“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.
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 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.
Kalamata: “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.”
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”.
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.
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.
Kalamata: “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.”
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.
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.
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?
Kalamata: “Child.”
As I was saying...
Kalamata: “The geological column is not fake evidence, Joey. “
Your “analysis” is totally fraudulent, your conclusions are pure religion.
Kalamata: “Again, I am a counter-puncher.
If you have contrary evidence, please present it.”
In every post you “counter” nothing, instead you aggressively punch your anti-science, anti-history, anti-American agenda.
You argue, if arguments might work, otherwise you smear, insult & belittle when they don't.
That's not “counterpunch”, that's just propaganda.
Kalamata: “Joey reminds me of the proverbial ‘children in the marketplace.’ “
As I was saying...
Kalamata: “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:”
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.”
I guess about now, Brother Kalamata, you are thinking along the lines of Melville's Ishmael after talking with the cannibal.
“I do not think that my remarks about religion made much impression upon Queequeg. Because, in the first place, he somehow seemed dull of hearing on that important subject, unless considered from his own point of view; and, in the second place, he did not more than one third understand me, couch my ideas simply as I would; and, finally, he no doubt thought he knew a good deal more about the true religion than I did. He looked at me with a sort of condescending concern and compassion, as though he thought it a great pity that such a sensible young man should be so hopelessly lost to evangelical pagan piety.”