Replies

>>Kalamata wrote: “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?]”
>>Joey wrote: “Again, an example of Olive-boy’s “counterpunching” — he counters the truth about himself with lies about me.”

When Joey cannot find any facts to support his assertions, and he cannot think of a clever comeback, he resorts to sand-box tactics.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “For the rest of you, the decay rate of Uranium 235 is constant (the best we can tell.)”
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

Joey cannot seem to grasp the concept of ‘Daughter Elements’.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “So, notice, in order to maintain his beliefs in “Biblical science” Kalamata must deny not only evolution, but also basic physics.”

Joey doesn’t understand physics, either. The existence of our universe, not to mention the existence of life itself, defies the basic laws of physics. The only solution is special creation using laws we cannot comprehend.

For the record, there is no such thing as evolution: not in observable science, not in the laboratory, and not in the fossil record.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “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”.)”
>>Joey wrote: “Right, again, Kalamata denies not just evolution, but any science, including astronomy, which suggests a Universe older than ~10,000 years.”

Get a grip, Joey? I never deny science: only pseudoscience, such as evolutionism and big-bangism. LOL!

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>Joey wrote: “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?

So, you do believe in Intelligent Design.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

It is strictly a science thing. The geological column shows clear evidence of a global flood

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

I was a theistic evolutionist, until my eyes were opened by scientific data.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “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:”
>>Joey wrote: “And so yet again with his denier tactics, turning a discussion about technicalities with in evolution”into Kalamata’s argument against evolution. >>Joey quoting: Here, from the Nature article, for example:
>>Joey quoting Nature: “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.”
>>Joey wrote: “Notice that in his own quote from Nature there is no argument against evolution, but still Danny uses science’s words to deny science”

Joey cannot tell the difference between scientific data, and an obligatory kiss of Darwin’s ring. A scientist must be able to rightly-divide the data from the ideology, or he will be in the dark as much as Joey.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Your religious prophets of Darwin and Lincoln have been taking a beating lately, Joey.”
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

To all -- in any post like this I should apologize for being off-topic, but in this case I am simply following wherever Kalamata's arguments might lead.

Kalamata: "When Joey cannot find any facts to support his assertions, and he cannot think of a clever comeback, he resorts to sand-box tactics."

So claims our own Sandbox Olive-boy.

Kalamata: "Joey cannot seem to grasp the concept of ‘Daughter Elements’."

Olive-boy's assault on science begins with his claims that, according to his own interpretations of the Bible, the Earth is only ~10,000 years old.
Therefore any scientific evidence such as radiometric decay rates which might suggest millions or billions of years are necessarily false.
However, for purposes of this particular post Kalamata is hoping to obscure his real beliefs behind a smokescreen of technical terms like "parent" & "daughter" elements.
Like any believer in "operational science" Kalamata is perfectly willing to acknowledge radiometric decay which can be measured today, but not any discoveries which suggest it's been going on for billions of years.

Kalamata: "Joey doesn’t understand physics, either.
The existence of our universe, not to mention the existence of life itself, defies the basic laws of physics.
The only solution is special creation using laws we cannot comprehend."

Science has never claimed 100% omniscience, far from it.
Science doesn't know all the basic laws of physics and scientists well understand that at certain levels some very strange things can happen, for example, what Einstein called, "spooky action at a distance".

So there is a very long list of things science doesn't know, beginning with the most important of all -- where did the Universe come from?
Thousands of years ago philosophers and theologians answered that question, and science has never come up with a better answer.

Kalamata: "For the record, there is no such thing as evolution: not in observable science, not in the laboratory, and not in the fossil record."

And that is a flat-out lie, accomplished with the help of Olive-boy's self-lobotomization and Denial Tactics.

Kalamata: "Get a grip, Joey?
I never deny science: only pseudoscience, such as evolutionism and big-bangism. LOL!"

Right, notice now Olive-boy admits to denying not just evolution but also "big-bangism", meaning not just the scientific basis of geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology & archaeology but also of physics and astronomy, at least as it relates to anything happening before ~10,000 years ago.

Kalamata: "So, you do believe in Intelligent Design."

Sure, as you well know but constantly lie about, FRiend, I believe God created the Universe intelligently.
I don't pretend to know which events since then were the necessary consequences of God's original creation and which resulted from God's specific interventions, "mid-course corrections" you might say.
I prefer to think that God's perfect creation (the Universe) didn't need "mid-course corrections", but will not be disappointed if I learn, in due time, otherwise.

Kalamata: "It is strictly a science thing.
The geological column shows clear evidence of a global flood"

And that is a total lie, conclusions arrived at dishonestly for strictly theological reasons.

Kalamata: "I was a theistic evolutionist, until my eyes were opened by scientific data."

Nonsense, you mean until you drank the koolaid and lobotomized your brain.
In fact, your arguments here are at least disingenuous when not outright dishonest.

Kalamata: "Joey cannot tell the difference between scientific data, and an obligatory kiss of Darwin’s ring.
A scientist must be able to rightly-divide the data from the ideology, or he will be in the dark as much as Joey."

And here Kalamata alleges motives to the authors of a Nature scientific article he quoted from, alleged motives of which there is zero evidence.

Kalamata: "Child."

Kalamata often responds to my comments with this single enigmatic deprecation, "Child".
After some thought, I've decided that "child" is just Kalamata-code for, "yes, you're right about that, but I can't admit it or my whole argument would come crashing down."

;-)