Kalamata:
"Real scientists were not the target of James Tour’s lecture." Real scientists will take Tour's claims of "impossible" as challenges for future research.
Kalamata: "Charlie Darwin’s theory is so shady the evolutionism cult must appeal to lawyers and judges to browbeat the opposition into accepting it."
Your word "shady" describes efforts of anti-evolutionists to describe alleged "intelligent design" as anything other than theological Creationism.
I agree that both should be taught in public schools, but as theology, not science.
Kalamata: "Lies are lies.
Wild extrapolations are also lies, when hyped as the truth, like the Origin of Life cult does."
Science, properly defined, is not about words like philosophical "truth", or religious "belief" or "faith", but rather it's about confirmed observations & explanations = theories.
Most Origin of Life ideas today do not rise to the level of hypotheses, much less theory or observed fact.
Kalamata: "Your heros are promoters of the global warming scam: Michael Shermer:"
So, does this mean you believe Shermer is wrong about the Holocaust?
Kalamata quoting: " Prothero noticed that global warming skeptics and climate deniers employed the same tactics as creationists: focusing on minor anomalies in the data, interpreting normal scientific debates as indications that mainstream science is flawed, and quote mining experts to make it sound as if they were saying something in support of their denialist cause."
I never heard of Prothero, but his point here is the same as mine: deniers use the same tactics.
I do know how Holocaust deniers think because I debated some of them for many months, in a format similar to this one.
I see those same tactics coming from Kalamata, so I know something is fishy here.
In Kalamata's defense, seriously: Holocaust deniers were vulgar, hate-filled people, insulting beyond anything allowable on Free Republic.
In no way does Kalamata personally compare to them.
But his tactics are the same, including personal disparagements.
Nor do I find any rigorous honesty in Kalamata's own responses.
When faced with the choice of a weak-but-honest answer, versus a strong-but-dishonest one, Kalamata invariably choses the latter.
That makes you a propagandist, FRiend.
Kalamata: "You have some mighty strange heroes, Alinsky Joe."
Speaking of Alinsky, there's another name I don't remember hearing as recently as 20 years ago.
Alinsky became much better known along with the rising political ambitions of his most famous disciple, Mrs. Clinton.
But I don't remember mentioning "rules for radicals" to Holocaust deniers, though in hind-sight they seemingly "got it".
In that context, let's see if we can observe from Kalamata and others the basic "Rules for Deniers"?
- First, foremost & always: ignore all data which contradicts your own claims.
- Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific.
- Begin your presentation with a large collection of quotes & references -- some meticulously sourced, others mis-quotes, out of context & dubious provenance.
- Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments.
Equate defeat on his weakest points to defeat on every point -- "wrong on one = wrong on all."
- Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.
For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc.
- If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down.
- OK to personally insult, disparage & malign.
- Guilt by association: if your opponent knows somebody who was wrong about something, then he is wrong about everything!
- When all else fails, remember rule #1.
I admit, this may not be the complete list, but it's as good as I can do for right now.
Near as I can tell, our propagandist Kalamata slavishly follows all these rules here.
Kalamata: "Suppose you tell why any private entity would fund Origin of Life research?"
Miller-Urey was done at the University of Chicago, 1952, and California.
"In October 2018, researchers at McMaster University announced the development of a new technology, called a Planet Simulator, to help study the origin of life on planet Earth and beyond.[117][118][119][120]
It consists of a sophisticated climate chamber to study how the building blocks of life were assembled and how these prebiotic molecules transitioned into self-replicating RNA molecules.[117] "
Kalamata:
"I am not buying for a minute that Alinsky Joe has ever debated a holocaust denier.
He is a proven liar, not to mention being a rabid evolutionist.
Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the “’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove." Right, see my "Rules for Deniers" above, this would again be rule #5 -- accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty.
Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe lives in the world of the logical gutter; and his hatred of Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews is undeniable."
"Gutter" -- now there's a word from the lexicon of Holocaust deniers.
The rest is a total lie, I serve such people every day.
Kalamata: "His heros, the devout atheists, climate change propagandists, and abortion advocates, Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, have taught him well how to become an expert in the use of slander and ad hominems against anyone who speaks out against his warped view of what is and what is not science.":
More lies and from someone who pretends to defend the Bible, bearing false witness.
Kalamata is obviously the trained propagandist here.
Kalamata: "Substitute the phrase “holocaust denier” for “creationism denier” or “intelligent design denier” in the belligerant rants of any Darwin-hugging bigot, and you will see there is no difference in tactics: same insults, same slander, same nonsense."
Again we see Rule #5 above.
Kalamata: "Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?
It sounds like that is what you are saying."
I don't doubt God's Word, but I don't believe some of what you claim it means.
Kalamata: "I don’t see anything in the bible, or in observational science, that points to man evolving from an ape, or a frog. "
Genesis tells us that God began with dirt, does not say how He got to man.
Science tries to answer that question naturally. ![]()
>>Kalamata: "Real scientists were not the target of James Tour’s lecture."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Real scientists will take Tour's claims of "impossible" as challenges for future research."
Fools will. The wise know that it is God that gives life.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "Charlie Darwin’s theory is so shady the evolutionism cult must appeal to lawyers and judges to browbeat the opposition into accepting it."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Your word "shady" describes efforts of anti-evolutionists to describe alleged "intelligent design" as anything other than theological Creationism. I agree that both should be taught in public schools, but as theology, not science.
If the schools and parents object to having the religion of evolution rammed down the children's throats, you can always send in the federal troops.
I seem to recall that "scientists" who clung to the pagan philosophies of Ptolemy and Aristotle in the days of Galileo, also required the assistance of the sword of the State to "stay in business".
I just recalled an organization titled Alliance for the Separation of School and State. That is long overdue.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Your heros are promoters of the global warming scam: Michael Shermer:"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "So, does this mean you believe Shermer is wrong about the Holocaust.
I always question the motives of fanatical antichristian bigots, as well as fanatical promoters of atheism. In the case of Shermer, he is both.
Shermer is wrong in the way he abuses the memory of the holocaust victims to promote his wicked agenda? You, likewise.
For example, in Shermer's book, he marginalized the memory of the holocaust victims by attempting to conflate holocaust deniers with those who are attempting to expose the evil of the very theory that helped precipitate the holocaust in the first place. That, in itself, is a valid reason to question his motives, if not to denounce them.
It is much more likely the holocaust would have never happened, if not for Charlie Darwin's books. It was Darwin who marginalized humans with his insane ape-to-man myth: the same humans who in western civilization almost universally believed to have been made in the image of God, until Charlie came along.
The teaching of ape-to-man evolution eventually became mandatory in German public schools, which made it much easier for the Nazi's to apply their "Racial Science" to naive school children:
"Evolutionary biology had been well entrenched in the German biology curriculum long before the Nazis came to power... All the biology texts published in Germany in the late 1930s and early 1940s needed official approval of the Ministry of Education, and all provided extensive discussion of evolution, including the evolution of human races. Jakob Graf's 1942 biology textbook has an entire chapter on 'Evolution and Its Importance for Worldview.' Therein Graf combated Lamarckism and promoted Darwinian evolution through natural selection. He claimed that knowing about human evolution is important, because it shows that humans are not special among organisms. He also argued that evolution substantiates human inequality. In the following chapter on 'Racial Science' Graf spent about fifteen pages discussing human evolution and insisted that humans and apes have common ancestors." [Richard Weikart, "The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought." German Studies Review, 36.3, 2013, p.543]
We cannot ignore the contribution of Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and his promotion of the un-natural selection of man, called eugenics:
"I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations. . . I conclude that each generation has enormous power over the natural gifts of those that follow, and maintain that it is a duty we owe to humanity to investigate the range of that power, and to exercise it in a way that, without being unwise towards ourselves, shall be most advantageous to future inhabitants of the earth." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, Intro., p.2]
Darwin himself was caught up in the "euphoria" of un-natural selection:
"I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges),1 but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original. And how well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself just in the same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these later chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference." [Letter to Francis Galton, Dec 23, 1870, in Darwin, Charles, "More Letters of Charles Darwin, a Record of His Works in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Vol II." John Murray, 1903, p.41]
[1. Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences, by Francis Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865" is the heading of a section of this work (p. 55). See Descent ofMan (1901), p. 41.]
Charlie was referring to Galton's notion that man's gifts were all hereditary, including his work ethic:
"the combination of high intellectual gifts, tact in dealing with men, power of expression in debate, and ability to endure exceedingly hard work, is hereditary." [Francis Galton, "Hereditary Genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences." MacMillan & Co., 1869, p.110]
It is not difficult to see how, with only minor extrapolation, the Nazi's were able to take un-natural selection to another "level", breeding only the "fittest" of men to become members of a master race (Aryans, or course), and eliminating all but the slave nations they were to rule over. And don't forget the the other 20th century butchers: Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.
It is past time the world is freed from the evil religion of evolutionism.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata: quoting Shermer: "Prothero noticed that global warming skeptics and climate deniers employed the same tactics as creationists: focusing on minor anomalies in the data, interpreting normal scientific debates as indications that mainstream science is flawed, and quote mining experts to make it sound as if they were saying something in support of their denialist cause."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I never heard of Prothero, but his point here is the same as mine: deniers use the same tactics. I do know how Holocaust deniers think because I debated some of them for many months, in a format similar to this one. I see those same tactics coming from Kalamata, so I know something is fishy here.
That quote was by your hero, Michael Shermer, who wrote the forward to a recent book written by his side-kick, Donald Prothero. Prothero is another one of those promoting the holocaust-enabling ideology of evolutionisn, as well as other far-left ideologies and scams, such as "climate-change". This is a link to a debate between Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg vs Donald Prothero and Michael Shermer. Prothero is the really goofy and nasty one:
Has Evolution Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "In Kalamata's defense, seriously: Holocaust deniers were vulgar, hate-filled people, insulting beyond anything allowable on Free Republic. In no way does Kalamata personally compare to them. But his tactics are the same, including personal disparagements. Nor do I find any rigorous honesty in Kalamata's own responses. When faced with the choice of a weak-but-honest answer, versus a strong-but-dishonest one, Kalamata invariably choses the latter. That makes you a propagandist, FRiend.
I have never personally met a holocaust denier; but it is hard to imagine anyone more nasty and vulgar than the evolutionism cult that posts on Youtube. It is possible some of them are also holocaust deniers, since they rabidly support the holocaust-enabling religion of evolutionism, like, you. They also lie like you, Alinsky Joe.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "You have some mighty strange heroes, Alinsky Joe."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Speaking of Alinsky, there's another name I don't remember hearing as recently as 20 years ago. Alinsky became much better known along with the rising political ambitions of his most famous disciple, Mrs. Clinton. But I don't remember mentioning "rules for radicals" to Holocaust deniers, though in hind-sight they seemingly "got it".
You should be very familiar with Alinsky. You use his tactics when your world-view is challenged.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "In that context, let's see if we can observe from Kalamata and others the basic "Rules for Deniers"? >>Joe the Science Denier says, "In that context, let's see if we can observe from Kalamata and others the basic "Rules for Deniers"?
>>Science Denier Rule#1: "First, foremost & always: ignore all data which contradicts your own claims.
Narrative: Science deniers, like Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott, ignore contradictory data, at first. But if the contradictory data doesn't go away, they recruit the Sword of the government to help suppress it. So, if the data will not go away, after repeated attempts at ignoring it, call in the federal troops.
>>Science Denier Rule#2: "Never accept normal word definitions, redefine any words to suit your own denial purposes, no need to be specific."
Narrative: Science deniers must continually reshuffle their vocabulary to stay "in business". For example, "divergent evolution" has morphed into "convergent evolution", "parallel evolution", "preadaptive evolution", and "reductive evolution" (and perhaps a few others), so that, no matter what happens, evolution is ALWAYS true.
>>Science Denier Rule#3: "Begin your presentation with a large collection of quotes & references -- some meticulously sourced, others mis-quotes, out of context & dubious provenance."
Narrative: The more accomplished science deniers use a large collection of quotes and references, like Michael Shermer in his books and lectures. The less accomplished resort to artistic renditions of "evidence", such as pictures and models of imaginary whale, horse, and embryo evolution.
>>Science Denier Rule#4: "Attack, attack, attack at your opponent's weakest arguments."
Narrative: If that fails -- if your opponent has no scientific weaknesses -- smear, slander, and accuse him of the most vile thing imaginable.
>>Science Denier Rule#5: "Equate defeat on his weakest points to defeat on every point -- "wrong on one = wrong on all."
Narrative: If he has no weaknesses, resort to the solution in Rule 6.
>>Science Denier Rule#6: "Accuse, accuse, accuse your opponent of whatever you're most guilty."
Narrative: Be careful. If you support the ideology that led to the holocaust, and there is no way anyone would believe his ideology led to the holocaust, if might be better to accuse him of something else, such as being a holocaust denier.
>>Science Denier Rule#7: "For examples, call him a denier, call science a religion, etc."
Narrative: Again, be careful. This tactic worked well on all Creation and Intelligent Design scientists until recently; but now, with new discoveries in the genome, and with no supporting discoveries in the fossil record from the time of Darwin until now, the more accomplished scientists can legitimately throw that back in your face. Choose your targets wisely.
>>Science Denier Rule#8: "If you have to lie, lie big and repeat your lie endlessly, never back down. OK to personally insult, disparage & malign."
Narrative: If your lies fail to silence him, and you have already labeled him a holocaust denier, you are on your own.
>>Science Denier Rule#9: "Guilt by association: if your opponent knows somebody who was wrong about something, then he is wrong about everything!
Narrative: This works well if used properly, but be certain the person he knows was actually wrong about something. If this fails, resort to Rule 8.
>>Science Denier Rule#10: "When all else fails, remember rule #1.
Narrative: Resort to the part about calling in the federal troops.
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I admit, this may not be the complete list, but it's as good as I can do for right now. Near as I can tell, our propagandist Kalamata slavishly follows all these rules here.
LOL! They are not my rules. They are yours!
*******************
>>Kalamata: "Suppose you tell why any private entity would fund Origin of Life research?"
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Miller-Urey was done at the University of Chicago, 1952, and California.
Who paid for it?
*******************
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "In October 2018, researchers at McMaster University announced the development of a new technology, called a Planet Simulator, to help study the origin of life on planet Earth and beyond.[117][118][119][120] It consists of a sophisticated climate chamber to study how the building blocks of life were assembled and how these prebiotic molecules transitioned into self-replicating RNA molecules.[117] "
Assuming the so-called prebiotic molecules magically organized into self-replicating RNA, how does the RNA replication occur without the assistance of protein polymerases?
*******************
>>Kalamata: "I am not buying for a minute that Alinsky Joe has ever debated a holocaust denier. He is a proven liar, not to mention being a rabid evolutionist. >>Joe the Science Denier says, "Frankly, I think he might be a closet holocaust denier making use of the “’Stop thief!’, first” misdirection tactic, like any well-trained Alinskite would do when push comes to shove."
Actually, I found that in another rule book, written up in a newspaper editorial, titled, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One":
"15. As it is not to be expected that the change of a republic into a monarchy, with the rapidity desired can be carried through without occasional suspicions and alarms, it will be necessary to be prepared for such events. The best general rule on the subject is to be taken from the example of crying "Stop thief" first - neither lungs nor pens must be spared in charging every man who whispers, or even thinks, that the revolution on foot is meditated, with being himself an enemy to the established government and meaning to overturn it. Let the charge be reiterated and reverberated till at last such confusion and uncertainty be produced that the people, being not able to find out where the truth lies, withdraw their attention from the contest." [Philiip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]
That is more than appropriate to explain today's usurpations and left-wing fanaticism. Those trying to destroy our nation and culture with the religions of evolutionism and socialism, frequently use the "Stop thief" first deception, as you do.
By the way, that newspaper was owned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "Alinsky Joe lives in the world of the logical gutter; and his hatred of Evangelical Christians and Messianic Jews is undeniable."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Gutter" -- now there's a word from the lexicon of Holocaust deniers. The rest is a total lie, I serve such people every day.
The word "gutter" appropriately identifies the filthy, foul-mouthed trash on Youtube and in other open forums who rabidly defend their religions of evolutionism and socialism (the religions that led to the holocaust and killing fields) with the most vile language and slander imaginable. Alinsky Joe uses all of those tactics, except for the filthy language, so far.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "His heros, the devout atheists, climate change propagandists, and abortion advocates, Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero, have taught him well how to become an expert in the use of slander and ad hominems against anyone who speaks out against his warped view of what is and what is not science.": >>Joe the Science Denier says, "More lies and from someone who pretends to defend the Bible, bearing false witness. Kalamata is obviously the trained propagandist here.
We know those fellows are devout atheists. We know both promote the climate-change scam. We know both condemn those who are anti-abortion. And we know that Alinsky Joe uses slander against those who oppose his world view. So where are the lies, Alinsky Joe?
*******************
>>Kalamata: "Substitute the phrase “holocaust denier” for “creationism denier” or “intelligent design denier” in the belligerant rants of any Darwin-hugging bigot, and you will see there is no difference in tactics: same insults, same slander, same nonsense."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Again we see Rule #5 above.
I think he intended to say, Rule #6.
*******************
>>Kalamata: "Kalamata: "Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God? It sounds like that is what you are saying."
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "I don't doubt God's Word, but I don't believe some of what you claim it means.
No doubt about that. But what about my question? Are you denying that Satan, the Father of Lies, doesn’t teach men to doubt the Word of God?
*******************
>>Kalamata: "I don’t see anything in the bible, or in observational science, that points to man evolving from an ape, or a frog. "
>>Joe the Science Denier says, "Genesis tells us that God began with dirt, does not say how He got to man.
God most certainly tells us how he did it, but in general terms any child can understand. First he tells us that he created man in his own image:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Gen 1:27 KJV
Later, he tells us that Jesus is the image of God:
"[Jesus,] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" -- Col 1:15 KJV
So, man was first created in the image of Jesus, and THEN God breathed the breath of life into his NOSTRILS:
"And the Lord God formed MAN of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his NOSTRILS the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Gen 2:7 KJV
You can pretend the little microorganism your religion claims to be the first life was equipped with nostrils to receive that first breath, but nostrils on a microorganism is way too silly for any rational person to believe.
LOL! Evolution has to be the nuttiest theory ever imagined.
Mr. Kalamata