Naw, the truth is that Kalamata "trusts" no fact or scientific idea which conflicts with his own Biblical interpretations, none, period.
So, if you press him on certain scientific observations, say for example, the decay rate of Uranium 235, he will announce that it can't be proved and means nothing in any case.
If you ask him about, say, the red shift in light from stars measured to be millions of lightyears away, he'll tell you it can't be proved, it's not important, means nothing and certainly shouldn't be used to support atheistic "just so stories".
Joey doesn't understand science. He only knows that we are not allowed to criticize either of his prophets: Abraham Lincoln, the racist; or Charlie Darwin, the father of modern racism. [Joey seems to have an inordinate affection for racists?]
For the rest of you, the decay rate of Uranium 235 is constant (the best we can tell.)
*************
>>Joey wrote: "If you ask him about, say, the red shift in light from stars measured to be millions of lightyears away, he'll tell you it can't be proved, it's not important, means nothing and certainly shouldn't be used to support atheistic "just so stories"."
Joey is (finally) correct. Scientifically, the orthodox theories of redshifts cannot be proven. We have no idea how the redshifts were formed, nor if they mean anything, nor if they even exist (that is, the observations may be the result of interference by interstellar matter, which means, "no expansion".)
Due to modern discoveries of quantized red-shifts and the fine-tuning of the universe, only a scientific illiterate, like Joey, or a die-hard atheist (but I repeat myself) would discount the possibility of the universe being designed.
BTW, Joey, there was another recent article by a team of evolutionary geneticists that pounded another nail into the coffin of the evolutionism "goto-boy" called Junk DNA. These are a few excerpts from the article:
"Pseudogenes are defined as regions of the genome that contain defective copies of genes. They exist across almost all forms of life, and in mammalian genomes are annotated in similar numbers to recognized protein-coding genes. Although often presumed to lack function, growing numbers of pseudogenes are being found to play important biological roles. In consideration of their evolutionary origins and inherent limitations in genome annotation practices, we posit that pseudogenes have been classified on a scientifically unsubstantiated basis. We reflect that a broad misunderstanding of pseudogenes, perpetuated in part by the pejorative inference of the ‘pseudogene’ label, has led to their frequent dismissal from functional assessment and exclusion from genomic analyses. With the advent of technologies that simplify the study of pseudogenes, we propose that an objective reassessment of these genomic elements will reveal valuable insights into genome function and evolution...
"Many pseudogenes contain a frequency of mutations that render them unlikely to be (or incapable of being) translated into proteins. However, such mutations do not necessarily preclude pseudogenes from performing a biological function...
"Another mechanism through which pseudogenes can function is by influencing chromatin or genomic architecture (Fig. 2e). HBBP1, a pseudogene residing within the haemoglobin locus, enables the dynamic chromatin changes that regulate expression of fetal and adult globin genes during development. Notably, although inhibiting HBBP1 transcription has no effect, deletion of the genomic locus reactivates fetal globin expression. HBBP1 DNA contacts, but not transcription, are required for suppressing the expression of fetal globin genes in adult erythroid cells...
"The examples of pseudogene function elaborated on here should not imply that pseudogene functionality is likely to be confined to isolated instances. At least 15% of pseudogenes are transcriptionally active across three phyla, many of which are proximal to conserved regulatory regions. It is estimated that at least new human-specific protein-coding genes were formed by retrotransposition since the divergence from other primates. Numerous 'retrogenes ' continue to be recognized as functional protein-coding genes rather than pseudogenes across species. High-throughput mass spectrometry and ribosomal profiling approaches have identified hundreds of pseudogenes that are translated into peptides. Although the functions of these peptides remain to be experimentally determined, such examples illustrate the challenge in substantiating a gene–pseudogene dichotomy."
[Cheetham et al, "Overcoming challenges and dogmas to understand the functions of pseudogenes." Nature Reviews Genetics, Dec 17, 2019, Abstract, pp.1,4,5]
Your religious prophets of Darwin and Lincoln have been taking a beating lately, Joey.
Mr. Kalamata