Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

>>freeDUMB wrote, “More cut and paste nonsense. Leave us adults be, child.”

Who tricked you into believing you are an adult, Troll?

>>freeDUMB said: "Do NOT allow creationists to use their drivel in an attempt to confuse you. TtoE has no more requirement to watch it in action than geology must produce another Earth. Annd TtoE is in fact observable. Just ask any immunologist.

Immunology has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. In fact, none of the applied sciences, including medicine and engineering, rely on evolution for anything. It is totally useless.

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

>>freeDUMB said: "His wishful thinking is that of a 12 year old. The fact he opens with ad hominem is all you need observe."

freeDUMB cannot touch his keyboard without typing an ad hominem. In his first post on this thread, to fishtank in #10, freeDUMB make this brilliant response:

"Flat out wrong."

Yes, that was freeDumb's first post, in its entirety. His second post was to "alloysteel" in #12

"Proof you do not know what a Scientific Hypothesis is. It is NOT a “Guess all growed up.” Suggest you learn some science."

That is called an ad hominem, and it was by freeDUMB in his first post to alloysteel, and his second post overall. freeDUMB doesn't waste time with civil discourse.

freeDUMB and his Dumb Luck twin, BroJoeK, abuse everyone with whom they disagree; yet both pretend they are the ones being abused. Don't fall for their projections.

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

>>freeDUMB said: "He is a child who cuts and pasts from long disproven creationist sites with an anti science agenda."

freeDUMB also lies. At least 90% of my quoted references are directly from evolutionists. Check them out for yourselves.

freeDUMB also talks behind other FReeper's backs. FReepers will typically ping you if you are mentioned in their responses; but not freeDUMB.

Frankly, all freeDUMB does is troll and disrupt.

Mr. Kalamata

You wrote: You have to wear mental blinders to believe in the bizarre atheistic concept of “methodological naturalism,” as Lewontin revealed. Here he is again:

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

Aha...I never read the above critiques but I can see I was on the right track in my critiques on the practice of modern science...that it is to be practiced by the “high falutin’s” with a certain “a priori bias” against the notion of any divine or nouminous influence or participation in the origin of the universe. All that is considered tautologous to the application of reason and logic must be deemed automatically false. Such assertions as the “High Falutin’s contend, using as example, a scientist expressing his faith in God, are to be scorned with various applications of mirthful, sarcastic hilarity, progressing thru to character assassinating sneers, and finally leading to angry and even nearly violent denunciations (followed by withdrawals of research grants and a general shunning by all major scientific organizations). Modern scientists in the main would view such a scientist as being tainted with tautological superstitions that must automatically be assumed to have colored his work making it invalid. I cry foul to such built in a-priori hypocrisy which has, in my view, tripped up modern science and left it like a cast sheep stuck in a depression on it’s back and unable to right itself.

Cheers brother!...Berean is Believin’!

mdmathis6 post #453: "Old age rational and deductive reasoning is looked upon with suspicion now a days for it quite frequently draws upon apriori bias, even when such reasoning has been shown to lead to testable and repeatable results.
Suspicions especially arise against such a researcher who confesses to a belief in the Living God.
His science might be good but the Anti-deity Inquisition must ignore that reality for his thinking is tainted by all that untestable God business."

The fact is there are still significant numbers of believing scientists who put on their methodological smocks when they come to work and take methodological assumptions back off again at work-day's end so they can go home to families and pray for God's grace on them, their loved ones and dinner, Amen.

Kalamata post #454: "Last night I recalled a video link in my Research Library to one of Joey's CNN brothers, Brian Stelter, interviewing the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, who tore into Stelter for labeling him a "denier."
Watch:"

You link doesn't work, but I'll take your word for it that Coleman objected to being called a climate "denier".
Just so we're clear on this: Denial is a debate strategy, a set of tactics practiced by those who have no stronger arguments to make.
It consists in part of Denier Rules, version 3.0 which I saw practiced by Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago and now by Kalamata in denying evolution.

I've never seen Denier Rules used by those opposed to the Left's Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) socialist agenda, and for the obvious reason that such despicable tactics are never necessary.
Indeed, arguably, it's the Left which uses Denier Rules to advance their AGW agenda, and skeptical science which responds with valid data and confirmed reasoning.

In short, "Denial" is how you argue, not what specific subject you debate over.

Kalamata: "LOL!
I cannot help but notice the irony of the Left claiming any change in the weather is proof of "climate change," since that is exactly the way Joey defines evolution, which is, "any change is proof of evolution."
See for yourself: [Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period." "

So let's stick with your "climate change" analogy -- nobody denies that climates change naturally, always have always will.
By every measure over time climates naturally grew warmer & cooler, wetter & dryer, stormier & calmer, since long before humans had anything to do with it.
But now suddenly, they tell us, every change in temperature, precipitation or storms is all somehow "anthropogenic" and therefore requiring of unlimited trillions of taxpayer dollars to "correct".

And yet scientific evidence supporting AGW alarmists is surprisingly weak and so no Denial Tactics are ever called for to refute them.
Point is: just as there have been natural climate changes, from minor to major, so there have also been natural evolutionary changes from minor to major.

Kalamata: "Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne defines evolutionism in the more traditional manner:

Quoting Coyne

Kalamata: "There is no evidence in support of that claim; but that is what Coyne believes, and that is what Darwin's theory teaches."

There are literal mountains of evidence and, yes, Coyne states the long-term theory.
But evolution facts begin with every new generation: descent with modifications (i.e., mutations) as acted on by natural selection.
It's all evolution, regardless of how much Kalamata loathes, despises, mocks, ridicules and lies about it.

Marked for resource.

Child. His widdle feewings are huwt.

Leave this for the grown-ups.

Child. “I am rubber you are glue” does not work on us adults.

Kalamata post #455: "When you show me the word "supernatural" in the scripture, I will repeat the uses of the word "natural" in the scripture and the works of the Early Church Fathers, that you have thus far ignored."

The Biblical terms are "miracles" (37 times), "wonders" (111 times) and "signs" (135 times).
These are specifically intended as God's supernatural works to show His people His power and authority over mere nature.

The Bible and early Church Fathers are totally clear in distinguishing between mere natural processes and God's supernatural miracles, wonders and signs.

Kalamata: "Which parts, Joey?"

All, without exception.

Kalamata: "You left out the words, "after man evolved from a "self-replicating" molecule, via an ape" which you added to the scripture to make it fit the doctrine of your evolutionism religion.
God frowns on man-made additions to his Word, Joey:"

As usual with Kalamata, that's just more pure nonsense because science neither adds to nor subtracts from Biblical text.

Kalamata: "I don't see how any good can come from teaching our children anything that is contrary to the Word of God, such as man evolving from an ape.
I am reasonably certain you have heard this before:

A frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale.
A frog turning into a prince over millions of years is called science.
But it is still a fairy tale, no matter what you call it."

I don't see how any good can come from lying to children about either the Bible or science.
No frog ever turned into a prince scientifically.

Kalamata: "That is horrendously deceitful, Joey!
A LIE by omission!
You left out the most important part of your statement: the part where you claim the existence of "pre-humans" who became human! "

Now, now, calm down baby Danny boy, I know the truth can be hard for you, but it's time to put on your big-boy pants and get ready for reality.
The Bible tells us that God began with dirt and science thinks that's about right.
The Bible tells us that when God finished creating physical man He "breathed the breath of life" into Adam and Adam became a "living soul".
Of course natural science knows nothing about "living souls", but even the most jaded atheist understands there's a qualitative difference between human consciousness and that of other species.

Kalamata: "Now, Joey, please show us where in the Bible we can find pre-humans turning into humans, or admit you added your own words to the scripture."

Now, now baby boy, it's time for you to grow up and stop lying.
I neither added to nor subtracted one word from scripture, simply pointed out that it does not necessarily disagree with natural-science.

Kalamata: "How so, Joey?
Are you denying God created man uniquely in his own image, and the image of his previously created angels?
Or, are you in the cover-up mode?"

No, baby boy, I'm simply saying that's a straw man argument.
Look it up.

Kalamata: "Did I say Jesus lied to Matthew, Joey; or is that more misdirection?"

"Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” "

Your claim, Danny boy, was: "You haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you?"

Well... yes, actually I could cite any number of mountains moved by faith, notably among them when Pope Saint John Paul II teamed up with President Reagan and Britain's Margaret Thatcher to help bring down the old Soviet Empire.
I'd say that puts the lie to your apparent claim that Jesus was being less than truthful in Matthew 17:20.

Kalamata: "Again, you haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you?
All it takes is faith as a grain of mustard seed?
The disciples and a few early Christians received supernatural powers; but none afterward, that I am aware of."

So let us take just a moment to notice the stunning situation: here I am, your humble servant, BroJoeK, defending both the ideas of natural-science and miracles from God, while our Denier-boy Danny Kalamata denies both!
Astonishing!

And again let's notice that in the New Testament Jesus performed miracles on His own, while of His disciples it's said that God performed miracles through them.

Finally, we should remember that from earliest times through today the Catholic Church kept records of God's miracles and used them in discerning sainthood among its faithful.

Kalamata: "I have 26 Bible translations, Joey, and none mention the part about molecules-to-ape-to-man.
Bible Gateway lists even more translations, again without the molecules-to-man part:
You must have added those words to the scripture, Joey."

Rubbish, I've added nothing to scripture, merely noticed that natural-science does not necessarily contradict it.

Kalamata: Kalamata post #456: "I asked you a simple question, Joey.
There is no need to get all snow-flake hysterical on us?
For the record, are you denying that you have been insinuating I am a holocaust denier because I refuse to worship at the altar of evolutionism?
Just checking to see if you are the denier."

Oh, my baby Danny boy, in your terrible-twos-like rage you're simply bouncing from one insane accusation to another, none of them making any sense.

Yes, it's true, I have long wondered if Danny-boy is nothing more than an old Holocaust denier now retread and repurposed to evolution denial using the same Denier Tactics, "logic" and personal attacks they used?
What else could explain your insane rage, the same as theirs, at Michael Shermer?

Of course I have noticed significant differences, beginning with the worst of their vulgarity.
But not all were vulgar, indeed some Holocaust deniers considered themselves good Christians who were 100% convinced of two "facts":

Their own Christian German ancestors and relatives were not capable of such mass destruction.
"The Jews" were totally capable of mass deception.

So they believed the entire "Holo-hoax" was a product of Jewish propaganda and that is how they could spend all day in a Holocaust museum and never see any evidence!
And such denier tactics are the same ones you use to deny evolution.

So I think it's a legitimate question of how it is that Danny-boy uses the same kinds of Denier tactics if you never had any contact with such people?

Kalamata: "You are lying again, Joey.
You learned that smear tactic from your far-left atheist hero, Michael Shermer, who teaches children there is no God."

I may be sometimes mistaken, but never knowingly lie.
Here's the truth: like you, Holocaust deniers were enraged by Shermer, and just as you wish to ally with Global Warming "deniers" so Holocaust deniers were eager to ally with evolution deniers.

And like Shermer I observe the similarity in debate tactics used by Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers such as Danny Kalamata.

Kalamata: "No, Joey.
That is your modus operandi, the one you learned from the Far Left, which is, "smear them if they disagree with you."
You use the same tactic the "Climate Change" cult uses.
Frankly, Joey, you remind me of the left-wing cult-of-hate that congregate on Youtube, minus the vulgar language. "

I know nothing about such YouTube, face-chat or snap-book, whatever...
Well... then consider this curious fact: Holocaust deniers would not consider themselves to be "smeared" by association to evolution deniers, but many Global Warming "skeptics" would consider themselves smeared by any linkage to either evolution or Holocaust denial.
In other words, in the hierarchy of denials, Global Warming skeptics stand at the peak of respectability as still legitimate scientifically, while evolution denial ranks down in the pits along with Holocaust denial and, oh, say, flat-Earth people.
That's not to say you are any of those others, only that your methods & tactics are remarkably similar.

Kalamata: "Ironically, Joey, those same tactics you use of, smear, smear, smear, indirectly led me to learn evolution was a giant hoax.
A friend, who believed in evolution at the time, stumbled across a Youtube video loaded with hateful, cursing anti-creationists.
That aroused his suspicion enough to examine, for the first time, the claims of evolutionists.
It didn't take long before he realized the emperor (evolution) had no clothes.
He later asked me to take a close look at the geological column; and soon thereafter I became a young earth creationist.
It is all about the science, Joey.
Nothing personal."

I've seen nothing resembling what you claim.
I have read books on the subject and have seen nothing to seriously contradict it.
Here is another example of reasoned discourse available online.

Kalamata: "Those childish "Denier Rules" you co-opted from the Far Left fit you much better than they fit me, Joey.
In fact, you are adept at the use of Leftist tactics, Joey. Who trained you?"

That's just Denier Rule #5, which you just can't stop obeying regardless of how "childish" you pretend they are.

Kalamata: "I was speaking for myself, Joey, not for you."

And you respond to, for example, a Natural History museum precisely the same way a Holocaust denier responds to a Holocaust museum: "I SEE NOTHING!".

Kalamata: "Evidence is evidence, Joey.
If there IS NO evidence for Evolution in a museum, then only those with vivid imaginations CAN see evidence.
On the other hand, if there IS evidence for the holocaust in a museum, only those with vivid imaginations CANNOT see it.
I don't have a vivid imagination, like you, Joey.
I am a scientist."

Sure you are, riiiiiiight!
You are a scientist in precisely the same sense as Holocaust deniers claimed to be "real historians" while claiming that all other historians were just "hoax-story-ians".

Kalamata: "The Far-Left uses the same Jedi mind-tricks on those who refuse to worship at the altar of the evolutionism cult that they use on those who refuse to worship at the altar of the climate change cult.
They label those who refuse to bow as a "denier," or worse."

By the way, that constant repetition of "worship at the alter" nonsense is yet another tactic which links you to Holocaust deniers -- they were forever refusing to "worship at the alter" of Jewish historians!
It's why I think, if you didn't learn it directly from them, you did go to the same Denier University.
You were part of Denier University's Matriculated Body of Students.

Kalamata: "But the Truth has finally regained the upper hand, and the cultists are panicing."

And that is Denier Rule #13:

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

Kalamata post #458: "A dozen parents were able to sue the school board for carrying out their constitutionally authorized duties, and you pretend the ACLU and the parents are the good guys?
I wouldn't want to be in a fox hole with you."

So, you are a veteran who served in wartime?

The fact is, both sides were supported by outside parties eager to make a test case of it.
The school board was represented by Thomas More Law Center (TMLC).
Defense witnesses included university professors Michael Behe and Steve Fuller.

In the end Dover voters fired the school board and the judge ruled against their "Intelligent Design" teaching.
Intelligent Design was found to be just Creationism repackaged and so not permissible for mandatory science classes.

I have no problem with "intelligent design" taught as theology in any voluntary context.
But by US law it's not science and cannot be taught as such in mandatory science classes.

Kalamata: "Your pretense that something good came from the ACLU's support is troubling, Joey.
The ACLU has deep pockets with which to run campaigns against the Constitution and sway public opinion; and they can always find a few leftists in a crowd to represent, and a moldable activist judge."

Baby-Danny, roughly one-third of Americans believe Creationism and so the anti-evolution movement is potentially huge, dwarfing anything the ACLU might do.
In Kitzmiller v Dover anti-evolutionists mounted a vigorous defense but were defeated by their own internal contradictions, especially in simultaneously claiming and denying that Intelligent Design had anything to do with God.

Judge Jones' ruling was simply consistent with many previous rulings going back at least to 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas.
See my post #468 for details.

Kalamata: "When you attempt to confound a Bush appointee with conservatism, you are following the fake news narrative, not the history of judicial appointees."

I'd say nearly all Bush family appointees were more conservative than those appointed by, for examples, Clinton & Obama.
That you might wish them to be more conservative is understandable, but when you consider what happened to Robert Bork (Reagan) and Clarence Thomas (HW Bush), those who did get confirmed were the best possible.
Scalia was a Reagan appointee and Alito Bush II.

Kalamata: "Is it any wonder the leftists have been able to corrupt our government and society so thoroughly?"

Reagan got Scalia, O'Connor & Kennedy but not Bork, .
Bush I got Thomas but also Souter.
Bush II got Alito but also Roberts who was then said to be quite conservative.
Trump has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

No court I know of has ruled in favor of Creationism in public schools.

Kalamata: "Back to Jones: he is a crystal-clear example of a judicial activist.
The minute he took the case, making a federal case out of a state and local matter, he became an activist.
A judge's role is to determine constitutionality, and in this case the strict constructionist thing to do would be to refuse to hear the case for jurisdictional reasons."

Complete nonsense.
See my post #468 for a listing of ten similar rulings going back to 1968.
As I said there:

"Notice that two of these cases were decided by the US Supreme Court, two by state courts, four by Federal district and two by Federal appeals courts." At every level courts have consistently decided that religion cannot be taught in public school mandatory science classes.

Kalamata: "Jones not only took the case, but played the role of philosopher of science in his ruling.
It is not the role of a judge to determine what is and is not science, but he assumed the role.
Worse, he didn't rule on ID Theory at all; rather he ruled according to the ACLU caricature of ID Theory."

More nonsense.
The issue was whether "Intelligent Design" was simply Creationism renamed and the judge ruled reasonably enough that it is.
As such it's theology, not science.

Kalamata: "Part of the reason Jones ruled the way he did was his interpretation that ID failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, which is ridiculously false.
Some of the top scientists in the world promote Intelligent Design over Evolution – several of them were in his courtroom. "

Right, as I said above, both sides were defended by outside interests, the school board by charlatans & scoundrels like Professors Behe & Fuller.
Jones could easily see which side was telling the truth and ruled accordingly.
More important, Dover voters saw the truth and fired their old school board.

Kalamata: "Jones also made the false claim that there were no peer-reviewed ID papers.
You find "no fault," Joey, because you are not interested in the truth."

Of course there are no peer-reviewed papers in recognized scientific journals.
In fact, Jones heard out both sides and decided your side, Kalamata, was lying.
How did he know when you people are lying?
It's easy, is your mouth moving, are your fingers typing?
Then you're lying, it's who you are, it's what you do.

Kalamata: "I have not studied the complete transcript, so I don't know for certain if anyone on the board lied; but there is no doubt Ken Miller lied with his perversion of the concept of irreducible complexity.
Jones accepted Miller's fake version over the objections of two of the leading authorities on bacterial flagellum, Behe and Scott Minnich, who have been studying the flagellum for decades."

The true fact is the Dover school board wanted to introduce Creationism to science classes but was told that "Intelligent Design" was an acceptable substitute which would pass legal muster and still corrupt science with Creationist theology.
Judge Jones figured that out.

As for Behe's allegedly "irreducibly complex" flagellum, Miller & others have shown they are not in the least "irreducible", that they came from a much simpler provenance and evolved in many stages to their current complex form, whether Behe, Minnich or Kalamata like it or not.

Kalamata: "The theory of Intelligent Design has supporters, and at least one Senior Fellow, who have no religious convictions; and the theory does not pretend to claim who or what designed living things, only that the scientific evidence points to design.
During the trial, the I.D. defenders repeatedly made that point, but the activist judge ignored them."

Because it's all a lie, a big fat stinking lie from stinking liars.
Stop lying.

Kalamata: "In all of that, the main point was never address, which is, it is NOT unconstitutional to teach religion in public schools.
That is an invention of the God-hating, anti-Christian, anti-liberty ACLU."

Near as I can tell, US Supreme Court rulings against teaching religion in public schools go back to 1948, McCollum v. Board of Education District 71, 1962, Engel v. Vitale and 1963, Abington School District v. Schempp.
Those rulings are consistent and hinge on the fact that public school attendance is mandatory.
Voluntary private schools and home schools can teach as much religion as they wish.

Kalamata: "Are you referring to deeply-held Christian beliefs of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell? "

No, I was quoting Judge Jones' ruling.

Kalamata: "What does that have to do with science?
Are you pretending atheists make better scientists? I worry about you, Joey."

No, Judge Jones was recognizing the sincere Christian beliefs of the Dover school board.
It helped him decide against "Intelligent Design".

Kalamata: "You are a false teacher when you claim it is unconsitutional to teach religion in public schools.
It is, however, blatantly unconstutitional for the federal government to establish the suppressive religion of evolutionism as the State supported religion."

Again you quoted Judge Jones and again your words here redefining & reversing "science" and "religion" should vindicate his ruling in the eyes on any traditionally reasonable person.

Kalamata: "It appears you support the establishment part of the First Amendment, Joey, and deny the free-exercise part.
That is exactly what the ACLU and Marxists want you to support, because that is their best avenue to the destruction of our liberty and nation."

It appears you support lunacy from beginning to end.
If you can get away with redefining science as a "religion" and your own religion as "science" then we will have descended into blithering insanity where anything can mean anything the political powers that be dictate.

No thank you.

Kalamata on "Of Pandas and People": "That is nothing fake about it, Joey.
It is both brilliant and scientifically sound.
But how would you know one way or another?
You are not a scientist.
You only hear what you want to hear, and you only hear the words of the Left."

By your own definitions, where your religious beliefs are so-called "science" and real science is another "religion", you can claim to be anything and nobody can dispute it.

Kalamata: "But, if you will be so kind, please show us parts where you believe the book is fake.
Don't hold back.
Your research will be of use to all.
Please include Chapter and/or page numbers."

I said the book is "fake but harmless".
The harmless parts are all which review straight science.
The fake parts are all which talk about "intelligent design".

Kalamata: "That was never a problem until the ACLU showed up.
School boards always made such decisions, before the dangerous rhetoric of the Left prevailed in our society -- rhetoric which you endorse."

As best I can tell, the US Supreme Court began ruling against mandatory teaching religion in public schools in 1948, and has ruled consistently on it ever since.

Kalamata: "In any case, the Dover School Board policy was apparently not clearly written; but the original purpose was to inform the students that there were holes in the theory of evolution, and there were alternative theories, both of which are absolutely true."

Both of which are absolute lies promoted by charlatans & scoundrels.

Kalamata: "Contrary to the judge's opinion, the Discovery Institute policy did not support the Dover School Board science policy.
The DI policy, which was established several years before the Board's action, sought to encourage individual teachers to introduce ID into the curriculum.
It opposed mandatory enforcement by states or school boards."

Hmmmmm…. I wonder...

The Discovery Institute's John West

Opponents, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers, contended that his statement is not just ironic, but hypocritical, as the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, which by definition is beyond natural explanation."

It appears that Creationists blew this case by not getting their acts together, so Discovery Institute ran for the hills and left Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) holding the bag.

Enough for post #458 for today, more later...

>>Kalamata post #454: "Last night I recalled a video link in my Research Library to one of Joey's CNN brothers, Brian Stelter, interviewing the founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, who tore into Stelter for labeling him a "denier." Watch:"
>>Joey said: "You link doesn't work, but I'll take your word for it that Coleman objected to being called a climate "denier"."

This is it: Coleman is being interviewed by Brian Stelter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4rgILy06k

Coleman also exposes the groupthink racket called "consensus science," which is never about science, but power. He also mentions the corrupt peer-review process, which is focused more on government funding than science.

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

>>Joey said: "Just so we're clear on this: Denial is a debate strategy, a set of tactics practiced by those who have no stronger arguments to make. It consists in part of Denier Rules, version 3.0 which I saw practiced by Holocaust deniers nearly 20 years ago and now by Kalamata in denying evolution."

Or course it a debate strategy. Joey utilizes the strategies of the Left to smear, slander, and marginalize those who believe the science supports the history of Genesis – those who reject Joey's religion that is based on the political pseudoscience of Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell.

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

>>Joey said: "I've never seen Denier Rules used by those opposed to the Left's Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) socialist agenda, and for the obvious reason that such despicable tactics are never necessary. Indeed, arguably, it's the Left which uses Denier Rules to advance their AGW agenda, and skeptical science which responds with valid data and confirmed reasoning. In short, "Denial" is how you argue, not what specific subject you debate over."

One of the primary tactics the Left uses against those who disagree with their version of science is to label them "deniers." That is what CNN did to John Coleman, and that is what Joey does to anyone who rejects his religion of evolutionism. I suspected Joey is a Leftist in disguise, and he confirms it every time he posts.

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

>>Kalamata: "LOL! I cannot help but notice the irony of the Left claiming any change in the weather is proof of "climate change," since that is exactly the way Joey defines evolution, which is, "any change is proof of evolution." See for yourself: [Joey] "Evolution by definition is any change, period."
>>Joey said: "So let's stick with your "climate change" analogy -- nobody denies that climates change naturally, always have always will. By every measure over time climates naturally grew warmer & cooler, wetter & dryer, stormier & calmer, since long before humans had anything to do with it. But now suddenly, they tell us, every change in temperature, precipitation or storms is all somehow "anthropogenic" and therefore requiring of unlimited trillions of taxpayer dollars to "correct"."

That is the way the evolutionism cult was founded. Normal, everyday modifications and adaptations of the species (which creationists accept as God's biblical plan) were wildly extrapolated by Charlie Darwin into the unscientific rhetoric called "common descent," which is impossible to prove (convenient, huh?) Yet, it is presented as FACT in the same way AGW is presented as fact by the Left.

It is important to recognize that both the evolutionism and AGW cults use the same strategy: pretend pseudoscience is science in order to grab power and get government funding.

In case you don't know, we are supposed to be living in an Ice Age, according to a NASA scientist:

LOL!

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

>>Joey said: "And yet scientific evidence supporting AGW alarmists is surprisingly weak and so no Denial Tactics are ever called for to refute them."

And, so, Joey continues to obfuscate. The AGW cult uses the same tactic you do, Joey: smear and slander their opponents as "deniers."

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

>>Joey said: "Point is: just as there have been natural climate changes, from minor to major, so there have also been natural evolutionary changes from minor to major."

There has never been an "evolutionary" change. Evolution is a myth: a fairy tale, like "global warming." There is plenty of devolution, but not evolution. Evolution requires an increase in genetic information to "evolve" from bacteria, to frogs, to apes, to man, which is genetically impossible.

The only alternative is special creation: intelligent design; which the fossil record supports. Every paleontologist knows that species appear suddenly, fully-formed:"

"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." [Puncturing Punctuationism, in Dawkins, Richard, "The Blind Watchmaker." W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, Chap. 9, pp.229-30]

It doesn't take much common sense to understand that. Either believe in special creation, or trust the "god of the gaps." LOL!

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

>>Kalamata: "Evolutionary Biologist Jerry Coyne defines evolutionism in the more traditional manner: >>Kalamata Quoting Coyne: "In essence, the modern theory of evolution is easy to grasp. It can be summarized in a single (albeit slightly long) sentence: Life on Earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3,5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry A. Coyne, "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, p.3] >>Kalamata: "There is no evidence in support of that claim; but that is what Coyne believes, and that is what Darwin's theory teaches."
>>Joey said: "There are literal mountains of evidence"

So, the evolutionism cult claims; but you will never seen any of that evidence beyond imaginary museum mockups and highly artistic textbook drawings, created solely to fool the public. Frankly, the claim, "there are mountains of evidence," is a logical fallacy. To get to the truth, you must dig deep into the literature, away from the hyped "public face" of the evolutionist.

For example, this is the late British paleontologist Colin Patterson explaining how much the scientific community knows about evolution (e.g, nothing!):

"Well, this time that isn't true. I'm speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either of them. One or the reasons I started taking this antievolutionary view, or let's call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realization that for over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. Then one morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock, to learn that one can be so misled for so long.:
"So either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks, I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
"The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said, "Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.'"
[Colin Patterson, "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson." American Museum of Natural History, Nov 5, 1981, p.3]

Did you notice the crowd's reaction after Patterson's quote of an evolutionst, "Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school." The crowd laughed, and yet it consisted of some famous evolutionists, such as:

Niles Eldredge: Paleontologist, American Museum of Natural History
Donn Rosen: Curator, Department of Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History
Wayne Frair: Professor of Biology at The King’s College (recorder)
James Steven Farris: Department of Entomology, American Museum of Natural History
Stanley Salthe: Professor of Biology at Brooklyn College

This is Patterson actually making that statement:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?

And this is the transcript:

Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson

In response to letter from the late Luther Sunderland about his book "Evolution", Patterson replied:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
"I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least "show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived." I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
[In Letter from Colin Patterson, in Sunderland, Luther, "Darwin's Enigma." Master Books, ISBN 0-89051-108-X, 1984, Chap 4, p.89]

Think about what just transpired. Patterson admitted that he didn't include any transitional fossils in his book on evolution because there are not any. He did, however, write this in his book:

""Darwin devoted two chapters of The Origin to fossils, butspent the whole of the first in saying how imperfect the geological record of life is. For it seemed obvious to him that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it, since each stratum should contain links between the species of earlier and later strata, and if sufficient fossils were collected, it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor descendent sequences, and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin's time, and today, after more than another hundred years of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps." [Colin Patterson, "Evolution." British Museum of Natural History, 1978, pp.127-128]

Evolutionists routinely accuse creationists of lying when we quote evolutionists. But, as you have heard and read, we don't have to lie. There is plenty of doubt to be found within the ranks of published evolutionists.

This is die-hard evolutionist and philospher of science Michael Ruse stating evolutionism is a "akin" to a religion, but evolutionists should not be telling that to a court of law (I kid you not!)

"I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things... it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may... evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there." [Ruse, Michael, "Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, AAAS Annual Meeting." Access Research Network, 1993]

I believe Ruse is suggesting the withholding of evidence in a court of law. Is that what you read?

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

>>Joey said: "and, yes, Coyne states the long-term theory. But evolution facts begin with every new generation: descent with modifications (i.e., mutations) as acted on by natural selection.

The long-term theory is a myth. The short-term observations are the result of special creation, not evolution. God placed variety within the gene pool of each family (e.g, each "kind",) giving some "kinds" great variety, such as that found in the dog's gene pools. These are only some of the varieties of dog skulls:

If an evolutionary paleontologist found those skulls in different sedimentary layers, and wasn't aware of the incredible varieties of dogs (e.g., if he had been living in a cave,) he might imagine some sort of transitional line from those skulls and become part of science folklore, like Phil Gingrich of U. Michigan and his imaginary whale transitional line. LOL!

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

>>Joey said: "It's all evolution, regardless of how much Kalamata loathes, despises, mocks, ridicules and lies about it."

That is a myth, Joey. You have been deceived, and are deceiving.

Mr. Kalamata

>>freeDUMB wrote, “Child. “I am rubber you are glue” does not work on us adults”

Adults don’t act like you, child. You are just an immature little brat craving attention.

>>Kalamata post #455: "When you show me the word "supernatural" in the scripture, I will repeat the uses of the word "natural" in the scripture and the works of the Early Church Fathers, that you have thus far ignored."
>>Joey said: "The Biblical terms are "miracles" (37 times), "wonders" (111 times) and "signs" (135 times). These are specifically intended as God's supernatural works to show His people His power and authority over mere nature. The Bible and early Church Fathers are totally clear in distinguishing between mere natural processes and God's supernatural miracles, wonders and signs."

None of that contradicts Jesus being a natural man while on earth:

"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem," -- Mat 2:1 KJV

"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." -- Heb 2:16 KJV

"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him." -- John 1:32 KJV

"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." -- Heb 2:17-18 KJV

"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." -- John 19:30 KJV

It certainly appears that Jesus was a natural man until after his crucifixion, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "Which parts, Joey?"
>>Joey said: "All, without exception.

Joey left out all of the context, leaving us with mindless gibberish. I had asked Joey this question in #455:

"You do not believe there is science in the Bible, and you mock the historical record, so which parts 'demonstrate God's supernatural majesty & power'?"

Joey's response:

"You'll find it all beginning with Genesis 1:1 and ending with Revelation 22:21."

Joey doesn't believe there is science in the Bible, nor does he believe it is historically accurate; but yet he believes all of the Bible "demonstrates God's supernatural majesty & power?" That is sophistry.

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

>>Kalamata: "You left out the words, "after man evolved from a "self-replicating" molecule, via an ape" which you added to the scripture to make it fit the doctrine of your evolutionism religion. God frowns on man-made additions to his Word, Joey:"
>>Joey said: "As usual with Kalamata, that's just more pure nonsense because science neither adds to nor subtracts from Biblical text."

More sophistry. Every evolutionist believes their version of science contradicts God's word.

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

>>Kalamata: "I don't see how any good can come from teaching our children anything that is contrary to the Word of God, such as man evolving from an ape. I am reasonably certain you have heard this before: >>Kalamata: "A frog turning into a prince is called a fairy tale. A frog turning into a prince over millions of years is called science. But it is still a fairy tale, no matter what you call it."
>>Joey said: "I don't see how any good can come from lying to children about either the Bible or science. No frog ever turned into a prince scientifically."

Then why do evolutionists teach it to our children?

"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]

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

>>Kalamata: "That is horrendously deceitful, Joey! A LIE by omission! You left out the most important part of your statement: the part where you claim the existence of "pre-humans" who became human! "
>>Joey said: "Now, now, calm down baby Danny boy, I know the truth can be hard for you, but it's time to put on your big-boy pants and get ready for reality."

Is Joey being patronizing, or santimonious?

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

>>Joey said: "The Bible tells us that God began with dirt and science thinks that's about right."

Science doesn't tell us anything, Joey. We must rely on man's interpretation of observable data, and trust him not to let his imagination run wild, like Charlie Darwin did.

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

>>Joey said: "The Bible tells us that when God finished creating physical man He "breathed the breath of life" into Adam and Adam became a "living soul". Of course natural science knows nothing about "living souls", but even the most jaded atheist understands there's a qualitative difference between human consciousness and that of other species."

More sophistry. This is the Genesis narrative:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed." -- Gen 2:7-8 KJV

So, God made man, then God planted a garden to place man in. I wonder how long man had to wait until God finished the garden?

Jesus said man was created at the beginning of creation, not 12 or 14 billion years later:

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

The New Testament authors spoke of Noah as a historical figure:

"Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 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 3:36-38 KJV
"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

Jesus also spoke of Noah and the flood as part of history:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." -- Luk 17:26-30 KJV

Heresy includes the denial of the words of Christ:

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

That is not a good idea, since the words of Christ will judge us:

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." -- John 12:48 KJV

So, you really have three choices: you can believe Christ; you can believe evolutionists (who have a long, treacherous history of fraud and deception;) or you can reject both. I choose Christ.

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

>>Kalamata: "Now, Joey, please show us where in the Bible we can find pre-humans turning into humans, or admit you added your own words to the scripture."
>>Joey said: "Now, now baby boy, it's time for you to grow up and stop lying."

Is Joey being patronizing, or santimonious?

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

>>Joey said: "I neither added to nor subtracted one word from scripture, simply pointed out that it does not necessarily disagree with natural-science."

Science agrees with the Bible. Pseudoscience, such as evolutionism, contradicts the scripture.

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

>>Kalamata: "How so, Joey? Are you denying God created man uniquely in his own image, and the image of his previously created angels? Or, are you in the cover-up mode?"
>>Joey said: "No, baby boy, I'm simply saying that's a straw man argument.Look it up."

Joey is in the cover-up mode.

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

>>Kalamata: "Did I say Jesus lied to Matthew, Joey; or is that more misdirection?"
>>Kalamata referring to Matthew 17:20 "Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” "
>>Joey said: "Your claim, Danny boy, was: "You haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you?"

That was a question, Joey, not a claim.

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

>>Joey said: "Well... yes, actually I could cite any number of mountains moved by faith, notably among them when Pope Saint John Paul II teamed up with President Reagan and Britain's Margaret Thatcher to help bring down the old Soviet Empire. I'd say that puts the lie to your apparent claim that Jesus was being less than truthful in Matthew 17:20."

You are either lying by claiming my question was a "claim," or you don't understand what you read. You also didn't address this point by Christ:

"Nothing will be impossible for you."

Yet, you seem to believe it is impossible for plants, animals and man to have been instantly created by God, as the scripture implies, in spite of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.

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

>>Kalamata: "Again, you haven't seen anyone move any mountains lately, have you? All it takes is faith as a grain of mustard seed? The disciples and a few early Christians received supernatural powers; but none afterward, that I am aware of."
>>Joey said: "So let us take just a moment to notice the stunning situation: here I am, your humble servant, BroJoeK, defending both the ideas of natural-science and miracles from God, while our Denier-boy Danny Kalamata denies both! Astonishing!

You failed again to address my point, Joey. But I have to admit, that is slick rhetoric. Your rhetoric is right up there with the deceitful rhetoric of the partners in crime, Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell!

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

>>Joey said: "And again let's notice that in the New Testament Jesus performed miracles on His own, while of His disciples it's said that God performed miracles through them."

You are ignorant of the scriptures, Joey. Jesus could do nothing on his own during his earthly ministry:

"Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." -- John 5:19-20 KJV

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

>>Joey said: "Finally, we should remember that from earliest times through today the Catholic Church kept records of God's miracles and used them in discerning sainthood among its faithful."

I guess it depends on how you define a miracle. I define it as speaking in foreign languages you have never learned, raising the dead, healing the sick without the benefit of medicine, moving mountains, etc..

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

>>Kalamata: "I have 26 Bible translations, Joey, and none mention the part about molecules-to-ape-to-man. Bible Gateway lists even more translations, again without the molecules-to-man part: You must have added those words to the scripture, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Rubbish, I've added nothing to scripture, merely noticed that natural-science does not necessarily contradict it."

Show us the verse that states man evolved from a bacteria.

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata post #456: "I asked you a simple question, Joey. There is no need to get all snow-flake hysterical on us? For the record, are you denying that you have been insinuating I am a holocaust denier because I refuse to worship at the altar of evolutionism? Just checking to see if you are the denier."
>>Joey said: "Oh, my baby Danny boy, in your terrible-twos-like rage you're simply bouncing from one insane accusation to another, none of them making any sense."

Every post by you seems to be more immature than the last, Joey. Are your evil deeds getting the best of you?

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

>>Joey said: "Yes, it's true, I have long wondered if Danny-boy is nothing more than an old Holocaust denier now retread and repurposed to evolution denial using the same Denier Tactics, "logic" and personal attacks they used? What else could explain your insane rage, the same as theirs, at Michael Shermer?"

Joey has no other way to defend his religion of evolutionism than to slander. He, like his hero, the atheist Michael Shermer, are typical Leftists.

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

>>Joey said: "Of course I have noticed significant differences, beginning with the worst of their vulgarity."

That is more of the same obfuscation. Joey slanders, and then pretends he didn't.

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

>>Joey said: "But not all were vulgar, indeed some Holocaust deniers considered themselves good Christians who were 100% convinced of two "facts": Their own Christian German ancestors and relatives were not capable of such mass destruction. The Jews" were totally capable of mass deception. So they believed the entire "Holo-hoax" was a product of Jewish propaganda and that is how they could spend all day in a Holocaust museum and never see any evidence!"

That is same tactic used by Joey's hero: the anti-Christian, anti-God, Climate-Change propagandist, Michael Shermer.

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

>>Joey said: "And such denier tactics are the same ones you use to deny evolution."

That is another tactic of the atheist Left: associate "science" deniers with the Holocaust, only in this case I am not denying science, but pseudoscience, which the scientifically-challenged, like Joey has been fooled into believing is science.

It won't be long before the Leftist Joey labels me a Nazi! Imagine that, a Nazi Jew?

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

>>Joey said: "So I think it's a legitimate question of how it is that Danny-boy uses the same kinds of Denier tactics if you never had any contact with such people?"

Since misdirection is a significant part of Joey's strategy, it is very possible Joey is a closet Holocaust denier, and doesn't want anyone to know. Among conservatives, there is a certain stigma attached to being a Holocaust denier, so Joey has to be careful not to give himself away. Among his friends on the Left, he doesn't have to be so cautious.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are lying again, Joey. You learned that smear tactic from your far-left atheist hero, Michael Shermer, who teaches children there is no God."
>>Joey said: "I may be sometimes mistaken, but never knowingly lie."

You do tend to believe your own lies, Joey, so perhaps you are a pathological liar?

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

>>Joey said: "Here's the truth: like you, Holocaust deniers were enraged by Shermer, and just as you wish to ally with Global Warming "deniers" so Holocaust deniers were eager to ally with evolution deniers."

Shermer is an anti-Christian, God-hating bigot, first and foremost! I sincerely believe he co-wrote the book about the Holocaust, not only as a good money-maker, but also as a tool to slander the Right by association, as a tool to cover-up Charlie Darwin's implication in the Holocaust, and as a tool to cover up the anti-semitic hatred spewed by his friends on the Left.

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

>>Joey said: "And like Shermer I observe the similarity in debate tactics used by Holocaust deniers and evolution deniers such as Danny Kalamata."

Anyone who criticizes Charlie Darwin is worse than Hitler, to Joey and Shermer. You see, Charlie Darwin is their prophet.

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

>>Kalamata: "No, Joey. That is your modus operandi, the one you learned from the Far Left, which is, "smear them if they disagree with you. You use the same tactic the "Climate Change" cult uses. Frankly, Joey, you remind me of the left-wing cult-of-hate that congregate on Youtube, minus the vulgar language."
>>Joey said: "I know nothing about such YouTube, face-chat or snap-book, whatever..."

That is odd? You deceive and slander exactly like they do, except for the vulgar language.

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

>>Joey said: "Well... then consider this curious fact: Holocaust deniers would not consider themselves to be "smeared" by association to evolution deniers, but many Global Warming "skeptics" would consider themselves smeared by any linkage to either evolution or Holocaust denial. In other words, in the hierarchy of denials, Global Warming skeptics stand at the peak of respectability as still legitimate scientifically, while evolution denial ranks down in the pits along with Holocaust denial and, oh, say, flat-Earth people. That's not to say you are any of those others, only that your methods & tactics are remarkably similar."

Holocaust deniers are almost exclusively Leftists, Joey. Your obfuscation will not change that fact. But I do believe I understand your point: Holocaust deniers use the same smear tactics as Moses deniers.

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

>>Kalamata: "Ironically, Joey, those same tactics you use of, smear, smear, smear, indirectly led me to learn evolution was a giant hoax. A friend, who believed in evolution at the time, stumbled across a Youtube video loaded with hateful, cursing anti-creationists. That aroused his suspicion enough to examine, for the first time, the claims of evolutionists. It didn't take long before he realized the emperor (evolution) had no clothes. He later asked me to take a close look at the geological column; and soon thereafter I became a young earth creationist. It is all about the science, Joey. Nothing personal."
>>Joey said: "I've seen nothing resembling what you claim. I have read books on the subject and have seen nothing to seriously contradict it."

You will not find it in Wikipedia, but there is considerable doubt about evolution, and it dates back to Darwin himself and his lamentation over the lack of gradual transitional fossils.

There are also doubts among evolutionists that evolution could be responsible for some animal features. This is from a 1970 paper by Tony Frazzetta:

"Most evolutionary transformations can be envisioned as a sort of continuous change, where one structural condition melts gradually into another. In the framework of such a view, bolyerines are clearly difficult. A movable joint dividing the maxilla into two segments seems to have either a presence or absence, with no intermediate to connect the two conditions. The overall similarities of the bolyerine skull with that of terrestrial boids do not suggest a major overhaul in cranial structure. Instead, it appears that the significant evolutionary changes in the upper jaw were fairly direct." [Tony H. Frazzetta, "From Hopeful Monsters to Bolyerine Snakes." The American Naturalist, Vol.104, No.935; Jan-Feb, 1970, pp.62-63]

Frazzetta realized that intermediate forms of the upper jaw would be impossible. Every part, including the muscles and ligaments, had to evolve simultaneously. Stephen Jay Gould mentioned that in one of his essays:

"On the isolated island of Mauritius, former home of the dodo, two genera of boid snakes (a large group that includes pythons and boa constrictors) share a feature present in no other terrestrial vertebrate: the maxillary bone of the upperjaw is split into front and rear halves, connected by a movable joint. In 1970, my friend Tom Frazzetta published a paper entitled "From Hopeful Monsters to Bolyerine Snakes?" He considered every preadaptive possibility he could imagine and rejected them in favor of discontinuous transition. How can a jawbone be half broken?" [Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters." Natural History, 86(6); June-July, 1977]

What those two didn’t realize is, the parts of every organism are symbotic in nature. For example, for the blood to survive, you need blood vessels, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, stomach, etc.; and each of those parts needs the others, as well.

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

>>Joey said: "Here is another example of reasoned discourse available online."

It is deceptive, Joey. It attempts to conflate built-in hereditary potential and built-in variations within the dog family to the unobservable imaginations of common descent by evolutionism theorists. The scientifically-challenged, like you, can be easily fooled by it.

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

>>Kalamata: "Those childish "Denier Rules" you co-opted from the Far Left fit you much better than they fit me, Joey. In fact, you are adept at the use of Leftist tactics, Joey. Who trained you?"
>>Joey said: "That's just Denier Rule #5, which you just can't stop obeying regardless of how "childish" you pretend they are."

I assume that means you are not going to tell us who trained you.

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

>>Kalamata: "I was speaking for myself, Joey, not for you."
>>Joey said: "And you respond to, for example, a Natural History museum precisely the same way a Holocaust denier responds to a Holocaust museum: "I SEE NOTHING!".

That rules me out of being a Holocaust denier, Joey. I see plenty of evidence for the Holocaust; just none for evolution.

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

>>Kalamata: "Evidence is evidence, Joey. If there IS NO evidence for Evolution in a museum, then only those with vivid imaginations CAN see evidence. On the other hand, if there IS evidence for the holocaust in a museum, only those with vivid imaginations CANNOT see it. I don't have a vivid imagination, like you, Joey. I am a scientist."
>>Joey said: "Sure you are, riiiiiiight! You are a scientist in precisely the same sense as Holocaust deniers claimed to be "real historians" while claiming that all other historians were just "hoax-story-ians"."

It is obvious you are neither a scientist, nor a historian, but a story-teller.

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

>>Kalamata: "The Far-Left uses the same Jedi mind-tricks on those who refuse to worship at the altar of the evolutionism cult that they use on those who refuse to worship at the altar of the climate change cult. They label those who refuse to bow as a "denier," or worse."
>>Joey said: "By the way, that constant repetition of "worship at the alter" nonsense is yet another tactic which links you to Holocaust deniers -- they were forever refusing to "worship at the alter" of Jewish historians!"

I am fond of Jewish Historians, with the exception of Far-Left charlatans like Michael Shermer. He and his ilk are disgraceful, as are his supporters. Dr. Jerry Bergman, the author of the main article for this thread, is a conservative Jewish historian who writes wonderful books on the Holocaust. Why do you not like Dr. Bergman, Joey? Is it because he rejects your religion of evolutionism, because you are antisemitic, or both?

Watch:

Jerry Bergman: Hitler’s Darwinian Worldview

Dr. Bergman has another good book on the Nazis and eugenics titled "The Darwin Effect." Maybe this is why you dislike Bergman:

"A central plank in Nazism, communism, and other totalitarianism movements was eugenics (Bergman 2012). Eugenics, the 'science' of improving the human race by scientific control of breeding, was viewed by a large percentage of all life scientists, professors, and social reformers for over a century as an important, if not a major, means of accomplishing the goal of producing paradise on earth (Sewell 2009). The formal founder of this new science was Sir Francis Galton, a cousin and close associate of Charles Darwin. Galton's work was critical in providing the foundation for a movement that culminated in contributing to the loss of tens of millions of lives, and untold suffering of hundreds of millions of people. The now-infamous eugenics movement grew from the core concepts of biological evolution — primarily those ideas expounded by Charles Darwin (Gould 1996; Himmelfarb 1959; Shannon 1920; Haller 1971; Barzun 1958). In fact, all the leading figures in the eugenics movement, including Pearson, Davenport, Forel, Ploetz, Schallmayer, etc., not just Galton, consistently maintained that Darwinism was central to their eugenics." [Bergman, Jerry, "The Darwin Effect." Master Books, 2014, Chap.3]

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

>>Joey said: "It's why I think, if you didn't learn it directly from them, you did go to the same Denier University. You were part of Denier University's Matriculated Body of Students."

Wow! Aren't you clever? LOL!

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

>>Kalamata: "But the Truth has finally regained the upper hand, and the cultists are panicing."
>>Joey said: "And that is Denier Rule #13: "Final Rule, when you've been totally defeated, when your lies are exposed, when your "logic" is revealed as nonsense, when nothing you say is believable, then Declare Total Victory! Announce that your side has already won and your despicable opponents are fading into history, nothing is left of their arguments but your victory dance in their football end zone."

Silly Child.

Mr. Kalamata

Run along sonny boy. You are irritatiing the grown ups.

Kalamata: Kalamata post #458: "You claim to have the book, but you didn't show quotes to back you your claims."

I have the hard-copy c1989, 1993 Sixth printing 2003.

Kalamata: "Besides, what is wrong with believing an all-powerful God intelligently designed things as mind-boggling complex as cells?
Dumb Luck most certainly didn't create it.
Only a fool would believe that.
It is obvious to me, and anyone else paying attention, that evolutionists are trying to hide their hatred of God behind the veneer of science."

Most Christians would say that if God chose "dumb luck" to accomplish His purposes, so be it.
But then, how "dumb" can it be if it's all according to God's plans?

As for who really "hates God" more, who could hate God more than those who wish to confine Him to Creationists' "God of the Gaps" theology?

Kalamata: "Why are you so quick to support judicial rulings contrary to our Christian heritage?
Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled this to be a Christian nation?"

Curiously enough, it turns out that modern conservative textualist Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the Court's Church v US 1892 decision precisely because it was, we would say, "activist" in trying to interpret the lawmakers' intent rather than the law's text.
Indeed, Scalia himself marked that SCOTUS decision as the point at which the Supreme Court first began to come off its rails.

Justice David Brewer, Republican from Kansas, wrote the Court's unanimous decision, and in 1905 explained his words in a book, "The United States: A Christian Nation".

"In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.
Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian Nation—in fact, as the leading Christian Nation of the world.
This popular use of the term certainly has significance.
It is not a mere creation of the imagination.
It is not a term of derision but has substantial basis—one which justifies its use.[4][5]"

We should further notice the case had nothing whatever to do with public schools, prayers or evolution, but involved laws prohibiting hiring contracts for immigrant laborers and should those apply to priests?
Justice Brewer said "no" even though the law's text made no such exemptions.

Justice Scalia pointed to that as the beginnings of judicial activism.

Kalamata: "Where is stare decisis when you need it."

Stare decisis is often overturned when SCOTUS feels more modern laws or consensus contradict it.

Kalamata: "That is what school boards are elected to do, not the ACLU, and not disgruntled, left-wing "science" teachers, or a handful of parents.
The school board voted 6-3 in favor of introducing ID.
That should have been it, until the next election.
But busybodies at the ACLU can't resist meddling in the affairs of others: no communist can.
It is in their blood."

Again I refer you to my post #468 for a long list of court decisions going back to 1968, defending evolution in public school science classes.

Kalamata: "I didn't claim science was moral relativistic, Joey.
When are you going to show us a few observed facts that support common descent, Joey?
You know you cannot, because all the observed facts support special creation."

All of that is just more of your slavish obedience to Denier Rules, in this case #1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #8 & #9.

>>Kalamata post #458: "A dozen parents were able to sue the school board for carrying out their constitutionally authorized duties, and you pretend the ACLU and the parents are the good guys? I wouldn't want to be in a fox hole with you."
>>Joey wrote: "So, you are a veteran who served in wartime?"

Why the misdirection, Joey? Sorry. I forgot that all of your posts are misdirections of some sort.

Again, why do you think the ACLU and the handful of parents that sued are the good guys?

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

>>Joey wrote: "The fact is, both sides were supported by outside parties eager to make a test case of it. The school board was represented by Thomas More Law Center (TMLC). Defense witnesses included university professors Michael Behe and Steve Fuller."

More misdirection. The Discovery Institute did not support the School Board policy, and never has; nor did they serve as the board's legal counsel.

Further, "judge" Jones mischaracterized the Discovery Institute's involvement, when he wrote:

"The only outside organizations which the Board consulted prior to the vote were the Discovery Institute and TMLC [Thomas More Law Center], and it is clear that the purpose of these contacts was to obtain legal advice, as opposed to science education information."

This is a statement by the Discovery Institute's legal counsel:

"To be clear, prior to the filing of the lawsuit I never advised the members of the Dover board in a privileged, attorney-client capacity. Further, I never advised members of the Dover board to mandate the teaching of the theory of intelligent design or to adopt the ID policy at issue in the case. Rather, I strongly urged members of the Dover board to either drop entirely the issue of alternatives to the teaching of evolution, or to only present scientific arguments both supporting and challenging the contemporary version of Darwin’s theory and the chemical evolutionary theories for the origin of the first life. The Dover board had their own legal counsel in their solicitor and the public-interest law firm that they later hired. Members of the Dover board who adopted the ID policy acted completely contrary to my strongest suggestions."

"judge" Jones is a disgraceful human being -- a prima donna more interested in his own popularity, than justice; and you are disgraceful for glorifying him.

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

>>Joey wrote: "In the end Dover voters fired the school board and the Judge ruled against their "Intelligent Design" teaching. Intelligent Design was found to be just Creationism repackaged and so not permissible for mandatory science classes."

Rubbish. The ACLU wrote the ruling: the "judge" copy/pasted from the ACLU notes:

Besides, the Constitution has no provision that prohibits the teaching of Christianity in public schools, in any manner. The ACLU is partly responsible for Joey's warped interpretation of the First Amendment since the ACLU also wrote the ruling in Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 that initiated the corruption of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. Joey is, however, responsible for believing them.

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

>>Joey wrote: "I have no problem with "intelligent design" taught as theology in any voluntary context. But by US law it's not science and cannot be taught as such in mandatory science classes."

Joey could care less about the Constitution. Rather, he supports any usurped law, and any far-left law firm, like the ACLU, that supports his theology of evolutionism. Further, evolution is not science, but theology; so Joey's appeals ring hollow.

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

>>Kalamata: "Your pretense that something good came from the ACLU's support is troubling, Joey. The ACLU has deep pockets with which to run campaigns against the Constitution and sway public opinion; and they can always find a few leftists in a crowd to represent, and a moldable activist "judge."
>>Joey wrote: "Baby-Danny, roughly one-third of Americans believe Creationism and so the anti-evolution movement is potentially huge, dwarfing anything the ACLU might do."

You really are deceitful, Joey. The ACLU has been campaigning against Christianity since they got their feet wet in the Scopes Trial almost a century ago. They are an extremely powerful, well-funded, anti-Christian, anti-Constitution lobbing organization for the Far Left. No conservative would support them on anything.

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

>>Kalamata: "In Kitzmiller v Dover anti-evolutionists mounted a vigorous defense but were defeated by their own internal contradictions, especially in simultaneously claiming and denying that Intelligent Design had anything to do with God."

More misdirections, Joey? There were no contradictions by the few members of the ID community that testified. There were lies in the "judge's" ruling, lies by the ACLU, and deceit in Ken Miller's testimony, but no contradictions by the ID'ers who testified.

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

>>Kalamata: Judge Jones' ruling was simply consistent with many previous rulings going back at least to 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas. See my post #468 for details."

"judge" Jones was out of his jurisdiction, plus his opinion was not based on the Constitution, but the notes of the Far-Left ACLU.

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

>>Kalamata: "When you attempt to confound a Bush appointee with conservatism, you are following the fake news narrative, not the history of judicial appointees."
>>Joey wrote: "I'd say nearly all Bush family appointees were more conservative than those appointed by, for examples, Clinton & Obama. That you might wish them to be more conservative is understandable, but when you consider what happened to Robert Bork (Reagan) and Clarence Thomas (HW Bush), those who did get confirmed were the best possible. Scalia was a Reagan appointee and Alito Bush II."

Consensus is not truth, nor relevant. Jones presented himself as an ACLU crony.

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

>>Kalamata: "Is it any wonder the leftists have been able to corrupt our government and society so thoroughly?" Reagan got Scalia, O'Connor & Kennedy but not Bork; Bush I got Thomas but also Souter; Bush II got Alito but also Roberts who was then said to be quite conservative; Trump has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. >>Joey wrote: "No court I know of has ruled in favor of Creationism in public schools."

More misdirection. The Dover case was not about Creationism, but about presenting more than one side of the debate. The progressives want only the evolutionism side taught.

Besides, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Creationism in public schools in 1968, but not to the exclusion of evolutionism. You also forget the Snopes trial, and you failed to mention that the first federal ruling against creationism did not occur until 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard when that court usurped the ruling of the 1968 court.

Don't you think it odd that it took the federal judiciary 200 years to determine the teaching of creationism was unconstitutional? I guess that kind of judicial activism is okay among you and your fellow progressives, but not among conservatives.

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

>>Kalamata: "Back to Jones: he is a crystal-clear example of a judicial activist. The minute he took the case, making a federal case out of a state and local matter, he became an activist. A Judge's role is to determine constitutionality, and in this case the strict constructionist thing to do would be to refuse to hear the case for jurisdictional reasons."
>>Joey wrote: "Complete nonsense. See my post #468 for a listing of ten similar rulings going back to 1968. As I said there: "Notice that two of these cases were decided by the US Supreme Court, two by state courts, four by Federal district and two by Federal appeals courts. At every level courts have consistently decided that religion cannot be taught in public school mandatory science classes."

Spoken like a true progressive. There are three issues here. First, Joey, like all true progressives, believe the Supreme Court is the Constitution, and not the legal document itself. Second, the 1968 ruling was not a ruling against creationism. Third, before the ACLU-influenced Supreme Court of 1947 usurped the free exercise of religion from the states and the people, there was not the slightest suspicion that it was unconstitutional to teach Christianity in public or private schools.

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

>>Kalamata: "Jones not only took the case, but played the role of philosopher of science in his ruling. It is not the role of a "judge" to determine what is and is not science, but he assumed the role. Worse, he didn't rule on ID Theory at all; rather he ruled according to the ACLU caricature of ID Theory."
>>Joey wrote: More nonsense. The issue was whether "Intelligent Design" was simply Creationism renamed and the "judge" ruled reasonably enough that it is. As such it's theology, not science."

Joey is deceiving you with his progressive rhetoric. The Dover case was not about science, or the "judge" would have ruled in favor of Intelligent Design and against the theology of evolutionism. But the "judge"," being ignorant of science, ruled exactly the way the ACLU told him to rule.

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

>>Kalamata: "Part of the reason Jones ruled the way he did was his interpretation that ID failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, which is ridiculously false. Some of the top scientists in the world promote Intelligent Design over Evolution – several of them were in his courtroom."
>>Joey wrote: "Right, as I said above, both sides were defended by outside interests, the school board by charlatans & scoundrels like Professors Behe & Fuller.

Progressivism has corrupted your brain, Joey. Behe and Fuller are brilliant scholars whose only "crime" is they have not been brainwashed by your religion. This is Steven Fuller's resume, from the trial transcript:

"Dr. Steven Fuller will also testify for the defendants. He has a master's in philosophy and history of science from Cambridge University, a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh. He's the author of eleven books, over 200 articles and chapters and books that have been peer-reviewed. He was the first post-doctoral fellow in the history of philosophy of science at the United States National Science Foundation, the first research fellow in the Public Understanding of Science at the United Kingdom's Council for Economic and Social Research. His works have been translated into 15 languages. He has been a visiting professor in the United States, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Israel, and Japan."
[Did you miss the part about Fuller having over 200 peer-reviewed articles, chapters and books?]

This is Michael Behe's resume, which was presented piecemeal at the trial, rather than in toto:

"Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures. In his career he has authored over 40 technical papers and two books, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution and The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, which argue that living system at the molecular level are best explained as being the result of deliberate intelligent design. Most recently, in Darwin Devolves [his third book,] Behe advances his argument, presenting new research that offers a startling reconsideration of how Darwin’s mechanism works, weakening the theory’s validity even more. The books have been reviewed by the New York Times, Nature, Philosophy of Science, Christianity Today, and many other periodicals. Darwin's Black Box was internationally reviewed in over one hundred publications and named by National Review and World magazine as one of the 100 most important books of the 20th century."

Joey, the progressive politician, must be very jealous of their success in science and the philosophy of science to dogmatically claim they are "charlatans & scoundrels."

BTW, Michael Behe is also a brilliant biochemist who is slowly but surely exposing the quackery of the charlatan named Charlie Darwin.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Jones could easily see which side was telling the truth and ruled accordingly. More important, Dover voters saw the truth and fired their old school board."

That is a red herring. The voters (except for the 11 parents who sued) were perfectly happy with their school board until the ACLU and their media circus showed up. The voters were then propagandized by the fake-news media for the duration of the trial.

Joey seems to have an inordinate affection for the tactics of the progressive "judge" Jones, and the anti-Constitution, Far-Left ACLU. Of course, his hero is Far-Left "Climate-Change" activist, Michael Shermer, so, go figure.

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

>>Kalamata: "Jones also made the false claim that there were no peer-reviewed ID papers. You find "no fault," Joey, because you are not interested in the truth."
>>Joey wrote: "Of course there are no peer-reviewed papers in recognized scientific journals. In fact, Jones heard out both sides and decided your side, Kalamata, was lying.

Someone is certainly lying:

"Judge Jones claimed that 'ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.' Again, the actual court record shows otherwise. University of Idaho microbiologist Scott Minnich testified at trial that there are between 'seven and ten' peer-reviewed papers supporting ID, and he specifically discussed Stephen Meyer's explicitly pro-intelligent design article in the peer-reviewed biology journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Additional peer-reviewed publications, including William Dembski's peer-reviewed monograph, The Design Inference (published by Cambridge University Press), were described in an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited publications supporting ID submitted in an amicus brief accepted as part of the official record of the case by Judge Jones. Judge Jones' false assertions about peer-reviewed publications simply copied the ACLU's erroneous language in its proposed 'Findings of Fact.'" [West & DeWolf, "A Comparison of Judge Jones Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law." Discovery Institute, Dec 12, 2006]

I checked the trial transcript, and found that West & DeWolf were telling the truth, while Jones, the ACLU, and Joey have been lying.

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

>>Joey wrote: "How did he know when you people are lying? It's easy, is your mouth moving, are your fingers typing? Then you're lying, it's who you are, it's what you do.

That would be progressive politicians like you, Joey, who are lying, along with other die-hard evolutionism cultists, like Ken Miller, and of course, the ever-America-hating ACLU, whom you adore.

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

>>Kalamata: "I have not studied the complete transcript, so I don't know for certain if anyone on the board lied; but there is no doubt Ken Miller lied with his perversion of the concept of irreducible complexity. Jones accepted Miller's fake version over the objections of two of the leading authorities on bacterial flagellum, Behe and Scott Minnich, who have been studying the flagellum for decades."
>>Joey said: "The true fact is the Dover school board wanted to introduce Creationism to science classes but was told that "Intelligent Design" was an acceptable substitute which would pass legal muster and still corrupt science with Creationist theology. Judge Jones figured that out."

Joey has to be the most deceitful person I have ever debated. The truth is, Dover was the true monkey trial, in that the "judge"," the NCSE, and the ACLU made a monkey out of justice.

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

>>Joey said: "As for Behe's allegedly "irreducibly complex" flagellum, Miller & others have shown they are not in the least "irreducible", that they came from a much simpler provenance and evolved in many stages to their current complex form, whether Behe, Minnich or Kalamata like it or not."

Rubbish. Ken Miller not only lied, but he is not even qualified to make such comparisons and should have recused himself. Miller has always been a deceitful charlatan, pulling stunts such as promoting highly-artistic mockups of highly-fragmented animal fossils as "whale evolution."

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

>>Kalamata: "The theory of Intelligent Design has supporters, and at least one Senior Fellow, who have no religious convictions; and the theory does not pretend to claim who or what designed living things, only that the scientific evidence points to design. During the trial, the I.D. defenders repeatedly made that point, but the activist "judge" ignored them."
>>Joey said: "Because it's all a lie, a big fat stinking lie from stinking liars. Stop lying.

I need only cite one Senior Fellow, Dr. David Berlinski, to prove Joey is a liar. Berlinski is an agnostic Jew. He simply believes Darwin's theory is "nutty," and for good reason.

David Berlinski has a PhD from Princeton, and post-doctoral fellowships in mathematics and molecular biology form Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques.

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

>>Kalamata: "In all of that, the main point was never address, which is, it is NOT unconstitutional to teach religion in public schools. That is an invention of the God-hating, anti-Christian, anti-liberty ACLU."
>>Joey said: Near as I can tell, US Supreme Court rulings against teaching religion in public schools go back to 1948, McCollum v. Board of Education District 71, 1962, Engel v. Vitale and 1963, Abington School District v. Schempp. Those rulings are consistent and hinge on the fact that public school attendance is mandatory. Voluntary private schools and home schools can teach as much religion as they wish."

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947, was the trial that instituted the progressive brain-washing of our children. That judicial activism usurped 160 years of state and local control of education.

No conservative endorses judicial activism, Joey. How long have you been pretending to be a conservative?

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

>>Kalamata: "What does that have to do with science? Are you pretending atheists make better scientists? I worry about you, Joey."
>>Joey said: "No, "judge" Jones was recognizing the sincere Christian beliefs of the Dover school board. It helped him decide against "Intelligent Design".

And you don't object? If having sincere Christian beliefs is unconstitutional, our Founding Fathers were unconstitutional.

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

>>Kalamata: "You are a false teacher when you claim it is unconsitutional to teach religion in public schools. It is, however, blatantly unconstutitional for the federal government to establish the suppressive religion of evolutionism as the State supported religion."
>>Joey said: "Again you quoted "judge" Jones and again your words here redefining & reversing "science" and "religion" should vindicate his ruling in the eyes on any traditionally reasonable person."

You have continuously promoted his ruling, Joey.

No conservative believes in judicial activism; and no one in their right mind would claim evolution is not the established religion of the United States in that it has been given censorship control over all other religions. A teacher can mock God and Christianity in public schools and text books, but a teacher or text book cannot criticize Darwin. Evolutionism is the notorious Church of England on steroids.

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

>>Kalamata: "It appears you support the establishment part of the First Amendment, Joey, and deny the free-exercise part. That is exactly what the ACLU and Marxists want you to support, because that is their best avenue to the destruction of our liberty and nation."
>>Joey said: "It appears you support lunacy from beginning to end. If you can get away with redefining science as a "religion" and your own religion as "science" then we will have descended into blithering insanity where anything can mean anything the political powers that be dictate. No thank you."

Evolutionists got away with defining their religion as science. I am working to expose their deception and lunacy.

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

>>Kalamata on "Of Pandas and People": "That is nothing fake about it, Joey. It is both brilliant and scientifically sound. But how would you know one way or another? You are not a scientist. You only hear what you want to hear, and you only hear the words of the Left."
>>Joey said: "By your own definitions, where your religious beliefs are so-called "science" and real science is another "religion", you can claim to be anything and nobody can dispute it."

I need a translator.

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

>>Kalamata: "But, if you will be so kind, please show us parts where you believe the book is fake. Don't hold back. Your research will be of use to all. Please include Chapter and/or page numbers."
>>Joey said: "I said the book is "fake but harmless". The harmless parts are all which review straight science. The fake parts are all which talk about "intelligent design".

I knew you were blowing smoke. I seriously doubt you even read it; but in case I am wrong, and you actually did read it, I KNOW you did not understand it.

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

>>Kalamata: "That was never a problem until the ACLU showed up. School boards always made such decisions, before the dangerous rhetoric of the Left prevailed in our society -- rhetoric which you endorse."
>>Joey said: "As best I can tell, the US Supreme Court began ruling against mandatory teaching religion in public schools in 1948, and has ruled consistently on it ever since."

I believe you are saying the states and the people were wrong for 160 years before the ACLU showed up. You are no conservative, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata: "In any case, the Dover School Board policy was apparently not clearly written; but the original purpose was to inform the students that there were holes in the theory of evolution, and there were alternative theories, both of which are absolutely true."
>>Joey said: "Both of which are absolute lies promoted by charlatans & scoundrels."

Only a progressive charlatan and scoundrel would make a statement like that.

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

>>Kalamata: "Contrary to the "judge"'s opinion, the Discovery Institute policy did not support the Dover School Board science policy. The DI policy, which was established several years before the Board's action, sought to encourage individual teachers to introduce ID into the curriculum. It opposed mandatory enforcement by states or school boards."
>>Joey said: "Hmmmmm…. I wonder..."

Why not simply call me a liar and get it over with, Joey? That is your modus operandi, which is, if you can beat them, slander them.

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

>>Joey quoting the leftist Wikipedia: "The Discovery Institute's John West said the case displayed the ACLU's "Orwellian" effort to stifle scientific discourse and objected to the issue being decided in court. "It's a disturbing prospect that the outcome of this lawsuit could be that the court will try to tell scientists what is legitimate scientific inquiry and what is not," West said. That is a flagrant assault on free speech." Opponents, represented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Biology Teachers, contended that his statement is not just ironic, but hypocritical, as the Discovery Institute opposes methodological naturalism, the basic principle that limits science to natural phenomena and natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, which by definition is beyond natural explanation."

Every real scientist objects to being controlled by the doctrine of methodological naturalism, which is religion, not science.

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

>>Joey said: "It appears that Creationists blew this case by not getting their acts together, so Discovery Institute ran for the hills and left Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) holding the bag."

No creationists were involved in the case. Further, the Discovery Institute was not the School Board's counsel, although they did recommend the School Board drop the disputed policy.

Joey has never been concerned with the truth; only with promoting his progressive ideology and religion of evolutionism.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: "Besides, what is wrong with believing an all-powerful God intelligently designed things as mind-boggling complex as cells? Dumb Luck most certainly didn't create it. Only a fool would believe that. It is obvious to me, and anyone else paying attention, that evolutionists are trying to hide their hatred of God behind the veneer of science."
>>Joey wrote, "Most Christians would say that if God chose "dumb luck" to accomplish His purposes, so be it. But then, how "dumb" can it be if it's all according to God's plans?"

I don't know of any Christian who believes that way.

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

>>Joey wrote, "As for who really "hates God" more, who could hate God more than those who wish to confine Him to Creationists' "God of the Gaps" theology?"

There are no gaps in creationist science. You must be referring to the evolutionism "god of the gaps" theology, that prophesies, "one day those gaps will be filled in."

This is Niles Eldredge on the "god of the gaps":

"For one thing, Darwin mused, paleontology in his day was still in its infancy. Surely, he wrote, paleontology would eventually provide full corroboration of his theory. Darwin actually believed that his entire theory of "transmutation" (or "descent with modification"—he never called it "evolution" in the Origin) would stand or fall on the eventual recovery of many examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record."
"But the collective inexperience of paleontologists did not completely allay Darwin's qualms. So, brilliant and thorough thinker that he was, he essentially invented a new field of scientific inquiry—what is now called "taphonomy" -- to explain why the fossil record is so deficient, so full of gaps, that the predicted patterns of gradual change simply do not emerge."
[Eldredge, Niles, "Reinventing Darwin: the great debate at the high table of evolutionary theory." John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-30301-1, 1995, Chap.4, pp.95-96]

This is Richard Leakey on the "god of the gaps":

"Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence. The major gap, often referred to as the 'fossil void', is between eight and four million years ago." [Leakey, Richard E., "The Making of Mankind." 1981, Chap.3, p.43]

This is Jack Szostak on the "god of the gaps":

"The problem of the origin of life, if you stand back and look at the whole thing, is a whole pathway all the way from planet formation to the various chemical steps, like making nucleotides, to assembling a protocell, which is what we're working on, and then on to the evolution of the genetic code, etc... What I meant when I said 'three to five years' was, given the building blocks, if we have the building blocks, we'll be able to generate an evolving protocell. There may still be gaps in our knowledge of how, prebiotically, to make nucleotides, or maybe gaps with what happens afterwards. We're just working on that little part of how you get the molecules to work together and act like a cell." [Mazur, Suzan, "Jack Szostak on Life in the Lab." Huffington Post, Aug 31, 2014]

This is Chandra Wickramasinghe on the "god of the gaps":

"Frequent and massive gaps in the fossil record and the absence of transitional forms at the most crucial stages in the development of life show clearly that Darwinism is woefully inadequate to explain the facts. What the fossil record does show beyond doubt is that new properties of life at the level of expressed genes have been introduced by successive experiments. Only when these experiments were successful did the changes endure. Lines with unsuccessful or inoperable gene additions simply died away." [Wickramasinghe, Chandra, "Evidence in the Trial at Arkansas." Pansmeria, 1981]

This is Christopher McGowan on the "god of the gaps":

"When we see gaps within a segment of the fossil record, we should remember that these gaps may not necessarily be as significant as they appear, because they may be bridged by features that are not preserved. For example, if we compared skeletons of the two living groups of whales, the toothed whales (including dolphins) and the baleen whales (including the gray whale), we would see many differences between them, especially in the skulls. But when we compare other features, such as the tail fluke, which is not supported by any skeletal structure, the complex brain, and the breathing apparatus, not to mention their complex behavior, which includes vocalization and much more besides, we realize that the two groups have a great deal in common and the gap between them is narrowed." [McGowan, Christopher, "In the Beginning: a Scientist Shows Why the Creationists Are Wrong." 1984, Chap.8, pp.95-96]

This is David Kitt on the "god of the gaps":

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record. Darwin was concerned enough about this problem to devote a chapter of the "Origin" to it. He accounts for "the imperfections of the geological record" largely on the basis of the lack of continuous deposition of sediments and by erosion. Darwin also holds out the hope that some of the gaps would be filled as the result of subsequent collecting. But most of the gaps were still there a century later and some paleontologists were no longer willing to explain them away geologically. Simpson was the most prominent among them." [Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory." Evolution, 1973, p.467]

Jerry Coyne on the "god of the gaps":

"These discrete clusters are known as species. And at first sight, their existence looks like a problem for evolutionary theory. Evolution is, after all, a continuous process, so how can it produce groups of animals and plants that are discrete and discontinuous, separated from others by gaps in appearance and behavior? How these groups arise is the problem of speciation—or the origin of species."
"That, of course, is the title of Darwin’s most famous book, a title implying that he had a lot to say about speciation. … Yet Darwin’s magnum opus was largely silent on the “mystery of mysteries.” And what little he did say on this topic is seen by most modern evolutionists as muddled."
[Coyne, Jerry A., "Why Evolution is True." Oxford University Press, 2009, Chap 7, pp.184-5]

This is Sol Tax on the "god of the gaps":

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution... This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes, and phyla are systematic and almost always large. These peculiarities of the record pose one of the most important theoretical problems in the whole history of life: Is the sudden appearance of higher categories a phenomenon of evolution or of the record only, due to sampling bias and other inadequacies?" ["The History of Life", by George Gaylor Simpson, in, in Tax, Sol, "Evolution after Darwin Vol I - The Evolution of Life." 1960, p.149]

Richard Dawkins on the "god of the gaps":

"Before we come to the sort of sudden bursts that they had in mind, there are some conceivable meanings of 'sudden bursts' that they most definitely did not have in mind. These must be cleared out of the way because they have been the subject of serious misunderstandings. Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'. Both schools of thought despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative." [Puncturing Punctuationism, in Dawkins, Richard, "The Blind Watchmaker." W. W. Norton & Company, 1986, Chap. 9, pp.229-30]

This is Colin Patterson on the failure of the "god of the gaps" religion:

"It seemed obvious to [Darwin] that, if his theory of evolution is correct, fossils ought to provide incontrovertible proof of it because each geological stratum should contain links between the species or earlier and later strata and… it would be possible to arrange them in ancestor-descendent sequences and so build up a precise picture of the course of evolution. This was not so in Darwin’s time and today, after many more decades of assiduous fossil collecting, the picture still has extensive gaps." [Patterson, Colin, "Evolution." British Museum of Natural History, 1978, p.106]

And, to sum it up, we present Michael Ruse, interviewed by Peter Dizikes:

"While scientists and creationists often square off over the scientific evidence for evolution, the source of the ongoing dispute is deeper. 'This is not just a fight about dinosaurs or gaps in the fossil record,'' says Ruse, speaking from his home in Florida. 'This is a fight about different worldviews.'" [Dizikes, Peter, "Evolutionary war." Boston Globe, 23 Oct, 2005]

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata: "Why are you so quick to support judicial rulings contrary to our Christian heritage? Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled this to be a Christian nation?"
>>Joey said, "Curiously enough, it turns out that modern conservative textualist Justice Antonin Scalia opposed the Court's Church v US 1892 decision precisely because it was, we would say, "activist" in trying to interpret the lawmakers' intent rather than the law's text. Indeed, Scalia himself marked that SCOTUS decision as the point at which the Supreme Court first began to come off its rails."

That is incomplete, and therefore deceptive. Scalia agreed with the court that our nation is a Christian nation, and his objection had nothing to do with that fact. Rather, he objected to the court not following the law, which was on immigration policy:

"The Court proceeds to conclude from various extratextual indications, including even a snippet of legislative history (highly unusual in those days), that the statute was intended to apply only to manual labor—which renders the exceptions for actors, artists, lecturers, and singers utterly inexplicable. The Court then shifts gears and devotes the last seven pages of its opinion to a lengthy description of how and why we are a religious nation. That being so, it says, '[t]he construction invoked cannot be accepted as correct.'..."
"Well of course I think that the act was within the letter of the statute, and was therefore within the statute: end of case. Congress can enact foolish statutes as well as wise ones, and it is not for the courts to decide which is which and rewrite the former…"
"I agree with Judge Calabresi (and Professor Eskridge makes the same point) that many decisions can be cited which, by subterfuge, accomplish precisely what Calabresi and Eskridge and other honest nontextualists propose. As I have said, 'legislative intent' divorced from text is one of those subterfuges; and as I have described, Church of the Holy Trinity is one of those cases. What I think is needed, however, is not rationalization of this process but abandonment of it. It is simply not compatible with democratic theory that laws mean whatever they ought to mean, and that unelected judges decide what that is."
"It may well be that the statutory interpretation adopted by the Court in Church of the Holy Trinity produced a desirable result; and it may even be (though I doubt it) that it produced the unexpressed result actually intended by Congress, rather than merely the one desired by the Court. Regardless, the decision was wrong because it failed to follow the text. The text is the law, and it is the text that must be observed."
[Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, 1892, in Antonin Scalia, "Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law." Princeton University Press, 1997, pp.19-20, 22]

There are no congressional laws "respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and rightly so. However, the federal judiciary has created new "laws" out of thin air, and then ruled on them, rather than respecting the letter of the Constitutional text.

One of those new "laws" states the federal judiciary has jurisdiction over the religion of the several states. There is no provision for that in the Constitution, so the judiciary must resort to usurpation to support the "law" they unconstitutional created. It is a blatant act of tyranny by the judiciary.

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

>>Joey said: "Justice David Brewer, Republican from Kansas, wrote the Court's unanimous decision, and in 1905 explained his words in a book, "The United States: A Christian Nation". >>Joey quoted Brewer: "In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this republic as a Christian Nation—in fact, as the leading Christian Nation of the world. This popular use of the term certainly has significance. It is not a mere creation of the imagination. It is not a term of derision but has substantial basis—one which justifies its use.[4][5] >>Joey said: "We should further notice the case had nothing whatever to do with public schools, prayers or evolution, but involved laws prohibiting hiring contracts for immigrant laborers and should those apply to priests?Justice Brewer said "no" even though the law's text made no such exemptions. Justice Scalia pointed to that as the beginnings of judicial activism."

You don't understand what you read, Joey, or you are not presenting it well. Both Brewer and Scalia agreed this is a Christian nation; and Scalia's objection had nothing to do with the immigrant being a priest. The immigrant could have been a wealthy developer, but not listed in the exclusions, and Scalia's opinion would have been the same. Bottom line, Brewer's court failed to follow the law, and Scalia objected for that reason, and that reason only.

By the way, Brewer goes on to mention the Christian nature of the historical charters on which the New World and the colonies were founded:

"The commission from Ferdinand and Isabella to Columbus recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the ocean will be discovered." The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh, in 1584, authorized him to enact statutes for the government of the proposed colony, provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith now professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I, in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their desires for the furtherance of so noble a work, which may, by the providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating the Christian religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God." And language of similar import is found in subsequent charters of the same colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611. The celebrated compact made by the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, in 1620, recites: 'Having undertaken for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith and the honor of our king and country a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia.'" [David J. Brewer, "The United States a Christian Nation." John C. Winston Company, 1905, pp.13-14]

And, so forth. The infiltration of Darwinism led to the breaking of those sacred charters, and the corruption of the Christian society that help create our Free Republic.

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

>>Kalamata: "Where is stare decisis when you need it."
>>Joey said, "Stare decisis is often overturned when SCOTUS feels more modern laws or consensus contradict it."

I was being facetious. The concept of stare decisis has a corrupting influence. All interpretations, to be lawful, should be made on the original text of the Constitution, as amended; not on evolving case law.

I read at one time, perhaps here on Free Republic, a brilliant description of our current judicial system, based on two simple commandments:

1) Thou shalt fill the halls to the rafters with case law. 2) Thou shalt build more halls.

And that is the enemy of a Free Republic, in a nutshell.

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

>>Kalamata: "That is what school boards are elected to do, not the ACLU, and not disgruntled, left-wing "science" teachers, or a handful of parents. The school board voted 6-3 in favor of introducing ID. That should have been it, until the next election. But busybodies at the ACLU can't resist meddling in the affairs of others: no communist can. It is in their blood."
>>Joey said, "Again I refer you to my post #468 for a long list of court decisions going back to 1968, defending evolution in public school science classes."

That is a good example of the corrupting influence of evolving case law. Let us go back to the days of the founding fathers and let then decide what is and is not allowed to be taught in public schools.

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

>>Kalamata: "I didn't claim science was moral relativistic, Joey. When are you going to show us a few observed facts that support common descent, Joey? You know you cannot, because all the observed facts support special creation."
>>Joey said, "All of that is just more of your slavish obedience to Denier Rules, in this case #1, #2, #5, #6, #7, #8 & #9."

I ask for evidence of the foundation of Charlie Darwin's silly theory -- common descent -- and Joey replies with his silly, childish rules.

Mr. Kalamata