Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>Danny Denier: Danny Denier post #433: "Child." "Child." "Child." "Child."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Still more of Danny boy's reliance on Denier Rules #5, #7 & #12."

Immature Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "The Left-leaning Wikipedia is the Snopes of the evolutionism cult."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "More of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6, #7 & #12."

Sadly, Joey never progressed emotionally beyond grade school.

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

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Sure, here's just one example of a recent report on it."

Can we now assume, Joey, that you also believe in the Exodus and Abraham in Egypt? I am most curious to know how how far back you believe biblical history goes before it becomes a myth to you? Does your biblical history go back as far as the dividing of the earth in the days of Peleg, the scattering of the nations at Babel, or perhaps even the flood? Adam?

What is amazing about Steve Collin's dig is, he simply followed biblical "markers" to find the dig site. You would think someone would have thought of that before; but archaeologists are mostly herd-followers, like scientists in other fields, especially evolutionism. So, once someone "determined" Sodom was located in the Dead Sea, all the resources ended up there.

The book Pastor Walton quoted is a good archaeology reference for the Bible student. The statement he read is actually the caption of this picture:

This is the caption:

"In addition to other high-heat indicators unearthed at Tall el-Hammam such as the thick layer of ash and debris, charred human remains, and destruction debris, this 4.5-inch-long piece of a melted Middle Bronze Age storage jar (in left of photo) was discovered. Its 'frothy' and 'glassy' melted appearance reveals that the sherd was briefly exposed to temperatures that far exceeded 2,000° F. (which is about the same heat as volcanic magma). Additional melted sherds have been discovered at various locations across the site, indicating that the city was destroyed in a sudden, intense, high-heat catastrophic event. A similar 'melting' phenomenon resulting from brief high-heat exposure is found in the two small greenish pieces of Trinitite (or 'desert glass,' pictured in right of photo) taken from ground zero at the United States atomic weapon test area in New Mexico. Astoundingly, analysis of some soil and sand samples from Tall el-Hammam shows they possess qualities similar to Trinitite." [Holden & Geisler, "The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of Scripture." Harvest House Publishers, 2013, Caption, p.217]

The following page contains a playlist of Dr. Collin's excavation at Sodom (top right,) as well as other fascinating archaeological digs, discoveries, and information:

Biblical Archaeology: Is the Bible History?

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

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Nonsense, that's not what happened. This site reviews the entire controversy, confirming some of your details here, but then concluding: "The conflict was resolved after geochemist Garniss Curtis and his student Thure E. Cerling conducted independent investigations of the age of the KBS Tuff using Argon-Argon and Potassium-Argon dating at the Berkeley Geochronology Laboratory. Curtis and Cerling found that the material dated by the Cambridge team actually belonged to two separate tuffs, which they estimated at 1.8 and 1.6 Ma.[6] This date was confirmed by Potassium-Argon dating conducted by Ian McDougall, and later Fission-Track dating conducted by Andy Gleadow.[6] [7][8]" Multiple independent radiometric dating techniques were used to establish the dates of Leakey's fossil finds."

More left-wing Wikipedia, Joey? They present the narrative for public consumption; but not the private narrative. You have to dig into the books and papers to find the truth.

Do you recall that Fitch & Miller (1970) initially determined the ages of Leakey's rocks to be over 200 million years? Three samples gave virtually identically results. Why would anyone reject those dates? On what grounds?

Those dates were rejected because they knew RM dating is unreliable, and that Leakey's fossils would be far too old, by a factor of 100. The "re-date" brought the age down to a more "acceptable" number, but there were still issues. Donald Johanson wrote of the debate that followed, in this manner:

"[Basil] Cooke's paper was widely read and made a considerable stir. However, it did not appear to shake Richard Leakey's confidence in the potassium-argon date given to the KBS tuff. He went to a conference in London in 1975 and found it to be the major topic of conversation. By this time a good many other scientists were beginning to be drawn into the debate because the date of skull 1470 was tied to the date of the KBS tuff. If that was changed, there would have to be a major revision in how science looked at human evolution. Homo would probably not go back to three million, as Richard Leakey claimed. Instead, there might be an australopithecine back there that could qualify as an ancestor—again counter to what Richard believed and what his father before him had believed."
. . .
"Then Cooke [the pig expert,] who had been silent up to then, pointed to his necktie and said, "You may think you know what MCP stands for, but you don't. It reallv stands for 'Mesochoerus correlates properly.'"
"A roar of laughter ended the argument, but it could not conceal the fact that Cooke's statement had been a devastating summary of the proceedings of the morning. Nearly everyone but the Lake Turkana team went away convinced that the KBS tuff and the skull 1470 dates would have to be corrected. John Harris, still a holdout and still believing the potassium-argon figures of Fitch and Miller, was unhappier even than he had been at Hadar when he had been hopefully combing over the Hipparion teeth. He resolved to make his own biostratigraphic analysis to prove the validity of the KBS date, and began looking around at the other members of the Turkana team for someone to help him. His eye lit on Tim White. Tim agreed to help. The two men made an exhaustive study of the Turkana pigs. When it was done, Harris was appalled. It indicated that Cooke was right and that the Lake Turkana dating was wrong."
[Johanson & Edey, "Lucy: the Beginnings of Humankind." Simon & Schuster, 1981, pp.239-240]

As you can see, the date had to be corrected, so, it was back to the drawing board, that is, the RM Dating lab. Read carefully:

"Richard Leakey did not stand quietly by while all the pot shots were being taken at 1470 and the KBS tuff. He was disturbed enough by the rising tide of mammal-fossil evidence to ask Fitch and Miller to do another potassium-argon run. They did, and this time came up with a date of 2.4 million years. To the pig-fossil men this was a step in the right direction, but far too small a one; they felt that another dater should be tried. They were pleased when Thure Cerling, a University of California graduate student, turned up at the Berkeley campus with some samples of the KBS tuff that he had brought back with him from Lake Turkana. He gave the samples to Garniss Curtis, the acknowledged dean of potassium-argon dating and a pioneer in its application to Plio-Pleistocene fossils.
"Curtis ran tests on Cerling's samples, one of which returned a date of 1.8 million, the other a date of 1.6 million. Those were almost exactly what the pig-fossil men would have predicted, and they were delighted with them. These results gave pause to Leakey. In a thorough review of the Lake Turkana hominids that he wrote for Scientific American in 1978, he noted the discrepancy between the Fitch-Miller findings and those of Curtis, but did not indicate which he favored. For me, the Curtis dates clinched it. There was now no way that 1470 could be more than two million years old."
[Ibid. pp.242-243]

Summary: the first samples of the "redate" tested to 2.4 million years; but that did not match the (imaginary) date assigned to the pig fossils: far from it. So, more samples were tested, which gave a date of 1.6 to 1.8 million years, matching the expected age of the pig fossils. Therefore, the pig fossils determined the date, and not the RM labs.

BTW, the initial date of over 200 million years was apparently replicated in subsequent RM datings, as mentioned in your Wikipedia article:

"The date was called into question because efforts to replicate the findings produced KBS Tuff ages ranging from less than 1 to over 220 Ma."

The bottom line is, Radiometric Dating is a joke.

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

>>Danny Denier: "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!"
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Nice story, but that's not what happened."

That is exactly what happened. Your attempt at misdirection reminded me of this statement by Marvin Lubenow:

"In the 10-year controversy over the dating of one of the most important human fossils ever discovered, the pigs won. The pigs won over the elephants. The pigs won over potassium-argon dating. The pigs won over argon40/argon39 dating. The pigs won over fission-track dating. They won over palaeomagnetism. The pigs took it all. But in reality, it wasn't the pigs that won. It was evolution that won. In the dating game, evolution always wins." [Marvin L. Lubenow, "The Pigs took it all." Creation Ministries International, 1995]

Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Lies, lies & more lies -- Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7. The real fact is that no physical evidence has ever been confirmed supporting any scientific theories other than evolution of fossils over geological time periods -- millions to billions of years."

That is pure baloney, Child. The geological column and the fossil record are evidences of a global flood, and nothing but a global flood. The real fact is, nothing supports evolution and the old earth myth, except deceptive rhetoric.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Only to the geologically-challenged or the ideologically-blinded, Child."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "And still more of Denier Rules #2, #5, #6 & #7."

Foolish Child.

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

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "For the rest of you... Danny boy has never explained how coal formed during "the Flood"."

It certainly did not form in swamps, like evolutionists have imagined.

The simplest explanation is hydrologic sorting of tree bark (and everything else) during the months it spent under regular tidal influence. In the absence of land barriers, the water would form an enormous bulge under the moon at all times. The spinning earth would gradually move the bulge westward, relatively speaking. Absent land barriers, the regular rise and fall of the water would hydrodynamically sort all sedimentary rock and organic materials.

That would also explain the wide-spread presence of polystrate trees projecting upward through multiple coal seams. The layers had to have formed rapidly, or the tree would rot, rather than fossilize. All told, the observable evidence is overwhelming that a single, global flood created the sedimentary rock and coal layers, as well as the fossil record.

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

>>Danny Denier: "You will not find evidence of a swamp below any of those coal seams: only flat sedimentary rock."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Right, coal was the swamp, other sedimentary rock formed in water too deep for swamps."

There is no evidence of a swamp in the coal layers, Joey. There are no branches, no roots, no nothing that would point to a swamp. Contrary evidence include the flatness of the coal seams (top and bottom,) thin benches (sometimes mere inches thick) between coal seams, and polystrates.

The truth is, the "swamp theory" is another just-so story that became folklore.

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

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "And your physical evidence for such "rapid plate movement" is what?"

Besides the science of physics? Real science points to rapid formation of the mountain ranges by way of either a powerful collision of two plates, or the buckling of a massive plate as it came to a "screeching" halt.

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

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Probably not! Probably formed as a mat of organic debris such as found in swamps today, some of which forms into peat and if compressed longer into lignite, then coal."

Peat is not coal, Joey; and there is no evidence that peat ever turned into coal. The estimated seven-times compression of peat necessary to create coal would require enormous, rediculously-thick peat bogs to create the thick coal beds. However, evolutionists have imagined the perfect just-so story to explain away the problem:

"Since peat is expected to compact appreciably during burial, there appears to be no modern analogue for the processes which formed thick coal beds, and this seems to challenge the Law of Uniformitarianism. However, the conundrum of coal bed thickness can be resolved by identification of discontinuities in coal beds. Coal beds are generally treated as single entities, created by a continuous process of peat deposition. It is more likely, however, that most thick coal beds are composed of multiple paleo-peat bodies, stacked one upon another, rather than a single paleo-peat body." [Shearer et al, "The Conundrum of Coal Bed Thickness: A Theory for Stacked Mire Sequences." Journal of Geology, Vol.102, Iss.5; September, 1994, p.611]

That is a really nice story. Too bad it is not science.

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

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Ager was in no sense a young earth creationist."

Of course not. He was a devout evolutionist, as I explained.

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

>>Joey the Science Denier: "Ager simply recognized correctly that in addition to "slow and steady" uniformitarianism, nature sometimes acts with catastrophic rapidity, i.e., volcanoes, earthquakes & meteor strikes."

Or, by way of a massive global flood, for which there are boatloads of evidence."

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

>>Joey the Science Denier: "Ager objected to you people hijacking his words for your own nefarious purposes.

Of course Ager objected, as did Gould and every other atheist whose research -- research that questioned evolutionism -- was revealed to the public. There is nothing nefarious about the truth, Child; but the widespread fraud and cover-ups by evolutionists is certainly nefarious.

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

>>Danny Denier: "Well, which is it, Child: gradualism, or catastrophisim? (Joey is still suffering from short-term memory loss.)"
>>Joey the Science Denier: "Both, Danny baby boy."

There is no evidence of gradualism, Child.

Mr Kalamata

>>Danny Denier post #433 cont. 2: "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."
>> Little Joey pasted some Power Point images, including a chart of Sloss's Megasequences.

That chart deserves an explanation:

Sloss's Megasequences

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "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."

>>Little Joey whined: "So now you whine, lie, deny... lie, whine, deny.... deny, lie, whine, always the same, never stops. Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7."

Whiny Child.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "We love you anyway, Derek. After all, you did help shatter the uniformitarian myth."
>>Little Joey whined: "It was a simple case of science following the evidence, which is what they're supposed to do and which you whiner-deniers will never do."

That is silly. Derek Ager was a heretic to the religious cult of Lyellism. His doctrine, also known as Neo-Catastrophism, was comparable to the doctrine of another heretic named Velikovsky. The establishment was none too pleased:

The Velikovsky Encyclopedia: Derek Ager

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "Ager never said his previous calculations were ridiculous."
>>Little Joey whined: "Of course he did, go back and read your own quote again. In it he performed some calculations producing absurd results -- which however you deniers love & embrace -- then Ager commented that was "ridiculous"."

No, Child, you have a reading comprehension problem. Derek Ager looked at the evidence, compared it to the uniformitarian principle of a constant rate of sedimentation, and called the uniformitarianism principle "ridiculous." This is Ager, again:

"Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. David Smith of BP did an instant calculation when I had talked about these things, as to what this meant in terms of rates of sedimentation (personal communication 1988). I later did my own calculation and it proved even more surprising. If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous." [Derek V. Ager, "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History." Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 42019 9, 1993, Chap 4, p.49]

Ager was a scientist, and he assumed the readers of his work would have reasonable science aptitude. Don't take it personally.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "Ager did not appreciate your quote mining and hijacking his words out of context."

Quit lying, Little Joey. I have never taken Ager's words out of context; and I couldn't care less whether he appreciates my quoting his work, or not. Besides, (paraphasing Dr. Terry Mortenson,) "He is dead, so now he knows the truth."

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "In his calculations regarding polystrate trees, he merely explained that applying uniformitarian principles to those polystrate coal seam trees is ridiculous."
>>Little Joey whined: "So you do agree those calculations were ridiculous, you just don't want to say so publicly?"

The Lord has taught me patience over the years; but it is most difficult to debate someone who is both arrogant and scientifically-challenged.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "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."
>>Little Joey whined: "And yet somehow we have neither photos nor scientific reports on such alleged occurrences."

This is one. The tree begins near the top of a layer of coal, penetrates a layer of soil, and then a layer of coal, and perhaps more layers now shown:

There are many reports, Joey, but they never seem to make it into the establishment literature. I wonder why?

The earlier literature contains plenty of reports of polystrates. Charles Lyell wrote extensively of them:

"We have just returned from an expedition of three days to the Strait which divides Nova Scotia from New Brunswick, whither I went to see a forest of fossil coal-trees—the most wonderful phenomenon perhaps that I have seen, so upright do the trees stand, or so perpendicular to the strata, in the ever-wasting cliffs, every year a new crop being brought into view, as the violent tides of the Bay of Fundy, and the intense frost of the winters here, combine to destroy, undermine, and sweep away the old one—trees twenty-five feet high, and some have been seen of forty feet, piercing the beds of sandstone and terminating downwards in the same beds, usually coal." [Letter to his sister, Marianne, from Truro, Novia Scotia, July 30, 1842, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol II." John Murray, 1881, pp.64-65]
"In a deep valley near Capel-Coelbren, branching from the higher part of the Swansea valley, four stems of upright Sigillarice were seen in 1838, piercing through the coal-measures of S. Wales; one of them was 2 feet in diameter, and one 131 feet high, and they were all found to terminate downwards in a bed of coal. ' They appear,' says Sir H. De la Beche, ' to have constituted a portion of a subterranean forest at the epoch when the lower carboniferous strata were formed.'" [Charles Lyell, "Elements of Geology." 1865, p.478]

And, of course, Ager mentioned them:

"Although we do not everywhere have the precision of Mesozoic chronology, we do from time to time find evidence, in all parts of the stratigraphical column, of very rapid and very spasmodic deposition in the most harmless of sediments. In the Late Cuboniferous Coal Measures of Lancashire, a fossil tree has been found, 11.5 m high and still standing in its living position. Sedimentation must therefore have been fast enough to bury the tree and solidify before the tree had time to rot. Similarly, at Gilboa in New York State, within the deposts of the Devonian Catskill delta, a flash-flood (itself an example of a modern catastrophic event) uncovered a whole forest of insitu Devonian trees up to 12 m high. By such means it is possible, within the Lancashire Coal Measures for example, to demonstrate that very rapid sedimentation alternated with very slow sedimentation and that the former was responsible for the bulk of at least some parts of the record." [Ager, Derek V., "The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record." John Wilson & Son, 3rd Ed, 1993, Chap 4, pp.65-66]

Ager believed the presence of polystrates demonstrated rapid sedimentation, contradicting the long time-periods assigned to the individual deposits by Hutton and Lyell.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "We have not hijacked Ager's work, Child."
>>Little Joey whined: "Liar."

You are the liar, Joey. We always give credit to Ager for his work. Perhaps you are thinking of your own nefarious methods.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "Creation scientists were catastrophists long before Ager showed up. "
>>Little Joey whined: "Well... first, your term "creation scientists" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, a nonexistent mythical being equivalent to unicorns & dragons. Denier Rule #2."

I believe you are confusing creation science with the pseudoscience religion of evolutionism, Joey.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "Second, the first catastrophist was not a "creation scientist" but an early paleontologist named Georges Cuvier (1769-1832). Cuvier explained extinctions in the fossil record as resulting from periodic catastrophic events, including region-wide floods. Some of Cuvier's followers (i.e., Buckland & Jamison) tried to tie Cuvier's ideas to Noah's flood, but that was not Cuvier's intent."

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the work of Nicolas Steno (1638-1686,) who was a Noachian:

"There are those to whom the great length of time seems to destroy the force of the remaining arguments, since the recollection of no age affirms that floods rose to the place where many marine objects are found to-day, if you exclude the universal deluge, four thousand years, more or less, before our time. Nor does it seem in accord with reason that a part of an animal's body could withstand the ravages of so many years, since we see that the same bodies are often destroyed completely in the space of a few years. But this doubt is easily answered, since the result depends wholly upon the diversity of soil; for I have seen strata of a certain kind of clay which by the thinness of their fluid decomposed all the bodies enclosed within them. I have noticed many other sandy strata which preserved whole all that was entrusted to them. And by this test it might be possible to come to a knowledge of that fluid which disintegrates solid bodies. But that which is certain, that the formation of many mollusks which we find to-day must be referred to times coincident with the universal deluge, is sufficiently shown by the following argument." [Steno, Nicolaus, "The Prodromus of Nicolaus Steno's Dissertation Concerning a Solid Body Enclosed by Process of Nature Within a Solid." The MacMillan Company, 1916, p.258]

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

>>Little Joey whined: "Uniformitarian gradualism came later, popularized by Charles Lyell (1797-1875) & others, it became dominant and still today is considered the biggest of geological factors, with catastrophic asteroid strikes like Chicxulub, Mexico, the relatively infrequent exceptions."

Henry Morris placed Cuvier in that mix:

"It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds. The acceptance of Lyell's uniformitarianism laid the foundation for the sudden success of Darwinism in the decade following the publication of Darwin'sOrigin of Species in 1859. Darwin frequently acknowledged his debt to Lyell, who he said gave him the necessary time required for natural selection to produce meaningful evolutionary results. . . Yet all the while the foundation was nothing but sand. Uniformitarian geology was contrary to both the Bible and to observable science. Now, a hundred years later, the humanistic and naturalistic culture erected upon that foundation is beginning to crumble, and men are beginning again to look critically at the foundation." [Henry M. Morris, "Geology and the Flood." Institute for Creation Research, Aug 1, 1973]

The supposed asteroid strike in Mexico is another just-so story Joey keeps presenting as a fact. {sigh}

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier on Ager: "No, Joey, you misunderstood him, or you are not making yourself clear."
>>Little Joey whined: "No, I understood perfectly your own quote, by which you hoped to hijack Ager's words for your own nefarious purposes."

Joey, you wrote in #422:

"Ager himself recognized his calculations were "ridiculous", my word was "nonsense".

I am trying to help you out, Joey, but you are too pig-headed to keep from making a fool of yourself. Ager claimed uniformitarianism was ridiculous. This is Ager, again, for the umpteenth time:

"Obviously sedimentation had to be very rapid to bury a tree in a standing position before it rotted and fell down. David Smith of BP did an instant calculation when I had talked about these things, as to what this meant in terms of rates of sedimentation (personal communication 1988). I later did my own calculation and it proved even more surprising. If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100,000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous." [Derek V. Ager, "The New Catastrophism: The Importance of the Rare Event in Geological History." Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 42019 9, 1993, Chap 4, p.49]

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "Those trees reveal only that, at one time, they were buried in highly-mineralized mud, of some sort."
>>Little Joey whined: "Petrified over millions of years."

You can't be that stupid, Joey. There is this little thing called rot that sets-in in a few years.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "You are avoiding my point, Joey, which is the widespread presence of uneroded, unbioturbated strata in the geological column."
>>Little Joey whined: "So, yet again you claim the absence of evidence is evidence of... what?"

The absence of evidence is NOT evidence, Joey. Uneroded, unbioturbated strata, however, IS evidence -- evidence of rapid deposition. The lecture segment linked previously explains. Here it is again:

Sloss's Megasequences

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

>>Little Joey whined: "Note again the six Cratonic Sequences."

Those are called megasequences, Joey. The layers in between are virtually undisturbed, indicating the entire megasequence was deposited rapidly, The flood waters retreated, and then returned, five times.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "So, again, you claim the absence of evidence is evidence of... what?"

Sloss's Megasequences

Have you ever noticed that Joey keeps asking the same dumb question over and over again?

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

>>Little Joey whined: "As for erosion & weathering, the Grand Canyon has a great example in what's called, "the Great Unconformity".

The Great Unconformity separates the pre-Cambrian "basement" rock from the Cambrian "sedimentary" rock, which was deposited by the flood surge that created the Sauk Megasequence. It has nothing to do with the point in question, which is, erosion between and within the sedimentary rock layers.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "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."
>>Little Joey whined: "Here is yet another example of erosion in Grand Canyon strata. "About 800 million years ago the supergroup was tilted 15° and block faulted in the Grand Canyon Orogeny.[21][22]"

800 million years? Baloney. That is another just-so story. Tricky Joey is using misdirection to trick you into believing there is a lot of erosion between the sedimentary rock layers. That is ONLY true of the upper and lower boundaries of the megasequences. The many layers in between are uneroded and unbioturbated.

The question any curious person would ask is, how does a sedimentary rock layer survive many millions of years without substantial erosion and mixing by boring animals? The answer is, the layers were all laid down rapidly. The lecture segment linked previously explains. Here it is again

Sloss's Megasequences

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

>>Little Joey whined: "And another: "Nankoweap Formation is around 1,050 million years old and is not part of a group.[16] This rock unit is made of coarse-grained sandstone, and was deposited in a shallow sea on top of the eroded surface of the Cardenas Basalt.[9]"

That is another just-so story, this time about pre-flood rock. Obviously, Joey doesn't have a clue what I am talking about or he wouldn't copy/paste something from Leftwing Wikipedia so unrelated to the topic.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "And yet more: "Temple Butte Formation was deposited on the eroded surface of the Muav Limestone. It in turn was buried by Redwall Limestone"

That is an example of erosion within the flood sediments, but there are only a handful of those boundaries. Joey is either ignorant of the strata, or he is trying to trick you into believing there is massive erosion. This chart reveals the low frequency of erosion boundaries in comparison to ueroded layering:

Notice there are only a handful of erosion boundaries. The rest are flat and uneroded, which could only exist today if the layers were deposited rapidly, with the subsequent layers preventing the previous layers from eroding.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "As for "bioturbation", fossils & tracks should fill that bill nicely: "Averaging 1,250 million years old, this is the oldest layer exposed in the Grand Canyon that contains fossils—stromatolites.[11]"

Joey doesn't understand bioturbation. This video segment will explain:

Lamination and Bioturbation

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "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 interpretations."
>>Little Joey whined: "Nonsense, erosion and bioturbation are found in many places between Grand Canyon strata, as illustrated above."

You really are scientifically-challenged. It doesn't help to copy/paste Leftwing Wikipedia articles, if you don't understand what you are copying.

My point is, there is a sedimentary rock layer in the Grand Canyon that formed and then remained undisturbed for supposedly 100 million years. Don't you think that is just a wee-bit far-feteched, Joey? [Joey doesn't get it.]

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "If I didn't know better, I would think you were trying to be funny, Joey."
>>Little Joey whined: "No, I simply note with amazement how frequently you attempt to use the lack of evidence of... {whatever}… as evidence for... {wait for it}… yes, Noah's flood!"

You really are scientifically challenged, Joey, either that or you enjoy being a pest.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "LOL! This is like talking to a wall."
>>Little Joey whined: "And yet again you fall back on Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Whiny Child.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "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."
>>Little Joey whined: "As illustrated above, "bioturbation" in the form of fossils and animal tracks is found in many Grand Canyon strata. The tracks are proof positive that the ground was exposed before being buried under later layers of sediment."

That is NOT bioturbation, Joey {sigh}. This video segment will explain:

Lamination and Bioturbation

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "These parts from Gingras et al. explains bioturbation. They also mention sequence stratigraphy:"
>>Little Joey whined: "I can't find anything on your man Gingras suggesting he is either young earth or creationist. So I have to wonder if you people have yet again hijacked a serious scientist for your own nefarious purposes?

The Oilfield Review is a secular paper, Joey. Perhaps you will feel more confortable with this secular Nature article, You can download the PDF for free:

The impact of deep-tier burrow systems in sediment mixing and ecosystem engineering in early Cambrian carbonate settings

The title and first two sentences summarize the process of bioturbation:

"Bioturbation plays a substantial role in sediment oxygen concentration, chemical cycling, regeneration of nutrients, microbial activity, and the rate of organic matter decomposition in modern oceans. In addition, bioturbators are ecosystem engineers which promote the presence of some organisms, while precluding others." [Zhang et al, "The Impact of deep-tier burrow systems in sediment mixing and ecosystem engineering in early Cambrian carbonate settings." Nature, Vol.7; April 4, 2017, p.1]

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier: "The Journal of Creation is a peer-reviewed journal."
>>Little Joey whined: "No, it's bogus theology masquerading as science.

No, Joey. It is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, I will agree that Charlie Darwin's theory is theology masquerading as science, when it is not being presented as a fairy tale.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier on igneous strata: "No. Perhaps you will enlighten us."
>>Little Joey whined: "Naw, you are incurious about matters outside the scope of your theological fantasies."

I suspected you would punt on that one.

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

>>Danny Whiny Denier quoting Hood 2017: "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..."
>>Little Joey whined: "Which those researchers said was about 200,000 years ago... ooops, so much for young earth."

You really cherry-picked that one good, Joey! No matter. The millions-of-years drama is being exposed as just another evolutionism fairy tale.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "Reports on this study are few and uninformative, but suggest to me it was highly flawed in both assumptions and methodology. For starters, they only looked at a sub-set of mitochondrial genes called COI, which may, or may not, represent overall speciation."

I found lots of reports, Joey:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Why+should+mitochondria+define+species%3F&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN

No offense, Joey, but I do not have a lot of confidence in your scientific aptitude.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "For another, the study totally begs the question "what is a species?"

There are many definitions of Species, as this Science blog attests:

A list of 26 Species "Concepts"

But, if you must whine about something, you can always nitpick.

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

>>Little Joey whined: "For another, the study assumes a constant rate of COI mutations over hundreds of thousands of years, a "fact" which is not fully in evidence, and is not accepted by Creationists as evidence in any other context I know of."

Where did you copy/paste that from, Joey? You didn't include a source.

Darwin assumed all species evolved from a common ancestor, a fact not in evidence; but you seem to have no problem believing Charlie. Is he your prophet?

**************** >>Danny Whiny Denier: "Regarding the last sentence, I wonder what the catastrophic event could have been that nearly "wiped the slate clean"? LOL!"
>>Little Joey whined: "We're talking 200,000 years ago here. Roughly 200,000 years ago the Earth was ending a long interglacial period, climate then similar to today"

The 100,000 to 200,000 years is a very wild guess, Joey. There was only one ice age, and that followed the global flood.

Mr Kalamata

Kalamata post 439 cont. 2: "Child, Jesus said that man and woman were created at the beginning of creation:"

Baby Danny, Genesis says it was Day Six, which was not really the beginning but near the end, and it also says that God began with "dust" which is what science speculates on.
Of course it makes perfect sense to me that God could start with "dust" at the beginning and end with mankind on Day Six, but I would not insist on that theologically.

Kalamata: "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."

Rubbish, I'm happy to accept that Jesus was descendent from Adam and Adam was the first true man with God's "breath of life" and the first "living soul".
I also notice that the Bible does not tell us exactly how God got "from mud to man", so I'm willing to let science fill in whatever blanks it can.

Finally, unlike the Bible, science never claims to be Divine Truth, only the latest tentative explanations, always subject to revisions or falsification in light on new data & better explanations.

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

I've denied nothing, but it seems to me, oh Danny boy, that you are the one denying the Bible's words in, for example, trying to stretch its use of "nature" and "natural" to mean Jesus was no more than a "natural man".

Kalamata: "So tell us, Joey, is the seed of Abraham natural, or unnatural?"

First baby Danny, I repeat, who is "us"?

Second, little boy, Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit was never just "natural".
From the beginning He was also "truly God" meaning both free from sin and capable of performing supernatural miracles.
So, "natural" yes, but not only natural.

Kalamata: "Paul implied in verse 2:16 that angels were natural;"

Liar!

Kalamata: "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."

Acts 19:11 says of Paul: "And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:"

But John 12:37 says of Jesus: "But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:"

Do you see the difference?

It's because (according to doctrine), Jesus was always also true God, never only "natural man".
Examples of his divine nature included conquest of natural sin and performance of supernatural miracles.
Many others like Peter & Paul also instrumented miracles, but not by themselves, only through God's actions.
At least, that's my understanding.

Kalamata: "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"

Many Christians, including Peter & Paul, performed supernatural miracles after receiving the Holy Spirit.
All died natural or martyred deaths, all will be raised again with incorruptible spiritual bodies, if I understand correctly.

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

In Christ only!
While God's "divine nature" is mentioned, God the Father is never called "natural" in the human sense, and from the beginning Jesus was never only "natural".

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

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

But Jesus was never only "natural", was always also God, according to Trinitarian doctrine, if I understand correctly.

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

Your own statements prove you are wrong, baby boy.

Kalamata: "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."

Baby Danny boy, you are such a bald-faced shameless liar, it's breathtaking.

Kalamata: "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."

And your lies just never stop, do they?
Galileo was not tried by some Greek philosophical guild, but by an Inquisition of the Roman Church.
Galileo was not charged with crimes against Aristotle, but rather of heresy against the Bible.
Galileo was not accused by some philosophical or academic professors, but by Church officials like Dominican friars Niccolò Lorini and Tommaso Caccini, Jesuits like Melchior Inchofer.
The Inquisition judge in 1615 was neither secular nor philosophical, but rather Roman Catholic Cardinal Bellarmine.
The Church's 1633 judgment against Galileo was "vehemently suspected of heresy" a more serious "crime" than mere "erroneous in faith".
I should also note again that it wasn't just Galileo but also Copernicus and Kepler whose works were condemned as heresy for their heliocentrism.

For Danny boy here to continue pretending the Galileo affair was more about natural-philosophy than Church theology simply confirms your status as a serial bald-faced liar.

Kalamata: "You took Augustine's statement out of context, Joey.
He is warning Christians not to stray from the positions of the ancient sacred writers."

No, that would be you, Danny boy.
In full context Augustine is clearly warning against people like you who quote the Bible out of context, to make it look stupid in the eyes of non-believers.

Kalamata: "[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... "

Nobody I know of uses "secular literature" to criticize the Bible as "crude and unrefined".
None of this quote has to do with natural-science.

Kalamata: "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."

And still more outrageous bald-faced lies from Danny boy, a very mischievous youngster.

Kalamata: "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."

And still more Danny-lies.
The truth is, the Bible is very historical, but there is no sense in which it even tries to be scientific.
Rather, the Bible is at great pains to show us that supernatural God created, rules over and can over-rule the natural realm.

Kalamata after quoting Hosea & Romans: "It's a little complicated."

Naw, it's all just basic and one more reason why Christians have always resisted attempts to divorce from the Old Testament.

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

When are you going to stop posting bald-faced lies, little boy?

Kalamata: "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:"

Sorry, Danny boy, but you have worked hard to set God's word at war against the best of ancient Greeks & Romans as well as medieval theologians and modern science.
I merely tried to restore their traditional positions as supporters, along with Jewish theology, of Western Civilization writ large.

Kalamata: "You really are delusional, Child."

You really are a bald-faced liar, Danny boy.

Kalamata: "That is what you claim, Alinsky Joe, that nature is godless."

And still more bald-faced lies -- you just can't stop it, can't control it, can't even slow it down a bit, you just have to lie & lie & lie?
Truthfully, I think you need serious help for that, baby boy.

Kalamata after quoting Lewontin on Sagan: "While you pretend to defend God, Joey, you in reality defending the anti-God's, like Lewontin and Shermer."

It's not clear if the opinions you quoted are strictly Lewontin's (I think) or also Sagan's (I doubt seriously).
Regardless they represent the term "philosophical naturalism" also known as "ontological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" which mean, in essence: atheism.
The more traditional view is called "methodological naturalism" which defines the old "natural philosophy", today's natural-science.
"Methodological naturalism" never denied the existence or works of God, theology or supernatural events.
It merely said supernatural miracles are outside the scope of science and so must be left to theologians & philosophers to investigate.

So, Danny boy, your insistence on equating all naturalism to atheism is yet another example of your serial bald-faced lying.

Kalamata: "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.' "

And still more bald-faced Danny-lies.
In fact Galileo was convicted of heresy, as were the works of Copernicus and Kepler, not because they opposed Greek philosophers, but because they opposed clear Biblical texts.

Isaac Newton, unlike Galileo, had the good fortune to be born in a Protestant country and the good sense to keep his religious views mostly private:

"Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[6][7]
Although born into an Anglican family, by his thirties Newton held a Christian faith that, had it been made public, would not have been considered orthodox by mainstream Christianity;[8] in recent times he has been described as a heretic.[9] "

Michael Faraday, so far as I know, never ran afoul of Christian orthodoxy and indeed, the institute founded in his name seems dedicated to bridging gaps between science & Christianity, for examples, as of today:

Faraday Public Lecture: The Changing Face of Medicine: Stem cells for future medicine - scientific advances and a Christian perspective.
24 October 2019
Prof Susan Kimber
Faraday Research Seminar: With God in Mind?: Integrated Physicality, (Un)belief, and Spiritual Technologies.
12 November 2019
Dr Sarah Lane Ritchie
Faith and Science for everyone - a short course for Christian leaders
10-11 January 2020
Join us in Cambridge for our professional workshop aimed at...

Of course, I have no idea if the Faraday Institute teaches beliefs consistent with Faraday's own or with traditional understandings, but I'd suspect their views are much closer to mine, properly understood, Danny boy, than to yours.

Will stop here for now on post #439, pick up the rest later.

>>freeDUMB2003 said: "BroJoeK — need we go deeper? I don’t think we need a point by point refutation when the underlying thesis is so flawed as to render subsequent arguments glitter on a parade float."
>>Joey said: "Well... I've mentioned here a metaphorical Intelligent Design "Denier University" where young theurgists can learn their... ahem... trade craft. At Denier University's Matriculated Body of Students (aka, "the D.U.M.B.S.") they are, I suspect, taught Kalamata's ideas as "gospel truth", and it's what they wish to teach, complete with insults & whining, in public schools too."

That was pretty lame, Joey. Are you and freeDumb twins? Perhaps you should call yourselves "The Dumb Luck Brothers," after the foundational principle of evolutionism.

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

>>Joey said: "Of course I'm no expert in any of the fields we cover here and unlike Kalamata don't have "thousands of books" I can quote mine with word searches."

I thought you already knew everything, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "Also, my time is limited -- so long as my health stays good I can be of service elsewhere and am frequently called."

The god of atheism is always in need of someone like you to serve him or her, Joey.

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

>>Joey said: "On the other hand, I do have education, books and life experience in every related field, and can google up online encyclopedias as well as the next guy."

When you get through patting yourself on the back, Joey, you might want to consider revisiting some of the truly dumb and dishonest things you have said in this tread.

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

>>Joey said: "So, for example, when Kalamata throws out names like Laurence Sloss and cratonic sequences, I can both remember back to geology class and look it up whenever memory fails me. And I do have some time, though clearly not nearly as much as Kalamata & company."

Come on, Joey. You have never taken a geology class, have you? If you did, did you enjoy your sleep?

For the record, "Kalamata & company," as Joey deceitfully represents me, consists of ONLY me, a decent education in five universities, a long career as an analyst in science and engineering, the Research Libary software, and, since my conversion to the God of the Bible from my former belief in "theistic" evolutionism, an eight-year long study of the religion of evolutionism.

Joey implies the ability to retrieve information without resorting to Snopes-on-Steroids (e.g, Wikipedia) is a big deal; but it is really nothing special if you are blessed with the right organizational tools, and a desire to know the truth. Having a little sticktoitiveness doesn't hurt.

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

>>Little Joey said: "Anyway, if you wonder what I'm doing there, then think of all the kids at Denier University being bullied & insulted by people like Kalamata into thinking that natural science is just another religious cult that can be denied & defeated by tactics of alleged "biblical science"."

It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize that evolutionism is a religious cult. You only have to read Charlie Darwin's books. They are loaded with anti-Moses theology, as well as supremacist racism based on a Pharisaical, holier-than-thou premise.

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

>>freedumb2003: "Yes, said I would say out of it but the “supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth and not Harry Potter level fantasies."

Anyone who believes humankind evolved from a frog, by way of an ape, cannot be taken seriously; therefore, they must plea to the usurped authority of the federal government to force their fairy tales onto us, and our children.

This is the kind of fairy-tale trash the evolutionism cult rams down our children's throats:

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

That is pure craziness. The psychologically-challenged author, Neil Shubin, had a popular TV show, with the same name as the title of that book; and it was dishonestly presented as if it were a fact, instead of a fairy tale.

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

>>Little Joey said: "I'm taking Kalamata's posts on one by one, so have not yet reached his "supernatural is science" comment. Previously he claimed that "God is natural", leaning on traditional trinitarian theology which proclaims Christ is both "fully human and fully God"."

The scripture states Christ is both fully human and fully God. I believe the scripture. Little Joey has a tendency to add his own words to the scripture, to better make it fit his worldview.

Regarding the supernatural part, if you don't believe the supernatural is part of science, you cannot believe in the big bang, or abiogeneis. That is a scientific fact, as the atheist defines science. Both are outside "natural" laws.

This short video segment is by a general relativity physicist and former atheist:

The Supernatural Singularity

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

>>Little Joey said: "I responded by showing that even while "fully human", Jesus had supernatural powers to perform miracles over both human and natural realms."

That is true. But so did Paul, Peter, and the other apostles, not to mention some of the Gentiles who were given the supernatural power of speaking in languages they never learned, also called, speaking in tongues (Acts 10:45-46).

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

>>Little Joey said: "I also noted that Kalamata's high school text book, "Of Pandas and People" does admit that "Intelligent Design" appeals to supernatural forces."

Only a fool would believe otherwise. Even many atheists are reluctantly admitting that the universe is designed (called "the Anthropic Principle",) and not a product of Dumb Luck, like the mocking Dumb Luck Brothers would have you believe. Of course, atheists are always seeking ways to explain away the obvious:

"Anthropocentrism is the attitude lying behind these notions. Each reader will have his or her own reaction to them. It is important to make clear that I myself am not religious, and (a separate issue) that I find anthropocentrism utterly distasteful. Furthermore, I can testify from personal experience that I am not alone among scientists in this matter... At best I can hope only to render plausible the contention that, in some strange and at present mysterious fashion, our universe is fundamentally a universe of life— a universe that takes life seriously, if you will. Only when enough people begin to take the idea seriously will further evidence leap forward as if spontaneously. And make no mistake about it: If that idea turns out to be correct, it is no exaggeration to say that a major revolution in thought is in the offing. Whatever the explanation turns out to be for that massive series of coincidences whereby life arose in the universe, it is not going to be simple. Each and every one of them flows from the laws of nature, and it is to these principles themselves that our thinking must turn. Life obeys the laws of physics—this much is a truism. What is new and incomprehensible here is that in some extraordinary way the reverse seems also to be true—that the laws of physics conform themselves to life." [George Greenstein, "The Symbiotic Universe: life and mind in the cosmos." William Morrow and Company Inc., 1988, pp.26, 27]

But some have resigned themselves to the possibility of intelligent design:

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." [Arno Penzias,"Creation Is Supported by All the Data So Far", in Margenau & Varghese, "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: scientists reflect on science, God, and the origins of the universe, life, and homo sapiens." Open Court Publishing Company, 1991, p.83]
"The delicate fine-tuning in the values of the constants, necessary so that the various different branches of physics can dovetail so felicitously, might be attributed to God. It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out… As remarked in the previous chapter, if we cannot visit the other universes or experience them directly, their possible existence must remain just as much a matter of faith as belief in God. Perhaps future developments in science will lead to more direct evidence for other universes, but until then, the seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design." [Paul Davies, "God and the New Physics." Simon & Schuster, 1983, p.189]
"It is true that we emerged in the universe by chance, but the idea of chance is itself only a cover for our ignorance. I do not feel like an alien in this universe. The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming." [Freeman J. Dyson, "Disturbing the Universe." Basic Books, 1979, Chap.23, p.250]
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries" [Robert Jastrow, "God and the Astronomers." W. W. Norton & Company, 2nd Ed, 1992, p.16]

And, of course, there are those who have no doubt that God designed the universe, as general-relativity physicist Frank Tipler claims:

"It is quite rare in this day and age to come across a book proclaiming the unification of science and religion. It is unique to find a book asserting, as I shall in the body of this book, that theology is a branch of physics, that physicists can infer by calculation the existence of God and the likelihood of the resurrection of the dead to eternal life in exactly the same way as physicists calculate the properties of the electron. One naturally wonders if I am serious."
"I am quite serious. But I am as surprised as the reader. When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." [Frank J. Tipler, "The Physics of Immortality - Modern Cosmology, God and the Resurrection of the Dead." Doubleday, 1997, Preface, p.x]

That is fascinating stuff, coming from those brilliant scholars.

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

>>Little Joey said: "Indeed, that is the basis on which Judge Jones in 2006 declared ID to be "not science" and threw it out of Dover Area public schools."

So, according to Joey, the definition of science is defined by the notes of the communist ACLU, as transcribed into the ruling of a prima donna federal judge, whose previous claim to fame was serving as the head of the liquor control board?

That is an interesting concept, but I prefer the traditional definition, which is seeking to understand the workings of God's universe using the tools of math, physics and chemistry, absent the false pretense of the atheist.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: "Benedict Arnold was a war hero, Joey."
>>Joey: "Sure, until he wasn't -- wanted to replace George Washington, flipped sides when disappointed."

No, he was a war hero, who later did foolish, traitorous things.

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

>>Joey: "Thomas Paine supported the American Revolution with words and money, afterwards joined the French Revolution and was jailed there by Robespierre's Jacobins. Paine eventually became deeply unpopular in the United States for his attacks on Christianity."

That was a pretty dumb thing to do in a Christian nation. I assume his arrogance took control of his senses.

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

>>Kalamata: "It was most foolish of Paine to attack the faith that had sustained the colonists since they first arrived in America."
>>Joey: "Even though jailed by Robespierre's Jacobins, Paine was more at home in the French Revolution -- which not only overthrew the King, but also guillotined French aristocracy and Catholic Church officials. It was not the first, or last, time the wealth of an established religion was stolen to finance a revolution intended to destroy it.

They were a charming bunch.

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

>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey: "Your version here is also fantasy, not true history."

No, my version is exactly the way things are, and have been since Charlie's rhetoric exploded onto the scene. Evolutionary scientists are more concerned about proving Charlie right, than they are about science. The word science, to them, is just a cover for their thirst for power. Real science, like Behe's expose' on devolution, gets mocked, ridiculed, and suppressed, if it questions the orthodoxy of Pope Charlie Darwin.

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

>>Joey: "In fact, as I pointed out in post #449, over the past 150+ years huge volumes of new data and ideas were added to Darwin's basic evolution ideas."

For what purpose? For the advancement of science? Baloney. For the perpetuation of atheistic control over science? Exactly.

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

>>Joey: "None "falsified" basic evolution but all improved our understandings to some degree. That's how science is supposed to work."

Evolutionism cannot be falsified because it is not science, but is rather a perpetual reinvention and cover-up of a false doctrine. Science can be used to invent things -- to make life better for the people. Evolutionism cannot. Rather it has the opposite effect. It has become a powerful political doctrine, like Islam, but it is not science, nor will it ever be.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey, I am at odds with your understanding of the Founding Fathers and science, and those like you."
>>Joey: "My understandings are based on historical facts, yours on self-serving fantasies & distortions. For just one example: our Founders nearly all believed in the importance of religiously based morality, believed no republic could survive long without it, however, in 1794 future president, then Ambassador James Monroe, also reached out to get anti-religious Thomas Paine released from French Revolution prison. Monroe eventually soured on Paine and they split, but President Jefferson invited Paine back to the US in 1802 Point is, at least some of our Founders were able to tolerate Paine, despite his, ah, eccentric opinions."

I am trying to find a link between your statement and mine, but without success.

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

>>Joey: "Today Paine is honored for, among others: his support of the American Revolution, his early opposition to slavery, his "Rights of Man" ideas which we take more or less for granted. Paine's "Age of Reason" presents traditional deistic ideas and opposed corrupt established religions, people we today might call the "theological swamp"."

Atheists love Paine; and there was no established religion of the United States until evolutionism was usurped into power.

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

>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Joey: "Well... first of all, by your own admission, Intelligent Design is supernatural, not natural-science."

Science is science, Joey. It is you and your atheist buds who are determined to keep it confined inside a box of your own "intelligent design," and not allow contradictory research to be freely discussed. That makes you an apologist for the suppressors of science, Joey.

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

>>Joey: "Second, Danny boy, I've now instructed you several times on the truth about Galileo, but you continue to lie & deny, deny & lie, without end. So, one more time: even in Galileo's time, it was no crime to be stupid. But it was a serious crime to commit heresy and that is what Galileo was punished for."

Did you learn how to be a patronizing jerk, Joey, or were you born that way?

Galileo's "crime" was opposing the scientific establishment of those days, period.

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

>>Joey: "In my post #452 above I quoted five Biblical verses Galileo's ideas contradicted. In posts #350 & #482 among others I quoted from the Church Inquisition which convicted Galileo while also opposing Copernicus and Kepler."

They were trumped up charges. Galileo's only "heresy" was denying the doctrine of the pagan Aristotle.

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

>>Kalamata: "You always have to get your little dig in, Joey."
>>Joey: "Not a "dig", Danny boy, since I have huge respect for freemasons and a son-in-law is one, as were several Founding Fathers -- i.e., Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Lafayette, Marshall, Burr & Monroe along with European Enlightenment leaders like Locke, Voltaire, Hayden & Mozart. Freemasons were not historically anti-Christian though sometimes persecuted by established government churches."

I don't recall ever using the word "freemason" in a debate? Why bring it up, except perhaps to cast a shadow on the Founding Fathers. Your anti-Christian bias is always visible, Joey, no matter how well you try to hide it.

BTW, my paternal grandfather was a mason.

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

>>Kalamata: "It was not as if there was a light switch to turn it off, Joey. The dangers to society that come from abandoning 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 enlightenment,] held some of the same anti-biblical views that Charlie later adopted."

You left out a key clause in my statement, Joey: the one in the square brackets.

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

>>Little Joey said: "First, sure, I "get" that you wish to blame "Enlightenment" for every bad thing, Danny baby boy. The very word "enlightenment" sends you into paroxysms of incoherence -- smoke from your ears, froth from your mouth, "enlightenment" be d*mned to, ah, heck, right?"

Are you hitting the sauce, Joey? I reject the anti-Christian, anti-God doctrine of the "enlightenment," which is more appropriately called, the "darkening."

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

>>Little Joey said: "But as Americans, as political "children" of our Founding Fathers, we are committed to their Enlightenment ideas and history."

Except for a few under-miners, like Hamilton and Paine, the founders were committed to a Christian society and a Christian education. That can be appropriately called, the Enlightenment; but not the other.

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

>>Little Joey said: "We are not necessarily committed to what came after in other historical ages -- Age of Revolution, Romantic Age, Victorian Age, etc., certainly not to atheistic Marxist totalitarianism. But our Founders represent pinnacles of Enlightenment Era political & philosophical achievement and as such deserve our respect and honor."

We dishonor them by trashing the moral, Christian society and republic they established; and nothing has caused more destruction the republic they established than evolutionism. Nothing else comes close.

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

>>Little Joey said: "Our Founders held a "decent respect" for the opinions of mankind and for what they called "natural philosophy", our term "natural science" = natural explanations for natural processes, only."

That is pure sophistry.

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

>>Kalamata on "separation of church & state": "Some of the most extreme are your buds, the evolutionists."
>>Little Joey said: "Maybe, but natural science assumptions are intended to be a methodology only, not philosophical or ontological commitments."

Tell that to your buds who use the perceived moral authority of their office or position to trash Christianity, God, and the Word of God. That has been going on since I was in high school, if not before. This is from a 1962 Biology text book:

"Opponents of the evolutionary doctrine, none of whom is a trained biologist, have in common one viewpoint which is not consistent with the discoveries of biology. (It is in fact inconsistent with true religion.) That viewpoint is a belief in the literal inspiration of the Bible and in the strict truth of every word in the particular translation they follow. Of course such a view is inconsistent with the findings of biology, but it is equally inconsistent with discoveries in other fields as well." [Gordon Alexander, "Biology." Barnes & Noble Books, 8th Ed, 1962, p.221]

That is a blatant lie! Since its inception as a recognized field of science, there been many devout Christians who were and are trained biologists.

You will find lies and slander against religion, similar to that one, in virtually every science textbook, and even in social science texts.

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

>>Little Joey said: "Religious opinions of individual scientists vary as much as those of any other citizens. Regardless, I have no problem with, ahem, methodologically separating science from theology in mandatory public school science classes. I also have no problem with teaching & practicing traditional religion in voluntary classes."

You have no problem with the theology of evolutionism being forced into our children's moldable brains by those in positions of authority, Joey. That reeks of the worst kind of hypocrisy.

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

>>Kalamata: "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."
>>Little Joey said: "Oh, Danny baby boy, you just got to stop lying about this. Stupidity was never a crime, but heresy was in Galileo's time as in many other times."

Galileo was guilty of promoting observable science (heliocentricity) that was in opposition to a doctrine of the scientific establishment (the pagan Aristotlean geocentricity.)

The scientific orthodoxy has a consistent history of suppressing science in favor of ideology. It is no different today.

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

>>Little Joey said: "And heresy against the Bible is what you, Danny boy, are here fighting against, under the banner of "Intelligent Design"."

You are a false witness. I was a content Christian and evolutionist, until I saw contradictory evidence. As a scientist, I could not sweep evidence under the table. It is you who are opposing science.

Foolish Child.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Danny Denier post #438: "You don't appear to have much of a scientific aptitude, Joey."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Says our anti-science theologian.

I love science, Joey. You worship the doctrine of the orthodoxy. Big difference!

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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?"
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "In post #228, I quoted St. Augustine's warning against people like you Danny boy: >>Junk-Science Joey quoting Augustine: "Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by these who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

Atheistic quote-miners have misused that passage to brow-beat Christians into submission to their false doctrines, similar to the way in which they misuse "turn the other cheek." Why are using tools of the atheists, Joey?

Augutine's instruction to the "reckless and incompetent" is certainly good advice to whose who frequently misconstrue the words of Christ, as you are doing. The opposition he mentions -- those not bound by the authority of the scriptures – do not include those making assertions about science that cannot be verified with scientific evidence. This is Augustine from the same chapter, two paragraphs earlier:

"And it frequently happens that even non-Christians will have knowledge of this sort in a way that they can substantiate with scientific arguments or experiments." [Augustine, "On Genesis: The Literal Meaning of Genesis." New City Press, Ch.19, p.186]

As you can see, Augustine was not anti-science, but anti-Junk Science. The section immediately following the one you quoted, reads:

"Some of the weaker brothers and sisters, however, are in danger of going astray more seriously when they hear these godless people holding forth expertly and fluently on the 'music of the spheres,' or on any questions you care to mention about the elements of this cosmos. [Ibid. Book I.20.40, p.187]

And that is exactly what has happened since the godless evolutionism cult has taken over the education of our children. They have led armies of our children away from Christ.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "I agree that Augustine took scripture to mean the Earth was "not 6,000 years" old. But even in his own time Augustine noticed that men would sometimes quote scripture foolishly, bringing discredit on both themselves and the Bible."

Quoting scripture foolishly would include denying the words of our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ, for example, denying these:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV
"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." -- Mat 24:38-39 KJV

It is also not a good idea to ignore any of the NT authors on those points:

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." -- Heb 11:7 KJV
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." -- 1Pet 3:18-20 KJV
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;" -- 2Pet 2:4-5 KJV

David mentioned the flood, but in more scientific terms:

"He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth." -- Ps 104:5-9 ESV

The last sentence was a restatement of the promise to Noah (Gen 9:13-15.) The flood is a recurring theme that probably should not be ignored. Now to Adam:

"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 3:38 KJV
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." -- 1Cor 15:22 KJV

Why blame sin on Adam, if he had ancestors?

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve." -- 1Tim 2:13 KJV

How does one go about squeezing the word "evolved" out of "formed"? Your quote-mining of the scripture reminds me of this plea by Jefferson to those misconstruing the Constitution:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1903, p.449]

Augustine was no fool. He understand exactly what Christ and his apostles were saying about the creation, which is, those who believe the earth is millions of years old are deceived, and deceiving.

***********

>>Junk-Science Joey said: "How did Augustine define such "reckless and incompetent expounders"? >>Junk-Science Joey quoting Augustine: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Augustine is telling Christians not to talk nonsense on such subjects, even if you can find Biblical texts which seemingly support your opinions."

An Augustinian understanding of cosmological nonsense would be the magic required for the big bang, the formation of that first star, and, of course, the deep space galactic clusters, not to mention a zillion other unexplainable phenomena that the secularist has to deal with by rejecting the plain words of God. Remember this aforementioned statement?

"Some of the weaker brothers and sisters, however, are in danger of going astray more seriously when they hear these godless people holding forth expertly and fluently on the 'music of the spheres,' or on any questions you care to mention about the elements of this cosmos. [Augustine, "On Genesis: The Literal Meaning of Genesis." New City Press, Book I.20.40, pp.187-188]

The godless rhetoric of the evolutionist has led many astray, Joey.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "So you claim. The Bible itself makes no such clear distinctions and instead allows us to believe that a "day" to God can be as long or short as He wants it to be."

You may as well throw the Bible in the trash can if it can mean anything and everything. I assume from your uncompromising devotion to evolutionism, that you already have.

This is how God told man that he used "man's time" when he created the heaven, earth and all its host:

"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

There are no idle words in the scripture, Joey, and those particular ones are crystal clear.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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 "
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Nobody here deems the Bible "crude and unrefined", far from it. The question on the table here is whether the Bible is necessarily at war against natural-science? You say it is, I say it's not and I say Augustine would agree with me, oh. Danny boy"

The Bible and science are in perfect harmony, Joey. It is the junk-science religion you proselytize, the foundation of which is based on dumb luck, that is both contrary to the scripture, and to natural science.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "No, Child. It is called faithfulness to the Word of God."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Right, I "get" that -- you fantasize the Bible at war against natural-science so you take the Bible's "side".

No, Joey, you are at war with both God and natural science. I am trying to nudge you back into reality.

***********

>>Junk-Science Joey said: "I disagree the two are necessarily in conflict and would allow science methodologically whatever physical space it needs. Philosophically & theologically I remain committed to traditional, classical ideas of God as Creator of everything natural and spiritual."

Are you claiming that you believe in Genesis 1:1, and that's it? Or, are you claiming Genesis 1:1 is the only verse you take literally? What do you mean?

***********

>>Danny Denier: "I believe Newton is saying that scientists should be leery of claiming any principle or theory to be a fact."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Well... that's actually not what he said or meant in this particular quote, though I'm pretty sure if/when you ask him, he'll agree with you on it, since such ideas come from traditional scientific understandings. But that particular Newton quote -- "a boy playing on the sea-shore" -- referred instead to the fact that science as a metaphor for reality is vastly tinier than the great unknown reality before us."

I suppose. This is the prelude to that statement:

"None, however, knew so well [as Newton] the stupendousness of his discoveries in comparison with all that had been previously achieved; and none realized so thoroughly as himself the littleness thereof in comparison with the vast region still unexplored."

Newton saw the world through God's eyes -- through his Word -- and he understood this passage perfectly:

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

I have no doubt Newton would scoff at those who claim evolution is a fact, even absent our current knowledge that all evidence is either against evolution, or could apply to several alternate theories. He would also scoff at those who ignored this crucial instruction:

"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." -- Pro 3:5-6 KJV

***********

>>Danny Denier: "My statement about Augustine and his noticeable absence from the constitutional narrative was in response to this statement you made in #341:..."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "But you are mixing apples & oranges."

No, you are. You attempted to conflate colonial-era understanding of natural philosophy with Augustine, and I have yet to see any evidence of that. If you have any, please present it.

***********

>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Augustine was a theologian, not a philosopher of (small-r) republican government. As such I was referring to books like this one which trace the course of Western Civilization from ancient Greek philosophers though early Church theologians like Augustine and to Aquinas in the High Middle Ages. Indeed, at grave risk of oversimplifying, let me dramatize my point by saying traditional Western Civilization can be thought of as the offspring of Jewish theology, Greek philosophy and Roman government ideals, launched to world domination by Western European science & industry."

I will agree that is way over-simplified, where it is relevant. I will interject that Christianity has been the driving force of Western Civilization from its inception until fairly recently, at which time it was undermined by the adoption by those in power of pagan philosophies, such as evolutionism, rather than the stability and simplicity that is in Christ.

***********

>>Junk-Science Joey said: "So, Kalamata, I see you here as working to split those apart, making one the enemy of the others, and I'm hoping to stop you, FRiend."

You frequently make no sense, Joey. This is one of those times. I do however sense you are claiming I oppose a free republic because I reject your atheist philosophy and religion. The truth is, I would be opposing a free republic if I accepted it.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "More Wikipedia, Joey? Anyone can search Wikipedia, should they desire to do so."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Well... I gathered you think poor Erasmus Darwin was some kind of demon from... heck, so I put him in his proper context -- British Midlands Enlightenment."

Charlie got many of his ideas on evolution from Erasmus, who was another of the influential godless ones who help corrupt western civilization. Anti-Christian bigotry was all in the family.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "No, no, I did finally figure out what's going on inside your devious little mind regarding young Graur -- you heartily agree with what he said while you strongly disagree with what he meant by it! Sorry, I'm a little slow on some things, took me awhile to "get" all that.... ;-)

There was nothing devious about it, Joey; and you still don't get it. Let me try it this way. This is what I wrote, quoting Lepage:

"The 2017 article by Graur that Le Page referenced is only one of his many attacks on the Encode project, which he claims: 1) provides support for intelligent design, and 2) doesn’t take into account the primary tenent of his religion, which is “everything is shaped by evolution”. “If Encode is right,” according to Graur, “then evolution is wrong.” I don’t disagree on that point."

That is all I said. I agreed that if ENCODE is right then evolution is wrong. I am also on record of saying that ENCODE is right. You dwell on the oddest things, Joey.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "Shermer is not a credible historian, Joey. History Professor Richard Weikart is:"
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Your point here is the same one you made in posts #505 & #506 among others, quoting Bergmann: "Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others...". "As modified by..." is a ludicrous standard, you might as well say, "Christ's teachings as modified by the devil are to blame for X, Y and Z..."! Utter nonsense.

I agree that Bergman could have made a better choice of words, for example, "Darwin's theory, as understood by . . . "

***********

>>Danny Denier: "When are you going to learn how to keep things in context, Child?"
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Nonsense, just more Danny Denier Rule #12.

Foolish Child and his self-serving rules.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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?"
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "But it's total, pure malicious fantasy on your part, Danny baby, to claim that Darwin would somehow support the Holocaust. Really, that's just hate speech."

It was your quote, Joey. I merely added the context, which you ignored.

History is not hate speech, Joey. An example of hate speech would be to label a conservative as either a Nazi or a holocaust denier, simply because he doesn't agree with your world view. Another definition would be slander.

***********

>>Danny Denier on Darwin & Holocaust: "Where did I say he did? Be specific."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Oh, so now you want to back away from it? Having spent post after post equating Darwin to Hitler and Holocaust, now you wish to deny it? Now you're going to run for the hills, whining, denying & lying about it? I'm calling you for Denier Rule #11, ten yard penalty."

I never said Charlie Darwin would support the Holocaust, Joey, and you are lying when you insinuate I did. I am, however, asserting that his ape-to-man and savage races rhetoric contributed heavily to the Holocaust, as it made its way through academia. Rhetoric matters, Joey.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Oh Danny boy, by Free Republic traditions, when you are trying, trying, trying to make a funny like that, you are supposed to end it with a tag like this:

I wasn't being sarcastic, Joey.

***********

>>Danny Denier: "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."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Since you see fit to repost your own comments originally from #280, I'll repost my original response from #299: >>Junk-Science Joey reposting #299: "Your point here is not entirely untrue, but there is more to this story. I'll repeat, Nazis didn't need Darwin to justify their ideas of racial superiority because they had a much better example they could easily see and carefully study -- of just how "herrenvolk" should treat their despised "untermenschen". It was the United States 1920s era South, of course."
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "The fact is, Hitler was strictly a political opportunist, taking ideas from wherever he could find them. When, for example, he planned his 1935 Nuremburg Laws against Jews, he had Nazi officials study the American examples:
>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Nazism triumphed in Germany during the high era of Jim Crow laws in the United States. [lengthy response] Did the American regime of racial oppression in any way inspire the Nazis? The unsettling answer is yes. In Hitler’s American Model, James Whitman presents a detailed investigation of the American impact on the notorious Nuremberg Laws, the centerpiece anti-Jewish legislation of the Nazi regime. Both American citizenship and antimiscegenation laws proved directly relevant to the two principal Nuremberg Laws―the Citizenship Law and the Blood Law. Contrary to those who have insisted otherwise, Whitman demonstrates that the Nazis took a real, sustained, significant, and revealing interest in American race policies. He looks at the ultimate, ugly irony that when Nazis rejected American practices, it was sometimes not because they found them too enlightened but too harsh. Indelibly linking American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany, Hitler’s American Model upends the understanding of America’s influence on racist practices in the wider world."

Was that from a review? It seems to be lacking a noticeable theme called eugenics that is found in the book

***********

>>Junk-Science Joey said: "Sure, I "get" that you most desperately wish to blame the Brit Darwin for pretty-darn-near everything, but in this particular case, the source of Hitler's discrimination laws was much closer to Americans' own home."

Sorry, Joey, but your own source implicates eugenics:

"[W]hatever the Nazis may have thought about southern racism, southern whites themselves did not generally become supporters of Hitler. If the Nazis regarded New Deal America as a potential comrade in arms, that does not necessarily tell us much about what kind of a country America really was. But— and here recent scholarship on German– American relations becomes more troubling— historians have also tracked down American influence on some of the most unambiguously criminal Nazi programs— in particular on Nazi eugenics and the murderous Nazi conquests in Eastern Europe."
"Begin with eugenics. A ruthless program of eugenics, designed to build a 'healthy' society, free of hereditary defects, was central to Nazi ambitions in the 1930s. Soon after taking power, the regime passed a Law to Prevent the Birth of the Offspring with Hereditary Defects, and by the end of the decade a program of systematic euthanasia that prefigured the Holocaust, including the use of gassing, was under way. We now know that in the background of this horror lay a sustained engagement with America's eugenics movement. In his 1994 book The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism, historian Stefan Kühl created a sensation by demonstrating that there was an active back- and- forth traffic between American and Nazi eugenicists until the late 1930s, indeed that Nazis even looked to the United States as a 'model.'"
…
"To be sure, there are, here again, ways we may try to minimize the significance of the eugenics story. American eugenicists, repellant though they were, did not advocate mass euthanasia, and the period when the Nazis moved in their most radically murderous direction, at the very end of the 1930s, was also the period when their direct links with American eugenics frayed. In any case, eugenics, which was widely regarded as quite respectable at the time, was an international movement, whose reach extended beyond the borders of both the United States and Nazi Germany. The global history of eugenics cannot be told as an exclusively German–American tale. But the story of Nazi interest in the American example does not end with the eugenics of the early 1930s; historians have carried it into the nightmare years of the Holocaust in the early 1940s as well."
[James Q. Whitman, "Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law." Princeton University Press, 2017, pp.7-8, 9]

That puts the rhetoric of Darwin and Galton front-and-center on the road to the Holocaust, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

>>quoting Kalamata post #341: "Stephen Jay Gould claimed that racism "increased by orders of magnitude" after evolution was accepted:"
>>BJK response post #432: "Your own quote says biological arguments for racism existed before Darwin, Darwin did not invent them."
>>Kalamata post #438: "I never said he did."
>>Joey said, "No, but in your eagerness to blame Darwin for pretty near everything bad, you have exaggerated the role of Darwin's ideas beyond recognition."

I have not exaggerated Charlie's major role in the demise of morals in western civiilization, nor the dramatice increase in racism after the introduction of Charlie's savage races and apes-to-man rhetoric into the narrative. By his own admission, the father of engenics, Francis Galton, got his inspiration for eugenics from "honest" Charlie. Ernst Haeckel, whom Darwin praised, contributed greatly to the racism with charicatures like this:

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

>>Joey said, "You blame Darwin for a "rise in racism" at the very time the US passed constitutional amendments to abolish slavery and grant full citizenship to former slaves. You wish to somehow blame Darwin for the resulting lack of perfect racial harmony, as if the races were perfectly in love under slavery!"

Charlie Darwin's "savage races" rhetoric was blatantly racist, Joey, and you whining cannot change that historical fact. Moreso, Darwin gave racism a scientific justification, according to D'Souza:

"Social Darwinism as an idea actually preceded Darwin. Its roots can be found in the progressive doctrines of the Enlightenment, such as Condorcet's Sketch for an Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, published in 1795, which forecast an upward spiral of human development, spearheaded by reason, toward perfection. In the nineteenth century Auguste Comte argued that the history of man's intellectual development proceeds through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and scientific or positivist. These views rendered believable the notion of a principle of gradation, a hierarchy of the world's peoples on a civilizational ladder, even a scale of value for individuals within Western civilization. Darwin's theory of evolution helped to give that concept a racial cast and a scientific justification. Primitive peoples were in a kind of evolutionary infancy; they could not be related to Western civilization less in space than in time. For Europeans, they represented "the way we were." Unfortunately, they were laggards on the civilizational ladder and thus marked for defeat and extinction. Liberals in the nineteenth century supported evolution because, in historian Carl Degler's words, Evolution ... was actually another word for progress.'" [Dinesh D'Souza, "The End of Racism: principles for a multiracial society." 1995, p.131]

Opposition to racism after Dawin carried a social stigma:

"If God does not exist, Dostoyevsky warns, everything is permitted. The secularism and racism embodied in Darwin prevailed, and increasingly race began to replace religion as the gnostic key to history. Essentially, Darwin helped to legitimize the racist application of the principle that 'might is right.' This was not a new idea: Thrasymachus defended the concept against Socrates in Plato's Republic. But it was an idea that had been reviled and opposed by many in the West for the next two millennia in the name of morality and religion. Now it had returned, carrying a scientific imprimatur, and to oppose it was to stigmatize yourself as a religious fanatic or an ignoramus." [Dinesh D'Souza, "The End of Racism: principles for a multiracial society." 1995, p.132]

Now, that is interesting!

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

>>Kalamata after lengthy Gould quotes: "Gould's emphasis on recapitulation could not be more damaging to the notion that Darwin was an innocent bystander."
>>Joey said, "Nonsense, because yet again your lovely "research assistant" has messed-up by providing enough data to argue against your own assertions."

You must provide better sources than whine, if you are to be believed, Joey.

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

>>Joey said, "Now I've already used the simile of: blaming Darwin is like blaming 9/11/2001 on the terrorists' breakfast."

Lame.

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

>>Joey said, "Let's add another: blaming Darwin is not even like blaming Einstein for the ~200,000 who died at Hiroshima & Nagasaki, since arguably without Einstein those bombs could not be built."

Non-sequitur.

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

>>Joey said, "But there's no post-Darwin political movement, not even so-called "social Darwinism" which arguably would not exist, in some closely related form, even without Darwin."

Will someone translate that for me?

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

>>Joey said, "To support my argument we need only review carefully your own lengthy quotes from Gould, strip away words referring strictly to Darwin himself and then look to see if the results are materially changed. They're not."

Are you claiming Charlie was not a recapitulationist?

"He who wishes to see what ingenuity and knowledge can effect, may consult Prof Hackel's works. I will content myself with a few general remarks. Every evolutionist will admit that the five great vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, are descended from some one prototype; for they have much in common, especially during their embryonic state." [Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." Hurst & Company, New Ed, 1870, Chap.VI, p.174]

Frankly, I am not sure what you want me to do. Perhaps you can demonstrate.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Gould from 2002: "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]"
>>Joey said, "Fueled the final solution", just as breakfast fueled the 9/11 terrorists, so let's blame the cook!"

That is a straight quote from Gould's book, including the statements in parentheses. You can take it up with him. I personally agree with him. However, he remained a devout Darwinist until death:

"Now, I know perfectly well that such blatant anti-Semitism has pervaded nearly all European history for almost two thousand years at least. I also know that such political and moral evil has been rationalized at each stage within the full panoply of changing views about the nature of reality—with each successive theory pushed, shoved, and distorted to validate this deep and preexisting prejudice. I also know—for who could fail to state this obvious point—that the most tragically effective slaughter ever propagated in the name of anti- Semitism, the Holocaust of recent memory, sought its cruel and phony "natural" rationale not in an ancient doctrine of harmony between microcosm and macrocosm, but in a perverted misreading of modern theories about the evolution of human variation." [Gould, Stephen Jay, "I Have Landed.", p,173]

Like I said, rhetoric matters.

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

>>Joey said, "Further, "academic racists" (not Darwin) "entail some moral demerit" according to Gould. But Kalamata takes such words to blame Darwin for something of which Gould specifically exonerated him -- "Hitler's use of Darwin". "

The words in parentheses are your words, not Gould's. Gould did not exonerate Darwin, even if he intended to:

"[I]deas originate by explicit intent for overt purposes, and we have some ethical responsibility for the consequences of our deeds."

The scientific authority Darwin's rhetoric gave to the concept of "apes-to-man," to the superiority of the "civilized societies," and to his not-so-subtle question of "why do we let the worst among men live and propagate?" makes exoneration untenable:

"No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." [Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex - Vol I." 1871, p.168]

Remember, Darwin also promoted Galton's eugenics. Your own reference ("Hitler's American Model") claims eugenics provided some foundation for the Holocaust. This is Charlie promoting Galton's work:

"So in regard to mental qualities, their transmission is manifest in our dogs, horses, and other domestic animals. Besides special tastes and habits, general intelligence, courage, bad and good temper, &c., are certainly transmitted. With man we see similar facts in almost every family; and we now know, through the admirable labours of Mr. Galton, that genius which implies a wonderfully complex combination of high faculties, tends to be inherited; and, on the other hand, it is too certain that insanity and deteriorated mental powers likewise run in families." [Darwin, Charles, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." John Murray, New Ed, 1901, Chap.II, p.41]

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata post #439 cont. 3: ” I must have hit a nerve.”

Naw, you just piled one more lie atop the others.

Kalamata: ” Big time!”

You lie big, you lie little, you don’t seem to care so long as you’re lying.

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

I have been and will, even to the point of classifying your lies taxonomically according to your own Denier Rules.

Kalamata: ” You didn't respond, Child.”

Of course I did, baby Danny,
In your post #341 you said: ” God can do as he pleases, Joey. He is not subject to your rules:”
I responded in post #436: “Nor is He subject to Danny boy's idiotic definitions.”
To which you responded in #439 with yet another pile of stinking lies.

Kalamata from post #341: ”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.”

Your second sentence is a small lie or typographical error.
It can become true if you just change the word “said” to “say” or “believe”.
But, if I understand correctly, what you’re trying to argue here is that since Christ was “truly man” He was also wholly natural and therefore his supernatural miracles can be taught in mandatory public school science classes as natural-science!
I don’t buy that, or any version of it, for one second.

Kalamata: ” 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.”

No, sorry, but you are confused little Danny, note my explanation above.

Kalamata: ”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."…
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"?”

No, but we can reasonably conclude that virtually everything, excepting quotes, Danny boy posts is a lie of some sort.
In this particular case you are using Denier Rule #12 to distract, divert & dissemble away from your own uniquely false definitions.

Anyway, once again, on your question about Noah: the Bible and science agree that the Earth has been subject to flood and mass extinction from which God rescued small remnants for repopulation.
So here's the important difference: the Bible tells us God promises not to do it again, while science tells us another "big one" like the Dinosaur mass extinction is, ahem, "unlikely" in the near future.
I have no doubt that some believing scientists pray that by the time the next "big one" comes our way, God will have given scientists enough insight on how to divert it away harmlessly.

Kalamata: ”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.”…
…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"?

No, you can well assume rather that Kalamata-boy works long & hard to misunderstand, misinterpret and lie about anything that doesn’t fit your own narrative.
In this particular case the Bible and science agree that God created mankind from “dust”.

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

Neither the Bible nor any ancient writer I know of speaks of Christ as “natural man” in the sense of 2 Peter 2:12: ”natural brute beasts” or Romans 7:18 where Paul speaks of his own “sinful nature”, or 1 Corinthians 2:14 where Paul says: ”the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God”.
Instead, Christ is always said to be both man and God – man enough for death, God enough for miracles & resurrection.

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

Here is a standard definition of Trinitarian doctrine on this subject:

”The most widely accepted definitions of the incarnation and the nature of Jesus were made by the First Council of Nicaea in 325, the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
These councils declared that Jesus was both fully God: begotten from, but not created by the Father; and fully man: taking His flesh and human nature from the Virgin Mary.
These two natures, human and divine, were hypostatically united into the one personhood of Jesus Christ.[note 1]
According to the Catholic Church, an ecumenical council's declarations are infallible, making the incarnation a dogma in the Catholic Church.[10]
Effect
The incarnation implies three facts:

(1) The Divine Person of Jesus Christ;

(2) The Human Nature of Jesus Christ;

(3) The Hypostatic Union of the Human with the Divine Nature in the Divine Person of Jesus Christ.
Without diminishing His divinity, He added to it all that is involved in being human.[11]
In Christian belief it is understood that Jesus was at the same time both fully God and fully human, two natures in one person.[12]
The body of Christ was therefore subject to all the bodily weaknesses to which human nature is universally subject; such are hunger (Matthew.4:2), thirst (John 19:28), fatigue (John 4:6), pain, and death.
They were the natural results of the human nature He assumed.[13] ”

So, Danny boy, here’s what you can be 100% certain of: the ancient Church Fathers believed the divine Christ became also human so that his death & resurection could save mankind, us, from our own naturally sinful natures.
You can also be 100% certain that no Church Father ever thought Christ became human so that Danny Denier could preach against evolution in public school science classes.

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

Sure, but no recognized Church Father ever insisted Christ was only “natural” or that his natural body included, say, Paul’s human “sinful nature”, or indeed, that Christ’s nature had anything to do with teaching evolution in public school science classes.

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

They wouldn’t, but you do, Danny boy.

Kalamata on Christ’s miracles: ” So did Peter and Paul, after receiving the Holy Spirit from Christ.”

The Bible is clear in distinguishing the miracles Jesus performed (i.e. John 12:37) from those God performed using Peter and Paul (i.e., Acts 19:11)
See my post #569 on this.

Kalamata: ” 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.”

Sorry, baby Danny, but you still have it exactly wrong.
That’s because traditional, classical Enlightenment Era methodological naturalism said nothing of the sort you claim, it simply defined itself as researching only natural explanations for natural processes.
It intended to leave theological studies to theologians, that’s all.
And that is the version of natural science I’m here to defend.

Kalamata on the Age of Enlightenment: ”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.”

Say what you wish, but it’s just insane to blame a scientist, any scientist, for evil deeds of political leaders.

Kalamata: ”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 baby boy, infant child, STOP LYING they weren’t scientists!!
They were the Church Inquisition and they convicted Galileo of heresy against the Bible, not of stupidity against Aristotle.

Kalamata on the Enlightenment: ”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.”

Oh Danny boy, you sound like a GD Democrat complaining about our President’s economy – sure, they say, people are better off now, but they feeeeeeeeel more… oh, yeh, that’s it: stressed, that’s the ticket!
As for those descendants of my Anabaptist ancestors, unlike me most of them attend private schools where they are taught more from the Bible, less of modern science.

Kalamata: ” 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:”

”… 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…."”

Kalamata: ” We can safely assume Pinker is no fan of Augustine.”

Maybe, but our Enlightenment Founders were, especially regarding Augustine’s views on Christians serving in just wars (Augustine favored it) and slavery (Augustine opposed it).
As for ancients’ ideas on government, our Founders looked more toward Greek (small-d) democrats and Roman (small-r) republicans than to early Christian theologians.
So Pinker apparently sees in the Enlightenment what he wants to see, not necessarily everything that was really there.
In fact, many Founders were quite religious though they often favored ideas of Unitarians, freemasons and Deists.

Kalamata on his quirky opposition to equality: ”Another straw man, Joey?
Why did you not address the issue?”

Of course I did, in the only sense which matters: ”We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”

So, Danny baby boy, explain to everyone why you want those words deleted from our Declaration of Independence?

Kalamata: ” Joey frequently rehashes his imaginary debates with" holocaust deniers" on this thread; but he will never convince me he debated a holocaust denier.”

Right, because you hate the truth so much in this as everything else, so you concoct your own set lies to live.
The proof of those debates is my copy of Shermer’s copyright 2000 book, Denying History, as well as several others like it.
Just as I am today boning up on evolution by reading related books, so back then I boned up on the Holocaust by reading Shermer & others.
I have cheerfully acknowledged that you are an upgrade over old Holocaust deniers in that the worst of them were quite vulgar, though you are no less insulting, belittling or name-calling.
I also recognize that your lovely “research assistant” puts a lot of effort into getting your quotes accurate, complete and correctly attributed, for which I thank her.
But otherwise you behave just like the worst of them in your tactics, insults & lies.

Kalamata: ”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.”

That, for just one example, is a pack of lies which any decent person, especially somebody trying to defend the Bible would never post.

Kalamata: ”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.”

Oh baby Danny boy, now you’re just babbling nonsense for the sake of it.
In fact, for better or worse, our Founders were the Enlightenment and they like many others – Newton, Paley & Priestly come to mind quickly – were quite religious, though not always 100% orthodox.

Kalamata: ”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.”

Danny baby boy, your visceral hatred for Shermer convinces me my comparison of you to Holocaust deniers is very close to the mark of truth.
Just like you baby boy they too went berserk at the mention of his name, they too frothed at the mouth, smoke from their ears on seeing his words, they too exploded into incoherence in dealing with his ideas.
That’s why it’s clear to me you guys all went to the same denial school, or palled around together, or served the same devil master – who knows, but Shermer’s is the one name that most solidly glues you to them, baby boy.

Kalamata: ”This is Mikey teaching others that God doesn't exist:”

Nothing in Shermer’s 16 minute talk is new to me, sounds like college dorm (or frat-house) sophomore year bull sessions, and the answers to Shermer’s questions are pretty simple: belief & faith is a choice which can be rational or emotional or both.
A rational choice can begin here, question: is it reasonable to think that our physical bodies are the highest values possible, or are there values which exceed our own well-being?
The obvious answer is, of course there are, love & loyalty to our families & country, for examples.
Question: OK, but what about love & loyalty to the Creator of the Universe, of life and of mankind?
Answer: sure, but now we get into Shermer’s talk about many different religions.
Question: OK, but why not just pick one, the one which makes the most sense and feels the most right to you?
Answer: of course, but how do I know for sure?
Question: how do you know anything for sure?

My point is: Shermer himself acknowledged he is in the “skepticism” business, but I’d say that particular talk was a very, very mild form of “skepticism”, easily answered and moved on from.

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

Perhaps.

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

And here again, Danny baby boy, you just can’t stop your lying, can you?
Do those lies come from God? No, they have to come from elsewhere.
Probably, I suspect, the same place those old Holocaust deniers got all their lies.
How else can we explain it?

So yet again, let me tell you the truth, try to learn it this time young child:

Dover science teachers refused to teach the school board’s bogus theology in their science classes.
Parents sued in court to stop the school board.
Unhappy voters fired the school board.

Both sides in court were represented by “outside interests”, but the theological interests hung their hopes on your buddy Behe plus a slight-of-hand “textbook” called, “Of Pandas and People” which itself admitted it was all about supernatural interventions in natural processes.

Kalamata: ”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,”

Sorry but no, iirc, the first schools to remove prayer were in cities where Catholics & Protestants could not agree on which prayers to say, or large Jewish minorities objected to Christian prayers.
To me the obvious answer is to let parents & children chose homerooms & religious classes which are most compatible, but the more practical solution has been to teach religions in Sunday schools and private schools for those who care most about it.

Kalamata: ” 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.”

You and I will then be long dead and, even without a second coming, many questions now speculated on will be answered with more clarity, such as: is there also life on other stars’ planets and if so, how did it get there?
If not, then exactly how unique is life on Earth, and why?

End of Kalamata's post #439!

Kalamata post #431: "Those rules fit you, as well, Tricky Joey.
Too well!
But, in reality, they can be made to "fit" anyone in a debate.
If you don't like what they say, call them a liar, or slander them as a racist, a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier.
That is what you do, Joey, and that is what the Left has been trained to do.
It is one of the premier rule's in the Leftist playbook."

Now, now, Danny boy, I know it's hard, but you must, must try harder to be honest.
The real truth here is I only call out your most blatant & obvious dishonesty or Denier Rules tactics.
If it seems to me that, however insultingly, you are actually trying to make a serious argument, then I respond as seriously as I can, with data & logic.

So let me suggest to you that since you are not here to defend an obscenity like Holocaust denial, but rather the greatest value & virtue we know of, God and His Bible, you must, must yourself be at the peak of your own honesty & truthfulness.
You just cannot defend God with obvious lies or His Truth with clear dishonesty.
Of course my standard is not "perfection" because that's humanly impossible.
But we have to do our best with whatever we have, that's all anyone can expect.

Kalamata: "More slander, Joey?
Can you string two syllables together without slandering me?"

Oh, so now you're the victim here?
You post insulting lie after lie and then complain about slander when I point them out?

Get over yourself, FRiend. Focus, focus on telling the truth and nothing but.

Kalamata: "There are many debating tricks that I could use, but I intentionally avoid them, seeking rather to edify, than to obfuscate. "

I've pointed out when that's not true, but whenever you've made a serious argument, I've given you a serious response.

Kalamata: "My quotes are geniuine -- directly out of the original text -- and in context.
I intentionally supply more of the text than necessary to ensure the context is well-understood by the reader."

I fully recognize that and thank your lovely "research assistant" for her excellent work.

Kalamata: "But it doesn't' matter with Tricky Joey.
If I supply little of the original, I am accused of quote-mining.
If I quote the entire paragraph (typically,) then I am accused of using them "promiscuously," or whatever Joey's word-of-the-week for "marginalize" happens to be at the time.
That is the way the Left operates.
That is the way Joey operates."

So let's review how Danny boy operates -- you first introduced the term "quote mining" (post #244) to this thread and accused me of it (#397).
I picked up your term and threw it back at you, where it seemed appropriate, and now you suddenly complain of being the victim here?
Here's the truth: you've done a good job with your quotes and I appreciate that, but you also obviously use word searches to quote mine in books like Shermer's "Denying History" to make it sound like his work there was more about evolution and "right winger" conservatives than it was the Holocaust.
I merely called you out for that.

Kalamata: "Now, compare Joey's quotes.
He primarily copy/pastes from other websites, including the left-leaning Wikipedia, without a clue whether they are reliable, or not.
When challenged, he dumps a load of "fish heads" (e.g., a long list of links to research papers) to stink up the place; not at all for edification, but rather as "punishment" for challenging him.
It certainly makes life easier for Joey, but much more difficult for those seeking the truth."

Naw, you got it all wrong.
First of all, something like 1/3 of my effort goes into simply making my posts look presentable -- i.e., correcting typographical mistakes, adding links & pictures, etc.
Second, the quotes I post, regardless of source, almost always represent what I first learned in school or from some study in the years since.
I post them as quotes so you can see they are not just my opinions, but also represent "conventional wisdom".

Third, please understand, because of my long-past debates with Holocaust deniers, I fully understand how you guys work -- you redefine terms such that only something impossible can "prove" it, "common descent" for example.
Well, nobody can truly "prove" what cannot be observed, that's why it's evolution theory, but the observed facts do include hundreds of thousands of fossil species which can indeed be lined up to show transitional forms, and yet deniers refuse to see even the facts, much less the whole theory.

Kalamata: "You see, I don't need a research assistant, Joey (nor could I afford one.)
I use the Research Library to store, index, and footnote my personal library, which includes about 8 years of research on the religion of evolutionism, and perhaps 50 years of research on history, including constitutional history.
I also had a minor in Psychology/Sociology while in college, so I include those subjects in my library, as well."

I'm impressed, I have nothing remotely resembling that, so in due time, when my brain begins to fail, whatever rational thought I've had will also fail, nothing much to fall back on.
Anyway, my "theory of the crime" regarding Kalamata has been your wife as "research assistant" did honest work while Danny-boy concentrated on insults, mockery and lies.

Kalamata: "One other point: I can store and index every forum post, such as this one, with the URL, so that I can quickly perform multiple-word searches, such as, "BroJoeK paranoid wife," which instantly found the above quote from #397."

Truly, I notice and appreciate things like that.

Kalamata: "Joey, if you were not so intensely focused on trying to shut down debate with your treacherous slander and your silly, childish "rules," perhaps my posts would be less confusing to you.
For example, in #247, you could have simply asked, "What is historical science?"
Instead of taken the "let's find out the truth" route, your posts are generally comprised of little more than "you disagreed with me, so you must be destroyed."
That is sick, Joey."

Naw, again you misunderstand.
I have no doubt the term "historical sciences" was coined innocently enough by real scientists to refer to such studies as geology and archaeology.
However, the first time I ever heard it used was in that 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.
Ham used "historical science" disparagingly dozens of times to describe evolution studies and equate them to "creation science" as if the name "historical" made them equally scientific!

Since I have no desire to let dishonest creationists weaponize language against truth, I object to that term "historical science".

Kalamata: "It is not a problem unless you have an anti-Bible, anti-science agenda, Joey.
Even your hero, the devout atheist and anti-Christian bigot Michael Shermer has no problems with the term "historical science":"

Really? Well... first, where other than PJ Goebbels Propaganda University do they teach you such dishonest Denier Tactics?
Second, sure, the term "historical science" is, or at least was, a legitimate term, imho, until weaponized by people like Ham & Kalamata to equate real science with phony-baloney "creation science" or "intelligent design".

Kalamata: "I can't let you get away with that, Joey.
You are attempting to confound myth and faith, with science.
But, science, historical or not, requires empirical evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence for a global flood, which was widely believed by scientists until the slick rhetoric of the lawyer named Charles Lyell "won the day" in the 1800's.
Now, 150 years or so later, there is still no supporting evidence for Lyell's "geology:" only a collection of just-so stories and myths, but I repeat myself."

Near as I can tell and so far as I know, every word, without exception of your post here is an absolute propaganda lie.
Out of kindness I'd wonder if possibly you even believe it, but from your overall tone & demeanor I think far more likely that you went to Goebbels' Propaganda school where they taught you to lie big, lie often and lie with passion.
Do that enough and your lies become magically true, so they claim.

Kalamata: "The Biblical "kind", which the great scientist Linnaeus ranked above the level of genus, and which we now call "family," has been shown over and over again, even in the fossil record, to be the genetic boundary of all species.
That is exactly what the Bible predicts."

Naw, real science has never found such a "boundary" only ever species, genera, etc. with different calculated times to their last common ancestors.

Kalamata: "Joey continues to smear me as a liar, but he had no evidence, other than imaginary "evidence" the Left typically resorts to, which is, "He disagrees with me, so he must be lying.""

No, it's far more than that, my evidence is: so many of your posts are so blatantly, outrageously false, it would be impossible for even you to believe them.
Therefore I conclude that, like any GD Democrat, you are driven by malice & hatred to cast whatever aspersions come to your mind.

Enough for today! ;-)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.