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.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #336: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Delusional child."

Danny Denier: "Foolish child."

Those are just Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier: "No, Joey, I asked for evidence and you don’t know where to find it, because there is none."

That is just Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #1, #2, #5, #6, #7 .

Danny Denier on fossil evidence: "It is not a problem for me, Joey; it is a problem for charlatans like you — those trying to convince me and others that the lack of evidence is evidence.
Charlie explained how his theory was supposed to work.
Show us evidence that it actually worked, and I will become an evolutionist (again,) and fade away into the sunset.
In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath."

By your own claim, you already have "thousands of books" on the subject, so you already know where & what the evidence is, and you can't/won't see it.
Like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum, you can spend all day looking and never see it.

That is DD's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #1 & #9.

Danny Denier: "Fossils are evidence of a quick burial in sediment carried by a flood of highly-mineralized sea water, Joey.
I asked you for evidence of evolution."

More slavish obedience to Denier Rules #1, #2 & #9.

Danny Denier: "That is correct.
There is no evidence for evolution in any of my books, and I have a very extensive collection, covering all graduate-level evolutionary fields."

A remarkable admission of your obedience to Denier Rules #1 & #9.

Danny Denier claiming my words as his own: ">>Kalamata: “No Holocaust denier I debated ever made such an amazing claim.”"

Danny Denier: "You have never debated a holocaust denier.
That claim is your fallback when you cannot defend your warped religion of evolutionism.
Slander is the chief tool of practically every evolutionist."

That is Denier Rules #5, #6  with implied rule #10.

Danny Denier: "Joey, I exhort you to refrain from using Wikipedia as proof text.
It makes you look dumber than you already look."

Denier Rules #5 & #12.

Danny Denier: "Just when I begin to think you have finally ran out of dumb things to say, you say something even dumber.
Every evolutionary scholar worth his salt is aware that Darwin’s Tree of Life is a relic. "

"Tree of life" is a metaphor, just as is your own "bushes of life".
No metaphor is perfect -- if it was it wouldn't be a mere metaphor.

Danny Denier: "I am trying to be kind here, Joey, but your obsession in believing you know more about genetics than some of the top scientists in the world is similar to what is typically called, delusions of grandeur."

I am trying to be kind here, Danny boy, but your obsession in believing you somehow speak for some of the top scientists in the world is similar to what is typically called, delusions of grandeur.

That's Denier Rule #13, among others.

Danny Denier: "That is a just-so story, Joey. Science requires evidence."

Evidence which Danny Denier can't/won't see, Rule #1.

Danny Denier: "Thus far, Joey, I am unconvinced you have any knowlege about any field of evolution that we have been discussing.
You don’t seem to know even the most rudimentary aspects or doctrine.
Any child can search Wikipedia, or post photos of Museum mockups, as you are comfortable in doing.
But that is not science, Joey."

Thus far, Danny boy, I am unconvinced that you are anything more than an old-time Holocaust denier who now can't find an audience for such nonsense and so has switched over to the even bigger denial subject of evolution specifically, natural-science generally.
Any child can hand-wave at "thousands of books" or walk through museums proclaiming, "I see nothing!".
But that is neither science nor Christian religion, oh, Danny boy.

Danny Denier: "That is just another story, Joey, with no supporting evidence, and it is beyond obvious that you are completely and totally ignorant of modern research.
May I recommend you confine your debates to something other than science, such as Political Science, which is not science; or cooking, in which you will do well as long as you don’t burn the food or poison anyone."

Literal mountains of supporting evidence which Danny boy just won't see.

Danny Denier: "You are too scientifically illiterate to understand what I am about to say, Joey; but you are embarrassing yourself."

Denier Rule #7.

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier post #338: "Child."

Danny Denier: "Child."

More of Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Danny Denier: "You are promoting Wikipedia and other non-science websites, Joey.
Do you not know the difference between science and story-telling?"

Wikipedia is a perfectly legitimate source for mere lists of dozens of different techniques in dating ancient materials.
So you are here merely using Denier Rules #1, #6, #9 & #12.

Danny Denier On Jude 1:22: "What else does it say? Does it say this? -- Jude 1:23 KJV"

I believe in mercy.

Danny Denier: "There are no consistent dating methods for ancient materials, Joey."

Denier Rules #1, #6 & #9.

Danny Denier: "LOL! That is really funny, Joey.
I seriously thought you were trying to make a valid point."

Denier Rules #7 & #11.

Danny Denier: "But in the world of science, a global flood is the only explanation for the thick, sorted, uncontaminated, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary rock layers found world wide.
We are talking of an average of more than a mile of sedimentary rock layers covering the earth, Joey.
Sedimentary rock layers are deposited by water."

Sorry, but that's your theology, not natural science.
Science sees deposits laid down over billions of years mostly in swamps, rivers, lakes & oceans.
Those dating techniques for ancient materials which Danny boy claims don't exist, do and show no single global flood.

Danny Denier: "No, Joey. That is just another made-up story.
There is no evidence of any connection of coal layers to swamps.
Peat is formed in bogs, but not coal."

Rubbish,

"Coal Formation starts with accumulation of organic matter (bits of dead plants) in a low oxygen setting such as a peat bog.
The organic matter accumulates and forms a bed of peat.
The peat bed gets buried by other sediments and under heat and pressure begins to transform to a low grade coal - a Lignite.
More heat and pressure further metamorphose the lignite into Bituminous coal.
Even more heat and pressure metamorphose the bituminous coal into a nice hard shiny Anthracite."

That's what science says.
Danny boy has yet to tell us how he fantasizes coal formed.

Danny Denier: "Can you not read, Joey?
I said coal seams are typically flat?
Of course they would not be flat in areas of geological upheaval. "

Oh? "Geological upheaval"?
The sorts of continental movements which have been measured moving at the same rate as our fingernails grow, which would take millions of years to thrust up mountain ranges -- oh, that "geological upheaval".

Danny Denier: "That should tell you that plants and leaves in coal layers do not necessarily become coal."

That photo shows a piece of coal with the impression of a plant in it.
It's all coal, even the impression.

Danny Denier: "The late Derek Ager was a world-famous evolutionary geologist, Joey.
I can safely say that nothing Derek Ager wrote in any of his papers and books can be seriously classified as "nonsense"."

Oh Danny boy, anti-Creationist geologist Derek Ager (1923-1993) recognized the importance of catastrophes in geological terms.

" In recent years many geologists, especially Derek Ager, have recognized the importance of ancient NATURAL catastrophes in forming the geologic record.
Modern "uniformitarianists" (also called actualists) realize that the geologic record is a product of both LOCALIZED NATURAL catastrophes (including: ancient earthquakes, hurricanes, meteorite impacts and landslides) and slow and gradual processes (such as solar evaporation to form salt deposits, blueschist metamorphism and most dolomitization).

Although there is absolutely no evidence that any of these non-contemporaneous, localized and natural catastrophes had anything to do with a Biblical worldwide flood, young-Earth creationists (YECs) are fond of hijacking Ager's neocatastrophism and attempting to exploit it to support their flood myth.
A good example of the misapplication of Ager's ideas may be seen in a recent essay by YEC Tas Walker.
(For further discussions on the invalid geology in Walker's "pipe dream," see the following essay by Gary Hurd.)

"Like many YECs, Walker invokes Ager (1993) to prop up his medieval views.
However, Ager (1995) did not appreciate YECs distorting his ideas to support "Noah's Flood."
Specifically, Ager (1995, p. xi) vents his frustrations with both YECs and the antiquated Lyell Uniformitarian extremists by making the following statements:

'For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell.
Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable.
This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.

'On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis.
That is why I think it necessary to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists'(who I refuse to call 'scientific').'[by Dr. Kevin R. Henke, Ager's emphasis,]"

Your post #300 quote of Ager ends with:

"This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous"

I simply agree with Ager that his previous calculations were "ridiculous".
I have no problem at all with his ideas about catastrophism or his opposition to Young Earth Creationists hijacking his words for their own nefarious purposes.

Danny Denier: "So?"

Ager himself recognized his calculations were "ridiculous", my word was "nonsense".
Those petrified trees may demonstrate what he was talking about.

Danny Denier: "I am not yet blind, Joey.
Erosion is easy to spot."

Then open your good eyes and reject weak reed arguments.
You can't see erosion when a geological layer is eroded away.
I've twice already posted this map of very small regions with Silurian deposits across the western hemisphere.
Where such deposits are absent there's no way to say for certain if A) they were never there or B) they were there but eroded away.

Danny Denier: "That is not the point, Joey.
The point is, the bottom layer remained in position for supposedly 100 million years, with virtually no observable erosion during that time, until the next layer was deposited on top of it.
That is a pretty neat trick, if the 100 million year time frame is true.
Supernatural, even."

So... first, are you hoping to tell us the absence of Ordovician or Silurian evidence is evidence of Noah's flood?
Second, in a sense the Universe and everything in it is supernatural, but science can only research natural explanations for natural processes.
In this particular case you don't know what layers eroded away so there's no way to say if Ordovician & Silurian layers were ever even there.

Danny Denier: "Faith is the evidence of things not seen, Joey.
It is okay to have a religion, as long as you don't pretend it is science and try to ram it down children's throats."

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

Danny Denier: "Are you saying the lack of evidence for erosion is evidence for erosion?
That is pretty crazy, Joey."

No, but in this case it is your crazy claim.
You tell us because we don't see Devonian & Silurian deposits in the Grand Canyon, that is evidence of Noah's flood!

Danny Denier: "How did we only shale for 30 million years without any sand or limestone mixed in?
How do we get limestone for 20 million years with no sand and shale? Do you see my point?
It would be virtually impossible for the geological column to form slowly, as you prescribe."

No, because your point is pure nonsense.
Deposits get laid down underwater by whatever material happens to erode to make them.

Danny Denier: "Bioturbation is the mixing of surface layering my boring animals, down to as deep as perhaps 20-25 feet.
If there is no significant bioturbation found in the layer, it was deposited rapidly, and then immediately covered by subsequent layering to prevent boring animals from mixing the lamination."

Well... that's a nice fantasy, er, "hypothesis".
So you can cite peer reviewed scientific studies where your idea was researched, tested & confirmed or falsified?

Danny Denier: "Not one of those local floods deposited thousands of feet of sorted sedimentary rock layers over the entire world."

You know, Danny boy, while you were inventing this geological fantasy, did you ever stop to wonder how sometimes those sedimentary rocks are found underneath igneous or metamorphic layers?

Danny Denier: "If mankind lived on the high ground, away from violent animals, their fossils would be found only in the upper most levels, or buried in the world-wide continental shelf where they were swept away to by rapidly receding flood waters."

And you first learned this fantasy of "high ground" living where, exactly?

Danny Denier: "It is written in Genesis 9 that Noah's family repopulated the earth after the flood, Joey."

DNA and fossil evidence suggest something quite different, Danny boy.

Some people argue that some of these dates are off, they say for example the Americas were populated well before 12,500 years ago.
But no physical or DNA evidence suggests an entirely different "theory" of world population.

[BroJoeK]

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

I "get" that you don't like Paine and some European Enlightenment figures.
Unlike most Founders Paine was not popular with Americans after the war.
But during the Revolutionary War Paine not only helped explain it to Americans, he also helped negotiate millions of dollars in foreign aid from European countries.

Paine's religious views did not reflect those of any other Founders I can think of.

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

Agreed.

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

Sorry, but your list here is a jumble of names from multiple historical periods:

1. Renaissance (1400 to ~1700):
   Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Steno, Harvey, Copernicus

2. Age of Enlightenment (circa 1700 to 1800)
   Bacon (?), Hooke, Hugens, Newton, Linnaeus

3. "Romantic" Era (1800 to 1850)
   Herschel, Faraday, Davy, Cuvier, Dalton, Joule

4. Victorian Era (1850 to 1900)
   Morse, Henry, Maury, Mendel, Darwin, Lyell, Pasteur

5. Modern Era (since 1900) Maxwell, Kelvin

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

Newton -- Enlightenment
Faraday -- Romantic
Maxwell -- Modern era.
Einstein -- Modern era.

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

You are often at odds, if not at war, with traditions of the our Founders and their Enlightenment era.
You have more in common with those who persecuted Galileo & Copernicus' ideas than the scientists themselves.

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

Agreed, though Washington himself did not necessarily agree with everything taught in church.

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

Oh Danny boy, for many historians the short Enlightenment era ended with the French Revolution, when the high ideals of our Founders' reasoning met the realities of French revolutionary passions.

Kalamata: "The most destructive invention, to date, is the "separation of church and state" usurpation.
It is tragically ironic that Jefferson, the person who warned us against such an invention, had his own words taken out of context..."

Agreed, certainly in the extremes to which separation is sometimes taken.

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

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

Oh Danny boy, Galileo was convicted for heresy, a crime, in reference to: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5.

I'll come back to your lengthy post #341 later.

[Kalamata]

>>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.”
>>Delusional Joey said, “In fact, tree rings can be an exact science for people who know how to count.”

Only to the delusional, Joey. It is, however, a fact that old-earther assumptions and desires tend to cloud the interpretation of any data.

The number of tree rings formed in a year is variable, depending on the climate and other factors; and there have been wild climate swings since the flood.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said, “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.”

Tree ring dating from archaeological sites are valid only for the general area of the site in which the tree is found.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “Ice cores have also proven useless for dating, since the discovery of rapid deposition and non-annual layering.”
>>Delusional Joey said, “Mythological problems, suitable for denier purposes only. In fact: “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: geochemisty, wiggle matching of ice core records to insolation time series (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010), layers of volcanic ash (tephra) (Vinther et al., 2006), electrical conductivity, and using numerical flow models to understand age-depth relationships (Mulvaney et al., 2012), combined with firn densification modeling to estimate the delta-age (Lemieux-Dudon et al. 2010).”

There are way too many assumptions built into old-earth methodology to be believable, Joey. Foremost, the layers are not necessarily annual; and circular reasoning is utilized to adjust counts to fit old-earth expectations.

At current average precipation rates, the Antartic and Greenland ice sheets would form in only 10,000 and 5,000 years, respectively, absent melting, which mocks the hundreds of thousands of years claimed under old-earth models. Even then, the supposed “annual” layers of the Greenland GISP2 were far fewer than predicted, by about half.

In the flood model, the ice age that followed was generated by much higher precipication rates from evaporative ocean water warmed by widespread geological upheavels.

*****************
>>Delusional Joey said, “Ten different ways to use ice cores in dating ancient events & conditions. “

Yeah, sure. Perhaps you will pick any one of them and explain how it works, and how accuracy is determined.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier: "The 2012 ENCODE report stated 80% is functional, which means 80% is constrained."
>>Delusional Joey said, "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."
>>Delusional Joey said, "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!

I see you are going to beat this dead horse flat unless you understand my point, so let's try another way.

In 2012, ENCODE claimed 80% of the genome is biochemically functional, which means 80% is constrained, which means 80% cannot evolve because it is necessary for the operations of the organism, in one manner or another. The following statement is from a report on the ENCODE report by Ed Yong of Discover Magazine:

"According to ENCODE's analysis, 80 percent of the genome has a 'biochemical function'. More on exactly what this means later, but the key point is: It's not 'junk'. Scientists have long recognised that some non-coding DNA has a function, and more and more solid examples have come to light [edited for clarity – Ed]. But, many maintained that much of these sequences were, indeed, junk. ENCODE says otherwise. 'Almost every nucleotide is associated with a function of some sort or another, and we now know where they are, what binds to them, what their associations are, and more,' says Tom Gingeras, one of the study's many senior scientists. And what's in the remaining 20 percent? Possibly not junk either, according to Ewan Birney, the project's Lead Analysis Coordinator and self-described 'cat-herder-in-chief'. He explains that ENCODE only (!) looked at 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand. A given part of the genome might control a gene in one cell type, but not others. If every cell is included, functions may emerge for the phantom proportion. 'It's likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent,' says Birney. 'We don't really have any large chunks of redundant DNA. This metaphor of junk isn't that useful.'" [Ed Yong, "ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome." Discover Magazine, Sept 5, 2012]

So, in 2012, ENCODE's Lead Analysis Coordinator, Ewan Birney, claimed 80% of the genome was functional, and will probably go to 100%. Perhaps the confusion lies in the definition of "functional", which is mentioned later in Yong's report, as follows:

"To get from 20 to 80 percent, we include all the other elements that ENCODE looked for – not just the sequences that have proteins latched onto them, but those that affects how DNA is packaged and those that are transcribed at all. Birney says, '[That figure] best coveys the difference between a genome made mostly of dead wood and one that is alive with activity.'

"That 80 percent covers many classes of sequence that were thought to be essentially functionless. These include introns – the parts of a gene that are cut out at the RNA stage, and don't contribute to a protein's manufacture. 'The idea that introns are definitely deadweight isn't true,' says Birney. The same could be said for our many repetitive sequences: small chunks of DNA that have the ability to copy themselves, and are found in large, recurring chains. These are typically viewed as parasites, which duplicate themselves at the expense of the rest of the genome. Or are they?

"The youngest of these sequences – those that have copied themselves only recently in our history – still pose a problem for ENCODE. But many of the older ones, the genomic veterans, fall within the 'functional' category. Some contain sequences where proteins can bind, and influence the activity of nearby genes. Perhaps their spread across the genome represents not the invasion of a parasite, but a way of spreading control. 'These parasites can be subverted sometimes,' says Birney.

"He expects that many skeptics will argue about the 80 percent figure, and the definition of 'functional'. But he says, 'No matter how you cut it, we've got to get used to the fact that there's a lot more going on with the genome than we knew.'"

[Ed Yong, "ENCODE: the rough guide to the human genome." Discover Magazine, Sept 5, 2012]

My understanding of the genome is similar to Birney's: if it is actively involved, then it is functional.

Now, from the report by the Swiss team, 6 years later, which conveys a different definition of functionality, sorta:

"The frequencies of some genetic variants can change over time, which makes human populations diverge genetically and physically. This can happen through different mechanisms. Positive selection keeps variants that are beneficial in specific environments, while negative selection removes genetic changes that are detrimental, for example because they cause disease. Transmission bias favors one of the two variants from our two parents. Chance alters the frequencies of neutral variants, which are neither good nor bad for the individual.

"It is important to distinguish between these different scenarios, as they inform us about the forces that act on human evolution. For example, neutral variants tell us about the demography and migration patterns between populations. Variants under negative selection reveal which genetic areas are under pressure to stay the same because they are important for the organism to function correctly. Until now, it was unclear how we could best identify the variants affected by different evolutionary pressures, and how much of the genome was under negative selection.

"Pouyet, Aeschbacher et al. created a measure of genetic diversity that is only affected by selection or transmission bias. The results showed that negative selection influences as much as 85 percent of our genome, whereas transmission bias affects a majority of the rest of the genome. After removing these two biases, less than 5 percent of the human genome is found to evolve by chance. This suggests that while most of our genetic material is formed of non-functional sequences, the vast majority of it evolves indirectly under some type of selection.

[Pouyet et al, "Background selection and biased gene conversion affect more than 95% of the human genome and bias demographic inferences." eLife, Aug 20, 2018]

As you can see, the part that ENCODE labels as "functional," the Swiss labels mostly as either "variants under negative selection", or "variants under transmission bias". The result is the same. The last sentence essentially states, "we haven't a clue how the vast majority of the genome evolves."

The report that seemed to confuse you was this one:

"'What we find is that less than 5% of the human genome can actually be considered as"neutral', says Fanny Pouyet, lead author of the study. "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. These functional sites encompass both genes and regions involved in gene regulation." ["A Genome Under Influence: The faulty yardstick in genomics studies and how to cope with it." Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, October 9, 2018]

Don't let the evolutionism mumbo-jumbo fool you, Joey. If a part of the genome is influenced by functional sites, it is also functional in one manner or another, which you can deduce from this statement:

"Variants under negative selection reveal which genetic areas are under pressure to stay the same because they are important for the organism to function correctly."

That, in itself encompasses as much as 85% or the genome. That is essentially what ENCODE was trying to tell you.

A followup report on that report explains some of the previously unexplained:

"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." [Jeffrey P. Tomkins, "95% of Human Genome Can't Evolve." Institute for Creation Research, Oct 25, 2018]

In summary, the constrained part of the genome, the part that cold not randomly evolve, went from 80% in 2012, to more than 95% in 2018.

I hope that helps.

Mr. Kalamata

[reasonisfaith]

Evolution claims genetic mutation brings adaptive change.

But random mutations cannot result in viable proteins.

[reasonisfaith]

“What the evidence suggests is that very simple life did somehow begin billions of years ago and then very slowly complexified.”

You mean where the fossil evidence shows thousands of advanced species suddenly appearing at the same time, with practically previously existing species?

[Kalamata]

>>Delusional Joey wrote, “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:

Delusional Joey’s Rules for Deniers Fits Delusional Joey perfectly. However, he left out one:

Rule #14: Confuse, confuse, confuse, and whine, whine, whine.

Joey is such a whiny child . . .

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier post #3 36: “Child.” Danny Denier: “Child.” Danny Denier: “Child.” Danny Denier: “Child.” Danny Denier: “Delusional child.” Danny Denier: “Foolish child.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Those are just Kalamata’s slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.”

Whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “No, Joey, I asked for evidence and you don’t know where to find it, because there is none.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “That is just Kalamata’s slavish obedience to Denier Rules #1, #2, #5, #6, #7 .

Quit whining. Show us some observable, repeatable scientific evidence, child, and you can put this matter to rest. No highly-imaginative museum mockups, or appeals to your mystical “mountains of evidence,” please.

*****************
>>Danny Denier on fossil evidence: “It is not a problem for me, Joey; it is a problem for charlatans like you — those trying to convince me and others that the lack of evidence is evidence. Charlie explained how his theory was supposed to work. Show us evidence that it actually worked, and I will become an evolutionist (again,) and fade away into the sunset. In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “By your own claim, you already have “thousands of books” on the subject, so you already know where & what the evidence is, and you can’t/won’t see it.

Joey, I have in my library, for quick reference, most of the commonly referenced paleontology books that have been published over the last 30 or 40 years. Perhaps you will be so kind as to point to a page number and paragraph in any of them where I can find scientifically veriable evidence for common descent. If you will do so, I will post the paragraph in context, for everyone to read, and I will admit that evolution is true.

Fair enough, Whiny Child?

*****************
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Like a Holocaust denier in a Holocaust museum, you can spend all day looking and never see it. That is DD’s slavish obedience to Denier Rules #1 & #9.

When all else fails, Whiny Joey seeks one of the refuges of scoundrels, in this case, slander! Some of the other refugees, which Joey frequently resorts to, are called “appeals to authority,”, such as “overwhelming evidence,” or “consensus says,” or the “Federal Courts ruled.” But none of that is science, but rather is brow-beating — thuggery.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “Fossils are evidence of a quick burial in sediment carried by a flood of highly-mineralized sea water, Joey. I asked you for evidence of evolution.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “More slavish obedience to Denier Rules #1, #2 & #9.”

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “That is correct. There is no evidence for evolution in any of my books, and I have a very extensive collection, covering all graduate-level evolutionary fields.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “A remarkable admission of your obedience to Denier Rules #1 & #9.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “You have never debated a holocaust denier. That claim is your fallback when you cannot defend your warped religion of evolutionism. Slander is the chief tool of practically every evolutionist.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “That is Denier Rules #5, #6  with implied rule #10.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “Joey, I exhort you to refrain from using Wikipedia as proof text. It makes you look dumber than you already look.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Denier Rules #5 & #12.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “Just when I begin to think you have finally ran out of dumb things to say, you say something even dumber. Every evolutionary scholar worth his salt is aware that Darwin’s Tree of Life is a relic. “
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Tree of life” is a metaphor, just as is your own “bushes of life”. No metaphor is perfect — if it was it wouldn’t be a mere metaphor.

There is plenty of evidence for a bush of life, but none for a tree of life. Besides, the bush of was coined by a devout evolutionist, Craig Venter, to the astonishment of other devout evolutionists in the room (naughty, naughty, musn’t publically doubt Darwin.)

This is Venter. The “bush of life” part comes about 2 minutes into this segment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBPAOaC_KaY&t=07m48s

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “I am trying to be kind here, Joey, but your obsession in believing you know more about genetics than some of the top scientists in the world is similar to what is typically called, delusions of grandeur.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “I am trying to be kind here, Danny boy, but your obsession in believing you somehow speak for some of the top scientists in the world is similar to what is typically called, delusions of grandeur. That’s Denier Rule #13, among others.”

I quote them, Joey. You pretend to speak for them through your CNN, I mean Snopes, I mean Wikipedia copy/paste adventures.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “That is a just-so story, Joey. Science requires evidence.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Evidence which Danny Denier can’t/won’t see, Rule #1.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “Thus far, Joey, I am unconvinced you have any knowlege about any field of evolution that we have been discussing. You don’t seem to know even the most rudimentary aspects or doctrine. Any child can search Wikipedia, or post photos of Museum mockups, as you are comfortable in doing. But that is not science, Joey.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Thus far, Danny boy, I am unconvinced that you are anything more than an old-time Holocaust denier who now can’t find an audience for such nonsense and so has switched over to the even bigger denial subject of evolution specifically, natural-science generally.

Joey is obviously comfortable in slandering Jews who do not buy into his warped worldview. Isn’t slander a Far-Left political tactic? Of course it is. They also whine when they do not get their way, like Joey. Therefore, it is reasonable to assumen that Joey is a closet Leftist. Perhaps one of the Seminar Caller types.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Any child can hand-wave at “thousands of books” or walk through museums proclaiming, “I see nothing!”. But that is neither science nor Christian religion, oh, Danny boy.

The truth of the matter is that I don’t have enough faith to believe in evolutionism. I require scientific evidence. I should have been from Missouri.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “That is just another story, Joey, with no supporting evidence, and it is beyond obvious that you are completely and totally ignorant of modern research. May I recommend you confine your debates to something other than science, such as Political Science, which is not science; or cooking, in which you will do well as long as you don’t burn the food or poison anyone.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Literal mountains of supporting evidence which Danny boy just won’t see.

I see Joey has returned to hand-waving and appeals to authority.

Still no evidence of evolution from the whiny child.

*****************
>>Danny Denier: “You are too scientifically illiterate to understand what I am about to say, Joey; but you are embarrassing yourself.”
>>Whiny Joey wrote: “Denier Rule #7.

Whiny child.

Mr. Kalamata

[reasonisfaith]

I meant to say practically NO previously existing species.

[reasonisfaith]

The strength of evolution theory is derived from our everyday experience with animals changing in one or more generations. So it’s very easy to think of animals changing, because we’ve seen it happen when different dog breeds are mixed.

The weakness of evolution theory is that animals changing from one species into another is, in and of itself, an extremely radical proposition, and more important that it has never been observed

[BroJoeK]

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

Yes, enough to know the difference between real science and denier theology masquerading as science.

Danny Denier on St. Augustine: "Show us what you are talking about, Joey."

I already did, post #284.

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

I agree that's exactly what Augustine believed.

Danny Denier: "So, which is it?
Is a thousand years a day, or a day a thousand years?
Will the thousand-year reign of Christ last a day?
Was Christ in the ground 3,000 years?
It is a metaphor Joey, to let us know that God exists outside of time."

Right, Danny boy, your last sentence is the answer to the first four.

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

More of Danny boy's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5 & #6.

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

So far as I know Newton had nothing to say about evolution.
He did however make a comment that I think highly appropriate:

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

Many of our Founders studied the ancient philosophers, historians & theologians, to learn from history which systems of government worked best and lasted longest.
St. Augustine of Hippo did not philosophize on republican forms of government, but he did have something to say on two subjects of great interest to our Founders:

1. Christian service in a just war -- he favored it.

2. Slavery -- he opposed it, especially child slavery.

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

Erasmus Darwin was a figure in what's called the British Midlands Enlightenment centered around Birmingham and focused on science & industry.
On his relationship to evolution, it's important first to understand that the word "evolution" was used long before it took on its current meaning.
Indeed, if I understand correctly, Charles Darwin himself never used the word "evolution" in his main book and the word only later came to be associated with his ideas.

In Erasmus Darwin's time "evolution" could refer to Lamarck's ideas on acquired characteristics, ideas which were not originally falsified until Mendel's work on genetics.

Danny Denier on Shermer: "No, he is your hero.
He is my enemy, and an enemy of Christianity and our republic.
I do have to admit, Joey, that was a very slick misdirection by you."

No misdirection, exactly on point because... as with Graur, Danny boy, you trash him up one side and down the other until, until... until you need him to make your point and then suddenly his words are golden, not to be disputed.
The fact is that neither Shermer nor any other credible historian claims Hitler learned anti-Semitism from Darwin or needed evolution theory to justify his Holocaust ideas.

Danny Denier: "Why did you stop there, Joey?
The very next sentence, citing Bowler, 2003, states: "His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it...
"You tried to pull another fast one, Joey.
That is a no, no."

Danny boy, when are you going to stop lying?
Your own quote, in many more words, made the same point I did:

"For Darwin, at least, 'fitness' in the human context did not include the kind of immorality which would justify any action by the motto 'Might is right.'
The fit were the able and energetic, not those who cheated or forced their way to success.""

So there is no possible way Darwin would support the Holocaust, and your suggestions here are flat out lies, Danny.

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

Nothing justifies your repeated lies here blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, Danny boy.

Danny Denier: "The following quote from Mein Kampf sounds like something Charlie's eugenicist cousin, Francis Galton, might write:

"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker..."

Such ideas did not originate with Darwin.

Danny Denier: "That sounds like Darwin 101, to me."

Nonsense.

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

Your own quote says biological arguments for racism existed before Darwin, Darwin did not invent them.
And Gould did not say racism increased, only that biological arguments for it increased.
The levels of racism in the USA, for example, were not a function of Darwin's words, but were related to words in the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and to Democrat terrorists like the KKK.

The next part of your post #341 gets into theology, so will stop here for now...

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier post #338: "Child." Danny Denier: "Child."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "More of Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You are promoting Wikipedia and other non-science websites, Joey. Do you not know the difference between science and story-telling?"
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Wikipedia is a perfectly legitimate source for mere lists of dozens of different techniques in dating ancient materials. So you are here merely using Denier Rules #1, #6, #9 & #12.

The Left-leaning Wikipedia is the Snopes of the evolutionism cult.

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

>>Danny Denier On Jude 1:22: "What else does it say? Does it say this? -- Jude 1:23 KJV"
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "I believe in mercy.

So, you don't believe the rest of what he said? Do you think the Bible is a menu? How about this verse:

"I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities." -- Jude 1:5-8 KJV

Do you believe Sodom and Gomorrha were real cities that the Lord destroyed in the days of Lot and Abraham, Joey? Jude seems to think so.

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

>>Danny Denier: "There are no consistent dating methods for ancient materials, Joey."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Denier Rules #1, #6 & #9.

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "LOL! That is really funny, Joey. I seriously thought you were trying to make a valid point."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Denier Rules #7 & #11.

Child, don't you remember the story I posted earlier on Radiometric (RM) Dating surrounding the famous anthropologist, Richard Leakey, and his encounter with the East African KBS-Tuff strata and the KNM-ER fossil. The rocks were initially RM dated to 212-230 MA (MA = million years). However, it was later determined there must have been an error in the Argon age due to the presence of certain fossils, and that the “real” age should be between 2 and 5 million years. In other words, the fossils determined the dates, not the radiometric laboratory. Dates were instantly reduced over 200 million years due to the presence of those fossils.

To make a long story short, after many re-tries, Leakey's bunch finally got the date they were looking for; but not from the expensive laboratory RM dating attempts, but rather from the presence of a fossilized pig’s tooth. You see, evolutionists rely on a circular argument for dating fossils and rocks: fossils are used to date the rocks, and rocks are used to date the fossils. But, above all else, they rely on their faith that evolution is true, no matter what. If the data doesn't fit, make it fit!

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

>>Danny Denier: "But in the world of science, a global flood is the only explanation for the thick, sorted, uncontaminated, uneroded, unbioturbated, marine-fossil-laden sedimentary rock layers found world wide. We are talking of an average of more than a mile of sedimentary rock layers covering the earth, Joey. Sedimentary rock layers are deposited by water."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Sorry, but that's your theology, not natural science. Science sees deposits laid down over billions of years mostly in swamps, rivers, lakes & oceans.

Incredible! The books on geology by the Moses-hating lawyer Charles Lyell contain the dumbest theories on strata deposition imaginable; but theologian Charlie Darwin believed it, as does much of his cult following.

The truth is, science doesn't see anything. Ideologically-driven "scientists" interpret geological data according to their worldview, which is typically a worldview based on the theological doctrine of Lyell.

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

>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Those dating techniques for ancient materials which Danny boy claims don't exist, do and show no single global flood.

Only to the geologically-challenged or the ideologically-blinded, Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "No, Joey. That is just another made-up story. There is no evidence of any connection of coal layers to swamps. Peat is formed in bogs, but not coal."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Rubbish, "Coal Formation starts with accumulation of organic matter (bits of dead plants) in a low oxygen setting such as a peat bog. . . . (BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.) That's what science says."

There is no science to be found in that link, Joey; it is simply another in a long list of just-so stories passed off as science to the gullible. For the rest of you, this photo shows several coal layers that formed within hydrologically-sorted sedimentary layers.

You will not find evidence of a swamp below any of those coal seams: only flat sedimentary rock.

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

>>Danny boy has yet to tell us how he fantasizes coal formed. Danny Denier: "Can you not read, Joey? I said coal seams are typically flat? Of course they would not be flat in areas of geological upheaval. "
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Oh? "Geological upheaval"? The sorts of continental movements which have been measured moving at the same rate as our fingernails grow, which would take millions of years to thrust up mountain ranges -- oh, that "geological upheaval".

No, Child, it requires rapid plate movement with the momentum to push up enormous, sedimentary-rock covered mountain ranges. Instead of inches per year, try meters per second.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That should tell you that plants and leaves in coal layers do not necessarily become coal."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Oh? "That photo shows a piece of coal with the impression of a plant in it. It's all coal, even the impression.

No, Joey. That is picture of a fossilized fern leaf on layer of coal. If you examine the coal, it was probably formed from a large chunk of bark.

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

>>Danny Denier: "The late Derek Ager was a world-famous evolutionary geologist, Joey. I can safely say that nothing Derek Ager wrote in any of his papers and books can be seriously classified as "nonsense"."
>>Whiny Joey wrote: "Oh Danny boy, anti-Creationist geologist Derek Ager (1923-1993) recognized the importance of catastrophes in geological terms.

I mentioned that earlier in #300, Joey, where I wrote,

"Derek Ager was a devout evolutionist who served as a professor of Geology and as President of the British Geological Association; yet, he rejected uniformitarianism, generally. However, you can "see" him kiss the ring of Charles Lyell in the last sentence in order to keep the evolutionism fundamentalists off his back."

LOL!

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

>>Whiny Joey quotes from a hit-piece against creationists from the amateurish, "Non-Answers In Genesis" site, also called "NAGs":

"In recent years many geologists, especially Derek Ager, have recognized the importance of ancient NATURAL catastrophes in forming the geologic record." [NAGs]

Now I am confused, Joey. Did you not write this statement earlier in this very post?

"Sorry, but that's [Kalamata's] theology, not natural science. Science sees deposits laid down over billions of years mostly in swamps, rivers, lakes & oceans."[Joey]

Well, which is it, Child: gradualism, or catastrophisim? (Joey is still suffering from short-term memory loss.) Continuing:

"modern "uniformitarianists" (also called actualists) realize that the geologic record is a product of both LOCALIZED NATURAL catastrophes (including: ancient earthquakes, hurricanes, meteorite impacts and landslides) and slow and gradual processes (such as solar evaporation to form salt deposits, blueschist metamorphism and most dolomitization)." [NAGs]

I wonder how the NAGS might explain the 5 or so perfectly-sorted, micritic-carbonate-capped megasequences discovered by the geologist Sloss? I am particularly curious how they might try to explain away the micritic carbonate caps. Continuing:

"Although there is absolutely no evidence that any of these non-contemporaneous, localized and natural catastrophes had anything to do with a Biblical worldwide flood," [NAGs]

Only a mind-numbed ideologue would make a foolish statement like that. Continuing:

"young-Earth creationists (YECs) are fond of hijacking Ager's neocatastrophism and attempting to exploit it to support their flood myth. . . Like many YECs, Walker invokes Ager (1993) to prop up his medieval views." [NAGs]

A rule of thumb in the evolutionism cult smear game is:

1) If creationists quote secular scientists, the creationists are guilty of hijacking the secular scientists' work.
2) If creationists quote other creationists, they are guilty of avoiding peer-reviewed sources.

Now you know how the "you can't win" smear game is played by the devout, fundamentalist evolutionist. Continuing:

"However, Ager (1995) did not appreciate YECs distorting his ideas to support "Noah's Flood." Specifically, Ager (1995, p. xi) vents his frustrations with both YECs and the antiquated Lyell Uniformitarian extremists"

LOL! According to Dr. Terry Mortenson, creation scientists don't much care whether Ager appreciates those who reference his work, or not. Besides, Ager is dead, now, and he knows the truth. Continuing, but this time with Ager:

"I should, perhaps, say something about the title of this book. Just as politicians rewrite human history, so geologists rewrite earth history. For a century and a half the geological world has been dominated, one might even say brain-washed, by the gradualistic uniformitarianism of Charles Lyell. Any suggestion of 'catastrophic' events has been rejected as old-fashioned, unscientific and even laughable. This is partly due to the extremism of some of Cuvier's followers, though not of Cuvier himself.

"On that side too were the obviously untenable views of bible-oriented fanatics, obsessed with myths such as Noah's flood, and of classicists thinking of Nemesis. That is why I think it necessity to include the following 'disclaimer': in view of the misuse that my words have been put to in the past, I wish to say that nothing in this book should be taken out of context and thought in any way to support the views of the 'creationists' (who I refuse to call 'scientific')."

[Derek V. Ager, "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History." Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 42019 9, 1993, Preface, p.xi]

We love you anyway, Derek. After all, you did help shatter the uniformitarian myth.

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

>>Whiny Joey said: "Your post #300 quote of Ager ends with: "This is equally ridiculous and we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid indeed and at other times there were long breaks in sedimentation, though it looks both uniform and continuous."
>>Whiny Joey said: "I simply agree with Ager that his previous calculations were "ridiculous".

Ager never said his previous calculations were ridiculous. In his calculations regarding polystrate trees, he merely explained that applying uniformitarian principles to those polystrate coal seam trees is ridiculous. I am not sure if he mentioned that polystrates have been found pointing upward through multiple coal seams, which is evidence of rapid coal seam formation over perhaps a year, rather than hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years.

>>Whiny Joey said: "I have no problem at all with his ideas about catastrophism or his opposition to Young Earth Creationists hijacking his words for their own nefarious purposes."

We have not hijacked Ager's work, Child. Creation scientists were catastrophists long before Ager showed up. In fact, creationists do not believe he took his work far enough, either from lack of understanding of the geological column, or due to peer pressure from other members of the evolutionism establishment, or due to sheer hatred for creationists. Whatever the case, we are happy he took that first step toward geological sanity.

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

>>Whiny Joey said: "Ager himself recognized his calculations were "ridiculous", my word was "nonsense".

No, Joey, you misunderstood him, or you are not making yourself clear.

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

>>Whiny Joey said: "Those petrified trees may demonstrate what he was talking about."

Those trees reveal only that, at one time, they were buried in highly-mineralized mud, of some sort.

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

>>Danny Denier: "I am not yet blind, Joey. Erosion is easy to spot."
>>Whiny Joey said: "Then open your good eyes and reject weak reed arguments. You can't see erosion when a geological layer is eroded away. I've twice already posted this map of very small regions with Silurian deposits across the western hemisphere. Where such deposits are absent there's no way to say for certain if A) they were never there or B) they were there but eroded away.

You are avoiding my point, Joey, which is the widespread presence of uneroded, unbioturbated strata in the geological column. The photo posted above of the alternate mud-coal layering demonstrates the absence of erosion.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That is not the point, Joey. The point is, the bottom layer remained in position for supposedly 100 million years, with virtually no observable erosion during that time, until the next layer was deposited on top of it. That is a pretty neat trick, if the 100 million year time frame is true. Supernatural, even."
>>Whiny Joey said: "So... first, are you hoping to tell us the absence of Ordovician or Silurian evidence is evidence of Noah's flood?

No, Joey. The presence of uneroded, unbioturbated, layering is evidence enough of a global flood. The lack of erosion of the layers "sandwiching" a missing layer is additional evidence that cannot be quibbled or obfuscated away.

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

>>Whiny Joey said: Second, in a sense the Universe and everything in it is supernatural, but science can only research natural explanations for natural processes. In this particular case you don't know what layers eroded away so there's no way to say if Ordovician & Silurian layers were ever even there.

LOL! It this guy for real? Nobody cares about the missing layer, Joey. The lack of erosion in the layers adjacent to the missing layer is what should make any old-earth geologist worth his salt reconsider his intrepretations.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Faith is the evidence of things not seen, Joey. It is okay to have a religion, as long as you don't pretend it is science and try to ram it down children's throats."
>>Whiny Joey said: Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you...

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Are you saying the lack of evidence for erosion is evidence for erosion? That is pretty crazy, Joey."
>>Whiny Joey said: "No, but in this case it is your crazy claim. ou tell us because we don't see Devonian & Silurian deposits in the Grand Canyon, that is evidence of Noah's flood!

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, Joey, or are you logically-challenged? This was your statement that I responded to:

"first, you can't see what's been eroded away." [Joey]

If I didn't know better, I would think you were trying to be funny, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "How did we get only shale for 30 million years without any sand or limestone mixed in? How do we get limestone for 20 million years with no sand and shale? Do you see my point? It would be virtually impossible for the geological column to form slowly, as you prescribe."
>>Whiny Joey said: "No, because your point is pure nonsense. Deposits get laid down underwater by whatever material happens to erode to make them.

LOL! This is like talking to a wall.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Bioturbation is the mixing of surface layering by boring animals, down to as deep as perhaps 20-25 feet. If there is no significant bioturbation found in the layer, it was deposited rapidly, and then immediately covered by subsequent layering to prevent boring animals from mixing the lamination."
>>Whiny Joey said: "Well... that's a nice fantasy, er, "hypothesis.

That is an observable, scientific fact, Joey. Practically everywhere you walk on earth, even in many desert areas, there is evidence of bioturbation. There is also evidence of the beginning of bioturbation in many of the sedimentary rock layers, which suddenly stopped, leaving only a few tunnels and fossilized borers. That reveals there was potential for bioturbation, but some process stopped it, such as a new layer of sediment.

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

>>Whiny Joey said: "So you can cite peer-reviewed scientific studies where your idea was researched, tested & confirmed or falsified?"

This is a good paper on bioturbation by Gingras et al:

https://www.slb.com/-/media/files/oilfield-review/4-bioturbation-english

These parts from Gingras et al. explains bioturbation. They also mention sequence stratigraphy:

"Highly to completely burrowed sediments are evidence of both a significant infaunal biomass and conditions of slow sediment accumulation. Moderate to sparse bioturbation, characterized by evenly distributed trace fossils, indicates a lower infaunal biomass and higher sedimentation rate. The size and diversity of ichnofossils in burrowed media reflect the chemical aspects of the depositional waters. For example, in marine deposits, large trace fossils are indicative of high dissolved oxygen content and stable ocean salinity. A pre-ponderance of small trace fossils suggests salinity- or oxygen-stressed environments. High diversity of fossil types is related to oxygen content and salinity and also indicates abundant nutrients... Through sequence stratigraphy, geologists identify sequences, or sedimentary deposits that are bounded by unconformities, which are surfaces characterized by erosion, lack of deposition or abrupt changes in depositional environment. Identifying the key bounding surfaces and correlating them with data from wells and seismic surveys form the basis of the sequence stratigraphic approach. In creating an integrated interpretation, geologists use trace fossils along with sedimentological analysis, core measurements and well logs to characterize sediments within each sequence and identify the depositional surfaces and discontinuities that separate sedimentary sequences… Identifying erosional discontinuities is important because they form the bounding surfaces of sedimentary sequences." [Gingras et al, "Bioturbation: Reworking Sediments for Better or Worse." Oilfield Review, Winter 2014/2015, p.51]

Generally speaking, flat, laminate layers within a sequence have little biotubation. The following article from the journal of Creation cites Gringras et al.:

"If we are consistent in applying the uniformitarian philosophy to the rock record then we should expect a high level of bioturbation for almost all of the sediments deposited in a former marine setting, especially if that environment existed with little to no change for thousands to millions of years. Counter to that conceptualization, some diluvialists have predicted that we should expect little sediment bioturbation due to the high-energy conditions associated with the Genesis Flood... Recent laboratory experiments document that the bioturbation of marine sediments can occur over a short period of time depending on the type and population density of trace makers. For uniformitarians, the lack of any stirred sediment requires that they appeal to punctuated catastrophic events. Such events do not eliminate their reliance on deep time assumptions—the vertical rock record should exhibit layers of intense bioturbation interrupted by nonbioturbated sedimentary events followed by intense bioturbation. However, this is not typically found in the actual rock record." [Carl R. Froede Jr., "Sediment bioturbation experiments and the actual rock record." Creation Ministries International, 23(3); December, 2009, p.4]

Another article, which cites the above article by Froede, is from the Journal of Creation:

"The issue of bioturbation highlights another uniformitarian dilemma—why the bulk of all sedimentary rocks are not completely bioturbated, since the process is observed to occur rapidly. This seems contrary to the principle of actualism [the compromise between gradualism and catastrophism.] The extent of bioturbation in sedimentary rocks can be explained by the Flood. Fluctuations in the rate of sedimentation during the Flood may explain why some rocks have been reworked and others have not." [Michael J. Oard, "Fossil range extensions continue." Journal of Creation, 27(3), 2013, p.81]

The Journal of Creation is a peer-reviewed journal.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Not one of those local floods deposited thousands of feet of sorted sedimentary rock layers over the entire world."
>>Whiny Joey said: "You know, Danny boy, while you were inventing this geological fantasy, did you ever stop to wonder how sometimes those sedimentary rocks are found underneath igneous or metamorphic layers?

No. Perhaps you will enlighten us.

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

>>Danny Denier: "If mankind lived on the high ground, away from violent animals, their fossils would be found only in the upper most levels, or buried in the world-wide continental shelf where they were swept away to by rapidly receding flood waters."
>>Whiny Joey said: "And you first learned this fantasy of "high ground" living where, exactly?

It is no fantasy, Joey. It is from mother nature that I learned men tended to be a little smarter than animals, though lately I am not so sure.

But, in full disclosure, several intertestamental texts indicate there were not a lot of men left on the earth by the time the Ark lifted off. The earth was filled with violence, so God in judgment destroyed the earth, along with all men and land creatures that remained.

"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." -- Gen 6:13 KJV

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

>>Danny Denier: "It is written in Genesis 9 that Noah's family repopulated the earth after the flood, Joey."
>>Whiny Joey said: "DNA and fossil evidence suggest something quite different, Danny boy."

The fossil record doesn't show us anything, Joey, except that there are a lot of buried dead things. The DNA evidence is still pending, but every day it points more and more to the accuracy of the biblical narrative. Have you ever read this?

"In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans...Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?... another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space." The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said." [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." Phys.Org, May 28, 2017, pp.3-4]

That is great support for the biblical narrative, and for Behe's book, "Darwin Devolves," which gives the cut-off point for evolution at the family level, or the biblical "kind." There is more:

"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time. But is that true?" The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution. For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP. The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP. That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age? Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean? " [Hood, Marlowe, "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution." Phys.Org, May 28, 2017, pp.1-2]

Regarding the last sentence, I wonder what the catastrophic event could have been that nearly "wiped the slate clean"? LOL!

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

>>Whiny Joey said: "Some people argue that some of these dates are off, they say for example the Americas were populated well before 12,500 years ago. But no physical or DNA evidence suggests an entirely different "theory" of world population."

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "The weakness of evolution theory is that animals changing from one species into another is, in and of itself, an extremely radical proposition, and more important that it has never been observed."

Well, of course it has been observed, and I'll come back to that, but first let's be sure we're talking about the same things.

When two populations of any one species are separated by, for examples a body of water or mountains, the two populations begin to "drift" genetically away from each other.
Consider humans in different parts of the world, all still 100% human but each region with different characteristics -- that's genetic "drift".

Evolution theory simply says that if separations continue for, say, millions of years, the different populations will "drift" so far apart they can no longer interbreed, hence by definition they are new species.
Prime examples include Indian & African elephants, or lions & tigers.

Where have we actually seen it happen?
Dogs are classified as a sub-species of ancient wolves and cattle (Bos taurus) are classified as a separate species from their ancient Auroch (Bos primigenius) ancestors.

Fossils & DNA suggest that greater changes, at the genus, family or order level, can take millions or tens of millions of years, a time period far beyond the range of human direct observations.
Since it cannot be observed over such long time-periods, evolution of species is classified as a theory, not fact.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata: “Our Founding Fathers created our great nation in spite of many of the so-called “Enlightenment” thinkers. Even the heavy influence of the blasphemous Christ-mocker, Thomas Paine, was not enough to sway our framers away from establishing a Christian nation which lasted for nearly two centuries, until the corrupting influence of ACLU, Marx and Darwin finally took hold. This is Paine mocking Christ, the Virgin Birth, and the genealogies of Matthew and Luke:...”
>>Joey said: “I “get” that you don’t like Paine and some European Enlightenment figures. Unlike most Founders Paine was not popular with Americans after the war. But during the Revolutionary War Paine not only helped explain it to Americans, he also helped negotiate millions of dollars in foreign aid from European countries.”

Benedict Arnold was a war hero, Joey.

*****************
>>Joey said: “Paine’s religious views did not reflect those of any other Founders I can think of.”

It was most foolish of Paine to attack the faith that had sustained the colonists since they first arrived in America.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Thankfully, the great majority of our Framers were devout Christians, or this nation would have been destroyed from within before the ink was dry on the Constitution.”
>>Joey said: “Agreed.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “The scientific revolution began in the Renaissance with the discoveries by Christians such as Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Boyle, Steno, Hooke, Harvey, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton, Linnaeus, Herschel, Faraday, Maxwell, Davy, Cuvier, Herschel, Dalton, Morse, Henry, Maury, Joule, Mendel, Pasteur and Kelvin. The corrupting influence of Darwin and Lyell has led to an unjust marginalization of those great scientists and their achievements.”
>>Joey said: “Sorry, but your list here is a jumble of names from multiple historical periods:

My point was, the revolution by scientists who were also Christians began in the Renaissance and continued until the rhetoric of Darwin and Lyell corrupted everything. In general, the change was from “let’s try to prove this theory wrong,” to “let’s try to prove Darwin and Lyell right.” That is not science.

BTW, Maxwell died in 1879, Kelvin in 1907 (b.1824.) I didn’t mention Einstein as part of the revolution, only that his heroes were three Christian giants from the revolution.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Who is “we”? I am here to defend Christ, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and Christian traditions of western civilization, which includes exposing those who are, or have been corrupting influences against any of those four great pillars of peace and prosperity.”
>>Joey said: “You are often at odds, if not at war, with traditions of the our Founders and their Enlightenment era. You have more in common with those who persecuted Galileo & Copernicus’ ideas than the scientists themselves.”

No, Joey, I am at odds with your understanding of the Founding Fathers and science, and those like you. And get your facts straight about Galileo. The scientific orthodoxy of today is no different than the scientific orthodoxy of Galileo’s day. Both have recruited the power of government to suppress opposing views. I believe science can stand on it own without suppression. You obviously do not.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “George Washington stated the earliest U.S. citizens had roughly the same religion (Christianity), and the subversion of that religion was unpatriotic.”
>>Joey said: “Agreed, though Washington himself did not necessarily agree with everything taught in church.

You always have to get your little dig in, Joey.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Some; for example, those who attacked Christianity and perverted the doctrine of Christ. The “Enlightenment” was not all peace and harmony, Joey. It also gave us the French head-choppers and Napolean, not to mention Social Darwinism and its incredibly brutal and destructive doctrines. Try to keep things in perspective.”
>>Little Joey said: “Oh Danny boy, for many historians the short Enlightenment era ended with the French Revolution, when the high ideals of our Founders’ reasoning met the realities of French revolutionary passions.

It was not as if there was a light switch to turn it off, Joey. The dangers to society that come from abandoing traditional Christian faith in favor of “reason” still linger. For example, Social Darwinism was very much a product of the Enlightenment. In fact, Charlie’s grandfather, Erasmus, a major figure in the englightenment, held some of the same anti-biblical views that Charlie later adopted.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “The most destructive invention, to date, is the “separation of church and state” usurpation. It is tragically ironic that Jefferson, the person who warned us against such an invention, had his own words taken out of context...”
>>Joey said: “Agreed, certainly in the extremes to which separation is sometimes taken.

Some of the most extreme are your buds, the evolutionists.

*****************
>>Kalamata: “Sorry, but that is pure propaganda, Joey. The Bible is silent on the issue, mentioning only that the earth is “floating” in space: [The Lord] stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” — Job 26:7 KJV”
>>Little Joey said: “Oh Danny boy, Galileo was convicted for heresy, a crime, in reference to: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5. I’ll come back to your lengthy post #341 later.’

No, Joey, Galileo was fodder for the scientific establishment of his day, as are the scientists of our day who refuse to bow to the establishment and kiss the ring of Darwin.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Danny Denier: "No, Joey. My statement was perfectly biblical and gives glory to God."

Sorry, Danny boy, but you are not giving glory to God when you call Him "natural", just the opposite.
The Bible does use words like "nature" and "natural" typically as in:

Jude 1:19 (NIV): "These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit."

Now it's important to notice that what the NIV translates as "natural instincts" King James calls "sensual".
God also has a nature, but it is the opposite of human natural instincts:

Romans 1:20 (NIV): "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Again, what NIV calls "divine nature" King James translates as "his eternal power and Godhead".
So God's nature is vastly different from human natural instincts.

Danny Denier: "But since you brought up heresy, any claim that the eternal God's image evolved from an ape, or a frog, or a bacteria, is one of the worst forms of heresy I can imagine."

Nonsense, that is just your own fantasy, projected onto me.
Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

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

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

First, "us"? Who's "us"?
Second, actually, Paul tells "us" in verse 9 of that chapter:

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

What King James translates as "a little lower than the angels" sounds about right to me because Jesus in human form still had supernatural powers to perform miracles and also Jesus did not follow "mere natural instincts", i.e., did not sin.

Jesus was human enough to die and that's what mattered.

Danny Denier on Gaia & Pele: "Is that called a straw man, or a red herring? I forget."

Neither, it's simply a logical conclusion from your calling God "natural", because such a term equates Him to mythological nature gods.

Danny Denier: "God said he shall also dwell among men:..."
"That may be supernatural to man, but it is the natural thing for God to do.
He did that from the beginning of his creation:"

Now you're just messing around with word definitions.
The fact is that the Bible nowhere equates God's nature to human nature or the natural world.
God can dwell among us, but He is not ruled by our "mere natural instincts".

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

Nor is He subject to Danny boy's idiotic definitions.

Danny Denier: "Also, Joey, God will frown on your attempts to confine him in your neat little deist box.
You wrote:
"the Bible was never part of science."

Danny boy, from the time of at least Galileo (1616), science was in conflict with the Bible, in that case with: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5.

But long before Galileo, St. Augustine of Hippo warned against misusing text to make the Bible look ignorant:

"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions..."

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

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

As Protestants we believe in what's called the Universal Priesthood of Believers (see 1 Peter 2:9) and as small-R republican citizens we participate in debates of our time.
My education was quite general but did include several serious scientific subjects -- plenty enough to know the difference between real science and fake theology masquerading as science.

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

That's total rubbish, Danny boy.
I merely point out, factually, that what we call "Western Civilization" began with Greek philosophers like Plato & Aristotle and was incorporated by Christian theologians like Augustine & Aquinas into Christian thought.
Further, it's you Danny boy, who's trying to redefine God's natural processes as "godless".

I'm going to give that more thought, but for now will suggest to you: calling nature "godless" is your first and biggest mistake.
It's what starts you off on the wrong road entirely.

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

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

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

The fact is the Bible does not define God as "natural" in the sense of humans' "mere natural instincts" and your suggestions otherwise are quite... false.
The fact is also that natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject.
Scientists are allowed, once their research is completed, to notice if their conclusions match, or don't match, what the Bible may seem to say, but they cannot use the Bible to direct their work.

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

Liar.

Danny Denier: "You deny the Lord when you dismiss this statement:"

Liar.

Danny Denier: "Those are not idle words, Joey; they are spirit:"

Your words here are too often lies.

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

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

Danny Denier: "You wouldn't know a heretic if he whopped you upside the head.
BTW, I didn't say Christ was "only" natural; but I did say he can do as he pleases.
I also said, with him all things are possible."

Here's what I know for certain: Danny Denier is also Danny the Liar = Danny Liar Denier.
For one tiny example: on this thread Danny boy, you never posted the words, "with him all things are possible."
Your quote just above from Luke 18:27 was the first & only like it.

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

Child. That is pure Denier Rule #12: divert, distract & dissemble.

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

That's just more of your use of Rule 12: divert, distract & dissemble.
Here's what I think on this point: in scientific terms, evolution does not falsify the Bible.

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

Sure, iirc, Alexander's opinions are now Trinitarian doctrine, so today nobody disputes that Christ was both fully man and fully God.
He was man enough to die and God enough to be the first raised from the dead.
Any suggestions that Christ was only a man or only God are... false.

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

Right, Christian Trinitarian doctrine holds that Christ was both fully man and fully God.
Ambrose & other Church Fathers tried to explain how that can be.
No believer I know of ever suggested that Jesus was only a man or only "natural".
From the beginning He was seen as much more.

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

Child, that's Denier Rule #12.
Neither the Bible nor any "ECF" ever claimed that Jesus was only "natural" or only man.
Even in human form Jesus had supernatural powers to perform miracles.

So your efforts here, Danny boy, to mix natural and supernatural together and call them both "natural" are just... false.

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

So Danny boy, our Master Theologian is also a Master Historian, redefining whatever terms stand in the way of his own unique propaganda?
Well, here are broadly recognized European historical periods:

• Renaissance circa 1400 to 1700.
• Enlightenment circa 1700 to 1800.
• "Romantic" ~1800 to 1850.
• Victorian ~1850 to 1900.
• Modern ~1900 to 1970.
• Post Modern after ~1970.

Any number of other "ages" are also identified i.e., "scientific revolution", "industrial revolution" "Napoleonic era", "machine age", etc.
A "Darkening Age" is not one.

Danny Denier: "False. As aforementioned, Galileo was threatened and suppressed by a corrupt Church orthodoxy that believed the doctrines of the pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy, which is not biblical, over the observable science of Galileo. "

As posted here now several times, Galileo was convicted of heresy, specifically regarding: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5.

Danny Denier: "By making that claim, you are ignoring the misery the "enlightment" contributed to the Europeans."

The Enlightenment era included both the scientific revolution and the beginnings of the Industrial revolution.
It was a time of rising populations and prosperity.
Many Europeans, including most of my ancestors, found relief from oppression by emigrating to America.

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

Total nonsense since it's Danny boy who's focused on Thomas Paine while I've argued against your claims that Enlightenment thinkers were atheists & anti-Christian.
Very few were either, though some could be described as somewhat "Watch-Maker" Deists.

So now you childishly obey Denier Rule #5.

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

Certainly our Leftists have gone politically insane, but equality is part of our Declaration and Constitutional DNA.
No sane person would remove that word from either document.

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

Well, first you are absolutely a Denier -- except for their vulgarity you behave exactly like the Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago.
Fundamentally, you are every bit as dishonest as they were.

Second, sorry, but the key fact which you utterly refuse to recognize is that our Founders were among the greatest Enlightenment philosophers!
That's what's got you so utterly confused, to the point of absolute insanity, FRiend.
You fantasize the Enlightenment was something else, something darker, something opposed to our Founders when the total opposite is true.
Our Founders lead and epitomized the Enlightenment, it died when they died off.

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

Nonsense, Denier Rule #8.

Danny Denier: "Child."

That's Denier Rule #12.

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

And still more nonsense, Danny boy, because I favor local control of schools and it turned out in "Dover" the voters didn't want phony-baloney theology taught in science classes.
In the end they voted-out the Creationist school board which tried to do that.

I don't agree that all religion should be kept out of schools, but the first problem is, any public school will include children from many different denominations (or none), all of which should be respected.

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

Oh, Danny boy, your nonsense just never stops.

{sigh}

[reasonisfaith]

Then we agree that one species changing to another has never been observed.

[Kalamata]

>>Danny Denier: "That is a mighty bold claim for someone who comes across as a scientific illiterate, Joey. Have you ever taken a science course above introductory or survey courses? Just curious."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Yes, enough to know the difference between real science and denier theology masquerading as science.

You don't appear to have much of a scientific aptitude, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier on St. Augustine: "Show us what you are talking about, Joey."
>>Delusional Joey said: "I already did, post #284.

I recall that you were attempting to interpret the words of a young earth creationist (Augustine) as if he was an old-earth deist. Is that what you are referring to?

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

>>Danny Denier: "So? How does that contradict this statement where Augustine is crystal clear that not 6,000 years had passed?"
>>[Kalamata quoting Augustine] "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed." [Philip Schaff, Augustine, City of God, 'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 02.' Charles Scribner's Sons, 1886, Book XII.10, p.232]
>>Delusional Joey said: "I agree that's exactly what Augustine believed."

That quote by Augustine reveals you have been misconstruing his words to make them appear to endorse your worldview. Augustine says those who believe history is more than 6,000 years old are deceived.

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

>>Danny Denier: "So, which is it? Is a thousand years a day, or a day a thousand years? Will the thousand-year reign of Christ last a day? Was Christ in the ground 3,000 years? It is a metaphor Joey, to let us know that God exists outside of time."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Right, Danny boy, your last sentence is the answer to the first four."

That statement is about God's time, Joey, not man's. But when God created the heaven, the earth, and all its host, he used man's time. Augustine understood that God could have created everything in an instant, if he chose to do so; but he took 6 days to set a standard for man's work-week.

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

Augustine's words also contain this warning to those who are dismissive of the Word:

"[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts which are all expressed in a way designed to nourish devout hearts." [Saint Augustine, "On Genesis: The Literal Meaning of Genesis." New City Press, Book I.20.40, p.187]

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

>>Danny Denier: "I will agree that evolutionism is not science, nor will it ever be science, but religious dogma."
>>Delusional Joey said: "More of Danny boy's slavish obedience to Denier Rules #5 & #6.

No, Child. It is called faithfulness to the Word of God.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Those are some pretty powerful endorsements of Isaac Newton, Joey; and you rarely even mention him, if at all. Do you have something against creationists?"
>>Delusional Joey said: "So far as I know Newton had nothing to say about evolution. He did however make a comment that I think highly appropriate: [Joey quoted this by Newton:]

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." [Life of Sir Isaac Newton, by N. W. Chittenden, in Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, p.58]

I believe Newton is saying that scientists should be leery of claiming any principle or theory to be a fact.

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

>>Danny Denier: "BTW, I seriously doubt if Augustine was mentioned very much, if at all, in the debates leading up to the Constitution."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Many of our Founders studied the ancient philosophers, historians & theologians, to learn from history which systems of government worked best and lasted longest. St. Augustine of Hippo did not philosophize on republican forms of government, but he did have something to say on two subjects of great interest to our Founders: Christian service in a just war -- he favored it. Slavery -- he opposed it, especially child slavery.

My statement about Augustine and his noticeable absence from the constitutional narrative was in response to this statement you made in #341:

[Joey] "I am "selling" the traditional idea that, what our Founders called "natural philosophy" or "natural science" has its roots in ancient philosophy (i.e., Aristotle) and theology (i.e., St. Augustine of Hippo) and is the beginnings of modern science."

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

>>Danny Denier: "I know that Charlie's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a leading figure in the European "enlightenment", so-called. And I know that both promoted the apes-to-man myth; Charlie much more so."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Erasmus Darwin was a figure in what's called the British Midlands Enlightenment centered around Birmingham and focused on science & industry. . . .

More Wikipedia, Joey? Anyone can search Wikipedia, should they desire to do so.

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

>>Danny Denier on Shermer: "No, he is your hero. He is my enemy, and an enemy of Christianity and our republic. I do have to admit, Joey, that was a very slick misdirection by you."
>>Delusional Joey said: "No misdirection, exactly on point because... as with Graur, Danny boy, you trash him up one side and down the other until, until... until you need him to make your point and then suddenly his words are golden, not to be disputed.

You are lying again about Graur, Joey; either that, or you are too ignorant to understand what was actually said. I agreed with Graur's words when taken out of context, but not in context. In other words, I didn't agree with Graur.

Forget it. That is probably over your head, as well.

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "The fact is that neither Shermer nor any other credible historian claims Hitler learned anti-Semitism from Darwin or needed evolution theory to justify his Holocaust ideas."

Shermer is not a credible historian, Joey. History Professor Richard Weikart is:

"At first glance, it might seem that Hitler's pantheistic worship of nature is incidental, a bit of trivia that does little or nothing to help us understand the man and the atrocities that he committed. But to suppose this would be a mistake. Hitler's devotion to nature as a divine being had a grim corollary: the laws of nature became his infallible guide to morality. Whatever conformed to the laws of nature was morally good, and whatever contravened nature and its ways was evil. When Hitler explained how he hoped to harmonize human society with the scientific laws of nature, he emphasized principles derived from Darwinian theory, especially the racist forms of Darwinism prominent among Darwin's German disciples. These laws included human biological inequality (especially racial inequality), the human struggle for existence, and natural selection. In the Darwinian struggle for existence, multitudes perish, and only a few of the fittest individuals survive and reproduce. If this is nature's way, Hitler thought, then he should emulate nature by destroying those destined for death. Thus, in his twisted vision of religion, Hitler believed he was serving his God by annihilating the allegedly inferior humans and promoting the welfare and prolific reproduction of the supposedly superior Aryans." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016, Introduction, p.iv]

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

>>Danny Denier: "Why did you stop there, Joey? The very next sentence, citing Bowler, 2003, states: "His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it... "You tried to pull another fast one, Joey. That is a no, no."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Danny boy, when are you going to stop lying?

When are you going to learn how to keep things in context, Child?

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "Your own quote, in many more words, made the same point I did: [Joey quoting a small part of my quote] "For Darwin, at least, 'fitness' in the human context did not include the kind of immorality which would justify any action by the motto 'Might is right.' The fit were the able and energetic, not those who cheated or forced their way to success."

Yes, in the last sentence, Joey, but not in the words in between. The entire paragraph insinuates that Darwin spoke out of both sides of his mouth; but when called on it, cried, "My intent was to speak only out of this side of my mouth, and not the other." Did I mention Charlie was also a slick politician?

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "So there is no possible way Darwin would support the Holocaust, and your suggestions here are flat out lies, Danny.

Where did I say he did? Be specific.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Perhaps so [that is, perhaps Charile himself would not have supported the Holocaust,] but that doesn't justify your underhanded attempt to downplay your own reference."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nothing justifies your repeated lies here blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, Danny boy.

I merely quoted historians, Hitler, Dalton, Charlie, and perhaps a few others. What have I written that makes you think I believe Charlie was responsible for the holocaust, the World Wars, Eugenics, the corruption of societal mores, and the explosion of racism after his 1859 release of "Origin"? Just curious.

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

>>Danny Denier: "The following quote from Mein Kampf sounds like something Charlie's eugenicist cousin, Francis Galton, might write: "The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker..."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Such ideas did not originate with Darwin."
>>Kalamata: "That sounds like Darwin 101, to me."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nonsense.

I posted this statement in #280. Reposting:

We cannot ignore the contribution of Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and his promotion of the un-natural selection of man, called eugenics:

"I conclude that each generation has enormous power over the natural gifts of those that follow, and maintain that it is a duty we owe to humanity to investigate the range of that power, and to exercise it in a way that, without being unwise towards ourselves, shall be most advantageous to future inhabitants of the earth." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, Intro., p.2]

Darwin himself was caught up in the "euphoria" of un-natural selection, as expressed in this letter to Galton about Galton's book:

"I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges), but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original. And how well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself just in the same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these later chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference." [Letter to Francis Galton, Dec 23, 1870, in Darwin, Charles, "More Letters of Charles Darwin, a Record of His Works in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Vol II." John Murray, 1903, p.41]

[1. Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences, by Francis Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865" is the heading of a section of this work (p. 55). See Descent of Man (1901), p. 41.]

Charlie was referring to Galton's notion (see below) that man's gifts were all hereditary, including his work ethic:

"the combination of high intellectual gifts, tact in dealing with men, power of expression in debate, and ability to endure exceedingly hard work, is hereditary." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, p.110]

It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over. And don't forget the other 20th century butchers: Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Stephen Jay Gould claimed that racism "increased by orders of magnitude" after evolution was accepted:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Your own quote says biological arguments for racism existed before Darwin, Darwin did not invent them.

I never said he did.

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "And Gould did not say racism increased, only that biological arguments for it increased.

Quibble much, Joey? This is Gould's statement, in context. On page 126 he writes:

"For anyone who wishes to affirm the innate inequality of races, few biological arguments can have more appeal than recapitulation, with its insistence that children of higher races (invariably one's own) are passing through and beyond the permanent conditions of adults in lower races. If adults of lower races are like white children, then they may be treated as such—subdued, disciplined, and managed (or, in the paternalistic tradition, educated but equally subdued). The 'primitive-as-child' argument stood second to none in the arsenal of racist arguments supplied by science to justify slavery and imperialism. (I do not think that most scientists who upheld the primitive-as-child argument consciously intended to promote racism. They merely expressed their allegiance to the prevailing views of white intellectuals and leaders of European society. Still, the arguments were used by politicians and I can find no evidence that any recapitulationist ever objected.)"

"Biological arguments based on innate inferiority spread rapidly after evolutionary theory permitted a literal equation of modern 'lower ' races with ancestral stages of higher forms. But similar arguments were far from unknown before 1859. Several of the leading pre-evolutionary recapitulationists ranked human races by the primitive-as-child argument. Schiller, a godfather of Naturphilosophie, wrote: 'The discoveries which our European sailors have made in foreign seas... show us that different people are distributed around us... just as children of different ages may surround a grown-up man"."

Now, to the next page:

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

[Stephen Jay Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny." Belknap Press, 1977, pp.126, 127]

Gould's emphasis on recapitulation could not be more damaging to the notion that Darwin was an innocent bystander.

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "The levels of racism in the USA, for example, were not a function of Darwin's words, but were related to words in the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and to Democrat terrorists like the KKK."

This is Gould applying blame where blame is due:

"Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot be diminished, either morally or scientifically, because later racists and warmongers perverted the concept of a "struggle for existence" into a rationale for genocide. However, we must admit a crucial difference between the origin and later use of a biological feature, and the origin and later use of an idea. The first, or anatomical, case involves no conscious action and cannot be submitted to any moral judgment. But ideas originate by explicit intent for overt purposes, and we have some ethical responsibility for the consequences of our deeds. An inventor may be fully exonerated for true perversions of his purposes (Hitler's use of Darwin), but unfair extensions consistent with the logic of original motivations do entail some moral demerit (academic racists of the nineteenth century did not envision or intend the Holocaust, but some of their ideas did fuel the "final solution")." [Stephen Jay Gould, "I Have Landed.", p.336]

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

=============================================
Theology, with an added bonus of "how to beat a dead horse"
=============================================

>>Danny Denier: "No, Joey. My statement was perfectly biblical and gives glory to God."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Sorry, Danny boy, but you are not giving glory to God when you call Him "natural", just the opposite.

You, as a deist, have convinced yourself that God must remain forever confined inside a neat little box of your own invention, which is then neatly tucked away outside the realm of a mystical thing you call "natural." But Paul didn't think so:

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." -- 1Cor 15:41-44 KJV

Now tell us, Joey, was Christ's body, prior to the resurrection, a natural body, or spiritual body? In the meantime, how do you interpret this?

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." -- Col 1:16-20 KJV

If all fullness dwells in Christ, is nature included, or not?

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

>>Danny Denier: "[context: "My statement was perfectly biblical and gives glory to God.] But since you brought up heresy, any claim that the eternal God's image evolved from an ape, or a frog, or a bacteria, is one of the worst forms of heresy I can imagine."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nonsense, that is just your own fantasy, projected onto me. Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Child, Jesus said that man and woman were created at the beginning of creation:

"And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female," -- Mat 19:4 KJV

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

The scripture states Jesus was a descendant of the first man:

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli . . . Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." -- Luk 3:23,38 KJV

Yet, you deny the words of Jesus, rather claiming he was the descendant of an ape, which evolved from the world of bacteria, or pond scum, or whatever.

At the beginning of his narrative that included the flood, Peter wrote of damnable heresies, implying the worst to be "denying the Lord that brought them":

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

If you deny the words of Jesus, is that the same as denying Jesus?

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

>>Danny Denier: "Show us that definition in the scripture, Joey. In the meantime, chew on this verse, again:
>>Kalamata quoting: "For verily he [Jesus who is God] took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV"
>>Delusional Joey said: "First, "us"? Who's "us"?

It doesn't say "us", Joey, but rather it says, Jesus took on the nature of the seed of Abraham. So tell us, Joey, is the seed of Abraham natural, or unnatural?

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "Second, actually, Paul tells "us" in verse 9 of that chapter:
>>[Joey quoting] "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." What King James translates as "a little lower than the angels" sounds about right to me because Jesus in human form still had supernatural powers to perform miracles and also Jesus did not follow "mere natural instincts", i.e., did not sin. Jesus was human enough to die and that's what mattered."

Paul implied in verse 2:16 that angels were natural; and he said Jesus became a seed of Abraham, who is also natural. In fact, Jesus became just as natural as any other man, except without sin. His ability to perform miracles set him apart until his death and resurrection; but later Peter and Paul also performed miracles after receiving the Comforter.

So, were Peter and Paul natural, or supernatural? According to Paul, they were "natural" until they were resurrected, as was Jesus:

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." -- 1Cor 15:44 KJV

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

>>Danny Denier on Gaia & Pele: "Is that called a straw man, or a red herring? I forget."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Neither, it's simply a logical conclusion from your calling God "natural", because such a term equates Him to mythological nature gods.

Perhaps in the mind of unbelievers. But to the believer, God created the first man, and later God became an offspring of that same man via birth from a virgin named Mary. In other words, Jesus is both his natural root (via his creation of Adam) and his natural offspring (as a seed of Abraham, a seed of David):

"I Jesus... am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." -- Rev 22:16 KJV

Therefore, Jesus is fully God, and fully man. He dwelled on the earth with men, ate bread with them, and died a horrible death on a Roman cross.

So, there is a natural God, and a supernatural God, who are one:

"I [Jesus] and my Father are one." -- John 10:30 KJV

Jesus made that statement while he was still a natural man, before his resurrection and ascension to the throne of the Father.

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

>>Danny Denier: "God said he shall also dwell among men:...""That may be supernatural to man, but it is the natural thing for God to do. He did that from the beginning of his creation:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Now you're just messing around with word definitions. The fact is that the Bible nowhere equates God's nature to human nature or the natural world. God can dwell among us, but He is not ruled by our "mere natural instincts".

See my statements about to find out where you are wrong, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Nor is He subject to Danny boy's idiotic definitions.

It seems that Joey doesn't believe God was a seed of Abraham, born of a woman, and raised as a Jewish child, who began his ministry at about age 30, and died a horrible death roughly 3.5 years later, at which time he gave up his natural body and became a spiritual body. I believe it happened that way, Joey.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Also, Joey, God will frown on your attempts to confine him in your neat little deist box. You wrote: "the Bible was never part of science." [the rest of my statement: "That was pretty dumb, Joey. Perhaps you should drop the pretense that you are a theologian. While you are at it, please stop pretending to be a scientist."]
>>Delusional Joey said: "Danny boy, from the time of at least Galileo (1616), science was in conflict with the Bible, in that case with: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5.

Science has never been in the conflict with the Bible, Joey. Perhaps you are thinking of inventions of men promoted under the pretense of science, as it was in the days of Galileo, and is today.

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "But long before Galileo, St. Augustine of Hippo warned against misusing text to make the Bible look ignorant:
[Joey quoting Augustine] "Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions..."

You took Augustine's statement out of context, Joey. He is warning Christians not to stray from the positions of the ancient sacred writers. Therefore, it is your biblical doctrine that he is warning against, as also expressed here:

"[L]et those people now restrain themselves, who are so puffed up with their knowledge of secular literature, that they scornfully dismiss as something crude and unrefined these texts which are all expressed in a way designed to nourish devout hearts." [Saint Augustine, "On Genesis: The Literal Meaning of Genesis." New City Press, Book I.20.40, p.187]

Taken together, Augustine is pointing to those puffed-up with secular literature, who dismiss the interpretations of the biblical text by ancient sacred writers as being something crude and unrefined, like you do. How avante garde of you, Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "That was pretty dumb, Joey. Perhaps you should drop the pretense that you are a theologian. While you are at it, please stop pretending to be a scientist."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Child. Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Joey still has this bizarre notion that the Bible was never scientific or historic, even though there is not a single scientific or historical error to be found in it.

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "As Protestants we believe in what's called the Universal Priesthood of Believers (see 1 Peter 2:9):

I am a protestant, Child, and this is how I interpret 1 Peter 2:9,

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." -- 1Pet 2:9-10 KJV

Peter is addressing the faithful scattered tribes of Israel (the "diaspora") living in five areas of Asia Minor (See vs 1:1-2.) In 2:9 Peter quotes the LXX to explain they, the children of Israel, are the Royal Priesthood (or a part of it) as promised to the children of Israel in Exodus:

"And now if ye will indeed hear my voice, and keep my covenant, ye shall be to me a peculiar people above all nations; for the whole earth is mine. And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel. -- Exo 19:5-6 LXX

Jesus said his sheep would hear his voice (John 10:27,) and they did.

Verse 2:10 came from Hosea, in which God promised Israel that one day he would remarry the House of Israel under a new convenant, and regather the two houses into one, as follows:

"And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God." -- Hos 1:6-9 KJV

"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel." -- Hos 1:10-11 KJV

"Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead: for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;" -- Hos 2:1-2 KJV

"And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now." -- Hos 2:7 KJV

"And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord." -- Hos 2:19-20 KJV

"And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God." -- Hos 2:23 KJV

But an Israelite, such as Christ, was forbidden to marry her who was put away. Paul explains to the Israelites in Romans 7:1-4 that Christ had to die to release the adulterous Israel from the old covenant, so that he could remarry her under the new covenant:

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." -- Rom 7:1-4 KJV

Paul also mentions the Hosea prophecy in Romans 9, but it is grossly mistranslated. Paul was still addressing the Israelites when he said:

"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God." -- Rom 9:23-26 KJV

Verse 24 should read:

"Even us, whom he hath called, not only out of Judaea (or of the Jews), but also out of the nations (or, the scattered tribes)."

That translation harmonizes Paul's statement with Peter's statement to the scattered tribes in Asia Minor. James also wrote to the scattered tribes (James 1:1.)

It's a little complicated.

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "and as small-R republican citizens we participate in debates of our time. My education was quite general but did include several serious scientific subjects -- plenty enough to know the difference between real science and fake theology masquerading as science.

When are you going to show us that you know the difference?

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

>>Danny Denier: "It certainly appears that you dismissed the role of God and his Church in the advancement of Western Civilization, while both promoting pagan philosophers, and attempting to redefine God's creation as "natural processes" (that is, "godless".)"
>>Delusional Joey said: "That's total rubbish, Danny boy. I merely point out, factually, that what we call "Western Civilization" began with Greek philosophers like Plato & Aristotle and was incorporated by Christian theologians like Augustine & Aquinas into Christian thought.

I don't recall the part about Christians, Child. I recall the following statement you made which was part of an ongoing diatribe in #341 in which you were attempting to marginalize the Word of God and traditional Christian theology:

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

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "Further, it's you Danny boy, who's trying to redefine God's natural processes as "godless".

You really are delusional, Child.

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

>>Delusional Joey said: "I'm going to give that more thought, but for now will suggest to you: calling nature "godless" is your first and biggest mistake. It's what starts you off on the wrong road entirely.

That is what you claim, Alinsky Joe, that nature is godless. Further, your interpretation of science is derived from atheistic philosophies, such as this one:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." [Lewontin, Richard C., "Billions and Billions of Demons: Review of Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'." New York Review of Books, 1997]

While you pretend to defend God, Joey, you in reality defending the anti-God's, like Lewontin and Shermer.

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

>>Danny Denier: "It gets worse. Previously, in #149, you dismissed my assertion that atheists have been pushing to "to erase all mention of the Bible from science and science education." This was your dismissal, and my response in #172:
[Joey] "Natural science, by definition excludes anything outside natural explanations for natural processes. It’s not a matter of “erasing the Bible from science,” because the Bible was never part of science."
[Danny] 'Who invented that stupid rule? There is nothing more natural that the creator of all nature.' "
>>Delusional Joey said: "The fact is the Bible does not define God as "natural" in the sense of humans' "mere natural instincts" and your suggestions otherwise are quite... false. The fact is also that natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject. Scientists are allowed, once their research is completed, to notice if their conclusions match, or don't match, what the Bible may seem to say, but they cannot use the Bible to direct their work."

Are you defending God, or atheistic, secular materialism, Child? The great scientists, like Galileo, Newton and Faraday would hoot at your ridiculous notion that, "natural-science, by definition, is forbidden from beginning its research by reading the Bible to see what it says on any particular subject."

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

>>Danny Denier: "The only heretic in this discussion is you, Joey. In fact, Peter was pointing at those with doctrine like yours when he wrote this statement:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Liar."

I must have hit a nerve.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You deny the Lord when you dismiss this statement:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Liar."

Big time!

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

>>Danny Denier: "Those are not idle words, Joey; they are spirit:"
>>Delusional Joey said: "Your words here are too often lies."

Please point out my lies, Child, so that everyone can see them.

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

>>Danny Denier: "God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:
>>[Kalamata quoting] "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." -- Luk 18:27 KJV"

You didn't respond, Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You wouldn't know a heretic if he whopped you upside the head. BTW, I didn't say Christ was "only" natural; but I did say he can do as he pleases. I also said, with him all things are possible."
>>Delusional Joey said: "Here's what I know for certain: Danny Denier is also Danny the Liar = Danny Liar Denier. For one tiny example: on this thread Danny boy, you never posted the words, "with him all things are possible." Your quote just above from Luke 18:27 was the first & only like it.

So, I did say it! Then why the bluster?

Besides, that quote wasn't found "just above", as you claim. Rather, you cherry-picked from a longer conversation in #341 to make it appear I had just said it. Tricky Child.

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

>>Tricky Joey said: "I've never "defined" God and you don't get to redefine Him. I simply take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers. "
>>Danny Denier: "Really? The early Church Fathers, almost to a man, believed in a global flood in which Noah and his family were the only human survivors. You seem to be selective in your understanding."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Child. That is pure Denier Rule #12: divert, distract & dissemble."

From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said you simply "take understandings of Him from the Bible and Church Fathers"?

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

>>Tricky Joey said: "Here's your problem -- what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology. What you're suggesting is something quite different and alien."
>>Danny Denier: "So is your pretense that man is evolving from an ape, while on the way from evolving from a bacteria. You don't seem to have a problem with that."
>>Tricky Joey said: "That's just more of your use of Rule 12: divert, distract & dissemble. Here's what I think on this point: in scientific terms, evolution does not falsify the Bible."

From that response, Joey, can we assume you were lying when you said "what I've posted is totally consistent with traditional Western & Christian theology"?

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

>>Danny Denier: "BTW, have you ever heard of the Church Father Alexander of Alexandria? He seemed to think Christ is God's natural son:"
>>Tricky Joey said: "Sure, iirc, Alexander's opinions are now Trinitarian doctrine, so today nobody disputes that Christ was both fully man and fully God. He was man enough to die and God enough to be the first raised from the dead. Any suggestions that Christ was only a man or only God are... false."

If Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"? How does that work?

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

>>Danny Denier: "This is Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, reminding us that Christ has a "natural rank and dignity":"
>>Tricky Joey said: "Right, Christian Trinitarian doctrine holds that Christ was both fully man and fully God. Ambrose & other Church Fathers tried to explain how that can be. No believer I know of ever suggested that Jesus was only a man or only "natural". From the beginning He was seen as much more."

Again, if Christ is "fully man", could he also be considered "natural", or is he not really "fully man"?

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

>>Danny Denier: "The ECF's used the word "natural", well, naturally! If quibbling is all you have left, Joey, perhaps you should consider another line of entertainment." Child, that's Denier Rule #12.

Child, you left out this statement I posted by Augustine, who asserted that the body of our Lord was "sown a natural body"

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

Like I said, the Early Church Fathers used the word "natural", well, naturally!

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

>>Tricky Joey said: "Neither the Bible nor any "ECF" ever claimed that Jesus was only "natural" or only man."

True. I don't recall any ECF saying that. Why would they?

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

>>Tricky Joey said: "Even in human form Jesus had supernatural powers to perform miracles."

So did Peter and Paul, after receiving the Holy Spirit from Christ.

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

>>Tricky Joey said: "So your efforts here, Danny boy, to mix natural and supernatural together and call them both "natural" are just... false."

I never said that, Child. My statement was only to alert everyone that evolutionists' confine God's supernatural powers inside a neat little box of their own invention, so God doesn't interfere with their new-fangled understanding of science as "all-natural," like organic butter. What they are really refusing to accept is, the ruler of all nature is God; the laws of physics are putty in his hands.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Since the time the two Charlie's wrote their civilization-destroying books, the era of "The Darkening" is more realistic."
>>Tricky Joey said: "So Danny boy, our Master Theologian is also a Master Historian, redefining whatever terms stand in the way of his own unique propaganda? Well, here are broadly recognized European historical periods: . . . A "Darkening Age" is not one."

It looks pretty dark and gloomy to me, Child, and history shows that Charlie's anti-God philosophy had a major hand in it. But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about Charlie.

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

>>Danny Denier: "False. As aforementioned, Galileo was threatened and suppressed by a corrupt Church orthodoxy that believed the doctrines of the pagans Aristotle and Ptolemy, which is not biblical, over the observable science of Galileo. "
>>Tricky Joey said: "As posted here now several times, Galileo was convicted of heresy, specifically regarding: 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, Ecclesiastes 1:5."

But you refuse to acknowledge that Galileo accusers included the scientific orthodoxy. But I know you are not supposed to say anything negative about the scientific orthodoxy.

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

>>Danny Denier: "By making that claim, you are ignoring the misery the "enlightment" contributed to the Europeans."
>>Tricky Joey said: "The Enlightenment era included both the scientific revolution and the beginnings of the Industrial revolution. It was a time of rising populations and prosperity. Many Europeans, including most of my ancestors, found relief from oppression by emigrating to America."

So, it was not all "light", Child. Further, the posterity of those American immigrants who fled oppression now find their religious traditions suppressed by the atheistic religious doctrine of your "child of the enlightenment," Charlie Darwin.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You have also failed to recognize the contributions of devout creationists, such as Isaac Newton, whom both Hume and even Voltaire heaped the best of praise. And you have also failed to recognize the contributions of the Early Christian settlers, and well as those by the multitude of devout Christians among the Founding Fathers. Rather, you choose to focus on the one devout anti-Christian among them. Why is that?"
>>Tricky Joey said: "Total nonsense since it's Danny boy who's focused on Thomas Paine while I've argued against your claims that Enlightenment thinkers were atheists & anti-Christian. Very few were either, though some could be described as somewhat "Watch-Maker" Deists. So now you childishly obey Denier Rule #5.

Child, I was under the impression that one of the primary driving forces of the "enlightenment" was man's rejection of traditional values, including God's religious instructions, in favor of "reason." Pinker explains it this way:

"Foremost is reason. Reason is nonnegotiable. As soon as you show up to discuss the question of what we should live for (or any other question), as long as you insist that your answers, whatever they are, are reasonable or justified or true and that therefore other people ought to believe them too, then you have committed yourself to reason, and to holding your beliefs accountable to objective standards. If there's anything the Enlightenment thinkers had in common, it was an insistence that we energetically apply the standard of reason to understanding our world, and not fall back on generators of delusion like faith, dogma, revelation, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, gut feelings, or the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts." [Steven Pinker, "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason Science Humanism and Progress 1." Viking Penguin, 2018, Chap. 1]

We can safely assume Pinker is no fan of Augustine.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Have you mentioned the ongoing threat by one of the foundational principles of the "Enlightenment," namely "equality"? The push for "equality" by the left, as opposed to life, liberty and the rights to property, will deal this nation a crippling blow, unless our Christian morality is restored before "equality" becomes rooted too deeply."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Certainly our Leftists have gone politically insane, but equality is part of our Declaration and Constitutional DNA. No sane person would remove that word from either document.

Another straw man, Joey? Why did you not address the issue?

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

>>Danny Denier: "You are a very sinister person, Joey. First you slander me by indirectly accusing of being a holocaust denier because I refuse to kiss the ring of Charlie Darwin; and now you indirectly accuse me of trashing our Founding Fathers, the very people I have been judiciously defending for virtually my entire life. And why? For favoring them over and above the enlightenment philosophers."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Well, first you are absolutely a Denier -- except for their vulgarity you behave exactly like the Holocaust deniers I debated nearly 20 years ago. Fundamentally, you are every bit as dishonest as they were.

Joey frequently rehashes his imaginary debates with" holocaust deniers" on this thread; but he will never convince me he debated a holocaust denier. However, I am convinced he has become adept at using the tool of slander against anyone who challenges his anti-tradition worldview. He probably got his "you are a holocaust denier if you don't bow down to Darwin" scheme from someone he truly admires, the atheist Michael Shermer.

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

>>Tricky Joey said: "Second, sorry, but the key fact which you utterly refuse to recognize is that our Founders were among the greatest Enlightenment philosophers! That's what's got you so utterly confused, to the point of absolute insanity, FRiend. You fantasize the Enlightenment was something else, something darker, something opposed to our Founders when the total opposite is true. Our Founders lead and epitomized the Enlightenment, it died when they died off."

Again, Child, our Founding Fathers were great in spite of the so-called "enlightenment," because they refused to abandon Christianity, but rather incorporated it into our Constitution, as well as in an initial Act of Congress. The demise of Christianity came from later infiltration of our culture by "children of the enlightenment," such as Charlie Darwin and his cult followers.

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

>>Danny Denier: "If anyone is trashing the memory of our Founding Fathers, it is you, with your support for the tactics of the ACLU, and those of your far-left, "climate-change" pusher of a hero."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Nonsense, Denier Rule #8. >>Danny Denier: "Child."
>>That's Denier Rule #12.

Joey is a big supporter of the judiciary telling the people of our nation what science is, and is not. What can we expect from someone who admires one of the most famous anti-Christian, anti-God, Far-Left bigots on earth: Michael "Mikey" Shermer. This is Mikey teaching others that God doesn't exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI2YvVuuE

Perhaps Mikey knows God doesn't exist because God told him so, or perhaps it was Satan.

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

>>Danny Denier: "I am fairly certain you are not one of those keepers, Joey. Our Founding Fathers promoted the teaching of Christianity in schools, which continued until I was in high school, which was before the ACLU and the Darwin orthodoxy became entrenched. Why do you support the suppressive activities of the ACLU, Joey?"
>>Tricky Joey said: "And still more nonsense, Danny boy, because I favor local control of schools and it turned out in "Dover" the voters didn't want phony-baloney theology taught in science classes. In the end they voted-out the Creationist school board which tried to do that."

The ACLU and their partners in crime, the NCSE, were not local, concerned citizens, Joey; but rather anti-Constitution, anti-Christian activists and infiltrators.

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

>>Tricky Joey said: "I don't agree that all religion should be kept out of schools, but the first problem is, any public school will include children from many different denominations (or none), all of which should be respected."

That is the kind of argument I hear from leftists, Joey. The real story is that the Christian denominations were respected by governments, at all levels, before the ACLU came along. Several of the initial states/colonies adopted state constitutions recognizing one denomination over another, much like the federal government of today recognizes the religion of evolutionism over the Christian denominations. But the states soon struck that provision, or implications of that provision, from their constitutions. The new 1818 Constitution of Connecticut protected the rights and privileges of all Christian denominations:

"And each and every society or denomination of Christians in this state, shall have and enjoy the same and equal powers, rights, and privileges; and shall have power and authority to support and maintain the ministers or teachers of their respective denominations, and to build and repair houses for public worship, by a tax on the members of any such society only, to be laid by a major vote of the legal voters assembled at any society meeting, warned and held according to law, or in any other manner." [Constitution of Connecticut, 1818, in "The Original State Constitutions."]

Now the government trashes Christians, while kissing-up to atheists and muslims.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Then I believe you are not a good keeper of the traditions of our Founding Fathers, Joey."
>>Tricky Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, your nonsense just never stops. {sigh}

Hopefully, one day, the nonsense will stop, and we will kick the sick, dangerous religion of evolutionism out of our schools and into the trash-bin of history where it rightly belongs.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata post #346: "Try not to make stuff up as you go, and refrain from your childish "Rules" game, and the debate will go much smoother."

But you must understand, the only real issue here is not evolution or even science itself, rather it's Kalamata's innate dishonesty, as illustrated in your slavish obedience to my derived Denier Rules.
I cannot confirm a single case where you consciously disobeyed even one of those "rules".
Why is that?

Now I will entertain the suggestion that you do consciously disobey my rule #3, which refers to your large collection of quotes.
That rule is not intended to criticize your quotes, per say, because quotes are good.
Rather it refers to the fact that some deniers promisquisly mix together fake quotes, or out-of-context quotes, with genuine quotes to make it seem like some famous people support their ideas.

I haven't seen that yet from Kalamata -- your quotes, so far as I can tell, all seem genuine.
I'm especially impressed by the fact that some of your quotes actually support my positions, and that's my problem -- how can that be?
How can someone as normally denier-prone as Kalamata knowingly post data which contradicts his own claims?

My best guess is, you don't, not knowingly.
And this leads me to a definition of "we" by which Kalamata sometimes refers to himself.
I'm guessing now that "we" includes a, shall I say, "research assistant" who looks up and provides provenance for your quotes, and in the process sometimes slips in contradictory words.
I attribute such words to your honest research assistant because I've never yet seen an example of Kalamata yourself honestly acknowledging their meaning & importance.

A typical example is the collection of great quotes on "historical sciences" here in your post #346.
All are totally reasonable explanations of the term, and also begin to suggest why I object to it.

One problem with the term "historical sciences" is it too easily allows deniers like Kalamata to equate them to the "historical Bible."
Both, you say, are "historical" so both equally valid scientifically and both can be believed, or not, according to you faith in one religion or the other, so you tell us.

But the reality is, "historical sciences" are historical in the same sense as Crime Scene Investigators forensic analysis is historical.
They all start with evidence to hypothesize a possible "theory of the crime", then continue to look for more evidence to confirm or falsify various hypotheses.
Such "historical science" has no comparison to using the Bible as your starting point for "investigation."

So, my answer to the question of how someone as innately dishonest as Kalamata can post such lengthy quotes which, so far as I can tell, are accurate and even balanced -- my best guess is: you don't, somebody else is doing that work for you, someone likely more interesting than Danny Liar-Denier Kalamata.