Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>Kalamata: "You mean, the Age of "Dark Reasoners", don't you?"
>>Joey said, "No, because we are children of the Enlightenment. Founders like Franklin, Jefferson & Madison were among its greatest minds, George Washington was its greatest leader, our Declaration and Constitution among its greatest political documents. The Enlightenment was a shining moment in history, when minds had finally escaped the clutches of a highly restrictive Church and before they soon-enough slid under the controls of even more destructive secular ideologies, i.e., Marxism, totalitarianism, etc.."

Our Founding Fathers created our great nation in spite of many of the so-called "Enlightenment" thinkers. Even the heavy influence of the blasphemous Christ-mocker, Thomas Paine, was not enough to sway our framers away from establishing a Christian nation which lasted for nearly two centuries, until the corrupting influence of ACLU, Marx and Darwin finally took hold.

This is Paine mocking Christ, the Virgin Birth, and the genealogies of Matthew and Luke:

"It is not then the existence or the non-existence of the persons that I trouble myself about. It is the fable of Jesus Christ, as told in the new testament, and the wild and visionary doctrine raised thereon, against which I contend. The story, taking it as it is told, is blasphemously obscene. It gives an account of a young woman engaged to be married, and while under this engagement, she is, to speak plain language, debauched by a ghost, under the impious pretence (Luke chap, i, ver. 35.) that 'the holy ghost shall come, upon thee, and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee.' Notwithstanding which, Joseph afterwards marries her, cohabits with her as his wife, and in his turn rivals the ghost. This is putting the story into intelligible language, and when told in this manner, there is not a priest but must be ashamed to own it." [Thomas Paine, "The Age of Reason." Citadel Press, 1988, p.792]

"The history of Jesus Christ is contained in the four books ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The first chapter of Matthew begins with giving a genealogy of Jesus Christ; and in the third chapter of Luke, there is also given a genealogy of Jesus Christ. Did these two agree, it would not prove the genealogy to be true, because it might nevertheless be a fabrication; but as they contradict each other in every particular, it proves falshood absolutely." [Ibid. p.793]

That is a clear demonstration that Paine was just another arrogant "reasoner" who was far too ignorant of the scriptures to understand them, but too sanctimonious to realize it. Unfortunately, he still influences many today.

Thankfully, the great majority of our Framers were devout Christians, or this nation would have been destroyed from within before the ink was dry on the Constitution.

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

>>Joey said, "The Enlightenment corresponded to the beginnings of the scientific and industrial revolutions.

The scientific revolution began in the Renaissance with the discoveries by Christians such as Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Steno, Hooke, Harvey, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton, Linnaeus, Herschel, Faraday, Maxwell, Davy, Cuvier, Herschel, Dalton, Morse, Henry, Maury, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur and Kelvin. The corrupting influence of Darwin and Lyell has led to an unjust marginalization of those great scientists and their achievements.

Three of those -- Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday -- were Albert Einstein's heros:

"Einstein was so inspired by Maxwell that he placed a photograph of him on his study wall, and Maxwell is the hero — among many heroes — of this book, too… Newton is immortal not simply because he turned his experimental discoveries about motion into mathematical laws. After all, Galileo and others had laid firm foundations for these laws. Rather, it is Newton's work in theoretical physics that makes him so important. Einstein is the quintessential theoretical physicist for most of us, but he was indebted to his heroes, Newton and Maxwell, both of whose portraits were on his study wall. Maxwell has never received the popular acclaim he deserves, but Newton is still an intellectual icon because of the breathtaking imagination and skill with which he actually created both the modern discipline of theoretical physics and much of its mathematical language (which we call calculus)… [Michael Faraday] had lived long enough to see Maxwell's field equations published in 1865, but he had missed out on Hertz's discovery, and never knew that he, Faraday, would go down in history as the creator of the now standard field idea. (And that his would be the third portrait on Einstein's study wall.)" [Robyn Arianrhod, "Einstein's Heroes: imagining the world through the language of mathematics." University of Queensland Press, 2003, pp. 7, 48, 238]

Einstein knew he was standing on the shoulders of giants -- Christian giants.

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

>>Joey said, "We are here to defend our Founders' ideals, which are the Enlightenment ideals, and they include all the traditional Western philosophical concepts, including God, nature and mankind."

Who is "we"? I am here to defend Christ, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and Christian traditions of western civilization, which includes exposing those who are, or have been corrupting influences against any of those four great pillars of peace and prosperity. That statement is a paraphrase of this statement by George Washington:

"With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes… Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness--these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them." [George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]

George Washington stated the earliest U.S. citizens had roughly the same religion (Christianity), and the subversion of that religion was unpatriotic.

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

>>Joey said, "The Age of Enlightenment ended far too soon in what we call the "Romantic Era", Age of Revolutions and Modern Era beginning just as our Founders were passing, in the early to mid 1800s. I gather from your posts that Kalamata has a problem with Enlightenment leaders and thinking, but I can't figure out just why..."

Some; for example, those who attacked Christianity and perverted the doctrine of Christ. The "Enlightenment" was not all peace and harmony, Joey. It also gave us the French head-choppers and Napolean, not to mention Social Darwinism and its incredibly brutal and destructive doctrines. Try to keep things in perspective.

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

>>Kalamata on Enlightenment religious beliefs: "That is what they claimed; but every "good" politician has a tool called "name-dropping" in his bag of tricks."
>>Joey said, "Sure, anybody can cynically mock the values of others and point out their failures to match ideals with actions. But there's no hint during the Enlightenment that men like our Founders didn't take their own ideals very seriously.

No doubt our Founding Fathers took their work seriously, which included issuing warnings to their posterity, such as the aforementioned by Washington, and this one:

"On every question of construction [of the constitution,] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [Letter to William Johnson, from Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Appleby & Ball, "Thomas Jefferson: Political Writings." Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.455]

The most destructive invention, to date, is the "separation of church and state" usurpation. It is tragically ironic that Jefferson, the person who warned us against such an invention, had his own words taken out of context and used as the most dangerous invention against the Constitution in our nation's history! Our nation can tolerate abuses of power, and even corruption within our financial systems, but not the destruction of those great pillars.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are greatly deceived. The "Separation of Science and the Bible" sham reinstalled the type of scientific orthodoxy that threatened Galileo, which now hinders the advancement of science, world-wide, while suppressing those who oppose their worldview."
>>Joey said, "Sorry, but that's pure propaganda. In fact, Galileo was a scientist suppressed by the Church because his ideas didn't match their interpretations of the Bible -- just as you and Tour would suppress modern science because it doesn't match your own interpretations of the Bible."

Sorry, but that is pure propaganda, Joey. The Bible is silent on the issue, mentioning only that the earth is "floating" in space:

"[The Lord] stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." -- Job 26:7 KJV

Galileo was threatened and suppressed by a corrupt Church orthodoxy that believed the doctrines of the pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy over the observable science of Galileo. The orthodoxy of today operates under the same paradigm, promoting certain pagan and atheist philosophies (e.g, evolutionism and big-bangism,) while suppressing observable science that contradicts or questions them.

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

>>Joey said: "Your claim to be the "real science" is pure unadulterated bunk, because you are, in fact, theology masquerading as science."

That is a mighty bold claim for someone who comes across as a scientific illiterate, Joey. Have you ever taken a science course above introductory or survey courses? Just curious.

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

>>Kalamata on St. Augustine of Hippo: "He was not a scientist; but if you insist on using him as a reference, you should first know that he was a young earth creationist:"
>>Joey said: "St. Augustine was the greatest of the early Church theologians, one of the first to be called Doctor of the Church. He made no pretense of being a scientist, as we understand that word, and he had no reason to think the Bible didn't correspond to scientific evidence. But he did fully understand that some people could take the Bible's words out of context, misunderstand their intentions and present them to the world as if the Bible were talking nonsense. Augustine opposed that."

Show us what you are talking about, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "He denounced old-earthism, calling those who embraced it, "deceived":"
>>Joey said: "In your quote, Augustine opposed "mendacious documents", he knew nothing of scientific evidence. But Augustine's views are absolutely correct in this respect, from your quotes:
>>Joey quoting Augustine: "If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity." [Augustine, City of God,"

So? How does that contradict this statement where Augustine is crystal clear that not 6,000 years had passed?

"They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed." [Philip Schaff, Augustine, City of God, 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02.' Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.10, p.232]

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

>>Joey quoted a Psalm: "Or, as Psalms 90:4 says: "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." A thousand years, a billion years, a trillion years -- all of no consequence to the Infinite God."

So, which is it? Is a thousand years a day, or a day a thousand years? Will the thousand-year reign of Christ last a day? Was Christ in the ground 3,000 years?

It is a metaphor Joey, to let us know that God exists outside of time. He created time for people, and he explicitly told us that the duration of time it took for him to create the heavens and the earth, was the length of the work-week he established for the Israelites:

"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." -- Exo 20:9-11 KJV

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

>>Kalamata: "Theologians routinely claim to be real scientists. A few examples are, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, and Richard Lewontin."
>>Joey said: "And that is pure propaganda, Denier Rule #2.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Many scientists were and are young earth creationists."
>>Joey said: "Every scientist regardless is entitled to his or her religious & theological beliefs, but those, by definition, are not science.

I will agree that evolutionism is not science, nor will it ever be science, but religious dogma.

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

>>Kalamata: "No matter how much you try to attach your religion of evolutionism to the coattails of the Founding Fathers, it is going to be a hard sell. We are already back in the "Dark Ages" as a society, in part because of evolutionism."
>>Joey said: "No, no, I'm not trying to "sell" attaching evolution to our Founders -- whatever real burdens they do carry (i.e., slavery), evolution is not one of them. I am "selling" the traditional idea that, what our Founders called "natural philosophy" or "natural science" has its roots in ancient philosophy (i.e., Aristotle) and theology (i.e., St. Augustine of Hippo) and is the beginnings of modern science."

John Locke, and his good friend and devout Christian, Isaac Newton, were probably the greatest influencers of the Founding Fathers, Joey. Newton, who believed in a sovereign and intervening God (not deism,) also influenced other great philosphers, such as Voltaire and Hume.

This is Voltaire on Newton:

"Somebody answered that Sir Isaac Newton excelled them all. The gentleman's assertion was very just; for if true greatness consists in having received from heaven a mighty genius, and in having employed it to enlighten our own mind and that of others, a man like Sir Isaac Newton, whose equal is hardly found in a thousand years, is the truly great man. And those politicians and conquerors (and all ages produce some) were generally so many illustrious wicked men. That man claims our respect who commands over the minds of the rest of the world by the force of truth, not those who enslave their fellow-creatures: he who is acquainted with the universe, not they who deface it." [Letter XII - On The Lord Bacon, in Voltaire, "Letters on England." Pennsylvania State University, 2003, p.39]

And Hume on Newton:

"In Newton this island may boast of having produced the greatest and rarest genius that ever rose for the ornament and instruction of the species. Cautious in admitting no principles but such as were founded on experiment; but resolute to adopt every such principle, however new or unusual: From modesty, ignorant of his superiority above the rest of mankind; and thence less careful to accommodate his reasonings to common apprehensions: More anxious to merit than acquire fame: He was, from these causes, long unknown to the world; but his reputation at last broke out with a lustre, which scarcely any writer, during his own life-time, had ever before attained. While Newton seemed to draw off the veil from some of the mysteries of nature, he showed at the same time the imperfections of the mechanical philosophy; and thereby restored her ultimate secrets to that obscurity in which they ever did and ever will remain." [David H. Hume, "The History of England Vol. 8." 1796, p.334]

Those are some pretty powerful endorsements of Isaac Newton, Joey; and you rarely even mention him, if at all. Do you have something against creationists?

BTW, I seriously doubt if Augustine was mentioned very much, if at all, in the debates leading up to the Constitution.

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

>>Joey wrote: "I'm also telling you, factually, that Charles Darwin was a child of the Enlightenment and was raised in its traditions, including the study of natural science. Of course, you may claim Darwin went astray from those traditions, which were at the very least Deistic, but Darwin himself never admitted to being atheistic and did life-long support his family's church.

I know that Charlie's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a leading figure in the European "enlightenment", so-called. And I know that both promoted the apes-to-man myth; Charlie much more so.

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

>>Kalamata: "Are you saying you do not believe in the Darwinist roots of the holocaust? If you had actually read that book of Shermer's – the one you keep name-dropping -- you would know that Shermer explains the role of Darwinism in the holocaust:"
>>Joey wrote: "So now, after first attacking Shermer mercilessly and very unfairly, suddenly Shermer is your hero?

No, he is your hero. He is my enemy, and an enemy of Christianity and our republic.

I do have to admit, Joey, that was a very slick misdirection by you.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Shermer: "The racial theories of social Darwinism gave the Nazis and others the scientific sanction they needed to make their racist ideology seem wholly rational..."
>>Joey wrote: "Notice Shermer's key words here, "social Darwinism":

Yes, that is what he wrote.

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

>>Joey quoted Wikipedia: "While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution. Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin's own views on human social and economic issues."

Why did you stop there, Joey? The very next sentence, citing Bowler, 2003, states: "His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it." This is Bowler:

"The disagreements among historians are reflected in the debate over Darwin's own views on society (J. Greene 1977). Opinion ranges all the way from accusations that he openly promoted aggressive individualism (Harris 1968) to denials that he had any sympathy for such views (Freeman 1974). Unfortunately, Darwin's writings contain passages that can be interpreted in favor of both positions. He was aware of the role played by the model of economic individualism in his thinking, especially as expressed in Malthus's population principle. He saw both individual and tribal struggle as important in human evolution, and feared that the relaxation of selection within a civilized society (where charity helps the unfortunate to survive) would harm the race by allowing the unfit to breed. Yet he was surprised when a newspaper article accused him of justifying the actions of Napoleon and of tradesmen who cheat. For Darwin, at least, 'fitness' in the human context did not include the kind of immorality which would justify any action by the motto 'Might is right.' The fit were the able and energetic, not those who cheated or forced their way to success." [Peter J. Bowler, "Evolution: The History of an Idea." 3rd Ed, 2003, p.300]

You tried to pull another fast one, Joey. That is a no, no.

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

>>Joey continued, "Bottom line, there's no possibility Darwin himself would have supported the Holocaust."

Perhaps so, but that doesn't justify your underhanded attempt to downplay your own reference.

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

>>Joey wrote, "As important, whatever "Social Darwinism" Nazis employed against Jews was just one ideological weapon among many. So, in my previous analogy: blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate."

Yeah, sure . . .

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

>>Kalamata: "Shermer quoted a significant chunk of Mein Kampf to justify that statement."
>>Joey wrote, "But nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler mention Darwin, natural selection or evolution in the context of natural selection."

He was darn close. The following quote from Mein Kampf sounds like something Charlie's eugenicist cousin, Francis Galton, might write:

"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all" [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p,222-223]

Even Charlie endorsed that concept, after reading the first 50 pages of Galton's book. How about this one?

"For it is a necessity of human evolution that the individual should be imbued with the spirit of sacrifice in favour of the common weal, and that he should not be influenced by the morbid notions of those knaves who pretend to know better than Nature and who have the impudencc to criticize her decrees." [Ibid. p.234]

That sounds like Darwin 101, to me.

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

>>Joey said: "Instead, Hitler tells us his violent anti-Semitism began from his experiences in the Christian Social Party. Shermer well knows that violent anti-Semitism in Europe generally and Germany specifically did not begin with 20th century Nazis, but dates back many centuries."

Stephen Jay Gould claimed that racism "increased by orders of magnitude" after evolution was accepted:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths. But the data were worthless. We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups—a meaningless notion" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny." Belknap Press, 1977]

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

>>Kalamata quoting himself: ""There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation." The words "more natural" are NOT the same as "merely natural", nor will they ever be."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, but if you'd said "God is more than natural," you'd be correct, but now you're just piling one more lie atop the others. Stop it! Back away from it, it's deadly heresy regardless of how much you try to qualify & sugar coat it, it's simply false. You're trying to make a point which is impossible and ultimately insane."

No, Joey. My statement was perfectly biblical and gives glory to God. But since you brought up heresy, any claim that the eternal God's image evolved from an ape, or a frog, or a bacteria, is one of the worst forms of heresy I can imagine.

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

>>Joey said: "The theological truth is, by ancient Biblical exegesis and traditional Western philosophy, God is super-natural, not "natural".

Show us that definition in the scripture, Joey. In the meantime, chew on this verse, again:

"For verily he [Jesus who is God] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV

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

>>Joey said: "God is not "Gaia" (Mother Earth), God is not Pele (Hawaiian volcano).

Is that called a straw man, or a red herring? I forget.

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

>>Joey said: "God existed before the Universe and outside the Universe, the Universe is His Creation and a home."

God said he shall also dwell among men:

"Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." -- Rev 21:3 KJV

That may be supernatural to man, but it is the natural thing for God to do. He did that from the beginning of his creation:

"And [Adam and Eve] heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" -- Gen 3:8 KJV

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

>>Joey said: "Nature's scientific "laws" and processes are God's, but they are not Him. Again my analogy of the architect and builder of a home. We can study a home to learn the "mind of the Architect", but the home itself is not His mind. So you need to abandon the idea that God is less than supernatural:

God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:

"The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." -- Luk 18:27 KJV

Also, Joey, God will frown on your attempts to confine him in your neat little deist box. You wrote:

"the Bible was never part of science."

That was pretty dumb, Joey. Perhaps you should drop the pretense that you are a theologian. While you are at it, please stop pretending to be a scientist.

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

>>Kalamata: "For the record, that was in response to your dismissal of God and his church and their role in the advancement of Western Civilization, while promoting pagan philosophers, in your never-ending quest to redefine God's creation as "natural processes", which is a clever way of saying "godless". "
>>Joey said: "Total lies, not a word of that true.

Really? This was your statement in #187, Joey, and my response in #196:

----------
[Joey] "Basic history of Western Thought begins with Greeks like Plato & Aristotle and was taught in medieval Universities as various branches of philosophy -- theology, metaphysics and, yes, "natural philosophy" which looked for natural explanations of natural processes."

[Me] "There is nothing more natural than our creator, and his creation."
----------

It certainly appears that you dismissed the role of God and his Church in the advancement of Western Civilization, while both promoting pagan philosophers, and attempting to redefine God's creation as "natural processes" (that is, "godless".)

It gets worse. Previously, in #149, you dismissed my assertion that atheists have been pushing to "to erase all mention of the Bible from science and science education." This was your dismissal, and my response in #172:

----------
[Joey] "Natural science, by definition excludes anything outside natural explanations for natural processes. It’s not a matter of “erasing the Bible from science,” because the Bible was never part of science."

[Me] "Who invented that stupid rule? There is nothing more natural that the creator of all nature."
-----------

It appears you are trying to rewrite history, Joey, by omission; but I am glad your statements are exposed.

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

>>Joey said: "Obviously, you're hoping to lie your way out of your own ridiculous heresies."

The only heretic in this discussion is you, Joey. In fact, Peter was pointing at those with doctrine like yours when he wrote this statement:

"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction." -- 2Pet 2:1 KJV

You deny the Lord when you dismiss this statement:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV

Those are not idle words, Joey; they are spirit:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63 KJV

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

>>Kalamata: "BTW, angels have nature. God, rather than taking on the nature of angels, took on the nature of a man. That sounds pretty natural to me:"
>>Joey said: "Sure, but no Biblical scholar I've heard of, not even heretics, claimed Christ was only natural. The Bible clearly demonstrates His super-natural powers, even while in human form."

You wouldn't know a heretic if he whopped you upside the head.

BTW, I didn't say Christ was "only" natural; but I did say he can do as he pleases. I also said, with him all things are possible.

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

>>Kalamata: "As you can see, you don't get to define God. He can do as he pleases, and be anything he pleases, including being "natural." "
>>Joey said: I've never "defined" God and you don't get to redefine Him. I simply take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers. Even as a "natural" man, Christ had supernatural powers. No believer I know of has ever claimed otherwise."

Really? The early Church Fathers, almost to a man, believed in a global flood in which Noah and his family were the only human survivors. You seem to be selective in your understanding.

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

>>Joey said: "Here's your problem -- what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology. What you're suggesting is something quite different and alien."

So is your pretense that man is evolving from an ape, while on the way from evolving from a bacteria. You don't seem to have a problem with that.

BTW, have you ever heard of the Church Father Alexander of Alexandria? He seemed to think Christ is God's natural son:

"And His proper and peculiar, natural and excellent Sonship, St. Paul has declared, who thus speaks of God: “Who spared not His own Son, but for us,” who were not His natural sons, “delivered Him up.” For to distinguish Him from those who are not properly sons." [Alexander of Aleandria, Epistle on the Arian Heresy, in Roberts & Donaldson, "Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 06: 3rd Century." Charles Scribner's Sons, Amer Ed, 1886, p.294]

This is Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, reminding us that Christ has a "natural rank and dignity":

"Hence it is that Christ is not only God, but very God indeed—very God of very God, insomuch that He Himself is the Truth. If, then, we enquire His Name, it is 'the Truth;' if we seek to know His natural rank and dignity, He is so truly the very Son of God, that He is indeed God's own Son; as it is written, 'Who spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for our sakes,' gave Him up, that is, so far as the flesh was concerned." [Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters, Exposition of the Christian Faith, in Philip Schaff, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 2 Vol 10." Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1896, Book I.17.108; p. 219]

This is Augustine asserting that the body of our Lord was "sown a natural body":

"Wherefore it is said, 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;' and, as if in explanation of this, 'neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.' What the apostle first called 'flesh and blood,' he afterwards calls 'corruption;' and what he first called 'the kingdom of God,' he afterwards calls 'incorruption.' But as far as regards the substance, even then it shall be flesh. For even after the resurrection the body of Christ was called flesh. The apostle, however, says: 'It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body;' because so perfect, shall then be the harmony between flesh and spirit, the spirit keeping alive the subjugated flesh without the need of any nourishment, that no part of our nature shall be in discord with another; but as we shall be free from enemies without, so we shall not have ourselves for enemies within." [Augustine, The Enchiridion, in Philip Schaff, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 03." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887, Chap.XCII.91; p.266]

The ECF's used the word "natural", well, naturally! If quibbling is all you have left, Joey, perhaps you should consider another line of entertainment.

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

>>Kalamata: "That should be called "The Darkening" since the days of Charlie & Charlie, perhaps before."
>>Joey said: "Darwin was a child of the Enlightenment, born at its tail end, in 1808. Darwin grew up in the "Romantic Era" which followed."

Since the time the two Charlie's wrote their civilization-destroying books, the era of "The Darkening" is more realistic.

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

>>Kalamata: "Besides, the Renaissance played a greater role in the origin of modern science; and those men rejected "enlightenment" type arguments against political and religious traditions."
>>Joey said: "The Renaissance was an age of scientific inquiry and conflict with traditional Church theology. Scientists like Galileo were persecuted by Church authorities who couldn't reconcile Galileo's findings with their understanding of the Bible. Authorities who believed like Kalamata today.

False. As aforementioned, Galileo was threatened and suppressed by a corrupt Church orthodoxy that believed the doctrines of the pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy, which is not biblical, over the observable science of Galileo. The "scientific" orthodoxy of today operates under the same paradigm, promoting certain pagan and atheist philosophies (e.g, evolutionism and big-bangism,) while suppressing observable science that contradicts or questions their pagan/atheistic doctrine.

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

>>Kalamata: "You have been exaggerating the influence of the enlightenment figures on the Founding Fathers. The founders secured the idea of "due process" from a 15th century pre-enlightenment document, which included both personal liberty and the rights to property. In general, the protections in the Bill of Rights are pre-enlightenment."
>>Joey said: "The word "Enlightenment" is largely defined by the contributions of our Founders."

By making that claim, you are ignoring the misery the "enlightment" contributed to the Europeans. You have also failed to recognize the contributions of devout creationists, such as Isaac Newton, whom both Hume and even Voltaire heaped the best of praise. And you have also failed to recognize the contributions of the Early Christian settlers, and well as those by the multitude of devout Christians among the Founding Fathers. Rather, you choose to focus on the one devout anti-Christian among them. Why is that?

Have you mentioned the ongoing threat by one of the foundational principles of the "Enlightenment", namely "equality"? The push for "equality" by the left, as opposed to life, liberty and the rights to property, will deal this nation a crippling blow, unless our Christian morality is restored before "equality" becomes rooted too deeply.

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

>>Joey said: So you cannot trash the Enlightenment without trashing them too. And if your intention, consciously or subconsciously, is to trash our Founders, then you don't belong posting on Free Republic, FRiend."

You are a very sinister person, Joey. First you slander me by indirectly accusing of being a holocaust denier because I refuse to kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin; and now you indirectly accuse me of trashing our Founding Fathers, the very people I have been judiciously defending for virtually my entire life. And why? For favoring them over and above the enlightenment philosophers.

If anyone is trashing the memory of our Founding Fathers, it is you, with your support for the tactics of the ACLU, and those of your far-left, "climate-change" pusher of a hero.

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

>>Kalamata: "The "Enlightenment" crowd these days seem to be Marxists and other anti-nationalists, though they seem to be as least as driven toward destroying our traditional morality as they are our national borders."
>>Joey said: I can't speak for, or defend, our Leftists, Democrats, Progressives, Socialists or any of those who "wrote the book" from which my brief summary of Denier Rules is derived. Whatever their notion of "woke" means, it is not our Founders' ideas & ideals.

Child.

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

>>Joey said: "Conservatives such as Free Republic are keepers of our Founders flame and original intentions -- all of which help define the word "Enlightenment"."

I am fairly certain you are not one of those keepers, Joey. Our Founding Fathers promoted the teaching of Christianity in schools, which continued until I was in high school, which was before the ACLU and the Darwin orthodoxy became entrenched. Why do you support the suppressive activities of the ACLU, Joey?

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

>>Kalamata: "That is why I am here. One way to promote our Constitution and Christian faith is to get evolution and the ACLU out of our classrooms."
>>Joey said: "Two of my four grandparents were school teachers in the early 1900s, small one-room school houses, began each day with a Bible reading and prayer."

We had regular, weekly, school-sponsored devotionals in my public schools until I reached College. Every hallway contained a Bible verse, such as "Be ye kind ... ", or the Ten Commandments; and virtually every pickup truck in the parking lot had a shotgun in the back window, with the windows rolled down on sunny days.

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

>>Joey said: "Local schools should be, and generally are, controlled by local governments and so teach children what their voters want children to learn."

False. The ACLU and their partners-in-crime called the NCSE will sue if they find out; and most school districts cannot afford to tangle with the political influence and deep pockets of the ACLU. It is a rigged system against Christianity and the traditions of our Founding Fathers.

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

>>Joey said: "So I have no problem if they wish to teach evolution in science classes, but I think they should also have classes where they are not afraid to begin with a Bible reading and prayer."

Then I believe you are not a good keeper of the traditions of our Founding Fathers, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

341 posted on 09/06/2019 1:03:21 AM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)

Kalamata: "I see you are still playing childish games instead of debating."

I appreciate that you've knocked-off some of the nonsense, and will appreciate even more when you knock off the rest, FRiend.

Kalamata: "I believe it is safe to assume that you are naturally obnoxious."

See what I mean?
A clear case of your obedience to Denier Rule #5.

Kalamata on research into DNA & evolution: "If you claim it does, you are either deceiving or have been deceived.
Evolution is a historical "science"."

Sorry, but that's just bunk, the talk of theologians pretending at science, Denier Rule #6.

Kalamata: "Gibberish.
Devolution is the opposite of evolution, by definition:

"Definition of devolution: retrogression from a derived to a primitive or less differentiated state; the reverse of evolution."
[Mai et al, "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution." 2005, p.142]"

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.

"People thinking in terms of devolution commonly assume that progress is shown by increasing complexity, but biologists studying the evolution of complexity find evidence of many examples of decreasing complexity in the record of evolution.
The lower jaw in fish, reptiles and mammals has seen a decrease in complexity, if measured by the number of bones. Ancestors of modern horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single hooved toe.
Modern humans may be evolving towards never having wisdom teeth, and already have lost most of the tail found in many other mammals - not to mention other vestigial structures, such as the vermiform appendix or the nictitating membrane.[2]
In some cases, the level of organization of living creatures can also “shift” downwards (e.g., the loss of multicellularity in some groups of protists and fungi).[7]
A more rational version of the concept of devolution, a version that does not involve concepts of "primitive" or "advanced" organisms, is based on the observation..."

"Devolution" is a sub-set of evolution.

Kalamata quoting Behe: ""It seems, then, that the magnificent Ursus maritimus has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed.
Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving."
[Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.1]"

Kalamata: "Quit playing games."

Quit posting nonsense. Evolution is defined as:

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]"

"1.the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth."

" descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations "

"Adaptation, in evolutionary terms, is the process that species go through in order to become accustomed to an environment."

It's all evolution / adaptation whether it "complexifies", "simplifies" or just changes sideways.

342 posted on 09/06/2019 5:44:33 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

Kalamata: "The Bible doesn't care, but God cares."

The Bible tells us that God rules over nature, and can over-rule it.
The Bible has no interest in "natural laws" or processes except to show us that God created them and can override them.
God's creation is natural, God is supernatural.

Kalamata: "It [the Bible] is also full of science and history, along with the way of salvation, which is via the gospel."

In order to demonstrate God's supernatural majesty & power.

Kalamata: "The words of Moses and Christ include real science, such as man and woman being created at the beginning of creation, and man becoming alive when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils!
In other words, the first man had a complete body, before he became alive and could breath.
Genetic research is only now revealing what God told us from the beginning: that man did not evolve!"

Your interpretation here is pure nonsense because the key words in Genesis 2:7 are "living soul".
That's what God breathed into Adam and into nothing else.
No other creature has a "living soul", meaning no other creature, including pre-humans was truly alive spiritually.
That moment in time is the precise moment when pre-human became fully human.

God's "living soul" in humans is what makes us more than mere animals, indeed, it lifts us above the rest of His creation and even gives us supernatural powers.
As Jesus said:

"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

Nothing on Earth before that moment was a "living soul".

343 posted on 09/06/2019 6:12:37 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

Kalamata: "You don't understand science, Joe.
Neither of those sites provide any observational evidence for evolution, nor any practical applications of evolutionary theory."

Right, just like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum, you literally cannot see the evidence which is all around you.

Kalamata: "The amateurs at Talkorigins.org did go through the motion of listing a series of hijacked applications for evolution, where none exists, nor has ever existed.
But, they gave themselves a way out with these statements:"

Sticking with our Holocaust analogy, what practical application is the Holocaust?
To prevent another, you say?
And yet those most likely to produce another Holocaust literally cannot see evidence of a Holocaust in a Holocaust museum!

As for Talkorigins.org, your word "hijacked" is just denier talk, Rules #1 & #7.

344 posted on 09/06/2019 6:42:38 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

Kalamata: "I agree that there are limited (perhaps ZERO) practical applications. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that ALL of the OoL research is funded by the taxpayer."

And yet you provide no evidence to support such claims, instead wish to use Denier Rule #10 -- shift the burden of proof for your own claims.

Kalamata: "That would be you, Joe, and your promotion of the religion of evolutionism."

Still more of your use of Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: ">>Joe says: “It’s worth noting that the school board which had voted to accept the Creationist textbook was voted out of office.

Kalamata: "That means nothing, Joe."

Right, Denier Rule #1.
In fact, that event is all-important, because it clearly demonstrates who was trying to shove their own theology down the throats of unwilling citizens.
Clearly the citizens in "Dover" did not want and would not accept Creationists dogma imposed by the government school board.

Kalamata: "When are you going to address the fact that thugs from the evolutionism orthodoxy, and a devout communist organization called the ACLU, team up to recruit corrupt federal judges to suppress those who question your religion?
I thought you were supposed to be a great defender of the constitution?"

When is Kalamata going to recognize and accept the fact that citizen/voters in "Dover" did not want and would not accept Creationist nonsense shoved down the throats of their children?

Answer: never, of course, because that would violate Denier Rule #1, among others.

345 posted on 09/06/2019 6:58:22 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

>>Kalamata: "I see you are still playing childish games instead of debating."
>>Joey said: "I appreciate that you've knocked-off some of the nonsense, and will appreciate even more when you knock off the rest, FRiend.

Try not to make stuff up as you go, and refrain from your childish "Rules" game, and the debate will go much smoother.

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

>>Kalamata: "I believe it is safe to assume that you are naturally obnoxious."
>>Joey said: "See what I mean? A clear case of your obedience to Denier Rule #5.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata on research into DNA & evolution: "If you claim it does, you are either deceiving or have been deceived. Evolution is a historical "science"."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, but that's just bunk, the talk of theologians pretending at science, Denier Rule #6.

Child, those quotes I posted claiming evolution is a historical science are by evolutionism theologians, not Christians. Pay attention.

The late Ernst Mayr is a world-famous Evolutionary Biologist:

"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." [Ernst Mayr, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought." Scientific American, Nov 24, 2009]

That article by Scientific American is from a September 23, 1999 lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. He died in 2005.

Jack Horner is a world-famous paleontologist and evolutionist. The paleontologist in Jurassic Park was modeled after him. Horner was also a major contributor to one of the books you cited earlier. This is Horner:

"There is no equivalent in paleontology to the law of gravity, no equations that apply to the behavior of one kind of dinosaur under one set of circumstances, still less to all kinds under all circumstances, no mathematical procedures for predicting exactly where or how fossils will be deposited. Moreover, unlike botany or zoology, which also concern living things, paleontology is a historical science, a science based on circumstantial evidence, after the fact. We can never reach hard-and-fast conclusions in our study of ancient plants and animals, points beyond which no further debate or research would be necessary. These days it's easy to go to school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive. But in fact paleontology is closer in spirit to the traditional definition of science—a method rather than a set of principles, a form of systematic doubt, a way of testing ideas." [Horner & Dobb, "Dinosaur Lives - Unearthing An Evolutionary Saga." Harcourt Brace & Company, 1997, Chap.2, p.19]

Horner explained why you may be confused, with this statement:

"These days it's easy to go to school for a good many years, sometimes even through college, without ever hearing that some sciences are historical or by nature inconclusive."

Of course, you probably never took a real science course, so that wouldn't affect you one way or another.

Another avenue of confusion may come from evolutionion apologetic websites, that intentionally attempt to confuse the issue. The bottom line is, evolution cannot be observed. It is no more observable than the historical events listed in the Bible. The application of the "historical science" label is simply a way to distinguish evolution from observable or "operational" science. However, that fact doesn't hinder attempts to conflate the two, as this geologist pretends to do:

"Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained." [Carol E. Cleland, "Historical Science, Experimental Science, and the Scientific Method." Geology, Vol.29, No.11; November 1, 2001, Abstract, p.987]

The NCSE (affectionally known as the National Center for Science Eradication) pretends likewise.

"Philosophers of science draw a distinction between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred. They do not claim, however, that the line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly, and certainly do not agree that historical claims are any less empirically verifiable than other sorts of claims." [Josh Rosenau, "Historical science vs. experimental science." National Center for Science Education, Sept 24, 2008]

As does your hero, Michael Shermer, when he is not believing weird things:

"Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science." [Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things; Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." Henry Holt and Company, 2002, p.142]

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

>>Kalamata: "Gibberish. Devolution is the opposite of evolution, by definition:
>>Kalamata: "Definition of devolution: retrogression from a derived to a primitive or less differentiated state; the reverse of evolution." [Mai et al, "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution." 2005, p.142]"
>>Joey said: "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. . . "

You just confirmed one my previous points that evolution is NOT falsifiable because EVERYTHING IS EVOLUTION! LOL! This is hilarious!

The term "devolution" implies the breaking or loss of genes, Joey. That will never be evolution, no matter how loudly and passionately the evolutionism apologist whines.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Behe: "It seems, then, that the magnificent Ursus maritimus has adjusted to its harsh environment mainly by degrading genes that its ancestors already possessed. Despite its impressive abilities, rather than evolving, it has adapted predominantly by devolving." [Michael J. Behe, "Darwin Devolves." HarperOne, 2019, Chap.1]"

Can we assume Professor Behe left you speechless by revealing that the Polar Bear didn't evolve its unique traits?

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

>>Kalamata: "Quit playing games."
>>Joey said: "Quit posting nonsense. Evolution is defined as:
>>Joey quoting Wikipedia, again: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]" or "1.the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth." or " descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations" or "Adaptation, in evolutionary terms, is the process that species go through in order to become accustomed to an environment."
>>Joey said:" It's all evolution / adaptation whether it "complexifies", "simplifies" or just changes sideways."

That is what I previously explained, Joey, that evolution cannot be falsified, no matter what happens, because evolution is always true, that is, in the mind of the evolutionism cultist. Evolution is such a "great theory" to the evolutionist that it can explain everything. That is not science, but a faith-based religion, with evolution as god.

Popper explained the dilemma of the devout evolutionist in this manner:

"I believe I have taken the theory almost at its best—almost in its most testable form. One might say that it 'almost predicts' a great variety of forms of life. In other fields, its predictive or explanatory power is still more disappointing. Take 'adaptation'. At first sight natural selection appears to explain it, and in a way it does; but hardly in a scientific way. To say that a species now living is adapted to its environment is, in fact, almost tautological. Indeed we use the terms 'adaptation' and 'selection' in such a way that we can say that, if the species were not adapted, it would have been eliminated by natural selection. Similarly, if a species has been eliminated it must have been ill adapted to the conditions. Adaptation or fitness is defined by modern evolutionists as survival value, and can be measured by actual success in survival: there is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this." [Popper, Karl R., "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography." Routledge, 2002, 37, p.199]

Feeble, it is.

Mr. Kalamata

346 posted on 09/06/2019 8:38:01 AM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)

Kalamata: "Show us the annotations, Joe; but with the fossils, not the mockups.
The rule of thumb for scientists is never trust an artistic rendition or computer simulation of data, until you have seen the data up close and personal."

All that information is readily available online, in museums, etc., if you actually wanted to find it, but you don't, of course.
Instead, you want to close your good eyes and claim to see nothing.

You can find annotated skulls here.

A similar annotated listing is here.

And here is a more complete listing.

Kalamata: "I am bewildered by your continuous attempts to put your words into my mouth.
I believe that is called, "deception"."

A weak reed argument since I never put words in your mouth, despite your frequently putting words in mine.
In this case, you have indeed argued there's no "proof" ancient fossils had offspring.

Kalamata on transitional skulls: "My response:

1) There is no evidence that any of those fossils are more than, say, 5,000 thousand years old.
2) There is no evidence that any of those is an ancestor or descendent of any other.

That is the truth, and the only truth. Joe.
Everything you say, or reference, is pure speculation based on no evidence."

Sorry, but no, Dan, yours are lies, and if you'd ever use your good eyes, you'd quickly see through such weak reed arguments.
In fact there are literal tons of evidence for the ages of those fossils.
As for ancestry, there's no evidence anywhere that later populations were anything other than descendants of similar fossils which came earlier.

Kalamata: "No transitional fossils were found, Joe.
There are ape fossils, and there are human fossils, and nothing in between."

No, that's just more use of Denier Rule #1.
Here again is a more complete listing of pre-human transitional fossils.

Kalamata: ">>Joe said, "This listing of primate fossils includes hundreds, of which at least a third were discovered after 1981."

Kalamata: "Did you have a point?"

Yes, which you'd immediately see if you just used your good eyes: that the 1981 claim of few primate fossils was false then and even more false today after many more discoveries.
Here again is that listing of hundreds of primate fossils.

Kalamata: "50 years, and 50 PhD theses later, the Piltdown was exposed as a fraud."

This timeline shows that a year after Piltdown was first presented in 1912, David Waterston found it to be fake.
As recently as 2016, scientists were still working to reveal Dawson's forgery methods.

Kalamata: "Hey, that is better than we are faring with Haeckel's embryos.
They are still in our children's textbooks more than a century after they were exposed as fraudulent."

Accused of being fraudulent.
Haeckel himself corrected some drawings as better information became available and as recently as 2008 Robert Richards defended Haeckel on grounds that he did the best he could with information available to him.
Haeckel's basic idea, that embryos of very different creatures look surprisingly similar in their earliest development, that idea is absolutely valid.

Kalamata: "Actually, it would be statistically impossible.
Natural selection doesn't work like you are presenting it.
Read Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves" if you want to know what is really going on."

I am totally unimpressed with the statistics used to "prove" evolution is impossible.
It's a case of both G.I.G.O. and "figures don't lie but liars can figure."

Kalamata: "I agree that most secular research is "Garbage In, Garbage Out"; but Ann is a pretty thorough reviewer, so Durrett & Smith's research's is probably real science. "

Nonsense, it's simply that theologically their conclusions are agreeable to your beliefs.
You'd dump them instantly if they found otherwise, Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "I know you want to believe that, but evolution never existed.
It is all a big game of , "I don't have the evidence, but I am sure someone does"."

And here we see Kalamata combining Denier Rules #1 & #12: Ignore Evidence, then Declare Total Victory.

Kalamata: "Why would elephants live with dinosaurs?"

Why wouldn't they?

Kalamata: "Morphological similarity is a sign of intelligent design."

No, it's just the opposite, a sign of trial & error.

Kalamata: "Joe, nothing in your list can overcome two crucial characteristics of the fossil record:
1) Abrupt appearance, and then stasis.
2) Disparity before diversity.
Those are the opposite of what evolution predicts."

Both "abrupt appearance" and "disparity" are figments of word definitions, signifying nothing real.
In reality, every well identified fossil can be traced back in time to earlier similar forms, just as evolution predicts.

Kalamata: "That is a very dumb statement, Joe.
First of all, it is not "my phrase", but a phrase that expresses a common characteristic of the fossil record known by all paleontologists.
That is a very big deal, Joe!"

Nonsense, it's a total nothing, Dan!
"Disparity" and "Diversity" are functionally the same things -- as are shared synonyms like variation, variance, difference, distinction, dissimilitude, contrast, dissimilarity & unlikeness.
Those are simply different words referring to the same types of things.

Kalamata: "That is not true, Joe. You have been misled."

Sorry Dan, but your words are a lie, based on your slavish obedience to Denier Rule #1.

Kalamata: "Nothing has or will come along, Joe; and you really should stop with the childish rules."

Billions of fossils representing hundreds of thousands of species is vastly more than "nothing", Dan.
The fact that your good eyes refuse to see such evidence makes your claims very weak reeds to stand on.

As for "childish rules", it's simply astonishing how childishly you obey them!

Kalamata: "Perhaps you should write your own Paleontology text book, Joe."

Plenty of paleontologists have written their own books.
I am certain that Gould never intended his words to provide ammunition for arguments of Young Earth Creationists.

Kalamata: "Soft-bodied animals were fossilized in the Cambrian, Joe."

Sure, Dan, at Burgess and Yunnan, but elsewhere are far more hard bodied fossils.
Studies at Burgess suggest that only 2% of species then had hard-bodies, but hard-bodied fossils represent far more than 2% of the species found.

Kalamata quoting Gould, 1989: "In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter.
The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs"
[Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]"

Kalamata: "Did you get that, Joe?
There has been no new phyla in the past 500 million years since the Cambrian."

Actually, Dan, Gould didn't know that, and here's why: of the ~36 animal phyla living today, ~2/3 have never been found in any fossils anywhere.
So, neither Gould, nor we, know for sure when those 18-24 phyla first appeared.
Here is a very interesting related discussion:

"More recently, the sequencing of the genomes of thousands of life forms is revealing just how many and what genes and the proteins they encode have been conserved from the Precambrian.
The explosion of external form (the phenotype) in the fossil record is what we see now, but more gradual adaptation was taking place at the molecular level (the genotype).
Wang et. al. (1999) for example, recently conducted phylogenetic studies divergences among animal phyla, plants, animals and fungi.
These researchers estimated arthropods diverged from more primitive chordates more than 900 million years ago, and Nematodes from that lineage almost 1200 million years ago.
They furthermore estimated that the plant, animal and fungi Kingdoms might have split from a common ancestors almost 1600 million years ago.
Finally, they conjecture that the basal animal phyla (Porifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora) diverged between about 1200 and 1500 million years ago.
If their research is valid, at least six major metazoan phyla appeared deep in the Precambrian, hundreds of millions of years before the oldest fossils in the fossil record."

This chart lists all 36 animal phyla and shows their fossil origins:

2 phyla -- Precambrian
3 phyla -- early Cambrian
10 phyla -- "Cambrian Explosion"
3 phyla -- Post-Cambrian
18 phyla -- no fossils found
36 phyla -- total living animal phyla.

Summary: the fossil record shows five phyla first appeared before the "Cambrian Explosion", 3 phyla after it and 18 phyla left no fossils that we've yet found.

Kalamata: "You still don't get it, Joe.
All basic anatomical designs appeared in the beginning.
There have been no new phyla -- no new body plans -- no evolution."

Sorry, Dan, but that's still your Denier Rule #1, ignore the evidence.
Evolution -- diversification, speciation -- from the Cambrian's 600 genera to today's 200,000 is just the sort of thing Darwin predicted.

Fossil evidence above shows three phyla first seen after the "Cambrian Explosion" five before it.

Kalamata: "You are hopelessly lost, Joe.
I wish I could help, but I have said it every way I know how to say it."

Sorry Dan, but contrary to what they taught you in propaganda school, it doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies, they're still lies, always will be.

Kalamata: "It was Gould's way of hiding the absence of evolution in the fossil record inside a new theory."

Unlike Kalamata, Gould's good eyes could see evolution in the fossil record, his question was: how fast or slowly do creatures evolve?
The answer is: it depends on conditions, sometimes very slowly, sometimes relatively fast -- "punctuated equilibrium".

Kalamata: "The lack of evidence is not evidence, Joe."

Says Dan, the man who wants us to have religious faith in "intelligent design".

Kalamata: "LOL!"

Dan, you complain falsely that I put words in your mouth and yet you shamelessly put words in mine.
That's Denier Rule #5.

Kalamata: "I am saying for the umteenth time, Joe, the lack of evidence is NOT evidence."

Right, Dan, you wish us to believe that prehistoric animals, including ancient whales, did not reproduce.

Kalamata: "I am saying for the umteenth time, Joe, the lack of evidence is NOT evidence."

I have said, truthfully, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Every year hundreds of new fossil species are found and without exception they fill in "gaps" in the previous record.
That reasonably suggests that a) there are many more species yet to be found and b) these new species will continue to fill in "gaps" in the current record.

Kalamata: "That is not science, Joe.
A scientist would have said, we have a few fragments of the skull and jaw, and a tooth or two; but we have no clue what the animal looked like."

Nonsense, Dan, those ARE some of the "clues" from which they can well make reasonable projections.

Kalamata: "LOL!"

Right, Denier Rule #1 -- don't let your good eyes see contradictory evidence.

Kalamata: "No, they have noses and nostrils, Joe:"

Proving, Dan, beyond reasonable doubt that animals don't need blow-holes to live aquatic or semi-aquatic lives.
So whether that ancient pre-whale had a blow-hole or not is irrelevant.

Kalamata: "I am not sure what your point is."

Right, I'll add that to my growing list of Denier Rules, from my post #328: "when your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance.
That makes "Declare Victory" rule #12."

Kalamata: "Are you saying you didn't say what you said?"

No, I never said what you pretend I said.

Kalamata: "It is not evidence until it can be observed, Joe."

But, Dan, you will never observe it because that would require you to break Denier Rule #1.
Science, by contrast, carefully observes every new piece of evidence to identify, classify and see where it fits in the larger evolutionary scheme.

Kalamata: "That is a very dumb statement, Joe."

Sorry, Dan, I'm going to call your response here a version of my new Denier Rule #11 -- play dumb, but in this case you've mixed it with Rule #5: accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.

347 posted on 09/06/2019 12:24:50 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

Kalamata: "Linnaeus, like everyone else in the world before Darwin, observed natural barriers that kept the animal families (kinds) distinct.
It is not rocket science."

No, according to Kalamata, Linnaeus used a mistranslation of the Biblical word "kind" to name two biological categories: genus & species.
It turns out, the genus "barrier" is pretty strong -- though still sometimes "broken", as in the case of beefalo (buffalo cattle hybrid).
But the species "barrier" not much of a barrier at all, even in cases where species have different numbers of chromosomes, i.e., zebra.

So Linnaeus swings and misses twice with Kind=species and Kind=genus.
Now, Linnaeus never said Kind=family, but here Kalamata seems pretty certain that if Linnaeus had said Kind=family, then he'd be right.
But, but... what if it turns out that certain "kinds" (i.e., lions & tigers) can indeed effectively interbreed?

Kalamata: "Evolutionism is already on its last breath, Joe."

That would be the new Denier Rule #12, Dan: whenever totally defeated, Declare Total Victory.

Kalamata: "I can tell you never really cared much about science."

I care about theologians pretending at science.
I'm agin' it.

Kalamata: "If not for quibbling, Joe, you wouldn’t have much to say."

Here you use a version of Denier Rule #11, Pretend Ignorance, but in this case, having been defeated on a key point (definition of "kind"), you pretend it's of no consequence.
I may have to add that as a separate new Rule #12: no matter how major, minimize your many defeats as of no consequence, and no matter how minor your few victories, trumpet them as of ultimate importance.

Kalamata: ">>Kalamata quoting Behe: “Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin’s vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos.
But no, nothing.”"

Kalamata: "LOL! Behe was simply repeating what Gould and other paleontologists have observed in the fossil record."

Regardless, the claim is ludicrous.
Galapagos began to erupt about 20 million years ago, with various forms of life arriving since.
Today the Galapagos have dozens of endemic species plus the occasional endemic genus.

By contrast, Madagascar split from India circa 90 million years ago and today has thousands of endemic species, hundreds of unique genera, and a dozen isolated biological families (sometimes called "kinds").
This is exactly what evolution theory predicts.

Kalamata: "You have an unnatural hatred for a great scientist and a genuinely nice guy.
I have never been a religious fanatic, so I don’t know exactly what you are going through."

Total rubbish, just more of Denier Rule #5.
Regardless of how "nice" he seems, Behe is a shameless propagandist for a theologically motivated Big Lie.

Kalamata: "I couldn’t and wouldn’t; but Behe could do as good a job as anyone else.
Probably better than most, since he has a better understanding of the molecular side of the issue than most."

So, do I understand your words to claim that Behe, even as we speak now, is working on a new, revised biological classification system, one which will both define and list exactly what the word "kind" means?
And this new classification system will be carefully crafted to match exactly what the Bible says about "kinds"?
OOOOOOOh Kay.

348 posted on 09/07/2019 4:57:55 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

To: Kalamata; aligncare

Kalamata quoting aligncare ">>BJK simply said that you displayed similarities in style, language, techniques & logic to some Holocaust deniers..."

Kalamata: "He is using the same trick the left uses to marginalize their opponents."

I am merely pointing out what others have also noticed, that when I compare the debate tactics of anti-evolutionist Kalamata to those of Holocaust deniers from now nearly 20 years ago, they match up almost exactly -- except in one important area: Holocaust deniers were vulgar beyond anything allowable on Free Republic.

The significance to me is that today we very seldom hear of Holocaust denial outside the domains of radical Islam.
That old generation of western deniers seems to have died off, even as they loudly proclaimed Total Victory.
It's what I think of when I see Kalamata loudly proclaiming the "Death of Evolutionism".

Riiiiiight.

Kalamata: "That is a talking point.
I am seeking observable evidence for common descent.
That is all."

That's Denier Rule #1.
If Kalamata had any respect for science, his good eyes would see that common descent is a theory, evidence for it found in fossils, DNA, morphology, ontology & geology.
Instead, Kalamata closes his eyes, relying on the broken reed argument of "talking point".

Kalamata: "Accepting something for which there is no evidence is called religion.
I already have a religion.
I don’t need two."

Here Kalamata even insults his own religion, claiming "there is no evidence" for it when in fact his good eyes could see lots of evidence, if he simply chose to.

Kalamata: "God told us how he created man, and it was not by evolution"

That's a lie, the Bible only tells us that God began with dirt, which is also what some origin-of-life ideas suggest.

349 posted on 09/07/2019 5:46:41 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

Kalamata: "If that was the case, I would agree with you; and many scientists, especially those in the Renaissance, and even today, were/are trying to understand how God did it.
But Origin of Life researchers are almost exclusively trying to prove that God didn't do it."

On that particular point, FRiend, we're not so far apart.
But my argument here is an important distinction: every scientist regardless is entitled to his or her own religious opinions, period.
If for some their "religion" is atheism, that's their personal business until... until... until they start to tell us their religion of atheism is actually science itself.
Then we are entitled, indeed required, to push back strongly saying, in effect: no, no, science itself is not philosophically atheistic, science only methodologically sets aside theology for others to study.
Science by definition works only in natural explanations for natural processes, period.
Anything else is outside the limits & scope of science.

That is the traditional understanding going back to the Age of Enlightenment and even long before.

Kalamata on "Kitzmiller vs Dover Schools": "Nonsense.
It was thugs from the evolutionism cult, along with their best buds -- the anti-Constitution, anti-Christian ACLU -- that sued, not the local citizens."

Once again you closed your good eyes to the facts and propose instead a broken reed argument.
The fact is the government Creationist school board in "Dover" tried to ram Creationism down the throats of its teachers, students and voters.
The results were: 1) teachers refused, 2) students' parents sued and 3) voters fired the entire Creationist school board.

Now, of course, Kalamata being a master propagandist wishes to turn the facts on their head and tell us it was the government which tried to impose evolution on unwilling teachers, students, parents and voters.

Kalamata on the Galileo affair: "'Nice' attempt to spin the truth, but it was not the Bible they were protecting, but pagan philosophies. "

Nice try to spin the truth, but Galileo was charged with heresy with reference to: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5.
Already in 1616 the Church Inquisition ruled:

"On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"; the proposition that the Earth moves and is not at the centre of the universe "receives the same judgement in philosophy; and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[41][42] "

Even in 1616 "foolish & absurd" was not a crime, but "heretical" certainly was!
In 1633 Galileo was yet again tried, this time for:

" 'vehemently suspect of heresy', namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture.
He was required to "abjure, curse, and detest" those opinions.[54]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition..."

Again, Galileo's "foolish & absurd" philosophical opinions were not a crime, but heresy against the Bible certainly was.

Kalamata: "The same is true for much of the Church orthodoxy, today, who have been brainwashed into promoting the atheist philosophies of Darwin and Lyell, rather than the historical and scientifically accurate doctrines of Moses and Christ."

Nonsense, the Catholic Church along with most other Christian denominations today simply says, in effect: whatever human theories science may devise, God is the Author, Creator and ruler over all of nature, period.
In other words, atheists' claims that science does or even can somehow "disprove" God, such claims are simply absurd.
Science doesn't & can't prove or disprove anything about the supernatural, because by definition that's outside the scope of natural science.
Theologians-pretending-at-science can say whatever they wish, but they are not science, period.

Kalamata: "I question his motives, in particular his continuous attempt to redefine left-wing socialist neo-Nazis and skin-heads as right-wingers.
In fact, he openly labels every Holocaust denying individual and organization as "right-wing"."

Terms like "conservative" and "right-wing" can mean something very different in other countries than they do in the USA.
For us, the meaning of "conservative" can be boiled down to two words, Constitution and Bible, not necessarily in that order.
Neither word-definition has any legitimate connection to European "right wing" national-socialism, monarchism, totalitarianism, state religions, racism, anti-Semitism or fascism, etc.

In my year 2000 edition of Shermer's anti-Holocaust Denier book I see nowhere that he lumps together normal American conservatives with pro-Nazis like Canadian Ernst Zundel or Frenchman Robert Faurisson.

Kalamata: "With people like Shermer and his side-kick Prothero out there spreading far-left propaganda, conservatives do not need any more enemies.
I cannot imagine how any true conservative could support Michael Shermer, for any reason."

Shermer wrote an excellent book against Holocaust deniers and they have now, more or less, disappeared from public debate.
Maybe that's the real reason Kalamata so loathes & despises Shermer?

Kalamata: "I surveyed Shermer's deceptive book for key words and phrases, in both the text and reference titles.
This is what I found, in general:
Shermer mentions the words "right wing" 18 times, all in improper context..."

I found none of that in my year 2000 edition, so maybe you can point to some pages where all these "improper" references can be found?

Kalamata: "At best, his book can be described as an anti-conservative, anti-Christian propaganda piece, disguised as a treatise on holocaust denial."

So far, nothing you've posted here supports such a ridiculous claim.

Kalamata: "You can thank Charlie for planting the seed for extermination, as follows:"

Hitler himself did not blame his anti-Semitism on Darwin, rather he said it began with his experience in the anti-Semitic Christian Workers Party.

Kalamata quoting Arthur Keith published in 1947, on Hitler: "...he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.
He has brought into modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times."

"Tribal and evolutionary"... Tribal certainly, evolutionary not so much.
Mass extermination is not "evolution".
So your quote is pure propaganda, and Arthur Keith was an insane Scotsman deeply involved in the Piltdown hoax.

Kalamata quoting Weikart 2009: "These laws had brought about evolutionary progress, but only by eliminating the weak and those unfit to live.
Hitler would also criticize the churches for taking it upon themselves to protect the lives of the weak, the 'inferior,' and those unfit for life."
[Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress." Palgrave Macmillan, 2009, p.41]"

Sure, but again, Hitler did not learn his anti-Semitism from Darwin, nor is mass extermination a form of "evolution", nor would Darwin himself ever support the Holocaust.

Kalamata: "Hitler frequently used the term "struggle for existence", as follows:...
So did Darwin:..."

We all "struggle for existence", it's a common expression, in no way means we support mass extermination of other ethnicities.
Your lumping Hitler & Darwin together is simply a gross example of Denier Rule #8: Guilt by Association.

Kalamata quoting Weikart 2013: "Evolutionary biology had been well entrenched in the German biology curriculum long before the Nazis came to power (this is why it was so influential on Nazi ideologists).
The Darwinian explanation for evolution was the most prominent theory taught in German schools, though it was not uncontested. "

Right, anything in science can be used for good or evil.
Consider just one example: the A-bomb which ended WWII saved millions of lives and has kept the world at peace (more or less) ever since could also be used to wantonly destroy much of life on Earth.
As we say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Bombs don't kill people, evolution theory doesn't kill people, etc.

Kalamata: "Have you not read that racism exploded world-wide, post-Darwin, and that Racism in America against blacks was not confined to the South?
Blacks were relegated to the rank of second-class citizens in the North, as well. "

Nonsense, the US 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments were passed after Darwin's "Origin of Species".
Yes, US racism did "explode" in the early 1900s but that had nothing to do with Darwin and everything to do with Southern Democrat leaders like President Wilson.
Sure, racism in the North was real enough, especially as practiced by Democrats and it's what kept most African Americans voting for Republicans until Democrat FDR's New Deal began to buy them away with "free" welfare.

Kalamata: "A book that came out a few months ago titled, "The Strange Careers of the Jim Crow North," is reported to argue that racism actually originated in the North, not the South:"

Possibly, among Northern Democrats who had to compete for jobs with African Americans escaping racism in the South.
It helped unite Northern & Southern Democrats, giving New York Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 over 90% of Deep South white votes.

Kalamata: "...and New York City never comprehensively desegregated its schools.
To recognize the long movement in New York and Boston to desegregate schools..."

Right, racism was a big problem for Big City Democrats.
For rural & small town Republicans, not so much.

Kalamata: "Guns don't kill, but words create killers out of little minds full of mush.
Ask the Columbine killers, who were doing their own bit of "natural selecting"."

Here again Kalamata, you sound like a Democrat crying for gun confiscation after every mass shooting, only you want to "confiscate" Darwin.

{sigh}

350 posted on 09/07/2019 9:00:02 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

>>Kalamata: "The Bible doesn't care, but God cares."
>>Joey said: "God's creation is natural, God is supernatural.

That is philosophical hogwash.

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

>>Kalamata: "It [the Bible] is also full of science and history, along with the way of salvation, which is via the gospel."
>>Joey said: "In order to demonstrate God's supernatural majesty & power."

Your statement is more hogwash. You do not believe there is science in the Bible, and you mock the historical record, so which parts "demonstrate God's supernatural majesty & power"? Curious minds want to know.

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

>>Kalamata: "The words of Moses and Christ include real science, such as man and woman being created at the beginning of creation, and man becoming alive when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils! In other words, the first man had a complete body, before he became alive and could breath.Genetic research is only now revealing what God told us from the beginning: that man did not evolve!"
>>Joey said: "Your interpretation here is pure nonsense because the key words in Genesis 2:7 are "living soul". That's what God breathed into Adam and into nothing else.

Obviously, you don't believe this part because it contradicts your apes to man myth:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" -- Gen 2:7 KJV

To protect your worldview, you are forced to misdirect us to the "living soul" phrase, which has nothing to do with how man became a living soul in the first place, only that he did. God told us how man became a living soul in the aforementioned statement, and it wasn't by evolving from an ape, as your wild imagination leads you to believe.

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

>>Joey wrote: "No other creature has a "living soul", meaning no other creature, including pre-humans was truly alive spiritually. That moment in time is the precise moment when pre-human became fully human."

Show us that in the Bible, or admit that you are adding your own words to the scripture.

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

>>Joey wrote: "God's "living soul" in humans is what makes us more than mere animals, indeed, it lifts us above the rest of His creation and even gives us supernatural powers.

That is nutty. God created man uniquely in his own image, and that of his previously created angels. This is God's conversation with his angels (a.k.a., his "Divine Council", also referenced in Psalm 82, 1 King 22, Rev 4-5, and other places):

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." -- Gen 1:26 KJV

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

>>Joey wrote: "As Jesus said: Matthew 17:20 "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you."

You haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you?

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

>>Joey wrote: "Nothing on Earth before that moment was a "living soul".

How does that prove your nutty belief that man evolved from an ape, or a frog, or a bacteria?

Mr. Kalamata

351 posted on 09/07/2019 9:10:21 AM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)

>>Kalamata: “You don’t understand science, Joe. Neither of those sites provide any observational evidence for evolution, nor any practical applications of evolutionary theory.”
>>Joey wrote: “Right, just like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum, you literally cannot see the evidence which is all around you.

I see you are still playing your hard-left “slander them if you cannot dispute them” game. Do you hate Jews, Little Joey, or only the millions of Jews who reject the apes-to-man myth?

*****************
>>Kalamata: “The amateurs at Talkorigins.org did go through the motion of listing a series of hijacked applications for evolution, where none exists, nor has ever existed. But, they gave themselves a way out with these statements:”
>>Joey wrote: “Sticking with our Holocaust analogy, what practical application is the Holocaust? To prevent another, you say? And yet those most likely to produce another Holocaust literally cannot see evidence of a Holocaust in a Holocaust museum!

The evidence in the Holocaust museum is believable, Joey. The evidence that Charlie Darwin’s philosophy — the origin of your worldview — was the primary driver of Hitler’s worldview, which led to the Holocaust, is why are so defensive and feel compelled to slander and marginalize Jews who reject Darwin and try to expose his treacherous doctrine.

*****************
>>As for Talkorigins.org, your word “hijacked” is just denier talk, Rules #1 & #7.”

Foolish child.

Mr. Kalamata

352 posted on 09/07/2019 9:36:45 AM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)

>>Kalamata: “>>Joe says: “It’s worth noting that the school board which had voted to accept the Creationist textbook was voted out of office.
>>Kalamata: “That means nothing, Joe.”
Right, Denier Rule #1.

Child.

*****************
>>Joey said, “In fact, that event is all-important, because it clearly demonstrates who was trying to shove their own theology down the throats of unwilling citizens. Clearly the citizens in “Dover” did not want and would not accept Creationists dogma imposed by the government school board.”

Hogwash. It demonstrates the power of a few leftist agitators, the ACLU, and a corrupt federal judge, along with the ability to sway public opinion using the deep pockets of the Left. Moreso, it is symbol of the moral decline of our nation since the ACLU came to power. How does it feel to be an ACLU apologist? Never mind. I don’t want to know.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “When are you going to address the fact that thugs from the evolutionism orthodoxy, and a devout communist organization called the ACLU, team up to recruit corrupt federal judges to suppress those who question your religion? I thought you were supposed to be a great defender of the constitution?”
>>Joey said, “When is Kalamata going to recognize and accept the fact that citizen/voters in “Dover” did not want and would not accept Creationist nonsense shoved down the throats of their children? Answer: never, of course, because that would violate Denier Rule #1, among others?”

That was Joey, the moral relativist and ACLU apologist, at your service.

Mr. Kalamata

353 posted on 09/07/2019 9:55:28 AM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)

Kalamata: ">>Joe said: "I've never ignored nor seen "contradictory data" which could falsify evolution theory."

Kalamata: "You don't want to see it."

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.

Kalamata: "How does it feel to be an apologist for the ACLU?"

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.

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."

And you continue to spin & lie shamelessly.
Now I see you've, ahem, devolved back to mindless name-calling.

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.

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? "

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?

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"."

So now Kalamata has become mind-reader enough to know if Miller's faith is genuine?
Amazing.

Kalamata: "It is time for creationists and ID'ers to play hardball against that deceitful thug."

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?

Kalamata: "Don't try to downplay it.
Dover was a well-orchestrated, left-wing assault on the Christian heritage of our nation."

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.

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!"

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.

Kalamata: "Now you are getting really annoying.
Those new-fangled evolution "methods" were nothing more than desperate cover-ups of falsifications of evolution."

Regardless of how "annoying", new data can require better explanations, but no data has ever falsified Darwin's basic evolution idea.

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"."

Just so we're clear on this: the scientific definition of "fact" is a confirmed observation.
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.

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.

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.

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..."

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.
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.

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

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.)"

G.I.G.O. -- I'm totally unimpressed with people who claim "mathematical or statistical impossibility" without knowing the conditions.

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

354 posted on 09/07/2019 11:41:26 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

>>Kalamata: "Show us the annotations, Joe; but with the fossils, not the mockups. The rule of thumb for scientists is never trust an artistic rendition or computer simulation of data, until you have seen the data up close and personal."
>>Joey said: "All that information is readily available online, in museums, etc., if you actually wanted to find it, but you don't, of course. Instead, you want to close your good eyes and claim to see nothing.

I cannot find them, Joey. You made the claim that there are transitional fossils, so you show us the fossil evidence.

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

>>Joey said: "You can find annotated skulls here (and here, and here...).

Those are clay mockups, plus a long list of fossils posted by a Wikipedia scatterbrain. Enough of the fish heads, Joey. Show us a clear and distinct line of fossil evidence from ape to man, or admit you are a snake-oil salesman.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am bewildered by your continuous attempts to put your words into my mouth. I believe that is called, "deception"."
>>Joey said: "A weak reed argument since I never put words in your mouth, despite your frequently putting words in mine. In this case, you have indeed argued there's no "proof" ancient fossils had offspring.

You are lying again, Joey. I said, factually, that, "you don't know if any of those [fossils you claimed to be transitionals] had children." Quit lying.

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

>>Kalamata on transitional skulls: 1) There is no evidence that any of those fossils are more than, say, 5,000 thousand years old. 2) There is no evidence that any of those is an ancestor or descendent of any other. That is the truth, and the only truth. Joe. Everything you say, or reference, is pure speculation based on no evidence."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, but no, Dan, yours are lies, and if you'd ever use your good eyes, you'd quickly see through such weak reed arguments. In fact there are literal tons of evidence for the ages of those fossils."

That is sophistry, Joey. There is ZERO evidence for the age of any fossil touted by the evolutionism cultists.

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

>>Joey said "As for ancestry, there's no evidence anywhere that later populations were anything other than descendants of similar fossils which came earlier."

Joey has convinced himself that the absence of evidence for evolution is evidence for evolution. You cannot really blame Joey, personally, since that is what his handlers have brainwashed him into believing. But, then again, one of the principles on which our nation was founded is that every man is responsible for his own actions.

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

>>Kalamata: "No transitional fossils were found, Joe. There are ape fossils, and there are human fossils, and nothing in between."
>>Joey said "No, that's just more use of Denier Rule #1.

Child.

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

>>Joey said, "Here again is a more complete listing of pre-human transitional fossils."

Those are certainly fossils, Joey; but you have not presented any evidence of a solid transitional line, nor have you presented any evidence that any one of those listed is an ancestor of any other, nor can you.

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

>>Kalamata: ">>Joe said, "This listing of primate fossils includes hundreds, of which at least a third were discovered after 1981."
>>Kalamata: "Did you have a point?"
>>Joey said, "Yes, which you'd immediately see if you just used your good eyes: that the 1981 claim of few primate fossils was false then and even more false today after many more discoveries. Here again is that listing of hundreds of primate fossils."

Those are just a bunch of fossils, Joey. No one on earth can assemble a reasonable transitional line from ape to man, without cheating. Ape-to-man evolution is just as false today as it was in 1981, except in the minds of the wildly imaginative.

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

>>Kalamata: "50 years, and 50 PhD theses later, the Piltdown was exposed as a fraud.">> >>This timeline shows that a year after Piltdown was first presented in 1912, David Waterston found it to be fake. As recently as 2016, scientists were still working to reveal Dawson's forgery methods.

Accoding to your timeline, Weiner, Le Gros Clark, and Oakley exposed the hoax in 1953, over 40 years afterward. Like I said earlier, Evolutionism Icons Die Hard! If not for fraud and wild speculations, there would be nothing that could be hyped as evidence.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Hey, that is better than we are faring with Haeckel's embryos. They are still in our children's textbooks more than a century after they were exposed as fraudulent."
>>Joey said: "Accused of being fraudulent.

No, Joey. Fraudulent! In the image below, Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top, while real embryos are on the bottom:

No one could mistake those, Joey.

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

>>Joey said, "Haeckel himself corrected some drawings as better information became available and as recently as 2008 Robert Richards defended Haeckel on grounds that he did the best he could with information available to him."

No, Joey. Haeckel faked them. The vain attempt by historian Robert J. Richards to rehabilitate Haeckel's reputation proved futile in light of the actual embryonic photos taken by scientist's Michael Richardson et al. Only the blind and the brainwashed fail to see how far Haeckel strayed from reality in order to supplement the evolutionism hype of his day; though, admittedly, Haeckel did not act much differently than the hypesters of today, especially the charlatans pushing ape-to-man evolution.

Are you aware that Hitler adopted Haeckel's recapitulation theory?

"When Hitler opened the House of German Art in Munich, he portrayed modernist art as atavistic, stating, 'When we know today that the evolution of millions of years, compressed into a few decades, repeats itself in every individual, then this art, we realize, is not 'modern.' It is on the contrary to the highest degree 'archaic,' far older probably than the Stone Age.' This statement shows that Hitler not only believed in human evolution, but he also endorsed Haeckel's recapitulation theory, which claimed that each organism in its embryological development repeats earlier stages of evolutionary history." [Richard Weikart, "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany." Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, p,79]

It is also worth nothing that Robert John Richards is a very poor historian who ignores boatloads of evidence that Hitler was a Darwinian.

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

>>Joey said, "Haeckel's basic idea, that embryos of very different creatures look surprisingly similar in their earliest development, that idea is absolutely valid.

No, again, Joey. Haeckel's fake drawings are shown below on the top, while the real embryos from Michael Richardson's 1997 science team are on the bottom:

No one could mistake the difference between Haeckels fraud on the top row, and the real embryos on the bottom, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "Actually, it would be statistically impossible. Natural selection doesn't work like you are presenting it. Read Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves" if you want to know what is really going on."
>>Joey said, "I am totally unimpressed with the statistics used to "prove" evolution is impossible.

I imagine so! After all, your motto is, "Damn the scientific evidence against it: evolution is a fact!"

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

>>Joey said: "It's a case of both G.I.G.O. and "figures don't lie but liars can figure."

Have you ever taken a college level science course above the survey level, Joey? You seem absolutely clueless about how to respond to real scientific evidence. Perhaps the reason you mock Behe's book is because you do not possess the aptitude to read a book of that caliber, even though it is written for the layman scientist.

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

>>Kalamata: "I agree that most secular research is "Garbage In, Garbage Out"; but Ann is a pretty thorough reviewer, so Durrett & Smith's research's is probably real science. "
>>Joey said: "Nonsense, it's simply that theologically their conclusions are agreeable to your beliefs. You'd dump them instantly if they found otherwise,

Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt are secular mathematicians at Cornell University who reject Intelligent Design, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Denier Rule #1."

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "I know you want to believe that, but evolution never existed. It is all a big game of , "I don't have the evidence, but I am sure someone does"."
>>Joey said: "And here we see Kalamata combining Denier Rules #1 & #12: Ignore Evidence, then Declare Total Victory.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Why would elephants live with dinosaurs?"
>>Joey said: "Why wouldn't they?

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Morphological similarity is a sign of intelligent design."
>>Joey said: "No, it's just the opposite, a sign of trial & error.

Morphological similarity is the result of Dumb Luck? LOL! You are really funny, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "Joe, nothing in your list can overcome two crucial characteristics of the fossil record: 1) Abrupt appearance, and then stasis. 2) Disparity before diversity. Those are the opposite of what evolution predicts."
>>Joey said: "Both "abrupt appearance" and "disparity" are figments of word definitions, signifying nothing real. In reality, every well identified fossil can be traced back in time to earlier similar forms, just as evolution predicts.

You are living in a fantasy world, Joey. You should read a paleontology book, or two, before pretending to be an expert. Even Donald Prothero, Michael Shermer's side-kick, mentions the prevalence of stasis in his text books:

"The prevalence of the belief in phyletic gradualism among paleontologists prior to 1972 is a testament to how far they were out of touch with the current ideas in evolutionary biology. But punctuated equilibrium had far more implications than the simple idea that speciation is geologically rapid. The prevalence of stasis in species over millions of years was something that was not expected by Neo- Darwinists. Even though paleontologists had known for years that most fossil species are static through long periods of geologic time, they never emphasized this, since they were taught to look for gradual evolution. As Gould and Eldredge (1977) put it, 'Stasis is data.' When paleontology's 'dirty little secret' of the prevalence of stasis in the fossil record finally got out, it caused great problems for evolutionary theory." [Donald R. Prothero, "Bringing Fossils To Life: An Introduction To Paleobiology." McGraw-Hill, 2nd Ed, 2004, p.77]

Next paragraph:

"Conventional Neo-Darwinism had always treated species as infinitely flexible and responsive to the environment. But fossil species showed no change across long periods of geologic time when there were clearly many changes in the environment. In some cases, well-documented and sometimes extreme climatic changes led to no changes in the fossils (Jackson, 1992; Prothero, 1992; Prothero and Heaton, 1996). Some Neo-Darwinists attempted to dismiss this evidence as an example of stabilizing selection (Charlesworth et al., 1983; Levinton, 1983; Lande, 1985). But such conventional models are appropriate only on scales of a few generations, or at most a few thousand years. No environment is so constant that stabilizing selection can operate for millions of years. From this evidence, biologists have had to reconsider their concept of species and organisms. More and more, they are treating organisms as integrated wholes, with complex interactions between their various parts, so that they cannot change one part without disrupting the whole organism. The old idea that selection could act on one character at a time just by changing its gene frequencies has been discredited. Evolution is more than a 'change in gene frequencies through time.'" [Ibid.]

On a similar note, in another of his textbooks, Prothero attempts to explain away the absence of transitional fossils by focusing on the Gould/Eldredge allopatric speciation model which, in a nutshell, states that the absence of evidence is evidence (I kid you not!):

"If the allopatric speciation model applied to the fossil record, then we should not expect to see speciation in the fossils from the main population. Instead, speciation should occur in small, peripherally isolated populations that have little chance of being fossilized. In addition, all of the data from biology showed that this process of speciation typically takes place in tens to hundreds to thousands of years, which is a geologic instant as far as paleontologists are concerned. The age difference between two bedding planes is often many thousands of years. Thus we would not expect to see the gradual transitions between species preserved very often; instead, we expect to see new species when they immigrate back into the main population after their isolation and speciation events. In other words, they would suddenly appear in the fossil record. Once they were established, speciation theory would predict that the main population would remain stable and not change gradually through time but that new species would continually arise on the periphery and migrate back to the homeland. Eldredge and Gould (1972) called their idea punctuated equilibrium, because the fossil record seem to show species stability without change (equilibrium or stasis) except when it is punctuated by the arrival of new species from elsewhere (fig. 3.11B)." [Donald R. Prothero, "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters." Columbia University Press, 2nd Ed, 2017, p.77

LOL!

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

>>Kalamata: "That is a very dumb statement, Joe. First of all, it is not "my phrase", but a phrase that expresses a common characteristic of the fossil record known by all paleontologists. That is a very big deal, Joe!"
>>Joey said: "Nonsense, it's a total nothing, Dan! "Disparity" and "Diversity" are functionally the same things -- as are shared synonyms like variation, variance, difference, distinction, dissimilitude, contrast, dissimilarity & unlikeness. Those are simply different words referring to the same types of things.

How can we carry on a reasonably discussion if you insist on making stuff up to cover up your ignorance, Joey? Perhaps this will help you understand:

"The abrupt first appearance of a multitude of animal fossils in early Cambrian rocks (Terreneuvian to Series 2; ca. 541–509 Ma) epitomizes one of the most significant evolutionary events in Earth’s history. This sudden burst of diversity and abundance across most eumetazoan (especially bilaterian) phyla over a relatively short geologic time span, and lack of obvious Precambrian precursors, poses a conundrum when attempting to reconcile the fossil record with the true tempo of early animal evolution... Despite ongoing debate over the true origins of animal phyla, our data, as well as the Ediacaran–Cambrian geochemical, body, and trace fossil records (1, 3, 9), indicate that a modern-style marine biosphere was fully established by Series 2, followed by broad-scale evolutionary stasis throughout the remainder of the Cambrian" [Paterson et al, "Trilobite evolutionary rates constrain the duration of the Cambrian explosion." National Academy of Sciences, Vol.116, No.10; March 5, 2019, pp. 4394, 4397]

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

>>Kalamata: "That is not true, Joe. You have been misled."
>>Joey said: "Sorry Dan, but your words are a lie, based on your slavish obedience to Denier Rule #1.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Nothing has or will come along, Joe; and you really should stop with the childish rules."
>>Joey said: "Billions of fossils representing hundreds of thousands of species is vastly more than "nothing", Dan. The fact that your good eyes refuse to see such evidence makes your claims very weak reeds to stand on.

No one denies there are many billions of fossils, Joey. They simply do not provide any support for Darwinian theory. None!

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

>>Joey said: "As for "childish rules", it's simply astonishing how childishly you obey them!

You must have had your way in discussions in the past, Child. Perhaps it spoiled you. How does it feel to have someone expose your deception and ignorance?

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

>>Kalamata: "Perhaps you should write your own Paleontology text book, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Plenty of paleontologists have written their own books. I am certain that Gould never intended his words to provide ammunition for arguments of Young Earth Creationists.

LOL! Of course not. But data is data, and there are mountains of data that contradict evolution. Worse for the evolutionist, all of it thus far supports special creation and a single global flood.

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

>>Kalamata: "Soft-bodied animals were fossilized in the Cambrian, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Sure, Dan, at Burgess and Yunnan, but elsewhere are far more hard bodied fossils. Studies at Burgess suggest that only 2% of species then had hard-bodies, but hard-bodied fossils represent far more than 2% of the species found.

The discussion was about disparity vs. diversity, Joey, not species.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Gould, 1989: "In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian, nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established designs" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History." W. W. Norton & Company, 1989, p.64]"
>>Kalamata: "Did you get that, Joe? There has been no new phyla in the past 500 million years since the Cambrian."
>>Joey said: "Actually, Dan, Gould didn't know that, and here's why: of the ~36 animal phyla living today, ~2/3 have never been found in any fossils anywhere. So, neither Gould, nor we, know for sure when those 18-24 phyla first appeared. Here is a very interesting related discussion:

You are still quoting Wikipedia and personal websites, Joey? You really should consider better sources. This 2016 paleontology book confirms there have been no new phyla since the Cambrian -- not one!

"One particularly vexing aspect of the problem is that no new phyla can be shown to have appeared after the Cambrian (Valentine 1995), thus the origin of metazoa phyla presents a singularity that is difficult to study scientifically as it represents an isolated case. Some paleontologists thought that Tullimonstrum gregarium represented a new phylum that appeared in the Carboniferous, but recent research suggests that it is in fact a bizarre vertebrate comparable to lampreys (McCoy et al. 2016). No one can (yet) create a new phylum in the laboratory. For the last half billion years nature has 'failed,' or, if we may extend the anthropomorphism, 'has been unwilling' to produce a single new phylum since the Cambrian." [Mark A. S. McMenamin, "Dynamic Paleontology: Using Quantification and Other Tools to Decipher the History of Life." Springer Geology, 2016, Chap.14, p.226]

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

>>Joey said: "Sorry, Dan, but that's still your Denier Rule #1, ignore the evidence.

Child.

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

>>Joey said: "Evolution -- diversification, speciation -- from the Cambrian's 600 genera to today's 200,000 is just the sort of thing Darwin predicted."

You don't understand what you are trying to defend, Joey. Darwin predicted diversity before disparity, and gradual appearance of species through evolution, rather than disparity before diversity and abrupt appearance followed by stasis. You are an embarrassingly incompetent Darwinian apologist, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Fossil evidence above shows three phyla first seen after the "Cambrian Explosion" five before it.

There have been no new phyla since the Cambrian, Joey. See the above statement by McManamim, quoting Valentine and McCoy.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are hopelessly lost, Joe. I wish I could help, but I have said it every way I know how to say it."
>>Joey said: "Sorry Dan, but contrary to what they taught you in propaganda school, it doesn't matter how often you repeat your lies, they're still lies, always will be.

You have been magnificently brainwashed, Joey. You have no clue how ignorant you are.

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

>>Kalamata: "It was Gould's way of hiding the absence of evolution in the fossil record inside a new theory."
>>Joey said: "Unlike Kalamata, Gould's good eyes could see evolution in the fossil record, his question was: how fast or slowly do creatures evolve? The answer is: it depends on conditions, sometimes very slowly, sometimes relatively fast -- "punctuated equilibrium".

LOL! There you go again with, "the absence of evidence is evidence,"

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

>>Kalamata: "The lack of evidence is not evidence, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Says Dan, the man who wants us to have religious faith in "intelligent design".

The cell certainly appears to be designed, Joey. It is a mind-bogglingly complex, microscopic factory, complete with conveyor "belts," repair "technicians," ... the works:

Wonders of the Cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJj2Mw6GRak

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

>>Joey said: "Dan, you complain falsely that I put words in your mouth and yet you shamelessly put words in mine.That's Denier Rule #5.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am saying for the umteenth time, Joe, the lack of evidence is NOT evidence."
>>Joey said: "Right, Dan, you wish us to believe that prehistoric animals, including ancient whales, did not reproduce.

Lying Child.

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

>>Joey said: "I have said, truthfully, that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The absense of evidence is not evidence, Joey, no matter how you spin it.

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

>>Joey said: "Every year hundreds of new fossil species are found and without exception they fill in "gaps" in the previous record. That reasonably suggests that a) there are many more species yet to be found and b) these new species will continue to fill in "gaps" in the current record.

I would call that a lie, but it is probably more appropriately labeled "wishful thinking". No gaps have been filled since Darwin, but some have become "unfilled":

"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection." [Raup, David M., "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology." Field Museum of Natural History, Bulletin Vol. 50 No. 1, January, 1979, pp.22-23,25]

Cool, huh!

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

>>Kalamata: "That is not science, Joe. A scientist would have said, we have a few fragments of the skull and jaw, and a tooth or two; but we have no clue what the animal looked like."
>>Joey said: "Nonsense, Dan, those ARE some of the "clues" from which they can well make reasonable projections."

Baloney, Joey. A real scientist does NOT pretend a few skull and jaw fragments, plus a couple of teeth, are evidence of a seal-like whale transitional animal, like the imaginary animal on the left:

Seriously, Joey; you have been living in La-La Land far too long.

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

>>Right, Denier Rule #1 -- don't let your good eyes see contradictory evidence.

Foolish child.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, they have noses and nostrils, Joe:"
>>Joey said: "Proving, Dan, beyond reasonable doubt that animals don't need blow-holes to live aquatic or semi-aquatic lives. So whether that ancient pre-whale had a blow-hole or not is irrelevant.

You said they looked like blowholes, Joey. LOL! Clearly they do not.

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

>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "I am not sure what your point is."
>>Joey said: "Right, I'll add that to my growing list of Denier Rules, from my post #328: "when your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance. That makes "Declare Victory" rule #12."

Foolish child, still playing kindergarten games.

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

>>Kalamata: "It is not evidence until it can be observed, Joe."
>>Joey said: "But, Dan, you will never observe it because that would require you to break Denier Rule #1.

Your wild imagination is not evidence, Child.

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

>>Joey said: "Science, by contrast, carefully observes every new piece of evidence to identify, classify and see where it fits in the larger evolutionary scheme."

Science does no such thing. Scientists perform science when they evaluate evidence to prove or disprove hypotheses.

Well, that is true for real scientists. Evolutionists, like other pseudo-scientists, believe everything, real or imagined, is evidence for evolution.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is a very dumb statement, Joe."
>>Joey said: "Sorry, Dan, I'm going to call your response here a version of my new Denier Rule #11 -- play dumb, but in this case you've mixed it with Rule #5: accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.

Quit making stuff up, Child.

Mr. Kalamata

355 posted on 09/07/2019 10:43:41 PM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)

bert: "Blah blah blah yada yada yada"

And, earnestly, a blessed day to you too, sir.

356 posted on 09/08/2019 8:22:54 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

Kalamata: "That is very “civil” of you, Joe.
Does that mean you will no longer compare me to a holocaust denier when you cannot defend your worldview?
We shall see."

When you stop responding like those Holocaust deniers I remember from near 20 years ago, then I'll stop calling you on it.

That's the reason I posted "Denier Rules", so you can clearly see, with your own good eyes, what you are doing.
My intention is that you will study and commit my "Denier Rules" to your memory, and then consciously, deliberately break those rules in every post.

If you just avoid following those "Denier Rules" it will take you a long ways toward becoming a decent, honest person, and not just a scumbag propagandist.

Start now.

357 posted on 09/08/2019 8:43:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

He said over and over he was not a Math or Biology expert.

However what you say is basically true but mute and "fake" (as Trump would say) to what the program was actually about.

358 posted on 09/08/2019 10:07:01 AM PDT by duckln

To: Kalamata; aligncare; freedumb2003; Riley

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?

359 posted on 09/08/2019 10:45:56 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))

>>Kalamata: "Linnaeus, like everyone else in the world before Darwin, observed natural barriers that kept the animal families (kinds) distinct. It is not rocket science."
>>Joey said: "No, according to Kalamata, Linnaeus used a mistranslation of the Biblical word "kind" to name two biological categories: genus & species.

I posted this before, mayby twice, where Linnaeus identifies the genus level directly below the kind level:

"The succulent plants are worthy of distinction; so are the largest genera, e.g. Euphorbia. The chief of this kind are: Haller's Allium Our Musa, etc. . . . By its unique pattern, the ESSENTIAL character distinguishes a genus from those of the same kind included in the same natural order." [Stephen Freer, "Linnaeus' Philosophia Botanica." Oxford University Press, 2005, p.19, 142]

You are either lying, Joey, or you are too dumb to understand what Linnaeus wrote. Pick your poison.

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

>>Joey said: "It turns out, the genus "barrier" is pretty strong -- though still sometimes "broken", as in the case of beefalo (buffalo cattle hybrid)."

Now you are talking like a creationist. Welcome aboard.

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

>>Joey said: "But the species "barrier" not much of a barrier at all, even in cases where species have different numbers of chromosomes, i.e., zebra."

No one -- not the most devout evolutionist, nor the ID'er, nor the YEC'er -- has claimed there is a barrier at the species or the genus level. Are you talking to be talking, Joey? Are you trying to sound "smart"? It is not working.

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

>>Joey said: "So Linnaeus swings and misses twice with Kind=species and Kind=genus.

Only in your dreams, Joey. LOL!

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

>>Joey said: "Now, Linnaeus never said Kind=family, but here Kalamata seems pretty certain that if Linnaeus had said Kind=family, then he'd be right.

I must hand it to Joey: he is a master quibbler.

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

>>Joey said: "But, but... what if it turns out that certain "kinds" (i.e., lions & tigers) can indeed effectively interbreed?

Lions and tigers are of the same kind, Joey, known universally as the Felidae family (is this clown Joey for real?)

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolutionism is already on its last breath, Joe."
>>Joey said: "That would be the new Denier Rule #12, Dan: whenever totally defeated, Declare Total Victory.

Child. A serious discussion of the inadequacy of evolutionary theory began no later than 2014, as outlined in this Nature article:

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

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

>>Kalamata: "I can tell you never really cared much about science."
>>Joey said: "I care about theologians pretending at science. I'm agin' it.

If you were being honest, you would be denouncing the religious orthodoxy of evolutionism. The anti-science religion of evolutionism goes back a long way. It was entrenched as early as Hubble's days. Read what that religious bigot wrote:

"The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance , symmetrically in all directions.Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance ." [Possible Worlds: The Law of Nebular Distribution when Red-Shifts are not interpreted as Velocity-Shifts, in Hubble, Edwin, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology." Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1937, Chap. III, p.40]

"The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape." [Ibid. p.46]

Remarkable, huh? Ironically, a giant space telescope bearing Hubble's name, with its discovery of deep space galactic clusters, showed the world that the density of the distribution does indeed increase with distance, not to mention that Hubble was a bigot! God definitely has a sense of humor.

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

>>Kalamata: "If not for quibbling, Joe, you wouldn’t have much to say."
>>Joey said: "Here you use a version of Denier Rule #11, Pretend Ignorance, but in this case, having been defeated on a key point (definition of "kind"), you pretend it's of no consequence.

Child.

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

>>Joey said: "I may have to add that as a separate new Rule #12: no matter how major, minimize your many defeats as of no consequence, and no matter how minor your few victories, trumpet them as of ultimate importance.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Behe: “Surely we should expect at least one crummy new phylum, class, or order to be conjured by Darwin’s vaunted mechanism in the time the finches have been on the Galápagos. But no, nothing.”"
>>Kalamata: "LOL! Behe was simply repeating what Gould and other paleontologists have observed in the fossil record."
>>Joey said: "Regardless, the claim is ludicrous. Galapagos began to erupt about 20 million years ago, with various forms of life arriving since. Today the Galapagos have dozens of endemic species plus the occasional endemic genus. By contrast, Madagascar split from India circa 90 million years ago and today has thousands of endemic species, hundreds of unique genera, and a dozen isolated biological families (sometimes called "kinds"). This is exactly what evolution theory predicts.

Are you really that ignorant, Joey? You present such an exalted sanctimonious attitude that I am still finding it difficult to believe I am debating a scientifically-challenged blowhard.

Species are the bottom of the taxonomic ladder, Joey, where the most diversity occurs. Phyla are at the top, where disparity occurs:

The family (or "kind") level is the barrier. Many genera can arise from the genepool of a kind, and many species can arise from the genepool of a genus; but everything stops (is fixed) at the kind, or family level.

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

>>Kalamata: "You have an unnatural hatred for a great scientist and a genuinely nice guy. I have never been a religious fanatic, so I don’t know exactly what you are going through."
>>Joey said: "Total rubbish, just more of Denier Rule #5.

Child.

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

>>Joey said: "Regardless of how "nice" he seems, Behe is a shameless propagandist for a theologically motivated Big Lie.

The only propagandist in this discussion is you, Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "I couldn’t and wouldn’t; but Behe could do as good a job as anyone else. Probably better than most, since he has a better understanding of the molecular side of the issue than most."
>>Joey said: "So, do I understand your words to claim that Behe, even as we speak now, is working on a new, revised biological classification system, one which will both define and list exactly what the word "kind" means? And this new classification system will be carefully crafted to match exactly what the Bible says about "kinds"? OOOOOOOh Kay.

No, Child. Behe, like me, is more than happy with the current classification system. My only dissent might be the never-ending quest of God-haters to remove all biblical references from science, such as the created "kind". Removing the "kind" from the dialogue is just one more nail in the coffin of freedom of religion and liberty.

Mr. Kalamata

360 posted on 09/08/2019 12:22:38 PM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794