>>Kalamata wrote: "I trust all scientific data, either to confirm or dismiss. That is the way science works. Perhaps you have confused science with consensus and/or great story-telling. Bad move."
>>Joey wrote: "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."
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]
Link to Nature article.
Your religious prophets of Darwin and Lincoln have been taking a beating lately, Joey.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata:
"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?]" Again, an example of Olive-boy's "counterpunching" -- he counters the truth about himself with lies about me.
Kalamata: "For the rest of you, the decay rate of Uranium 235 is constant (the best we can tell.)"
Here our FRiend deliberately obscures the truth about himself in order to appear less than totally insane.
But the real truth is this: his parenthetic "(as best we can tell)" hides the fact that Kalamata believes radiometric decay was only constant during the very brief historical period when we can measure it.
Before that he believes: God set all the radiometric clocks around 10,000 years ago.
So, notice, in order to maintain his beliefs in "Biblical science" Kalamata must deny not only evolution, but also basic physics.
Kalamata: "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".)"
Right, again, Kalamata denies not just evolution, but any science, including astronomy, which suggests a Universe older than ~10,000 years.
Kalamata: "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."
And here again Kalamata demonstrates that he just can't make his arguments without lying.
Of course the Universe was designed intelligently, by God, and Olive-boy well knows that's my belief, but keeps lying about it, and for what purpose?
Obviously in order to obscure the fact that what Kalamata advocates is not just that God created the Universe, but that He did it according to Kalamata's unique interpretations of Biblical scripture, ~10,000 years ago.
The truth is my beliefs, so far as I can tell, are identical with those taught by most mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic & other traditional churches, which go by the technical name of "theistic evolutionism" meaning, in a nutshell: whatever science now discovers was first created by God.
Kalamata: "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:"
And so yet again with his denier tactics, turning a discussion about technicalities within evolution into Kalamata's argument against evolution.
Here, from the Nature article, for example:
"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."
Notice that in his own quote from Nature there is no argument against evolution, but still Danny uses science's words to deny science:
Kalamata: "Your religious prophets of Darwin and Lincoln have been taking a beating lately, Joey."
And yet another Kalamata denier tactic: when you've been pushed back and defeated on every front, like a football team sacked in its own endzone, then get up and declare victory, do your little victory dances and pretend to be the real winner. ![]()