>>Kalamata post #346: "Try not to make stuff up as you go, and refrain from your childish "Rules" game, and the debate will go much smoother."
>>Tricky Joey said: "But you must understand, the only real issue here is not evolution or even science itself, rather it's Kalamata's innate dishonesty, as illustrated in your slavish obedience to my derived Denier Rules. I cannot confirm a single case where you consciously disobeyed even one of those "rules". Why is that?"
Those rules fit you, as well, Tricky Joey. Too well! But, in reality, they can be made to "fit" anyone in a debate. If you don't like what they say, call them a liar, or slander them as a racist, a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier. That is what you do, Joey, and that is what the Left has been trained to do. It is one of the premier rule's in the Leftist playbook.
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "Now I will entertain the suggestion that you do consciously disobey my rule #3, which refers to your large collection of quotes. That rule is not intended to criticize your quotes, per say, because quotes are good. Rather it refers to the fact that some deniers promisquisly mix together fake quotes, or out-of-context quotes, with genuine quotes to make it seem like some famous people support their ideas."
More slander, Joey? Can you string two syllables together without slandering me?
There are many debating tricks that I could use, but I intentionally avoid them, seeking rather to edify, than to obfuscate. My quotes are geniuine -- directly out of the original text -- and in context. I intentionally supply more of the text than necessary to ensure the context is well-understood by the reader.
But it doesn't' matter with Tricky Joey. If I supply little of the original, I am accused of quote-mining. If I quote the entire paragraph (typically,) then I am accused of using them "promiscuously," or whatever Joey's word-of-the-week for "marginalize" happens to be at the time. That is the way the Left operates. That is the way Joey operates.
Now, compare Joey's quotes. He primarily copy/pastes from other websites, including the left-leaning Wikipedia, without a clue whether they are reliable, or not. When challenged, he dumps a load of "fish heads" (e.g., a long list of links to research papers) to stink up the place; not at all for edification, but rather as "punishment" for challenging him. It certainly makes life easier for Joey, but much more difficult for those seeking the truth.
The rule of thumb for analyzing research, or debates, is the same: "Verify, then trust."
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "I haven't seen that yet from Kalamata -- your quotes, so far as I can tell, all seem genuine. I'm especially impressed by the fact that some of your quotes actually support my positions, and that's my problem -- how can that be?
Do you see how easy that was? First Joey instills in your brain that I use selective editing or quote-overload to confound the issue; then he plays Mr. Niceguy by saying, "but I wasn't talking about you!" I must admit, that is a slick propaganda tactic. I wonder who trained him?
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "How can someone as normally denier-prone as Kalamata knowingly post data which contradicts his own claims?
I don't.
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "My best guess is, you don't, not knowingly."
There you go again. Perhaps you will provide examples or those that you believe contradict my own claims. I won't hold your breath.
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "And this leads me to a definition of "we" by which Kalamata sometimes refers to himself. I'm guessing now that "we" includes a, shall I say, "research assistant" who looks up and provides provenance for your quotes, and in the process sometimes slips in contradictory words. I attribute such words to your honest research assistant because I've never yet seen an example of Kalamata yourself honestly acknowledging their meaning & importance."
There is no need to get triggered over my use of a first person personal pronoun, Joey. As I clearly explained to you earlier, when I use the pronoun "we," I am referring to my lovely wife and me. This is my quote from #397:
"Don't get all paranoid on us, Joey: I am referring to just the wife and me."
You see, I don't need a research assistant, Joey (nor could I afford one.) I use the Research Library to store, index, and footnote my personal library, which includes about 8 years of research on the religion of evolutionism, and perhaps 50 years of research on history, including constitutional history. I also had a minor in Psychology/Sociology while in college, so I include those subjects in my library, as well.
The Research Library is also an excellent Bible research source, with built-in and searchable early-Church history (to Augustine,) and one of the best Bible search engines you will find anywhere.
One other point: I can store and index every forum post, such as this one, with the URL, so that I can quickly perform multiple-word searches, such as, "BroJoeK paranoid wife," which instantly found the above quote from #397.
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "A typical example is the collection of great quotes on "historical sciences" here in your post #346. All are totally reasonable explanations of the term, and also begin to suggest why I object to it."
I would not have listed them if not for your ignorant, snarky posts in #247 & #346; for example:
[Joey from #247] "“Historical science” - what’s that? Is it Aristotelian mechanics, Galen’s Medical Theory, etc. That’s the only thing I can think of that qualifies."
[Kalamata from #346] "Horner was being kind by labeling your religion of evolutionism as a "historical science". It is not science by any stretch of the imagination." [Joey's reply] "That is an example of Kalamata's slavish obedience to Denier Rule #2."
Joey, if you were not so intensely focused on trying to shut down debate with your treacherous slander and your silly, childish "rules," perhaps my posts would be less confusing to you. For example, in #247, you could have simply asked, "What is historical science?" Instead of taken the "let's find out the truth" route, your posts are generally comprised of little more than "you disagreed with me, so you must be destroyed." That is sick, Joey.
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "One problem with the term "historical sciences" is it too easily allows deniers like Kalamata to equate them to the "historical Bible."
It is not a problem unless you have an anti-Bible, anti-science agenda, Joey. Even your hero, the devout atheist and anti-Christian bigot Michael Shermer has no problems with the term "historical science":
"Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science." [Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things; Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time." Henry Holt and Company, 2002, p.142]
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "Both, you say, are "historical" so both equally valid scientifically and both can be believed, or not, according to you faith in one religion or the other, so you tell us."
I can't let you get away with that, Joey. You are attempting to confound myth and faith, with science. But, science, historical or not, requires empirical evidence. There is overwhelming evidence for a global flood, which was widely believed by scientists until the slick rhetoric of the lawyer named Charles Lyell "won the day" in the 1800's. Now, 150 years or so later, there is still no supporting evidence for Lyell's "geology:" only a collection of just-so stories and myths, but I repeat myself.
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "But the reality is, "historical sciences" are historical in the same sense as Crime Scene Investigators forensic analysis is historical. They all start with evidence to hypothesize a possible "theory of the crime", then continue to look for more evidence to confirm or falsify various hypotheses. Such "historical science" has no comparison to using the Bible as your starting point for "investigation."
Of course it does, if the evidence fits; and it does, even in genetics. The Biblical "kind", which the great scientist Linnaeus ranked above the level of genus, and which we now call "family," has been shown over and over again, even in the fossil record, to be the genetic boundary of all species. That is exactly what the Bible predicts.
>>*****************
>>Tricky Joey said: "So, my answer to the question of how someone as innately dishonest as Kalamata can post such lengthy quotes which, so far as I can tell, are accurate and even balanced -- my best guess is: you don't, somebody else is doing that work for you, someone likely more interesting than Danny Liar-Denier Kalamata."
Joey continues to smear me as a liar, but he had no evidence, other than imaginary "evidence" the Left typically resorts to, which is, "He disagrees with me, so he must be lying."
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata post #431:
"Those rules fit you, as well, Tricky Joey.
Too well!
But, in reality, they can be made to "fit" anyone in a debate.
If you don't like what they say, call them a liar, or slander them as a racist, a Nazi, or a Holocaust denier.
That is what you do, Joey, and that is what the Left has been trained to do.
It is one of the premier rule's in the Leftist playbook." Now, now, Danny boy, I know it's hard, but you must, must try harder to be honest.
The real truth here is I only call out your most blatant & obvious dishonesty or Denier Rules tactics.
If it seems to me that, however insultingly, you are actually trying to make a serious argument, then I respond as seriously as I can, with data & logic.
So let me suggest to you that since you are not here to defend an obscenity like Holocaust denial, but rather the greatest value & virtue we know of, God and His Bible, you must, must yourself be at the peak of your own honesty & truthfulness.
You just cannot defend God with obvious lies or His Truth with clear dishonesty.
Of course my standard is not "perfection" because that's humanly impossible.
But we have to do our best with whatever we have, that's all anyone can expect.
Kalamata: "More slander, Joey?
Can you string two syllables together without slandering me?"
Oh, so now you're the victim here?
You post insulting lie after lie and then complain about slander when I point them out?
Get over yourself, FRiend. Focus, focus on telling the truth and nothing but.
Kalamata: "There are many debating tricks that I could use, but I intentionally avoid them, seeking rather to edify, than to obfuscate. "
I've pointed out when that's not true, but whenever you've made a serious argument, I've given you a serious response.
Kalamata: "My quotes are geniuine -- directly out of the original text -- and in context.
I intentionally supply more of the text than necessary to ensure the context is well-understood by the reader."
I fully recognize that and thank your lovely "research assistant" for her excellent work.
Kalamata: "But it doesn't' matter with Tricky Joey.
If I supply little of the original, I am accused of quote-mining.
If I quote the entire paragraph (typically,) then I am accused of using them "promiscuously," or whatever Joey's word-of-the-week for "marginalize" happens to be at the time.
That is the way the Left operates.
That is the way Joey operates."
So let's review how Danny boy operates -- you first introduced the term "quote mining" (post #244) to this thread and accused me of it (#397).
I picked up your term and threw it back at you, where it seemed appropriate, and now you suddenly complain of being the victim here?
Here's the truth: you've done a good job with your quotes and I appreciate that, but you also obviously use word searches to quote mine in books like Shermer's "Denying History" to make it sound like his work there was more about evolution and "right winger" conservatives than it was the Holocaust.
I merely called you out for that.
Kalamata: "Now, compare Joey's quotes.
He primarily copy/pastes from other websites, including the left-leaning Wikipedia, without a clue whether they are reliable, or not.
When challenged, he dumps a load of "fish heads" (e.g., a long list of links to research papers) to stink up the place; not at all for edification, but rather as "punishment" for challenging him.
It certainly makes life easier for Joey, but much more difficult for those seeking the truth."
Naw, you got it all wrong.
First of all, something like 1/3 of my effort goes into simply making my posts look presentable -- i.e., correcting typographical mistakes, adding links & pictures, etc.
Second, the quotes I post, regardless of source, almost always represent what I first learned in school or from some study in the years since.
I post them as quotes so you can see they are not just my opinions, but also represent "conventional wisdom".
Third, please understand, because of my long-past debates with Holocaust deniers, I fully understand how you guys work -- you redefine terms such that only something impossible can "prove" it, "common descent" for example.
Well, nobody can truly "prove" what cannot be observed, that's why it's evolution theory, but the observed facts do include hundreds of thousands of fossil species which can indeed be lined up to show transitional forms, and yet deniers refuse to see even the facts, much less the whole theory.
Kalamata: "You see, I don't need a research assistant, Joey (nor could I afford one.)
I use the Research Library to store, index, and footnote my personal library, which includes about 8 years of research on the religion of evolutionism, and perhaps 50 years of research on history, including constitutional history.
I also had a minor in Psychology/Sociology while in college, so I include those subjects in my library, as well."
I'm impressed, I have nothing remotely resembling that, so in due time, when my brain begins to fail, whatever rational thought I've had will also fail, nothing much to fall back on.
Anyway, my "theory of the crime" regarding Kalamata has been your wife as "research assistant" did honest work while Danny-boy concentrated on insults, mockery and lies.
Kalamata: "One other point: I can store and index every forum post, such as this one, with the URL, so that I can quickly perform multiple-word searches, such as, "BroJoeK paranoid wife," which instantly found the above quote from #397."
Truly, I notice and appreciate things like that.
Kalamata: "Joey, if you were not so intensely focused on trying to shut down debate with your treacherous slander and your silly, childish "rules," perhaps my posts would be less confusing to you.
For example, in #247, you could have simply asked, "What is historical science?"
Instead of taken the "let's find out the truth" route, your posts are generally comprised of little more than "you disagreed with me, so you must be destroyed."
That is sick, Joey."
Naw, again you misunderstand.
I have no doubt the term "historical sciences" was coined innocently enough by real scientists to refer to such studies as geology and archaeology.
However, the first time I ever heard it used was in that 2014 debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye.
Ham used "historical science" disparagingly dozens of times to describe evolution studies and equate them to "creation science" as if the name "historical" made them equally scientific!
Since I have no desire to let dishonest creationists weaponize language against truth, I object to that term "historical science".
Kalamata: "It is not a problem unless you have an anti-Bible, anti-science agenda, Joey.
Even your hero, the devout atheist and anti-Christian bigot Michael Shermer has no problems with the term "historical science":"
Really? Well... first, where other than PJ Goebbels Propaganda University do they teach you such dishonest Denier Tactics?
Second, sure, the term "historical science" is, or at least was, a legitimate term, imho, until weaponized by people like Ham & Kalamata to equate real science with phony-baloney "creation science" or "intelligent design".
Kalamata: "I can't let you get away with that, Joey.
You are attempting to confound myth and faith, with science.
But, science, historical or not, requires empirical evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence for a global flood, which was widely believed by scientists until the slick rhetoric of the lawyer named Charles Lyell "won the day" in the 1800's.
Now, 150 years or so later, there is still no supporting evidence for Lyell's "geology:" only a collection of just-so stories and myths, but I repeat myself."
Near as I can tell and so far as I know, every word, without exception of your post here is an absolute propaganda lie.
Out of kindness I'd wonder if possibly you even believe it, but from your overall tone & demeanor I think far more likely that you went to Goebbels' Propaganda school where they taught you to lie big, lie often and lie with passion.
Do that enough and your lies become magically true, so they claim.
Kalamata: "The Biblical "kind", which the great scientist Linnaeus ranked above the level of genus, and which we now call "family," has been shown over and over again, even in the fossil record, to be the genetic boundary of all species.
That is exactly what the Bible predicts."
Naw, real science has never found such a "boundary" only ever species, genera, etc. with different calculated times to their last common ancestors.
Kalamata: "Joey continues to smear me as a liar, but he had no evidence, other than imaginary "evidence" the Left typically resorts to, which is, "He disagrees with me, so he must be lying.""
No, it's far more than that, my evidence is: so many of your posts are so blatantly, outrageously false, it would be impossible for even you to believe them.
Therefore I conclude that, like any GD Democrat, you are driven by malice & hatred to cast whatever aspersions come to your mind.
Enough for today! ;-) ![]()