Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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.

Pure sophistry. Joey uses exactly the same smear tactics as his buddies on the Far-Left. What he will not tell you is, he is an apologist for the anti-Christian ACLU communists and their war on the free exercise of religion, nor will he tell you that his religion of evolutionism was one of the chief holocaust enablers, not to mention the enabler of eugenics, virulent racism, and the other 20th century butchers: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

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

>>Joey said: "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".

Evolutionism is dead, Joey. Only a handful of science deniers, like you, still worship that religion, and its prophet, Charlie Darwin.

From the beginning, the theories of evolution and uniformitarianism were used to deceive people, especially children, into doubting the Word of God. That was one of the stated goals of Charles Lyell:

"I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the 'British Critic and Theological Review.' They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Eerussac has done nothing but believe in the universal ocean up to the chalk period till lately. Prevost has done a little, but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France." [Letter to Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, June 14, 1830, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I." John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.268]

Charlie Darwin took Lyell's book with him on his five-year voyage of the Beagle.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is a talking point. I am seeking observable evidence for common descent. That is all."
>>Joey said: "That's Denier Rule #1.

You are such a nasty child, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: 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".

If Joey has a clue what science entailed, and had any respect for it, he would seek out the underlying science, rather than the fake-news headlines of the "scientific" orthodoxy to promote his worldview.

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

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

Don't be fooled by Joey's sanctimonious sophistry. He is the consummate science denier. There is now, and has been, a virtual army of paleontologists, biologists, and genetic researchers, worldwide, seeking evidence for evolution; and what have they found: Nothing! There is not a shred of evidence for evolution to be found anywhere: not in day-to-day observations, not in the fossil record, not in biology, and especially not in genetics. There is plenty of evidence for devolution (the loss of genetic information), but none for evolution (the gain in genetic information).

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

>>Kalamata: "God told us how he created man, and it was not by evolution"
>>Joey said: "That's a lie, the Bible only tells us that God began with dirt, which is also what some origin-of-life ideas suggest."

You are lying, Joey. God told us that, at the beginning of creation, he formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils

"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 . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them . . . And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day . . . And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Gen 1:26,27,31, 2:7; Mar 10:6 KJV

God NEVER said man evolved from a bacteria, or a frog, or an ape, before breathing the breath of life into his nostrils. Only a deceiver would add words to the scripture and pretend they belong there.

Mr. Kalamata

“As you know, falsification is a key element of the scientific method.”

To be sure by observation and limited experimentation but there will always be an epistemological gap between knowledge of an object and the object itself. We are all stuck in the end between the tension points of reason and faith.

The tautological arguments that you are accusing Mr. Kalamata of foisting, true, can’t be rationalized and or falsified(proven empirically true!) by means of reason or the scientific method but they can’t be said to be non-rational or non-falsifiable(proven empirically false). Especially, since you espouse a type of hybrid creationistic-darwinistic theology to bash him over the head with. Your arguments, too, are tautological in nature and can’t be supported by the scientific method as you hold to the existence of a creator being!

Since you both already state you both believe in a Creator Being, something the scientific method in it’s basic granular practice cannot support due to the tautological nature of the concept, scientifically speaking, you too BWEST have no firm ground to stand on if you wish to continue to cite the scientific method as an ally.

It is a sign of prideful pre-bias, and not faithful to reason or the scientific method to suggest that a line of reasoning that cannot be immediately falsified or verified must be automatically disregarded as “not true”!( and indeed have attached to such reasoning very bogoted scorn and ridicule and even leading to the destruction of one’s life’s work, reputation and character, even if such a person so ostracized has done many wonderful works of science and technology, ie.E. Forrest Mimms)

Science can’t answer the question of the numbers of angels on a pin but it can’t say that it never happens, that such never exist. It can’t say such a concept is true or false; only the biases fueled by sociopathic caustic skepticism would lead such a person to arbitrarily pronounce such beliefs as “empirically false” while belittling the faith of another Christian as you did with Mr. Kalamata!

You can breed a toy poodle but you can’t breed a poodle with a 3rd eye

Kalamata: "If you will stop denying science by promoting pseudo-science, I will refrain from labeling you a science denier."

Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "Do you really believe any evolutionist who was not solidly tenured would make such a risky move?
If you do, you are living a very sheltered life, Joey.
Evolutionists have a well-documented history of going out of their way to participate in fraud, or to cover it up.
The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos. "

I am 100% certain that if there were a serious, solid, confirmed observation to be made falsifying evolution theory, somebody, somewhere, somehow, even if circuitously, would make it.

But I also know that every day on TV "Discovery" type channels there are utterly despicable programs talking about "ancient aliens" as if there was even one shred of real evidence for them.
It's total nonsense and lies and yet, seemingly, TV viewers can't get enough of it so they keep programming more!
That is the category in which fall any suggestions of evolution's "falsification" that I've ever seen.

Kalamata: "The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos."

Curiously, the two cases you keep flogging (and every other one I know of) both were recognized by other scientists at the time as having problems.
In Haeckel's case he tried to correct as best he could at the time.
In Piltdown's case the hoax was recognized by some but defended by others, so it took more time.

What both cases prove is the well-known fact that we humans are far less than perfect, but science is intended to be self-correcting and, in time, it does.

Kalamata: "That is not an innocent cover up.
I was well into my 60's before I learned I had been lied to about transitional fossils."

You were not lied to, every fossil without exception is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.
Minutely speaking, you and I are both transitional between our ancestors and descendants, if any.
We are not exactly like any others who went before or will come after us.

So you have again quoted Gould from 1977 (!) complaining there aren't enough transitional fossils to suit him.
Since 1977 tens of thousands of new fossil species have been found, from more Burgess Shale recognized (by Gould in 1989) to early dinosaurs and pre-human remains.
Each new fossil fills in a transitional "niche" and yet anti-evolutionists pretend today nothing has changed in 42 years.

Kalamata: "That is one of the dumbest statements you have made thus far, Joey.
There is no scientific way that a continental plate moving a few centimeters per year is going to push up anything more than a pebble or two, no matter how much time you allow it.
There is this little thing called "momentum" that gets in the way."

Oh, Danny boy, oh Danny boy,
The pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are closed tight, your ears hear only broken reed arguments, nonsense, baloney, total complete rubbish.
Now the summer's gone and all the flowers are falling, but all Danny boy can do is deny & insult, insult & deny...

{sigh}

Here are some facts: tectonic plates have been measured as moving at roughly the speed of fingernail growth.
The ocean floor has been measured as expanding some places, subducting others, leaving lines of expansion that can be counted and measured and calculated as representing many millions of years of movement over thousands of miles.

At the same time, mountain ranges have been measured as rising, some falling, at about the same rate.
Deny, deny, deny all you wish, Oh Danny boy, but reality doesn't care what you think of it.

Kalamata: "I notice you ignored the part about sedimentary rock folds.
That is a tough nut to crack for the uniformitarian geologist, and even for many catastrophists.
Those rock layers will fold only when they are pliable -- before they harden.
Look again:"

Any rocks under enough heat, pressure & time (i.e., deep underground) will fold & bend like taffy.
And I'm certain you know that, so why pretend otherwise?

Kalamata: "Joey, you gotta quit saying such dumb things.
The scripture and the science match perfectly.
God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth, and he did just that, according to the scientific evidence:"

Oh, Danny boy, you just got to STOP with the lies.
Remember, science is nothing but human hypotheses & theories, corrected & changing daily, which may "match scripture" today but not tomorrow, or may have not matched yesterday but will tomorrow -- we don't know and it doesn't matter because the Bible cares nothing for our science.
The Bible only really cares that we acknowledge God as the Author and ruler over whatever explanations science finds today and whatever corrections it makes tomorrow.
Do you follow me on that, oh Danny boy?

Kalamata: "There is no evidence for gradual deposition of sedimentary rock layers, Joey.
No serious geologist (one who is not thoroughly brainwashed) would believe otherwise."

More of Denier Rules #1, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "Is that your evidence for mass extinctions, Joey?
You are such a child."

Oh, Danny boy, the pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are tightly shut and your ears hear only broken reed arguments.
The fact is evidences for numerous mass extinctions are in the geological strata world wide.
This graph represents estimates of numbers of species extinct in each event, based on fossils identified & counted.

Kalamata on transitional species: "That is an incredibly dumb statement, Joey.
Do you have a reference or two in support of your statement?"

Oh, Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you, does it?
Here is a partial listing of recognized transitional fossils.
Here is a report on evidence of common descent.
Logically, whatever is from common descent must be transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any.

Kalamata: "They are nothing more than just-so story-tellers, Joey."

Oh Danny boy, such lies are not good for your spiritual soul.

Kalamata: "That is convenient.
Can I assume there is no evidence to support Bakker's claims other than what he wrote in the latter part of his book, "The Dinosaur Heresies"?"

So, are Bakker's among the "thousands of books" you have and may or may not have read?
Do you deny each one before you read it, or after?

Kalamata: "Using your logic, Joey, nothing appears to have been broken.
There is no evidence that any animal ever changed from one kind (or family) to another kind (or family)."

No animal, once conceived ever changed into any other.
But every animal at conception changes a little from its ancestors.
But, oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are tightly closed, your ears are stoppered shut against all but broken reed arguments.
There are literal mountains of evidence for people who will see it.

Kalamata: "Joey, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond?"

Oh Danny boy, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond.

Kalamata on "thousands of books": "That is true.
I haven't read them all.
Many are for reference."

As I suspected.
I also know that for many years libraries have been digitizing their vast collections so that researchers with the right know-how can process huge volumes of data very quickly, to find just what they are looking for.
I myself mostly depend on whatever is available from quick Google-type searches on the Internet, and that is quite often far less than ideal.

If I can identify a particularly germane book, relatively inexpensive, I'll get it, i.e., "Of Pandas & People".

Kalamata: "Gibberish."

And yet, what you here call "gibberish" you had just before admitted was true.
Curious.

Kalamata: "I am only one person, but I have been retired for well over a decade."

I doubt if I'm much older or younger than you, but my health is still good and I can still be of service elsewhere, which is why my time here is so limited.
I don't mind spending the time to mud-wrestle with you -- it's a good challenge.
But there's only so much of it I can do.

Kalamata: "LOL! You are very funny, Joey.
If you are going to remain an evolutionist, you should consider getting up to speed on their doctrine."

Oh Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you.
Open your good eyes, reject broken reed arguments.

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
You are likely the only person in the world that still believes that myth."

Oh, Danny boy, what was that word you used?
Riiiiight… "gibberish".

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
You don't understand the theory.
I previously quoted several of the experts on disparity and diversity, so you must have skipped right past them, or you do not understand them."

Oh, Danny boy, here's the real "ground truth": disparity=diversity=disparity=diversity ad infinitum.
You don't believe me?
Then show me two fossils and explain how one is "disparate" and the other is "diverse".
I know you can do this...

Kalamata: "Don't be silly.
All serious evolutionists are perplexed by the fossil record."

If they weren't "perplexed" they wouldn't be scientists, they'd be propagandists like Kalamata instead.
To be a researcher, you start by being "perplexed" by anomalies that don't make sense and need better explanations.

The fossil records show diversifications or disparities followed by mass extinctions followed by more diversifications/disparities.

Kalamata: "Thanks for catching that misapplication.
Sometimes I get bored and careless when conversing with children."

And yet I'd never blame my own mistake on you, so just who is the "child" here?

Kalamata: "Meaningless."

Per my post #348 I'm adding that response as my Denier 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: "Another just-so story, presented as a historical fact."

Pre-historical.
Fossils are observed facts, not "just so" and if you count those fossil species over geological time, the results are still facts.

Kalamata: "The only liar is this discussion is you, Alinsky Joe."

Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you,
From glen to glen,
And down the mountain side
The summer's gone, And all the flowers are falling...

And yet, Oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are shut tight, your ears are stoppered against all but broken reed arguments.

Kalamata: "Are you really being honest when you say you have never heard of the sidekick of your hero, Michael Shermer?
If so, you really fooled me.
I was not lying, Alinsky Joe. "

Oh, Danny boy, right now I can't think of an example where you've told the truth on anything I personally know about.
As a devoted propagandists, Kalamata, you are far too interested in opportunities to mock and belittle to worry about small matters of fact or truth.

Kalamata: "Do you not see how deceptive that is, Alinsky Joe.
Perhaps this photo will help.
Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top row, while Richardson's 1997 photos are on the bottom:"

Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you.
In this particular case you quoted Prothero, and Waterston is another who argued as recently as 2016 that Haeckel's drawings were not deliberately deceptive and indeed that Haeckel corrected them when possible.
Such authors also tell us that Haeckel was more right than wrong, the implication being that your bottom photo is just as deceptive in highlighting differences in early embryonic development.

Kalamata: "Nothing Gingerich et all imagined has panned out, Alinsky Joe.
Even some of the "big boys" are shying away from it.
But, like all other Evolutionism Icons, including so-called horse evolution (almost forgot about that one,) this one will also DIE HARD!"

Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you...

Kalamata: "It is scientifically incorrect.
The myth of Junk DNA was never based on science, but desperation -- desperation to find something -- anything -- that could be presented as proof of evolution, whether or not it was actual proof."

I don't see an insult in that response, so I'll refrain.
However, your argument is still nonsense since "junk DNA" by whatever name you chose to call it is still non-coding.
And according to your own quotes -- should I doubt them? -- nobody, not Gruar, not ENCODE, not Collins, not even the Swiss claimed more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution.

The facts, the facts are calling you...

Kalamata: "That said, you still have not presented any scientific evidence for evolution, nor can you.
Hand-waving, such as "the vast preponderance of evidence", is not evidence, nor are imaginary drawings and mockups based on fragmented fossils from few animals."

I never said "the vast preponderance evidence", just the opposite.
What I've said, correctly, is that there is no confirmed evidence -- zero, zip, nada evidence -- falsifying evolution theory.
But it doesn't matter since your good eyes are closed and your ears stoppered.
You can't see what's there.

Kalamata: "The child is still playing his silly games, after all this time."

Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you...

Read a bit more closely. On at least one occasion, probably more, I said that I have the utmost respect for those whose faith runs contrary to scientific findings. I include YECs, Biblical literalists, etc. in this category. However, inventing a phony science to prove the veracity of their faithful conclusions is a sign of weakness of faith.

Those who choose to defend their faith-borne beliefs by touting the findings of “Creationism” necessarily subject themselves to the rigors of scientific method.

If that’s what you consider belittling of faith, then so be it.

I’m still right. I’m still a Christian.

By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?

>>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."
>>Joey said: "On that particular point, FRiend, we're not so far apart.

You fooled me.

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

>>Joey said: "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.

Then why are you not pushing back against those of your persuasion who promote science as atheism, Joey? What about your most admired author, Michael Shermer, the militant atheist and sanctimonious creep who promotes, to children, the myth that Science refutes God? How about the militant atheist and con-man, Richard Dawkins, who promotes the myth that God is a delusion? Why do you not push back against them?

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Who made that silly rule, Joey? Certainly not the devout Christian geniuses, such as Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, or James Clerk Maxwell? So, tell us, who?

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

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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."

You don't seem to mind that the religion of evolutionism is rammed down the throats of the teachers, students and voters? Besides, you are missing the point. Would teachers and parents have sued, or even thought of suing, before the collusion of the ACLU and the judiciary -- before the religious clause of Constitution was rewritten by judicial fiat to say what it was never intended to say? What do you say about that, Oh Great Defender of the Constitution?

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Joey would have you believe that every teacher, student, parent and voter in the Dover School District was an evolutionist, and a handful of people that served on the School Board went against the will of everyone else. Now, who is the master propagandist?

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

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

The Bible is silent on whether the earth rotates around the sun, or the sun rotates around the earth, Joey. The scientific orthodoxy, who were considered to be an order of the church, were among the Order of the Jesuits who pushed for the trial against Galileo. Koestler wrote that, for some time, only Kepler among the scholars came to Galileo's defense:

"Thus, while the poets were celebrating Galileo's discoveries which had become the talk of the world, the scholars in his own country were, with a few exceptions, hostile or sceptical. The first, and for some time the only, scholarly voice raised in public in defence of Galileo, was Johannes Kepler's" [Arthur Koestler, "The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe." The MacMillan Company, 1959, pp.369-370]

In other words, it was the scientific community, not the church clergy, that was holding back the advancement of science. But, nice try to spin the truth, anyway.

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

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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.

It has hard to argue with that. God is the author, creator and ruler over all of nature, not to mention being the author of liberty.

My statement also stands as true. The doctrine of Moses and Christ are scientifically and historically accurate; and there is no one on earth who can prove otherwise. Many blowhards will pretend they have proof, but that is why they are called blowhards.

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Who's definition?

Science doesn't prove or disprove anything, Joey. Scientists, however, are so burdened with the heavy baggage of Darwin and Lyell that they do not seem to be able to prove much of anything in the way of so-called "natural science." Even when confronted with evidence of a young solar system, such as short-period comets, "scientists" tend to invent just-so stories, such as Oort Clouds, as an escape from the reality of the creation story, and/or to cling to the religion of the two Charlie's.

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

>>Joey said: "Theologians-pretending-at-science can say whatever they wish, but they are not science, period.

That is what I have been trying to tell you, Joey. Theologians, such as Charles Darwin, only pretend to be scientists. You can add lawyers (e.g., Charles Lyell) to that group of non-scientists.

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

>>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"."
>>Joey said: "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."

I had no doubt you would defend Shermer's war against conservatives.

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

>>Joey said: "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."

You can only ignore what I write about Shermer so many times, Joey, before being considered an anti-conservative.

For the rest of you, Barrack Obama was a fascist, in that fascism, by definition, accepts private ownership of industry as long as it can be heavily regulated by government central planners. Michael Shermer deceitfully labels fascists and neo-nazis as right-wingers, thus taking the heat off the real fascists, such as Obama, and placing it squarely on conservatives by association with the right-wing label. It is Saul Alinsky 101.

So, the next time some left-wing radical calls you a Nazi, you can thank those like Michael Shermer, and their apologists, like Joey.

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

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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?

So you don't think Shermer's anti-Christian bigotry and hard-left ideology is enough for me to despise him, and his apologists?

The bottom line is, Michael Shermer doesn't seem to care as much about the holocaust as he feels a need to use the name of the holocaust to support his warped, leftist agenda, much like you use the name of the holocaust, Joey, to defend your religion of evolutionism.

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

>>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..."
>>Joey wrote: 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?

You don't have to go far into the book, Joey. On page 16 Shermer labels big-government, central-planning, left-wing fascism as "extreme right wing":

"Consider this: Some Holocaust deniers, particularly those with extreme right-wing leanings, might gain greater acceptance if the crime attached to fascism had never actually happened. Without the Holocaust perhaps fascism would seem a more acceptable alternative to democracy." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.16]

Move down to page 43, and you will find Shermer associating David Duke with the words "ultra conservative" and "right wing", even though that Israel-hater and Jew-hater is neither:

"In 1978 Willis Carto founded and primarily organized the Institute for Historical Review. Carto published Right and American Mercury (which Mark Weber has described as ultra-conservative and mildly anti-Jewish magazines) and runs Noontide Press, whose list of controversial books includes ones denying the Holocaust. Carto also runs Liberty Lobby, a right-wing organization that publishes The Spotlight, with a circulation in the hundreds of thousands, and has sponsored numerous radio programs such as This Is Liberty Lobby and Radio Free America. Carto's Populist Party ran former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for president in 1988." [Ibid. p.43]

Are you sure you have read that book, Joey? Those statements are found on the exact same pages in the 2000 edition?

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

>>Kalamata: "At best, his book can be described as an anti-conservative, anti-Christian propaganda piece, disguised as a treatise on holocaust denial."
>>Joey wrote: "So far, nothing you've posted here supports such a ridiculous claim.

It appears you are suffering from an extreme case of head-in-the-sandism, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "You can thank Charlie for planting the seed for extermination, as follows:"
>>Joey wrote: "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.

I recall that Hitler joined the German Workers Party; but I don't recall anything about them being Christian, other than perhaps a name-drop or two. Do you have references?

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

>>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."
>>Joey wrote: "'Tribal and evolutionary'... Tribal certainly, evolutionary not so much. Mass extermination is not "evolution". So your quote is pure propaganda . . . "

The term "struggle for existence" (which both Hitler and Darwin frequently used,) combined with the explosion of virulent racism after the release of Darwin's books, not to mention the arrival of eugenics in political life, could easily be considered all the seed a madman would need to plan an extermination.

Did you know that Josef Mengele had a PhD in Anthropology, along with his MD, and was an evolutionist?

"In Munich, meanwhile, Josef was taking courses in anthropology and paleontology as well as medicine. He soon showed himself to be more interested in the cultural origins and development of man than in curing his disabilities. Medicine at German universities was in any case more complementary to Mengele's real interest in evolution, since it was taught in accordance with the guidelines of the social Darwinist theories that Hitler and a growing number of German academics found so attractive. Precisely what corrupted Mengele's eager young mind is hard to pin down. Probably it was a combination of the political climate and that his real interest in genetics and evolution happened to coincide with the developing concept that some human beings afflicted by disorders were unfit to reproduce, even to live. Perhaps the real catalyst in this lethal brew was that Mengele, first at Munich and later at Frankfurt, studied under the leading exponents of this"unworthy life" theory. His consummate ambition was to succeed in this fashionable new field of evolutionary research." [Posner & Ware, "Mengele: The Complete Story." Cooper Square Press, 2000, p.9]

The "coincidences" keep adding up, don't they?

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

>>Joey wrote: "Arthur Keith was an insane Scotsman deeply involved in the Piltdown hoax.

I recall that Keith was a supporter of the Piltdown Man before it was proven to be a hoax (the history is muddy.) Keith was also a supporter of the concept of scientific racism. Why would he lie about someone as close in ideology as Hitler?

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

>>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]"
>>Joey wrote: "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."

Maybe, maybe not. Darwin did appear delighted at the words of his eugenicist cousin in regards to selective human breeding to rid the "superior" races of, among other things, a poor work ethic. And there is no doubt that Charlie became somewhat of a prophet of extermination with these words:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." [Affinities and Genealogies, in Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, 2nd Ed, 1888, Chap VI, p.156]

The word "support" may be a little strong, but there is no doubt Charlie deemed it only slightly less than inevitable.

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

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

Child. An example of guilt by association would be the hard left labeling conservatives as Nazis after being brainwashed by the propaganda of some radical orator, like Shermer, who falsely linked the political right to fascism. On the other hand, the historical linkage of Hitler with evolutionism is strong.

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

>>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. "
>>Joey said: "Right, anything in science can be used for good or evil.

Evolution has had more than its share of evil uses: from the millions who lost their appendixes unnecessarily due the hoax of "vestigial" organs; to the virulent racism that exploded on the scene after men were tricked into believing they were descendants of apes, rather than created in the image of God; and to the genocide of eugenics; all on the way to the Holocaust. The evil of evolutionism will continue to weaken the nations until it is relegated to the dustbin of history, where it rightly belongs.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Words can be very dangerous things, Joey, and propaganda can brainwash people into becoming killers. Think of all the young women who, if they lived 60 years ago, would never dream of killing their unborn, whereas today it is their "right" -- their "choice". Of course, we shouldn't forget the Hitler Youth, and the Columbine killers.

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

>>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. "
>>Joey wrote: "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."

Woodrow Wilson was the President of Princeton and the Governor of New Jersey before becoming president. He was a virulent racist, but he hardly qualified as a Southern Democrat.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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.

It is worth nothing that post-Lincoln Republican southerners elected many blacks to public office; the democrats, none until 1935:

"Since its founding in the late 1820s, the Democratic Party has defended slavery, started the Civil War and opposed Reconstruction. The Democratic Party imposed segregation. Its members engaged in the lynchings of blacks and opposed the civil rights acts of the 1950s and '60s. During Reconstruction, hundreds of black men were elected to Southern state legislatures as Republicans, and 22 black Republicans served in the U.S. Congress by 1900. The Democratic Party did not elect a black man to Congress until 1935." [Walter E. Williams, "Democrats' Hoodwinking of Blacks." WalterWilliams.com, June 7, 2017]

It wasn't as much North vs. South, as it was Republican vs. Democrat. The racism was primarily confined to the Democrat party, regardless of where they lived.

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

>>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:"
>>Joey wrote: "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.

How could racism originate in the North if already existed in the South?

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

>>Kalamata: "...and New York City never comprehensively desegregated its schools. To recognize the long movement in New York and Boston to desegregate schools..."
>>Joey wrote: "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"."
>>Joey wrote: "Here again Kalamata, you sound like a Democrat crying for gun confiscation after every mass shooting, only you want to "confiscate" Darwin. {sigh}

Let's make a deal. Let's keep our guns, and get rid of Darwin, so that in the future, after the culture rot caused by evolutionism has healed, we can return to the days when we could keep our shotguns hanging in the back window of our unlocked pickup trucks, and not worry about anyone stealing them. Deal?

Mr. Kalamata

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

So then what’s the point of the article? That some random professor has an opinion about an area outside his field of expertise?

That doesn’t seem noteworthy to me unless Bergman is trying to make the reader think Gelernter has some professional qualifications to critique evolutionary theory.

“doesn’t address TOE”...Yup, I know it, you know it and so does Kalamata;...the Atheists have made a running jump off the rails of the scientific method and they do claim that it does address the origin of life, pushing forth a kind of abiogenesis notion of how the whole shebang got going.(billions of years, water, protein and amino acid chemical soups, add some lightning, heat and cold and by gum, Frankenstein’s evolution monster arises with the clap of lightning bolts to the cries of “its alive(!!!) from lifeless matter!”

Thus, since the Scopes trial, they have have had a desperate strangle hold on “TOE” and how it was to be presented in the vain hope that something from science can put an end to this “God business” once and for all. These certain folk act as the new inquisition seeking to banish from academe any who veer from the true atheist faith of Abiogenesis forming “somehow” the simplest of life forms and then “magically”, with out any outward transtemporal divine interference, life just “evolves” to what we have today.

If there is anything at all to be considered important from what is argued, I think a process of “de-evolution” has been going on; the whole of creation “groaning under the curse” as the Bible says. I think the patterns evulutionists cite are being read backward....we aren’t springing from the simple, we are falling from the formed into the simple, almost a description of one of the laws of thermodynamics where everything without energy input falls into entropy and decay.

The weakness of your position, even if you hold to “TOE” as one of God’s mechanisms for creation is that you still hold to a faith tautology. The High poohbahs of the Evo world would still view you and Kalamata both as fools because you both brought “God” into the argument and for them it’s just like bringing up Hitler or Nazi to buttress an argument. Once you do so, the argument is is over and you’ve lost.

I think a process of “de-evolution” has been going on

40 years ago you had to go to the deepest darkest jungles to see the primitives poking holes in their face. Today you just have to go get coffee.

Great....we’ve turned primitives into pajama wearing liberal soy boys drinking globalist masters’ Starbucks coffee and you call that evolution? I definitely call that “devo”!
/sarc...LOL!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. Try confirmed, repeatable, scientific observations.

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

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

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

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

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

False.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is Neil in one of his books:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Kalamata

>>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.”
>>Joey said: “When you stop responding like those Holocaust deniers I remember from near 20 years ago, then I’ll stop calling you on it.

Okay, Joey, how does my rejection to your religion of evolutionism compare to the responses of your imaginary Holocaust deniers from 20 years ago? Be specific.

*****************
>>Joey said: “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.

No, Joey. The reason you play these slanderous games with other people is because you are a proud, self-absorbed little man who cannot defend his nutty worldview. It is, after all, undefendable.

*****************
>>Joey said: “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.

Quit denying observable and testable science, Joey; refrain from teaching false biblical doctrines; and drop your support for the constitution-hating thugs at the ACLU and the NCSE, and I will not feel obligated to challenge your worldview.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: "Child."
>>Joey said: "{sigh} So you've, ahem, devolved back to Rules #5 & #7, I see.

Children and their silly games.

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

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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!

Equivocate much, Joey? I reject evolutionism because it is a false and dangerous religious doctrine. We need the 2nd Amendment more than ever now that our children have been brainwashed into believing they are descendants of apes; there is no purpose in life; and "when you're dead, you're dead." In other words, your stinking worldview had given them no hope.

I recommend we drop evolution and start teaching out children the Ten Commandments, Matthew 7:12, Ephesians 4:32, and Roman 3:23, which were displayed in the halls of every public school I attended, from grades 1-12 (and everyone seemed to get along pretty well.) Do you think you can talk your constitution-hating buddies at the ACLU into allowing us to do that? It seems they control America, not the people, nor our elected officials.

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

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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".

I suspect you are spinning their words, Joey. Please provide that page number and a long, complete quote so we can examine it for context.

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

>>Joey said: "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.

Where can we find that in the Bible, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "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.

Where can we find earthly processes in the Bible that take billions of years, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "I'd give God credit for designing a Universe more complicated than the minds of human beings are intended to figure out.

I am certain God appreciates all the credit you give him, Joey. I am also certain that God would also be appreciative if you teach His Words as written, and not add your own words to his.

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

>>Joey said: "Shakespeare possibly said it first, in Hamlet:

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

>>Joey said: "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"

No, Joey. God said it first, and best:

"He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end." -- Eccl 3:11 KJV

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

>>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."
>>Joey said: "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.

I am already aware that you read his book through rose-colored glasses, Joey. If Shermer had confined his theme to the holocaust, and those who deny it, I would be singing his praises. But his book (1st and Revised editions) is more of a hit piece on conservatives and Christians, than a treatise on holocaust denial. And pray tell, what does this have to do with holocaust denial?

"The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life has evolved. Creationists demand 'just one fossil transitional form' that shows evolution. But a single fossil cannot prove evolution. Evolution involves a convergence of fossils and many other lines of evidence, such as DNA sequence comparisons across species. For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.32]

Absolutely nothing. It is strictly a tool to place guilt by association, as in: "if you don't believe evolution is true, then you must be a holocaust denier." That is the implication, and that is the same dirty trick Joey uses when his worldview is challenged. No wonder Joey has such admiration for Shermer? Shermer gave him the best of tools to pull out of his bag of tricks when he comes up against someone who knows he is little more than a sophist.

For sure, Shermer trotted out the usual suspects; but he gave us virtually no new information on holocaust deniers. Rather, he went out of his way to protect the Marxist far-left, which is a bastion of anti-Israel bigotry and holocaust denial, while associating the fascist left (fascists, Neo-Nazis, National Alliance, etc.) with the conservative right. If you ever wondered why practically every brainwashed little college student believes conservatism is the same as fascism, look no further than propagandists like Shermer, and their apologists.

I recall years ago I was debating a very intelligent graduate student from Scandanavia; and he was absolutely certain that fascism was a far-right doctrine. He was also certain that Obama was NOT a fascist. I explained to him over and over again that fascist doctrine allows private ownership of industry, but heavily regulates it by way of central planning, like Obama did at that time. I also explained that the right-wing promotes limited government and rights to property, with very limited regulation and interference. I don't know to this day if he understood, or not. Brainwashing is a powerful force when used against young minds.

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

>>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."

This bears repeating:

"The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion. Independent sets of data from geology, paleontology, botany, zoology, herpetology, entomology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, physiology, and many other sciences each point to the conclusion that life has evolved. Creationists demand 'just one fossil transitional form' that shows evolution. But a single fossil cannot prove evolution. Evolution involves a convergence of fossils and many other lines of evidence, such as DNA sequence comparisons across species. For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution." [Shermer & Grobman, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It." University of California Press, Rev Ed, 2009, p.32]

I recall saying that Shermer is a climate change activist; but I don't recall him lumping "climate change deniers" in with the holocaust. But now that the word "denier" is out there as the "bad dude who denies science", anything goes.

I am aware that Shermer's partner-in-crime, Donald Prothero lumps all "deniers" into the same category, using virtually the same argument Joey uses against me:

"Many recent books have dealt with the issues of creationism (including my 2007 book on the topic) and climate change (including my 2009 book on the topic), but few have tried to write a book that connects the common threads among science denial movements, from creationism to climate change deniers to anti-vaxxers and AIDS deniers, to medical quackery, to astrology, to the issues of resource and population denial. In particular, it is striking how many of these deniers use exactly the same tactics pioneered by the Holocaust deniers, and refined by tobacco companies seeking to cloud the scientific issues. Yet, as I emphasize throughout, science is one of our most precious discoveries and assets, and our only hope for the future. Whether we take the path of science and rationality, or superstition and denial, will determine whether we survive another century on this planet." [Donald R. Prothero, “Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future.” Indiana University Press, 2013, Preface]

That was from the Preface. Michael Shermer, Joey's bud, wrote the Foreword. Pay special attention to the underlined part, and then compare with Joey's excuse for slandering me with innuendo:

[Joey] "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"

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

Small world, huh? I am certain Joey had no clue when he first tried to slander me that I am a long-time "student" of the trashiest authors of the evolution trash, like Shermer, Prothero, and Dawkins.

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

>>Joey said: "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."

Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, Joey, and they are very tiresome.

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

>>Joey said: "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.

Silly child.

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

>>Kalamata: "I was simply returning the "favor", Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "You've used denier tactics from the beginning.

Yeah, sure. That is what you say to everyone you smear.

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

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

LOL! I must say that I admire your tenacity, Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Where are the lies?"
>>Joey said: "Your post here doesn't specify which lies are being referred to.

You claim that I lied, prove it!

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

>>Kalamata: "Your childish posts are already garbled, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "Rules #1, #5 & #7.

Silly child.

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

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

Perhaps you will explain the difference, Oh Great Wise One!

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

>>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."
>>Joey said: "That's Denier Rules #1 & #2.

Silly child.

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

>>Joey said: "First, devolution is a sub-set of evolution."

Joey is either lying to you, or he doesn't understand what he preaches.

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

>>Joey said: "Second, evolution is a theory based on innumerable observed facts, including fossils & DNA."

I asked you over and over again to show us just one observable scientific fact, and all you gave us was a wild goose chase.

You will find that all evolutionists use that same, deceptive tactic, claiming a "preponderance of evidence," or as Joey's bud, Michael Shermer claimed in the aforementioned statement from his book:

"The historical theory of evolution gains confirmation by many independent lines of evidence converging on a single conclusion."

What does that even mean? It is not science, for certain. And how about this one in the same paragraph?

"Evolution involves a convergence of fossils and many other lines of evidence, such as DNA sequence comparisons across species. For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution."

Is Shermer for real? Why on earth would a "rival theory" be necessary before a crappy theory like evolution is flushed down the toilet? We all know why: power!

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

>>Joey said: "Short term evolution (aka., "micro-evolution") has been observed in many species of plants & animals, as well as in human DNA."

There is no such thing as microevolution. You gave examples for devolution, which is the loss of genetic information.

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

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

No, it is not "nonsense, nonsense," Joey. The text of Genesis 2:7 does not contain the word "spiritually"; and it is commanded of Christians and Israelites alike to leave the Word of God as it is, and not monkey with it (no pun intended.)

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

>>Joey said: "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?

The "last man" that Paul is referring to is Jesus, who was made a quickening spirit. Perhaps you should have read the next verse before commenting:

"Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." -- 1Cor 15:46 KJV

Mr. Kalamata

>>mdmathis6, you said, "Science can't answer the question of the numbers of angels on a pin but it can't say that it never happens, that such never exist. It can't say such a concept is true or false; only the biases fueled by sociopathic caustic skepticism would lead such a person to arbitrarily pronounce such beliefs as 'empirically false' while belittling the faith of another Christian as you did with Mr. Kalamata!"

Perhaps you entered the conversation a little late to realize that I am merely a counter-puncher. This is bwest from an earlier post to me:

"Blind adherence to creationism in the face of real scientific observation is rationalization, not science. It is practiced by those of weak faith."

I assumed it was time to take off the gloves.

Cheers.

Mr. Kalamata

So I was using a sledgehammer...that statement was a low blow and Yeah I went all nerdy and intellectual. It was that particular statement that got me going...hope I didn’t step on your toes.

Berean is Believin’ and cheers to you also!

We need to start here with an Ode to Danny Kalamata, who just can't function without belittling, insulting & mocking:

"Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you,
From glen to glen, And down the mountain side
The summer's gone, And all the flowers are falling
But Dan's good eyes are closed, your ears stopped to all but weak reed lies...

I'll use this "ode" as my one-time answer to Kalamata's future mocks, insults & belittling.

Kalamata: "You lie and fabricate so much, Alinsky Joe, it is difficult to tell when you are telling the truth."

That is your use of Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Kalamata: "You even promote seal and walrus noses and nostrils as transitional blow holes, without a shred of evidence. LOL!
We really get a kick out statements like that, Joey."

Oh? "We"?? Referring to Kalamata and who else?

Now you're hung up on blow-holes, why?
Semi-aquatic and aquatic mammals don't need blow holes to breath while in water, so ancient pre-whales wouldn't need them.
When exactly nostrils like those of seals & walruses became more like a whale's blow hole is a matter for future fossil discoveries to reveal.
In the mean time, opinions can validly differ.

Kalamata: "It is always fun to debate scientific illiterates who pretend to be scientists; but you are exceptionally funny.
It is at times difficult to follow your childish antics, but still fun."

Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you...

Kalamata: "By the way, what is/was your profession?
Political Science?"

Professional truth detector swimming in a sea of predatory liars.

Kalamata on Shermer's Holocaust book: "Really?
Did you even read the book?
I will supply a few excerpts.
This is one of Shermer's rants against anyone who requires scientific evidence to believe his naturalistic (atheistic) world view:"

Thanks for the quotes, it's been nearly 20 years since I read & used Shermer's book against Holocaust deniers, had forgotten his words on other deniers.
We can notice first that in Shermer's index at the book's end, no words are referenced such as "evolution", "creationism" or "intelligent design".
Such words are not the subjects of Shermer's book.

We should also notice that here, as elsewhere, Kalamata has quoted correctly, even words that don't really support his own claims.
I'm impressed by that, if nothing else.

Kalamata quoting Shermer, year 2000:

"For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution.
They cannot, without invoking miracles, which are not a part of science . . . "

Shermer is correct, though the idea of "intelligent design" was intended specifically to eliminate the "miracle" and leave the "intelligence" unnamed.
Their problem is that everyone on both sides understands the word "intelligent" is intended only to mask God, and many consider that less than honest kerygma.

Kalamata: "The next statement is very clever.
Shermer first introduces a few quacks into the discussion, and then conflates them with evidence-seekers..."

In fact, Shermer clearly identifies just who he's talking about, in this particular case "old earth creationists".

Kalamata quoting Shermer:

"Rather than have dinosaurs living alongside humans ten thousand years ago as 'young-earth' Christian creationists do, these 'Krishna creationists' (as some call them) have humans living alongside dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago.
These are very 'old-earth' creationists indeed!
Now, why is this denial instead of revision?... "

Kalamata: "And how about the implications of this reference?"

"Quoted in T. McIver, “The Protocols of Creationism: Racism, Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy in Christian Fundamentalism,” Skeptic 2, no. 4 (1994): 76-87."

Personally, I don't even like that word "fundamentalism" because I don't think it correctly describes conservative traditionalist Christians whose main focus is simply to preserve the

"Faith of our Fathers! living still
In spite of dungeon, fire, and sword:
Oh, how our hearts beat high with joy
Whene'er we hear that glorious word."

I disagree with those who'd conflate such traditionalists with racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy.

Kalamata: "What does that have to do with the holocaust?
NOTHING!
But Shermer intentionally associates those who reject the pseudo-science of evolutionism with holocaust deniers, LIKE YOU HAVE DONE!"

Your Shermer quotes here come from his final Chapter 9, "The Rape of History", pages 231 to 256.
In it Shermer discusses many kinds of denial and offers up his own set of rules for detecting denial (pages 248-250):

Shermer's Rules for Denial Detection

"How reliable is the source of the claim?"
"Has the source made other claims that were clearly exaggerated?
"Has another source verified the claim?"
"How does the claim fit with what we know about the world and how it works?"
"Has anyone, including and especially the claimant, gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirmatory evidence been sought?"
"In the absence of clearly defined proof, does the preponderance of evidence converge on the claimant's conclusion or a different one?"
"Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research or only the ones that lead to the desired conclusion?"
"Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena rather than just denying the existing explanation?
"If the claimant has proffered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation does?
"Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions or vice versa?"

I think Shermer's rules can apply to all sorts of denial, not just the Holocaust.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, Shermer is shamelessly using the memory of the holocaust to promote his leftist agenda and his religion of evolutionism/atheism.
No objective person can read that book and conclude otherwise.
But, then again, you are not objective, Alinsky Joe, so you naturally admire it, and him!"

For several months nearly 20 years ago I debated Holocaust deniers in a format similar to this one.
The worst of them were extremely vulgar, but setting that aside, their debate tactics were identical to those used by Kalamata, including reliance on personal attacks, insults, belittling & mockery.
And their basic strategy was the same, in effect:

"I don't see no stinkin' evidence", even in a Holocaust museum, or, in Kalamata's case, in a Natural History museum.
History books on the Holocaust "prove" nothing, just as science books on evolution "prove" nothing.
Holocaust eye witnesses were all liars, just as scientists all lie about evolution.
Holocaust forensic evidence is faked or "proves nothing" just as fossil & DNA evidence is faked or "proves nothing"
The Holocaust is a politically motivated fantasy, just as is evolution theory.

Kalamata: "I almost forgot to mention that I had previously mentioned that Shermer's propaganda also links Neo-Nazis to conservative Christians and Freepers, by falsely claiming Neo-Nazis are "right-wingers".
Some links are subtle..."

Right, so "subtle" that only someone with extreme sensitivity, like a Kalamata, could detect or be triggered by them.

Kalamata quoting Shermer from 1991: "Some Holocaust deniers, particularly those with extreme right-wing leanings..."

Here I agree with Kalamata that Holocaust deniers, fascists, Nazis & Communists are all left-wing, not right wing as we understand that term in the United States.
For us and to the degree that "right wing" means conservative, in the USA conservative means constitutionally limited government and the Bible, not necessarily in that order.

In Shermer's defense, most people in both Europe and America have long been taught that "right wing" means fascists, Nazis and extreme American "conservatives", i.e., the KKK.
For example, discussing the KKK, white nationalism and anti-immigration:

"All three movements have called for the "purification" of American society and all are considered right-wing extremist organizations.[11][12][13][14] "

That's unfortunate and even more unfortunately way too commonly linked to left wing extremists like fascists and National Socialists.

Kalamata: "Other examples of Shermer conflating holocaust deniers and fascists with the conservative right-wing are more in-your-face:"

Kalamata quoting Shermer from 1991: "...neo-Nazi skinheads and had formed a right-wing organization known as the National Socialist Front."

I agree that if the terms "left wing" and "right wing" have any real meaning in our American sense, then "National Socialists" are just as left wing as International Socialists, "Democratic" Socialists, fascists & Nazis.
American conservatives are the opposite of any of those things.

Kalamata: "So, if you hear those wackos on the left screaming "Nazi!" at conservatives and/or Trump supporters, you can "thank" far-left propagandists, like your hero, Michael Shermer."

I doubt if there's anyone outside the confines of Free Republic fans who can be counted on to routinely recognize the extreme difference between European "right wingers" and American conservatives.
Everyone else will simply point to the KKK and note they are said to be nationalists, racists, bigots and violent, so they are "right wing".

Kalamata on Shermer: "He was disgustingly wrong in using the holocaust as a front to promote his atheist, far-left agenda, as are you. "

As I suspected, Kalamata simply cannot answer the Holocaust question directly & honestly, and I think I know the reason.

Kalamata: "The Darwinist roots of the Holocaust are well documented, Alinsky Joe, a small part of which I referenced in previous posts."

Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you.
Hitler did not need Darwin to murder Jews.
By his own words Hitler first learned anti-Semitism in the anti-Semitic Christian Workers Party.
Darwin had the same relationship to the Holocaust as the terrorists' breakfast to 9/11/2001.

The Nazi’s credited their “raison d’etre to Margaret Sanger’s racist Eugenics views....you know the founder of Planned Parent hood? The saw Jews like she saw blacks.

You speak and insinuate more like a sniveling Nazi than you do a freeper!

Change agent much?

>>Kalamata: "If you will stop denying science by promoting pseudo-science, I will refrain from labeling you a science denier."
>>.Joey said: "Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Do you really believe any evolutionist who was not solidly tenured would make such a risky move? If you do, you are living a very sheltered life, Joey. Evolutionists have a well-documented history of going out of their way to participate in fraud, or to cover it up. The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos."
>>.Joey said: "I am 100% certain that if there were a serious, solid, confirmed observation to be made falsifying evolution theory, somebody, somewhere, somehow, even if circuitously, would make it."

You really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey, that is, if you are being truthful, which I question. Those scientists and educators who have pointed out the overwhelming weaknesses in Darwin's theology (a.k.a. evolutionism,) are ridiculed, slandered, and even have their careers threatened, if not destroyed. It has happened over an over again. If we were living in the days of Galileo, I am reasonably certain that many would have been burned at the state for heresy, considering the nasty rhetoric of those pushing the label of "science denier," as you do.

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

>>Joey said: "But I also know that every day on TV "Discovery" type channels there are utterly despicable programs talking about "ancient aliens" as if there was even one shred of real evidence for them. It's total nonsense and lies and yet, seemingly, TV viewers can't get enough of it so they keep programming more! That is the category in which fall any suggestions of evolution's "falsification" that I've ever seen."

Again, you really are living a very-sheltered life, Joey. Our tax dollars are wasted searching for alien life at the instigation of hard-core, ant-God evolutionists. Have you not heard of SETI? Boondoggles do not get any more "boondoggly" than SETI.

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

>>.Kalamata: "The most famous examples are the Piltdown man and Haeckel's embryos."
>>Joey said: "Curiously, the two cases you keep flogging (and every other one I know of) both were recognized by other scientists at the time as having problems."

Your attempts to spin those examples as "typical" reveals your complete and total dishonesty, Joey. Those are the two most well-know of a myriad of fake and false claims by the evolutionism cult since Charlie's doctrine corrupted the origin of life narrative and supposedly "released" man from God and his commandments (dream on.)

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

>>Joey said: "In Haeckel's case he tried to correct as best he could at the time."

That is a blantant lie, Joey. Haeckel was a well-qualified M.D., and his fraud was exposed early on; yet he continued to promote it and get away with it! The so-called "scientific" orthodoxy generally ignored Haeckel's fraud since it was the "best evidence" of evolutionism, at the time, and still is. How does it feel to know the best evidence for your religion of evolution was based on fake drawings?

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

>>Joey said: "In Piltdown's case the hoax was recognized by some but defended by others, so it took more time."

Baloney. There was never any evidence that the Piltdown man, even if true and not fabricated, meant anything other than some fossilized bones were found. That fraud survived and was perpetuated by the orthodoxy because of their warped worldview that "evolution is true, no matter what," which is also your worldview, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "What both cases prove is the well-known fact that we humans are far less than perfect, but science is intended to be self-correcting and, in time, it does.

It proves that scientists cannot be trusted to tell the truth. Paraphrasing Reagan, "Verify, then trust!"

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

>>Kalamata: "That is not an innocent cover up. I was well into my 60's before I learned I had been lied to about transitional fossils."
>>Joey said: "You were not lied to, every fossil without exception is transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any."

That is a conjecture based on your Darwinist worldview, Joey, which is, "Evolution is always true! Therefore, the fossils MUST show common descent (even if we cannot see it)!" That is not science, Joey, but at faith-based religion.

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

>>Joey said: "Minutely speaking, you and I are both transitional between our ancestors and descendants, if any. We are not exactly like any others who went before or will come after us."

There are no transitions, Joey. Dogs have always been dogs, cats have always been cats, bacteria have always been bacteria, and humans have always been humans. There are no exceptions: not in the fossil record; not in observable life; and not even in the genome, as real scientists have found out, of late.

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

>>Joey said: "So you have again quoted Gould from 1977 (!) complaining there aren't enough transitional fossils to suit him. Since 1977 tens of thousands of new fossil species have been found, from more Burgess Shale recognized (by Gould in 1989) to early dinosaurs and pre-human remains. Each new fossil fills in a transitional "niche" and yet anti-evolutionists pretend today nothing has changed in 42 years."

You really need to keep up with the secular (anti-Christian) literature, Joey. There has not been a single clearly-defined transitional fossil line found anywhere on earth. Not one.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is one of the dumbest statements you have made thus far, Joey. There is no scientific way that a continental plate moving a few centimeters per year is going to push up anything more than a pebble or two, no matter how much time you allow it. There is this little thing called "momentum" that gets in the way."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, oh Danny boy, The pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are closed tight, your ears hear only broken reed arguments, nonsense, baloney, total complete rubbish. Now the summer's gone and all the flowers are falling, but all Danny boy can do is deny & insult, insult & deny...{sigh}"

I knew you could not argue with Physics, Joey. I doubt you can even spell Physics.

It is spelled P-H-Y-S-I-C-S, not F-I-Z-Z-I-X. I hope that helps.

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

>>Joey said: "Here are some facts: tectonic plates have been measured as moving at roughly the speed of fingernail growth. The ocean floor has been measured as expanding some places, subducting others, leaving lines of expansion that can be counted and measured and calculated as representing many millions of years of movement over thousands of miles. At the same time, mountain ranges have been measured as rising, some falling, at about the same rate. Deny, deny, deny all you wish, Oh Danny boy, but reality doesn't care what you think of it."

That is another just-so story by the evolutionism cult, Joey, that you bought into hook, line and sinker. There is not nearly enough momentum stored up in microscopic movement of the plates to push up the enormous, sediment-covered moutain ranges found world-wide.

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

>>Kalamata: "I notice you ignored the part about sedimentary rock folds. That is a tough nut to crack for the uniformitarian geologist, and even for many catastrophists. Those rock layers will fold only when they are pliable -- before they harden. >>Joey said: "Look again:"Any rocks under enough heat, pressure & time (i.e., deep underground) will fold & bend like taffy. And I'm certain you know that, so why pretend otherwise?

Not without metamorphosis within the sedimentary rock layers, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey, you gotta quit saying such dumb things. The scripture and the science match perfectly. God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth, and he did just that, according to the scientific evidence:"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, you just got to STOP with the lies."

Child, are you denying that God said he would send a flood to destroy the earth? Are you calling God a liar, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "Remember, science is nothing but human hypotheses & theories, corrected & changing daily, which may "match scripture" today but not tomorrow, or may have not matched yesterday but will tomorrow -- we don't know and it doesn't matter because the Bible cares nothing for our science."

You are mocking God when you claim he said nothing about science, Joey. He invented all the laws of nature which real scientists seek to understand (as opposed to evolutionists who seek to prove God wrong.) God also gave us many scientific gems in the scripture (that secular "scientists" ignore or reject,) which, when believed and studied, have helped scientists improve life for humans, as well as to better understand the universe.

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

>>Joey said: "The Bible only really cares that we acknowledge God as the Author and ruler over whatever explanations science finds today and whatever corrections it makes tomorrow.

Where does it say that, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "Do you follow me on that, oh Danny boy?

Follow you into La La Land, Joey? Not a chance. Been there, done that.

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

>>Kalamata: "There is no evidence for gradual deposition of sedimentary rock layers, Joey. No serious geologist (one who is not thoroughly brainwashed) would believe otherwise." More of Denier Rules #1, #6 & #7.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Is that your evidence for mass extinctions, Joey? You are such a child."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the pipes are calling you but you can't hear them, you can't see them because your good eyes are tightly shut and your ears hear only broken reed arguments.

Child.

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

>>Joey said: "The fact is evidences for numerous mass extinctions are in the geological strata world wide This graph represents estimates of numbers of species extinct in each event, based on fossils identified & counted. [link to the graph]

width="600">

That chart is roughly based on real data, Joey, but interpreted with the bias of an anti-Moses worldview. The original data came from an oil-company geologist named L. L. Sloss, who plotted it from core samplings. This is one of his scientific papers:

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/gsabulletin/article-abstract/74/2/93/5600/sequences-in-the-cratonic-interior-of-north

Old-earthers claim the data is evidence of sedimentatory layering due to ocean surges onto land from multiple catastrophies, such as asteroid strikes. But the data reveals the ocean water did not retreat as it would in a tsumami, but rather lingered long enough for thick layers of micritic carbonate to form and cap the lower layers, before the next ocean surge came to cover it with even higher sedimentary layers. This is the North American chart from Sloss's data:

width="600">

Notice the erosional boundaries. Micritic carbonate mud (pre-rock) forms only when microscopic shelled critters die. Very thick layers, as found in the geologic column, would require enormous "blooms" and subsequent death of the critters while the water lingered, as would be found in highly-nutrient-rich waters of a massive flood.

After one thick layer of micritic carbonate was deposited, the next surge of water came to create the erosional boundary and deposit a new, sorted, sedimentary sequence, which was also capped by micritic carbonate, and so forth.

Dr. Kurt Wise, PhD Geology, Harvard, one of the late Stephen Jay Gould's former students, explains the megasequences in some detail in this video segment:

="90 Minutes of Evidence for the Global Flood

The discussion of micritic carbonate begans about the 1:02:20 mark.

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

>>Kalamata on transitional species: "That is an incredibly dumb statement, Joey. Do you have a reference or two in support of your statement?"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you, does it? Here is a partial listing of recognized transitional fossils. [Joey resorts to a scatterbrained list from Wikipedia]

None of those in the Wikipedia list are verifiable transitional fossil lines, Joey, except in the vivid imaginations of dreamers, like you.

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

>>Joey said: "Here is a report on evidence of common descent. Logically, whatever is from common descent must be transitional between its ancestors and descendants, if any. [Joey resorts to an unscientific "fake news" article from Wikipedia on common descent]

That is no evidence for common descent in that Wikipedia article, Joey. In fact, it ignorantly claims, "One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from gene sequences." That is hilariously false, Joey. Genetic research has revealed the opposite of common descent in the genome.

No more Wikipedia propaganda, Joey. From this point forward, post excerpts from peer-reviewed scientific papers or journal articles which support your wild claims. All Wikipedia links will be ignored.

For the record, Wikipedia to Science, is like Snopes to Fact-Checking. Only a fool or a con-man would rely on either for accurate, honest reporting.

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

>>Kalamata: "They are nothing more than just-so story-tellers, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, such lies are not good for your spiritual soul.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is convenient. Can I assume there is no evidence to support Bakker's claims other than what he wrote in the latter part of his book, "The Dinosaur Heresies"?"
>>Joey said: "So, are Bakker's among the "thousands of books" you have and may or may not have read? Do you deny each one before you read it, or after?

I have two of Bakker's books, Joey: "Prehistoric Monsters," and "The Dinosaur Heresies". They, like most books by evolutionists, contain lots of fiction disguised as science. Would you like me to look something up for you?

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

>>Kalamata: "Using your logic, Joey, nothing appears to have been broken. There is no evidence that any animal ever changed from one kind (or family) to another kind (or family)."
>>Joey said: "No animal, once conceived ever changed into any other. But every animal at conception changes a little from its ancestors.

That is what God commanded the animals to do: to multiply after their respective kinds. Why is that so hard to understand, Joey?

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

>>Joey said: "But, oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are tightly closed, your ears are stoppered shut against all but broken reed arguments. There are literal mountains of evidence for people who will see it.

There is no evidence for common descent, Joey: not a shred. Consensus is not science, but the "first refuge of scoundrels," as explained by this scientist:

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." [Michael Crichton, "Aliens Cause Global Warming." Wall Street Journal, [Updated 2008], 2003]

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

>>Kalamata: "Joey, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond?"
>>Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, please refrain from acting like a little child when you don't know how to respond.

Silly child.

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

>>Kalamata on "thousands of books": "That is true. I haven't read them all. Many are for reference."

>>Joey said: "As I suspected. I also know that for many years libraries have been digitizing their vast collections so that researchers with the right know-how can process huge volumes of data very quickly, to find just what they are looking for. I myself mostly depend on whatever is available from quick Google-type searches on the Internet, and that is quite often far less than ideal."

That explains in part why you are so scientifically and historically illiterate, Joey. I already knew it, but it was good to hear it from you.

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

>>Joey said: "If I can identify a particularly germane book, relatively inexpensive, I'll get it, i.e., "Of Pandas & People"."

You don't have to wallow in the pigsty of Wikipedia forever, Joey. For example, you can borrow many high quality books from the Internet Archive at archive.org. You can keep them for 2 weeks, which should give you time to read them and create notes and footnotes for later reference, like I do on some of the less available books.

You can also get annual subscriptions to the top journals, such as Nature and Science, and then download the peer-reviewed articles for offline reading and reference.

I have been storing my notes and footnotes in the "Research Library" for years, so that I can instantly format them into Notepad, like the footnote by Michael Crichton I posted above. In that case, I searched for "Crichton", selected that particular footnote, and then clicked a single Command Button to pop up Notepad containing exactly what you see above. Total time? Maybe 15 seconds, plus the time I took to add the bold/underline tags. Of course, you must first do the research and get it into the system; but once it is done, it is done.

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

>>Kalamata: "Gibberish."
>>Joey said: "And yet, what you here call "gibberish" you had just before admitted was true. Curious.

You are, again, distorting the context of my response, Joey. I hear CNN is hiring.

For the rest of you, my comment of "Gibbersh" was in response to this snarky conjecture by Joey:

"And to "have read" all those thousands while rejecting their basic premises seems more than far-fetched."

If Joey was forbidden to spin, distort, or fabricate, he would have nothing to say.

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

>>Kalamata: "I am only one person, but I have been retired for well over a decade."
>>Joey said: "I doubt if I'm much older or younger than you, but my health is still good and I can still be of service elsewhere, which is why my time here is so limited. I don't mind spending the time to mud-wrestle with you -- it's a good challenge. But there's only so much of it I can do.

Things would be more educational if you would stick to science.

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

>>Kalamata: "LOL! You are very funny, Joey. If you are going to remain an evolutionist, you should consider getting up to speed on their doctrine."
>>Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, the nonsense just never stops with you. Open your good eyes, reject broken reed arguments.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. You are likely the only person in the world that still believes that myth."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, what was that word you used? Riiiiight… "gibberish".

It tried to let you off the hook, Joey, but you are too pig-headed to consider the ramifications. This was Joey's statement:

"one reason such fossils appear "suddenly" (over 127 million years!) is that their earlier soft-bodied predecessors left few to no remains."

LOL! Okay, no more Mr. Nice Guy, Joey. From this point forward, when you pretend the absence of evidence IS evidence, I am going to call you on it; and I am calling you on it, now!

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. You don't understand the theory. I previously quoted several of the experts on disparity and diversity, so you must have skipped right past them, or you do not understand them."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, here's the real "ground truth": disparity=diversity=disparity=diversity ad infinitum. You don't believe me? Then show me two fossils and explain how one is "disparate" and the other is "diverse". I know you can do this...

I would say that statement is dumber than a box of rocks, Joey; but I like rocks.

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

>>Kalamata: "Don't be silly. All serious evolutionists are perplexed by the fossil record."
>>Joey said: "If they weren't "perplexed" they wouldn't be scientists, they'd be propagandists like Kalamata instead. To be a researcher, you start by being "perplexed" by anomalies that don't make sense and need better explanations.

They are perplexed because the evidence -- the observable data -- doesn't fit, and even contradicts, the theory they worship, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "The fossil records show diversifications or disparities followed by mass extinctions followed by more diversifications/disparities.

Child. The fossil record shows abrupt appearance before stasis, and disparity before diversity. The fossils also shows a gradual degree of terrestriality as you move up the column from sea to land.

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

>>Kalamata: "Thanks for catching that misapplication. Sometimes I get bored and careless when conversing with children."
>>Joey said: "And yet I'd never blame my own mistake on you, so just who is the "child" here?

If you blamed your mistakes on me, Joey, this thread would last forever, cause I wouldn't let you get away with it.

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

>>Kalamata: "Meaningless."
>>Joey said: "Per my post #348 I'm adding that response as my Denier 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."

I was trying to be kind, Joey, but your statement was meaningless. The discovery of new fossils over the past century and a half has revealed nothing new -- nothing that supports Darwin's silly theory.

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

>>Kalamata: "Another just-so story, presented as a historical fact."
>>Joey said: "Pre-historical. Fossils are observed facts, not "just so" and if you count those fossil species over geological time, the results are still facts.

That is not what I responded to, Joey. Why the obfuscation?

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

>>Kalamata: "The only liar is this discussion is you, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you, From glen to glen, And down the mountain side The summer's gone, And all the flowers are falling. And yet, Oh, Danny boy, your good eyes are shut tight, your ears are stoppered against all but broken reed arguments.

Brainwashed child.

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

>>Kalamata: "Are you really being honest when you say you have never heard of the sidekick of your hero, Michael Shermer? If so, you really fooled me. I was not lying, Alinsky Joe. "
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, right now I can't think of an example where you've told the truth on anything I personally know about. As a devoted propagandists, Kalamata, you are far too interested in opportunities to mock and belittle to worry about small matters of fact or truth.

Does that mean you are familiar with Prothero, and won't admit it?

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

>>Kalamata: "Do you not see how deceptive that is, Alinsky Joe. Perhaps this photo will help. Haeckel's fake drawings are on the top row, while Richardson's 1997 photos are on the bottom:"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you. In this particular case you quoted Prothero, and Waterston is another who argued as recently as 2016 that Haeckel's drawings were not deliberately deceptive and indeed that Haeckel corrected them when possible. Such authors also tell us that Haeckel was more right than wrong, the implication being that your bottom photo is just as deceptive in highlighting differences in early embryonic development.

No doubt, evolutionists with little integrity will not easily give up such a valuable Evolutionary Icon as Haeckel's fake embryos.

Who is Waterston? Do you have a reference?

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

>>Kalamata: "Nothing Gingerich et all imagined has panned out, Alinsky Joe. Even some of the "big boys" are shying away from it. But, like all other Evolutionism Icons, including so-called horse evolution (almost forgot about that one,) this one will also DIE HARD!"
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you...

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "It is scientifically incorrect. The myth of Junk DNA was never based on science, but desperation -- desperation to find something -- anything -- that could be presented as proof of evolution, whether or not it was actual proof."
>>Joey said: "I don't see an insult in that response, so I'll refrain. However, your argument is still nonsense since "junk DNA" by whatever name you chose to call it is still non-coding. And according to your own quotes -- should I doubt them? -- nobody, not Gruar, not ENCODE, not Collins, not even the Swiss claimed more than 15% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution." The facts, the facts are calling you...

Joey is lying to you, again. The Swiss claimed 95% of the DNA is constrained, which means there has been no human evolution. That is correct, ladies and gents: God created man in his image, as practically every serious scientist believed before Charlie Darwin.

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

>>Kalamata: "That said, you still have not presented any scientific evidence for evolution, nor can you. Hand-waving, such as "the vast preponderance of evidence", is not evidence, nor are imaginary drawings and mockups based on fragmented fossils from few animals."
>>Joey said: "I never said "the vast preponderance evidence", just the opposite. What I've said, correctly, is that there is no confirmed evidence -- zero, zip, nada evidence -- falsifying evolution theory.

This is a quote from Joey in 173#:

"Evolution is a confirmed theory based on literal mountains of facts — deny them all you wish, they still exist."

A Leopard doesn't change his spots. This is later a quote by Joey from #331:

"there’s literally mountains of evidence, some of which you can easily see whenever you wish. I’ve simply pointed you in its direction."

Perhaps if I try real hard, Joey, I might be able to see the difference between "literal mountains of evidence" and a "vast preponderance of evidence.". . . . Naah!

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

>>Joey said: "But it doesn't matter since your good eyes are closed and your ears stoppered. You can't see what's there.

Child.

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

>>Kalamata: "The child is still playing his silly games, after all this time."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the facts, the facts are calling you...

Foolish child.

Mr. Kalamata

>>bwest said, "Read a bit more closely. On at least one occasion, probably more, I said that I have the utmost respect for those whose faith runs contrary to scientific findings. I include YECs, Biblical literalists, etc. in this category. However, inventing a phony science to prove the veracity of their faithful conclusions is a sign of weakness of faith.

When you speak of, "inventing a phony science," I must assume you are referring to the new-fangled Lyellian geology and Darwinian evolution, invented in the 1800's as a scheme to "free science from Moses":

"I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the 'British Critic and Theological Review.' They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Eerussac has done nothing but believe in the universal ocean up to the chalk period till lately. Prevost has done a little, but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France." [Letter to Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, June 14, 1830, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I." John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.268]

Prior to the time of Lyell and Darwin, science progressed very well. Since that time, valuable time and resources have been wasted trying to prove Lyell and Darwin correct (e.g., trying to prove the unprovable,) rather than to promote the advancement of science.

Think about it! During the days of Einstein's heroes: Newton; Faraday and Maxwell; they, along with many other brilliant Christians sought to understand the mysteries of God in order to give Him glory. This is Newton from his book on Mathematics:

"The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and thence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.

"This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God, or Universal Rider; for God is a relative word, and has a respect to servants; and Deity is the dominion of God not over his own body, as those imagine who fancy God to be the soul of the world, but over servants. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God; for we say, my God, your God, the God of Israel, the God of Gods, and Lord of Lords; but we do not say, my Eternal, your Eternal. the Eternal of Israel the Eternal of Gods; we do not say, my Infinite, or my Perfect: these are titles which have no respect to servants. The word God usually signifies Lord; but every lord is not a God. It is the dominion of a spiritual being which constitutes a God: a true, supreme, or imaginary dominion makes a true, supreme, or imaginary God. And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present; and by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space. Since every particle of space is always, and every indivisible moment of duration is every where, certainly the Maker and Lord of all things cannot be never and no where." [Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, pp.504-505]

If evolutionists had performed like real scientists, and followed the scientific method, like Newton, they would have sought to falsify the works of Darwin and Lyell in the beginning (as some did,) rather than justify their theories in whatever way possible, even fraud. You seldom hear of that by the "establishment" these days, but fraud was rampant among evolutionists from the beginning. Evolution and old-earth "geology" was never about science, but "getting rid of God;" and Western Civilization has suffered the consequence, since. Speaking of fraud, have you ever heard of the Bathybius affair?

"The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin's theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people's minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of 'Monera' to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards. The Duke of Argyll complained about such lack of integrity in science, that involved a failure to investigate properly, overconfident statements and attempted bullying of critics to gain their silence." [Andrew Sibley, "Bathybius Haeckelii and a 'Reign of Terror'." Journal of Creation, 23(1), 2009, p.123]

Many believe Haeckel's only offense was his fake Embryos (a fraud that even today some defend;) but he was rotten to the core. There has been a lot written in examination of his life, and the consequences for society.

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

>>bwest said, "Those who choose to defend their faith-borne beliefs by touting the findings of “Creationism” necessarily subject themselves to the rigors of scientific method.

Are you for real? How about subjecting your religion -- evolutionism -- to the rigors of the scientific method? Try it and see what happens to you? I'll tell you what will happen. You will be mocked, ostracized, denied the right to publication, and, if you don't have tenure, will lose your career. If you do have tenure the Darwinian faithful will make your life miserable. The only difference between the tactics of the Inquisitions of the "scientific" orthodoxy of today, in the days of Darwin, and in the days of Galileo, is the method of punishment.

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

>>bwest said, "If that’s what you consider belittling of faith, then so be it. I’m still right. I’m still a Christian."

Act like one.

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

>>bwest said, "By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?"

Baloney. Darwin, like many others in his day, believed in spontaneous generation. As aforementioned in the statement about the Bathybius affair, some deemed the origin-of-life to be important enough to seek evidence for it, a practice continuing until this day.

Mr. Kalamata

“>>bwest said, “By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?”

Baloney. Darwin, like many others in his day, believed in spontaneous generation. As aforementioned in the statement about the Bathybius affair, some deemed the origin-of-life to be important enough to seek evidence for it, a practice continuing until this day.

Mr. Kalamata “

It seems there are Christians who try to bridge the gap between Evolution and the Bible by resorting to an Aristotolian notion of God (or the uncaused Cause) setting into motion in the matter universe all the intricate series of causes and effects, much of it planned which would lead up to the gradual development of man as we know him today. The atheists in control of the high ramparts of of “Evolution-ism”(/s) aren’t having it of course, snearing at such attempts as back-door creationism.

Guided Panspermia or the notions that Earth’s evolutionary path was high-jacked somehow by ancient aliens has become more acceptable with some subsets of atheist scientists. To them, the possibility of interference in Earth’s genomic envelope answers some of the questions very neatly,I might add, that evolution theory would otherwise fall into disarray over. The whole “answer to God” business is thus neatly side stepped and they can continue on with their fashionably bigoted, wine and brie seminar sneers of the religious minded-/s. (of course then you have to question the origin of life of the ancient aliens who so seeded the Earth with panspermic life....but such a turn of questioning is often “tut-tutted” and cut short.)

I’ve been aware all my sentient life of the implicit anti-mosaic bias of many of the so called media savvy “scientists and the science writer pundit wannabe types”. Their whole modus operandi is exposed and derided in Psalms 2. Psalms 2 is actually a very good reference to put forth in this discussion in light of the postings you have shared and highlighted with me.

“Why do the nations so furiously rage together, why do the peoples imagine a vain thing? The kings of the Earth rise up; their rulers take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed saying let us break their bonds asunder and cast away their yokes from us!...Then He that dwelleth in Heaven shall laugh them to scorn, The Lord shall have them in derision, he shall dash them in pieces like a potters vessel...!
Mr. Mathis(well since we are using formal titles...)

PS. Berean is Believin’