Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 8-5-19 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

[fishtank]

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

[bert]

CEH is not a credable source

[Kalamata]

BroJoeK to Kalamata

>>Denier Kalamata: “Those were not Christians, Alinsky Joe. Christians do not persecute anyone.”
>>Science Denier Joey said: “I’ve mentioned elsewhere that some of my ancestors were Anabaptists, persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants. It’s why they came to America.

Christians do not persecute anyone, Joey; but they are routinely persecuted.

******************
>>Science Denier Joey said: “Now you may wish to argue that such persecutors were not truly Christian, or you may wish to argue that Anabaptists are not truly Christian. Regardless, the historical fact is that Christian official persecutions of heretics began with Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, circa 325 A.D.

Christians do not persecute anyone, Joey, because it is impossible to be a Christian and a persecutor. People in positions of power can be Christians, or scientists, or statesmen; but when they abuse their powers they are no longer Christians, or scientists, or statesmen, but thugs.

******************
>>Science Denier Joey said: “Christian persecutions of Jews reached a peak in the Spanish Inquisition, circa 1500 A.D.

Many Jews are Christian, Joey, and Christians do not persecute anyone.

******************
>>Science Denier Joey said: “None of that had anything to do with Charles Darwin.”

Charlie Darwin taught the naive his religious doctrine, which emphasized that there was no power higher than themselves. His doctrine thoroughly corrupted western civilization, and metastasized into Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and a myriad of lesser thugs.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Denier Kalamata: "On the other hand, there is little doubt that Hitler and his education chief were heavily influenced by Darwinism, as were the other 20th century butchers. "
>>History Denier Joey said: "Nonsense, the fact is that Hitler never mentioned Darwin, natural selection or evolution as natural selection in Mein Kampf.

This is Hitler's Mein Kampf on natural selection:

"Under certain circumstances, in periods of distress or under bad climatic condition, or if the soil yields too poor a return, Nature herself tends to check the increase of population in some countries and among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise. It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it does impede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such tests and privations that everything which is less strong or less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown. Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, pp.112-113]

This is Hitler' Mein Kampf on the evolution of man:

"Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa, as some people would have us believe. At first it was the conquered enemy who had to draw the plough and only afterwards did the ox and horse take his place. Nobody else but puling pacifists can consider this fact as a sign of human degradation. Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization which these apostles now exploit in an attempt to make the world pay attention to their rigmarole." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, pp.222-223]

"The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all." [Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf." Hurst and Blackett Ltd., 1939, p.222.223]

Hitler didn't simply name-drop natural selection and evolution, Joey; he lived it!

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

>>History Denier Joey said: "He did claim to have first learned anti-Semitism in the anti-Semetic Christian Workers Party.

I have never heard of the Christian Workers Party, Joey. I have heard of the Christian Social Workers Party which was a left-wing Socialist organization that supposedly disbanded in the early 1900's. You cannot be a Christian and be a socialist, Joey; so don't be fooled by a label.

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

>>History Denier Joey said: "By his own telling of it, Hitler came to anti-Semitism through politics not science."

That may be true, Joey, but where are your references?

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

>>History Denier Joey said: "In reality, there were other strong influences as well, but none had anything to do with Darwin. So blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate.

Dr. Jerry Bergman, a Jew, disagrees with you, Joey:

"Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war. If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred. Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal) theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust. Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community." [Jerry Bergman, "Darwinism And The Nazi Race Holocaust." Talk Origins, Aug 13, 1999]

"Terms such as 'superior race', 'lower human types', 'pollution of the race', and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders. His race views were not from fringe science as often claimed but rather Hitler's views were [quoting George Stein]: " … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin's theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist 'biopolicy,' … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, anti-transcendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection…'" [Ibid.]

This is Stein's quote in full so you can examine the context:

"There is no originality here, crazy or otherwise. Hitler's views are rather straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that this"crazy originality" was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist "biopolicy," a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in racial inequality, a monistic, anti-transcendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection, is what national socialism is all about (Jackel 1972). Once it becomes clear that a particular biopolicy was the basis of the regime, various historical problems such as the seeming inconsistency or opportunism of tactics, the strategic blunders such as the invasion of Russia, or the totally irrational efforts expended on the extermination of undesirables become clear." [George J. Stein, "Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism." American Scientist, Vol.76, Iss.1; January, 1988, p.51]

Mr. Kalamata

[mdmathis6]

I didn’t see that section or if I did it was in an unconscious brush thru it sort of way way that jogged my memory and led me to quote the Psalm from my memory.

Hope you are not upset.

[Kalamata]

>>Denier Kalamata: “think I understand you. You believe the evidence for evolutionism is so overwhelming, that it is impossible to show us any? LOL! That is really dumb, Alinsky Joe. “
>>Science Denier Joey said: “More nonsense because you can visit a natural history museum any time you wish, plus you already have, by your own count, “thousands of books” on the subject, so you are a confirmed denier. Nothing I present will make any difference to you.

You can easily convince me, Joey, if you will present any observable/verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence for common descent. That cannot be difficult to produce if, as you claim, there are mountains of evidence for evolution. Perhaps you have confused mountains of just-so stories for mountains of evidence.

***********************
>>Science Denier Joey said: “You simply cannot see what you refuse to see, regardless of how good your eyes.

That is true of everyone who is blinded by ideology, Joey. The Pharisees, who relied on “reason,” like you, rather than the Word of God, were also blinded.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: “ My rule of thumb is, there is a lot of bad science out there. It is better to acknowledge the Lord in all thy ways, than to trust in the craftiness of mere men.”
>>Science Denier Joey said: “That’s an excellent rule, but there’s nothing “crafty” about evolution theory. It’s simply a reasonable natural explanation for volumes of data, and there are no others.”

It is not the data that forms world-views like yours, Joey. It is the misinterpretation of data.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier: “You are lying again, Alinsky Joe. Dan Graur has repeatedly and vehemently denied that ENCODE disproved evolution. Why would I claim he did not? “
>>Science Denier Joey said: “{sigh} You ca’t keep track of you own lies, and need me to look them up for you? Oooh Kay. Your post #162, you used Graur to trash ENCODE:
>>Kalamata: ‘”The 2017 article by Graur that Le Page referenced is only one of his many attacks on the Encode project, which he claims: 1) provides support for intelligent design, and 2) doesn’t take into account the primary tenent of his religion, which is “everything is shaped by evolution”. “If Encode is right,” according to Graur, “then evolution is wrong.” I don’t disagree on that point...”

You don’t understand what you read, Joey. or you are too quick to jump to conclusions, or you are simply a liar (I choose door #3.) It it true that I don’t disagree with Graur on that particular point, but that is not Graur’s complete statement. This is my quote from # , which included Graur’s complete statement:

**
[Kalamata quoting EN&S Today:] “We read the paper, and looked over Graur’s accompanying PowerPoint. We’re not impressed by theoretical population genetics because it is based on neo-Darwinian assumptions rather than biological realities. Basically, he is using that circular science to add a quantitative gloss to his fundamental position, namely that if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right.” [”Dan Graur, Anti-ENCODE Crusader, Is Back.” Evolution News & Science Today, July 28, 2017]”

[Kalamata;] As any normal person can see, I agree 100% that ENCODE is right and evolution is wrong, but that is not Graur’s context. Graur believes ENCODE is wrong, therefore I am not in agreement with him; and anyone claiming I agree with Graur on that point is lying (hint, Alinsky Joe.)

[Kalamata;] For the record, evolution is 100% false, with our without the ENCODE data.
**

That is the third or fourth time Joey has made that dumb claim, so I must assume he is logically challenged. Perhaps this will help him understand. The writer at EN&S Today, stated Graur’s position as:

[Graur:] “if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong, and evolution can’t be wrong, so ENCODE can’t be right.”

I disagree with Graur. I am of the opinion that ENCODE can’t be wrong, and evolution can’t be right.

I doubt Joey can let go of this, because he has nothing else.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier: “ Either you are lying, or you don’t understand what you read. I have never trashed ENCODE. “
>>Delusional Joey said: “You agreed with Graur’s attack on ENCODE.”

That is two posts in a row in which you made that same false claim, Delusional Joey.

Joey reminds me of those Seminar Callers that began to frequent Rush’s radio show in the 1990’s. Their entire life centers around being a nuisance.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: “You also claimed that ENCODE agrees that 80% or 95% of DNA is somehow “constrained” or “restrained” or “influenced” by evolution”

Wrong, again. In their 2012 report, ENCODE claimed that 80% of the DNA is constrained, which means it is not selectable, and cannot evolve. A later 2018 paper by a Swiss team pushed that number up to 95%.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: “And this, you claimed, proves there’s no evolution.”

You misquoted me, Joey. This is where I got the information that the myth of human evolution has been exposed:

“According to the popular neutral model of evolutionary theory, much of the human genome is nothing but randomly evolving junk. All of this so-called neutral DNA that is allegedly not under any’selective restraint’ only serves as fodder for functional new genes and traits to somehow magically arise and thus provide the engine of evolution... Global data among diverse people groups for DNA sequence variability across the human genome was inputted into a statistical model of neutral evolution. It was discovered that, at most, only 5% of the human genome could randomly evolve and not be subject to the alleged forces of selection. Fanny Pouyet, the lead author of the published study stated, ‘What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as ‘neutral.’’ Oops, so much for human evolution!... This study is just one more example in a long line of failures where the theoretical models of evolution have completely collapsed in light of real-world data. And in this case, the failure was even more spectacular because the statistical model that was used was based on theoretical evolutionary assumptions.” [Tomkins, Jeffrey P., “95% of Human Genome Can’t Evolve.” Institute for Creation Research, 2018]

The last sentence is most revealing.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: “The fact is you’ve posted nothing from ENCODE suggesting more than ~10% of DNA is “constrained” by evolution.

No, Joey. ENCODE claimed in their 2012 report that 80% was contrained. The Swiss team, quoted above by Dr. Tomkins, claimed in 2018 that over 95% was constrained, which means less than 5% can evolve.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Dishonest Danny Denier: “Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe? You posted a picture of one of Graur’s books, he was the one of the primary interviewee of the 2017 New Scientist article you linked, and you have mentioned him on more than one occasion? In post #260 there was this exchange:
>>[Kalamata:] “I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium.”
>>[Dilusional Joey] “Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur’s remarks.”
>> Kalamata: “You are exceptionally dishonest, Alinsky Joe. You can get away with those stunts with the unwashed masses, but not with me.”
>>Dishonest & Dilusional Joey: “I’ve posted nothing dishonest, your frequent claims otherwise notwithstanding. In this case I simply googled up quotes to support my point and apparently Graur’s was one. You then attacked Graur as if he were your personal nemesis, and that is what I responded to.

I guess that means you plagiarized, Dishonest Joey. My apologies for thinking you were being honest — that those were your own words.

*****************
>>Dishonest & Dilusional Joey: “So clearly what’s going on here is that Dishonest Danny has lost track of your own lies and naturally wish to project dishonesty onto yours truly. That’s your use of Denier Rule #5.

Silly child.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

Joey I have been responding to one silly post of yours after another, all afternoon. You must be desperate to keep your friends from finding out you are a fraud.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You are thoroughly confused, Alinsky Joe. I am not even sure how to unpack that mess you wrote. "
>>Delusional Joey said: "No, I'm not in the least confused, am simply quoting back your own posts to you. Somehow that drives Kalamata into paroxysms of angry accusations."

You are confused, little Joey. This was your quote that I responded to:

>>Joey said: "I'm just using your own quotes, did you already forget what you posted? None of your quotes from ENCODE claimed 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or even "influenced" by evolution. ENCODE's numbers were 5% to 10% "constrained" by evolution. Your 95% number comes from a Swiss study, not ENCODE, and even the Swiss nowhere claimed 95% is "constrained" by evolution. Those are your posts, not mine."

Those statements have no basis in reality, Joey. Perhaps you were tired.

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

>>Joey said: "So I'll give you some clues, I'm going to help you out, FRiend. You can clear up all your own confusion, you can defeat my argument and win a very rare "attaboy" from yours truly, if you'll just do this: Find quotes from Graur or from ENCODE or Collins where they agree with Kalamata that 80% or 95% of human DNA is "constrained" or "restrained" or "influenced" by evolution. Then quote where they agree that makes evolution impossible. No denier rules are necessary, just produce the quotes.

Forget Graur: he is your useless source. The following are 3 of my sources on ENCODE from way back in #126:

"This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. “I don’t think anyone would have anticipated even close to the amount of sequence that ENCODE has uncovered that looks like it has functional importance,” says John A. Stamatoyannopoulos, an ENCODE researcher at the University of Washington, Seattle. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes. These results are going “to change the way a lot of [genomics] concepts are written about and presented in textbooks,” Stamatoyannopoulos predicts.” [Elizabeth Pennisi, “ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA.” Science, Vol. 337, Iss. 6099, Sept 7, 2012, p.1159]

"The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation.” [Durham et al, “An Integrated Encyclopedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome.” Nature, 489, September 6, 2012, p.57]

"A major problem with this type of selective analysis is that nearly all of the entire genome is now believed to be functional, as stated in the recent ENCODE project consortium reports (2012). The non-coding regions have been shown to provide many critical control features and nucleotide templates (Dunham, et al., 2012; Wells, 2011; Bergman, 2001). Biochemical functions have been determined for at least 80% of the human genome and most of the rest is also predicted to be functional (Dunham, et al., 2012) to at least some degree. This research is significant for chimp-human comparisons because often only protein-coding sequences were compared under the widely accepted, but now debunked assumption that 95 percent of the genome is junk.” [Bergman & Tomkins, “The Chasm Between the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes: A Review of the Evolutionary Literature.” Institute for Creation Research, 2013]

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=126#126

As you can see, Science, Nature and ICR all reported that ENCODE claimed 80% of the DNA is constrained.

You must suffer from selective memory loss, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier quoting the NYT:
>>"In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, 'turns out to be doing stuff.'" [Zimmer, Carl, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?". New York Times, March 5, 2015]

>>Delusional Joey said: "Sorry, that's close but no cigar. Saying certain DNA alleles have "function" is not the same as saying we know what those functions are, or that Collins agrees virtually all DNA is "constrained" by evolution. Or that such "constraint" somehow disproves evolution! Of course, all of that might well prove true, but so far here only Danny Denier claims it."

Collins plainly states that most of the genome is functional, Joey. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the terminology. In evolutionary language, the word "neutral" means unconstrained, or evolvable; the word "functional" means constrained, or not evolvable. More than once I posted a quote that explains the terms, but perhaps it was insufficient. Here it is again:

"Functional DNA sequences should be conserved over time and shared among closely related species, whereas nonfunctional or neutral sequences are free to change. This approach has been particularly useful for identifying protein coding sequences within a genome and will hopefully be as useful in identifying functional noncoding sequences." [Fay & Wu, "Sequence divergence, functional constraint and selection in protein evolution." Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Vol.4; September, 2003, pp.213-214]

This is from an evolution dictionary:

"Constraint: any factor that tends to slow the rate of adaptive evolution or to prevent a population from evolving the optimal values of a trait."

"Functional Constraint: portion of a molecule that cannot sustain mutations as often as an unconstrained portion;... Unconstrained portions of a genome evolve five to twenty times faster than constrained portions."

[Mai et al, "The Cambridge Dictionary of Human Biology and Evolution." 2005, pp.117, 203]

Of course, that is from an old dictionary.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier: “That is a really dumb of you, Alinsky Joe. The 98% number is the old, fabricated number, when evolutionists were promoting the Junk DNA myth.”
>>Delusional Joey said: “98% is based on certain assumptions. Change the assumptions, you change the percent.

That is what evolutionists do: move the goal posts.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said: “But here’s what never changes, regardless of assumptions: no living creature is more closely related by DNA than chimps & bonobos.”

Not even close, Joey. Even when using the old, fabricated number of 98.8% genetic similarity, there are about 35 million differences in our genomes. That’s 35 MILLION, Joey.

Of course, now there are far more differences since we are including functional DNA that evolutionists once called “Junk”.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier: “Your first link, Wikipedia, explains that ancient dating methods require “previously established chronology.” Where does that come from, other than from wild guesses?”
>>History Denier Joey said: “Previously established chronology” can come from pretty much anywhere, historical documents for example. . .”

No, Joey. The “established chronology”, which is known as the “Conventional Archeological Chronology,” or CAC, comes from the conflation of the archaeologically discovered Egyptian Pharoah Shoshenk with the biblical Pharoah Shishak, which is then used to inaccurately date biblical events prior to Shishak. It essentially pushes the biblical date of the Exodus forward a couple of hundred years, which points wrongly to Ramsees as the Pharoah of the Exodus, and consequently, to no presence of Israel in Egypt. There is plenty of evidence for Israel in Egypt, but not at the “right” time. The CAC also points to Jericho being destroyed before Joshua arrives, since the CAC puts Joshua at about 1200 BC, rather than the biblical 1400 BC.

Don’t waste our time with quotes from the Left-Wing Wikipedia, Joey.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “Using that timeline, they can claim that the excavated city of Jericho, which exists today exactly like the biblical narrative predicts, cannot possibly be the biblical Jericho because it doesn’t match the Shoshenq=Shishak timeline. In other words, archeologists use a circular argument of a known biblical date (the ransacking of Jerusalem by Shishak) to “disprove” all previous dates. Slick, huh?”
>>History Denier Joey said: “Settlements at ancient Jericho start back circa 9,000 BC, using carbon-14 absolute dating, with many levels, some destroyed by earthquakes, some by fire.”

Baloney. There are no ancient cities older than about 4000-5000 years. The earlier ones were destroyed in the flood. There are dinosaur fossils, coal and diamonds that date less than 10,000 years using Carbon 14.

*****************
>>History Denier Joey said: “Excavations of Jericho began with Warren in 1868, Sellin & Watzinger in 1906, Garstang in 1930, Kenyon in 1952, Nigro & Marchetti in 1997 and Yasine since 2015. One major destruction at Jericho has been dated to 1500 BC, which some Biblical scholars say doesn’t match its chronology. Others say it does.

The following is from a article on Jericho by archaeologist Bryant Wood, which reveals the remarkable accuracy of the historical narrative in the Bible, even in the most trivial of details:

“Jericho was once thought to be a ‘Bible problem’ because of the seeming disagreement between archaeology and the Bible. When the archaeology is correctly interpreted, however, the opposite is the case. The archaeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the Biblical account in every detail. Every aspect of the story that could possibly be verified by the findings of archaeology is, in fact, verified.” [Bryant G. Wood, “The Walls of Jericho.” Associates for Biblical Research, June 8, 1999]

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/3625-The-Walls-of-Jericho

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Mr. Mathis wrote: “I didn’t see that section or if I did it was in an unconscious brush thru it sort of way way that jogged my memory and led me to quote the Psalm from my memory. Hope you are not upset.”

Are you kidding? I am more than happy to find someone on the same page.

Mr. Kalamata

[reasonisfaith]

The chance that any strand of amino acids will work is one in ten to the seventy-seventh power.

(That is, if they assemble according to chance.)

The total number of organisms since life began is ten to the fortieth power.

This tells us that random mutations cannot produce workable biological change.

[BroJoeK]

Your probabilities are nonsense because you don’t know the conditions at the time.
The more likely probability is 100% for each small step, when conditions for it were right.

What the evidence suggests is that very simple life did somehow begin billions of years ago and then very slowly complexified.
Evolution is the only natural science explanation for it we have.

[Kalamata]

>>Joey wrote, "[reasonoffaith's] probabilities are nonsense because [he] don’t know the conditions at the time. The more likely probability is 100% for each small step, when conditions for it were right."

LOL! It appears Joey has bought into the claims of hucksters that "cumulative selection" could even exist in nature without an "Intelligently-Designed Template" (or, "IDT.") Richard "Tricky Dicky" Dawkins tried to pull that fast-one in his book, "The Blind Watchmaker," as follows:

Dawkins first acknowledged that it would take virtually forever for a monkey typing at a typewriter to luck upon a particular 28-character phrase. Dawkins then snuck intelligent design into the narrative by way of an IDT. This is Tricky Dicky:

"It isn't difficult to calculate how long we should reasonably expect to wait for the random computer (or baby or monkey) to type METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.... These are very small odds, about 1 in 10,000 million million million million million million. To put it mildly, the phrase we seek would be a long time coming, to say nothing of the complete works of Shakespeare.

"So much for single-step selection of random variation. What about cumulative selection; how much more effective should this be? Very very much more effective, perhaps more so than we at first realize, although it is almost obvious when we reflect further. We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before:

       WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P

"It now 'breeds from' this random phrase. It duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error - 'mutation' - in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

[Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker." W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, Chap 3, pp.47-48]

Wow! That is an incredibly slick con! Remember, Natural Selection doesn't have a clue where it is going, or how to get there! So, the key phrases in Richard's scam is, the computer examines [intelligently], chooses [intelligently], and target phrase [the IDT], which is how Dawkins snuck intelligent design into the simulation via an intelligently-designed template, or IDT (and has mostly gotten away with it.)

That is called "cheating," if you are claiming to prove evolution. It is also called magic, or a supernatural process, since there is no evidence any process like that exists anywhere in nature, except perhaps by a supernatural act of God.

Evolutionism hucksters, like Dawkins, are able to get away with this kind of chicanery because for years our children have been brainwashed into believing that "natural selection" has some sort of magical powers. What they are seldom taught is "natural selection" is just a fancy way of saying "death before reproduction". The least fit are selected out of life, naturally, because they don't produce enough offspring.

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

>>Joey wrote, "What the evidence suggests is that very simple life did somehow begin billions of years ago and then very slowly complexified. Evolution is the only natural science explanation for it we have.

As you can see, Joey bought into the cumulative selection hogwash.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier: "Dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is an inexact science.
Besides, the oldest living tree, the Bristlecone Pine, is post-flood, so it is not much help to Bible deniers."

In fact, tree rings can be an exact science for people who know how to count.
Estimates can be necessary when ancient trees are found buried in an archaeological site.
But if the site itself can be dated by, for example, historical documents (think Pompey & Vesuvius) then tree rings can be measured, matched & counted backwards.

Wet years & dry years are recorded in tree rings and these can be "wiggle matched" across different samples, etc.

Danny Denier: "Ice cores have also proven useless for dating, since the discovery of rapid deposition and non-annual layering."

Mythological problems, suitable for denier purposes only.
In fact:

1. "Ice cores can be dated using counting of annual layers in their uppermost layers.
   Dating the ice becomes harder with depth.

   Other ways of dating ice cores include:

2. geochemisty,
3. wiggle matching of ice core records to insolation time series (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010),
4. layers of volcanic ash (tephra) (Vinther et al., 2006),
5. electrical conductivity, and
6. using numerical flow models to understand age-depth relationships (Mulvaney et al., 2012), combined with
7. firn densification modeling to estimate the delta-age (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010).

Usually multiple methods are used to improve accuracy.
Common global stratigraphic markers are palaeo-events that occur worldwide synchronously, and can allow wiggle-matching between ice cores and other palaeo archives (e.g., marine sediment cores).
For the ice matrix, these global stratigraphic markers can include spikes in volcanic ash (each volcanic eruption has a unique chemical signature), or volcanic sulfate spikes.

8). For the gas phase, methane, and oxygen-18 isotopic ratio of O2 have been used (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010).

9). Uranium has been used to date the Dome C ice core from Antarctica.
Dust is present in ice cores, and it contains Uranium.
The decay of 238U to 234U from dust in the ice matrix can be used to provide an additional core chronology.
10) Beryillium-10 has also been used to date ice cores."

Ten different ways to use ice cores in dating ancient events & conditions.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier: "The 2012 ENCODE report stated 80% is functional, which means 80% is constrained."

Says Danny Denier, but not ENCODE.
According to your own quotes, ENCODE says no more than ~10% of human DNA is "constrained" by... by... by... what?
By evolution.

And Danny Denier tells us this is proof positive there is no evolution.

Danny Denier: "Of course my statements agree with ENCODE.
I quote them directly to make certain there is no misunderstanding among scientists.
If you were a scientist you would know that."

And yet you've never posted quotes from ENCODE agreeing with you that 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by... by... right, by evolution!

Danny Denier: "If it is functional, it is constrained."

A claim not supported by any quote from Danny Denier.

Danny Denier: "Why do you continue to obsfuscate, Alinsky Joe?
You have already been exposed as scientifically-challenged?"

Why do you continue to lie, Danny Denier?
You have already been exposed as truth-challenged.

Danny Denier: "LOL! Think of the two as your arm and fingers, Joey. "

I'll have to add your response here as yet another Denier Rule, Danny's 3 D's: divert, distract & dissemble.

Danny Denier: "Functional means constrained, or conserved, or restrained.
Non-functional means it is free to evolve.
Pouyet found that only 5% can randomly evolve.
Doing the math, we find that 100% - 5% = 95% that cannot evolve = 95% is constrained."

Nowhere does any Denier quote necessarily equate "functional" and "constrained", they are two separate issues.
Further the claim of 95% "functional" is totally bogus because the quote actually says 95% in some way "influenced by" "functional" DNA which itself is circa 10%.

Danny quoting Swiss Institute's Pouyet: "This is a striking finding: it means that 95% of the genome is indirectly influenced by functional sites, which themselves represent only 10% to 15% of the genome”, she concludes"

No Danny Denier quote has claimed 95% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by evolution, or that this would somehow make evolution impossible.

Danny Denier: "Did you miss the Fay & Wu article I quoted?

"Functional DNA sequences should be conserved over time..."

First, "should be" means theoretically, not what's actually been observed.
Second, that quote does not say 95% of DNA is either "functional" or "conserved" by evolution and Danny's failure, after all this time, to post such a quote suggests you are drawing conclusions far beyond what the data allows.

Further, we now have a whole menagerie of Danny-terms which may, or may not apply to the same physical conditions:

1. "evolutionary constraint"
2. "selective restraint"
3. "highly conserved"
4. "conserved in a lineage dependent manner"
5. "influenced"
6. "non-neutral"
7. "background selection"
8. "biased gene conversion"
9. "bias demographic inferences"

Nowhere in Danny's quotes are such terms defined or necessarily equated.

Danny Denier: "As any normal person can see, I agree 100% that ENCODE is right and evolution is wrong, but that is not Graur's context.
Graur believes ENCODE is wrong, therefore I am not in agreement with him; and anyone claiming I agree with Graur on that point is lying (hint, Alinsky Joe.)"

Nonsense, your dissembling here notwithstanding, you agree 100% with Graur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution is wrong.
But you also claim ENCODE said 80% of DNA is "constrained" or "conserved" by evolution, though no quote you've posted supports that directly.

Then Pouyet's Swiss Institute report found that 95% of DNA is "influenced" by what... by evolution?
No, not by evolution, they said, but rather by other functional DNA, which itself makes up circa 10%.

Seriously, Danny boy, for all I know you may well have legitimate quotes which say exactly what you claim here.
But so far I haven't seen them.

Danny Denier: "For the record, evolution is 100% false, with our without the ENCODE data."

Right, for the record, Danny boy agrees with Graur that for ENCODE to be right, evolution must be false, but disagrees with ENCODE that evolution is right.

Got that?

Danny Denier: "LOL! You are a hopeless case, Joey."

That is DD's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier: "Joe's theology is similar to that of the constitutional usurpers Jefferson warned us about::"

That's nothing more than DD's use of Denier Rule: divert, distract & dissemble.

Danny Denier: "Joey's version of science must be squeezed out of the biblical text, or invented against it.
The actual words of the Bible, themselves, are meaningless, to Joey."

Just more of DD's use of Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

[BroJoeK]

Based on Kalamata's many outrageous responses to my very reasonable posts, I've had to "revise & extend" my derived "Rules for Deniers" now several times.
So here is the latest updated list, first posted in #272 and #316:

Rules for Deniers

1. Rule #1: First, foremost & always: ignore all data which contradicts your own claims.

2. Rule #2: Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific.

3. Rule #3: Begin your presentation with a large collection of quotes & references -- some meticulously sourced, others mis-quotes, out of context & dubious provenance.

4. Rule #4: Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments.
   Equate defeat on his weakest points to defeat on every point -- "wrong on one = wrong on all."

5. Rule #5: Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.
   For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc.

6. Rule #6: If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down.
   Remember, for propaganda purposes a lie repeated boldly & often enough becomes true!

7. Rule #7: OK to personally insult, disparage & malign.

8. Rule #8: Guilt by association: if your opponent knows somebody who was wrong about something, then he is wrong about everything!

9. Rule #9: When all else fails, remember rule #1.

10. Rule #10: Shift the Burden of Proof to your opponent -- whatever you claim, no matter how ridiculous, demand your opponent "prove" it false.

11. Rule #11: When your lies are exposed, pretend ignorance.

12. Rule #12: When your lies are exposed, use the 3-Ds: divert, distract & dissemble.

13. Rule #13: Final Rule, when you've been totally defeated, when your lies are exposed, when your "logic" is revealed as nonsense, when nothing you say is believable, then Declare Total Victory!
    Announce that your side has already won and your despicable opponents are fading into history, nothing is left of their arguments but your victory dance in their football end zone.