Kalamata post #454:
"Last night I recalled a video link in my Research Library to one of Joey's CNN brothers, Brian Stelter, interviewing the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, who tore into Stelter for labeling him a "denier."
Watch:" You link doesn't work, but I'll take your word for it that Coleman objected to being called a climate "denier".
Just so we're clear on this: Denial is a debate strategy, a set of tactics practiced by those who have no stronger arguments to make.
It consists in part of Denier Rules, version 3.0 which I saw practiced by Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago and now by Kalamata in denying evolution.
I've never seen Denier Rules used by those opposed to the Left's Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) socialist agenda, and for the obvious reason that such despicable tactics are never necessary.
Indeed, arguably, it's the Left which uses Denier Rules to advance their AGW agenda, and skeptical science which responds with valid data and confirmed reasoning.
In short, "Denial" is how you argue, not what specific subject you debate over.
Kalamata: "LOL!
I cannot help but notice the irony of the Left claiming any change in the weather is proof of "climate change," since that is exactly the way Joey defines evolution, which is, "any change is proof of evolution."
See for yourself: [Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period." "
So let's stick with your "climate change" analogy -- nobody denies that climates change naturally, always have always will.
By every measure over time climates naturally grew warmer & cooler, wetter & dryer, stormier & calmer, since long before humans had anything to do with it.
But now suddenly, they tell us, every change in temperature, precipitation or storms is all somehow "anthropogenic" and therefore requiring of unlimited trillions of taxpayer dollars to "correct".
And yet scientific evidence supporting AGW alarmists is surprisingly weak and so no Denial Tactics are ever called for to refute them.
Point is: just as there have been natural climate changes, from minor to major, so there have also been natural evolutionary changes from minor to major.
Kalamata: "Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne defines evolutionism in the more traditional manner: 
Quoting Coyne: "In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp.
It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence:
Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3,5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection."
[Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, p.3]
Kalamata:
"There is no evidence in support of that claim; but that is what Coyne believes, and that is what Darwin's theory teaches."There are literal mountains of evidence and, yes, Coyne states the long-term theory.
But evolution facts begin with every new generation: descent with modifications (i.e., mutations) as acted on by natural selection.
It's all evolution, regardless of how much Kalamata loathes, despises, mocks, ridicules and lies about it. ![]()
>>Kalamata post #454: "Last night I recalled a video link in my Research Library to one of Joey's CNN brothers, Brian Stelter, interviewing the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, who tore into Stelter for labeling him a "denier." Watch:"
>>Joey said: "You link doesn't work, but I'll take your word for it that Coleman objected to being called a climate "denier"."
This is it: Coleman is being interviewed by Brian Stelter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4rgILy06k
Coleman also exposes the groupthink racket called "consensus science," which is never about science, but power. He also mentions the corrupt peer-review process, which is focused more on government funding than science.
****************
>>Joey said: "Just so we're clear on this: Denial is a debate strategy, a set of tactics practiced by those who have no stronger arguments to make. It consists in part of Denier Rules, version 3.0 which I saw practiced by Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago and now by Kalamata in denying evolution."
Or course it a debate strategy. Joey utilizes the strategies of the Left to smear, slander, and marginalize those who believe the science supports the history of Genesis – those who reject Joey's religion that is based on the political pseudoscience of Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell.
****************
>>Joey said: "I've never seen Denier Rules used by those opposed to the Left's Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) socialist agenda, and for the obvious reason that such despicable tactics are never necessary. Indeed, arguably, it's the Left which uses Denier Rules to advance their AGW agenda, and skeptical science which responds with valid data and confirmed reasoning. In short, "Denial" is how you argue, not what specific subject you debate over."
One of the primary tactics the Left uses against those who disagree with their version of science is to label them "deniers." That is what CNN did to John Coleman, and that is what Joey does to anyone who rejects his religion of evolutionism. I suspected Joey is a Leftist in disguise, and he confirms it every time he posts.
****************
>>Kalamata: "LOL! I cannot help but notice the irony of the Left claiming any change in the weather is proof of "climate change," since that is exactly the way Joey defines evolution, which is, "any change is proof of evolution." See for yourself: [Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period."
>>Joey said: "So let's stick with your "climate change" analogy -- nobody denies that climates change naturally, always have always will. By every measure over time climates naturally grew warmer & cooler, wetter & dryer, stormier & calmer, since long before humans had anything to do with it. But now suddenly, they tell us, every change in temperature, precipitation or storms is all somehow "anthropogenic" and therefore requiring of unlimited trillions of taxpayer dollars to "correct"."
That is the way the evolutionism cult was founded. Normal, everyday modifications and adaptations of the species (which creationists accept as God's biblical plan) were wildly extrapolated by Charlie Darwin into the unscientific rhetoric called "common descent," which is impossible to prove (convenient, huh?) Yet, it is presented as FACT in the same way AGW is presented as fact by the Left.
It is important to recognize that both the evolutionism and AGW cults use the same strategy: pretend pseudoscience is science in order to grab power and get government funding.
In case you don't know, we are supposed to be living in an Ice Age, according to a NASA scientist:
LOL!
****************
>>Joey said: "And yet scientific evidence supporting AGW alarmists is surprisingly weak and so no Denial Tactics are ever called for to refute them."
And, so, Joey continues to obfuscate. The AGW cult uses the same tactic you do, Joey: smear and slander their opponents as "deniers."
****************
>>Joey said: "Point is: just as there have been natural climate changes, from minor to major, so there have also been natural evolutionary changes from minor to major."
There has never been an "evolutionary" change. Evolution is a myth: a fairy tale, like "global warming." There is plenty of devolution, but not evolution. Evolution requires an increase in genetic information to "evolve" from bacteria, to frogs, to apes, to man, which is genetically impossible.
The only alternative is special creation: intelligent design; which the fossil record supports. Every paleontologist knows that species appear suddenly, fully-formed:"
"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." [Puncturing Punctuationism, in Dawkins, Richard, "The Blind Watchmaker." W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, Chap. 9, pp.229-30]
It doesn't take much common sense to understand that. Either believe in special creation, or trust the "god of the gaps." LOL!
****************
>>Kalamata: "Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne defines evolutionism in the more traditional manner: >>Kalamata Quoting Coyne: "In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3,5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, p.3] >>Kalamata: "There is no evidence in support of that claim; but that is what Coyne believes, and that is what Darwin's theory teaches."
>>Joey said: "There are literal mountains of evidence"
So, the evolutionism cult claims; but you will never seen any of that evidence beyond imaginary museum mockups and highly artistic textbook drawings, created solely to fool the public. Frankly, the claim, "there are mountains of evidence," is a logical fallacy. To get to the truth, you must dig deep into the literature, away from the hyped "public face" of the evolutionist.
For example, this is the late British paleontologist Colin Patterson explaining how much the scientific community knows about evolution (e.g, nothing!):
"Well, this time that isn't true. I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either of them. One or the reasons I started taking this antievolutionary view, or let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization that for over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. Then one morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.:
"So either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
"The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.'"
[Colin Patterson, "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson." American Museum of Natural History, Nov 5, 1981, p.3]
Did you notice the crowd's reaction after Patterson's quote of an evolutionst, "Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school." The crowd laughed, and yet it consisted of some famous evolutionists, such as:
Niles Eldredge: Paleontologist, American Museum of Natural History
Donn Rosen: Curator, Department of Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History
Wayne Frair: Professor of Biology at The King’s College (recorder)
James Steven Farris: Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History
Stanley Salthe: Professor of Biology at Brooklyn College
This is Patterson actually making that statement:
Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?
And this is the transcript:
Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson
In response to letter from the late Luther Sunderland about his book "Evolution", Patterson replied:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
"I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
[In Letter from Colin Patterson, in Sunderland, Luther, "Darwin's Enigma." Master Books, ISBN 0-89051-108-X, 1984, Chap 4, p.89]
Think about what just transpired. Patterson admitted that he didn't include any transitional fossils in his book on evolution because there are not any. He did, however, write this in his book:
""Darwin devoted two chapters of The Origin to fossils, butspent the whole of the first in saying how imperfect the geological record of life is. For it seemed obvious to him that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, since each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences, and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin's time, and today, after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps." [Colin Patterson, "Evolution." British Museum of Natural History, 1978, pp.127-128]
Evolutionists routinely accuse creationists of lying when we quote evolutionists. But, as you have heard and read, we don't have to lie. There is plenty of doubt to be found within the ranks of published evolutionists.
This is die-hard evolutionist and philospher of science Michael Ruse stating evolutionism is a "akin" to a religion, but evolutionists should not be telling that to a court of law (I kid you not!)
"I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things... it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may... evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there." [Ruse, Michael, "Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, AAAS Annual Meeting." Access Research Network, 1993]
I believe Ruse is suggesting the withholding of evidence in a court of law. Is that what you read?
**************
>>Joey said: "and, yes, Coyne states the long-term theory. But evolution facts begin with every new generation: descent with modifications (i.e., mutations) as acted on by natural selection.
The long-term theory is a myth. The short-term observations are the result of special creation, not evolution. God placed variety within the gene pool of each family (e.g, each "kind",) giving some "kinds" great variety, such as that found in the dog's gene pools. These are only some of the varieties of dog skulls:
If an evolutionary paleontologist found those skulls in different sedimentary layers, and wasn't aware of the incredible varieties of dogs (e.g., if he had been living in a cave,) he might imagine some sort of transitional line from those skulls and become part of science folklore, like Phil Gingrich of U. Michigan and his imaginary whale transitional line. LOL!
**************
>>Joey said: "It's all evolution, regardless of how much Kalamata loathes, despises, mocks, ridicules and lies about it."
That is a myth, Joey. You have been deceived, and are deceiving.
Mr. Kalamata