>>Kalamata wrote: “Don’t let Joey fool you: evolution is his religion, On the Origin of Species is his holy book, and Darwin is his prophet.”
>>Joey wrote: “This, I think, might be what Kalamata calls a “counterpunch”, a total smear which Kalamata himself knows is a total lie, but which he can justify in his own mind on grounds of “counterpunching”. That’s the charitable explanation, probably more realistic is that he just doesn’t care if it’s true or not, but it just feeeeeeels sooooo gooooood to say it, nothing else matters. But sticking with “counterpunch”, to what do Kalamata’s lies “counterpunch”? Why to the truth, of course, the truth about Kalamata and his messed-up mind.”
Child.
****************
>>Joey wrote: “The truth is Kalamata’s definition of “science” begins & ends with the term “Biblical science” — in his mind whatever supports that is science, whatever doesn’t isn’t.”
The only think Joey knows about science is how to spell it.
****************
>>Joey wrote: “The truth is Kalamata’s definition of “history” boils down to approximately this: the evil Enlightenment Age brought us Lincoln’s tyranny over freedom loving Confederates and give us today’s legal abortions and mandatory atheistic evolution in public schools.”
Lincoln’s form of evil preceded the so-called “Enlightenment,” Joey. A greedy Pharisee comes to mind.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “I asked Joey for evidence of evolution, and all he could deliver were highly-imaginative museum mockups based on highly-fragmented fossils. The ENCODE Project Report of 2012 exposed the myth of Junk DNA that the evolutionist so heavily relied upon, so they are now desperately trying to keep the evolution myth alive.”
>>Joey wrote: “And here we see on display Kalamata’s denier tactics. The truth is Kalamata will accept no evidence, period, which might conflict with his own ideas of “Biblical science”.”
I accept all verifiable evidence, Joey. That is what scientists are supposed to do.
****************
>>Joey wrote: “As for so-called “junk DNA”, from the beginning that term referred to roughly 90% of DNA found to be non-coding. In more recent years other functions were found for some of the 90% and thus “junk” is not such a good term for it.”
By 2018, it was determined that more than 95% was functional in one manner or another, making evolution even more impossible than was previously believed (which was, it is impossible.)
****************
>>Joey wrote: “Indeed, large statistical studies suggest that some “junk” is influenced by evolution, all of which Kalamata uses to claim: evolution scientists are liars and, evolution is bunk. And because atheistic science is all lies, the real truth can be found in, yes, “Biblical science”, says Kalamata.””
Years ago, when genetic research was in a more primitive state, members of the evolutionism cult noticed that only a small portion of the DNA appeared to be functional. So they made up this elaborate story about the remainder of the DNA, labeling it as evolvable “junk.” LOL!
As always, God had the last laugh. Researchers now believe all (100%) of the genome, within the complex factory called a cell, is functional in one manner or another. In other words, God didn’t make no junk! LOL!
One other point: since there is no junk DNA in the human, it cannot evolve. It can devolve via mutations (genes can be broken!), but it cannot evolve. That means, evolution is not science, but a faith-based religion based on story-telling. Nothing else.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Scientists know there is no empirical evidence for evolution — none; and more and more scientists are speaking out, despite a credible threat to their careers by the modern-day Inquisition of the evolutionism orthodoxy.”
>>Joey wrote: “That’s total nonsense, but here’s what’s true: there is in fact a serious anti-evolution industry supported most visibly by promoters like Ken Ham (Ark Encounter) and doubtless some conservative Universities. They embrace such terms as “intelligent design” and “irreducible complexity”, reject all conflicting evidence and they have worked out somewhat detailed explanations in order to reduce both the Earth’s age and evolution’s role.
LOL! This is a February 2019 list of dissenters from Darwinism:
https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdf
It appears that most every major university in the world is represented.
Naturally, those are established and/or tenured professors and researchers; otherwise the Inquisition of the scientific orthodoxy would seek to destroy their careers and make their lives miserable, as they did in the days of Galileo.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Yes, some do admit evidence for an older Earth, but true believers like Ham & Kalamata reject all interpretations which add to their Biblical understanding of ~10,000 years.”
There is no doubt a global flood covered the earth and laid down all the thick, fossil-laden, homogeneous layers of sediment found worldwise. Did you know there are marine (ocean) fossils found in virtually every layer, even at the top of Mount Everest?
The homogeneous nature of the sediment, and the lack of erosion and bioturbation between the layers, renders gradual deposition a mere myth.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Now every word of the above is true, but in response our FRiend Kalamata will “counterpunch” with a blast of lies, doubtless because it feeeels sooo goood, why bother to make the effort to be honest?”
Like David Berlinski said about evolutionism, “I never tire of flogging that beast!” LOL!
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The geological column is not fake evidence, Joey. “
>>Joey wrote: “Your “analysis” is totally fraudulent, your conclusions are pure religion.”
Explain to us how those layers formed, Joey. When you get through with that explanation, please explain how all the major phyla showed up in the bottom layers, when they should have “evolved,” with most appearing in later layers.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “I know you cannot provide any examples, Child. For the rest of you, these are the kinds of scientific quotes from devout evolutionists that outrage (and scare the daylights out of) the evolutionism ideologues:”
>>Joey wrote: “As I was saying... here Kalamata first demanded I copy & paste his own quotes of Stephen Gould, then does his own homework and in the process proves my point: Kalamata uses Gould’s discussion of evolution to argue against evolution. Typical denier tactic.”
It was Stephen Gould who argued against Darwin’s theory of gradualism; and, as Richard Dawkins explained, without gradualism, there is no Darwinism. Take it up with Gould when you see him in the afterlife.
Mr. Kalamata
Kalamata you like to talk about how you discovered new things about the civil war that gave you your current take on it. I have also discovered new things later in life. One was when I took the family over to Gettysburg for the 150th Anniversary. They had many wonderful re-enactors and informative discussion panels.
One of those panels was discussing the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate government’s policies of capturing and selling into slavery any blacks they came across. They had many contemporary news articles with stories in local papers about blacks, free blacks, citizens of the state of Pennsylvania and the United States of America that this happened to.
So you see the US Army was an Army of liberation. Freeing men, woman, and children wherever they advance. Many times slaves themselves would escape their local plantations when they heard that this great Army was near to them.
The Confederate army was an army of enslavement. Citizens, who happened to be black, would run in fear from this army. If that doesn’t tell you anything about the difference between the two then you are truly blind.
Richard Henry Dana, Jr. letter to Attorney General W.M. Evarts
"Sir,
While preparing with yourself, before you assumed your present post, to perform the honorable duty the President had assigned to us, of conducting the trial of Jefferson Davis, you know how much my mind was moved, from the first, by doubts of the expediency of trying him at all. The reasons which prevented my presenting those doubts no longer exist, and they have so ripened into conviction that I feel it my duty to lay them before you in form, as you now hold a post of official responsibly for the proceeding. After the most serious reflection, I cannot see any good reason why the Government should make a question whether the late civil war was treason, and whether Jefferson Davis took any part in it, and submit those questions to the decision of a petit jury of the vicinage of Richmond at "nisi prius" ["court of original jurisdiction"].
As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason, is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words the legal issue was, whether secession by a State is a right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason.
This issue I suppose to have been settled by the action of every department of the Government, by the action of the people itself, and by those events which are definitive in the affairs of men.
The Supreme Court in the Prize Cases held, by happily a unanimous opinion, that acts of the States, whether secession ordinances, or in whatever form cast, could not be brought into the cases, as justifications for the war, and had no legal effect on the character of the war, or on the political status of territory or persons or property, and that the line of enemy's territory was a question of fact, depending upon the line of bayonets of an actual war. The rule in the Prize Cases has been steadily followed in the Supreme Court since, and in the Circuit Courts, without an intimation of a doubt. That the law making and executive departments have treated this secession and war as treason, is a matter of history, as well as is the action of the people in the highest sanction of war."
"It cannot be doubted that the Circuit Court at the trial will instruct the jury, in conformity with these decisions, that the late attempt to establish and sustain by war an independent empire within the United States was treason. The only question of fact submitted to the Jury will be whether Jefferson Davis took any part in the war. As it is one of the great facts of history that he was its head, civil and military, why should we desire to make a question of it and refer its decision to a jury, with power to find in the negative or affirmative, or to disagree? It is not an appropriate question for the decision of a jury; certainly it is not a fact which a Government should, without great cause, give a jury a chance to ignore. We know that these indictments are to be tried in what was for five years enemy's territory, which is not yet restored to the exercise of all its political functions, and where the fires are not extinct. We know that it only requires one dissentient juror to defeat the Government and give Jefferson Davis and his favorers a triumph. Now, is not such a result one which we must include in our calculation of possibilities? Whatever modes may be legally adopted to draw a jury, or to purge it, and whatever the influence of the court or of counsel, we know that a vavorer of treason may get upon the jury. But that is not necessary. A fear of personal violence or social ostracism may be enough to induce one man to withhold his assent from the verdict, especially as be need not come forward personally, nor give a reason, even in the jury-room.
This possible result would be most humiliating to the Government and people of this country, and none the less so from the fact that it would be absurd. The Government would be stopped in its judicial course because it could neither assume nor judicially determine that Jefferson Davis took part in the late civil war. Such a result would also bring into doubt the adequacy of our penal system to deal with such cases as this.
If it were important to secure a verdict as a means of punishing the defendant, the question would present itself differently. But it would be beneath the dignity of the Government and of the issue, to inflict upon him a minor punishment; and, as to a sentence of death, I am sure that, after this lapse of time and after all that has occurred in the interval, the people of the United States would not desire to see it enforced.
In fine, after the fullest consideration, it seems to me that, by pursuing the trial, the Government can get only a re-affirmation by a Circuit Court at "nisi prius" of a rule of public law settled for this country in every way in which such a matter can be settled, only giving to a jury drawn from the region of the rebellion a chance to disregard the law when announced. It gives that jury a like opportunity to ignore the fact that Jefferson Davis took any part in the late civil war. And one man upon the jury can secure these results. The risks of such absurd and discreditable issues of a great state trial are assumed for the sake of a verdict which, if obtained, will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled, and nothing in fact not now history, while no judgment rendered thereon do we think will be ever executed.
Besides these reasons, and perhaps because of them, I think that the public interest in the trial has ceased among the most earnest and loyal citizens.
If your views and those of the President should be in favor of proceeding with the trial, I am confident that I can do my duty as counsel, to the utmost of my ability and with all zeal. For my doubts are not what the verdict ought to be. On the contrary, I should feel all the more strongly, if the trial is begun, the importance of a victory to the Government, and the necessity of putting forth all powers and using all lawful means to secure it. Still, I feel it my duty to say that if the President should judge otherwise, my position in the cause is at his disposal."
President Johnson noted on the letter, "This opinion must be filed with care, A.J."
In the letter he clearly states that the law is clear that even under secession levying war against the United States is treason. But because they would have to try Davis in the jurisdictatin where he committed the crimes it would be very difficult to get a conviction. It would be as if we had captured General Suleimani, but had to try him in an are where only Qod Soldiers were in the jury pool.
Lincoln's "let them up easy policy" is the biggest disagreement I have with him. If I had been President then I would have tried Davis, Stephens, Lee, Longstreet, Breckenridge, and every confederate congressman, by a military tribunal then hanged them by the neck until dead.
With Lee in particular I would use his letter to his son as exhibit A of his willful treason.
Robert E. Lee to George Washington Custis Lee
Fort Mason, Texas, January 23, 1861.
I received Everett’s “Life of Washington” which you sent me, and enjoyed its perusal. How his spirit would be grieved could he see the wreck of his mighty labors! I will not, however,permit myself to believe, until all ground of hope is gone,that the fruit of his noble deeds will be destroyed, and that his precious advice and virtuous example will so soon be forgotten by his countrymen. As far as I can judge by the papers, we are between a state of anarchy and civil war. May God avert both of these evils from us! I fear that mankind will not for years be sufficiently Christianized to bear the absence of restraint and force. I see that four States have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then,if the Border States are brought into the gulf of revolution,one-half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.
The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North, as you say. I feel the aggression, and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded.
But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington,Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved,and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on none.