier: "I've seen no evidence of "a young solar system" and much evidence suggesting billions of years old.
The "billions of years" dates are made up. There is no way to tell the date of the solar sytem or the universe, without the scripture. There are, however, many "anomolies" within the solar system that point to a young age. I recommend this video by former NASA scientist, Spike Psarris. It is beautifully made and presented:
What You Aren't Being Told About Astronomy - Vol. I (Our Created Solar System)
******************
>>Joey Denier: "Even the Bible tells us that God's "days" can be much longer than ours."
Where does it say that, Joey?
******************
>>Kalamata:"That is what I have been trying to tell you, Joey. Theologians, such as Charles Darwin, only pretend to be scientists. You can add lawyers (e.g., Charles Lyell) to that group of non-scientists."
>>Joey Denier: "Lyell worked a few years as a lawyer then nearly 50 years as a geologist. Darwin studied theology at Cambridge but worked for 50 years as a naturalist, geologist & biologist. Both Lyell & Darwin found considerable push-back from theologians but were generally accepted by other scientists.
Neither learned how to be a scientist, and there is no science to be found in their books. Their "acceptance" within the scientific community is generally the same as it is today, due to
- anti-Moses, anti-God philosophies that dominate their books, and
- brow-beating of the reluctant into submission.
******************
>>Kalamata:"I had no doubt you would defend Shermer's war against conservatives."
>>Joey Denier: "I "get" that you hate Shermer because he opposed Holocaust and other forms of pathological denials. But I never gave his views on evolution any thought until your constant harangues alerted me that Shermer has something to say on evolution too.
I don't believe a word you say, Joey. Your shady debating tactics are too much like those of Shermer, his faithful sidekick Donald Prothero, and the Left, generally.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "So now, along with "Pandas & People" I have Shermer's book and also one on whale evolution, which is tons of fun. Will read them all when I get the chance...
What is the name of the Whale Evolution novel?
******************
>>Kalamata:"Michael Shermer deceitfully labels fascists and neo-nazis as right-wingers, thus taking the heat off the real fascists, such as Obama, and placing it squarely on conservatives by association with the right-wing label. It is Saul Alinsky 101."
>>Joey Denier: "Shermer self-describes his politics as Libertarian, admirer of President Thomas Jefferson, of whom Shermer said, "When he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates. I don't consider Libertarians (think Ron & Rand Paul) my political "enemies" though occasionally they can annoy us to tears, normally we are allied."
Shermer is a hard-core Leftist, Joey. No libertarian would promote "climate change" and conservative-hate, like Shermer. Also, I believe that quote came from Kennedy, himself:
"I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House—with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." [John F. Kennedy, at dinner for 49 Nobel laureates, 29 Apr 1962, in Simpson & Boorstin, "Simpson's contemporary quotations." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1988, p.211]
******************
>>Joey Denier: "As for calling Nazis "right wingers" it's a common enough mistake which most children learn in school, something we have to repeatedly, patiently correct.
It is no mistake with Shermer. He openly presents a visceral hatred for the conservative-right, and for the Christian-right in particular; and he goes out his way to slander them with labels such as "climate change denier", "evolution denier," and "holocaust denier," much like you have done to me in this thread. But, in all fairness, that is what leftist's do: smear, slander, and conflate science with atheism.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "On this thread Kalamata has quoted (i.e., #329) Shermer on Holocaust denier David Irving: "A few months later, we documented him as a white supremacist because he was running with neo-Nazi skinheads and had formed a right-wing organization known as the National Socialist Front." [Ibid. p.94]"
Irving has been known as a holocaust denier at least as far back as 1988, Joey; and there is no such thing as a "right-wing socialist." It is a myth, perpetuated by the Left.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "In Europe "extreme right wing" refers to racist National Socialists. In the US "extreme right wing" refers to racists like KKK or old Dixiecrats, self-proclaimed constitutionalists who adamantly oppose Socialism in any form, national or otherwise. So the mistake is commonly made to lump together European National Socialists with American anti-socialists as both "extreme right wing" because of their racism. It's unfortunate but I'm not certain it's the major crime Kalamata makes it out to be."
Those labels are intentional slanders of the Right, to redirect extremist left-wing (big government) activities away from the Left where they rightly belong, and onto the innocent Right; and yet you serve as an apologist? I worry about you Joey.
******************
>>Kalamata:"So, the next time some left-wing radical calls you a Nazi, you can thank those like Michael Shermer, and their apologists, like Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "The only time in my life I was ever called a "Nazi" was on this very thread, post #377 by mdmathis6: "You speak and insinuate more like a sniveling Nazi than you do a freeper!"
Perhaps that is the way you come across, sometimes, Joey.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "So, should I blame Shermer for that?"
You have no one to blame but yourself.
******************
>>Kalamata:"So you don't think Shermer's anti-Christian bigotry and hard-left ideology is enough for me to despise him, and his apologists?"
>>Joey Denier: "Shermer is a self-described Libertarian and religious agnostic, a professional skeptic. It's not clear how Shermer's overall views differ from those of other well known Libertarians, i.e., Ron Paul."
Perhaps not to those of like mind as Shermer.
Almost forgot: Shermer is not a religious agnostic. His religion is materialism.
******************
>>Kalamata:"The bottom line is, Michael Shermer doesn't seem to care as much about the holocaust as he feels a need to use the name of the holocaust to support his warped, leftist agenda, much like you use the name of the holocaust, Joey, to defend your religion of evolutionism."
>>Joey Denier: "Libertarians like the Pauls, Bob Bar, Clint Eastwood, Milton Friedman & Walter E. Williams are not our "enemies", they vote about 75% for Republicans. True they can sometimes be annoying, like when they don't support the "war on drugs" or some military actions. And many are not notably religious."
What does that have to do with Michael Shermer? He is a member of the Far Left!
******************
>>Joey Denier: "But I highly suspect that Kalamata's strident antipathy to Libertarian Michael Shermer have more to do with Shermer's work against deniers than with any particular political position."
Perhaps you are attempting to keep a closet ideology well-hidden, Joey; and the best way to do that has always been to cry "Stop, thief" first:
"15. As it is not to be expected that the change of a republic into a monarchy, with the rapidity desired can be carried through without occasional suspicions and alarms, it will be necessary to be prepared for such events. The best general rule on the subject is to be taken from the example of crying "Stop thief" first - neither lungs nor pens must be spared in charging every man who whispers, or even thinks, that the revolution on foot is meditated, with being himself an enemy to the established government and meaning to overturn it. Let the charge be reiterated and reverberated till at last such confusion and uncertainty be produced that the people, being not able to find out where the truth lies, withdraw their attention from the contest." [Philiip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]
******************
>>Joey Denier: "Also, science, by definition, is the opposite of any religion, regardless of how often Kalamata falsely claims otherwise."
Either you are lying, or devout Christians such as Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kepler, Mendel, Pasteur, and other great scientists did not understand science. I choose the former.
******************
>>Kalamata: "Move down to page 43, and you will find Shermer associating David Duke with the words "ultra conservative" and "right wing", even though that Israel-hater and Jew-hater is neither:"
>>Joey Denier: "In the US "extreme right wing" does legitimately refer to racists like the KKK & old Dixiecrats."
There is nothing legitimate about it. But let's finish your sentence, anyway: "... , because apologists like Joey refuse to work to set the record straight."
******************
>>Joey Denier: "In this particular example, somebody named Carto supported both "Radio Free America" and the KKK leader David Duke. So... in other contexts our FRiend Kalamata uses the term "quibble" to admit he's wrong on an issue.
You yourself called it a mistake:
[Joey] "As for calling Nazis "right wingers" it's a common enough mistake which most children learn in school, something we have to repeatedly, patiently correct."
But you were polite enough to not offend your friends on the Left.
******************
>>Joey Denier: "I'm here saying Kalamata is quibbling with Michael Shermer over the definition of American "extreme right wing".
You bet your life I am; and only a leftist would believe I am quibbling. I work to expose the rottenness of that liberty-hater (and those like him) every way I can. And I must say, Joey, he certainly has a tireless apologist in you.
******************
>>Kalamata: "Are you sure you have read that book, Joey? Those statements are found on the exact same pages in the 2000 edition?"
>>Joey Denier: "I confess to admiring Kalamata's talent for searching pretty much any book for key words, as well demonstrated here. I can also do that on newer electronic books, but my old year 2000 version of Shermer's Holocaust book is a hardback copy, not searchable without considerable time & effort."
Perhaps you read Shermer's book with rose-colored glasses, Joey; or perhaps it never dawned on you that big-government socialism is politically the opposite of the limited-government right.
You know, there is an index in the back of the book that lists the pages where he discusses "Holocaust denial" (and "denial, Holocaust," in case you perfer to search that way,) as well as the page number for "Duke, David, 43," and "extremist ideologies, 90-91." Not surprisingly, there is no listing for the words "right wing" or "Christian," though they are commonly used in the book. You have to actually read it to find those words.
Anyway, that should get you started.
******************
>>Kalamata:"It appears you are suffering from an extreme case of head-in-the-sandism, Joey."
>>Joey Denier: "That term describes your entire argument here, oh Danny boy."
Child.
Mr. Kalamata